The Jewish Role in Black slavery
Pyro 1488
Jewish role in the Negro slave trade. Agent99 has posted some of the quotes
I have used in this forum in the past, and rather than to discuss the
substance of the quotes, Martin FOU has decided to make some (inarticulate)
personal attacks.]
Martin FOU <martin...@sant.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
"whats the matter - can't do your own work?"
Why does it matter where the information comes from if it's true? The
sources are listed below, anyhow.
Agent99 posted a quote from Dr. Raphael:
> ``Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade;
> indeed....in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique),
> British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.``
>
> Dr. Marc Lee Raphael, head historian at the American Jewish Historical
> Society at Brandeis.
Martin FOU responded:
>> page no? Publication date? What part of the quote is represented by
"..."?
No problem. Here it is:
Jews and Judaism in the United States a Documentary History (New York:
Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), p. 14. Raphael is the editor of American
Jewish History, the journal of the American Jewish Historical Society at
Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
Agent99 posted these quotes:
> ``In Charleston, Richmond and Savannah the large majority (over
> three-fourths) of the Jewish households contained one or more slaves; in
> Baltimore, only one out of three households were slaveholding; in New
York,
> one out of eighteen....Among the slaveholding households the median number
> of slaves owned ranged from five in Savannah to one in New York.``
Martin FOU responded:
"And how many of the non-Jews had slaves? Notice how the 'concentration' of
Jewish slaveowners can be found were you would expect high ownership of
slaves. Pathetic."
Per capita non-Jews owned less slaves and took advantage of Blacks to a
_MUCH_ lesser degree.
The Jews and their lickspittles are quick to point out that the actions of
certain members of a particular race is not necessarily reflective of the
whole. But they use this argument only when it suits them! They are quick
to try to make Whites feel guilty for the alleged injustices committed by
(some) White people in the past, and even try to instill guilt into _recent_
White immigrants in America about the sins committed by other Whites who
lived in America centuries ago. The Jews have also decided to place the
blame on ALL GERMANS for the alleged "Holocaust." They want ALL Germans --
even Germans who did not live during WW2 -- to hand over tens of billions of
dollars to them.
Here is a quote from Elie Weisel:
"There is a time to love and a time to hate; whoever does not hate when he
should does not deserve to love when he should, does not deserve to love
when he is able. Perhaps, had we learned to hate more during the years of
ordeal, fate itself would have taken fright. The Germans did their best to
teach us, but we were poor pupils in the discipline of hate....Every Jew,
somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile
hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.
To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."
[Legends of Our Time (1968), pp.177-78.]
In the above quote Elie generalizes about Germans and even states that the
German (even those who did not live during WW2) personifies something (he is
not explicit here) that is deserving of "virile hate."
What a DISGUSTING race of hypocrites and liars! Shakespeare was right.
Virtually all of the great thinkers of the past 2,000 years have been right.
Here is a very telling quote on the Jewish role in Black slavery:
"The Christian inhabitants [of Brazil] were envious because the Jews owned
some of the best plantations in the river valley of Pernambuco and were
among the leading slave-holders and slave traders in the colony."
-- Herbert I. Bloom
["A Study of Brazilian Jewish History 1623-1654, Based Chiefly Upon the
Findings of the Late Samuel Oppenheim," Publications of the American Jewish
Historical Society, vol. 33 (1934), p. 63.]
[Bloom is a rabbi; B.A., Columbia University, 1923, Ph.D., 1937; M.H.L.,
Jewish Institute of Religion, 1928, D.D., 1955; rabbi, Temple Albert,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1928-31. President Kingston Ministerial
Association, 1945-46, and 1959-60; B'nai B'rith; Zionist Organization of
America; vice-president, National Prison Chaplain Board, since 1962; Social
Action Committee of Central Conference of American Rabbis, since 1947;
Author: The Jews of Dutch Brazil, 1936; The Economic Activities of the Jews
of Amsterdam, 1937.]
Keep in mind that most Black slaves ended up in South America, and in
particular Brazil. If Martin FOU has any knowledge of history (and we know
he does not), he will be able to see that the Jews played a KEY ROLE in the
Black holocaust.
Regards,
Pyro
jum...@my-deja.com
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> I have posted an anthology of my writings because the individual
> who I have been discussing philosophy with ....
Which individual was that? I don't recall having a philosophy
discussion (yet) with anybody on this list.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... has resorted to "copying and pasting" philosophical passages
> (among other things, mostly irrelevant) ...
Which passages were irrelevant, and why?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... akin to a robot, to cover up the blatant ignorance he has
> shown to this forum again and again.
Which method or methods do you employ to evaluate the degree
of ignorance?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> This individual has in the past enjoyed coming off as "intelligent"
> and "cultured" in this forum ...
To which evidence do you point that establishes I've derived
any enjoyment by these exchanges? Where have I claimed to be
"intelligent" or "cultured" ?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... and to his dismay, I have exposed him as a terrorist and
> cultural leper, vandal, barbarian, and, worst of all, IMBECILE.
How do you show that somebody satisfies the definitions of
these terms?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Don't be fooled by his "copying and pasting"; it is his thin veneer
> of intellectualism.
I thought you said "copying and pasting" was irrelevant. Is
that what you mean by "intellectualism," however thin its veneer?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> He is unable to post original ideas, so he posts those of others ...
Why should I have original ideas?
What's wrong with the ideas of others?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... and gives cheap criticism of them ...
Examples? What about that criticism makes it "cheap" ? What are
your methods and criteria for assessing something as "cheap" ?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... whilst failing to acknowledge the gaping holes in his own
> flimsy, ignorant, yet abundant commentary.
Examples? How do you determine (generally) whether there are
"gaping holes" and whether something is or is not "flimsy" ?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> .. This individual is clearly unable to grasp the concepts in my
> writings, so he has resorted to a game of semantics and obfuscation.
Then explain the concepts you say I'm "unable to grasp." Which
of -MY- concepts were -you- "unable to grasp?"
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Originally I had asked: "Name me a great Negro philosopher?" The
> eunuch's response ...
See, Pyro? You didn't read my reply when I reported to you
that I'm NOT a eunuch. THEREFORE YOU ARE DYSLEXIC !!!!!!!!!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... was: "Booker T. Washington. Johnnie Cochran." I also asked:
> "Name me a Black Mozart?" This IDIOT's response ...
Which IDIOT was that?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... was: "Winton Marsallis, Amad Jamal, etc., et al., and a dozen
> of other jazz artists all have the skills of a Mozart."
No, Pyro. YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT. I DID -NOT- MENTION
THE NAME "AMAD JAMAL" IN MY -ORIGINAL- ANSWER. THIS WAS THE TEXT:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Here's what YOU had originally asked for, with MY replies:
>
>---------
>> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>>> Tell me of a great Negro philosopher?
>
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> Booker T. Washington. Johnnie Cochran.
>
>---------
>> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>>> Tell me of a black Mozart?
>
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> Stevie Wonder, Winton Marsallis, Louis Armstrong,
>> Dizzy Gillespie; more than a dozen jazz artists
>> with skills of a Mozart ...
As you can see, the name "Amad Jamal" DID NOT APPEAR in the text
of my original answer. I APPENDED "Amad Jamal" in a -LATER- post:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SUCCESS, "relative" or otherwise, compared to
> Cochran, Marsallis, and I will add Kenny Drew, Jr., George Russell,
> Duke Ellington, John Hicks, and Amad Jamal. ALL OF THEM ARE BLACK
> PEOPLE MORE SUCCESSFULL, MORE ARTISTIC, GREATER CULTURAL TREASURES,
> RESPECTED INDIVIDUALS, LEADERS OF CIVILIZATION, CONTRIBUTORS TO THE
> POSITIVE GOOD. *-UNLIKE-* *-YOU-* !!!! YOU ARE A *-LOSER-* !!!
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You see, Pyro, I had NEVER juxtaposed "Winton Marsallis" with "Amad
Jamal." I juxtaposed the -LAST- -NAME- -ONLY- of "Marsallis" when
I had introduced "Amad Jamal." SO YOU ARE A LIAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you continue to provide evidence to this newsgroup of the SHODDY
practices you employ when conducting and reporting research !!!!!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> When I wrote "great philosopher" the implication was clear ...
No, there was no clear implication. And even if there -WERE- an
implication it would be incumbent upon the READER to CONSTRUCT that
implication. So you cannot say implication, or inference, exists
in the text WITHOUT INCLUDING THE READER in your "analysis." It was
NOT clear. So make it clear next time, ok?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... that I was referring to those of the stature of Socrates, Plato,
> Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, John Locke, Rene Descartes, St. Thomas
> Aquinas, etc., et al.
Fine. So this is YOUR IMPLICATION NOW. I'm confused however,
because I'm not sure whether Socrates or Plato has more stature,
or how to assess the relative merits of Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche,
Locke, Descarte, Aquinas. Can you provide a 1-10, or 1-100 scale?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> When I wrote "Name me a Black Mozart" I was also very clear in
> regards to stature.
No you weren't. You didn't SAY the word "stature." Now you do.
So where does Mozart "rate" on your 1-10, or 1-100 scale?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> This imbecile ...
Are you referring to yourself (tail) again?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... is now attempting to distort what I had clearly implied, to dig
> himself out of the embarassment he brought to himself in this forum.
What embarassment is that?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> One of the methods he uses to save face is to argue that there
> is no way to measure genius, or to compare geniuses of different
> fields. Yes, it is true that one cannot compare geniuses of different
> fields, and that the greatness of an artist or contributor to culture
> cannot simply be tallied like the number of home runs in a baseball
> game, for example. However, genius manifests and shows itself in the
> creation of something. If it were impossible to discern genius -- or
> GREATNESS -- how could we possibly differentiate Sophocles from an
> ape?
So, Pyro, tell us how YOU differentiate Sophocles from an ape.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Obviously this idiot DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ART OR CULTURE.
Then explain ART OR CULTURE to the newsgroup.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> His conclusions on these issues shows that.
Which conclusions were they?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Worst of all, he has been UNCLEAR.
Where was I UNCLEAR, and why don't you ask a question? When
faced with a lack of clarity do you typically FAIL to ask the
relevant and proper question? Do such "habits" explain Pyro?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> On another instance I wrote about Plato's writings: "It [his
> writings] should be preserved in golden letters." This imbecile
> responded:
Which imbecile was that?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> "How would that improve upon the substance of his writings?"
------->>>>>>> MISQUOTE !!!!! I said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> HOW DO "GOLDEN LETTERS" IMPROVE UPON THE SUBSTANCE OF PLATO ???
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, Pyro, be VERY CAREFUL if you use "quotation marks" BECAUSE
YOU JUST MADE A MISATTRIBUTION, WHICH -VIOLATES- ETIQUETTE !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION, IF YOU PLEASE. DO -NOT- DUCK THE ISSUES !
I did -NOT- say "his writings." I said "Plato." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> This response (if we will call it that) clearly gives ...
Why "clearly gives" -- can you demonstrate that?
^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... those who regularly participate at alt.fan.unabomber ...
Who might that be? Do you have a list? What are the criteria
you utilize to decide who does, or who does not, have a regular
participation? What might be the RELEVANCE of discrimination
between those who "regularly participate" and those who do not?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... an indication of what a FOOL he is.
Who is? By what method or process do you adjudicate that?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> On another instance I wrote: "Putting a convicted criminal, still
> having the warm blood of his victims dripping from his hands, back
> on the street again, is the essential _TRUTH_ you proclaim? The
> vociferous charlatan, Johnnie Cochran, who used all kinds of tricks,
> LIES, and mob influence?" To paraphrase him, the ignorant eunuch ...
Uh, I think you -CANNOT- make that "eunuch" word stick because
it's not the case, as I had informed you previously. What an
irony that you continue to use the adjective "ignorant" when in
fact you persist in -LYING- about something THAT IS NOT TRUE !!!
THIS IS VERY TYPICAL OF YOUR "MANNER OF PROCESS" AND DEFEATS ANY
EFFORT AT CREDIBILITY ON YOUR PART ON ALL OF YOUR OTHER ARGUMENTS.
PLAY BY THE RULES OF COURTEOUS DEBATE IF YOU EXPECT TO BE A MASTER!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... then responded: "O.J. Simpson was not convicted of a crime.
> In America you can only refer to someone as convicted if he is
> found guilty by a jury and judge in the court of law. If Cochran
> didn't represent O.J. someone else would have instead. As an
> attorney, Cochran's duty was to represent O.J. to the best of his
> ability. Throughout the trial Marcia Clark had the opportunity to
> challenge Jonny Cochran's defense of O.J."
YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO "PARAPHRASE" MY WORDS INSIDE OF
YOUR QUOTATION MARKS !!! ANOTHER -MISATTRIBUTION- ATTEMPT BY YOU !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I DID NOT SAY that Cochran's duty was to represent "to the best of
his ability" though that's something I might agree with NOW. I did
NOT say Marcia Clark had an "opportunity to challenge." All I said
was that Marcia Clark was THERE TO CHALLENGE at the trial. Whether
or not she had an "opportunity" is a SEPARATE QUESTION !~!~!~!~!~!~!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING THE DISCOURSE BY NOT EMPLOYING EXACT CITES!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YOU ARE SLIPSHOD AND SLOPPY. YOU ILLUSTRATE YOUR LOW-GRADE LEVEL !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YOU DO -NOT- QUALIFY AS A MASTER-RACE "ARYAN" SO GO TO AUSCHWITZ !!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here's what I ACTUALLY said. And for readers of this list, anytime
you need the STRAIGHT EVIDENCE, YOU'LL KNOW WHOM TO SUSPECT !!!!!!!
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Uh, last I checked it was a Jury and Judge who exonerated O.J.,
> *-NOT-* Johnny Cochran. All that time, of course, Marcia Clark
> WAS THERE TO CHALLENGE EVERYTHING Mr. Cochran did, with plenty of
> trial time and television coverage so that Pyro could TOSS OUT
> peanuts. DID YOU THROW IN YOUR 2-CENTS WHILE YOU HAD THE CHANCE,
> PYRO ???? If Johnny Cochran hadn't been a defense attorney it
> would have been somebody else because in the UNITED STATES OF
> AMERICA people charged with a crime are ENTITLED to legal
> representation if they cannot afford it. So you have your "facts"
> WRONG if you think O.J. was a "convicted criminal, still having
> the warm blood of his victims dripping from his hands." In the
> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA people are labelled as "convicted
> criminals" if, and only if, they are -CONVICTED- by a COURT OF
> LAW for some CRIMINAL CRIME. Evidently you don't subscribe to
> the BASIC PRINCIPLES enunciated by our Constitution and Bill of
> Rights? Are you an UN-AMERICAN commie ??? Lawyers are SUPPOSED
> TO REPRESENT clients. Juries and Judges are SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE
> truth. That's how JUSTICE works in THE USA. YOU *-CANNOT-*
> CLAIM SOMEBODY IS GUILTY BEFORE HOLDING THE TRIAL.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> When I used the word "convicted" I was referring to the
> overwhelming evidence stacked up against O.J.
Fallacy of Non-Standard Word Usage
----------------------------------
v.t. convict: (1) To prove guilty; find guilty after a judicial trial.
(2) To awaken to a sense of guilt or sin.
n. convict: (3) One serving a sentence in prison.
(4) One found guilty of a crime.
At the time of Johnny Cochran's representation, the civil suit had
not gone forward, so when O.J. was put "back on the street again" he
had not (yet) been brought to acknowledge definition #2 (above).
The "overwhelming evidence stacked up" DOES NOT RENDER A CONVICTION
WITHOUT A FAIR-TRIAL. THE FAIR-TRIAL WAS CONDUCTED OVER A VERY LONG
PERIOD OF TIME WITH AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR -EVERYBODY- IN THE USA TO
PRESENT AN "OPINION" AND MAKE ARGUMENTS (by _amicus_curiae_ briefs,
if necessary) AND THE CONCLUSION OF THAT FAIR-TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL
CASE WAS EXONERATION !!! SINCE YOU MADE A GROSS ERROR WITH REGARDS
TO ASSESSMENT OF THE O.J.SIMPSON CASE YOUR CREDIBILITY IS LOW !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> I was referring to _TRUTH_ and general judgment of intelligent
> people, not that group of retarded pithecanthopuses referred to as
> the "jury."
THE JURY DOES NOT RENDER THE -ULTIMATE- VERDICT! THE JURY RENDERS
ITS -FINDINGS- OF FACT BASED ON THE TRIAL-HEARING. THE JUDGE TAKES
THE JURY'S RECOMMENDATION OF VERDICT AND IN ALMOST EVERY CASE WILL
RUBBER-STAMP THE JURY. ONLY THE JUDGE CAN RENDER THE -FINAL- VERDICT!
DOES YOUR -IGNORANCE- OF LAW SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE -BAD- GENES ????
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PRIOR TO THE TRIAL BOTH SIDES HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONDUCT JURY
SELECTION, WITH DISQUALIFICATION MOTIONS AND PRE-EMPTIVE CHALLENGES.
MARCIA CLARK *-AND-* JOHNNY COCHRAN -APPROVED- OF THE JURY *-BEFORE-*
THE TRIAL BEGAN. SO THEY WERE -LESS- "RETARDED" THEN *-YOU-* !!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> The verdict: he was guilty.
FALSE !!! YOU ARE A LIAR AND A CHEAT !!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Of course, with his mind as limited as it is ...
Whose mind?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... most likely he will continue prating ...
Who will continue prating?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... about O.J. not having "officially" been convicted ...
O.J. lost the civil case which renders a "conviction" under
definition #2 (above), but you were speaking of the CRIMINAL CASE
and NOT the CIVIL CASE.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... and continue on with semantics and legal jargon.
Sorry Charlie, but that's the "name of the game" when deciding
guilt and innocence. If you were the person "on trial" then you'd
PAY ATTENTION TO SEMANTICS AND LEGAL JARGON.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> He is a FOOL who cannot think abstractly.
Who is? Your "evidence," "argument," and "demonstration?"
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> The ideas, that no one can be judged guilty of a crime UNDER THE
> COURT OF LAW until the facts of a case are examined, that all
> persons accused of crimes have a right to face their accusers and
> defend themselves before a judge, that if there is any doubt about
> a person's guilt he or she should be judged innocent, that any law
> that seems unreasonable or grossly unfair should be set aside, are
> invaluable legacies bestowed upon Western culture (and other
> cultures) by the Romans.
>
> Of course, this system is predicated upon the notion that the
> general public has the capacity to make their own decisions rather
> than abide by despotic rule, that the public must be _trusted_ and
> relied upon to determine the innocence or guilt of a person charged
> with a crime, and that this system diminishes, to a great degree, the
> inequities inherent under autocratic rule. But this system is, and
> never can be, perfect: there will always be foolish jurors,
> incompetent prosecutors and deceitful attorneys, foolish judges,
> foolish media, a foolish public, etc.
Interesting case of plagiarism? (See above).
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> This imbecile ...
Who?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... enjoys ...
Evidence that there's any enjoyment in this?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... flaunting jocular non-sequiturs that I have drawn ...
Such as?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... taking them at face value and debunking them ...
So how shall we tell the difference if you don't inform us?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... as if he has actually made a point ...
What point was that?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... (and of course missing the underlying meaning) ...
What was the underlying meaning that was missed?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> He referred to them as "falsities" and even numbered them, to give
> you an indication of his stupidity.
So people who use numbers and count things are stupid?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> However, as he was doing this he drew his own non-sequiturs.
> For example, I wrote: "We know you are a bastard, now what is left
> to determine is which of the twelve goats your mother fucks is your
> father." He responded: "The '12 goats' reference is apropos to what
> seems to be your assessment of a (Satanic) Jesus and disciples."
> Nowhere did I even imply that the 12 goats I referred to were the
> disciples of Jesus. The 12 goats could have been the 12 jurors who
> gave their verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial, or something else, if
> there were any such connotation (which there wasn't). As you can
> see, even at the game of semantics HE LOSES.
Suggesting that trial jurors are goats still seems SATANIC !
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> On another instance he wrote: "Agent99 and Pyro pose themself as
> 'perfect' people without sin." Having been a regular at a.f.u. for
> at least several months, this individual should be familiar with my
> admission to being naive about many things due to my age. I have
> admitted that I am far from perfect, and have many things to learn
> in life.
WHAT WERE YOUR SPECIFIC CITATIONS WHERE YOU ADMITTED THIS?
Until you DO LEARN those MANY THINGS perhaps you can TONE DOWN
the UNWARRANTED ARROGANCE you display. While you're at it, why
not study LAW so you'll have more credibility than the GUTTER ?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> He later on claims, "you [Pyro] win the vulgarity contest hands
> down," but forgets he initiated the vulgarity by referring to me
> as a "cocksucker."
Allow me to remind the newsgroup that "Pyro," under one or more of
his various addresses, has this 1999 record of vulgarity on a.f.u.
Pyro said "fuck" 6/28, 7/31, 8/24, 8/26, 9/24, 10/19 (3x), 10/27
Pyro said "fucker" 10/29
Pyro said "shit" 7/27, 8/5, 8/13, 10/19 (4x)
Pyro said "fucking" 6/28, 7/2, 8/24, 8/30, 10/5, 10/19, 10/27
Pyro said "bitch" 7/27, 7/31, 8/5, 8/26, 9/16
My reference to the word "cocksucker" occured on 10/30. <----*
PYRO WINS THE VULGARITY CONTEST ON BOTH "INITIATION" AND "VOLUME" !!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Add to the list of Pyro's mental aberrations the word *-DENIAL-* !
What do you know? It seems *-PROVEN-* that Pyro -IS- a "cocksucker."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Until he referred to Johnnie as a great philosopher and to dozens of
> Negro jazz musicians as possessing the skills of a Mozart, I
> respected him. I refrained from insults until he hurled ad hominem
> attacks toward me.
YES, BUT I -MIGHT- BE JEWISH, SO YOU DON'T KNOW !!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> To top it off, he accuses me of having no appreciation for the arts.
> I will post some previous messages directed to Jumangi and let you
> all decide if I show no appreciation for the arts.
This is really sad. Posting messages to demonstrate "appreciation
for the arts." DOESN'T PROVE JACK, JACK !!! GET A LIFE !!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Then, in finding him refer to pygmies ...
In order to be a "pygmy" one must be:
"diminutive; dwarfish; trivial; unimportant; a small
person or thing regarded as insignificant; a member
of a Negroid people of equatorial Africa, ranging in
height from four to five feet; any of the Negrito
peoples of the Philippines, Andaman Islands, and
Malaya; in Greek legend, one of a race of dwarfs."
so Johnny Cochran is -NOT- a "pygmy" since he's taller than five feet,
and is not from the Philippines, Andaman Islands, or Malaya, and is
not a member of "Greek legend," and is NOT "unimportant/insignificant"
because *-YOU-* have given Cochran A LOT OF COVERAGE HERE on A.F.U.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... as "great philosophers" and "having the skills of a Mozart,"
> I'll let you decide who is the IMBECILE who lacks understanding of
> ART and culture.
Thanks, Pyro. WE WERE ALL WAITING FOR *-YOU-* TO GIVE US
PERMISSION TO DECIDE "WHO" IMBECILES ARE, AND WHETHER WE WERE
GOING TO APPRECIATE AND "UNDERSTAND" *-ART-* AND *-CULTURE-*.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> He asked me for my definition of TRUTH but apparently my words have
> gone right past him. On message #1 is my answer: BEAUTY = _TRUTH_.
********* T H E N P R O V E I T *********
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> I would also like to point out that I have edited my posts to
> make my ideas as clear as possible to the audience.
I shall edit them even further !
- regards
- jb
.
-------- DANGER, DANGER, PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK !!!! -------
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> .... (Please, do not ask me what is beauty).
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> "There is only one thing I know, and that is that I know nothing."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> If this is what we are to look forward to, I hope there is a
> nuclear war.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... perhaps like throwing feces to Michelangelo's "Pieta", or
> farting during the performance of "Requiem" ....
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... to have a new Mozart would be boring and repetitious.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... The Spartans' valor left a deep impression on all Greeks.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> He believed, in this case, no life was better than some life ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... you have disqualified yourself of being able to participate ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... As Ivan Turgueniev wrote to Liev Tolstoy, "The truth is like
> a lizard: you open your hand when you think you have got it to
> contemplate it, and the only thing you see is the tail between your
> fingers. It has escaped knowing it will grow a new tail." And
> Nietzsche wrote, "Let's define our task: once and for all we have
> to question the value of TRUTH." I have serious doubts that you
> are familiar with what a library is ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> You, IDIOT, have elevated this group of pygmies ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Jesus said: "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE." And still,
> you crucified him, you deicide!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Your subconscious betrayed you: what I was using as symbolism of
> truth made you think about your father's dick.
>
> You know better than anyone else how you feel his "tail" between
> your fingers, bastard!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>... people like you are the assassins of TRUTH. What you are
> doing is raping and profaning it, as you do to _BEAUTY_,
> cultural leper. You bastardize everything you touch.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Asshole, what do you mean by, "They [agent99 and Pyro] cannot
> follow the basic rules of basic reasoning"?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Take note of this, CRETIN, and learn how to read ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... my answer to you was: YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... buttkissing the Blacks for their sympathy ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Your lexicon is that of a gangmember.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... your writing, like in a lie detector, shows not only
> _ignorance_ but also your hoofs.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> We know you are a bastard, now the only thing we have to determine
> is which of the 12 goats your mother fucks is your father.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... this is an idiotic judgement that no one should care about.
Ok, thanks! See ya !
.
============================================================
http://www.silcom.com/~patrick/mag3/FASCSMPR.htm
------------------------------------------------
Fascism in a Pinstriped Suit
by Dr. Michael Parenti
If fascism came to America, some say it would be an unbearable
nightmare drastically disrupting the everyday pattern of our lives.
And since our lives seem to retain their normal pattern, it follows
that fascism has not taken over. In actuality, however, the fascist
state, like all states, has no need to make nightmarish intrusions
into the trivia of every citizen's life.
The Orwellian image of Big Brother commanding an obscure citizen to do
his morning exercises via two-way television leaves us with a grossly
exaggerated caricature of the authoritarian state. Rather than
alerting us to more realistic dangers, novels like1984 cloud our
vision with fanciful horrors of the future, thereby making the present
look not all that bad in comparison, and leaving us the more convinced
that there is no cause for alarm.
The dirty truth is that many people find fascism to be not
particularly horrible. I once asked some Iranian businesspeople to
describe what life had been like under the Shah's police state. "It
was perfect," they responded. Workers and servants could be cheaply
procured, profits were high, and they lived very well. To be sure,
fascism is not perfect for everyone. Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's
Germany inflicted a great deal of intentional hardship upon working
people, including the destruction of labor unions, the loss of job
benefits, and a shift in national income from the lower and middle
classes to the upper class. Many among thepetite bourgeoisie in
Germany, who generally supported the Nazi party, suffered the loss of
their small businesses and the dread slippage into working class ranks
- with jobs in the armaments factories, when they were lucky enough to
find employment. The number of Germans who lived in poverty and want
increased substantially as wages were cut by as much as forty percent.
Those who equate fascism with the horrors of Auschwitz are correct in
their moral condemnation but mistaken in their sense of sequence. The
worst of Auschwitz did not come until the war years. As late as 1939,
the Nazi state was still pursuing a policy of encouraging, and more
often forcing, the emigration of Jews to other lands. Mass liquidation
as a "final solution" was not seriously considered and was in fact
opposed until Hitler's order came (sometime after March, 1941, most
historians believe).
The concentration camp was never the normal condition for the average
gentile German. Unless one were Jewish, or poor and unemployed, or of
active leftist persuasion or otherwise openly anti-Nazi, Germany from
1933 until well into the war was not a nightmarish place. All the
"good Germans" had to do was obey the law, pay their taxes, give their
sons to the army, avoid any sign of political heterodoxy, and look the
other way when unions were busted and troublesome people disappeared.
Since many "middle Americans" already obey the law, pay their taxes,
give their sons to the army, are themselves distrustful of political
heterodoxy, and applaud when unions are broken and troublesome people
are disposed of, they probably could live without too much personal
torment in a fascist state - some of them certainly seem eager to do
so. Orwell's imaginings to the contrary, what is so terrifying about
fascism is its "normality," its compatibility with the collective
sentiments of substantial numbers of "normal" persons - though
probably never a majority in any society.
We might do well to stop thinking of fascism as being a simple
either-or condition. The political system of any one country
encompasses a variety of uneven and seemingly incongruous
institutional practices. To insist that fascism does not obtain until
every abomination of the Nazi state is replicated and every vestige of
constitutional government is obliterated is to overlook, at our peril,
the disturbingly antidemocratic, authoritarian manifestations inherent
in many states that call themselves democracies.
Selective Repression
It is sometimes argued by those who deny the imminence of American
fascism that we are more free today than ever before. One's ability to
accept such reassurance partly depends on the class conditions and
life chances that one confronts. The affluent individual whose views
fit into that portion of the American political spectrum known as the
"mainstream" (from rightist Republican to centrist Democrat) and whose
political actions are limited to the standardized forms of
participation - informal discussion, television viewing, newspaper
reading, and voting - is apt to dismiss the contention that America is
fascistic. But those who oppose the existing political orthodoxy and
who find themselves under surveillance and subjected to the
intimidations, harassments, and sanctions of the U.S. national
security state have a less sanguine view. Over the last several
decades just about every African-American protest leader who achieved
any local or national prominence eventually ended up either under
indictment, in jail, on appeal, in hiding, in exile, or murdered by
the forces of "law and order." Most of the killings have gone
unreported in the national press. Few, if any, of the law officers
involved have ever been convicted of murder by the predominantly
white, middle American juries that pass judgment on these matters.
The leniency displayed by authorities toward those on the right side
of the political spectrum stands in marked contrast to the relentless,
punitive justice meted out to people of color, the poor, and radicals
of all stripes. While the guardians go unguarded, political activists
are arrested on trumped-up charges and end up serving astronomical
sentences for crimes they never committed or for relatively minor
offenses.
The last decade or so has seen a growth in reactionary and racist
groups. Yet the government does little about them. In the first half
of 1995 alone, a county employee in California who refused a demand by
rightist anti-tax activists to remove an IRS lien imposed on one of
them, was beaten by two men and slashed with a knife. A judge in
Montana was terrorized, threatened with kidnapping, and had a murder
contract put out on her by a militia group that claimed she had no
jurisdiction over them. A federal wildlife worker received a threat
that his wife and children would be bound in barbed wire and stuffed
down a well. During a forum on Capitol Hill, government workers,
environmentalists, and abortion rights activists described incidents
of harassment, intimidation, and violence perpetrated by paramilitary
groups (<M>Washington Post, July 13, 1995). A number of these groups
are financed by shady individuals of affluent means. In 1995 the
Republican-controlled Congress refused to hold congressional hearings
on these paramilitary groups. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has
done next to nothing about the menacing arms caches, threats, and
openly violent actions these organizations have delivered upon others.
At the same time, however, the government's repressive mechanism is
geared up against leftist dissenters. The FBI and local police Red
Squads are once again spying, burglarizing, disrupting, and otherwise
targeting various organizations that work for social justice, peace
and disarmament, or environmentalism. During the 1980s almost two
hundred organizations were labeled, not communist fronts as during the
repressive McCarthy era of the 1950s, but "terrorist fronts,"
including Martin Luther King Jr.'s own Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, and various church and student organizations. President
Clinton lifted not a finger to undo this new round-up list, and in
1995 he supported a repressive counterterrorist act which gives the
president power to arrest and detain without benefit of evidence or
trial or even formal charges, individuals deemed to be aiding any
group designated as "terrorist" by the President.
Read the rest of this enlightening article in Prevailing Winds
Magazine issue #3. For a complete magazine and catalogue simply send
$7.00 (magazine and post.) to: Prevailing Winds, P.O. Box 23511, Santa
Barbara, CA 93121. For a four issue subcription please include $20.00.
Make sure to let us know which issue you would like, or would like
your suscription to start on. Thanks for your support!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jum...@my-deja.com
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> First of all, let me tell you that you have disqualified yourself
> of being able to participate in any serious discussion or debate on
> cultural issues. It is very obvious that you are a cultural
> polluter. By naming mental dwarfs such as Johnnie Cochran (the
> charlatan) and Winton Marsallis (a former clown of Jay Leno) as the
> new Socrates and Mozart, you exposed yourself as academically
> naked. What you said is beyond the need of a cultural bath; it is
> (excuse me) totally idiotic. "Ignorance is bold." Who are you,
> mental insect, to determine who is more successful, Johnnie, you,
> me, or the other? What is your concept of success, anyway? Don't
> you know that success is a "relative" term? _Fortunately_, we do
> not think the same way, and what success is for you may not be for
> me, or vice versa.
Here's a "success" definition: persistence, duration, endurance,
stamina. OED "successful" -- attains to wealth or position or
an object according to one's desire, (prominence in) subsequent
history, prosperous achievement of something attempted.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SUCCESS, "relative" or otherwise, compared to
Cochran, Marsallis, and I will add Kenny Drew, Jr., George Russell,
Duke Ellington, John Hicks, and Amad Jamal. ALL OF THEM ARE BLACK
PEOPLE MORE SUCCESSFULL, MORE ARTISTIC, GREATER CULTURAL TREASURES,
RESPECTED INDIVIDUALS, LEADERS OF CIVILIZATION, CONTRIBUTORS TO THE
POSITIVE GOOD. *-UNLIKE-* *-YOU-* !!!! YOU ARE A *-LOSER-* !!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> You are persistent in knowing in what point you are wrong in your
> argument regarding "beauty and truth" in Plato's philosophy.
> Alright then, YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING. First of all, the
> quote, "beauty is truth, truth beauty" "all ye know on earth and
> all ye need to know" is from John Keats (not J.S. Mill). Don't
> forget that the restful experience of enjoyable BEAUTY is not
> limited to the contemplation of sensible objects. We can
> experience it as well in the contemplation of TRUTHS we understand.
> "Mathematics rightly viewed possesses not only _TRUTH_, but supreme
> BEAUTY," wrote Bertrand Russell. You, eunuch, have put yourself on
> a pedestal as a new "oracle of Delphi." And so, you have made a
> good contribution to the pursuit of TRUTH, except that to find
> truth we have to look at the opposite of what you say.
Keats: 1795-1821
Mill: 1806-1873
So J.S.Mill, who was -heavily- influenced by Coleridge and the
romantic movement, inclusive of his "deep impressions" with poetry
SUCH AS KEATS AND WORDSWORTH, obtained a -recasting- of "philosophy"
AWAY FROM CLASSICAL DIALECTICS and instead BECAME YET ANOTHER OF
THE WORTHLESS ROMANTIC RHETORICIANS, particularly by "elevating"
the role of "opinion" and entertaining, as you appear to do, the
notion of -validity- to a pluralizing of "truths" which in the
case of Plato's philosophy were invariably mentioned only in context
to myth, to the enemy's activity, or to STATE PROPAGANDA. Your
"analysis" of Russell's "cite" is OUTRAGEOUSLY LAUGHABLE. Here's
what seems to be *-YOUR-* logic: ( ha ha ha ha ha ha ha )
"A has B."
"A has C."
"Therefore B has some kinship to C."
Let's try it! Pyro has a son. Pyro has a daughter. Therefore
Pyro's son and daughter COPULATE ?? Aha! NOW I UNDERSTAND ALL !!!
YOU'RE RIGHT! Mill didn't say it and Keats did! AND IT TOOK YOU
MORE THEN TWO MONTHS TO DISCOVER THAT ! CONGRATULATIONS !!!!!!
But Mill said pretty much the same, which we BOTH AGREE ON !!!!
NOT *-OPPOSITE-* AS YOU CLAIM, BUT SIMILAR. PYRO IS A LIAR !!!
> Again, IGNORAMUS, Plato was not right on everything he wrote. The
> beautiful prose he left constitutes a philosophical legacy by which
> we also learn about Socrates. Needless to say, it should be
> preserved in golden letters. He was the father of idealism. As
> Ivan Turgueniev wrote to Liev Tolstoy, "The truth is like a lizard:
> you open your hand when you think you have got it to contemplate
> it, and the only thing you see is the tail between your fingers. It
> has escaped knowing it will grow a new tail." And Nietzsche wrote,
> "Let's define our task: once and for all we have to question the
> value of TRUTH." I have serious doubts that you are familiar with
> what a library is; I think your cultural nourishment comes from a
> TV set. Nevertheless, I recommend you some authors on truth:
> Herodotus, Hesiodo, Heraclito, Jenofonte, Thomas Aquinas, Fichte,
> and Kant.
WHAT DOES NIETZSCHE OFFER THAT IS MORE ESSENTIAL THAN TRUTH ???
HOW DOES THE "TAIL" BETWEEN YOUR FINGERS *-FEEL-* TO PYRO ???
HOW DO "GOLDEN LETTERS" IMPROVE UPON THE SUBSTANCE OF PLATO ???
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!
( you masturbating cocksucker )
- regards
- jb
------------------
Autobiography 1: Mill's notion of truth derived from what he -felt-
his "father" say... (NOT from DIALECTICS !!!)
"I felt no disposition to glorify myself upon the circumstance
that there were other persons who did not know what I knew; nor
had I ever flattered myself that my acquirements, whatever they
might be, were any merit of mine: but, now when my attention was
called to the subject, I felt that what my father had said,
respecting my peculiar advantages was exactly the truth and
common sense of the matter, and it fixed my opinion and feeling
from that time forward."
Autobiography 2: Placing "the good of human kind" ABOVE truth...
(but we need first to know truth in order
to determine "the good of human kind")
"As it was, his aversion to religion, in the sense usually
attached to the term, was of the same kind with that of
Lucretius: he regarded it with the feelings due not to a mere
mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as
the greatest enemy of morality: first, by setting up factitious
excellencies, -- belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and
ceremonies, not connected with the good of human kind, -- and
causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtues:
but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals;
making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it
lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober
truth it depicts as eminently hateful."
Autobiography 2: Abandonment of Christianity...
Incapacity to resolve apparent contradictions...
(however application of DIALECTICS can resolve
ALL apparent contradictions)
Jesus said "Let us reason -together-"
(this was His application of DIALECTICS)
Jesus built His church upon the stone that was
-rejected- (thus was NOT a "creed")
Conclusion: the Mill family did NOT read scripture
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"The time, I believe, is drawing near when this dreadful
conception of an object of worship will be no longer identified
with Christianity; and when all persons, with any sense of moral
good and evil, will look upon it with the same indignation with
which my father regarded it. My father was as well aware as
anyone that Christians do not, in general, undergo the
demoralizing consequences which seem inherent in such a creed, in
the manner or to the extent which might have been expected from
it. The same slovenliness of thought, and subjection of the
reason to fears, wishes, and affections, which enable them to
accept a theory involving a contradiction in terms, prevents them
from perceiving the logical consequences of the theory. Such is
the facility with which mankind believe at one and the same time
things inconsistent with one another, and so few are those who
draw from what they receive as truths, any consequences but those
recommended to them by their feelings, that multitudes have held
the undoubting belief in an Omnipotent Author of Hell, and have
nevertheless identified that being with the best conception they
were able to form of perfect goodness. Their worship was not paid
to the demon which such a being as they imagined would really be,
but to their own idea of excellence. The evil is, that such a
belief keeps the ideal wretchedly low; and opposes the most
obstinate resistance to all thought which has a tendency to raise
it higher. Believers shrink from every train of ideas which would
lead the mind to a clear conception and an elevated standard of
excellence, because they feel (even when they do not distinctly
see) that such a standard would conflict with many of the
dispensations of nature, and with much of what they are
accustomed to consider as the Christian creed. And thus morality
continues a matter of blind tradition, with no consistent
principle, nor even any consistent feeling, to guide it."
Autobiography 3: Mill -pluralized- truth (as "truths") in order to
claim that (rhetorical) opinions could be true.
( but doctrines are NOT truths. METHOD is truth.)
"This preparation of abstracts, subject to my father's censorship,
was of great service to me, by competing precision in conceiving
and expressing psychological doctrines, whether accepted as
truths or only regarded as the opinion of others."
Autobiography 3: Mill will later take his cues for truth from a work
which he says was NOT an examination of the truth,
so Mill's "truth" will consist of "the usefulness of
religious belief" (rhetorical propaganda)
and NOT DIALECTICS !!!!
"Among the works read in the course of this year, which
contributed materially to my development, I ought to mention a
book (written on the foundation of some of Bentham's manuscripts
and published under the pseudonyme of Philip Beauchamp) entitled
"Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal
Happiness of Mankind." This was an examination not of the truth,
but of the usefulness of religious belief, in the most general
sense, apart from the peculiarities of any special Revelation;
which, of all the parts of the discussion concerning religion, is
the most important in this age, in which real belief in any
religious doctrine is feeble and precarious, but the opinion of
its necessity for moral and social purposes almost universal; and
when those who reject revelation, very generally take refuge in
an optimistic Deism, a worship of the order of Nature, and the
supposed course of Providence, at least as full of
contradictions, and perverting to the moral sentiments, as any of
the forms of Christianity, if only it is as completely realized.
Yet, very little, with any claim to a philosophical character,
has been written by sceptics against the usefulness of this form
of belief."
Autobiography 4: People do NOT "reason" independently but as a group
so Bingham's remarks are NOT about actual "reason."
Mill details his involvement with -poetry- at this
point which will influence him toward romanticism
(which was going strong at that time in England),
and here he was very likely familiar with Keats
who was summarizing the same spirit of that age.
HOWEVER, PLATO'S SOCRATES *-EXCORIATED-* POETS
AS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO *-DIALECTICAL-* PHILOSOPHY.
So with romanticism, Mill went off the rails.
"An article of Bingham's in the first number of the Westminster
Review, in which he offered as an explanation of something which
he disliked in Moore, that "Mr Moore is a poet, and therefore is
not a reasoner," did a good deal to attach the notion of hating
poetry to the writers in the Review. But the truth was that many
of us were great readers of poetry; Bingham himself had been a
writer of it, while as regards me (and the same thing might be
said of my father), the correct statement would be, not that I
disliked poetry, but that I was theoretically indifferent to it.
I disliked any sentiments in poetry which I should have disliked
in prose; and that included a great deal. And I was wholly blind
to its place in human culture, as a means of educating the
feelings. But I was always personally very susceptible to some
kinds of it. In the most sectarian period of my Benthamism, I
happened to look into Pope's Essay on Man, and though every
opinion in it was contrary to mine, I well remember how
powerfully it acted on my imagination. Perhaps at that time
poetical composition of any higher type than eloquent discussion
in verse, might not have produced a similar effect on me: at all
events I seldom gave it an opportunity. This, however, was a mere
passive state. Long before I had enlarged in any considerable
degree, the basis of my intellectual creed, I had obtained in the
natural course of my mental progress, poetic culture of the most
valuable kind, by means of reverential admiration for the lives
and characters of heroic persons; especially the heroes of
philosophy."
( here Mill fails to understand that Socrates was NOT about
rhetorical inspiration but about dialectical method ) ...
"The same inspiring effect which so many of the
benefactors of mankind have left on record that they had
experienced from Plutarch's Lives, was produced on me by Plato's
pictures of Socrates, and by some modern biographies, above all
by Condorcet's Life of Turgot; a book well calculated to rouse
the best sort of enthusiasm, since it contains one of the wisest
and noblest of lives, delineated by one of the wisest and noblest
of men."
( Plato's philosophers regarded Homeric myth and the myths of
Greek Gods in LOW esteem. That's one of the charges brought
against Socrates at the Athenian trial. Mill got it WRONG. )
"The heroic virtue of these glorious representatives of
the opinions with which I sympathized, deeply affected me, and I
perpetually recurred to them as others do to a favourite poet,
when needing to be carried up into the more elevated regions of
feeling and thought. I may observe by the way that this book
cured me of my sectarian follies. The two or three pages
beginning "Il regardait toute secte comme nuisible," and
explaining why Turgot always kept himself perfectly distinct from
the Encyclopedists, sank deeply into my mind. I left off
designating myself and others as Utilitarians, and by the pronoun
"we" or any other collective designation, I ceased to affiche,
sectarianism. My real inward sectarianism I did not get rid of
till later, and much more gradually."
( yadda yadda yadda -- Mill's prolixity .... )
Autobiography 4: Mill characterizes truth as something which might
be "exceeded" when truth is an absolute limit.
"These writings were no longer mere reproductions and applications
of the doctrines I had been taught; they were original thinking,
as far as that name can be applied to old ideas in new forms and
connexions: and I do not exceed the truth in saying that there
was a maturity, and a well-digested character about them, which
there had not been in any of my previous performances."
Autobiography 5: Mill regards analysis as a "habit" (sic!) rather
than a critically essential METHOD IN DIALECTICS.
Mill expounds on (subjective) -feelings- which have
NO RELEVANCY TO DIALECTICAL INQUIRY. (Game Theory)
"Analytic habits may thus even strengthen the associations between
causes and effects, means and ends, but tend altogether to weaken
those which are, to speak familiarly, a mere matter of feeling.
They are therefore (I thought) favourable to prudence and
clearsightedness, but a perpetual worm at the root both of the
passions and of the virtues; and, above all, fearfully undermine
all desires, and all pleasures, which are the effects of
association, that is, according to the theory I held, all except
the purely physical and organic; of the entire insufficiency of
which to make life desirable, no one had a stronger conviction
than I had. These were the laws of human nature, by which, as it
seemed to me, I had been brought to my present state. All those
to whom I looked up, were of opinion that the pleasure of
sympathy with human beings, and the feelings which made the good
of others, and especially of mankind on a large scale, the object
of existence, were the greatest and surest sources of happiness.
Of the truth of this I was convinced, but to know that a feeling
would make me happy if I had it, did not give me the feeling. My
education, I thought, had failed to create these feelings in
sufficient strength to resist the dissolving influence of
analysis, while the whole course of my intellectual cultivation
had made precocious and premature analysis the inveterate habit
of my mind. I was thus, as I said to myself, left stranded at the
commencement of my voyage, with a well-equipped ship and a
rudder, but no sail; without any real desire for the ends which I
had been so carefully fitted out to work for: no delight in
virtue, or the general good, but also just as little in anything
else."
Autobiography 5: Mill uses the phrase "part of the truth" as if one
can -fragment- truth, but truth must be WHOLE.
So Mill FAILS to comprehend the NATURE of truth.
He says "the cultivation of the feelings became
one of the cardinal points in ...[his] ethical
and philosophical creed." So his technique is
based NOT ON DIALECTICS but on HIS FEELINGS, and
he CLAIMS to derive an ETHICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL CREED
from that, which is -precisely- what his father
critiqued about Christianity. A contradiction !
"I had now learnt by experience that the passive susceptibilities
needed to be cultivated as well as the active capacities, and
required to be nourished and enriched as well as guided. I did
not, for an instant, lose sight of, or undervalue, that part of
the truth which I had seen before; I never turned recreant to
intellectual culture, or ceased to consider the power and
practice of analysis as an essential condition both of individual
and of social improvement. But I thought that it had consequences
which required to be corrected, by joining other kinds of
cultivation with it. The maintenance of a due balance among the
faculties, now seemed to me of primary importance. The
cultivation of the feelings became one of the cardinal points in
my ethical and philosophical creed. And my thoughts and
inclinations turned in an increasing degree towards whatever
seemed capable of being instrumental to that object."
Autobiography 5: Unfortunately, truth is not obtained by variance
to "received opinion" but by the Socratic method
of DIALECTICAL INQUIRY, WHICH MILL FAILS TO APPLY!
Mill is just another RHETORICIAN !!! HA HA HA !!
"Great powers of generalization, rare ingenuity and subtlety, and
a wide perception of important and unobvious truths, served him
not for putting something better into the place of the worthless
heap of received opinions on the great subjects of thought, but
for proving to his own mind that the Church of England had known
everything from the first, and that all the truths on the ground
of which the Church and orthodoxy have been attacked (many of
which he saw as clearly as any one) are not only consistent with
the Thirty-nine articles, but are better understood and expressed
in those articles than by any one who rejects them. I have never
been able to find any other explanation of this, than by
attributing it to that timidity of conscience, combined with
original sensitiveness of temperament, which has so often driven
highly gifted men into Romanism from the need of a firmer support
than they can find in the independent conclusions of their own
judgment. Any more vulgar kind of timidity no one who knew
Maurice would ever think of imputing to him, even if he had not
given public proof of his freedom from it, by his ultimate
collision with some of the opinions commonly regarded as
orthodox, and by his noble origination of the Christian Socialist
movement. The nearest parallel to him, in a moral point of view,
is Coleridge, to whom, in merely intellectual power, apart from
poetical genius, I think him decidedly superior. At this time,
however, he might be described as a disciple of Coleridge, and
Sterling as a disciple of Coleridge and of him. The modifications
which were taking place in my old opinions gave me some points of
contact with them; and both Maurice and Sterling were of
considerable use to my development. With Sterling I soon became
very intimate, and was more attached to him than I have ever been
to any other man. He was indeed one of the most lovable of men.
His frank, cordial, affectionate, and expansive character; a love
of truth alike conspicuous in the highest things and the
humblest; a generous and ardent nature which threw itself with
impetuosity into the opinions it adopted, but was as eager to do
justice to the doctrines and the men it was opposed to, as to
make war on what it thought their errors; and an equal devotion
to the two cardinal points of Liberty and Duty, formed a
combination of qualities as attractive to me, as to all others
who knew him as well as I did. With his open mind and heart, he
found no difficulty in joining hands with me across the gulf
which as yet divided our opinions. He told me how he and others
had looked upon me (from hearsay information), as a "made" or
manufactured man, having had a certain impress of opinion stamped
on me which I could only reproduce; and what a change took place
in his feelings when he found, in the discussion on Wordsworth
and Byron, that Wordsworth, and all which that names implies,
"belonged" to me as much as to him and his friends."
Autobiography 5: Plato's "instructed Greeks" did NOT believe in
polytheism, but were DIALECTICAL INQUIRERS !!!
"During the organic periods (they said) mankind accept with firm
conviction some positive creed, claiming jurisdiction over all
their actions, and containing more or less of truth and
adaptation to the needs of humanity. Under its influence they
make all the progress compatible with the creed, and finally
outgrow it; when a period follows of criticism and negation, in
which mankind lose their old convictions without acquiring any
new ones, of a general or authoritative character, except the
conviction that the old are false. The period of Greek and Roman
polytheism, so long as really believed in by instructed Greeks
and Romans, was an organic period, succeeded by the critical or
sceptical period of the Greek philosophers. Another organic
period came in with Christianity. The corresponding critical
period began with the Reformation, has lasted ever since, still
lasts, and cannot altogether cease until a new organic period has
been inaugurated by the triumph of a yet more advanced creed.
These ideas, I knew, were not peculiar to the St. Simonians; on
the contrary, they were the general property of Europe, or at
least of Germany and France, but they had never, to my knowledge,
been so completely systematized as by these writers, nor the
distinguishing characteristics of a critical period so powerfully
set forth; for I was not then acquainted with Fichte's Lectures
on "the Characteristics of the Present Age." "
Autobiography 5: Truth is not obtained from a SOURCE, but obtained
by the METHOD OF DIALECTICAL INQUIRY !!!!
Mill wastes time with his "incubus" ....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"But the rediscovery was to me a discovery, giving me plenary
possession of the truths, not as traditional platitudes, but
fresh from their source; and it seldom failed to place them in
some new light, by which they were reconciled with, and seemed to
confirm while they modified, the truths less generally known
which lay in my early opinions, and in no essential part of which
I at any time wavered. All my new thinking only laid the
foundation of these more deeply and strongly while it often
removed misapprehension and confusion of ideas which had
perverted their effect. For example, during the later returns of
my dejection, the doctrine of what is called Philosophical
Necessity weighed on my existence like an incubus."
Autobiography 5: Mill wastes more time with animating poetry and
"deep impressions" attempting to find truth all
by himself WITHOUT THE METHOD OF DIALECTICS !!!
"Instead of my having been taught anything, in the first instance,
by Carlyle, it was only in proportion as I came to see the same
truths through media more suited to my mental constitution, that
I recognized them in his writings. Then, indeed, the wonderful
power with which he put them forth made a deep impression upon
me, and I was during a long period one of his most fervent
admirers; but the good his writings did me, was not as philosophy
to instruct, but as poetry to animate."
Autobiography 5: Socrates proves in the _Gorgias_ dialogue that the
rhetorical mode of reasoning (all by oneself) can
NOT discover truth (singular form). Mill FAILED
TO COMPREHEND THE SOCRATIC DIALOGUES !!!!!
A "key to perplexity" is simply more perplexity.
"I also resumed my speculations on this last subject, and puzzled
myself, like others before me, with the great paradox of the
discovery of new truths by general reasoning. As to the fact,
there could be no doubt. As little could it be doubted, that all
reasoning is resolvable into syllogisms, and that in every
syllogism the conclusion is actually contained and implied in the
premises. How, being so contained and implied, it could be new
truth, and how the theorems of geometry, so different in
appearance from the definitions and axioms, could be all
contained in these, was a difficulty which no one, I thought, had
sufficiently felt, and which, at all events, no one had succeeded
in clearing up. The explanations offered by Whately and others,
though they might give a temporary satisfaction, always, in my
mind, left a mist still hanging over the subject. At last, when
reading a second or third time the chapters on Reasoning in the
second volume of Dugald Stewart, interrogating myself on every
point, and following out, as far as I knew how, every topic of
thought which the book suggested, I came upon an idea of his
respecting the use of axioms in ratiocination, which I did not
remember to have before noticed, but which now, in meditating on
it, seemed to me not only true of axioms, but of all general
propositions whatever, and to be the key of the whole perplexity."
Autobiography 6: (Musings on a text called "Liberty" -- a certainty
obtained from two extremes yields "wise skepticism"
though it's difficult to understand how skepticism
could be "wise" when -ANYBODY- can be skeptical
without much effort.) Mill says "to say truth"
in this passage because perhaps he was -NOT-
speaking "truth" elsewhere?) Disingenuous !!!
"To be admitted into any degree of mental intercourse with a being
of these qualities, could not but have a most beneficial
influence on my development; though the effect was only gradual,
and many years elapsed before her mental progress and mine went
forward in the complete companionship they at last attained. The
benefit I received was far greater than any which I could hope to
give; though to her, who had at first reached her opinions by the
moral intuition of a character of strong feeling, there was
doubtless help as well as encouragement to be derived from one
who had arrived at many of the same results by study and
reasoning: and in the rapidity of her intellectual growth, her
mental activity, which converted everything into knowledge,
doubtless drew from me, as it did from other sources, many of its
materials. What I owe, even intellectually, to her, is in its
detail, almost infinite; of its general character a few words
will give some, though a very imperfect, idea. With those who,
like all the best and wisest of mankind, are dissatisfied with
human life as it is, and whose feelings are wholly identified
with its radical amendment, there are two main regions of
thought. One is the region of ultimate aims; the constituent
elements of the highest realizable ideal of human life. The other
is that of the immediately useful and practically attainable. In
both these departments, I have acquired more from her teaching,
than from all other sources taken together. And, to say truth, it
is in these two extremes principally, that real certainty lies.
My own strength lay wholly in the uncertain and slippery
intermediate region, that of theory, or moral and political
science: respecting the conclusions of which, in any of the forms
in which I have received or originated them, whether as political
economy, analytic psychology, logic, philosophy of history, or
anything else, it is not the least of my intellectual obligations
to her that I have derived from her a wise scepticism, which,
while it has not hindered me from following out the honest
exercise of my thinking faculties to whatever conclusions might
result from it, has put me on my guard against holding or
announcing these conclusions with a degree of confidence which
the nature of such speculations does not warrant, and has kept my
mind not only open to admit, but prompt to welcome and eager to
seek, even on the questions on which I have most meditated, any
prospect of clearer perceptions and better evidence. I have often
received praise, which in my own right I only partially deserve,
for the greater practicality which is supposed to be found in my
writings, compared with those of most thinkers who have been
equally addicted to large generalizations. The writings in which
this quality has been observed, were not the work of one mind,
but of the fusion of two, one of them as pre-eminently practical
in its judgments and perceptions of things present, as it was
high and bold in its anticipations for a remote futurity."
Autobiography 6: Again, Mill's "truth" occurring in "portions" ...
"Instantly a number of other writers took up the tone: I believe
there was a portion of truth in what Lord Durham, soon after,
with polite exaggeration, said to me-that to this article might
be ascribed the almost triumphal reception which he met with on
his arrival in England."
Autobiography 7: Here Mill criticized the "obligation of justifying
itself by reason" for "intellectual support" IN
GENERAL, irrespective of whether it defends "false
doctrines and bad institutions." So he puts the
cart before the horse in -CLAIMING- doctrines as
false, or institutions as bad, WITHOUT APPLYING
THE TEST OF DIALECTICS as was Socratic method !!!
"The notion that truths external to the mind may be known by
intuition or consciousness, independently of observation and
experience, is, I am persuaded, in these times, the great
intellectual support of false doctrines and bad institutions. By
the aid of this theory, every inveterate belief and every intense
feeling, of which the origin is not remembered, is enabled to
dispense with the obligation of justifying itself by reason, and
is erected into its own all-sufficient voucher and justification."
Autobiography 7: Socratic philosophy does NOT "take sides" but is
a METHOD of investigating (rhetorical) arguments.
Philosophy IN GENERAL (other than dialectics) does
NOT necessary "combat" prejudice. Example: one
might regard their own philosophy of prejudice as
a philosophy. Mill's thinking is *-UNFOCUSED-* .
"In attempting to clear up the real nature of the evidence of
mathematical and physical truths, the "System of Logic" met the
intuitive philosophers on ground on which they had previously
been deemed unassailable; and gave its own explanation, from
experience and association, of that peculiar character of what
are called necessary truths, which is adduced as proof that their
evidence must come from a deeper source than experience. Whether
this has been done effectually, is still sub judice; and even
then, to deprive a mode of thought so strongly rooted in human
prejudices and partialities, of its mere speculative support,
goes but a very little way towards overcoming it; but though only
a step, it is a quite indispensable one; for since, after all,
prejudice can only be successfully combated by philosophy, no way
can really be made against it permanently until it has been shown
not to have philosophy on its side."
Autobiography 7: Here Mill admits to devising a "system of thought"
which can only be that of non-dialectical rhetoric.
DIALECTICS IS NOT A "SYSTEM" BUT A METHOD !!!!
Again, dialectical philosophy is NOT CONCERNED with
"taking sides" but in applying a METHOD OF INQUIRY!
Dialectical philosophy is not concerned with being
or not being "intelligible" or "repulsive." It is
unconcerned with "attractiveness" because it aims
at DISCOVERY OF TRUTH, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
"I had, in consequence, marked out this as a sphere of usefulness
in which I was under a special obligation to make myself active:
the more so, as the acquaintance I had formed with the ideas of
the Coleridgians, of the German thinkers, and of Carlyle, all of
them fiercely opposed to the mode of thought in which I had been
brought up, had convinced me that along with much error they
possessed much truth, which was veiled from minds otherwise
capable of receiving it by the transcendental and mystical
phraseology in which they were accustomed to shut it up, and from
which they neither cared, nor knew how, to disengage it; and I
did not despair of separating the truth from the error, and
expressing it in terms which would be intelligible and not
repulsive to those on my own side in philosophy. Thus prepared,
it will easily be believed that when I came into close
intellectual communion with a person of the most eminent
faculties, whose genius, as it grew and unfolded itself in
thought, continually struck out truths far in advance of me, but
in which I could not, as I had done in those others, detect any
mixture of error, the greatest part of my mental growth consisted
in the assimilation of those truths, and the most valuable part
of my intellectual work was in building the bridges and clearing
the paths which connected them with my general system of
thought."
Autobiography 7: Once again Mill falls into the error of conceiving
"truths" (sic!) as static rhetorical products of
his personal musing, rather than the "truth" which
is an -ONGOING- project of inquiry. Truth has NO
DEEP FOUNDATIONS. It is simply the result of the
PROCESS OF DIALECTICAL INQUIRY !!!!
"In both these points, as in many others, she benefited me as much
by keeping me right where I was right, as by leading me to new
truths, and ridding me of errors. My great readiness and
eagerness to learn from everybody, and to make room in my
opinions for every new acquisition by adjusting the old and the
new to one another, might, but for her steadying influence, have
seduced me into modifying my early opinions too much. She was in
nothing more valuable to my mental development than by her just
measure of the relative importance of different considerations,
which often protected me from allowing to truths I had only
recently learnt to see, a more important place in my thoughts
than was properly their due. The "Liberty" is likely to survive
longer than anything else that I have written (with the possible
exception of the "Logic"), because the conjunction of her mind
with mine has rendered it a kind of philosophic text-book of a
single truth, which the changes progressively taking place in
modern society tend to bring out into ever stronger relief: the
importance, to man and society of a large variety in types of
character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand
itself in innumerable and conflicting directions. Nothing can
better show how deep are the foundations of this truth, than the
great impression made by the exposition of it at a time which, to
superficial observation, did not seem to stand much in need of
such a lesson."
Autobiography 7: Philosophy is -NOT- divided into "two schools" or
any number of "schools" for that matter, but is
directed toward a DIALECTICAL ACTIVITY which must
produce a winner and loser in any gamed contest
over a "draughts" checkerboard (or Chess, Go, etc.)
THE OUTCOME IS UNAMBIGUOUS. Once again Mill is
"reasoning" based upon his -feelings- rather than
by social interaction via DIALECTICS.
"Now, the difference between these two schools of philosophy, that
of intuition, and that of Experience and Association, is not a
mere matter of abstract speculation; it is full of practical
consequences, and lies at the foundation of all the greatest
differences of practical opinion in an age of progress. The
practical reformer has continually to demand that changes be made
in things which are supported by powerful and widely-spread
feelings, or to question the apparent necessity and
indefeasibleness of established facts; and it is often an
indispensable part of his argument to show, how those powerful
feelings had their origin, and how those facts came to seem
necessary and indefeasible. There is therefore a natural
hostility between him and a philosophy which discourages the
explanation of feelings and moral facts by circumstances and
association, and prefers to treat them as ultimate elements of
human nature; a philosophy which is addicted to holding up
favourite doctrines as intuitive truths, and deems intuition to
be the voice of Nature and of God, speaking with an authority
higher than that of our reason. In particular, I have long felt
that the prevailing tendency to regard all the marked
distinctions of human character as innate, and in the main
indelible, and to ignore the irresistible proofs that by far the
greater part of those differences, whether between individuals,
races, or sexes, are such as not only might but naturally would
be produced by differences in circumstances, is one of the chief
hindrances to the rational treatment of great social questions,
and one of the greatest stumbling blocks to human improvement.
This tendency has its source in the intuitional metaphysics which
characterized the reaction of the nineteenth century against the
eighteenth, and it is a tendency so agreeable to human indolence,
as well as to conservative interests generally, that unless
attacked at the very root, it is sure to be carried to even a
greater length than is really justified by the more moderate
forms of the intuitional philosophy."
Conclusion: Mill's "philosophy" is a mishmash of continually
unresolved opinions where nothing is ever decided, and no decisive
resolutions are forthcoming. His unconscionable abandonment of
dialectics leads Mill (and those who follow him) instead toward
"anti-philosophy" and false multiplicity of truth(s), and failure
to find common-ground, and failure to adjudicate opinions. Plato's
philosophers regarded opinion as the -LOWEST- form of expression.
Mill tries to elevate the status of "opinions" by giving them the
credence they DO NOT DESERVE. Philosophy seeks rapid RESOLUTION
of ALL CONFLICTS, not the ceaseless quibble of OPINIONS !!!!!
I'd continue further but am quite certain Mill has nothing further
to offer, unless somebody can present an engaging counterargument.
======-- fin --
jum...@my-deja.com
> From: Pyro 1488 <Vald...@email.msn.com>
> You wrote earlier that the biggest threat to mankind is nuclear
> weapons. I disagree. I think a far worse outcome than the
> obliteration of all humans from this planet would be to have a
> mediocre monorace throughout the globe. If miscegenation continues
> at the pace it is going, there will be a race producing virtually
> no Mozarts, Shakespeares, Socrates', etc. The standard of living
> virtually everywhere will drop significantly unless some eugenics
> initiatives are quickly and effectively implemented. Even then,
> there would be no diversity -- just darkies everywhere. Everyone
> with boring brown eyes and black hair. Everyone. Yuck. If this
> is what we are to look forward to, I hope there is a nuclear war.
> There is such a thing as dying in dignity, you know. Death isn't
> always the worst case scenario, except for mindless cowards. Think
> deeply about this.
The notion of "no life" being preferable to "some life" identifies
*-YOU-* as the INSANE "mad-scientist," completely out-of-character
with TK's tactics of -selective- targeting, WHICH HE RENOUNCED AFTER
PUBLICATION OF HIS MANIFESTO. Even with eugenics we aren't going to
have "another" Mozart, Shakespeare, or Socrates, because these were
UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS, just as we all are, just as individuals will be
in the future IN ANY CASE. The combinatorial complexity of genetic
code renders reduplication of previous genetic uniqueness practically
impossible, for all intents and purposes, with probalitity *-ZERO-*.
Unless you could disturb a burial-site and retrieve active DNA for
"cloning" another Mozart. The "cloning" proposition doesn't resolve,
however, the present-day eugenics issues still in controversy. You
may THINK eugenics is simple, but it's not, involving many millions
and billions of phenotype attributes NOT FOUND in pure form in ANY
example phenotype. Nobody is perfect, even Mozart, Shakespeare, or
Socrates. If there are "darkies everywhere" without diversity then
*-WHO-* is going to experience that alleged "boredom and yuckiness?"
If you're claiming that "death isn't always the worst case scenario"
then what's so BAD if the "white race" dies out with dignity? The
future individuals STILL HAVE Mozart, Shakespeare, and Socrates
EVEN WITHOUT THE WHITE RACE. If Mozart, Shakespeare, and Socrates
were such GREAT INDIVIDUALS then why would we need clones of them?
The problem with "nuclear war" is that human beings would not only
exterminate themselves but they would also exterminate OTHER LIFE on
this planet, life forms which had NOTHING to do with the invention
of nuclear weapons and CANNOT RIGHTFULLY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for
their creation and proliferation. If (white raced) human beings have
the wrong genome, with BRAINS TOO BIG, in building dangerous nuclear
weapons then perhaps ONLY the (white raced) human beings should make
their exit, WITHOUT DESTROYING ALL OF THE OTHER LIFE ON THIS PLANET !
TK -identifies- those (white raced) "inventors of pollutive industry"
as the CAUSE OF MALAISE upon this planet. Nowhere does TK mention
the word "Jew" in his Manifesto. He's talking about ANYBODY with
BRAINS TOO BIG as exploitative BLIGHT upon this world's environment !
> Like I said, you need to be humbled, Jumangi. You referred to
> Socrates as "disingenous" and to John Stuart Mill as "ignorant."
Can you recall my argument for -WHY- Socrates was "disingenuous?"
Can you recall my remarks for -WHY- J.S.Mill's little "aphorism"
was "ignorant?" ARGUE THE ISSUES LIKE A MAN, AND NOT A TURTLE !!!
I find Dworkin indefensible, but my point consists of observing that
Dworkin unlike Brand was NOT under scrutiny as University Professor.
Apples vs. incomparable oranges, NOT JUST A BOWL OF FRUIT !!!
- regards
- jb
==================================================================
Re: Why did the Germans kill Jews?
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-dejanews.com>
Date: 1999/02/28
Forum: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
In article <7akf9r$6ge$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
md...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <78lp0h$1in2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> archi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> David R. Smith wrote: "As I recall from reading Toland's "Adolf
>> Hitler" 15 years ago, he couldn't find any clear cause or abrupt
>> beginning of Hitler's hatred of the Jews. But the Jewish family
>> doctor was unable to prevent Adolf's mother from dying of a disease
>> (cancer?), and Toland wondered if Hitler resented that." *****
>> Related to this, I was wondering if any had read _The Jew of Linz_
>> by Kimberly Cornish. While I have not read it, the book apparently
>> identifies the philosopher Wittgenstein and Hitler in a photograph
>> as children,
>
> That photograph is autentic, but it doesn't show Wittgenstein
> anywhere. At that time both Wittgenstein and Hitler were about
> 15 years old. The boy "identified" as Wittgenstein by Mr
> Cornish looks at most 11 or 12.
>
>> and advocates that Hitler's antisemitism arose as a result of
>> their childhood quarrels; Cornish mentions in the book's dust
>> jacket that the description of the jewish child Hitler describes in
>> Mein Kampf as 'the origin' of his antisemitism matches Wittgenstein
>> "in every detail." I was interested in hearing the groups opinion
>> on this book. Thanks, Arch.
>
> There isn't the slightest evidence for Mr Cornish's claims.
> The idea of the Holocaust being ultimately caused by a quarrel
> between two schoolboys may sound appealing for a cheap novel, but
> it has no historical foundation whatsoever. It's true that both
> Hitler and Wittgenstein attended the Realschule in Linz in 1904-5,
> but they were two years apart from each other, and there isn't the
> tiniest scrap of evidence to suggest that they ever met. Besides,
> all well-known biographers of Hitler (Bullock, Fest, Kershaw) agree
> that he developed his antisemitism at a much later stage. And of
> course there is no evidence whatsoever that Wittgenstein was _ever_
> a Soviet spy, let alone that he "recruited" Philby, Burgess and
> others. All of Cornish's "evidence" is either based on distortions
> or on outright fabrication.
If Mr Di Innocentis reads the wartime OSS report by Walter Langer, a
Jewish psychiatrist commissioned to produce a study ot the mind of
Adolf Hitler ("The Mind of Adolf Hitler", Book Club Associates, by
arrangement with Secker & Warburg, London 1973) he will find the
photograph amidst others following on page 95. In Langer's book, the
caption on the photograph of the school- children, one of whom was
Hitler, reads "At the Linz High School, aged 14...". Langer's
evidence, then, is that the children in the photograph were 14 and NOT
"At most 11 or 12". Since Hitler and Wittgenstein were born in April
1899, the photograph must date to circa 1904. Now if a photograph of
Hitler and Wittgenstein an arm's length apart, that passed forensic
examination as such in a police laboratory doesn't count as evidence
that Hitler knew Wittgenstein, I'm rather unsure what Mr de Innocentis
would count as evidence. Argument becomes rather difficult if every
fact one adduces is dismissed with the snide "Oh THAT'S not EVIDENCE!"
In a state school of 315 students of predominantly working class
origins, Wittgenstein was the stuttering, homosexual son of a
billionaire. How likely is it that Hitler was ignorant of the presence
of such an individual? Hitler wanted to be an artist. How likely is it
that he was ignorant of the Wittgenstein family's role as the great
support of Gustav Klimt - whose portrait of Wittgenstein's sister,
incidently, was exhibited in Linz, or of Joseph Joachim's
(Wittgenstein's uncle) leadership of the anti-Wagnerian forces in
Germany? Despite the Hitler biographers, we now know from Kubiczek's
testimony that Hitler was anti-Semitic in 1905. (See my book for
references!) This is before his Vienna visits. If Hitler's first
recorded use of "Saujud!" at school (which we know from Keplinger's
testimony was directed at a boy of Jewish origins but not officially
Jewish) was directed at Wittgenstein, then Wittgenstein was the first
recorded object of Hitler's hate. Unless an earlier cause turns up -
and we know from "Mein Kampf" that Hitler's first acquaintance with a
Jew was at the Realschule - then his encounter with Wittgenstein was
the originating occasion of Hitler becoming anti-Semitic. None of this
is "distortion". It is a simple matter of accumulating facts for
judgement. On the matter of the Russian recruitment, I would ask Mr Di
Innocentis why he thinks the Russians offered Wittgenstein the Chair
in Philosophy at Lenin's university in 1935? We are talking of
Stalin's Russia here and the time of the great purges. No Soviet
citizen over whom Stalin lacked ideological control was allowed to
LIVE, let alone be offered chairs in ideologically important subjects.
This fact alone establishes that he was working for the Russians. The
additional facts I document in my book that his students recruited
Burgess and Blunt, and that the spy Watson was his student are merely
additional to the Chair in Kazan offer. If I am right, Wittgenstein
was THE great hero of the Shoah, for his activities at Cambridge
resulted in Stalin acquiring the technology that made the the Enigma
decryptions possibles. That is; Wittgenstein's efforts made possible
the re-conquest of the Ukraine by the Red Army and the subsequent
liberation of the extermination camps in Poland. It is indeed a great
story, and the unfolding to public view of Wittgenstein's sacrifices
should not be hindered by ignorant, uninformed and unsustained comment
from such as Mr de Innocentis.
Kimberley Cornish.
===================================================================
Re: Wittgenstein as the souce of Hitler's anti-Semitism.
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-dejanews.com>
Date: 1999/04/03
Forum: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
1. The dispute was not about whether Langer identified Wittgenstein in
the photograph, but over the age of the children in it. You asserted
they were "11 or 12". I merely pointed out that the photograph is
dated in Langer's book to when Hitler was 14. 2. In my book "The Jew
of Linz" I gave the names of the police personnel who did the
investigation of the photograph. When you say "apart from you, no-one
else has identified Wittgenstein on that picture", I stress that the
investigation was handled by an Australian police photographic
laboratory; not by me personally. Wittgenstein's presence in the
photograph near Hitler has in fact been confirmed by a number of
qualified people. 3. Hitler most certainly was at the school in 1904.
See John Toland's book "Adolf Hitler", page 22 for one confirming
reference, or Franz Jetzinger's book "Hitler's Youth" (Hutchinson,
London 1958, p.66) which also gives his school grades for that year.)
Wittgenstein in any case attended from 1903 to 1906 (See Monk's
Wittgenstein biography, p.15.) There is no doubt Wittgenstein and
Hitler overlapped in the school year of attendance 1903/4. 4. The
Realschule was a state school and predominantly working class though
it is true that Hitler's father was not working class. In stating that
a school is "working class" I am not committed to stating that ALL its
students were working class. That Wittgenstein was from a billionaire
family is precisely what made him stand out from the others "as if
blown in from another world", as his sister described his schooldays.
(See his sister's account in the volume edited by Rush Rhees,
"Recollections of Wittgenstein"). The Realschule was designed to
prepare boys for a technical career, not for university which was the
province of a differently designed school, the gymnasium. Now
Wittgenstein's father, Karl Wittgenstein virtually owned Austria. To
think Hitler was unaware of his presence is like thinking students in
a modern state school of 300 students would be unaware of the presence
amongst them of Bill Gates' daughter. (Djavid Salehi at the University
of Passau Wittgenstein website, has in any case recorded Karl
Wittgenstein's financial contributions to the school.) 5. Your denial
of Hitler's knowledge of contemporary art (which in this context means
the Austrian Secession) is rather risky, it seems to me. There are a
number of reputable studies of Hitler detailing his artistic
interests. Werner Maser's book is as good as any. There is no doubt
that Hitler frequented Art galleries all his life and had an
encyclopedic knowledge of Art. Whether he had artistic taste, of
course, is another matter. 6. Now when you ask "Who was Keplinger?" I
rather wonder if you have actually read my book, or if you are
engaging in public dispute in ignorance of one of the stronger points
in favour of its main thesis. Keplinger was a student who attended the
Realschule with Hitler and who was interviewed by Franz Jetzinger.
(See ref. point 3, above, page 71.) Jetzinger reports Keplinger as
saying "Once Hitler shouted at another boy, "DU SAUJUD!" ("You filthy
Jew!") The boy concerned was staggered; he knew nothing of his Jewish
ancestry at the time and only discovered it years later ?" (This
reference, incidentally, suffices to establish that Hitler quite
certainly was anti-Semitic at the Realschule. It also ties in with
Monk's report on p. 5. that one of Hermann Wittgenstein's daughters
did not know the Wittgenstein family were Jewish and had to be
informed they were "pur sang".) Wittgenstein's biographer Brian
McGuinness comments on the use of "Saujud!" at the school on page 51.
of his Wittgenstein biography, but fails to note that it was Hitler
who used it. My book contains a little statistical material allowing
us to estimate the number of boys one could expect "of Jewish descent"
but not officially Jewish in a provincial school containing 15 Jews.
The estimate is one. (See "The Jew of Linz", pp. 10&37.) 7. You state
of my claim that Hitler's "first acquaintance with a Jew was at the
Realschule" that "This is false". Surely you must find Hitler's own
words in "Mein Kampf" a difficulty? He wrote, "At the Realschule, to
be sure, I did meet one Jewish boy who was treated by all of us with
caution?". The "to be sure" rider shows that Hitler was forced to
admit it, because when "Mein Kampf" was written there were still
students alive who could report on the school interaction. Certainly
it would have been more convincing for Hitler to attribute his
anti-Semitism to "scientific" observations of Jews in Vienna rather
than to a schoolboy quarrel, hence the dissembling, but it is clear
the original Jew reluctantly referred to here, attended the
Realschule. 8. That Wittgenstein hoped to become a Soviet citizen and
live on a collective farm is not disputed by any biographer of
Wittgenstein. He visited Russia with precisely that end in mind. I did
not assert that Wittgenstein actually became a Soviet citizen. I also
note that you did not answer my question about why you thought the
Russians offered a non-Marxist the chair in Philosophy at Lenin's
university (in 1935 for goodness' sake, at the time of the Great
Purge!) if they had no ideological control over him. 9. Documentation
that Wittgenstein's students David Haden-Guest and Alister Watson
recruited Burgess and Blunt to Communism is provided in my book. The
sources here are the testimony in Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher".
("Spycatcher, pp. 251-259, particularly p.253. "' I learned my Marxist
theory at Alister's feet' Blunt told me." And John Costello's book,
"Mask of Treachery", p.203.) 10. Your point about Hitler and
Wittgenstein being born in 1889 and not 1899 is, of course, correct.
My defence is a typo, but you definitely get a tick for that one. 11.
On the spelling "Kubiczek" or "Kubizek", nothing hinges upon it,
though I point out that there are variations in renderings of European
names into English. "Schroder" and "Gothe" are often Anglicised to
"Schroeder" and "Goethe" because of the umlaut. The German "z" is
pronounced as "tz" is pronounced in English. "Czechoslovakia" in
German starts with a "T". It is still not uncommon to see Hitler's
first name spelled "Adolph". Let me grant you the point, but I will
still call the Italian capital "Rome", not "Roma" and the Polish
capital "Warsaw", not Warzawa". I will indifferently read Tolstoy,
Tolstoi, Dostoyevski, Dostoievski or Dostoieffsky. Does it really
matter for anything more than a debating point?
Sincerely, Kimberley Cornish.
=============================================================
Re: Wittgenstein as the souce of Hitler's anti-Semitism.
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-dejanews.com>
Date: 1999/04/05
Forum: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
The book contains a number of theses, connected but independent, which
I shall summarize as follows:
1. Wittgenstein was the young Jew referred to in "Mein Kampf" as the
first step in the chain of causes Hitler traced out as leading to his
becoming anti- Semitic. (The details of the precipitating event are
provided in an appendix to the French edition of the book, translated
as "Wittgenstein contre Hitler: Le Juif de Linz" - Presses
Universitaires de France, and as fragments in "Der Jude aus Linz" from
the German publisher Ullstein. Both of these are significantly
different from the English edition and from each other.) There are a
number of passages in "Mein Kampf" that sustain my interpretation, as
does the fact that Wittgenstein suffered severe persecution at school
whereas the other 15 students officially registered as Jews (unlike
the Catholic Wittgenstein) did not. Wittgenstein formed a habit of
making "confessions" to his fellow students, which explains Hitler's
complaint about the Jew of Linz's "lack of discretion". The
Wittgenstein family background as court-Jews explains Hitler's
complaint against court-Jews and the nobility. There is not space here
to marshall all the evidence, even in summary, and I must refer you to
my book for further details. 2. Wittgenstein, in fact, was the only
cause of Hitler becoming anti-Semitic. 3. Wittgenstein's uncle, Joseph
Joachim was the cause of Richard Wagner becoming anti-Semitic. 4.
Franz Liszt's affair with Princess Caroline Wittgenstein was the cause
of Liszt's daughter, the future Mrs Cosima Wagner becoming
anti-Semitic. (Princess Wittgenstein was the daughter-in-law of Prince
Ludwig Adolf Wittgenstein who defeated Napoleon on the Beresina and
succeeded Kutuzov as commander of the Russian army and head of the 5
member ruling council of the Russian empire.) 5. Joachim's alliance
with Brahms against Wagner was the cause of the revival of modern
German anti-Semitism through Wagner's paper "On Judaism in Music." The
"music-Jews" against whom Wagner railed, were the Wittgensteins. 6.
The growth of the Nazi movement in Munich and Hitler's attempted
takeover of Bavaria in 1923 alarmed Wittgenstein, who wanted to flee
to the Soviet Union with Paul Engelmann then. He was persuaded that in
order to fight Hitler, he should instead work for the Comintern, which
directed him to Cambridge. 7. At Cambridge, he was the mysterious
recruiter ultimately responsible for the conversion of Philby,
Burgess, Maclean and Blunt, not to mention David Haden- Guest, John
Cornford and Julian Bell. He wanted to become a Soviet citizen in 1935
and visited Russia to that end, but was again persuaded to stay at
Cambridge. 8. Through his recruits and his conversations with Alan
Turing and others such as Oliver Strachey, who worked at Bletchley
Park, Wittgenstein passed the technology for Enigma decrypts to
Stalin, which technology made possible the Red Army victories on the
eastern front. 9. The re-conquest of the Ukraine by the Red Army, the
advances into Poland and the liberation of the pitiful survivors of
the extermination camps were ultimately due to Wittgenstein's work at
Cambridge. 10. The Jew of Linz - the self-same Jew who was the
precipitating cause of Hitler's anti-Semitism, brought about the fall
of the Reich and forced Hitler to blow his brains out.
The Shoah, that is, had a hero who actually achieved something, unlike
say, the Warsaw Ghetto fighters, whose heroism consisted in the fact
that they died with guns in their hands. Wittgenstein's life was a
modern version of the book of Esther. My book also connects Hitler's
interest in the Occult with Wittgenstein's early mysticism, but this
too, is not something that allows of summary.
Sincerely, Kimberley Cornish.
===============================================================
Re: Wittgenstein as the source of Hitler's anti-Semitism.
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-dejanews.com>
Date: 1999/04/08
Forum: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Before publicly intimating that I am not a reliable historian, it
would be more seemly to actually have read my book first. Then perhaps
I could address particular issues, rather than shadow-box at what is
really only a free-floating, generalised dismissal of a genuinely new
thesis. That Hitler used "Saujud" at school on one occasion as
Keplinger reported from personal experience, was accepted by
Jetzinger, who was a reputable researcher. I have already provided the
source documentation for this. You perhaps might think that a student
- who happens to have been Adolf Hitler - might call another student
of Jewish descent "Pig-Jew" without being anti-Semitic. You are
welcome to that thesis. My own bets are otherwise.
Sincerely Kimberley Cornish.
=============================================================
Re: Wittgenstein as the source of Hitler's anti-Semitism.
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-dejanews.com>
Date: 1999/04/17
Forum: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
An admission that you haven't read the book, in view of your earlier
sweeping dismissals, is rather extraordinary, isn't it? Since Kershaw
(though he lists Jetzinger's book in his bibliography) doesn't even
mention or discuss the crucial testimony of Keplinger that Jetzinger
uncovered, I'm not clear what you mean when you say that he "takes
apart any such argument as you have presented and turns it on its
little pink ear". WHICH of my arguments, precisely, and where in
Kershaw's book does he do this? The fact is that he entirely ignores
the only surviving testimony of a contemporary fellow Realschule
student whose evidence is that Hitler WAS anti-Semitic at the
Realschule!
Instead of the general dismissive reference to "any such argument" and
talk about "little pink ears", it would surely be more productive in a
public discussion to address particular issues. So how about (if you
genuinely want to continue the discussion, such as it is) that you
first read what I have to say, and then list what you think are its
difficulties?
On your question about reviews, generally speaking the English ones
have been mixed, the French ones favourable and the German ones
negative. Rather than have an author pick and choose the favourable
ones for his own purposes, you might care to look them up for
yourself.
On your comment about the southern US redneck, even if racism is
generally absorbed as a social phenomenon, you are not asserting, are
you, that NO U.S. racist became racist because of an interaction with
a particular black individual? My thesis is indeed that Hitler became
anti-Semitic through contact with a particular individual. You are
quite correct that "this seems extremely unlikely". Its only virtue is
that it is true.
Sincerely, Kimberley Cornish.
=============================================================
Re: Wittgenstein as the souce of Hitler's anti-Semitism.
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-dejanews.com>
Date: 1999/04/22
Forum: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Dear Mark Steirer, He was certainly offensive to HITLER - which is all
that I am required to establish, regardless of whether he had the same
effect upon others. At Cambridge, Wittgenstein was also offensive to
some of the dons, but then he was also charismatically attractive to
others. (That he was a Jew - at least in his own eyes - was a fact he
kept hidden at Cambridge until his "confession" that he was Jewish to
G.E. Moore, Fania Pascal and Rowland Hutt.) The crucial question then,
is, "What was the particular nature of the Realschule interaction that
aroused such loathing and hate in Hitler?" Let me stress first that
whatever it might have been, nothing justifies what Hitler made of it.
Let me doubly stress that pointing to aspects of Wittgenstein's
character as its possible explanation should in no way be construed as
trying "justify" the Holocaust (as if it ever could be justified!)
What we are investigating here are effects within the psychopathic
mind of Hitler; not "justifications". That said, what can we deduce
about the crucial interaction? It is tempting to try to link it to
Wittgenstein's homosexuality, but my own feeling is that this was not
the prime causative factor. First, we know that it involved a betrayal
of a confidence, for Wittgenstein wrote during the Great War, "I am
sold and betrayed now just as I was long ago at school in Linz". We
know also that besides homosexuality, Hitler did connect Jewishness
with particular sexual perversions. In his letter to Adolf Gemlich
dated September 16th 1919, he attributed Jewish characteristics to
thousands of years of incest. Hitler also described Vienna as "the
manifestation of incest". (See the French edition of my book for all
sources). Waite, in his study of Hitler's psychology, writes of
Hitler:
The specific accusations he projected onto Jews are particularly
revealing. In public speech and private conversation, his chief
charge against them was that they were guilty of dark and evil
sexual practices. Hitler made Jews directly responsible for
almost every crime known to man, but “never did he become so
emotional, so arbitrary and so absurd” as when he fulminated
against Jewish sexual perversions. Jews are the kind of people,
for example, who have sex with their mothers.
My book suggests that these claims, while obviously absurd of Jews in
general, might yet answer to some factual experience in Hitler's life.
The final chapter of the French edition of my book assembles the
evidence that Witgenstein was a victim of mother-son incest, that he
was later psycho-analyzed by the Viennese psychiatrist Alfred Adler
and that fragments of this analysis are in the public domain. Adler's
detailed case papers, however, are under embargo in the Library of
Congress until 2007. Adler's patient (written about in Adler's book
"The Neurotic Constitution" and in a paper by Adler delivered before
Freud and Jung) was in the habit of making confessions to his fellow
students, was of Jewish descent yet not Jewish, suffered persecution
at school, came from the very pinnacle of wealth and influence in
Viennese society, had Russian connections and interpreted his dreams
in terms of the Book of Numbers, just as did the young Wittgenstein.
This is not the place, however, to present what is really a
book-length case, and again I refer any interested reader to my book,
"Wittgenstein contre Hitler: Le Juif de Linz".
Sincerely, Kimberley Cornish.
==============================================================
Re: Wittgenstein, Hitler, Stalin
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-dejanews.com>
Date: 1999/05/24
Forum: alt.philosophy
In article <vcb3e0x...@sm.luth.se>,>
You write "There is no story about a famous person that is `provably
untrue'. Nobody can show that it is `provably untrue' that Bill Clinton
struck a deal with aliens from outer space to further his political
career."
What on earth do you mean? If this sort of thing isn't provably untrue
you are simply a sceptic about the very possibility of history. Do you
think Lincoln had three arms, perhaps?
Historical research is a matter of assembling evidence. If you haven't
read the book you're criticising, you really ought to STATE that when
you offer public comment. "The book is a load of drivel, but I haven't
read it" is fair comment, but then it would seem to say more about you
than about the thesis you are criticising.
===========================================================
Re: Wittgenstein, Hitler, Stalin
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-deja.com>
Date: 1999/05/27
Forum: alt.philosophy
In article <vcb90ad...@sm.luth.se>,
Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> in reply to
k_corn...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> "I mean that people will believe these stories if they choose,
> whatever the evidence, and that absurd stories of this sort will
> always live on
There is a bit of problem here though, isn't there? How do you
distinguish between obvious drivel and what isn't obvious drivel, but
might appear so superficially? Historical examples abound: Alfred
Wegener and Continental Drift, Robert Goddard and the possibility of
rocket engines working in a vacuum, Charles Darwin and evolutionary
theory, Gregor Mendel and particulate inheritance etc. All these were
dismissed as drivel and yet ultimately won the day. The example you
likened the Hitler/Wittgenstein thesis to - outer space aliens aiding
Clinton - can hardly count as a reasonable comparison. How about you
state WHY the Hitler/Wittgenstein thesis IN PARTICULAR is "obvious
drivel" rather than dismissing it by false analogies without bothering
to consider the evidence? Let me add here that Hitler had 15 Jewish
school companions in 1903/4 together with one boy of Jewish descent but
not officially Jewish, whom (as we know from Keplinger's testimony) he
abused with the epithet "Saujud". That is, there are 16 individuals,
one of whom bore the name "Ludwig Wittgenstein" who count as candidates
for the boy Hitler mentions in "Mein Kampf" as the origin of his anti-
Semitism. We also know from Wittgenstein's biographers that someone at
the school used the epithet "Saujud" of Wittgenstein in particular.
Sceptical historians can take comfort, however, from the fact that
Torkel Franzen - who hasn't bothered to read the book - knows that it
is all obvious drivel and that there is nothing to investigate here.
=============================================================
Re: Wittgenstein, Hitler, Stalin
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-deja.com>
Date: 1999/05/27
Forum: alt.philosophy
In article <vcb4sky...@sm.luth.se>,
Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote:
> k_corn...@my-deja.com writes: My point was precisely that the
opponents of Wegener, Darwin, Mendel and Goddard - despite using their
best judgement, simply WERE ignorant people.
I am comforted by your admission that dismissing the story as obvious
drivel "did not amount to any sort of argument". What DOES it amount to
exactly? Are you saying that it is not based on anything that would
support an argument? If so, it would appear to be mere prejudice, and
the fact that you are using your best judgement would reflect nothing
more than the fact that Torkel Franzen's best judgement isn't worth
very much at all. The point is that if you don't want to assess an
historical thesis rationally, please butt out and don't use dismissive
epithets in public discussion of it.
>
==============================================================
Re: Wittgenstein, Hitler, Stalin
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-deja.com>
Date: 1999/05/31
Forum: alt.philosophy
In article <vcbyai9...@sm.luth.se>,
Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote:
> k_corn...@my-deja.com writes:
>To Torkel Franzen:
> Sigh. Still nothing in your reply about what supports your dismissal
of the Hitler/Wittgenstein thesis as obvious drivel. Nothing about the
facts of the case - just snappy one-liners. ANYONE can argue
interminably - you're doing a pretty good job yourself. The question is
whether you can argue REASONABLY. So, how about you carefully copy and
complete the following sentence: THE THESIS THAT HITLER'S SCHOOL-FELLOW
LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN IS REFERRED TO IN "MEIN KAMPF" AS THE YOUNG JEW WHOM
NONE OF THE OTHER BOYS TRUSTED AND WAS THE ORIGINATING CAUSE OF HITLER"S
ANTI-SEMITISM IS OBVIOUS DRIVEL BECAUSE ..."
On the other hand, you might just decide to write a few more lines about
flat-earthers and believers in aliens advising Clinton. It will probably
make you feel good, but it will accomplish nothing whatever in advancing
the cause of uncovering the origins of the Holocaust. Over to you.
==========================================================
Re: Wittgenstein, Hitler, Stalin
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-deja.com>
Date: 1999/06/17
Forum: alt.philosophy
In article <vcbyai9...@sm.luth.se>,
Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote of the thesis that
Wittgenstein was the occasion of Hitler becoming anti-Semitic that it
was "obvious drivel". Here is a summary of one argument in its favour.
The following is a list of ALL halachically Jewish students at the
Realschule in Hitler's final year 1903/4.
1. Friedmann Paul DOB: 18.08.1886 Linz
2. Groag Wilhelm DOB: 07.01.1892 Linz
3. Grün Oskar DOB: 08.09.1892 Linz
4. Klein Oswald DOB: 23.03.1889 Brünn
5. Ludwig Robert DOB: 18.06.1886 Turnau
6. May Heinrich DOB: 15.05.1890 Linz
7. Peschek Oskar DOB: 07.11.1890 Serowitz
8. Pisinger Fritz DOB: 08.08.1892 Urfahr
9. Piskaty Erwin DOB: 13.06.1890 Wischau
10. Pisker Johann DOB: 07.09.1887 Rakowitz
11. Rosenblum Emil DOB: 28.03.1891 Linz
12. Rübinstein Ernst DOB: 31.01.1890 Urfahr
13. Taussig Bruno DOB: 24.04.1890 Urfahr
14. Taussig Erwin DOB: 04.12.1890 Vienna
15. Taussig Victor DOB: 09.03.1887 Urfahr
16. Vogelfänger Gustav DOB: 03.01.1892 Mostar
17. Wittgenstein Ludwig DOB: 26.04.1889 Vienna
1. Though halakhically Jewish, Wittgenstein, unlike the others, was
enrolled as a Catholic. All the others listed were registered as Jews
and therefore knew they were Jews.
2. Monk reports on p.5. of his Wittgenstein biography that one of
Hermann Wittgenstein's daughters did not know that the Wittgenstein
family were Jewish and had to be informed they were "pur sang".)
3. Describing the growth of his anti-Semitism, Hitler wrote on p.48
of Mein Kampf: "At the Realschule, to be sure, I did meet one Jewish
boy who was treated by all of us with caution, but only because
various experiences had led us to doubt his discretion and we did not
particularly trust him ... ". The referent of Hitler's remark HAS to
be one of the names in the exhaustive list above.
4. "Once Adolf shouted at another boy, "Du Saujud!" (You filthy
Jew!") The boy concerned was staggered; he knew nothing of his Jewish
ancestry at the time and only discovered it years later ... ".
Jetzinger, Franz. Hitlers Jugend, Vienna 1956 (translated as Hitler's
Youth, by Lawrence Wilson, Greenwood Press, Connecticut, p.71.),
quoting Franz Keplinger, who was in Hitler's class 3A at the
Realschule.
(McGuinness comments on the use of "Saujud!" at the school on page 51.
of his Wittgenstein biography - presumably as an epithet hurled at
Wittgenstein by someone.) The only halachically Jewish student at the
school who might not have known he was Jewish was Wittgenstein. I
think this argument is pretty close to a Q.E.D. about the whole
matter. That Wittgenstein's father was a billionaire art patron and
that Klimt's portrait of Wittgenstein's sister was exhibited in Linz
and that Hitler's burning ambition was to be an artist is grist to the
mill. Interested readers are referred to my book, The Jew of Linz for
further evidence.
Kimberley Cornish.
============================================================
Re: A spy in Hitlers house?
Author: k_cornish6198 <k_corn...@my-deja.com>
Date: 1999/07/06
Forum: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
In article <19990702031516...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
cwell...@aol.com (CWells2637) wrote:
> Does anyone have any information as to the identity of the Soviet
> spy in the German High Command (OKW) codenamed Werther.
"Werther" was almost certainly a piece of disinformation from the
Soviets. Bletchley Park in the U.K. was decrypting 3000 German messages
per day and British/U.S. commanders in the field knew EVERY single
intention of the German high command even before the German commanders
in the field. I argue in my book "The Jew of Linz" (Random House, 1998)
that the technology for the machines that made the Enigma decryptions
possible was passed to Stalin by Ludwig Wittgenstein, the Cambridge
philosopher via Alan Turing and possibly Oliver Strachey. It is now
orthodoxy that the Enigma decryptions won the Battle of the Atlantic
for the U.K. If there was a Soviet version of Bletchley, then it would
also explain the victories on the Eastern Front. The point is that if
you have a means of reading ALL German high command orders, you don't
need a high placed spy on the General Staff. "Werther", in this
writer's humble opinion, was invented to conceal the real means by
which the Red Army won the war, which was by successful espionage in
the U.K. (It was British policy to keep the fact that the Enigma
machine had been broken a secret from the Soviets.) Attributing Soviet
intelligence successes to a German traitor meant allaying suspicion
that British intelligence had been penetrated.>
===========================================================
From: <k_corn...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Wittgenstein._(book reviews)
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 4:19 AM
Article <7u2m5v$6jd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
quoted a review article of my book, "The Jew of Linz":
>
>
> There is something heroic about this argument and it would be a good
> subject for a novel about the dangers of creating theories out of
> nothing. Nabokov should have written it. It is not just that there
> are weak links in the theory. There are no links in the theory. No
> evidence that Hitler, in his final unhappy year, even knew a boy two
> years above him. If they did know each other, there is no evidence
> that he was the boy Hitler distrusted, no evidence that Hitler's
> remarks on snitching related to specific incidents at the Linz
> Realschule, no evidence that Wittgenstein informed on his fellow
> pupils.
The thesis of my book was that Ludwig Wittgenstein, the future
Cambridge philosopher, who attended school with Hitler in 1903/4, was
the occasion of Hitler becoming anti-Semitic. Quite to the contrary of
the review comments, the argument of The Jew of Linz is deductive and
can be presented as follows: Here is a list of ALL students at the
Realschule in 1903/4 who were halachically Jewish (that is, Jewish
under Jewish religious law):
(DATA COURTESY OF THE BUNDESREALGYMNASIUM 1999)
1. Friedmann Paul DOB: 18.08.1886
2. Groag Wilhelm DOB: 07.01.1892
3. Grün Oskar DOB: 08.09.1892
4. Klein Oswald DOB: 23.03.1889
5. Ludwig Robert DOB: 18.06.1886
6. May Heinrich DOB: 15.05.1890
7. Peschek Oskar DOB: 07.11.1890
8. Pisinger Fritz DOB: 08.08.1892
9. Piskaty Erwin DOB: 13.06.1890
10. Pisker Johann DOB: 07.09.1887
11. Rosenblum Emil DOB: 28.03.1891
12. Rübinstein Ernst DOB: 31.01.1890
13. Taussig Bruno DOB: 24.04.1890
14. Taussig Erwin DOB: 04.12.1890
15. Taussig Victor DOB: 09.03.1887
16. Vogelfänger Gustav DOB: 03.01.1892
17. Wittgenstein Ludwig DOB: 26.04.1889
Alone of the 17 students in this list, Wittgenstein was enrolled as a
Roman Catholic. To the schoolboys, however, he appeared Jewish and was
indisputably “of Jewish descent”. His halachic Jewishness is
established not by the fact that he later “confessed” to being Jewish
at Cambridge or claimed (I think corrrectly) that his thought was "100
percent Hebraic" and that he was the greatest of Jewish thinkers, but
because his three Jewish grand-parents and Jewish mother make him
Jewish under Jewish religious law. Though halachically Jewish,
Wittgenstein, unlike the others, was enrolled as a Catholic. All the
others listed were registered as Jews and therefore knew they were
Jews. Now here is the earliest recorded record of Hitler making an
anti-Semitic remark:
It was reported by Franz Keplinger, who was in Wittgenstein’s class at
the Realschule (and who knew and visited Hitler later in Munich) and
recounted to Dr Franz Jetzinger: “Once Adolf shouted at another
boy, ‘Du Saujud!’ (You filthy Jew!“) The boy concerned was
staggered; he knew nothing of his Jewish ancestry at the time and
only discovered it years later ... “. (Jetzinger, Franz. Hitlers
Jugend, Vienna 1956, translated as Hitler’s Youth, by Lawrence Wilson,
Greenwood Press, Connecticut, p.71.)
The rider adding that the boy knew nothing of his Jewish ancestry gives
the quote the ring of truth and enables the researcher to deduce who
the boy was.
The only POSSIBLE candidate as the target of Hitler's abuse is Ludwig
Wittgenstein. The others knew they were Jews, if not from their parents
enrolling them as Jews and consequent different treatment in religious
education classes, then via their circumcised state amidst the
uncircumcised Austrian schoolboys in the changing room. Ray Monk
reports on p.5. of his Wittgenstein biography that one of
Wittgenstein's aunts did not know the Wittgenstein family was Jewish
and had to be informed they were "pur sang" – pure blood. It was
clearly not common knowledge within the family, but suppressed as a
sort of skeleton in the family closet. Ludwig had to DISCOVER that he
was Jewish through none other than Adolf Hitler sensing it and hurling
the "Du Saujud!" accusation. That is, the boy at the school whom Hitler
abused in his very first recorded anti-Semitic remark was the young
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the stuttering, truss-wearing, homosexual son of
the richest man in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Whatever the blindness
of the British reviewers, this argument will not go away. Interested
readers are referred to my book, where I demonstrate also that
Wittgenstein's cousin Joseph Joachim was Richard Wagner's greatest hate
amongst all German Jews. The links are too many to list here, but the
above argument (which, minus the student names, is in my book) should
convince.
Kimberley Cornish.
jum...@my-deja.com
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> First ... this state of "conciousness" ... should be a matter of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why isn't it then?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... fulfillment and joy rather that an element of perplexity
> and despair.
Who is in perplexity and despair?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> To reach that "correctness or TRUTH," you have to equate
> it with BEAUTY. ^^^^
HOW does YOUR `reaching' depend on whether or not I "equate?"
HOW would I "equate" it with beauty, anyway? (analysis at end)
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Yes, TRUTH = BEAUTY. (Please, do not ask me what is beauty).
What is beauty?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> After so many years of civilization, it appears that we haven't
> moved too far from that Socratic statement: "There is only one
> thing I know, and that is that I know nothing."
> (Is this the correct quotation?)
No. It's not a correct quotation, but thanks for asking. Plato's
presentation of the "knowledge" question is exceedingly difficult,
but thanks to modern technology it will be presented here. Do not
regard any hint of `disrespect' to Socrates if he is characterized
as -disingenuous- because the consequences of his method leave him
somewhat bereft of recourse. The "changing reality" of Heracleitus
is not coherent to a "static quality" of description (imaging) by
language, unless one is willing to "learn how to read" at each
opportunity rather than presuming one already reads and understands.
Plato's purpose in having Socrates convicted at the trial at Athens
is to establish for philosophy students that the Socratic method as
portrayed in the other dialogues fell under general suspicion when
it was later reviewed by the court. The implications of Socrates
would be destabalizing to the state since any conception, or the
lack of conception as Socrates sometimes claimed, cannot match the
"changing reality" of Haracleitus beyond the descriptive ability of
language. So the "dialectics vs. rhetoric" arguments of _Gorgias_
did not `complete' the picture: there is a third approach neither
dialectical nor rhetorical, but better characterized as the problem
of "changing reality" as noted by Haracleitus. So it was a problem
of "changing reality" as Athens was preparing for war, to result in
suppression of Socrates, and not a reversal of _Gorgias_ arguments.
(a) We begin from acknowledgment that Socrates typically proceeds
in the patterns which -portend- to "know nothing" yet rapidly
maneuver into "knew nothing" and then implicit "know something"
due to a "discovery phase" in which some conclusion is obtained:
in this case the "step has been gained" that --
(1) "names have by nature a truth" and
(2) "not every man knows how to give a thing a name."
Thus, (1) and (2) obtained are thereby "some knowledge."
CRATYLUS:
"Soc. And the work of the legislator is to give
names, and the dialectician must be his director
if the names are to be rightly given?
"Her. That is true.
"Soc. Then, Hermogenes, I should say that this
giving of names can be no such light matter as you
fancy, or the work of light or chance persons; and
Cratylus is right in saying that things have names
by nature, and that not every man is an artificer
of names, but he only who looks to the name which
each thing by nature has, and is able to express
the true forms of things in letters and syllables.
"Her. I cannot answer you, Socrates; but I find a
difficulty in changing my opinion all in a moment,
and I think that I should be more readily
persuaded, if you would show me what this is which
you term the natural fitness of names.
"Soc. My good Hermogenes, I have none to show. Was
I not telling you just now (but you have
forgotten), that I knew nothing, and proposing to
share the enquiry with you? But now that you and I
have talked over the matter, a step has been
gained; for we have discovered that names have by
nature a truth, and that not every man knows how
to give a thing a name.
"Her. Very good."
(b) Though "knowing nothing" of the Gods, Socrates is "sure that the
names which they give themselves ... are true" which he regards
as "the best of all principles" so that those who pray can invoke
the correct names. He says it's a "good custom, and one I should
much wish to observe." Socrates explains that his inquiries are
not after the validity of Gods, prayers, or worship but aimed at
the (religious) practices of -men- at prayers or worship. Thereby
Socrates affirms (even as his knowledge) that when men refer to
"Zeus" in speech they invoke reference to the God known as Zeus,
and the same would go for any other God or Gods (such as Yahweh).
CRATYLUS:
"Her. I think, Socrates, that we have said enough
of this class of words. But have we any more
explanations of the names of the Gods, like that
which you were giving of Zeus? I should like to
know whether any similar principle of correctness
is to be applied to them.
"Soc. Yes, indeed, Hermogenes; and there is one
excellent principle which, as men of sense, we
must acknowledge,- that of the Gods we know
nothing, either of their natures or of the names
which they give themselves; but we are sure that
the names by which they call themselves, whatever
they may be, are true. And this is the best of all
principles; and the next best is to say, as in
prayers, that we will call them by any sort of
kind names or patronymics which they like, because
we do not know of any other. That also, I think,
is a very good custom, and one which I should much
wish to observe. Let us, then, if you please, in
the first place announce to them that we are not
enquiring about them; we do not presume that we
are able to do so; but we are enquiring about the
meaning of men in giving them these names,- in
this there can be small blame.
"Her. I think, Socrates, that you are quite right,
and I would like to do as you say."
(c) At this point Socrates commits a logical fallacy, which will
later contribute to charges of impiety at his Athenian trial.
Socrates arrogates "the first imposers of names" as persons
considerable (i.e. philosophers), perhaps for the purpose of
bringing under philosophical inspection all of the religious
practices, customs, prayers and worship, though it shouldn't
be necessary to do so. Religion, prayers and worship can be
independently assessed and/or evaluated even without claiming
their origin as a philosophical activity.
CRATYLUS:
"Soc. My dear Hermogenes, the first imposers of
names must surely have been considerable persons;
they were philosophers, and had a good deal to
say.
"Her. Well, and what of them?
"Soc. They are the men to whom I should attribute
the imposition of names. Even in foreign names, if
you analyze them, a meaning is still discernible.
For example, that which we term ousia is by some
called esia, and by others again osia. Now that
the essence of things should be called estia,
which is akin to the first of these (esia =
estia), is rational enough. And there is reason in
the Athenians calling that estia which
participates in ousia. For in ancient times we too
seem to have said esia for ousia, and this you may
note to have been the idea of those who appointed
that sacrifices should be first offered to estia,
which was natural enough if they meant that estia
was the essence of things. Those again who read
osia seem to have inclined to the opinion of
Heracleitus, that all things flow and nothing
stands; with them the pushing principle (othoun)
is the cause and ruling power of all things, and
is therefore rightly called osia. Enough of this,
which is all that we who know nothing can affirm.
Next in order after Hestia we ought to consider
Rhea and Cronos, although the name of Cronos has
been already discussed. But I dare say that I am
talking great nonsense.
"Her. Why, Socrates?"
(d) This next section (which follows immediately after the above)
compounds the logical fallacy of Socrates, because the "hive of
wisdom" Socrates has discovered is none other than the fact of
endurance of names in the face of the "ever-changing reality"
of Heracleitus. This second logical fallacy is characterized
by confusion of "map with territory" since names are not reality
nor reality names, and thereby what Socrates has discovered can
not be "a hive of wisdom." He has discovered only word-play.
Thereby his "hive of wisdom" he even calls "ridiculous, and yet
plausible" so amounts to an introduced -corruption- of what most
would term "wisdom" (distinct from "ridiculous" / "plausible").
Hermogenes terms it "ingenious" but is actually "disingenuous."
Socrates states his -belief- that it is all consistent even in
the face of Heracleitus' "ever-changing reality," amounting to
a CONTRADICTION from the outset for these philosophers. The
names of God, or Gods, do NOT capture the essence of God(s),
so Socrates commits a third logical fallacy.
CRATYLUS:
"Soc. My good friend, I have discovered a hive of
wisdom.
"Her. Of what nature?
"Soc. Well, rather ridiculous, and yet plausible.
"Her. How plausible?
"Soc. I fancy to myself Heracleitus repeating wise
traditions of antiquity as old as the days of
Cronos and Rhea, and of which Homer also spoke.
"Her. How do you mean?
"Soc. Heracleitus is supposed to say that all
things are in motion and nothing at rest; he
compares them to the stream of a river, and says
that you cannot go into the same water twice.
"Her. That is true.
"Soc. Well, then, how can we avoid inferring that
he who gave the names of Cronos and Rhea to the
ancestors of the Gods, agreed pretty much in the
doctrine of Heracleitus? Is the giving of the
names of streams to both of them purely
accidental? Compare the line in which Homer, and,
as I believe, Hesiod also, tells of
Ocean, the origin of Gods, and mother Tethys.
"And again, Orpheus says, that
The fair river of Ocean was the first to
marry, and he espoused his sister Tethys, who
was his mother's daughter.
"You see that this is a remarkable coincidence, and
all in the direction of Heracleitus.
"Her. I think that there is something in what you
say, Socrates; but I do not understand the meaning
of the name Tethys.
"Soc. Well, that is almost self-explained, being
only the name of a spring, a little disguised; for
that which is strained and filtered (diattomenon,
ethoumenon) may be likened to a spring, and the
name Tethys is made up of these two words.
"Her. The idea is ingenious, Socrates.
"Soc. To be sure. But what comes next?- of Zeus we
have spoken.
"Her. Yes.
"Soc. Then let us next take his two brothers,
Poseidon and Pluto, whether the latter is called
by that or by his other name.
"Her. By all means.
"Soc. Poseidon is Posidesmos, the chain of the
feet; the original inventor of the name had been
stopped by the watery element in his walks, and
not allowed to go on, and therefore he called the
ruler of this element Poseidon; the e was probably
inserted as an ornament. Yet, perhaps, not so; but
the name may have been originally written with a
double l and not with an s, meaning that the God
knew many things (Polla eidos). And perhaps also
he being the shaker of the earth, has been named
from shaking (seiein), and then p and d have been
added. Pluto gives wealth (Ploutos), and his name
means the giver of wealth, which comes out of the
earth beneath. People in general appear to imagine
that the term Hades is connected with the
invisible (aeides) and so they are led by their
fears to call the God Pluto instead.
"Her. And what is the true derivation?
"Soc. In spite of the mistakes which are made about
the power of this deity, and the foolish fears
which people have of him, such as the fear of
always being with him after death, and of the soul
denuded of the body going to him, my belief is
that all is quite consistent, and that the office
and name of the God really correspond."
(e) Though Socrates is careful to acknowledge knowing "nothing"
about the truth of the Gods, he claims that by analysis of
language (in terms of their names, etc.) he locates "higher
method" presumably for the sake of "good purpose" though of
merely "human notions" and embarks upon a fourth logical
fallacy in stipulating that "we MUST do as well as we can."
That fallacy consists of the little word "must" which will
-compel- the remainder of Socratic inquiry, since he could
have more simply stated "we MAY do as well as we can" minus
any compulsion to do so, which would have thereby retained
an option that inquiry might be interrupted at any point of
its process to re-determine its continued suitability.
CRATYLUS:
"Soc. Shall we leave them, then? or shall we seek
to discover, if we can, something about them,
according to the measure of our ability, saying by
way of preface, as I said before of the Gods, that
of the truth about them we know nothing, and do
but entertain human notions of them. And in this
present enquiry, let us say to ourselves, before
we proceed, that the higher method is the one
which we or others who would analyse language to
any good purpose must follow; but under the
circumstances, as men say, we must do as well as
we can. What do you think?
"Her. I very much approve.
(f) Socrates advances the complicated argument that Heracleitus'
doctrine of "ever-changing reality" should also admit of the
possibility for an "eternal nature in things" because it can
not be (aesthetically) acceptible to incorporate the changing
knowledge which implies "no knowledge" and "no one to know"
and "nothing to be known." This is a false line of reasoning,
however, and is Socrates' fifth logical fallacy. The changing
knowledge does not imply "no knowledge" at all, but simply the
nature of knowledge which changes (non-eternal knowledge).
Even if there were "no knowledge" this would not imply there
is "no one to know" but merely "someone who does not know."
Demonstrating the lack of absolute knowledge about God(s), or
external reality, does not suggest an absense of knowledge of
self because the self would be aware of that demonstration.
Socrates also -assumes- that the nature of beauty and good
would NOT be in the kind of flux Heracleitus describes, but
why should a non-fluxed beauty, or non-fluxed good, no longer
remain beautiful or good? The beauty of a flower, for example,
is also beautiful because of its -process- toward growth and
fruition, not merely beautiful in certain photogenic states.
It's not a "question hard to determine" at all, but Socrates
is attempting to capture the imagination of his listener(s).
The Cratylus dialogue ends soon thereafter on an uncertain
note, with them agreeing to meet again with reports from the
field. In the meantime, however, certain assumptions have
been set into motion concerning a supposed dichotomy between
flux and non-flux, when in fact non-flux is simply zero flux,
and everything appearing "permanent" is still temporary.
CRATYLUS:
"Soc. Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that
there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a
state of transition and there is nothing abiding;
for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge
unless continuing always to abide and exist. But
if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the
time when the change occurs there will be no
knowledge; and if the transition is always going
on, there will always be no knowledge, and,
according to this view, there will be no one to
know and nothing to be known: but if that which
knows and that which is known exist ever, and the
beautiful and the good and every other thing also
exist, then I do not think that they can resemble
a process or flux, as we were just now supposing.
Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or
whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his
followers and many others say, is a question hard
to determine; and no man of sense will like to put
himself or the education of his mind in the power
of names: neither will he so far trust names or
the givers of names as to be confident in any
knowledge which condemns himself and other
existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he
will not believe that all things leak like a pot,
or imagine that the world is a man who has a
running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus,
but is also very likely to be untrue; and
therefore I would not have you be too easily
persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and
do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are
young and of an age to learn. And when you have
found the truth, come and tell me.
"Crat. I will do as you say, though I can assure
you, Socrates, that I have been considering the
matter already, and the result of a great deal of
trouble and consideration is that I incline to
Heracleitus."
(g) Socrates meets his "match" against Euthdydemus, as he relates
to Crito after the fact, wherein Socrates said: "I know many
things, but not anything of much importance." Then transpires
a rather "sophistical" exchange where Euthdydemus puts Socrates
into a double-bind by having him also admit to "not knowing"
certain things, so at the same time Socrates is "knowing and
not knowing." It may seem clever on first reading, but it is
yet another logical fallacy in Plato's dialogues which is not
really "properly resolved" until an introduction of Niels Bohr's
"complementarity principle" in the 20th-century. In retrospect
it's difficult to appreciate why this was a "profound argument"
for Plato's philosophers, unless one adopts the view that it
was actually NOT regarded by them as profound but consisted of
their exposition of a linguistic problem in constructing lines
of reasoning, leading to analysis of the syllogism. On the
face of it there should be no apparent contradiction between
"knowing some things" but "not knowing other things" when one
reduces the information-content by eliminating the objects of
"knowing" or "not knowing" because one can approach apparent
contradictions in a variety of ways when leaving out essential
information which had been serving to provide a discrimination
basis. This particular "logical fallacy" we can safely assume
was also deliberate, for the sake of their pedagogy, unlike
the five I had outlined previously in the Cratylus dialogue.
The point illustrated, however, is that Socrates did -not-
always claim only to "know nothing" as is commonly mistaken,
but was revealing himself under interrogation by Euthydemus.
"Out of your mouth, Socrates, you are convicted," also meaning
that one's speech expressions are "fundamentally knowledged"
because they are uttered in a common understandable language.
Passages elsewhere in the dialogues, when Socrates gives out
that he "knows nothing," occured in context to "not knowing a
particular thing" related to -that- inquiry, and also from the
position of being an interrogator rather than the interrogated,
as we see here, quite definitively:
EUTHDYDEMUS
"Cri. And did Euthydemus show you this knowledge?
"Soc. Yes, indeed; he proceeded in a lofty strain
to the following effect: Would you rather,
Socrates, said he, that I should show you this
knowledge about which you have been doubting, or
shall I prove that you already have it?
"Soc. What, I said, are you blessed with such
a power as this?
"Euth. Indeed I am.
"Soc. Then I would much rather that you should
prove me to have such a knowledge; at my time
of life that will be more agreeable than
having to learn.
"Euth. Then tell me, he said, do you know
anything?
"Soc. Yes, I said, I know many things, but not
anything of much importance.
"Euth. That will do, he said: And would you
admit that anything is what it is, and at the
same time is not what it is?
"Soc. Certainly not.
"Euth. And did you not say that you knew
something?
"Soc. I did.
"Euth. If you know, you are knowing.
"Soc. Certainly, of the knowledge which I have.
"Euth. That makes no difference;-and must you
not, if you are knowing, know all things?
"Soc. Certainly not, I said, for there are
many other things which I do not know.
"Euth. And if you do not know, you are not
knowing.
"Soc. Yes, friend, of that which I do not know.
"Euth. Still you are not knowing, and you said
just now that you were knowing; and therefore
you are and are not at the same time, and in
reference to the same things.
"Soc. A pretty clatter, as men say,
Euthydemus, this of yours! and will you
explain how I possess that knowledge for
which we were seeking? Do you mean to say
that the same thing cannot be and also not
be; and therefore, since I know one thing,
that I know all, for I cannot be knowing and
not knowing at the same time, and if I know
all things, then I must have the knowledge
for which we are seeking-May I assume this to
be your ingenious notion?
"Euth. Out of your own mouth, Socrates, you
are convicted, he said.
"Soc. Well, but, Euthydemus, I said, has that
never happened to you? for if I am only in
the same case with you and our beloved
Dionysodorus, I cannot complain. Tell me,
then, you two, do you not know some things,
and not know others?"
The Euthydemus dialogue will be posted in entirety, following this,
for your inspection of its most interesting inquiry into knowledge.
(h) Socrates outlines the view he obtained from Euthydemus in the
Gorgias dialogue when speaking of "know nothing" processes that
aim only at pleasure, and processes "which know good and evil."
Ingrained in that distinction between processes will also later
develop a Socratic distinction between "beauty" and "truth" for
whatever it was worth, and of which there may be much more said
later. Hidden in this presentation, from the Gorgias dialogue
which was already posted to this newsgroup, is the "knowledge"
Socrates had obtained from Euthydemus in terms of the phenomena
"knowing" and "not knowing" (maybe simultaneously or not) when
interchanging objects to which one refers by use of "to know."
GORGIAS:
"Soc. Let me now remind you of what I was saying to
Gorgias and Polus; I was saying, as you will not
have forgotten, that there were some processes
which aim only at pleasure, and know nothing of a
better and worse, and there are other processes
which know good and evil. And I considered that
cookery, which I do not call an art, but only an
experience, was of the former class, which is
concerned with pleasure, and that the art of
medicine was of the class which is concerned with
the good. And now, by the god of friendship, I
must beg you, Callicles, not to jest, or to
imagine that I am jesting with you; do not answer
at random and contrary to your real opinion-for
you will observe that we are arguing about the way
of human life; and to a man who has any sense at
all, what question can be more serious than
this?-whether he should follow after that way of
life to which you exhort me, and act what you call
the manly part of speaking in the assembly, and
cultivating rhetoric, and engaging in public
affairs, according to the principles now in vogue;
or whether he should pursue the life of
philosophy-and in what the latter way differs from
the former. But perhaps we had better first try to
distinguish them, as I did before, and when we
have come to an agreement that they are distinct,
we may proceed to consider in what they differ
from one another, and which of them we should
choose. Perhaps, however, you do not even now
understand what I mean?
"Cal. No, I do not."
(i) The question is raised, concerning pretense to ignorance, of
how cities, or city-states, could have even come about (as
rudiments of civilization), since there are two processes, as
Socrates hypothesizes or stipulates in Gorgias, of which one
can lead to pleasure and the other to knowledge of good and
evil. Irrespective of the suitability of that dichotomy, one
first proceeds on the merits of representing WHAT PLATO SAID,
to NAIL DOWN THE FACTS prior to offering evaluative assessment.
So from the latter process there exists a presumption, justified
or not, of knowing good and evil, whether by virtue or vice, in
the pragmatic observation that these processes are in operation
already, even without philosophy's involvement or intervention.
So it cannot be the case that one should presume an absense of
knowledge in the face of observing the organization of cities
even with their "good and evil" qualities, because to perceive
those qualities as "good and evil" in cities one must have some
understanding of -some- kind of "knowledge" of "good and evil."
LAWS:
"Ath. Why, my good friend, how can we possibly
suppose that those who knew nothing of all the
good and evil of cities could have attained their
full development, whether of virtue or of vice?
"Cle. I understand your meaning, and you are quite right."
(j) A "knowledge" of self, expressed as self-love, can become a
major problem, leading toward selfishness, greed, and as being
claimed here "the source to each man of ALL offences" (sic!),
which may be overstating the problem. This observation led to
a modern legal principle that individuals may NOT necessarily
"know" what's in their own best interests, and provided for a
system of checks and balances in a tri-partite government. A
paradox here concerns the means of -discovery- (or "knowledge")
of realizing the -problem- of self-love, since there must have
been some other "process" to account for that which interrupted,
or intervened, upon the precognitive self-knowledge. When one
reads the word "truly" there is the hint of irony awakened, so
"thus we who may be truly said to know nothing" arouses in the
reader some suspicion about whether those who "truly said" were
instead trying to induce some kind of jest, as found finally in
the ending phrase "both in jest and earnest." Two readings may
be applied in order to decipher difficult passages, a reading
in jest and another reading in earnest, and then each reading
can be compared, to attempt a weighing of which seems accurate.
LAWS:
"Of all evils the greatest is one which in the
souls of most men is innate, and which a man is
always excusing in himself and never correcting;
mean, what is expressed in the saying that "Every
man by nature is and ought to be his own friend."
Whereas the excessive love of self is in reality
the source to each man of all offences; for the
lover is blinded about the beloved, so that he
judges wrongly of the just, the good, and the
honourable, and thinks that he ought always to
prefer himself to the truth. But he who would be a
great man ought to regard, not himself or his
interests, but what is just, whether the just act
be his own or that of another. Through a similar
error men are induced to fancy that their own
ignorance is wisdom, and thus we who may be truly
said to know nothing, think that we know all
things; and because we will not let others act for
us in what we do not know, we are compelled to act
amiss ourselves. Wherefore let every man avoid
excess of self-love, and condescend to follow a
better man than himself, not allowing any false
shame to stand in the way. There are also minor
precepts which are often repeated, and are quite
as useful; a man should recollect them and remind
himself of them. For when a stream is flowing out,
there should be water flowing in too; and
recollection flows in while wisdom is departing.
Therefore I say that a man should refrain from
excess either of laughter or tears, and should
exhort his neighbour to do the same; he should
veil his immoderate sorrow or joy, and seek to
behave with propriety, whether the genius of his
good fortune remains with him, or whether at the
crisis of his fate, when he seems to be mounting
high and steep places, the Gods oppose him in some
of his enterprises. Still he may ever hope, in the
case of good men, that whatever afflictions are to
befall them in the future God will lessen, and
that present evils he will change for the better;
and as to the goods which are the opposite of
these evils, he will not doubt that they will be
added to them, and that they will be fortunate.
Such should be men's hopes, and such should be the
exhortations with which they admonish one another,
never losing an opportunity, but on every occasion
distinctly reminding themselves and others of all
these things, both in jest and earnest."
(k) The "jest and earnest" theme continues when expounding upon (a
knowledge of?) two kinds of ignorance, which I am supposing led
to distinction in the modern form of misdemeanors and felonies.
A "double ignorance" occurs in cases particularly intransigent
since not only was an offence committed but also an unwarranted
and misplaced self-justifying, or self-righteous, attitude, as
"a conceit of wisdom" when in fact the perpetrator of the crime
is not "wise." Socratic "wisdom" is defined as the knowledge of
whether one knows or does not know a particular thing, but here
would be a "false wisdom" incorporated into "double ignorance"
where an offender has wrongly or incorrectly arrogated knowledge
of whether he knows or does not know, which might proceed either
way, i.e. portending knowledge one does not have, or feigning
ignorance to something about which one was already apprised.
LAWS:
"Ath. A man may truly say that ignorance is a third
cause of crimes. Ignorance, however, may be
conveniently divided by the legislator into two
sorts: there is simple ignorance, which is the
source of lighter offences, and double ignorance,
which is accompanied by a conceit of wisdom; and
he who is under the influence of the latter
fancies that he knows all about matters of which
he knows nothing. This second kind of ignorance,
when possessed of power and strength, will be held
by the legislator to be the source of great and
monstrous times, but when attended with weakness,
will only result in the errors of children and old
men; and these he will treat as errors, and will
make laws accordingly for those who commit them,
which will be the mildest and most merciful of all
laws.
"Cle. You are perfectly right."
(l) This may have been one of the passages which drew ire from the
Athenian council, since Socrates may have committed himself to
a "double ignorance" designation when feigning ignorance about
virtue (elsewhere Socrates tried to excuse this by claiming he
has memory difficulties). Socrates makes a bad situation even
worse by saying he knows "LITERALLY nothing" about virtue, since
he could have proceeded with the philosophical dialogue saying
simply that he knows "nothing" rather than "LITERALLY nothing."
The fact of the matter is that Socrates can distinguish the two
terms "quid" and "quale" so that he knows -something- about what
could, or should, be distinguished. He CANNOT know "LITERALLY
nothing" as he claims, and thereby is disingenuous, and as his
teacher Euthydemus had originally warned him, he is "convicted"
by his own words. Furthermore Socrates has some impression that
being, or not being, "fair" or "rich" or "noble" has connection
with "virtue" so he does NOT "know LITERALLY nothing" of virtue.
MENO:
"Soc. ...And I myself, Meno, living as I do in this
region of poverty, am as poor as the rest of the
world; and I confess with shame that I know
literally nothing about virtue; and when I do not
know the "quid" of anything how can I know the
"quale"? How, if I knew nothing at all of Meno,
could I tell if he was fair, or the opposite of
fair; rich and noble, or the reverse of rich and
noble? Do you think that I could?
"Men. No, Indeed. But are you in earnest, Socrates,
in saying that you do not know what virtue is? And
am I to carry back this report of you to Thessaly?
"Soc. Not only that, my dear boy, but you may say
further that I have never known of any one else
who did, in my judgment."
(m) Though Socrates claims to "know nothing" he also states that he
is "well aware" so he has just a little bit more knowledge than
we would expect from somebody claiming to "know nothing." It
might have been more believable if he had NOT stated he was so
much "well aware" but the dialogue did not run that way. Then
he says from the supposed condition of knowing "nothing" that
he can "infer" something, so with inferential processes in full
swing it's exceedingly difficult to establish that Socrates is
being truthful. In fact he's not even rational.
PHAEDRUS:
"Phaedr. Nonsense, Socrates; what you call
repetition was the especial merit of the speech;
for he omitted no topic of which the subject
rightly allowed, and I do not think that any one
could have spoken better or more exhaustively.
"Soc. There I cannot go along with you. Ancient
sages, men and women, who have spoken and written
of these things, would rise up in judgment against
me, if out of complaisance I assented to you.
"Phaedr. Who are they, and where did you hear
anything better than this?
"Soc. I am sure that I must have heard; but at this
moment I do not remember from whom; perhaps from
Sappho the fair, or Anacreon the wise; or,
possibly, from a prose writer. Why do I say so?
Why, because I perceive that my bosom is full, and
that I could make another speech as good as that
of Lysias, and different. Now I am certain that
this is not an invention of my own, who am well
aware that I know nothing, and therefore I can
only infer that I have been filled through the
cars, like a pitcher, from the waters of another,
though I have actually forgotten in my stupidity
who was my informant."
(n) Here Phaedrus points out that Socrates can "invent tales of
Egypt, or of any other country" simply by chattering on and on
(again, as Euthydemus warned, his words will "convict" him)
about his prattled ignorance, but in this discourse about the
alleged ignorance is the inescable subtext of syntax, semantic,
grammar, concepts and notions, all of which point back to the
knowledge Socrates ascribed to names in Cratylus. Maybe it is
the case that Socrates is attempting to justify his presence as
a philosopher among a competitive practice, an inveigling or
importuning, though we can probably credit Plato with having
intimation of this aspect of the character of Socrates, since
unlike Socrates Plato's memory would have been less fallible.
PHAEDRUS:
"Soc. At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was
a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird
which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he
was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic
and calculation and geometry and astronomy and
draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the
use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus
was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he
dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the
Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself
is called by them Ammon. To came Theuth and showed
his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians
might be allowed to have the benefit of the he
enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their
several uses, and praised some of them and
censured others, as he approved or disapproved of
them. It would take a long time to repeat all that
Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the
various arts. But when they came to letters, This,
said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and
give them better memories; it is a specific both
for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O
most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of
an art is not always the best judge of the utility
or inutility of his own inventions to the users of
them. And in this instance, you who are the father
of letters, from a paternal love of your own
children have been led to attribute to them a
quality which they cannot have; for this discovery
of yours will create forgetfulness in the
learners' souls, because they will not use their
memories; they will trust to the external written
characters and not remember of themselves. The
specific which you have discovered is an aid not
to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your
disciples not truth, but only the semblance of
truth; they will be hearers of many things and
will have learned nothing; they will appear to be
omniscient and will generally know nothing; they
will be tiresome company, having the show of
wisdom without the reality.
"Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales
of Egypt, or of any other country."
(o) For those on the newsgroup inclined to sport their "opinions"
here is yet another reference from Plato which speaks toward
introducing the "higher ideas" by means of (factual) -examples-
rather than through the "empty theory" of opinion. The Eleatic
Stranger captivates the attention of Socrates here by invoking
the favorite catch-phrase "know nothing" because it will instead
turn out that this paragraph introduces a very long dialogue
passage where anything -but- nothing is introduced.
POLITICS:
"Str. The higher ideas, my dear friend, can hardly
be set forth except through the medium of
examples; every man seems to know all things in a
dreamy sort of way, and then again to wake up and
to know nothing.
"Y. Soc. What do you mean?
( ... long exposition followed ... )
(p) It's difficult to understand how somebody could claim to know,
and say that they know, just "nothing" when maintaining some of
the "faint notions" of their own. The question asked here didn't
even pertain to that basic point of contradiction but whether
one without claim to knowledge, or claiming ignorance, should be
disallowed speech even for their "faint notions." It's a rather
knowledgeable question being posed here, from the outset, to
someone about to embark upon exposition, so one asked this kind
of question might have taken an approach of responding to the
person asking questions as to how its terms could have been
displayed so proficiently by one seeming to claim less then the
very best expert knowledge.
REPUBLIC:
"Why, my good friend, I said, how can any one
answer who knows, and says that he knows, just
nothing; and who, even if he has some faint
notions of his own, is told by a man of authority
not to utter them? The natural thing is, that the
speaker should be some one like yourself who
professes to know and can tell what he knows. Will
you then kindly answer, for the edification of the
company and of myself ?"
(q) He says that the result of the discussion ends with him knowing
"nothing at all" but in fact he follows up that statement by
saying that justice may or may not be a virtue, and may or may
not allow happiness to the just man. So he has an idea that
a discussion over justice must in some way entail discussion
about virtue, and happiness for the just man. That would be
much MORE "knowledge" than someone who knows "nothing at all."
In fact, merely being able to relate justice to virtue and
happiness for the just man, either way, is itself considerable
knowledge, particularly when contrasted to a social condition
-completely- ignorant of any possible associations for justice.
He fails to appreciate even being minimally apprised of what
critically important terms are being associated with justice.
It's one matter to sense one's possible lack of knowledge about
something (such as justice) but an entirely different matter to
persist with disingenuous claims to knowing "nothing at all"
even after having participated in a dialogue of mutual inquiry.
REPUBLIC:
"For which I am indebted to you, I said, now that
you have grown gentle towards me and have left off
scolding. Nevertheless, I have not been well
entertained; but that was my own fault and not
yours. As an epicure snatches a taste of every
dish which is successively brought to table, he
not having allowed himself time to enjoy the one
before, so have I gone from one subject to another
without having discovered what I sought at first,
the nature of justice. I left that enquiry and
turned away to consider whether justice is virtue
and wisdom or evil and folly; and when there arose
a further question about the comparative
advantages of justice and injustice, I could not
refrain from passing on to that. And the result of
the whole discussion has been that I know nothing
at all. For I know not what justice is, and
therefore I am not likely to know whether it is or
is not a virtue, nor can I say whether the just
man is happy or unhappy."
(r) Here again, knowing "nothing" about harmonies doesn't stop him
from offering his views on harmony, and even requesting which
shall remain: strain of necessity and strain of freedom, the
strain of the unfortunate and the strain of the fortunate, the
strain of courage and the strain of temperance. A considerable
amount of knowledge concerning harmonies from someone claiming
to "know nothing." That, in itself, is yet another harmony?
REPUBLIC:
"I answered: Of the harmonies I know nothing, but I
want to have one warlike, to sound the note or
accent which a brave man utters in the hour of
danger and stern resolve, or when his cause is
failing, and he is going to wounds or death or is
overtaken by some other evil, and at every such
crisis meets the blows of fortune with firm step
and a determination to endure; and another to be
used by him in times of peace and freedom of
action, when there is no pressure of necessity,
and he is seeking to persuade God by prayer, or
man by instruction and admonition, or on the other
hand, when he is expressing his willingness to
yield to persuasion or entreaty or admonition, and
which represents him when by prudent conduct he
has attained his end, not carried away by his
success, but acting moderately and wisely under
the circumstances, and acquiescing in the event.
These two harmonies I ask you to leave; the strain
of necessity and the strain of freedom, the strain
of the unfortunate and the strain of the
fortunate, the strain of courage, and the strain
of temperance; these, I say, leave."
( cont'd )
jum...@my-deja.com
(s) This passage seems to depict more of those "fun and games"
played by these philosophers proposing a design for the
state. They venture forth into several areas of unknown
territory, particularly with "absolute being" and "utterly
non-existent" and tie-together some loose ends that were
flapping about in the other dialogues, concerning the claim
to knowledge, by connecting up knowledge with "absolute being"
even as "those in the know" sense how ridiculous their task
has become, in the context of designing an unwieldy state.
REPUBLIC:
"Come, then, and let us think of something to say
to him. Shall we begin by assuring him that he is
welcome to any knowledge which he may have, and
that we are rejoiced at his having it? But we
should like to ask him a question: Does he who has
knowledge know something or nothing? (You must
answer for him.)
"I answer that he knows something.
"Something that is or is not?
"Something that is; for how can that which is not
ever be known?
"And are we assured, after looking at the matter
from many points of view, that absolute being is
or may be absolutely known, but that the utterly
non-existent is utterly unknown?
"Nothing can be more certain."
(t) Here is some "damning evidence" from a lesser-known dialogue
where "natures that know nothing" can be too easily associated
with "small and mean natures that are bent upon seizing such
gains for themselves." Again, the problem of insincerity.
THE SEVENTH LETTER:
"All this has been said with a view to counselling
the friends and family of Dion. And in addition to
this I give for the third time to you the same
advice and counsel which I have given twice before
to others-not to enslave Sicily or any other State
to despots-this my counsel but-to put it under the
rule of laws-for the other course is better
neither for the enslavers nor for the enslaved,
for themselves, their children's children and
descendants; the attempt is in every way fraught
with disaster. It is only small and mean natures
that are bent upon seizing such gains for
themselves, natures that know nothing of goodness
and justice, divine as well as human, in this life
and in the next."
(u) Here is a case of knowing "nothing" about the contents of a
doctrinal handbook, while at the same time knowing "something"
-- that "others have written on the same subjects."
THE SEVENTH LETTER:
"I did not, however, give a complete exposition,
nor did Dionysios ask for one. For he professed to
know many, and those the most important, points,
and to have a sufficient hold of them through
instruction given by others. I hear also that he
has since written about what he heard from me,
composing what professes to be his own handbook,
very different, so he says, from the doctrines
which he heard from me; but of its contents I know
nothing; I know indeed that others have written on
the same subjects; but who they are, is more than
they know themselves. Thus much at least, I can
say about all writers, past or future, who say
they know the things to which I devote myself,
whether by hearing the teaching of me or of
others, or by their own discoveries-that according
to my view it is not possible for them to have any
real skill in the matter. There neither is nor
ever will be a treatise of mine on the subject.
For it does not admit of exposition like other
branches of knowledge; but after much converse
about the matter itself and a life lived together,
suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one
soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and
thereafter sustains itself. Yet this much I
know-that if the things were written or put into
words, it would be done best by me, and that, if
they were written badly, I should be the person
most pained. Again, if they had appeared to me to
admit adequately of writing and exposition, what
task in life could I have performed nobler than
this, to write what is of great service to mankind
and to bring the nature of things into the light
for all to see? But I do not think it a good thing
for men that there should be a disquisition, as it
is called, on this topic-except for some few, who
are able with a little teaching to find it out for
themselves. As for the rest, it would fill some of
them quite illogically with a mistaken feeling of
contempt, and others with lofty and vain-glorious
expectations, as though they had learnt something
high and mighty."
(v) If Socrates had applied this analysis on "perception requiring
an object" to the Euthydemus exchange, he might have been able
to resolve his "knowing and not-knowing" problem. One is then
inclined to study the possible linguistic limitations occurring
in ancient Greece. The Euthydemus dialogue was on the edge of
asserting "there can be no such thing as knowing (something)
and knowing (nothing)" whereas in Theaetetus we find "there can
be no such thing as perceiving (something) and perceiving
nothing" which gets reworked to "there can be no such thing as
perceiving (without an object) while perceiving (the) nothing
(void)." The upshot from either dialogue is that perception
and knowing each require an object, yet confusion on the point
was belabored in the development of objectless metaphysics as
found among certain romantic German philosophers who found it
feasible to add or subtract objects without altering the nature
of perception or knowledge involved. Those forms of defective
metaphysics were not corrected until the arrival of Neils Bohr.
THEAETETUS
"Soc. When I perceive I must become percipient of
something-there can be no such thing as perceiving
and perceiving nothing; the object, whether it
become sweet, bitter, or of any other quality,
must have relation to a percipient; nothing can
become sweet which is sweet to no one.
"Theaet. Certainly not."
(w) Socrates goes out of his (right) mind in Phaedo (understandably
considering the circumstances) because here he knows "nothing"
in context to the unfavorable verdict rendered to him from the
Athenian council. That which he may have formerly understood, by
hypothesis, about the nature of "beauty" seems for him no longer
applicable. In his putatively professed ignorance Socrates may
have considered some connection between "beauty" and "truth" as
both being beyond his powers of comprehension, however a fallacy
here (the sixth I identify) consisted of claiming a coherence to
phenomena all falling outside the perimeter of what he regarded
his knowledge boundary. In part Socrates was convicted due to
his willful disregard of certain elements deemed necessary to a
state's function (as had already been detailed in LAWS !!!) and
his failing memory, or claimed ignorance, is no certain defense
against the charge of "double ignorance" under the LAWS which
have instead found him guilty of feigned ignorance of matters
they determined he should have been more knowledgeable about.
The Athenian council had effectively determined Socrates a LIAR,
as I have also shown from the above analysis at several points.
Here Socrates crumpled into a pathetic dust-heap by retreating
from his earlier efforts to conceptualize "beauty" but would be
entirely in character for a man of 72 years, advanced in age.
PHAEDO:
"Cebes said: You may proceed at once with the
proof, as I readily grant you this.
"Well, he said, then I should like to know whether
you agree with me in the next step; for I cannot
help thinking that if there be anything beautiful
other than absolute beauty, that can only be
beautiful in as far as it partakes of absolute
beauty-and this I should say of everything. Do you
agree in this notion of the cause?
"Yes, he said, I agree.
"He proceeded: I know nothing and can understand
nothing of any other of those wise causes which
are alleged; and if a person says to me that the
bloom of color, or form, or anything else of that
sort is a source of beauty, I leave all that,
which is only confusing to me, and simply and
singly, and perhaps foolishly, hold and am assured
in my own mind that nothing makes a thing
beautiful but the presence and participation of
beauty in whatever way or manner obtained; for as
to the manner I am uncertain, but I stoutly
contend that by beauty all beautiful things become
beautiful. That appears to me to be the only safe
answer that I can give, either to myself or to any
other, and to that I cling, in the persuasion that
I shall never be overthrown, and that I may safely
answer to myself or any other that by beauty
beautiful things become beautiful. Do you not
agree to that?
"Yes, I agree."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Anyway, JB, you are right about the fact that we are insignificant
> and with a very limited perception of the immensity of the universe.
> But remember, the TRUTH is your TRUTH -- and manifests from your own
> capacity to appreciate beauty.
Having given some thought to your problem here's what you need to
do. You can't simply parade a lot of beautiful statements and then
claim some sort of arrival or convergence upon truth. They have
very different dictionary definitions, and are given radically
different treatment in Plato. The "primary three" (truth, justice,
and virtue) are pre-existing ideas, whereas "beauty" occurs in a
temporal realm and is subject to more of the Heracleitus notion of
"ever-changing reality," according to Plato. I've provided ample
evidence in this post of some considerable confusion Socrates faced
even -after- attempting an inquiry into their notions of discourse.
It's easier to get at "beauty" than at "truth" so that explains why,
during the pathetic episode of Phaedo, the mind of Socrates collapses
around some rather ineffective characterizations of "beauty."
beauty 1. The quality of objects, sounds, ideas, attitudes, etc.
that pleases and gratifies, as by their harmony,
pattern, excellence, or truth.
2. One who or that which is beautiful, especially a woman.
3. A special grace or charm.
truth 1. The state or character of being true in relation to
being, knowledge, or speech.
2. Conformity to fact or reality.
3. Conformity to rule, standard, model, pattern, or ideal.
4. Conformity to the requirements of one's being or nature;
steadfastness; sincerity.
5. That which is true; a statement or belief that
corresponds to the reality.
6. A fact as the object of correct belief; reality.
7. A tendency or disposition to speak or tell only what is
true; veracity.
8. The quality of being true; fidelity; constancy.
9. In the fine arts, faithfulness to the facts of nature,
history, or life.
10. (obs.) Right, according to divine law.
I'm looking at a very different set of definitions here, so in order
to establish your little "truth=beauty" equation you'll need to show
how they have the same definitions. If it's a "quality" to which
you refer, notice how the truth definition involves a "quality of
being..." whereas the beauty definition involves the "quality of
objects." These are very different aspects of quality, since being
is not the same as an object: people are NOT things. An utilitarian
conception might have you (falsely) -believing- that people ARE
things, resulting in instrumentalities, but then you'd be under the
influence of brainwashing. A chief identifier of brainwashing is
the confusion of people with things (among many other sorts of
possible identifiers). The Jesus saying "I am the truth..." was
NOT a personification of truth, but Jesus expressing his personal
identification with "divine law" (under definition #10), in keeping
with his fulfillment of prophecy, the law, and mission to the Cross.
Was the Cross "personified" by a crucifixion? No. It was the act
of "depersonification" through death. The resurrection did NOT
occur on the cross but from a cave with its stone rolled away,
three days later. During those three days, God was dead, and the
universe functioned without Him.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> The EUNUCH wrote ...
Pyro, you seem to have difficulty getting your facts straight.
Here's what we observe. After you ventured into an area where you
had NO KNOWLEDGE, you made an _ad_hominem_ remark WHICH CARRIES NO
VALUE IN THE ARGUMENT AND IS THEREFORE A LOGICAL FALLACY, about an
attribute that is NOT EVEN TRUE about me, and ironically in PLATO
the "eunuchs" were regarded VERY HIGHLY among the philosophers,
so it MEANS NOTHING. If you demonstrate here A PERSISTENT PATTERN
TO WILFULLY DISREGARD TRUTH, PARTICULARLY WHERE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE,
THEN ANYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS *-HIGHLY-* SUSPECT.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SO INCREDIBLY AND UNBELIEVABLY STUPID, PYRO !!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"So, Pyro, tell us how YOU differentiate Sophocles from an ape."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> I differentiate Sophocles from an ape like I differentiate
> Aristotle from Johnny Cochran, FOOL.
I'm sorry. You didn't understand the question. Here's what I
mean to say. You have two samples of -writing-. One is from a
black philosophy student and one is from a white philosophy student.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHICH IS WHICH ? ANSWER THE QUESTIONS !!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------- rerun follows ----- **
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> I have posted an anthology of my writings because the individual
> who I have been discussing philosophy with ....
Which individual was that? I don't recall having a philosophy
discussion (yet) with anybody on this list.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... has resorted to "copying and pasting" philosophical passages
> (among other things, mostly irrelevant) ...
Which passages were irrelevant, and why?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... akin to a robot, to cover up the blatant ignorance he has
> shown to this forum again and again.
Which method or methods do you employ to evaluate the degree
of ignorance?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> This individual has in the past enjoyed coming off as "intelligent"
> and "cultured" in this forum ...
To which evidence do you point that establishes I've derived
any enjoyment by these exchanges? Where have I claimed to be
"intelligent" or "cultured" ?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... and to his dismay, I have exposed him as a terrorist and
> cultural leper, vandal, barbarian, and, worst of all, IMBECILE.
How do you show that somebody satisfies the definitions of
these terms?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Don't be fooled by his "copying and pasting"; it is his thin veneer
> of intellectualism.
I thought you said "copying and pasting" was irrelevant. Is
that what you mean by "intellectualism," however thin its veneer?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> He is unable to post original ideas, so he posts those of others ...
Why should I have original ideas?
What's wrong with the ideas of others?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... and gives cheap criticism of them ...
Examples? What about that criticism makes it "cheap" ? What are
your methods and criteria for assessing something as "cheap" ?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... whilst failing to acknowledge the gaping holes in his own
> flimsy, ignorant, yet abundant commentary.
Examples? How do you determine (generally) whether there are
"gaping holes" and whether something is or is not "flimsy" ?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> .. This individual is clearly unable to grasp the concepts in my
> writings, so he has resorted to a game of semantics and obfuscation.
Then explain the concepts you say I'm "unable to grasp." Which
of -MY- concepts were -you- "unable to grasp?"
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Originally I had asked: "Name me a great Negro philosopher?" The
> eunuch's response ...
See, Pyro? You didn't read my reply when I reported to you
that I'm NOT a eunuch. THEREFORE YOU ARE DYSLEXIC !!!!!!!!!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... was: "Booker T. Washington. Johnnie Cochran." I also asked:
> "Name me a Black Mozart?" This IDIOT's response ...
Which IDIOT was that?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... was: "Winton Marsallis, Amad Jamal, etc., et al., and a dozen
> of other jazz artists all have the skills of a Mozart."
No, Pyro. YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT. I DID -NOT- MENTION
THE NAME "AMAD JAMAL" IN MY -ORIGINAL- ANSWER. THIS WAS THE TEXT:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Here's what YOU had originally asked for, with MY replies:
>
>---------
>> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>>> Tell me of a great Negro philosopher?
>
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> Booker T. Washington. Johnnie Cochran.
>
>---------
>> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>>> Tell me of a black Mozart?
>
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> Stevie Wonder, Winton Marsallis, Louis Armstrong,
>> Dizzy Gillespie; more than a dozen jazz artists
>> with skills of a Mozart ...
As you can see, the name "Amad Jamal" DID NOT APPEAR in the text
of my original answer. I APPENDED "Amad Jamal" in a -LATER- post:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SUCCESS, "relative" or otherwise, compared to
> Cochran, Marsallis, and I will add Kenny Drew, Jr., George Russell,
> Duke Ellington, John Hicks, and Amad Jamal. ALL OF THEM ARE BLACK
> PEOPLE MORE SUCCESSFULL, MORE ARTISTIC, GREATER CULTURAL TREASURES,
> RESPECTED INDIVIDUALS, LEADERS OF CIVILIZATION, CONTRIBUTORS TO THE
> POSITIVE GOOD. *-UNLIKE-* *-YOU-* !!!! YOU ARE A *-LOSER-* !!!
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You see, Pyro, I had NEVER juxtaposed "Winton Marsallis" with "Amad
Jamal." I juxtaposed the -LAST- -NAME- -ONLY- of "Marsallis" when
I had introduced "Amad Jamal." SO YOU ARE A LIAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you continue to provide evidence to this newsgroup of the SHODDY
practices you employ when conducting and reporting research !!!!!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> When I wrote "great philosopher" the implication was clear ...
No, there was no clear implication. And even if there -WERE- an
implication it would be incumbent upon the READER to CONSTRUCT that
implication. So you cannot say implication, or inference, exists
in the text WITHOUT INCLUDING THE READER in your "analysis." It was
NOT clear. So make it clear next time, ok?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... that I was referring to those of the stature of Socrates, Plato,
> Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, John Locke, Rene Descartes, St. Thomas
> Aquinas, etc., et al.
Fine. So this is YOUR IMPLICATION NOW. I'm confused however,
because I'm not sure whether Socrates or Plato has more stature,
or how to assess the relative merits of Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche,
Locke, Descarte, Aquinas. Can you provide a 1-10, or 1-100 scale?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> When I wrote "Name me a Black Mozart" I was also very clear in
> regards to stature.
No you weren't. You didn't SAY the word "stature." Now you do.
So where does Mozart "rate" on your 1-10, or 1-100 scale?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> This imbecile ...
Are you referring to yourself (tail) again?
What embarassment is that?
Which conclusions were they?
Which imbecile was that?
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> HOW DO "GOLDEN LETTERS" IMPROVE UPON THE SUBSTANCE OF PLATO ???
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, Pyro, be VERY CAREFUL if you use "quotation marks" BECAUSE
YOU JUST MADE A MISATTRIBUTION, WHICH -VIOLATES- ETIQUETTE !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION, IF YOU PLEASE. DO -NOT- DUCK THE ISSUES !
I did -NOT- say "his writings." I said "Plato." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> This response (if we will call it that) clearly gives ...
Why "clearly gives" -- can you demonstrate that?
^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... those who regularly participate at alt.fan.unabomber ...
Who might that be? Do you have a list? What are the criteria
you utilize to decide who does, or who does not, have a regular
participation? What might be the RELEVANCE of discrimination
between those who "regularly participate" and those who do not?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... an indication of what a FOOL he is.
Who is? By what method or process do you adjudicate that?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> On another instance I wrote: "Putting a convicted criminal, still
> having the warm blood of his victims dripping from his hands, back
> on the street again, is the essential _TRUTH_ you proclaim? The
> vociferous charlatan, Johnnie Cochran, who used all kinds of tricks,
> LIES, and mob influence?" To paraphrase him, the ignorant eunuch ...
Uh, I think you -CANNOT- make that "eunuch" word stick because
it's not the case, as I had informed you previously. What an
irony that you continue to use the adjective "ignorant" when in
fact you persist in -LYING- about something THAT IS NOT TRUE !!!
THIS IS VERY TYPICAL OF YOUR "MANNER OF PROCESS" AND DEFEATS ANY
EFFORT AT CREDIBILITY ON YOUR PART ON ALL OF YOUR OTHER ARGUMENTS.
PLAY BY THE RULES OF COURTEOUS DEBATE IF YOU EXPECT TO BE A MASTER!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whose mind?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... most likely he will continue prating ...
Who will continue prating?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... about O.J. not having "officially" been convicted ...
O.J. lost the civil case which renders a "conviction" under
definition #2 (above), but you were speaking of the CRIMINAL CASE
and NOT the CIVIL CASE.
Who?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... enjoys ...
Evidence that there's any enjoyment in this?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... flaunting jocular non-sequiturs that I have drawn ...
Such as?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... taking them at face value and debunking them ...
So how shall we tell the difference if you don't inform us?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... as if he has actually made a point ...
What point was that?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> To top it off, he accuses me of having no appreciation for the arts.
> I will post some previous messages directed to Jumangi and let you
> all decide if I show no appreciation for the arts.
This is really sad. Posting messages to demonstrate "appreciation
for the arts." DOESN'T PROVE JACK, JACK !!! GET A LIFE !!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Then, in finding him refer to pygmies ...
In order to be a "pygmy" one must be:
"diminutive; dwarfish; trivial; unimportant; a small
person or thing regarded as insignificant; a member
of a Negroid people of equatorial Africa, ranging in
height from four to five feet; any of the Negrito
peoples of the Philippines, Andaman Islands, and
Malaya; in Greek legend, one of a race of dwarfs."
so Johnny Cochran is -NOT- a "pygmy" since he's taller than five feet,
and is not from the Philippines, Andaman Islands, or Malaya, and is
not a member of "Greek legend," and is NOT "unimportant/insignificant"
because *-YOU-* have given Cochran A LOT OF COVERAGE HERE on A.F.U.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... as "great philosophers" and "having the skills of a Mozart,"
> I'll let you decide who is the IMBECILE who lacks understanding of
> ART and culture.
Thanks, Pyro. WE WERE ALL WAITING FOR *-YOU-* TO GIVE US
PERMISSION TO DECIDE "WHO" IMBECILES ARE, AND WHETHER WE WERE
GOING TO APPRECIATE AND "UNDERSTAND" *-ART-* AND *-CULTURE-*.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> He asked me for my definition of TRUTH but apparently my words have
> gone right past him. On message #1 is my answer: BEAUTY = _TRUTH_.
********* T H E N P R O V E I T *********
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> I would also like to point out that I have edited my posts to
> make my ideas as clear as possible to the audience.
I shall edit them even further !
-------- DANGER, DANGER, PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK !!!! -------
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> .... (Please, do not ask me what is beauty).
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> "There is only one thing I know, and that is that I know nothing."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> If this is what we are to look forward to, I hope there is a
> nuclear war.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... perhaps like throwing feces to Michelangelo's "Pieta", or
> farting during the performance of "Requiem" ....
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... to have a new Mozart would be boring and repetitious.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... The Spartans' valor left a deep impression on all Greeks.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> He believed, in this case, no life was better than some life ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... you have disqualified yourself of being able to participate ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... As Ivan Turgueniev wrote to Liev Tolstoy, "The truth is like
> a lizard: you open your hand when you think you have got it to
> contemplate it, and the only thing you see is the tail between your
> fingers. It has escaped knowing it will grow a new tail." And
> Nietzsche wrote, "Let's define our task: once and for all we have
> to question the value of TRUTH." I have serious doubts that you
> are familiar with what a library is ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> You, IDIOT, have elevated this group of pygmies ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Jesus said: "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE." And still,
> you crucified him, you deicide!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Your subconscious betrayed you: what I was using as symbolism of
> truth made you think about your father's dick.
>
> You know better than anyone else how you feel his "tail" between
> your fingers, bastard!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>... people like you are the assassins of TRUTH. What you are
> doing is raping and profaning it, as you do to _BEAUTY_,
> cultural leper. You bastardize everything you touch.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Asshole, what do you mean by, "They [agent99 and Pyro] cannot
> follow the basic rules of basic reasoning"?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Take note of this, CRETIN, and learn how to read ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... my answer to you was: YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... buttkissing the Blacks for their sympathy ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Your lexicon is that of a gangmember.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... your writing, like in a lie detector, shows not only
> _ignorance_ but also your hoofs.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> We know you are a bastard, now the only thing we have to determine
> is which of the 12 goats your mother fucks is your father.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... this is an idiotic judgement that no one should care about.
================================================================
Chromosome History Traced
October 29, 1999
WASHINGTON (AP) — The difference between women and men all started 300
million years ago when an ordinary chromosome took the first
evolutionary step toward the X and Y chromosomes that now determine
the gender of humans, researchers say. Bruce Lahn of the University of
Chicago and Dr. David Page of the Whitehead Institute report that they
traced the mutation history of the X and Y chromosomes to a common
chromosome that started changing long before humans came along.
The researchers traced the history of the gender genes by
reconstructing mutations that make the X chromosome different from
the Y chromosome. From this, they were able to estimate when the
chromosomes were last identical, some 240 million to 320 million years
ago.
"The farther back in time we look, the more similar X and Y appear,
boosting the theory that they arose from a pair of identical
autosomes," said Lahn in a statement. An autosome is a non-sex
determining chromosome.
The X and Y chromosomes decide whether a baby is boy or girl. Mothers
carry two X chromosomes and fathers carry one copy each of the X and
the Y. Sperm from the father has only half of the normal 23 pairs of
chromosomes and carries either a single X or Y chromosome. The
mother's egg also has half the normal complement of chromosomes and
includes a single X. If a Y chromosome from the sperm fertilizes the
egg, then the baby is male because the resulting cells each have one Y
and one X. If the sperm has an X chromosome, then the child is female,
with two X chromosomes in the cells.
Lahn and Page did their research to find how this elegant solution to
gender determination evolved.
In many cold-blooded reptiles, which preceded mammals in evolution
history, sex of the offspring is determined by the egg incubation
temperature. But the development of mammals, which are warm-blooded,
required another sex determination system.
Lahn and Page found evidence that early in mammal history, a pair of
chromosomes started evolving into the sex chromosomes. A mutation
somehow created a gene called SRY — for sex-determining region Y — and
it became the master switch for creating a male, they said.
"The SRY-bearing chromosome became the Y chromosome and its
SRY-deficient partner became the X chromosome," Lahn said. Over
evolutionary time, the male-determining Y chromosome became simpler
and shared fewer and fewer genes of the more complex X chromosome. The
Y now has only about a tenth of the genes that are present in the X
chromsome, the researchers said.
Copyright 1999 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
======================================================
The History of Sex
by Lindsey Arent
3:00 a.m. 28.Oct.1999 PDT
They say men are from Mars and women are from Venus. But new research
indicates that the two were at one time genetically identical.
Scientists studying genes on the X and Y chromosomes have concluded
that the biological element that determines sex in humans evolved from
a pair of identical chromosomes hundreds of millions of years ago.
"We're reporting a timeline by which this perfectly ordinary matched
pair of chromosomes evolved into today's X and Y," said researcher
David Page of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the Whitehead
Institute for Biomedical Research. "The X is now bigger than the Y and
it carries more genes. But 300 million years ago, they were
essentially identical."
Scientists have long believed that the events that led to the creation
of sex chromosomes occurred about 170 million years ago. But Page and
co-author Bruce Lahn of the University of Chicago report in the 29
October issue of Science that it may have occurred 240 million to 320
million years ago.
For more than a decade, scientists have been on a quest to understand
how sex is determined during fetal development -- that is, why an
embryo that carries two X chromosomes is female and one that carries
an X and a Y is a male.
But Page and his team wanted to broaden the scope of the inquiry.
"We wanted to know how did this system come to be during evolution,"
Page said. "How was this system put in place originally?"
By studying a series of XY gene pairs in much the same way that
geologists study fossils, Page was able to craft a timeline of the
evolution of X and Y chromosomes. "After a while, we realized that the
XY genes were sorting themselves out according to their evolutionary
age, and when we thought about this question we realized that the
genes were shouting at us about the history of the sex chromosome."
Long ago, in addition to XX and XY, organisms that were the ancestors
of humans carried other non-sex chromosomes in matched pairs called
autosomes, Page explained.
The X and Y evolved from what was a perfectly ordinary matched pair of
chromosomes, but today's X and Y look different from one another.
"The X chromosome retained all of the genes of the ancestral
chromosome, but the Y has lost virtually all of the genes that it once
shared with X," Page said. "We know of 19 genes that they both still
share, and we think they are remnants of the ancestral gene."
By studying the few shared genes on the Y chromosome that remain
today, and by comparing the genes that are common to the X and Y, Page
and his team were able to measure the amount of time that has passed
since the gene pairs were identical.
"We found all of the XY gene pairs and looked at them as a group and
found that the pattern and flow of the sex chromosome evolution became
obvious when we had them lined up."
"We now recognize that these shared genes are a kind of living
fossil," Page said. "It's through the study of today's human X and Y
that we can reconstruct their past," he said.
"It's a kind of molecular archaeology…We're not looking at bones or
fossils or even other species, we're just looking within ourselves."
Have a comment on this article? Send it.
Fax this from your computer for free
Related Wired Links: Final
Stretch in the Genome Race 25.Oct.1999
Identifying
Genetic Standards 22.Oct.1999
FDA
Suspends Gene Experiments 11.Oct.1999
Researchers
Find Rett Stuff 2.Oct.1999
Another
Chance For Gene Therapy? 1.Oct.1999
Genome
Map Gets E-Biz Boost 24.Sep.1999
Copyright © 1994-99
Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved.
jum...@my-deja.com
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> "They don't need to qualify for an IGNORANT definition of
>> greatness in order to qualify for their own SPECIAL definition
>> of greatness."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> And, of course, none of the aforementioned greats (i.e.,
> Toulouse-Lautrec, Van Gogh, Cervantes, etc.) would share your
> definition of what constitutes greatness. We already know your
> opinions are worthless.
Have you specified for the newsgroup your methods of determining
whether somebody "knows" or "does not know" something? Did you
offer some DEMONSTRATION of "worth" or "worthlessness?" Are you
capable of substantiating your "empty theories," or did you just
want to fart in the wind? Have you -shown- anything at all by
means of argument from fact or definition? Are you unable to
comport yourself, except in the context of smear and slander?
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> "So, Pyro, you've once again committed yourself to another
>> 'logical fallacy' in your haste to be frothing at the bit."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> There was no "haste" on my part to excoriate you, since you do a
> good job embarrassing yourself here at a.f.u. on a daily basis.
Key to the above was your use of "excoriate" since it appears
you seek to do nothing other than that, and you are showing no
skills at debate or presentation of any coherent logical argument.
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> "Better get your rabies booster, eh? Since you keep bringing up
>> 'Oprah Winfrey' I hereby dedicate Pyro's SPECIAL 'greatness
>> dispensation' on behalf of your obsessive-compulsive nomination
>> of Oprah Winfrey."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> You wrote you thought Cochran is great because "he is famous,
> intelligent, rich, successful, and perhaps puts on airs of
> 'greatness.'" Oprah is far wealthier and more successful -- heck
> she's worth a half a billion, I believe -- and probably has at
> least the IQ that Cochran has (not that it would be astounding,
> anyway). So by your very definition Oprah Winfrey is also a
> great philosopher. Oh, looks like Pyro has caught your very own
> EGREGIOUS logical fallacy.
There are two requirements here, for the "great philosopher"
designation. One requirement is that the individual needs to
satisfy the definition of "great" as you've correctly identifed.
The other requirement is that the individual needs to be known
as a philosopher, or engaged with philosophical activities. As
I've mentioned previously, I haven't had an opportunity to make
a determination whether or not Oprah Winfrey is a "philosopher."
It seems that YOU are better acquainted with Oprah than I, so I
leave it to you to assess the latter question. Yes, Oprah is
"great" on account of being "famous, intelligent, rich,
successful..." but she needs to be a "philosopher" in order to
satisfy the definition of a "great philosopher." In logic this
is called the "P -and- Q" construction. Both "P" and "Q" must
be true in order to have "P and Q" be true.
----------------------------
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> Could what makes you "believe" something one way or another seem to
>> cast doubtful aspersions on an indeliberative nonprofundity to your
>> "belief-forming mechanisms" generally?
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max:
> If you can confirm that you think as clearly as you write, it
> will explain why you came to the conclusion that Johnnie Cochran,
> and not Socrates, was a great philosopher.
If you could provide a detailed list of the criteria by which you
determine whether someone can confirm thinking as clearly as writing
then perhaps we can find the common-ground necessary for CONSTRUCTIVE
dialogue typical for those who seek communications in philosophy.
Are you able to DEMONSTRATE from Plato's writing that Socrates was
a "great philosopher?" Shall I conclude that demonstrations are NOT
components of your (anti-)philosophical repertoire? Where was the
"proof" you offer for your statements? Did you expect to simply
"fart in the wind" like Pyro, or were you going to -work- for your
conclusions? Some "teacher" you are!
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> Unless you can distinguish the defense, support and championing
>> of Nazism from Nazi ambitions, you once again have proven that you
>> don't listen to views other than the sepsis between your own ears,
>> by projecting upon others your unfounded allegations of what you
>> presume they don't know what they, and/or others, are talking about.
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max:
> If a Nazi says the sky is blue, and I defend that statement, I
> will by definition become a supporter and defender of a Nazi. A
> defense of a Nazi is considered evidence of "championing Nazism"
> by fools like you. "Championing Nazism" is then taken to the
> next level by claiming it is evidence of "Nazi ambitions."
Nazism (Naziism) has no relationship to whether or not the sky
is blue. Nazism (Naziism) would be the quality of being "a member
of the National Socialist German Worker's Party, founded in 1919,
whose fascistic program (called National Socialism) was dominant
in Germany from 1933 to 1945 under the dictatorship of Hitler,
and was characterized by extreme nationalism, militarism, racism,
totalitarian direction of all political, economic, and cultural
activity, and a belief in German world leadership." In modern
usage Nazism (Naziism) would apply to active sympathizers of the
same traits which characterized those who subscribed to Hitler's
fascistic program. I do not read where the sky's "blueness" or
"non-blueness" plays any part in that definition. One of your
problems, by the way, is that you fail to understand definitions
of words and that's why you are repeatedly -SHOWN- as silly on
this newsgroup, and in appalling contrast to what seems to be
your idiotic habit of launching spurious retorts without any
foundation. The irony of it all seems to be your cowardly way
of going about things which would tend to discredit your own
positions, simply on account of your botched manner of illogical
and fallacious presentation. I suppose that's what your actual
goal should be, to pretend to represent Nazi views while at the
same time illustrating for this cyberspace community just how
stupid Nazi sympathizers such as you really are. After shaking
my head in disbelief I'm concluding that you're probably running
a "black operation" secretly under the employ of Israel's Mossad.
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max:
> So what we have is an example of how a mind (who sees Johnnie
> Cochran as a GREAT philosopher) can argue that agreeing with a
> Nazi argument is evidence for Nazi ambitions. The logic on which
> this reasoning is based and the consequences of that logic I have
> pointed out above.
Agreeing with a Nazi argument was satisfactory for Nuremberg.
So you were "just following orders?" Next!
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max:
> Hmm, I understand now how you deduced I had Nazi ambitions.
> This reasoning has three advantages: first, one need not show
> that the sky is something other than blue--because Nazis are
> automatically presumed to be wrong--and one is not expected to
> dignify them with a response. Second, one automatically has a
> support group because "everyone" knows Nazis are evil and need to
> be silenced whenever they speak—why, the mass media told them so!
> Third, one immediately has the moral high ground without having
> to be burdened by refuting any arguments.
If you have a coherent argument then present it. I haven't
seen much indication that you know how to do that. Remember,
there are several types of arguments in debate: One may argue
from alleged harms, then show there's a need to mitigate harms
and then propose a viable solution for that mitigation. One
may alternatively argue that action must be taken in any case
and that there are several choices, of which one or a few seem
to be better than others. One may alternatively propose certain
criteria as worthy of achievement and then present a case for
how to accomplish that achievement. I have yet to see evidence
that you can construct a recognizably formal argument.
You seem to be extracting classic fallacies from a textbook,
so you are also being sent to the penalty box for plagiarism.
"Blueness" of the sky was not part of the Nazi definition. I
don't maintain that a "Nazi position" _per_se_ is "evil" if it
is apprehended in terms of metaphysics but that the "methods"
(or lack of them) typically employed by those correlated with
Nazis and Nazism (Naziism) tend to violate normative rules of
discourse as outlined by Karl Popper in _The_Open_Society_.
I'm not bothered by statements of Nazism (Naziism) but if the
Nazi wants to interrupt my chess game, denigrates cognitive
logical skills by discountenancing dialectical foundations of
thought (demonstrated to be fundamental by Socrates in the
_Gorgias_ dialogue by Plato), as represented by example in the
game of "draughts" (checkers, etc.), then it doesn't matter
what kind of "position" the Nazi has anymore. A discourtesy
has occurred through violation of -method- when the Nazi (or
anyone for that matter) does not know how to identify what is
the logical argument, nor respects individual rights of those
who would wish to advance logical argument. An aspect common
to Nazis (evidence aplenty for that on a.f.u.) of "intellectual
bullying" identifies that Nazi personality as one dangerous to
himself/herself and others. The nature of the danger is clearly
provided by the rapid "rise and fall" of Hitler's Germany, since
Nazism (Naziism) proved to be inherently unstable as a political
force, resulting in economic ruin and the wartime loss or injury
of 100 million. Nazism (Naziism) is thereby merely expression
of nihilistic self-destruction and has no place in the definition
for what constitutes a human being. Aspects of Nazi metaphysic
are fascinating but unfortunately it seems that those who are
mass "cult followers" of Nazi ideologies for the most part do
not understand them very well on account of a rampant dyslexia
and, without a doubt, some serious psychiatric aberrations.
>>> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>>>> Plato was the author of Plato's writings.
>> From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max:
>>> Though I never mentioned Plato, I appreciate your great
>>> insight that "Plato was the author of Plato's writings."
>>> Thank you; who would have guessed that Plato was the author
>>> of Plato’s writing!
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> Students taking philosophy from you might erroneously conclude
>> that Socrates was the author of Plato's writings. Perhaps you
>> should like to mention Plato when you speak of Plato's writings
>> in your future philosophy courses? Learn something everyday, eh?
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max:
> Yes I do, and the problem is--you don’t! There is no need for me
> to point out to my students that "Plato was the author of Plato’s
> writing" because by the time they get out of grammar school, they
> have already reached a thinking capacity where they can figure
> this out by themselves.
Can you provide evidentiary argument for your assertion (made
above) that I don't "learn something everyday?" Apparently even
your students can figure out that Socrates did not author Plato's
writings because Socrates did not write anything down, which is
CONTRADICTORY TO YOUR STATEMENT when you said:
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max wrote:
> Or Socrates might say, "YOU, Jumangi, are an
> example of the reason I did not bother to write
> my philosophy down. I knew that the great
> majority of fools reading what I had to say would
> not understand it anyway. This would inevitably
> mean that a misunderstood and misrepresented
> version of my beliefs would become my legacy."
So it's quite OBVIOUS that you would give your students the WRONG
IMPRESSION by MISREPRESENTING what Socrates would do, by suggesting
that Socrates might have written something down. The conclusion
is that your "students" would do better NOT to have you as their
"teacher" because you would be "teaching" them INCORRECTLY. The
"evil" inherent to your discourse does not consist so much in the
"positions" you try to offer but in your MISSTATEMENTS AND LIES.
If what you do is typical for Nazi behavior then you indict that
Nazi behavior itself through examples of your misconduct. It seems
that your "students" had PREVIOUSLY REACHED a thinking capacity
already EXCEEDING your own ability, or inability, as case may be.
Ha! You say you had "never mentioned Plato" WHILE YOU REFERRED
to "Socrates" and the non-existent writings of "Socrates." Whose
were the writings to which you had referred?
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> You bring up an interesting point, which you will need to answer
>> in order to proceed any further. Was Socrates lying about himself
>> at his own trial?
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max:
> We don’t know if Socrates was or was not lying about himself
> since we only know what Plato wanted us to believe Socrates said
> at his trial.
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> Did Plato misrepresent Socrates?
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max:
> Unless you were in Athens at the time, this too cannot be known
> for certain. And even then we would not know since your
> understanding of what you hear is probably not better than what
> you read.
To both of the above I had already offered my analysis which
considered EITHER case, a philosophical endeavor at attempting
to investigate THE NATURE OF THE ARGUMENT itself, one apparently
alien to your "non-methods" of indolence.
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> Since you are already a "teacher" of philosophy I expect you'll
>> be able to provide your ready-made answers to such questions.
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max:
> My answers were not "ready-made," but self-evident to anyone even
> marginally aware of the subject, which obviously does not include
> you.
Since you provided no answers at all, my expectation of obtaining
your "answers," much less "ready-made answers," was not fulfilled.
-----------------------------------
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Isn't it funny how these middle-class (often middle-aged)
> WHITE NERDS come in as if they are providing novel ideas, when
> they are in fact spewing the same garbage we hear on Springer
> or any other (often Jew-run) degenerate talk show, or among
> the mass media generally, as well as in schools and corporations?
I see that the definition for "spew" is "to vomit; throw up"
and cannot discern the difference (with regards to "spewing")
between your identification of what others do, from the spewed
illustrations you've provided to us on this newsgroup.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Isn't it funny how the PC'ers even have the audacity to tell
> the right-wingers at a.f.u. to leave, when TK EXPLICITLY TRASHED
> LEFTISTS IN HIS MANIFESTO?? Moreover, they claim he is a
> closet-leftist, and used the terms "leftist" and "oversocialized
> leftist" to describe the right!
You'll need to provide a "position independent" definition of
PC ("politically correct") to make semantic sense of your argument.
The dictionary does not correlate "right-wing" or "left-wing"
politics with "correct" or "incorrect" so that's one example of
what I mean when I observe your "spew" on this newsgroup.
correct
v.t. 1. To make free from error or mistake; set right
2. To remedy or counteract (an error, malfunction, etc.)
3. To indicate the error of; mark for amendment
4. To punish or rebuke so as to improve
5. To adjust, as to a standard
correct
adj. 1. Free from fault or mistake; true or exact
2. Conforming to custom or other standard; proper
Perhaps you can supply some analysis or argument from your point of
view why the above definitions for "correct" are unsatisfactory.
Do you have some purpose here other than attempting to engage in
"correction" of something? By directing anger at "PC" wouldn't you
be attacking yourself by your own arguments aimed at some remedy, or
at being politically corrective? I think, perhaps, that you cannot
appreciate the kind of "intellectual hell" you've been living, but
it's transparent to anyone who no longer lives there.
I would think the phrase "oversocialized leftist" describes
both Marxists and Nazis, because Marxists are self-described as
leftists and Nazis are self-described as "social" (until they
assume power and become "anti-social" through "bait & switch").
The problem TK identifies stems from analysis of mass movements
provided by his mentor Eric Hoffer in _The_True_Believer_ which
is applicable to either "left" or "apparent left" (Nazi "right").
The problem of "oversocialization" is a "mass movement" problem
endemic to any form of political ideology which interferes with
individual autonomy. Nazis are neither free, nor do they work
towards freedom for themselves and all others in general, so
the Nazis do not share TK's goals. Nazis rely on technological
means of empowerment, social control, and domination of others,
which TK identified as CAUSATIVE of our modern malaise.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> This forum REEKS of Jews and PC! [ ... ]
> They can play it off as they are caring White people, but really
> want to hurt you in the most sadistic of ways.
Perhaps it's high time you provided documentation of your hurts:
who has "hurt" you, and why you think it was not warranted.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> According to my dictionary, "revolution" means change, or
> transition from one form of government to another. Why can't
> right-wingers be considered revolutionaries? Are fascists really
> satisfied with the status quo? I don't think so. In fact, it
> appears it is the leftists here who are the fans of the FBI and
> government.
What dictionary might that be? Reader's Digest is showing:
revolution ... 6. The overthrow and replacement of a government
or political system by those governed.
So I think (ordinary) "change" by normative political election
does not qualify as a "revolution." Hitler's transition to power
in Germany was not a "revolution" because he was elected. Lenin's
"overthrow and replacement" of the Tsarist regime was "revolution"
because that transition did not occur through normative electoral
means. History's accounts of "revolution" were generally those
which deposed the rule of Kings and Emperors, or as with the case
of the "American Revolution" (more accurately a colonial rebellion),
succeeded in winning independence from previous rulers. In each
case it seems a common thread was the "anti-fascism" that offers
idenfication of "revolution" as a phenomena arriving from the LEFT.
You make an interesting point with regards to an inquiry into the
nature of _status_quo_, but I cannot think of an historical example
where the political right was "overthrowing" the _status_quo_ for
the sake of qualifying itself as a textbook "revolution." Movement
of _status_quo_ toward the right, in contemporary political science,
occurs through RE-ASSERTION of the right-wing tendency, which is a
"replacement" to be sure but not an "overthrow -AND- replacement."
( Needs to satisfy -BOTH- characteristics by that definition. )
Webster's offers for "revolution: a sudden and violent change
of the government or the political constitution of a country, usu.
by internal instigation..." A _status_quo_ may drift left or right
according to political winds, while an assertion of right-wing power
upon the domestic "state-of-affairs" might be "sudden and violent"
but would not be "a sudden and violent CHANGE." An example of that
sort of "right-wing crackdown" was provided by Tiananmen Square,
which resulted in NO POLITICAL CHANGE upon the Chinese Government.
An apparent paradox is supplied when observing that the Government
of Mainland China is ostensibly that of a Communist Regime, which
one would think is "leftist," but the situation of Tiananmen Square
consisted of Chinese students even FURTHER TO THE LEFT of their own
(so-called) "communist" government. Most all regimes tend back to
centrism after assuming power, whether from the left or right, but
since CHANGE occurs generally from the left, a subsequent movement
in governmant consists of a rightward movement from left to center.
The "Communist Regime" of Mainland China has instead today become
a "relatively right-wing government" typical of any regime and/or
dynasty that incrementally consolidates administrative powers and
then gradually stagnates. Ironic to Tiananmen Square is the fact
that the Chinese students were no more "leftist" than T.Jefferson
and other founding fathers of the "American Revolution" they cited,
so the government of Mainland China must be considerably further to
the right than anyone had imagined, even while it labels itself with
"communism." A guiding principle with regards to current governments
is that "things are not what they seem to be" whereas "revolutionary
movements" (from the left) are typically straightforward (even naive)
about what they stand against, stand for, and hope to accomplish.
TK's criticisms of the left were heaped upon the "naive left" yet
one of the reasons he could offer (constructive) criticism of the
left is due to the fact that there's so much more of interest in
political leftism than in the brain-dead political right. These
terms ("left" and "right") are utilized herein by their modern
sense and are not quite the same when applied to history 100 years
ago, or history 200 years ago. Political innovation can occur from
either the left or the right, but the topic being addressed by this
paragraph, and TK's paragraph #204, does NOT concern the matter of
innovation, but questions of "revolution" in the contemporary sense.
Both Left and Right are "naive" when represented by young people
of the "next generation" because that is their nature, so each can
be critiqued for similar reasons. Because much less is involved on
the "naive Right" there is much less to offer in terms of critique;
furthermore it is much less probable that the "naive Right" should
be -wrong- simply by "going along with the flow." Yet there is also
the problem that there is much less "potentially correct" within the
ranks of the "naive Right" due to an absense of posing intellectual
challenges. The "naive Right" is typically non-inclusive, and even
exclusionary, whereas the "naive Left" is inclusive to the point of
losing control over diversity among their numbers. Those working in
"information industries" may require an ecclectic absorption of what
is best from both the Left and the Right, since each have their own
merits and demerits and there is no single political perspective
adequate to obtain the stability required for political management.
Eric Hoffer critiques both sides of the spectrum (Left and Right)
when identifying the fundamental problem of the "true believer" who
may be given over to positions involving a "worldview" that can be
only partial and insufficient. There are innumerable issues which
are transcendent of political perspectives that continue to reassert
themselves in defiance of one's conceptual inadequacies, since life
remains essentially a mystery that none of us understand very well.
- regards
- jb
.
===============================================================
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3829f6990b65.htm
---------------------------------------------------
Psychiatric Drugs For Kids Focus Of Debate [Free Republic]
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
Source: Denver Rocky Mountain News
Published: 10 Nov '99 Author: Lynn Bartels
Posted on 11/10/1999 14:50:01 PST by real saxophonist
Psychiatric drugs for kids focus of debate
Some link medications to school shootings
By Lynn Bartels
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
State Board of Education member Patty Johnson has a theory about
Einstein: "If he were alive today, they'd probably put him on
Ritalin."
Johnson and others who appeared before a legislative group Tuesday
condemned what they called the drugging of America's kids, a practice
they fear is linked to school violence, including the Columbine
tragedy.
"The use of psychotic drugs is creating kid killers," said Dr. Bruce
Wiseman, president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a
national psychiatric watchdog group.
Opponents of drugs such as Ritalin, Luvox and Prozac argue that too
many students are misdiagnosed by educators and by doctors who don't
spend enough time with patients.
Several doctors who crusade nationally against the drugs told
lawmakers that some students who are diagnosed with attention-deficit
disorder likely have food allergies or are hypoglycemic. Others, they
said, are so gifted they are bored, or the kids may just be plain
old-fashioned discipline problems.
But Colorado doctors Marianne Wamboldt and Marshall Thomas urged
lawmakers to consider the millions of children on the drugs who never
pull a trigger -- but who might be violent if they weren't on
medication.
"We didn't take penicillin from the market because some people died
from a reaction," Wamboldt said.
Thomas pointed out that although several witnesses mentioned that
Columbine gunman Eric Harris was taking Luvox they failed to note that
his partner Dylan Klebold is not believed to have been on any drugs.
The daylong hearing was organized by a group of Republican lawmakers,
including Rep. Penn Pfiffner, who said they are looking for answers
after the April 20 Columbine shootings.
"If all we're talking about is putting metal detectors in hallways,
we're not addressing the issues," he said. Several students who opened
fire on their schools in recent shootings, from Springfield, Ore., to
Conyers, Ga., were on medication, witnesses said. Dr. Peter Breggin,
author of Toxic Psychiatry, said the side effects of the drug Harris
was taking include "grandiosity and Godlike behavior."
"What (children) need is not pills but lots and lots of adults engaged
in their lives," he said.
Johnson said she has received a number of complaints from parents who
said they were urged by teachers to put their kids on Ritalin. She
said she thinks school districts are being influenced by federal
mandates, which give districts extra money for children diagnosed with
attention-deficit disorder.
The Colorado Board of Education on Thursday will vote on a resolution
that asks schools not to push parents to put their kids on drugs but
to allow parents to make the decision.
The resolution has no legal teeth, but Johnson said it would send a
message.
------------------------------------------------------------
To: real saxophonist
Drugs for unruly kids attacked
By Peter G. Chronis
Denver Post Staff Writer
Nov. 10 - A parade of experts appeared before a group of legislators
Tuesday to point accusatory fingers at psychotropic medications, such
as Ritalin and Luvox, claiming a connection between the drugs and an
epidemic of school shootings. Tuesday's hearing coincides with a drive
before the state Board of Education to pass a resolution forbidding
schools from making parents put disruptive children on Ritalin. The
board will hear additional testimony today and is expected to vote on
the resolution Thursday.
Several speakers Tuesday hinted at a sinister alliance of
pharmaceutical companies and health professionals to prescribe the
drugs for unruly school kids. Some said attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, for which the drugs often are
prescribed, was an illness made up by the psychiatric profession.
Countering the well-orchestrated blitz of out-of-town experts were
local mental health advocates who said much of the information was
skewed and out of context. Children and Adults with
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or CHADD, is planning a Nov.
17 news conference in Washington, D.C., to present scientific
information supporting the medical diagnosis of
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, a spokesman for the group
said.
The group of legislators that met Tuesday, chaired by Rep. Penn
Pfiffner, RLakewood, has no power to pass or recommend legislation.
The group met to explore a possible link between the drugs and school
violence because suicidal Columbine killer Eric Harris had been on
Luvox, and schoolyard killers elsewhere supposedly took similar
medications. Leading off at the hearing was Bruce Wiseman of
California, national president of the Citizens Commission on Human
Rights, which he said is a watchdog group.
Pfiffner confirmed that the commission is linked to the Church of
Scientology. Wiseman called medicating children "one of the most
dangerous and insidious'' issues facing the nation and blamed
increased violence on giving 5 million children "mind-altering drugs''
for "a mental disorder that has no basis in fact.''
The drugs, Wiseman said, make students more violent, cause suicide and
create "kid killers.''
Wiseman said such drugs were linked to killings, including the May
1997 murder of a 7-year-old girl in a Las Vegas casino restroom by
Jeremy Strohmeyer, and school killings in Pearl, Miss., West Paducah,
Ky., Jonesboro, Ark., and Springfield, Ore.
Dr. Peter Breggin, an M.D. and psychiatrist, flew in from London to
testify that Ritalin reduces difficult behavior for about five or six
weeks but there's "no evidence that Ritalin improves long-term
behavior.''
Breggin said he had obtained data that showed Harris was taking Luvox,
which he said has a "cocaine-like effect'' that can cause violent
behavior.
Breggin said the "scietific evidence is irrefutable'' that Luvox
causes "psychotic mania'' in about 4 percent of the young people who
take it.
On the other side, Dr. Marshall Thomas, associate professor of
psychiatry at the University of Colorado Medical School, speaking on
behalf of the Colorado Behavioral Health Care, told Pfiffner he was
concerned about violence in children but hoped the committee's inquiry
would be balanced and "not politicized.''
The quality of some information presented, Thomas said, was "somewhat
suspect, ... not balanced'' and the "presentations were very skewed.''
Thomas said sometimes a child diagnosed as depressed is really
suffering from bipolar disorder and treating the depression "brings
out the manic side.'' The medications, he noted, don't create the
manic behavior.
During questioning by Sen. Jim Congrove, R-Arvada, Thomas said that
although one Columbine killer was on Luvox, "the other (Dylan Klebold)
wasn't. Why was the other one involved?''
"You don't know that he wasn't,'' Congrove said.
But Jefferson County sheriff's spokesman Steve Davis told The Denver
Post, "As far as I know, Klebold had no drugs in him. I'm very sure of
that. I never heard anything about him being prescribed anything.''
The national center for Children and Adults with
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, based in Landover, Md., sent
a letter last week to the Colorado Board of Education.
The letter expresses the agency's "outrage'' and "strong opposition''
to any proposal that would ban the use of psychotropic drugs among
public school students.
The center estimates 3 percent to 5 percent of the student population
nationwide has been diagnosed with some form of attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. "Medication should not be precluded''
as a form of treatment, said Stephen Spector, director of government
relations for Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder. But other forms of intervention should also be used, he
said. Evan Dreyer contributed to this report.
3 Posted on 11/10/1999 14:55:01 PST by real saxophonist
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
==========================================================
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3828a42248d0.htm
---------------------------------------------------
House Mulls Electronic Signatures [Free Republic]
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
House Mulls Electronic Signatures
Computers/Internet Breaking News News
Source: AP via Newsday.com
Published: AP-NY-11-09-99 1739EST Author: By JIM ABRAMS
Posted on 11/09/1999 14:45:54 PST by JeanS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Recognizing the rapid growth of electronic
commerce, the House passed legislation Tuesday that would give
electronic signatures and records the same legal validity as written
contracts.
The legislation is ``perhaps the most important pro-technology vote
that this Congress will take,'' said Commerce Committee Chairman Tom
Bliley, R-Va., the chief sponsor.
The bill, approved 356-66, would establish a single, nationwide
standard for electronic signatures and records. It would prohibit the
enactment of any state law denying the legality of agreements that are
electronically signed.
The administration, while backing standards for contracts signed in
electronic form, strongly opposes extending that legal authority to
notices and disclosures, saying that could seriously undermine
consumer rights.
An administration statement argued that electronic delivery of records
-- such as warranties, interest rate changes or notices of recalls --
could be detrimental to consumers who don't have regular access to the
Internet. Supporters argued that consumers are protected because they
must ``opt-in'' to accepting electronic records as a substitute for
written records.
A Democratic substitute that would have extended the legal rights to
signatures but not to records was defeated 278-126.
But the House did accept, 418-2, an Democratic-proposed amendment
requiring that terms of consumer consent to receive electronic records
be obvious and visually separate from other terms. It clarifies that
consumers do not have to use or accept electronic records or
signatures and that states will still be able to demand that public
health and safety notices be given in paper form. Rep. Jay Inslee,
D-Wash., author of the amendment, said it would ``assure an American's
right to make the decision by themselves ... to receive information
electronically.''
A Senate version, crafted by Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., and
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is also more narrowly defined to cover only
signatures, not records. That measure, which has yet to come to a
vote, ``satisfies the needs of the high tech community without
sacrificing consumers in the process,'' said Rep. John Conyers,
D-Mich.
But supporters of the House bill said both signatures and records must
be included. ``I am convinced that the promise of electronic commerce
will never be fully realized without the establishment of a clear
uniform national framework governing both digital signatures and
records,'' said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif.
The bill first reached the House floor a week ago under special rules
where it needed a two-thirds majority to pass. It failed to get that
majority because of Democratic concerns about consumer rights.
----
The bill is H.R. 1714.
--------
To: JeanS
I watched that debate on CSPAN today, interesting to see the
government trying establish its bureaucracy in cyberspace.
I get the feeling that its slowly slipping from thier grasp and they
are constantly trying to make themselves significant - that e-commerce
is being held up by thier failure to legislate, that consumers are
being harmed because there are no special protections... etc.
==============================================================
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a382994bb647d.htm
---------------------------------------------------
Schools unload controversy, end rifle classes [Free Republic]
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
Source: Chicago Trib via the Orator
Published: November 9, 1999 Author: By Michael Martinez and Megan
O'Matz
Posted on 11/10/1999 07:52:27 PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
Schools unload controversy, end rifle classes
By Michael Martinez and Megan O'Matz
Tribune Staff Writers
November 9, 1999
The Chicago Public Schools system, which offers one of the largest
JROTC programs in the country, will abolish marksmanship training and
all rifle teams and competitions, officials said Monday.
Schools chief Paul Vallas said he will eliminate immediately all forms
of riflery--now taught in 33 of the 41 high schools with some sort of
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps--after a Tribune story last
week showed how weaponry instruction continues at many Illinois high
schools even as the nation struggles with deadly gunfire in schools.
A Chicago schools official and senior JROTC leaders recently had been
discussing banning the rifle training, especially after Vallas vetoed
a rifle range in the basement of the newly opened Bronzeville Military
Academy and similar marksmanship proposals for several new military
programs in existing high schools, administrators said.
---------------------------------------------
Vallas said he acted because of several factors, including the U.S.
Army Cadet Command's decision to stop requiring marksmanship.
One senior JROTC instructor in Chicago said he thought the Cadet
Command dropped the rifle training requirement two years ago, but a
Cadet Command spokesman said the mandate was dropped more than 10
years ago in more than 1,400 secondary schools nationally with Army
JROTC.
Vallas also said that rifle classes and marksmanship
competitions--often held inside a school basement or windowless room
next to the gym--were unseemly and incongruous after fatal school
shootings in Colorado and elsewhere. www.theorator.com/toc.asp
-----------------------------------------------------------
To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Vallas also said that rifle classes and marksmanship
competitions--often held inside a school basement or windowless room
next to the gym--were unseemly and incongruous after fatal school
shootings in Colorado and elsewhere.
We live in a sick, sick country folks! To deny firearms training for
our young people is obviously just more anti-gun stuff.The liberals
feel that by denying children the opportunity to learn how to shoot,
then they can more easily mold them into the sarah brady bunch.
Unseemly and incongruous indeed! How pukingly PC!
2 Posted on 11/10/1999 08:11:55 PST by kipj
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
=============================================================
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3829efff7fc7.htm
---------------------------------------------------
Clinton Wants to Ride Out on a Harley [Free Republic]
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
News/Current Events News
Source: Reuters
Published: 5.11 p.m. ET (2221 GMT) November 10, 1999
Posted on 11/10/1999 14:21:51 PST by Brian Mosely
YORK, Pa. — Forget Air Force One. When Bill Clinton leaves the White
House after two terms as president, he wants to leave on a
Harley-Davidson motorcycle. "Most presidents get on Air Force One and
ride off into the sunset — maybe I'll just get on a Harley,'' said
Clinton, clad in a leather jacket emblazoned with the winged Harley
insignia.
"I'm not done yet, but when I am I'm gonna get one of those
motorcycles,'' he said on Wednesday during a visit to Harley-Davidson
Inc.'s final assembly plant in Pennsylvania which makes the popular
motorcycles.
Although he declined invitations by the news media to try out one of
the motorcycles he was admiring in the factory, Clinton said
Harley-Davidson chief executive Jeff Bleustein had ulterior motives in
presenting him with the leather jacket.
"He's giving me a jacket so I'll buy a motorcycle when I leave office.
And it worked,'' he said after meeting top company officials and union
leaders during a visit to promote global trade.
Clinton later told a cheering crowd of about 2,000 employees that
Harley leather jackets held a special place in his heart.
"I had a beautiful Harley jacket before ... that I got in Milwaukee.
But I gave it to a guy who worked for me, because he thought he was
going to ride to heaven on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle,'' he said to
wild applause.
He thanked the employees for the jackets given to him and Commerce
Secretary William Daley.
"We're glad we got our jackets, and we really wish we were leaving
with motorcycles,'' he said. "But I've got to wait a year and a half.
I couldn't bear all the stories out here if I rode around on a
motorcycle for a while.''
Clinton shared several of what he called "Harley stories'' to the
crowd.
He spoke of how the late King Hussein of Jordan was a "very satisfied
Harley customer'' and said he still had a picture in the White House
of Hussein and Queen Noor in the Jordanian desert, astride a Harley.
Clinton also talked about a 1944 Harley-Davidson he admired which has
a place of honor in the American Ambassador's residence in Paris.
He went on to give a speech defending free trade and showing how
export growth has helped companies like Harley-Davidson.
------------------------------------
To: Brian Mosely
Clinton later told a cheering crowd of about 2,000 employees
My opinion of Harley-Davidson just flew out the window.
20 Posted on 11/10/1999 14:49:54 PST by gaijin
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
jum...@my-deja.com
> Jumangi wrote:
>> "Johnny Cochran is 'great' because he is famous, intelligent, rich,
>> successful, and perhaps puts on airs of 'greatness' (whether they
>> are justified or not). I think, however, Cochran's airs ARE for
>> the most part justified."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> This is how you define one who is "great"? Interesting that Van
> Gogh, Toulouse-Latrec, and Miguel de Cervantes (among MANY other
> geniuses, including Socrates) would not qualify for your IGNORANT
> definition of greatness. And you know, many of the other
> (degenerate) fans of Cochran would argue that Oprah Winfrey fits
> the definition you gave. The more opinions you give the more
> pitiful you appear.
They don't need to qualify for an IGNORANT definition of greatness
in order to qualify for their own SPECIAL definition of greatness.
So, Pyro, you've ONCE AGAIN committed yourself to ANOTHER "logical
fallacy" in your haste to be FROTHING at the bit. Better get your
rabies booster, eh? Since you keep bringing up "Oprah Winfrey" I
hereby dedicate Pyro's SPECIAL "greatness dispensation" on behalf
of your obsessive-compulsive nomination of Oprah Winfrey. The
bottom-line, however, is that Pyro will NEVER EVER be great.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> BTW, more than one person in this forum has discovered your method
> of cloaking your ignorance on culture and the arts with verbiage.
Then offer the "translation" in your pidgin-'glish. If you
leave anything out, or misinterpret a point, you'll be roasted.
- regards
- jb
ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-- MISATTRIBUTION MASTURBATION MISATTRIBUTION MASTURBATION ---
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> <-- perpetrator of false data
Subject: Violating the law <-- demonstrated by "RenoDeCaro" !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^
[ ... ]
Jumangi wrote: <-- FALSE! I did NOT write that cite !!!
>Pyro, you wouldn't know a principle if it stripped itself naked,
painted itself purple and jerked off in front you. You're the type
of person the demagogues prey upon, and there are always millions
of you lurking conveniently about whenever times are hard and
there's power to be grabbed. Believe me, when the time comes for
gassing, or immolation, or war-mongering, or torturing, you'll be
there, little Goebbels!>
============================================================
The following is making the rounds on the internet.
It is extremely interesting reading.
V/R, CAPT Joe Gradisher, CNP PAO
From the net...Military Profession
-------------------------
Every now and then I run across an article that cuts to the
heart of military service. There are two letters here. The first
appeared in the 4 Oct edition of US News & World Report.
The next letter is a reply to this professor from an AWACS
controller currently assigned to AF Rome Labs in NY. The
response is particularly well-written and I thought you would
appreciate it (even if you're not an ROTC product).
US News & World Report, 4 Oct 99; Letters
How disturbed I was to see your article in the September 6
issue about ROTC scholarships as a means of providing funds for a
college education. The education associated with ROTC is a
contradiction to the academic freedom enjoyed at university campuses;
military training on college campuses, in fact, makes a mockery of
education. Far from taking a global view of learning, ROTC encourages
narrow patriotism and a philosophy of any means (killing people and
polluting environments) to the end. The institutionalized mistreatment
of gays and lesbians in the military and sexual harassment of women
are par for the course.
KATHERINE VAN WORMER
Professor of Social Work
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, Iowa
************************************************
Dear Professor Van Wormer,
I just finished reading your letter to the editor in U.S. News
& World Report magazine (4 Oct) and was compelled to address your
shockingly prejudiced, obviously uninformed and frankly laughable
viewpoint on ROTC and the military in general. Your unenlightened
perspective belies a reckless if not tragic ignorance that brings
disrepute upon the institution that employs you. It is a shame you
felt obliged to comment on something you apparently know so little
about. I wonder if in your extensive research in "Social Work" you
ever encountered someone who's actually served in the armed forces?
The answer goes without saying. Allow me to be your first.
It troubles me that you must be reminded that the academic freedom you
enjoy and cherish so dearly was purchased with the precious lives and
blood of many a noble soldier on wretched battlefields here and abroad
over the past 223 years. Do you honestly believe freedom of any sort
comes without tremendous cost? Are you so willfully naive to think
you'd enjoy the same license if you were a professor in China, Iran,
North Korea, or the Sudan?
How many young men and women have you talked to lately who spent their
Christmas holiday patrolling some godforsaken minefield like Bosnia,
or their 5th wedding anniversary in a row at sea, or the birthday of
their first daughter stopping a madman from achieving his goal of
ethnic cleansing? Tell me. Do you really think we acknowledge a call
to the profession of arms so we can "kill people and pollute
environments?" To believe such sophomoric rubbish demands some fairly
sophisticated cerebral blinders.
I have served in the U.S. Air Force for 11 years now, flying long
hours over countless global hot spots, and I have not once encountered
a fellow soldier, sailor, or airman who subscribes to a "narrow
patriotism and a philosophy of any means." Not one. Rather, they are
ladies and gentlemen of highest caliber, selfless devotion to the
cause of freedom, and tireless service to an often-thankless nation.
Your mischaracterization is so off base it borders on unforgivable.
It would seem to me that your Department of Social Work would have
whole syllabi devoted to the role of the military in the field of
social work. I can think of no greater social service than an
institution committed to risking the lives of its members to preserve
and defend the very citizenry from which it hails. How many oppressed
refugees, disaster victims, and starving children have been mercifully
delivered from their plight by the military in just the last decade?
Need we reflect on the fact that the whole of Western Europe owes its
freedom from Nazi fascism to a valiant few in olive drab and khaki?
Perhaps you should invite a concentration camp survivor or a Kosovar
Albanian to give a guest lecture extolling the magnificent "social
services" they've benefited from at the hands of the military.
Finally, I find it humorous that academics like yourselves who
indoctrinate our youth with the dogma of "positive tolerance" for
every aberrant lifestyle cannot find it within yourselves to tolerate
an institution to which you owe your very peace, comfort, and well
being. It is an amusing double standard.
My exhortation to you is to get out of the rarified air in your
office, walk over to your ROTC detachment in Lang Hall and interact
with the men and women in uniform and those aspiring to wear it.
Perhaps then you will wake up from your slumber of conscious
ignorance, join the ranks of the enlightened, and offer a prayer of
thanksgiving to God for the freedoms you take for granted and those
who sacrifice daily on your behalf to secure it.
In Service To You,
Capt Jonathan Clough
"No profession or occupation is more pleasing than the military; a
profession or exercise both noble in execution (for the strongest,
most generous and proudest of all virtues is true valour) and noble in
its cause. No utility either more just or universal than the
protection of the repose or defence of the greatness of one's country.
The company and daily conversation of so many noble, young and active
men cannot but be well-pleasing to you."
Michel de Montaigne (1533-92), French essayist. Essays,
bk. 3, ch. 13, "Of Experience" (1588; tr. by John Florio).
jum...@my-deja.com
> "Mike" wrote:
>> It seems to me you have brought such attacks upon yourself. What
>> is the point of bringing up such a debate? Find a 'holocaust
>> quantification questioning' newsgroup and post there. Otherwise
>> expect to bring on others' wrath.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Are you the same fucker who keeps on coming in with different
> screennames and yammers? We are here to discuss "the" Holocaust,
> so if you have a problem with that by all means go to a
> politically correct newsgroup, or maybe alt.support.impotence
> might be of help to you.
Mike is wrong to imagine "wrath" as the consequence of posting
"info" to a newsgroup, albeit it may be boorish and repetitive.
Pyro is wrong to criticize Mike for being a "fucker" because
"fucking" is a basic human right intrinsic to sexual reproduction.
When Nazis make babies they also engage in "fucking" just like
ordinary human beings. Pyro is also wrong to imagine that "we
are here to discuss 'the' Holocaust" because no `discussion' is
taking place here, and TK wasn't interested in the "Holocaust"
because he hadn't written anything about it. Mike is correct
that this newsgroup is not an appropriate location for "discussion
about the Holocaust." If an interesting, engaging, and focused
"Holocaust discussion" should take place then alt.revisionism
is more approriate, not alt.fan.unabomber. To sharpen this
issue: one may conduct a newsgroup-wide DejaNews search and
bring up readable "Holocaust discussion" threads where they are
`appropriately' posted. I agree that an "open society" is
facilitated by review of literature from D.Irving or D.Duke, etc.,
and I have no disagreement to disagreeable literature being made
available to the USENET by that means. However, the "case" is
being overstated when it wanders into an "irrelevancy objection"
on newsgroups where it does not belong. More is less. Hitler
might have been "successful" at exterminating Jews from Germany
if he had not also decided to make war upon Europe and threaten
to conquer the world. Similarly the anti-semites look foolish
when they display insensitivity toward "relevancy" questions,
it seems that they incline toward "ANTI-anti-semitism" when I see
how the case for "anti-semitism" is being misrepresented. That's
why I suspect these "anti-semites" are actually Jews in disguise
who by overstating that case are instead whipping up "WRATH" Mike
speaks of, against anti-semites, producing ANTI-anti-semitism.
Also, it is not a given that alt.fan.unabomber is a newsgroup
devoted to "politically incorrect" topics. Many are of the mind
that TK's philosophy is "politically correct," not "incorrect."
TK's luddism and anti-technological suspicion have a long history
given significant coverage in mainstream humanistic literature.
Of course, even if there is a "politically incorrect" component
to some of TK's writings it does not follow that some "doorway"
was forced open to allow -all- "politically incorrect" topics
as relevant. Oranges are not apples simply because they're fruit.
So there's a rather serious "logical error" being displayed by
those who portend to be champions of anti-semitism here, and as
long as that "logical error" is perpetrated then reviewers would
naturally conclude that ANTI-anti-semitism is THE BOTTOM LINE.
> "Mike" wrote:
>> The point of discussing freedom is not to content let
>> slight differences of opinion spring into large ones while
>> the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> What the heck are you prattling about?
I had no difficulty decrypting Mike's remark. It's embarassing
that Mike should have an "oxford" email address while butchering
the English language, but actually that's the perogative of the
Brits who conceive of English as a fluid ever-changing medium.
Here's what he wanted to say, after running it through the filter:
" The point of discussing freedom is not to contend, lest
slight differences of opinion spring into large ones
while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. "
And Mike's point is that discussions can be diverted away from
the REAL issues by individuals who grab the floor without any
demonstration of meritorious standing (relevancy) to the topics.
There's no connection between anti-semitism and environmentalism
because Nazis could just as well trample this planet to death,
all by themselves, all the more likely in light of the observation
of Nazi insensitivity, lack of empathy and/or humanitarian concern.
And Pyro, since you show considerable dyslexia, feel free to ask
me about your "decryption problems" any time you can't read Mike's
simple English.
> "Mike" wrote:
>> An appropriate Nazi topic might be to discuss US business
>> involvement or how the CIA was partly created out of the old
>> Nazi spy business.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Or, let's talk about mental deficiency and how we can alter the
> language so the "special" such as yourself don't get their
> feelings hurt.
Alteration of language is not the chief signal of "mental
deficiency." The chief signal is FAILURE TO AVOID LOGICAL FALLACY.
> "Mike" wrote:
>> But to start something like this seems pointless at best and
>> only draws out such fierce debate. Perhaps in an ideal world we
>> would have time for such haggling of points but considering the
>> continued division of wealth and power pointing us to an ecological
>> disaster it would seem far better to keep to some standard of
>> meaningful points rather than rubbing historical sores and
>> then acting righteous because logically you might be in some way
>> correct.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> What does the gap between rich and poor have to do with ecology?
> If not for the scintilla of coherence in your writing I would
> think you are trying to filibuster!
Pyro, Pyro, Pyro ... you're just displaying your woeful lack of
familiarity with the paramaters of this environmental debate.
For example, an impoverished Haiti rendered their little island
an environmental waste. It would have been a simple solution to
upgrade Haiti, provide free medical care (including sterilization),
and their little island wouldn't need to have become a wasteland.
> "Mike" wrote:
>> Your comment about Karl Marx being a criminal shows to me that
>> everything you say can be thrown out as so much loudmouth rhetoric,
>> born from anti-communist propaganda.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Hardly victims of anti-communist propaganda. I for one was
> raised with socialist ideals, and was even once a liberal. I
> developed my viewpoint from my own experiences and capacity.
> While it is true the U.S. government and media have taken part in
> much brainwashing of Americans with anti-communist drivel, the
> same can be said about them brainwashing against politically
> incorrect ideas.
Ahem! Since it's getting "stuffy" in here I've decided to open
a window. Pyro is not entirely wrong in utilizing a literary form
of criticism which ascribes blame for "Marxist" travesties to Marx,
whereas Mike is correct in pointing out that Marx really had very
little, or nothing, to do with what "Marxists" later did, or were
alleged to have done. The basic point is that Marx was not himself
a Marxist. I recognize it's a complex point which might exceed the
parameters of Pyro's microcephallus. It's not a point I originate
but one given adequate coverage and analysis in existing literature.
Mike is wrong again in presuming that "everything" Pyro says can be
thrown out simply because Pyro has illustrated yet again a tendency
to overstep the boundaries of valid argument. Sometimes Pyro makes
a correct argument, which makes all of this an exceedingly difficult
task to adjudicate. Now the phrase "politically incorrect" is not
a well-formed semantic, and is not an analytical tool for political
science. To claim that "brainwashing" is taking place against an
ill-defined term requires one's imagination stretched beyond repair.
Pyro's argument on that issue IS "brainwashing" and about as much
`convincing' as pissing up a rope. Point awarded to Mike.
> "Mike" wrote:
>> Marx's followers may have made some mistakes and that is worth
>> debating so such mistakes can be avoided in the future.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> I wouldn't refer to the killers of tens of millions as persons
> who merely made "mistakes".
Yes, mass murders are not simply making mistakes. Hint. Hint.
> "Mike" wrote:
>> But Marx himself was a man the likes of which we chance upon all to
>> rarely - someone who devoted his entire life and work to the cause
>> of better the conditions of living for the masses of downtrodden.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> His goal of a classless society was screwed from the beginning.
> Mikhail Bakunin saw his flaws from the getgo and wrote plenty of
> prescient ideas about Marx and his ilk.
I'm inclined to agree that the "classless society" is neither
feasible, nor even aesthetic in terms of ongoing development for
civilization. I think Marx was merely inarticulate on that point.
He could have stated that the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, and
the proletariat -all- needed to make a showing of "defensible
positions" in life. Inherited wealth causes a problem when the
inheritors lose touch with patterns of wealth creation that must
rely upon everyone's contribution in the world at large. Classes
occur by wealth stratification and also by lack of socialization
among classes. Wealth stratification does not itself contribute
to diminished future wealth creation, but a lack of socialization
very likely -does- contribute to diminished future wealth creation.
We have already the model available from religious literature, but
it is a "technology" not being applied, having been submerged under
the rubric of the "industrial revolution technology" concomitant
with invention of -dictionaries- which reduced the people's general
dependence upon their Biblical literature as the semantic source.
People began running to dictionaries for an "efficient" definition
rather than to the Bibles, so its detailed doctrines of inestimable
value were being lost and not transmitted in social discourse, and
also not from one generation to another. The cause of malaise in
a lack of wealth creation is -ignorance- but it is an -ignorance-
taking many forms, each of which require considerable attention at
an etiology and treatment of diseases. Mental diseases are rather
pernicious since patients with "mental illness" are notoriously
resistant to change, and they do not typically recognize the need
for change, much less making motions toward improved mental health.
As I mentioned previously, six of Plato's dialogues invoke the
reference to "draughts" (checkers, or more generally any cognitive
skill boardgame such as Chess, Go, Shogi ...) as a characterization
for what is -meant- by the term _dialectics_, a most essential form
of argument in the Socratic exchange. Plato's _Gorgias_ dialogue
is central to an overall "ordering" consisting of that discussion
which examines the relationship between "dialectics" and "rhetoric."
Robert Pirsig's character gave this some treatment in his 1975 book
_Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance_, though Pirsig drifted
off point when he began focusing upon "quality" rather than "nature."
The "Socratic solution" for people quibbling over rhetorical issues
was to have them all sit down together and play checkers. Then they
would re-argue their points in light of the fact that each of them
had just previously demonstrated superior and inferior capacity at
cognitive skill activity. This, too, was the method applied within
mathematical studies. I don't believe you can find today a single
mathematician who will not report the positive utility of employing
cognitive skill boardgames as an educational technology toward the
end of improving intelligence, logical reasoning ability, cognition,
and socialization. So if anything is primitively "relevant" to this
newsgroup it should proceed from acknowledgment of the Plato method,
Aristotle's development, the fundmental nature of mathematics study,
the issues of environmentalism which concerned TK. If anti-semites
want to present a "case" here, they're going to become self-defeating
if they cannot follow the basic rules of logical reasoning, if they
cannot READ (as has been amply demonstrated already), if they think
that name-calling or _ad_hominem_ offers one iota of force toward a
point (which it does not but in fact works towards its opposite), if
they think that mere repitition of points previously presented has
any effect toward "persuasion" in the minds of readers (which it
does not), if they think that some "news" is being offered which has
not previously been offered on other (relevant) newsgroups (nothing
is "original" about anything Pyro and Agent99 have been presenting),
they are sadly mistaken. The anti-semites here have merely been
breathing their own exhaust. Richard Wagner earned the -right- to
be an anti-semite because he was an ARTIST, but Pyro and Agent99
have shown no indication that they have the slightest appreciation
either for the arts, or for skill at logical discourse, as they
could have easily shown had they any capacity for Plato's "draughts."
> "Mike" wrote:
>> To speak against him so is to affirm the oppressors of the world.
>> Apparently you don't care about the fate of the billions oppressed
>> by economic systems only the minutia of accounting for how some are
>> oppressed.
>> And to blame a hundred million deaths on Marx - well then how many
>> millions of deaths to you account to the US founding fathers,
>> considering the Indian genocide?
>> One last point - you might want to consider what it implies about
>> you - putting 'fuckwit' in the subject line.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> What about the 25 million killed by Mao from 1958-61, when
> collectivization did not go as he had planned due to crop
> failures? What about the tens of millions slaughtered -- not to
> mentioned deliberately starved -- by Stalin and his henchmen
> (whom were largely Jewish)? What about the 1.5 million
> slaughtered by Pol Pot in Cambodia (or 25% of the population)?
> These numbers DWARF those killed by even the most depraved of
> capitalists.
>
> This is not propaganda; it's what you'll find if you commit
> yourself to a tiny bit of reading.
The upshot of these historical slaughters, from both the "left"
and "right," should illustrate that these basic problems all stem
from OVERPOPULATION and IGNORANCE. If human beings are going to
survive on this planet, now under the threat of high-technology
Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC) weaponry, they will need to:
(a) STOP INCREASING POPULATION NUMBERS
(b) TAKE PRO-ACTIVE MEANS TO REDUCE IGNORANCE
Point-(a) is rather trivial, but point-(b) is a much more difficult
problem, since if we don't have point-(b) in place then point-(a)
will be forgotten. On point-(b) there needs to be preliminary
agreement, essentially being that point-(b) requires our attention.
Believe it or not there are a number of people "running about" who
don't think point-(b) requires very much attention, perhaps because
THEY are the candidates who have been ignoring point-(b). Once we
all agree that point-(b) requires more attention then there needs
to be put into place some agreement as to how point-(b) will receive
that attention. We have already the literature of Plato/Aristotle,
which had served as traditional "core curriculum" in a university
education, but has (unfathomably) been neglected in USENET discourse
due to large numbers from point-(a) continuing to ignore point-(b).
I'm rather astonished that "anti-semites" continue to misread Plato
because when *-I-* made a study of "anti-semitism" many years ago
I ran across the reference to dyslexia and illiteracy rampant among
many followers who subscribe to "anti-semitism" and I'm finding the
same phenomena of dyslexia and illiteracy illustrated "right here in
River City" by Pyro and Agent99. These individuals have -FAILED- to
pay attention to Plato's reference to "draughts" and its critically
essential task in discerning the primitive _dialectics_, and have
-FAILED- to recognize _dialectics_ takes precedence over _rhetoric_
in Plato, as was UNAMBIGUOUSLY SHOWN by the _Gorgias_ dialogue.
It was *-Hitler-* who made use of "rhetoric" as a substitute for
Plato's "dialectics" because *-Hitler-* and followers were NOT
INTERESTED IN RIGOROUS INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE because they DID NOT
STUDY THE LOGICAL FOUNDATION INHERENT TO COGNITIVE SKILL BOARDGAMES,
and that's why they lost their "big war" in Europe. Reminds me of
the "mirage" shape in J.H.Conway's "Life" game, which rabbits around
a little bit and then dissipates into nothing. EVEN AFTER KILLING
OFF ALL JEWS, THE "ANTI-SEMITES" WILL *-INVENT-* "NEW TARGETS" AND
CALL THEM JEWS, BECAUSE "ANTI-SEMITES" ARE NOT HAPPY UNLESS THEY'RE
KILLING SOMEBODY. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, HOWEVER, THAT ALL KILLERS ARE
"ANTI-SEMITES," BECAUSE NAZIS ALSO DIED IN WORLD WAR II !!!!!!!!!!!!
It does not follow that "ANTI-anti-semites" are not "anti-semites."
ONCE DEFINING ONESELF IN TERMS OF "HATE" THEN THE *-OBJECT-* OF THAT
"HATE" IS NO LONGER IMPORTANT. "HATE" IS ALL THAT MATTERS FOR THE
"ANTI-SEMITE" AND THE "ANTI-ANTI-SEMITE" ALIKE.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> "The Jew has never had an art of his own, hence never a life of
> art-enabling import... So long as the separate art of music had a
> real organic life-need in it, down to the epochs of Mozart and
> Beethoven, there was nowhere to be found a Jew composer: it was
> utterly impossible for an element quiet foreign to that living
> organism to take a part in the formative stages of that life.
> Only when a body's inner death is manifest, do outside elements
> win the power of judgment in it - yet merely to destroy it."
> -- Richard Wagner
Hitler -ADMIRED- Mendelssohn's music, but was -EMBARASSED- to learn
that Mendelssohn was Jewish. Skewered his entire thesis. Darn!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-------------
From: <age...@post.cz>
> Once again, as if we needed another demonstration,
> you've shown your complete lack of understanding.
> The Greek conception of race that Plato is here
> discussing as myth is in no way the same as the
> modern, biological conception of race as a taxonomic
> category. How could it be, so many centuries before
> Linnaeus, before Mendel, before Watson and Crick?
That's correct. So don't be running back to Plato in the
miscegenated effort to justify some ancient "race" theory. At
least you have the _cojones_ to recognize that Plato's discussion
of "race" was MYTH. WHAT ARE THE SUPPORTIVE "CITATIONS" YOU
INVOKE W/R/T "RACE THEORY" FROM LINNAEUS, MENDEL, WATSON, CRICK ??
NONE ?? I THOUGHT SO. -- more mythology from YOU --
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: <age...@post.cz>
> What Plato means here is the creation of a myth of
> lineage, of descent from a single, noble progenitor.
> Examples might be the legend of Theseus, who was said
> to have founded the Athenian state, or Priam, the sire
> of the Trojans, and through Anaeas, the Romans -- a
> unifying myth, created as a political necessity.
WRONG! Anaeus is NOT MENTIONED in Plato !!! Your "legend" of
Theseus was that of a RAPIST, and Priam who "rolled in the dust."
(Reference to Theseus): In this passage Plato's philosophers are
discussing the State's use of RHETORICAL MYTHOLOGICAL PROPAGANDA in
the "management" of its citizens, in particular the manner in which
the stories of its HEROES and GODS are "told" or "not told." Plato
relates that THESEUS WAS REPORTED TO BE A RAPIST, but the context
here describes HOW THAT ACCOUNT MIGHT NEEED TO BE SUPPRESSED by being
recharacterized as "FALSE," as with other less flattering stories of
other HEROES and GODS. In other words, HOW TO CONTROL THE PUBLIC
MIND, REDIRECT THE HEART, SHAPE THE WILL, THROUGH PROPAGANDA OF THE
STATE AS PRODUCED BY ITS "POETS" (whom Socrates -detests-) !!!!!!
These were the sorts of clever insights which the Athenian Council
DID NOT LIKE, accusing Socrates of SLANDERING THE GODS !!!!!!!!!!
Plato's philosophers were NOT CENSORS.
They were POKING FUN at those WHO WOULD TRY TO BE CENSORS !!!!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
REPUBLIC:
---------
Thou hast wronged me, O far-darter, most abominable
of deities.
Verily I would he even with thee, if I had only the
power, or his insubordination to the river-god, on
whose divinity he is ready to lay hands; or his
offering to the dead Patroclus of his own hair,
which had been previously dedicated to the other
river-god Spercheius, and that he actually
performed this vow; or that he dragged Hector round
the tomb of Patroclus, and slaughtered the captives
at the pyre; of all this I cannot believe that he
was guilty, any more than I can allow our citizens
to believe that he, the wise Cheiron's pupil, the
son of a goddess and of Peleus who was the gentlest
of men and third in descent from Zeus, was so
disordered in his wits as to be at one time the
slave of two seemingly inconsistent passions,
meanness, not untainted by avarice, combined with
overweening contempt of gods and men.
You are quite right, he replied.
And let us equally refuse to believe, or allow to
be repeated, the tale of Theseus son of Poseidon,
or of Peirithous son of Zeus, going forth as they
did to perpetrate a horrid rape; or of any other
hero or son of a god daring to do such impious and
dreadful things as they falsely ascribe to them in
our day: and let us further compel the poets to
declare either that these acts were not done by
them, or that they were not the sons of gods;
--both in the same breath they shall not be
permitted to affirm. We will not have them trying
to persuade our youth that the gods are the authors
of evil, and that heroes are no better than
men-sentiments which, as we were saying, are
neither pious nor true, for we have already proved
that evil cannot come from the gods.
Assuredly not.
And further they are likely to have a bad effect on
those who hear them; for everybody will begin to
excuse his own vices when he is convinced that
similar wickednesses are always being perpetrated
by --
The kindred of the gods, the
relatives of Zeus, whose
ancestral altar, the attar of
Zeus, is aloft in air on the
peak of Ida, and who have the
blood of deities yet flowing in
their veins.
And therefore let us put an end to such tales, lest
they engender laxity of morals among the young.
By all means, he replied.
=================================================
This *-SATIRE-* of STATE PROPAGANDA is taken from a LONG PASSAGE in
the REPUBLIC which discusses how the POETS might be "utilized" (or
"misutilized") to CLOUD THE MINDS OF ITS CITIZENS, but are clearly
transparent to Plato's DIALECTIC PHILOSOPHERS. They say of Priam
that he was:
Rolling in the dirt, calling each
man loudly by his name.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!
In these passages the "most certainly" and "assuredly" responses
are DISINGENUOUS. THEY ARE *-LAUGHING-* AT STATIST PROPAGANDA !!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
REPUBLIC:
--------
Again: --
The soul flying from the limbs had
gone to Hades, lamentng her fate,
leaving manhood and youth.
Again: --
And the soul, with shrilling cry,
passed like smoke beneath the
earth.
And, --
As bats in hollow of mystic
cavern, whenever any of the has
dropped out of the string and
falls from the rock, fly shrilling
and cling to one another, so did
they with shrilling cry hold
together as they moved.
And we must beg Homer and the other poets not to be
angry if we strike out these and similar passages,
not because they are unpoetical, or unattractive to
the popular ear, but because the greater the
poetical charm of them, the less are they meet for
the ears of boys and men who are meant to be free,
and who should fear slavery more than death.
Undoubtedly.
Also we shall have to reject all the terrible and
appalling names describe the world below -- Cocytus
and Styx, ghosts under the earth, and sapless
shades, and any similar words of which the very
mention causes a shudder to pass through the inmost
soul of him who hears them. I do not say that these
horrible stories may not have a use of some kind;
but there is a danger that the nerves of our
guardians may be rendered too excitable and
effeminate by them.
There is a real danger, he said.
Then we must have no more of them.
True.
Another and a nobler strain must be composed and
sung by us.
Clearly.
And shall we proceed to get rid of the weepings and
wailings of famous men?
They will go with the rest.
But shall we be right in getting rid of them?
Reflect: our principle is that the good man will
not consider death terrible to any other good man
who is his comrade.
Yes; that is our principle.
And therefore he will not sorrow for his departed
friend as though he had suffered anything terrible?
He will not.
Such an one, as we further maintain, is sufficient
for himself and his own happiness, and therefore is
least in need of other men.
True, he said.
And for this reason the loss of a son or brother,
or the deprivation of fortune, is to him of all men
least terrible.
Assuredly.
And therefore he will be least likely to lament,
and will bear with the greatest equanimity any
misfortune of this sort which may befall him.
Yes, he will feel such a misfortune far less than
another.
Then we shall be right in getting rid of the
lamentations of famous men, and making them over to
women (and not even to women who are good for
anything), or to men of a baser sort, that those
who are being educated by us to be the defenders of
their country may scorn to do the like.
That will be very right.
Then we will once more entreat Homer and the other
poets not to depict Achilles, who is the son of a
goddess, first lying on his side, then on his back,
and then on his face; then starting up and sailing
in a frenzy along the shores of the barren sea; now
taking the sooty ashes in both his hands and
pouring them over his head, or weeping and wailing
in the various modes which Homer has delineated.
Nor should he describe Priam the kinsman of the
gods as praying and beseeching,
Rolling in the dirt, calling each
man loudly by his name.
Still more earnestly will we beg of him at all
events not to introduce the gods lamenting and
saying,
Alas! my misery! Alas! that I bore
the harvest to my sorrow.
But if he must introduce the gods, at any rate let
him not dare so completely to misrepresent the
greatest of the gods, as to make him say --
O heavens! with my eyes verily I
behold a dear friend of mine
chased round and round the city,
and my heart is sorrowful.
Or again: --
Woe is me that I am fated to have
Sarpedon, dearest of men to me,
subdued at the hands of Patroclus
the son of Menoetius.
For if, my sweet Adeimantus, our youth seriously
listen to such unworthy representations of the
gods, instead of laughing at them as they ought,
hardly will any of them deem that he himself, being
but a man, can be dishonoured by similar actions;
neither will he rebuke any inclination which may
arise in his mind to say and do the like. And
instead of having any shame or self-control, he
will be always whining and lamenting on slight
occasions.
Yes, he said, that is most true.
Yes, I replied; but that surely is what ought not
to be, as the argument has just proved to us; and
by that proof we must abide until it is disproved
by a better.
It ought not to be.
Neither ought our guardians to be given to
laughter. For a fit of laughter which has been
indulged to excess almost always produces a violent
reaction.
So I believe.
Then persons of worth, even if only mortal men,
must not be represented as overcome by laughter,
and still less must such a representation of the
gods be allowed.
Still less of the gods, as you say, he replied.
Then we shall not suffer such an expression to be
used about the gods as that of Homer when he
describes how
Inextinguishable laughter arose
among the blessed gods, when they
saw Hephaestus bustling about the
mansion.
On your views, we must not admit them.
On my views, if you like to father them on me; that
we must not admit them is certain.
Again, truth should be highly valued; if, as we
were saying, a lie is useless to the gods, and
useful only as a medicine to men, then the use of
such medicines should be restricted to physicians;
private individuals have no business with them.
Clearly not, he said.
Then if any one at all is to have the privilege of
lying, the rulers of the State should be the
persons; and they, in their dealings either with
enemies or with their own citizens, may be allowed
to lie for the public good. But nobody else should
meddle with anything of the kind; and although the
rulers have this privilege, for a private man to
lie to them in return is to be deemed a more
heinous fault than for the patient or the pupil of
a gymnasium not to speak the truth about his own
bodily illnesses to the physician or to the
trainer, or for a sailor not to tell the captain
what is happening about the ship and the rest of
the crew, and how things are going with himself or
his fellow sailors.
Most true, he said.
If, then, the ruler catches anybody beside himself
lying in the State,
Any of the craftsmen, whether he
priest or physician or carpenter.
he will punish him for introducing a practice which
is equally subversive and destructive of ship or
State.
Most certainly, he said, if our idea of the State
is ever carried out.
In the next place our youth must be temperate?
Certainly.
Are not the chief elements of temperance, speaking
generally, obedience to commanders and self-control
in sensual pleasures?
True.
Then we shall approve such language as that of
Diomede in Homer,
Friend, sit still and obey my
word,
and the verses which follow,
The Greeks marched breathing prowess,
...in silent awe of their leaders,
and other sentiments of the same kind.
We shall.
What of this line,
O heavy with wine, who hast the
eyes of a dog and the heart of a
stag,
and of the words which follow? Would you say that
these, or any similar impertinences which private
individuals are supposed to address to their
rulers, whether in verse or prose, are well or ill
spoken?
They are ill spoken.
They may very possibly afford some amusement, but
they do not conduce to temperance. And therefore
they are likely to do harm to our young men --you
would agree with me there?
Yes.
And then, again, to make the wisest of men say that
nothing in his opinion is more glorious than
When the tables are full of bread
and meat, and the cup-bearer
carries round wine which he draws
from the bowl and pours into the
cups,
is it fit or conducive to temperance for a young
man to hear such words? Or the verse
The saddest of fates is to die and
meet destiny from hunger?
What would you say again to the tale of Zeus, who,
while other gods and men were asleep and he the
only person awake, lay devising plans, but forgot
them all in a moment through his lust, and was so
completely overcome at the sight of Here that he
would not even go into the hut, but wanted to lie
with her on the ground, declaring that he had never
been in such a state of rapture before, even when
they first met one another
Without the knowledge of their parents;
or that other tale of how Hephaestus, because of
similar goings on, cast a chain around Ares and
Aphrodite?
Indeed, he said, I am strongly of opinion that they
ought not to hear that sort of thing.
But any deeds of endurance which are done or told
by famous men, these they ought to see and hear;
as, for example, what is said in the verses,
He smote his breast, and thus
reproached his heart, Endure, my
heart; far worse hast thou
endured!
Certainly, he said.
In the next place, we must not let them be
receivers of gifts or lovers of money.
Certainly not.
Neither must we sing to them of
Gifts persuading gods, and
persuading reverend kings.
Neither is Phoenix, the tutor of Achilles, to be
approved or deemed to have given his pupil good
counsel when he told him that he should take the
gifts of the Greeks and assist them; but that
without a gift he should not lay aside his anger.
Neither will we believe or acknowledge Achilles
himself to have been such a lover of money that he
took Agamemnon's or that when he had received
payment he restored the dead body of Hector, but
that without payment he was unwilling to do so.
Undoubtedly, he said, these are not sentiments
which can be approved.
Loving Homer as I do, I hardly like to say that in
attributing these feelings to Achilles, or in
believing that they are truly to him, he is guilty
of downright impiety. As little can I believe the
narrative of his insolence to Apollo, where he
says,
Thou hast wronged me, O
far-darter, most abominable of
deities. Verily I would he even
with thee, if I had only the
power,
or his insubordination to the river-god, on whose
divinity he is ready to lay hands; or his offering
to the dead Patroclus of his own hair, which had
been previously dedicated to the other river-god
Spercheius, and that he actually performed this
vow; or that he dragged Hector round the tomb of
Patroclus, and slaughtered the captives at the
pyre; of all this I cannot believe that he was
guilty, any more than I can allow our citizens to
believe that he, the wise Cheiron's pupil, the son
of a goddess and of Peleus who was the gentlest of
men and third in descent from Zeus, was so
disordered in his wits as to be at one time the
slave of two seemingly inconsistent passions,
meanness, not untainted by avarice, combined with
overweening contempt of gods and men.
You are quite right, he replied.
----------------------------------------------------
From: <age...@post.cz>
> Your conflation of the classical notion of race as lineage
> with the modern idea of race as a taxonomic category
> is plainly nonsense, either arising from your own
> profound ignorance of classical philosophy (most
> likely), or an ignoble attempt to deceive.
'scuse me? *-I-* DO NOT CONFLATE. Those were Plato's words
in a time previous to modern taxonomic notions. YOUR INABILITY
TO DISTINGUISH "CITES" FROM "MAIN TEXT" ILLUSTRATES *-YOUR-*
IGNORANCE OF *-DIALECTICAL-* *-METHOD-* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I provided cites from Plato to illustrate that NO RACE THEORY
EMANATES FROM PLATO. Plato's philosophers were *-LAUGHING-* AT
THE RACE THEORIES. Plato's philosophers DID NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE
COMMON PROGENITOR THEORY. If anything they referred ONLY TO THE
NOTION OF "GOLDEN RACE" PRECEDENT TO THE "IRON RACE," BUT THEY
REGARDED *-THEMSELVES-* (in that -mythological- context which
they did not belive) AS BELONGING TO THE (lesser) "IRON RACE"
(if there were any validity -- which there is not -- to such
mythological notions of "race").
YOU ARE A BLITHERING IDIOT, 99 . HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- regards
- jb
.
(Once more for the road) ------------------------- **
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> I couldn't find the word "civilization" anywhere in Plato, and
>> Plato's discussions about "race" are invariably in the context of
>> myth, which Socrates regards with amusement and does not accept as
>> valid nor binding. Remember the basic argument that "dialectics"
>> has precedent over "rhetoric," which means one finds the reference
>> to "draughts" in six dialogues: Charmides, Gorgias, Laws, Phaedrus,
>> Politics, and Republic. From "draughts" are drawn the -structural-
>> frame example of gamed logical inference, and so Socrates defeats
>> the rhetorician Gorgias. For Plato, then, "race" is a notion that
>> stems from sophistry. Timaeus is almost entirely a presentation of
>> mythology, and the Republic "cite" to which I think you may refer
>> proceeds from their inquiry into the discourse of LIES:
>>
>> Republic:
>> ---------
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> How then may we devise one of those needful
>> falsehoods of which we lately spoke --just one royal
>> lie which may deceive the rulers, if that be
>> possible, and at any rate the rest of the city?
>>
>> What sort of lie? he said.
>>
>> Nothing new, I replied; only an old Phoenician tale
>> of what has often occurred before now in other
>> places, (as the poets say, and have made the world
>> believe,) though not in our time, and I do not know
>> whether such an event could ever happen again, or
>> could now even be made probable, if it did.
>>
>> How your words seem to hesitate on your lips!
>>
>> You will not wonder, I replied, at my hesitation when
>> you have heard.
>>
>> Speak, he said, and fear not.
>>
>> Well then, I will speak, although I really know not
>> how to look you in the face, or in what words to
>> utter the audacious fiction, which I propose to
>> communicate gradually, first to the rulers, then to
>> the soldiers, and lastly to the people. They are to
>> be told that their youth was a dream, and the
>> education and training which they received from us,
>> an appearance only; in reality during all that time
>> they were being formed and fed in the womb of the
>> earth, where they themselves and their arms and
>> appurtenances were manufactured; when they were
>> completed, the earth, their mother, sent them up; and
>> so, their country being their mother and also their
>> nurse, they are bound to advise for her good, and to
>> defend her against attacks, and her citizens they are
>> to regard as children of the earth and their own
>> brothers.
>>
>> You had good reason, he said, to be ashamed of the
>> lie which you were going to tell.
>>
>> True, I replied, but there is more coming; I have
>> only told you half. Citizens, we shall say to them in
>> our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you
>> differently. Some of you have the power of command,
>> and in the composition of these he has mingled gold,
>> wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others
>> he has made of silver, to be auxillaries; others
>> again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has
>> composed of brass and iron; and the species will
>> generally be preserved in the children. But as all
>> are of the same original stock, a golden parent will
>> sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a
>> golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to
>> the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing
>> which should so anxiously guard, or of which they are
>> to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the
>> race. They should observe what elements mingle in
>> their off spring; for if the son of a golden or
>> silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron,
>> then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the
>> eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the
>> child because he has to descend in the scale and
>> become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may be
>> sons of artisans who having an admixture of gold or
>> silver in them are raised to honour, and become
>> guardians or auxiliaries. For an oracle says that
>> when a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will
>> be destroyed. Such is the tale; is there any
>> possibility of making our citizens believe in it?
>>
>> Not in the present generation, he replied; there is
>> no way of accomplishing this; but their sons may be
>> made to believe in the tale, and their sons' sons,
>> and posterity after them.
>>
>> I see the difficulty, I replied; yet the fostering of
>> such a belief will make them care more for the city
>> and for one another. Enough, however, of the fiction,
>> which may now fly abroad upon the wings of rumour,
>> while we arm our earth-born heroes, and lead them
>> forth under the command of their rulers. Let them
>> look round and select a spot whence they can best
>> suppress insurrection, if any prove refractory
>> within, and also defend themselves against enemies,
>> who like wolves may come down on the fold from
>> without; there let them encamp, and when they have
>> encamped, let them sacrifice to the proper Gods and
>> prepare their dwellings.
>>
>> Just so, he said.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>>
>> That section from The Republic examined the role of -propaganda- in
>> administration of a State: there's "no possibility" of convincing
>> anybody in -this- generation (BECAUSE IT'S LYING SOPHISTRY) however
>> the -next- generation might buy into that LIE of a "race theory"
>> just to satisfy their false sense of PRIDE in themselves. So,
>> according to Plato, the origin of "race theory" is NOT -fact- but
>> -pride- which stemmed from mythological propaganda. It's "the
>> fiction, which may now fly abroad on the wings of rumor" leading
>> them into yet another senseless war, or whatever manipulative
>> schemes their rulers devise. An "audacious fiction" premised upon
>> the objective of organizing vast armies, or busying the populace
>> with diversionary pursuits. Plato's Socrates was a "cool dude"
>> extremely untrusting of lying rhetoricians, such as you, I might
>> add, who simply want to UNLOAD HISTORY without any specific
>> argument of relevance to contemporary circumstances. All "races"
>> can form a cohesive society through the common-ground framework of
>> dialectics (investigation/theory of cognitive games). Only their
>> -rhetorical- differences (culture, language ...) separate various
>> peoples into "races" as long as they do NOT interact in the
>> cooperative fashion of shared pursuit of common goals. If peoples
>> build a society together then they are of one "race" in Plato's view.
>> From the citation (above) the "race" notion is, however, a
>> delusion: their common pursuits also engage in chasing delusional
>> red herrings. If there's a common theme running throughout Plato's
>> dialogues it is that discussions in philosophy become much more
>> complex than could have been imagined from the outset. The
>> characters of the dialogues are usually expressive of novel
>> -amazement- at lessons they learn. Socrates is NOT interested in
>> subscribing to "race" mythologies. Read Plato again, and argue your
>> issues FROM SPECIFIC CITATIONS.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <<<--- YOU FAILED TO DO THIS !!!
** ------------- GOTCHA !!!
From: "Health Risk" <p...@netxpress.com>
If you are concerned about macular degeneration or sunglasses that
really do protect your vision, check out this site that reviews
Melanin - the body's own sunlight protections system - in sun lenses.
http://www.netxpress.com/~ppt/macular.htm
If you wish to be removed from our list or if you have received this
message by mistake, please reply and type: "unsubscribe" as the
subject.
jum...@my-deja.com
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> What kind of mental insect you are! When I say "there won't be
> other Bachs or Mozarts," etc., I am refering to the GENIUS,
> ACHIEVEMENT, AND STATURE. Just common sense, can't you understand
> this? You are the "Master of the Obvious and Self-Evident". You
> are right, another Bach or Mozart is impossible. Not even with the
> scientific capabilities of cloning, as you brought up. Even
> producing a physically perfect Mozart, the _circumstances_ or
> _social_environment_ would be different, therefore that Mozart
> wouldn't be the same. With the stretch of the imagination, and
> bringing back all the circumstances, to have a new Mozart would be
> boring and repetitious.
Just like having a new Hitler would be boring and repetitious?
> In your rush to integrate the kind of people you like to the
> glorious gallery of masters, what you are doing is polluting,
> raping, and profaning, naming that ignorant charlatan, Johnnie
> Cochran, close to Socrates when that individual is not even
> qualified to be a lawyer. He got his position by quotas and mob
> influence, not by academic merit. His knowledge of jurisprudence
> is probably equal to what persons carrying signs with John 3:14
> know. Like Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court constitutes an
> aberration, those vociferous people lack the merit and finesse to
> be even mentioned in a university.
You don't have a leg to stand on. They're more knowledgeable,
successful, and interesting, than you.
> In your rush to bring quotas to all levels, what will you proclaim
> next? The New York Metro as the Sistine Chapel of the 21st century?
> And O.J. as the new Euripides? Who are you, little insect, to
> compare these dwarfs to what constitutes the PRISTINE PANTHEON OF
> CULTURE, and disqualify Mills? Don't you feel ridiculous? You have
> exposed yourself as a "master of the obvious and self-evident",
> needing a bath in the basic courses of history.
I'm still waiting for you to stop being a turtle and discuss the
ISSUES. What did I say about J.S.Mill? What do you find incorrect
about my argument that "beauty" and "truth" have DIFFERENT NATURES
in Plato's philosophy? What were you able to learn from Plato's
Gorgias dialogue?
> During the Persian Wars, Leonidas, the Spartan commander, told the
> Greeks from other city-states to retreat to safety, while he and
> 1400 other men fought valiantly to death against Persian troops
> which greatly ounumbered them. For the first couple of days of
> this battle at Thermopylae, the ground ran red with Persian blood.
> Finally, a Greek traitor told the Persians about a secret path
> around the cliffs. Defeat for the Greeks was certain. Leonidas
> and his men decided to hold out for as long as possible, and to die
> with glory. The Spartans' valor left a deep impression on all
> Greeks.
So dying is preferable to living? Some philosophy you've got.
Who gives a flying fig about "deep impression" anyway?
> Leonidas could have simply chosen to allow the Persians to enter
> into Athens and plunder the city without so much as a fight,
> sparing his own life and those who fought alongside with him. But
> he didn't. He believed, in this case, no life was better than some
> life, that dying with courage was better than living in ignominy,
> liberal. I somehow get the feeling you would have opted for
> another strategy.
You betcha. Life prevails over death. Live today in order to
fight the war tomorrow. The Persians won anyway? What a waste.
> The Greek concept of _arete_, namely, to strive for excellence,
> courage, and to win fame and honor, which came from Homer's tales,
> such as in the Iliad, is beyond leftists such as yourself.
Well, I don't vote party line. I vote for candidates who can
diplomatically discuss and argue the issues IN DETAIL.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> "It's better honor without ships than ships without honor."
>
> "Such a High Life, I expect when I die that I die because
> I did not die."
>
> I don't know if your obtuseness of mind can grasp the meaning
> of these.
I tried using your recommended "obtuseness of mind" and quite
frankly didn't get very far. When using *-YOUR-* "obtuseness
of mind" how far do you go? Around and around in circles? I much
prefer employing one's "mind" rather than "obtuseness of mind."
Republic:
---------
[ ... ]
Just so, he said.
[ ... ]
---------------------------------
- regards
- jb
.
============================================
> jum...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> While the doubling time for the general population was 33 years.
From: Pyro 1488 <Vald...@email.msn.com>
> Either your assertion is wrong or you have included
> non-industrialized nations. My post was meant to compare Jews to
> non-Jews in industrialized nations, mainly because _most_ Jews
> live in developed nations, and those that don't mostly live in
> nations which generally don't have population problems.
Relax: I was being facetious, using numbers "massaged" by the
Masonic conspiracy. Population bomb politics are so wildly out
of control that I doubt very much anybody can stop humanity's rush
to doomsday. The nature of "population problems" in industrial
nations isn't a matter of relative per-capita growth (which third
world countries exceed) but due to higher per-capita energy and
resource consumption, and higher pollution-intensive economies in
industrialized nations. Since you're so hot-to-trot with David
Duke you'll recall that he ascribes the "industrial revolution,"
of which TK speaks, to the European/Nordic climatic circumstances
that "demanded a higher technology for survival" whereas he states
that "the destiny of the Black race is to live closer to the
natural world..." If we're so all-fired anxious about problems
of population and their effects on global environment, we should
be seeking to reduce our putative dependency on high-energy and
high-pollution forms of industry that, according to Duke, are
associated with the Caucasians chiefly responsible for bringing
it all about. Thereby, according to TK and Duke, Whites need to
get like Blacks and start living "closer to the natural world"
if they are going to slow, or reverse, the descent into doomsday.
- regards
- jb
.
=================================================================
> From: jum...@my-deja.com:
>> Thereby, according to TK and Duke, Whites need to
>> get like Blacks and start living "closer to the natural world"
>> if they are going to slow, or reverse, that descent into doomsday.
From: Pyro 1488 <Vald...@email.msn.com>
> Animals are also closer to nature, so what?
"43. It is true that some individuals seem to have
little need for autonomy. Either their drive for
power is weak or they satisfy it by identifying
themselves with some powerful organization to which
they belong. And then there are unthinking, *animal*
types who seem to be satisfied with a purely
physical sense of power (the good combat soldier,
who gets his sense of power by developing fighting
skills that he is quite content to use in blind
obedience to his superiors)."
[ ... ]
"192. But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is
NOT through militant advocacy of minority rights
(see paragraphs 21, 29). Instead, the
revolutionaries should emphasize that although
minorities do suffer more or less disadvantage, this
disadvantage is of peripheral significance. Our real
enemy is the industrial-technological system, and
in the struggle against the system, *ethnic*
distinctions are of no importance."
- regards
- jb
.
==================================================================
U.S. News: Astounding discoveries about the Bible's
historical basis (10/25/99)
Cover Story 10/25/99
Is the Bible true?
Extraordinary insights from archaeology and history
BY JEFFERY L. SHELER
– In the beginning
– Age of the patriarchs
– Flight from Egypt
– The rule of David
– The days of Jesus
– The road ahead
The workday was nearly over for the team of archaeologists excavating
the ruins of the ancient Israelite city of Dan in upper Galilee. Led
by Avraham Biran of Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem, the group had
been toiling since early morning, sifting debris in a stone-paved
plaza outside what had been the city's main gate.
Now the fierce afternoon sun was turning the stoneworks into a
reflective oven. Gila Cook, the team's surveyor, was about to take a
break when something caught her eye–an unusual shadow in a portion of
recently exposed wall along the east side of the plaza. Moving closer,
she discovered a flattened basalt stone protruding from the ground
with what appeared to be Aramaic letters etched into its smooth
surface. She called Biran over for a look. As the veteran
archaeologist knelt to examine the stone, his eyes widened. "Oh, my
God!" he exclaimed. "We have an inscription!"
In an instant, Biran knew that they had stumbled upon a rare treasure.
The basalt stone was quickly identified as part of a shattered
monument, or stele, from the ninth century B.C., apparently
commemorating a military victory of the king of Damascus over two
ancient enemies. One foe the fragment identified as the "king of
Israel." The other was "the House of David."
The reference to David was a historical bombshell. Never before had
the familiar name of Judah's ancient warrior king, a central figure of
the Hebrew Bible and, according to Christian Scripture, an ancestor of
Jesus, been found in the records of antiquity outside the pages of the
Bible. Skeptics had long seized upon that fact to argue that David was
a mere legend, invented by Hebrew scribes during or shortly after
Israel's Babylonian exile, roughly 500 years before the birth of
Christ. Now, at last, there was material evidence: an inscription
written not by Hebrew scribes but by an enemy of the Israelites a
little more than a century after David's presumptive lifetime. It
seemed to be a clear corroboration of the existence of King David's
dynasty and, by implication, of David himself.
Beyond its impact on the question of David's existence, however, the
discovery provided a dramatic illustration of the promise and peril
that come into play whenever the Bible is weighed on the scales of
modern archaeology. In one moment, the unearthing of an inscription or
artifact can shed new light or cast a shadow on a passage of Scripture
and in the process shatter the presuppositions of biblical
scholarship. One kind of truth is confirmed–or replaced–by another.
In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical
core of the Old and New Testaments–corroborating key portions of the
stories of Israel's patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and
the life and times of Jesus. Where it has faced its toughest task has
been in primordial history, where many scholars find the traces of
human origins obscured in theological myth.
Back to top
IN THE BEGINNING
Ever since Copernicus overturned the church-sanctioned view of Earth
as the center of the universe and Charles Darwin posited random
mutation and natural selection as the real creators of human life, the
biblical view that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the
Earth" has found itself on the defensive in modern Western thought.
Despite the dominance of Darwin's theory–that human beings evolved
from lower life forms over millions of years–theologians have yielded
relatively little ground on what for them is a fundamental doctrine of
faith: that the universe is the handiwork of a divine creator who has
given humanity a special place in his creation.
These apparently conflicting explanations have played a divisive role
for centuries. In modern times, the supposed incompatibility of the
scientific and religious views of creation have sparked bitter clashes
in the nation's courtrooms and classrooms. Often the modern debate has
amounted to little more than a shouting match between extremists on
both sides–fundamentalists, who dismiss evolution as a satanic
deception, and atheistic naturalists, who assert that science offers
the only window on reality and who seek to discredit religious belief
as ignorant superstition.
Listening to some of the rhetoric today, one might easily assume that
the views espoused by creationists–that God created the universe in
six 24-hour days, as a literal reading of Genesis 1 would
suggest–represent the historic position of Christianity and of the
Bible, and that it is only in modern times, with the rise of
evolutionary theory, that creationism has come under siege. Yet this
is hardly the case.
As early as the fifth century, the great Christian theologian
Augustine warned against taking the six days of Genesis literally.
Writing on The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argued that the
days of creation were not successive, ordinary days–the sun, after
all, according to Genesis, was not created until the fourth "day"–and
had nothing to do with time. Rather, Augustine argued, God "made all
things together, disposing them in an order based not on intervals of
time but on causal connections." Sounding like an evolutionist,
Augustine reasoned that some things were made in fully developed form
and others were made in "potential form" that developed over time to
the condition in which they are seen today.
Now, a growing number of conservative scholars embrace theistic
evolution–a view that considers evolution, like all other physical
processes known to science, to be divinely designed and governed. They
understand Genesis as speaking more of the relationship between God
and creation than as presenting a scientific or historical explanation
of how and when creation occurred. "Creation and evolution are not
contradictory," explains Howard Van Till, a professor of physics and
astronomy at evangelical Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. "They
provide different answers to a different set of questions."
Much the same may be said of disputes over the meaning and intent of
the biblical story of the Flood. Those who take it as literal history
believe that God unleashed a worldwide deluge that destroyed all
air-breathing life on Earth except for those creatures taken aboard
the ark in divine judgment against a creation gone bad. When God
finally allowed the waters to recede, the ark was emptied and the
world was repopulated by the creatures that disembarked. Based on
biblical genealogies, all of this would have happened less than 10,000
years ago.
While most biblical scholars consider the story of the Flood a myth,
many conservatives have little difficulty imagining that God could
pull off precisely what the Genesis story describes. As with the
Creation narrative, however, the evidence and arguments from science
stack up overwhelmingly against a literal interpretation of the Flood
story. Where, for example, would such a volume of water have come
from, and where would it have gone afterward? How would mammalian life
have re-emerged on isolated islands and landmasses that emerged from
the receding flood waters? While some scholars allow the possibility
that a catastrophic regional deluge may underlie the flood legends of
the ancient Near East, conservatives argue that there is, indeed,
geological evidence consistent with a universal deluge. But such
arguments have found little support within the scientific mainstream.
Back to top
AGE OF THE PATRIARCHS
The book of Genesis traces Israel's ancestry to Abraham, a
monotheistic nomad who God promises will be "ancestor of a multitude
of nations" and whose children will inherit the land of Canaan as "a
perpetual holding." God's promise and Israel's ethnic identity are
passed from generation to generation–from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob.
Then Jacob and his sons–the progenitors of Israel's 12 ancient
tribes–are forced by famine to leave Canaan and migrate to Egypt,
where the Israelite people emerge over a period of some 400 years.
Modern archaeology has found no direct evidence from the Middle Bronze
Age (2000-1500 B.C.)–roughly the period many scholars believe to be
the patriarchal era–to corroborate the biblical account. No
inscriptions or artifacts relating to Israel's first biblical
ancestors have been recovered. Nor are there references in other
ancient records to the early battles and conflicts reported in
Genesis.
Moreover, some scholars contend that the patriarch stories contain
anachronisms that suggest they were written many centuries after the
events they portray. Abraham, for example, is described in the 11th
and 15th chapters of Genesis as coming from "Ur of the Chaldeans"–a
city in southern Mesopotamia, or modern-day Iraq. But the Chaldeans
settled in that area "not earlier than the ninth or eighth centuries"
B.C., according to Niels Peter Lemche, a professor at the University
of Copenhagen and a leading biblical skeptic. That, he says, is more
than 1,000 years after Abraham's time and at least 400 years after the
time of Moses, who tradition says wrote the book of Genesis.
Yet other scholars, like Barry Beitzel, professor of Old Testament and
Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield,
Ill., are neither surprised nor troubled by the apparent lack of
direct archaeological evidence for Abraham's existence. Why, they
argue, should one expect to find the names of an obscure nomad and his
descendants in the official archives of the rulers of Mesopotamia?
These are "family stories," says Beitzel, not geopolitical history of
the type one might expect to find preserved in the annals of kings.
While there may, indeed, be no direct material evidence relating to
the biblical patriarchs, archaeology has not been altogether silent on
the subject. Kenneth A. Kitchen, an Egyptologist now retired from the
University of Liverpool in England, argues that archaeology and the
Bible "match remarkably well" in depicting the historical context of
the patriarch narratives. In Genesis 37:28, for example, Joseph, a son
of Jacob, is sold by his brothers into slavery for 20 silver shekels.
That, notes Kitchen, matches precisely the going price of slaves in
the region during the 19th and 18th centuries B.C., as affirmed by
documents recovered from the region that is now modern Syria. By the
eighth century B.C., the price of slaves, as attested in ancient
Assyrian records, had risen steadily to 50 or 60 shekels, and to 90 to
120 shekels during the Persian Empire in the fifth and fourth
centuries B.C. If the story of Joseph had been dreamed up by a Jewish
scribe in the sixth century, as some skeptics have suggested, argues
Kitchen, "why isn't the price in Exodus also 90 to 100 shekels? It's
more reasonable to assume that the biblical data reflect reality."
Back to top
FLIGHT FROM EGYPT
The dramatic story of the Exodus–of God delivering Moses and the
Israelite people from Egyptian bondage and leading them to the
Promised Land of Canaan–has been called the "central proclamation of
the Hebrew Bible." Yet archaeologists have found no direct evidence to
corroborate the biblical story. Inscriptions from ancient Egypt
contain no mention of Hebrew slaves, of the plagues that the Bible
says preceded their release, or of the destruction of the pharaoh's
army during the Israelites' miraculous crossing of the Red Sea. No
physical trace has been found of the Israelites' 40-year nomadic
sojourn in the Sinai wilderness. There is not even any indication,
outside of the Bible, that Moses existed.
Still, as with the patriarch narratives, many scholars argue that a
lack of direct evidence is insufficient reason to deny that the Exodus
actually happened. Nahum Sarna, professor emeritus of biblical studies
at Brandeis University, argues that the Exodus story–tracing, as it
does, a nation's origins to slavery and oppression–"cannot possibly be
fictional. No nation would be likely to invent for itself . . . an
inglorious and inconvenient tradition of this nature," unless it had
an authentic core. "If you're making up history," adds Richard Elliott
Friedman, professor at the University of California-San Diego, "it's
that you were descended from gods or kings, not from slaves."
Indeed, the absence of direct material evidence of an Israelite
sojourn in Egypt is not as surprising, or as damaging to the Bible's
credibility, as it first might seem. What type of material evidence,
after all, would one expect to find that could corroborate the
biblical story? "Slaves, serfs, and nomads leave few traces in the
archaeological record," notes University of Arizona archaeologist
William Dever.
The dating of the Exodus also has long been a source of controversy.
The book of 1 Kings 6:1 gives what appears to be a clear historical
marker for the end of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt: "In the 480th
year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth
year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the
second month, he began to build the house of the Lord." Biblical
historians generally agree that Solomon, the son and successor of
David (and the builder of Israel's first great temple) came to the
throne in about 962 B.C. If so, then the Exodus would have occurred in
about 1438 B.C., based on the chronology of the 1 Kings passage.
That date does not fit with other biblical texts or with what is known
of ancient Egyptian history. But the flaw is far from fatal. Sarna and
others argue that the time span cited in 1 Kings–480 years–should not
be taken literally. "It is 12 generations of 40 years each," notes
Sarna; 40 being "a rather conventional figure in the Bible,"
frequently used to connote a long period of time. Viewing the 1 Kings
chronology in that light–as primarily a theological statement rather
than as "pure" history in the modern sense–the Exodus can be placed in
the 13th century, in the days of Ramses II, where it finds strong
circumstantial support in the archaeological record.
Back to top
THE RULE OF DAVID
The reigns of King David and his son Solomon over a united monarchy
mark the glory years of ancient Israel. That period (roughly 1000 B.C.
to 920 B.C.)–described in detail in the books of 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and
2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles–marks the beginning of an era of
stronger links between biblical history and modern archaeological
evidence. Before the discovery of the "House of David" inscription at
Dan in 1993, it had become fashionable in some academic circles to
dismiss the David stories as an invention of priestly propagandists
who were trying to dignify Israel's past after the Babylonian exile.
But as Tel Aviv University archaeologist Israel Finkelstein observes,
"Biblical nihilism collapsed overnight with the discovery of the David
inscription."
In the aftermath, another famous ancient inscription found more than a
century ago has attracted renewed scholarly interest. The so-called
Mesha Stele, like the stele on which the Dan inscription is etched, is
a basalt monument from the ninth century B.C. that commemorates a
military victory over Israel–this one by the Moabite king Mesha. The
lengthy Tyrian text describes how the kingdom of Moab, a land east of
the Jordan River, had been oppressed by "Omri, king of Israel" (whose
reign is summarized in 1 Kings 16:21-27) and by Omri's successors, and
how Mesha threw off the Israelites in a glorious military campaign.
But the name of another of Mesha's conquered foes may lie hidden in a
partially obliterated line of text that, transliterated, reads b[–]wd;
the remainder of the inscription is missing. The French scholar André
LeMaire, after carefully re-examining the inscription, has suggested
that the line should be filled in to read bt dwd–"beit David," or
"house of David"–a reference to the kingdom of Judah. "No doubt," says
LeMaire, "the missing part of the inscription described how Mesha also
threw off the yoke of Judah and conquered the territory southeast of
the Dead Sea controlled by the House of David."
As significant as they are, these two inscriptions–both still
contested–remain for now the only extrabiblical references to David's
dynasty. And both were written more than a century after the reigns of
David and Solomon. Given the grandeur of the Israelite monarchy under
the two kings as described in the Bible, how could such an influential
and popular regime have attracted so little notice in ancient Near
Eastern documents from the time?
The answer, suggests Carol Meyers, professor of biblical studies and
archaeology at Duke University, may lie in the political climate in
the region at the time, when, she says, "a power vacuum existed in the
eastern Mediterranean." The collapse of Egypt's 20th dynasty around
1069 B.C. led to a lengthy period of economic and political decline
for a nation that had exerted powerful influence over the city-states
of Palestine during the Late Bronze Age. This period of Egyptian
weakness, which lasted for over a century (until around 945 B.C.), saw
a "relative paucity of monumental inscriptions," says Meyers. "The
kings had nothing to boast about."
Similarly, the Assyrian empire to the east was unusually silent from
the late 11th to the early ninth century B.C. regarding the western
lands it once had dominated. Assyria was preoccupied, says Meyers,
with internal turmoil following the death of one of the greatest of
its early kings. Another major power in the region, Babylonia, also
was uncharacteristically quiet. For centuries following a raid on
Assyria in 1081 B.C., it seldom ventured beyond its own borders, says
Meyers, "and thus its records would hardly have mentioned a new
dynastic state to the west."
The reign of David was a time of territorial expansion for the united
Israelite kingdom and was marked, according to the Bible, by a series
of military victories. Twice the Israelite armies repulsed invasions
by the Philistines, a belligerent horde of pagan marauders who
occupied Canaan's Mediterranean coastal plains. While the Bible
depicts the Philistines as a frequent nemesis of the Israelites, their
name does not appear in ancient nonbiblical sources before 1200 B.C.
Some minimalist scholars have suggested that the biblical stories of
run-ins with the dreaded Philistines were invented by priestly scribes
in the middle of the first millennium B.C. to dramatize the military
prowess of the mythical Davidic dynasty.
But modern archaeology has uncovered a wealth of information regarding
the Philistine "sea people" thoroughly consistent with their portrayal
in the Bible. For example, sources including numerous Egyptian
inscriptions indicate that the Philistines most likely originated in
the Aegean area, probably on the island of Crete. That fits with
biblical passages (Jeremiah 47:4 and Deuteronomy 2:23, for example)
linking them with Caphtor, a location most scholars identify with
Crete.
Additionally, the Bible depicts the Philistines as expert
metallurgists, and archaeologists have found material evidence that
the Philistines were, indeed, expert metalworkers. Trude Dothan, a
Hebrew University archaeologist who has excavated many of the
Philistine sites, says this superior knowledge no doubt gave them a
military advantage in their early battles with the Israelites. She
notes that in the famous story of the duel between David and Goliath
in 1 Samuel 17, the giant Philistine warrior is described as wearing a
bronze helmet and bronze body armor and carrying a spear with a shaft
"like a weaver's beam" and with a head of iron. "The Bible compares
Goliath's spear to a weaver's beam," Dothan says, "because this type
of weapon was new to Canaan and had no Hebrew name." Once again, the
Bible and archaeology are in agreement.
Back to top
THE DAYS OF JESUS
Compared with the earlier eras of Old Testament history, the days of
Jesus are a fleeting moment. A life span of just three decades and a
public career of only a few years leave a dauntingly narrow target for
archaeological exploration. Yet during the past four decades,
spectacular discoveries have produced a wealth of data illuminating
the story of Jesus and the birth of Christianity. The picture that has
emerged overall closely matches the historical backdrop of the
Gospels.
In 1968, for example, explorers found the skeletal remains of a
crucified man in a burial cave at Giva'at ha-Mitvar, near the Nablus
road outside of Jerusalem. It was a momentous discovery: While the
Romans were known to have crucified thousands of alleged traitors,
rebels, robbers, and deserters in the two centuries straddling the
turn of the era, never before had the remains of a crucifixion victim
been recovered. An initial analysis of the remains found that their
condition dramatically corroborated the Bible's description of the
Roman method of execution.
The bones were preserved in a stone burial box called an ossuary and
appeared to be those of a man about 5 feet, 5 inches tall and 24 to 28
years old. His open arms had been nailed to the crossbar, in the
manner similar to that shown in crucifixion paintings. The knees had
been doubled up and turned sideways, and a single large iron nail had
been driven through both heels. The nail–still lodged in the heel bone
of one foot, though the executioners had removed the body from the
cross after death–was found bent, apparently having hit a knot in the
wood. The shin bones seem to have been broken, corroborating what the
Gospel of John suggests was normal practice in Roman crucifixions:
"Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the
other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and
saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs" (19:32-33).
While one later analysis drew some different conclusions about how the
man died, similarities to the biblical account were affirmed.
The discovery also posed a powerful counterargument to objections some
scholars have raised against the Gospels' description of Jesus's
burial. It has been argued that the common practice of Roman
executioners was to toss corpses of crucified criminals into a common
grave or to leave them on the cross to be devoured by scavenging
animals. So it hardly seems feasible, the argument goes, that Roman
authorities would have allowed Jesus to undergo the burial described
in the Gospels. But with the remains of a crucified contemporary of
Jesus found in a family grave, it is clear that at least on some
occasions the Romans permitted proper interment consistent with the
biblical account.
A find at another Jerusalem site added to the list of Gospel figures
whose existence has been verified by archaeology. Workers building a
water park 2 miles south of the Temple Mount in 1990 inadvertently
broke through the ceiling of a hidden burial chamber dating to the
first century A.D. Inside, archaeologists found 12 limestone
ossuaries. One contained the bones of a 60-year-old man and bore the
inscription Yehosef bar Qayafa–"Joseph, son of Caiaphas." Experts
believe these remains are probably those of Caiaphas the high priest
of Jerusalem, who according to the Gospels ordered the arrest of
Jesus, interrogated him, and handed him over to Pontius Pilate for
execution.
A few decades earlier, the name of another key figure in the arrest
and crucifixion of Jesus turned up in the archaeological record:
During excavations in 1961 at the seaside ruins of Caesarea Maritima,
the ancient seat of Roman government in Judea, a first-century
inscription was uncovered confirming that Pilate had been the Roman
ruler of the region at the time of Jesus's crucifixion. Italian
archaeologists working at the city's magnificent Herodian theater
found the inscribed stone slab in use in the theater's steps. Experts
say it originally was a first-century plaque at a nearby temple
honoring the emperor Tiberius. The badly damaged Latin inscription
reads in part, Tiberieum . . . [Pon]tius Pilatus . . . [Praef]ectus
Juda[ea]e. According to experts, the complete inscription would have
read, "Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the
people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius." The discovery of
the so-called Pilate Stone has been widely acclaimed as a significant
affirmation of biblical history because, in short, it confirms that
the man depicted in the Gospels as Judea's Roman governor had
precisely the responsibilities and authority that the Gospel writers
ascribed to him.
Back to top
THE ROAD AHEAD
Modern archaeology may not have removed all doubt about the historical
accuracy of the Bible. But thanks to archaeology, the Bible "no longer
appears as an absolutely isolated monument of the past, as a
phenomenon without relation to its environment," as the great American
archaeologist William Albright wrote at midcentury. Instead, it has
been firmly fixed in a context of knowable history, linked to the
present by footprints across the archaeological record.
Just as archaeology has shed new light on the Bible, the Bible in turn
has often proved a useful tool for archaeologists. Yigael Yadin, the
Israeli archaeologist who excavated at Hazor in the 1950s, relied
heavily on its guidance in finding the great gate of Solomon at the
famous upper Galilee site: "We went about discovering [the gate] with
Bible in one hand and spade in the other." And Trude Dothan notes that
"without the Bible, we wouldn't even have known there were
Philistines." Much work remains for the archaeological explorers of
the next century, and many more mysteries of the Bible wait to be
solved. Where, for example, are the lost "Annals of the Kings" of
Israel and Judah cited as literary sources in the Old Testament book
of 1 Kings, and the five books of Papias mentioned in early church
writings as a collection of the sayings of Jesus? Will further
discoveries of hidden scrolls from the Dead Sea reveal new insights
into the birth of Christianity? Scholars are convinced there is much
more out there waiting to be found. It's just a matter of time.
Back to top
From Is the Bible True? by Jeffery L. Sheler
© 1999 by Jeffery L. Sheler.
Reprinted by arrangement with Harper San Francisco,
a division of Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
jum...@my-deja.com
Well, Pyro, I'm not the one you need to "convince" but the GENERAL
AUDIENCE "out there" in this Cyberspace LaLa Land. You're NOT DOING
VERY WELL at present, and here's why:
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Listen, eunuch ...
I'm listening, but the fact that you feel the need to go about
-telling- other people to listen points to the likelihood that THEY
really don't WANT to listen to you. If you were a great musician
then you'd NEVER need to "force" others to listen to you. The BASIC
QUESTION is how much readers of this newsgroup would *-PAY-* to read
your product, not whether you can "force" them to listen to you.
That's the TEST of its worthiness. Most on this newsgroup might say
instead that -YOU- should need to *-PAY-* -THEM- to read your stuff.
YOUR FALSITY #1: I'm not a "eununch" so you're off on a wrong foot.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... you are right on the fact that nothing is more
> essential than TRUTH.
YOUR FALSITY #2: I did NOT say nothing is more essential than truth.
I asked: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHAT DOES NIETZSCHE OFFER THAT IS MORE ESSENTIAL THAN TRUTH ???
^^^^^^^^^
You see, it's possible that Nietzsche -did- find something more
essential than truth, since you had said Nietzsche was asking his
readers to "question the value" of truth, even after Plato's
philosophers had ALREADY STIPULATED that truth was "highly valued."
So Nietzsche is POTENTIALLY on target.
YOUR FALSITY #3: A statement "nothing is more essential than TRUTH"
is -NOT- a fact, since Nietzsche had questioned it BY YOUR OWN
WORDS and Plato's philosophers said it was merely "highly valued."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> The problem is that after proclaiming that,
> you say this: "Cochran, Marsallis, Kenny Drew Jr., George Russell,
> Duke Ellington, John Hicks, Amal Jamal, etc." (you left behind
> Oprah Winfrey) "are cultural treasures, leaders of civilization,
> etc." You enshrine them to the level of Socrates and Mozart.
YOUR FALSITY #4: Cultural treasures are by nature -incomparable-
to each other, since as you stated earlier, even with Mozart's DNA
we couldn't guarantee "another Mozart" through cloning. Also, one
could not expect of Mozart to write Shakespeare, or Socrates to
write the music of Mozart, Wagner, or Richard Strauss. So there's
no "level" to speak of when referring to "cultural treasures." Art
and the "cultural treasures" of art, are NOT matters of "levels" by
which they can be measured, tallied, rendered accounts, quantified.
We are invoking -qualitative- means when assigning the "cultural
treasure" designation, not the (quantitative) price of tea in China.
An easy way to debunk your superstition is to ask "how high" -IS-
that "level" called "Socrates and Mozart" and then ask "which" of
the two, Socrates or Mozart, are the "greater?" Obviously they had
excelled at VERY DIFFERENT FIELDS of -incomparable- human endeavor.
Here's what YOU had originally asked for, with MY replies:
---------
> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> Tell me of a great Negro philosopher?
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Booker T. Washington. Johnnie Cochran.
---------
> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> Tell me of a black Mozart?
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Stevie Wonder, Winton Marsallis, Louis Armstrong,
> Dizzy Gillespie; more than a dozen jazz artists
> with skills of a Mozart ...
Note that I did -NOT- claim Cochran was "on the level of Socrates"
but merely that he was "a great Negro philosopher." Similarly, I
did -NOT- say those jazz artists were "on the level of Mozart" but
that they had "skills of a Mozart ..." -- both non-controversial
statements. And yet another example of YOUR not-so-fine dyslexia.
I'm building no shrine here. Did you think alt.fan.unabomber was
some kind a shrine? If I'm wrong I'll freely admit to that in a
heartbeat. I'm not interested in WHO is right, but WHAT is right.
The name was spelt Amad Jamal, and I don't know enough about Oprah
Winfrey, though it's evident that *-YOU-* have been spending a LOT
of time evaluating Oprah's candidacy. Care to share your secrets?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> What we condemn is the cynicism of prostituting TRUTH. You
> hypocrites are the masters of deception who give meaning to the
> words "Sadducee" and "Pharisee."
YOUR FALSITY #5:
Your words above are a striking illustration of exactly what you
say you condemn. Though you haven't defined for us what you mean
by the phrase "prostituting TRUTH" may I proceed for the interim on
an assumption that you refer to that which "compromises truth" or
to methods which do not apply proper investigative tools for arriving
at, or discovering truth? Shall we AGREE that the Socratic method
of dialectics, as given ample coverage in the _Gorgias_ dialogue,
which you can find easily now since it was posted to the newsgroup,
which is an inquiry characterized by means of asking and posing
questions, is our suitable common-ground? Here's the basic point:
if we haven't a common language, common means for inquiry, common
methods by which points of discourse may be arbitrated, then we
may as well not have a discussion. Why? Because without possibility
for changing -- refining -- perspectives, for goal-oriented endeavor
we may as well not even engage. So first we need to resolve whether
your purpose on this newsgroup is to blither-blather, or whether you
are here for a diplomatic purpose to persuade (if by rhetoric), or
to teach (if by dialectics), since you're MAKING NOTHING BUT NOISE
if you seek to do neither as with the case of your "buddy" Agent99:
(re: "intellectual bullying")
> From: agent99 <age...@post.cz>
>> You ARE confused on the difference. This is a
>> matter of world view, however, and I don't
>> expect to be able to persuade you.
With his typical flair for self-contradiction, Agent99 expects me to
"be persuaded" though he's not prepared to do any of the persuading:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From: agent99 <age...@post.cz>
>> Now, opinions are those mental things which
>> enable us to explain facts. A person like you
>> sees the virulent racism of those Jew books and
>> makes excuses for it, if he can be persuaded
>> to acknowledge it at all.
--------------
> From: <age...@post.cz>
>> I don't seek to persuade anybody.
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> So it's not difficult to understand why
> your words get lost.
The additional irony of it all, is that I haven't made any excuses
for the "racism of those Jew books" but I shall NOW STATE that I
believe we are all aware of the FACT that there are four major types
of Judaism: namely Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist,
and that Jews are NOT OBLIGATED by their faith to subscribe to each
and every piece of "non-scriptural writing" termed Jewish. The Talmud
is in a similar position as Hadith for Moslems: it is NOT the Bible
or Koran. I am in agreement, however, that Talmudic writing -should-
be made MORE PUBLIC and FREELY AVAILABE in electronic form over the
Internet rather than "sold at cost" in the proposed CD-ROM format.
The same goes for being a Christian: one is not obligated to defend
sectarian beliefs not germane to the particular Christian variety to
which one subscribes. I'm in full agreement that the Talmud contains
passages of embarassment to Orthodox Jews. Quite possibly THEY FAN
THEIR OWN FLAMES of anti-semitism, but this was "news" I had known
for more than 25 years and was not learned on alt.fan.unabomber.
The further irony, to Agent99's rhetoric, consists in his explanation
of "opinions" as a device to "explain facts." Opinions cannot serve
to "explain" because one then asks for an "explanation of opinions"
themselves, which by Agent99's logic would appear to be only more and
more "opinions" in a kind of infinite regress. Here's some of what
Plato has to SAY about the relationship of "facts" and "opinions" --
(a) 1. Truth of what he's saying is "as plain as the fact that..."
2. Poets (who give opinions) should instead speak in plain fact.
LAWS BOOK II:
"Ath. How! Then may Heaven make us to be of one
mind, for now we are of two. To me, dear Cleinias,
the truth of what I am saying is as plain as the
fact that Crete is an island. And, if I were a
lawgiver, I would try to make the poets and all
the citizens speak in this strain ..."
(b) Facts keep discussions away from the sort of "empty theory"
that is characteristic of opinion.
LAWS BOOK III:
"Ath. And may we not now further confirm what was
then mentioned? For we have come upon facts which
have brought us back again to the same principle;
so that, in resuming the discussion, we shall not
be enquiring about an empty theory, but about
events which actually happened."
(c) Courts do not always need to determine opinions but they
-must- determine "the question of fact" in all cases.
LAWS BOOK IX:
"And to allow courts of law to determine all these
things, or not to determine any of them, is alike
impossible. There is one particular which they
must determine in all cases-the question of fact."
(d) Though "philosophical imagination" allows for "every shade"
it might be given to "fancies" and "figures of speech" if it
does not focus on ideas and facts. Matters of practicability
and/or "real content" are subsidiary to the fundamental role
assigned to the "science of dialectic or the organization of
ideas" as the -method- by which higher knowledge is pursued.
(REPUBLIC) -- Summary of the Argument from the
Introduction (by Benjamin Jowett):
"Every shade of light and dark, of truth, and of
fiction which is the veil of truth, is allowable
in a work of philosophical imagination. It is not
all on the same plane; it easily passes from ideas
to myths and fancies, from facts to figures of
speech. It is not prose but poetry, at least a
great part of it, and ought not to be judged by
the rules of logic or the probabilities of
history. The writer is not fashioning his ideas
into an artistic whole; they take possession of
him and are too much for him. We have no need
therefore to discuss whether a State such as Plato
has conceived is practicable or not, or whether
the outward form or the inward life came first
into the mind of the writer. For the
practicability of his ideas has nothing to do with
their truth; and the highest thoughts to which he
attains may be truly said to bear the greatest
"marks of design" --justice more than the external
framework of the State, the idea of good more
than justice. The great science of dialectic or
the organization of ideas has no real content; but
is only a type of the method or spirit in which
the higher knowledge is to be pursued by the
spectator of all time and all existence."
(e) 1. If "the truth of facts" is kept at a distance then enchantment
(deception) can be the result through "fictitious arguments"
(opinions divorced from fact) and the -misimpression- that the
speaker of opinion, rather than fact, is seemingly "wise."
2. Later in life they may be compelled to -change- an opinion,
which was so separated from fact, having been discovered to
be merely a "dreamy speculation." To avoid that "sad reality"
they should have staying focused upon facts which are "nearer
to truth" so as not to be charmed by the Sophist who might be
merely a magician and imitator. Facts are less likely then
opinion to need changing, so -facts- are more "explanatory."
SOPHIST:
"Str. We know, of course, that he who professes by
one art to make all things is really a painter,
and by the painter's art makes resemblances of
real things which have the same name with them;
and he can deceive the less intelligent sort of
young children, to whom he shows his pictures at a
distance, into the belief that he has the absolute
power of making whatever he likes.
"Theaet. Certainly.
"Str. And may there not be supposed to be an
imitative art of reasoning? Is it not possible to
enchant the hearts of young men by words poured
through their ears, when they are still at a
distance from the truth of facts, by exhibiting to
them fictitious arguments, and making them think
that they are true, and that the speaker is the
wisest of men in all things?
"Theaet. Yes; why should there not be another such art?
"Str. But as time goes on, and their hearers
advance in years, and come into closer contact
with realities, and have learnt by sad experience
to see and feel the truth of things, are not the
greater part of them compelled to change many
opinions which they formerly entertained, so that
the great appears small to them, and the easy
difficult, and all their dreamy speculations are
overturned by the facts of life?
"Theaet. That is my view, as far as I can judge,
although, at my age, I may be one of those who see
things at a distance only.
"Str. And the wish of all of us, who are your
friends, is and always will be to bring you as
near to the truth as we can without the sad
reality. And now I should like you to tell me,
whether the Sophist is not visibly a magician and
imitator of true being; or are we still disposed
to think that he may have a true knowledge of the
various matters about which he disputes?
"Theaet. But how can he, Stranger? Is there any
doubt, after what has been said, that he is to be
located in one of the divisions of children's
play?
"Str. Then we must place him in the class of
magicians and mimics.
"Theaet. Certainly we must.
"Str. And now our business is not to let the animal
out, for we have got him in a sort of dialectical
net, and there is one thing which he decidedly
will not escape.
"Theaet. What is that?
"Str. The inference that he is a juggler.
"Theaet. Precisely my own opinion of him."
(f) Facts have a "very great advantage" over (opinionated) fiction.
TIMAEUS
"Soc. And what other, Critias, can we find that
will be better than this, which is natural and
suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has
the very great advantage of being a fact and not a
fiction?"
So Agent99 is *-WRONG-*. According to Plato, opinions CANNOT
SERVE TO EXPLAIN since opinions are "distanced" from the truth and
are subject to change. Facts are MORE EXPLANATORY than opinion.
Agent99's opinionated words will get LOST: they're not as valuable
as explanatory facts. Next let's examine the ROLE of "persuasion"
in Plato:
(a) Socrates considers that he is "not very likely to persuade other
men" if he cannot persuade Simmias.
PHAEDO:
"Simmias said: I must confess, Socrates, that doubts did
arise in our minds, and each of us was urging and inciting
the other to put the question which he wanted to have
answered and which neither of us liked to ask, fearing that
our importunity might be troublesome under present
circumstances.
"Socrates smiled and said: O Simmias, how strange that is; I
am not very likely to persuade other men that I do not
regard my present situation as a misfortune, if I am unable
to persuade you ... "
(b) Socrates says he shall "try and persuade some old men" to join
him in his visit to "the strangers" so that they might receive
him and not fear being ridiculed by Socrates.
EUTHYDEMUS:
"Soc. Certainly not, Crito; as I will prove to you,
for I have the consolation of knowing that they
began this art of disputation which I covet,
quite, as I may say, in old age; last year, or the
year before, they had none of their new wisdom. I
am only apprehensive that I may bring the two
strangers into disrepute, as I have done Connus
the son of Metrobius, the harp-player, who is
still my music-master; for when the boys who go to
him see me going with them, they laugh at me and
call him grandpapa's master.
"Now I should not like the strangers to experience
similar treatment; the fear of ridicule may make
them unwilling to receive me; and therefore,
Crito, I shall try and persuade some old men to
accompany me to them, as I persuaded them to go
with me to Connus ... "
(c) At the conclusion of the Meno dialogue, Socrates says that Meno
was "persuaded" by their mutual argument, and advises Meno to
"persuade" Anytus, which is expected to be a "good service" to
the Athenian people.
MENO:
"Men. That is excellent, Socrates.
"Soc. Then, Meno, the conclusion is that virtue
comes to the virtuous by the gift of God. But we
shall never know the certain truth until, before
asking how virtue is given, we enquire into the
actual nature of virtue. I fear that I must go
away, but do you, now that you are persuaded
yourself, persuade our friend Anytus. And do not
let him be so exasperated; if you can conciliate
him, you will have done good service to the
Athenian people."
(d) Socrates offers that he has been "persuaded" that he ought
not be "grieved at death" so he accepts a role and validity
to persuasion.
PHAEDO:
"Yes, replied Socrates; there is reason in that.
And this indictment you think that I ought to
answer as if I were in court?
"That is what we should like, said Simmias.
"Then I must try to make a better impression upon
you than I did when defending myself before the
judges. For I am quite ready to acknowledge,
Simmias and Cebes, that I ought to be grieved at
death, if I were not persuaded that I am going to
other gods who are wise and good (of this I am as
certain as I can be of anything of the sort) and
to men departed (though I am not so certain of
this), who are better than those whom I leave
behind; and therefore I do not grieve as I might
have done, for I have good hope that there is yet
something remaining for the dead, and, as has been
said of old, some far better thing for the good
than for the evil."
(e) 1. Socrates invokes a hypothetical argument involving the
device of persuation.
2. Socrates says it's better to have a "ridiculous friend"
than a "cunning enemy."
PHAEDRUS:
"Soc. The words of the wise are not to be set
aside; for there is probably something in them;
and therefore the meaning of this saying is not
hastily to be dismissed.
"Phaedr. Very true.
"Soc. Let us put the matter thus:-Suppose that I
persuaded you to buy a horse and go to the wars.
Neither of us knew what a horse was like, but I
knew that you believed a horse to be of tame
animals the one which has the longest ears.
"Phaedr. That would be ridiculous.
"Soc. There is something more ridiculous
coming:-Suppose, further, that in sober earnest I,
having persuaded you of this, went and composed a
speech in honour of an ass, whom I entitled a
horse beginning: "A noble animal and a most useful
possession, especially in war, and you may get on
his back and fight, and he will carry baggage or
anything."
"Phaedr. How ridiculous!
"Soc. Ridiculous! Yes; but is not even a ridiculous
friend better than a cunning enemy?
"Phaedr. Certainly."
(f) 1. Socrates says he has been "persuaded" toward truth
by the words of Diotima.
2. Socrates also says that he tries "to persuade" others.
SYMPOSIUM:
"Such, Phaedrus-and I speak not only to you, but to
all of you-were the words of Diotima; and I am
persuaded of their truth. And being persuaded of
them, I try to persuade others, that in the
attainment of this end human nature will not
easily find a helper better than love: And
therefore, also, I say that every man ought to
honour him as I myself honour him, and walk in his
ways, and exhort others to do the same, and praise
the power and spirit of love according to the
measure of my ability now and ever."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> You, IDIOT, have elevated this group of pygmies to the level of the
> immortals. Is this a true evaluation of this group of individuals?
It seems to be my evaluation of nearly everyone who reads this
newsgroup -- "alt.fan.unabomber" -- excepting Pyro and Agent99.
YOUR FALSITY #6: I haven't "elevated" readers of the newsgroup who
were already "immortally intelligent." J.S.Mill's writings have
been around for MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS, and Plato's dialogues
for MORE THAN TWO -THOUSAND- years. I didn't perform elevation
over what was ALREADY ON RECORD FOR ANYBODY WHO CAN READ WORDS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Putting a convicted criminal, still having the warm blood of his
> victims dripping from his hands, back on the street again, is the
> essential _TRUTH_ you proclaim? The vociferous charlatan, Johnnie
> Cochran, who used all kinds of tricks, LIES, and mob influence?
> Presenting this mental dwarf and liar as a cultural treasure,
> respected individual, leader of civilization, and contributor to
> the positive good?
YOUR FALSITY #7:
Uh, last I checked it was a Jury and Judge who exonerated O.J.,
*-NOT-* Johnny Cochran. All that time, of course, Marcia Clark WAS
THERE TO CHALLENGE EVERYTHING Mr. Cochran did, with plenty of trial
time and television coverage so that Pyro could TOSS OUT peanuts.
DID YOU THROW IN YOUR 2-CENTS WHILE YOU HAD THE CHANCE, PYRO ????
If Johnny Cochran hadn't been a defense attorney it would have been
somebody else because in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA people charged
with a crime are ENTITLED to legal representation if they cannot
afford it. So you have your "facts" WRONG if you think O.J. was
a "convicted criminal, still having the warm blood of his victims
dripping from his hands." In the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA people
are labelled as "convicted criminals" if, and only if, they are
-CONVICTED- by a COURT OF LAW for some CRIMINAL CRIME. Evidently
you don't subscribe to the BASIC PRINCIPLES enunciated by our
Constitution and Bill of Rights? Are you an UN-AMERICAN commie ???
Lawyers are SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT clients. Juries and Judges are
SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE truth. That's how JUSTICE works in THE USA.
YOU *-CANNOT-* CLAIM SOMEBODY IS GUILTY BEFORE HOLDING THE TRIAL.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> You, IDIOT, have no idea of what you are talking about. Jesus
> said: "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE." And still, you
> crucified him, you deicide! You killed the TRUTH; the TRUTH has
> always been your victim.
YOUR FALSITY #8:
Do you have evidence that I crucified Jesus 1969 years ago?
At the same time you try to call -ME- an "idiot" and allege that
I don't know what I'm talking about? GET BEHIND ME, SATAN !!!
So, Pyro, I think you need some VERY SPECIAL psychiatric help.
And everyone on this newsgroup who follows this little exchange
must be in STITCHES over your woefully ineffectual rejoinder.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> In your diagram, you wrote: "A has B" "A has C" therefore "B has
> some kinship to C." Let's try again! Your father has your mother,
> and your mother fucks your neighbor, so you are a bastard. That's
> the logic you have to follow. Your subconscious betrayed you: what
> I was using as symbolism of truth made you think about your
> father's dick.
YOUR FALSITY #9:
No, I'm afraid not. YOU are positing that logic, not me. The
logic I "need to follow" are the logical coherencies *-I-* claim
as valid for -MY- discourse, not those invalid incoherencies YOU
had advanced and now SEEK TO PROJECT by way of a "back door" entry.
I don't recall invoking a reference to my father's dick, so you're
-FABRICATING- your own LITTLE fantasy. Here was the actual exchange:
> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> "Mathematics rightly viewed possesses not
>> only _TRUTH_, but supreme BEAUTY,"
>> wrote Bertrand Russell ...
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Your "analysis" of Russell's "cite" is
> OUTRAGEOUSLY LAUGHABLE.
> Here's what seems to be *-YOUR-* logic:
> ( ha ha ha ha ha ha ha )
>
> "A has B."
> "A has C."
> "Therefore B has some kinship to C."
>
> Let's try it! Pyro has a son.
> Pyro has a daughter. Therefore
> Pyro's son and daughter COPULATE ??
> Aha! NOW I UNDERSTAND ALL !!!
So after conducting an examination from ALL of the -EVIDENCE- it is
quite -OBVIOUS- that Pyro is THE ACTUAL PERPETRATOR OF LIES AND
FICTIONS. I NEVER USED THE WORD "FATHER" OR THE WORD "DICK" SO AS
AN EASY-TO-FOLLOW LOGICAL ARGUMENT (except for you) I NEVER USED THE
PHRASE "FATHER'S DICK." CHECK FACTS, PYRO. YOU'RE *-LOSING-* IT !!!
( ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha )
I USED THE WORD *-COPULATE-* PYRO, NOT "FATHER'S DICK." SO, IF
YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE MANLY "RACIST" YOU ARE, YOU'LL NEED TO TAKE
YOUR HAND OFF OF YOUR "FATHER'S DICK" AND START COPULATING REAL SOON
NOW. Hurry up and make those *-NAZI-* babies, Pyro !! Maybe you
can do it ALL BY YOURSELF in the *-CLONING-* LAB !!!! (squirt squirt)
You must be using a REAL DIFFERENT definition of TRUTH, i.e. one that
nobody here can recognize !!! Give us your DEFINITION, please !!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> ... You know better than anyone else how you feel his
> "tail" between your fingers, bastard!
YOUR FALSITY #10:
How do you "know" what I "know" unless you try to put -YOUR-
fingers on "his 'tail'" ??? Or did you want to bend over instead?
YOU BROUGHT UP THAT TOPIC, AND HERE WAS *-YOUR-* VERBATIM:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ... As Ivan Turgueniev wrote to Liev Tolstoy,
> "The truth is like a lizard: you open your hand
> when you think you have got it to contemplate it,
> and the only thing you see is the tail between
> your fingers. It has escaped knowing it will grow
> a new tail." And Nietzsche wrote, "Let's define
> our task: once and for all we have to question the
> value of TRUTH."
Psychiatrists take note: Pyro -juxtaposed- the Nietzsche cite
directly after the Turgueniev (sic!) cite. First Pyro considers
putting his "lizard-like truth" in an "open hand" so he can then
"contemplate it" while looking at the "tail" between his fingers.
Then something "escapes" !!! (Q. What was it, Pyro?) Then Pyro
"jumps" DRAMATICALLY to the Nietzsche cite to "define our task"
which is to "question the value of TRUTH" -- eh? -- small wonder
that TRUTH is being put into "question" since that "lizard-like"
stuff "escaped" the "tail" between HIS fingers. Keep us posted,
Pyro! Send us an updated PROGRESS REPORT from the field, eh ???
Meanwhile you'd better start COPULATING for more of those *-NAZI-*
BABIES because "Y2K TIME" IS RUNNING OUT !!! While you're at it
send us some INFO about COPULATION cites from FAMOUS PEOPLE, ok ???
Here's what the meat-tenderizer had to say about "tails" --*--
-----------------
Mein Kampf - Volume II, Chapter XIII - CHAPTER XIII
THE GERMAN POST-WAR POLICY OF ALLIANCES
(Re: the leaders of the November parties with their
Cyclopean intellects ... )
"... Yes, during all these recent years, with the
touching simplicity of incorrigible visionaries,
they went on their knees to France again and
again. They perpetuaily wagged their tails before
the Grande Nation."
-----------------
Volume One - A Reckoning
Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna
"... I was outraged that in a state where every
idiot not only claimed the right to criticize, but
was given a seat in the Reichstag and let loose
upon the nation as a 'lawgiver,' the man who bore
the imperial crown had to take 'reprimands' from
the greatest babblers' club of all time.
"But I was even more indignant that the same
Viennese press which made the most obsequious bows
to every rickety horse in the Court, and flew into
convulsions of joy if he accidentally swished his
tail, should, with supposed concern, yet, as it
seemed to me, ill-concealed malice, express its
criticisms of the German Kaiser. Of course it had
no intention of interfering with conditions within
the German Reich-oh, no, God forbid-but by placing
its finger on these wounds in the friendliest way,
it was fulfilling the duty imposed by the spirit
of the mutual alliance, and, conversely,
fulfilling the requirements of journalistic truth,
etc. And now it was poking this finger around in
the wound to its heart's content.
"In such cases the blood rose to my head.
"It was this which caused me little by little to
view the big papers with greater caution."
So the meat-tenderizer EVENTUALLY figured out that "big papers"
deserved greater caution -- "little by little" that is ...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Agent99 described you well, STAIN. You are pestilent! Go back to
> kindergarten, IDIOT, and learn how to read; and later on, practice
> a little bit of ethics.
YOUR FALSITY #11:
Ok, thanks! Here's what the meat-tenderizer said about "stain" -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
Volume Two - A Reckoning
Chapter XV: The Right of Emergency Defense
"The fall of Carthage is the most horrible picture
of such a slow execution of a people through its
own deserts.
"That is why Clausewitz in his Drei Bekenntnisse
incomparably singles out this idea and nails it
fast for all time, when he says:
'That the STAIN of a cowardly
submission can never be effaced;
that this drop of poison in the
blood of a people is passed on to
posterity and will paralyze and
undermine the strength of later
generations';
that, on the other hand,
'even the loss of this freedom after
a bloody and honorable struggle
assures the rebirth of a people and
is the seed of life from which some
day a new tree will strike fast roots.'
"Of course, a people that has lost all honor and
character will not concern itself with such
teachings. For no one who takes them to heart can
sink so low; only he who forgets them, or no
longer wants to know them, collapses. Therefore,
we must not expect those who embody a spineless
submission suddenly to look into their hearts and,
on the basis of reason and all human experience,
begin to act differently than before. On the
contrary, it is these men in particular who will
dismiss all such teachings until either the nation
is definitely accustomed to its yoke of slavery or
until better forces push to the surface, to wrest
the power from the hands of the infamous spoilers.
In the first case these people usually do not feel
so badly, since not seldom they are appointed by
the shrewd victors to the office of slave
overseer, which these spineless natures usually
wield more mercilessly over their people than any
foreign beast put in by the enemy himself."
So the meat-tenderizer PRAISED Clausewitz's observation that such
STAIN "...can NEVER be effaced..." and will be "...passed on to
posterity..." and is "...the seed of life from which some day a
new tree will strike fast roots..." All this from Adolf's words,
yet he set about trying to "efface" that which he said, according
to Clausewitz, "...can NEVER be effaced..." A GROSS CONTRADICTION!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> "It should be preserved in golden letters." This is a form of
> discourse, as when you refer to someone as having a golden heart.
> It is about merit and like a seal of distinction, for a
> masterpiece, or recognition and homage, to a good person. In both
> cases it implies _substance_. Again, learn how to read, ignoramus.
YOUR FALSITY #12:
I did! Let's see what Plato says about "goldenness" ---
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(a) Plato claimed that the WAR DEAD are those of the "golden race."
REPUBLIC - BOOK V
"Yes, I said; and when a man dies gloriously in war
shall we not say, in the first place, that he is
of the golden race?
"To be sure."
(b) Socrates said that those who dress in "golden crowns" are
not in their right mind.
ION
"Ion. That proof strikes home to me, Socrates. For
I must frankly confess that at the tale of pity,
my eyes are filled with tears, and when I speak of
horrors, my hair stands on end and my heart
throbs.
"Soc. Well, Ion, and what are we to say of a man
who at a sacrifice or festival, when he is dressed
in holiday attire and has golden crowns upon his
head, of which nobody has robbed him, appears
sweeping or panic-stricken in the presence of more
than twenty thousand friendly faces, when there is
no one despoiling or wronging him;- is he in his
right mind or is he not?
"Ion. No indeed, Socrates, I must say that,
strictly speaking, he is not in his right mind."
(c) Hesiod's reference to a "golden race" does NOT apply to Plato's
philosophers, who are of the "iron race."
CRATYLUS
"Soc. You know how Hesiod uses the word?
"Her. I do not.
"Soc. Do you not remember that he speaks of a
golden race of men who came first?
"Her. Yes, I do.
"Soc. He says of them-
But now that fate has closed over this race
They are holy demons upon the earth,
Beneficent, averters of ills, guardians of mortal men.
"Her. What is the inference?
"Soc. What is the inference! Why, I suppose that he
means by the golden men, not men literally made of
gold, but good and noble; and I am convinced of this,
because he further says that we are the iron race.
"Her. That is true."
----------------
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Jew-Man-"G", you are exactly like the Pharisees and Sadducees,
> reading the laws and missing the spirit of the laws for their own
> convenience. They gave real meaning to the words HYPOCRISY,
> DECEIT, and GREED, which probably represent your own character.
> Therefore, ignorant eunuch, I do not need to ask you for your
> definition of TRUTH. You, FOOL, and people like you are the
> assassins of TRUTH. What you are doing is raping and profaning it,
> as you do to _BEAUTY_, cultural leper. You bastardize everything
> you touch.
YOUR FALSITY #13:
Who is Jew-Man-"G" ? My handle is spelled "jumangi" which is
a cognate of the movie by the same name starring Robin Williams.
On what BASIS do you assert qualities "which probably represent"
my character? Do you admit, by use of "probably," that you're NOT
SURE? Why not provide EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENT if you've got a point?
Oh, I forgot just then: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY VALID ARGUMENT !!!
THE TABLES ARE BEING TURNED ON *-YOU-* PYRO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On WHAT FOUNDATION do you label me a "eunuch," an -IGNORANT- basis?
More of your same -PROJECTED- -RATIONALIZATION- tactics, Pyro ???
Keep POSTING here, and I'll keep "touching" it. ( ha ha ha ha )
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Asshole, what do you mean by, "They [agent99 and Pyro] cannot
> follow the basic rules of basic reasoning?" Do you mean like
> bringing Johnnie Cochran to the level of Socrates, or Winton
> Marsallis as the new Mozart? Winton Marsallis and those other
> pygmies as leaders of civilization?!?! Is this what you call
> logical reasoning? The ignorance in your writing, like in a lie
> detector, gives us a clear picture of what you are: AN IGNORANT
> IMBECILE. What Nietzsche meant by, "to question the value of
> TRUTH" is to question the kind of bullshit you hold as TRUTH.
YOUR FALSITY #14:
Pose your question then! I've already explained (above) that
I had never claimed to "raise" others to the "level" (sic!) of
Socrates or Mozart. All I said was that Cochran was an EXAMPLE
of a Black Philosopher and that those jazz musicians had "the
skills of Mozart." Any "raising" was on -their- part, not mine.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Take note of this, CRETIN, and learn how to read before you say
> something about a text. Shakespeare made a good portrait of you in
> "The Merchant of Venice," Shylock. You, ASSHOLE, wrote: "They
> [agent99 and Pyro] have shown no indication that they have the
> slightest appreciation for either the arts or the skill of logical
> reasoning." You, EUNUCH, trash John Keats, J.S. Mill and the
> ROMANTICS, and enshrine those dwarfs as the new Socrates', Mozarts,
> Bachs, Michelangelos, and leaders of civilization. Is that what
> you call LOGICAL DISCOURSE AND APPRECIATION FOR THE ARTS?
YOUR FALSITY #15:
It would be difficult for Shakespeare to make "a good portrait"
of -ME- because Shakespeare lived during 1564-1616, which was more
than 380 years ago if I use a calculator to do the arithmetic. So
you have right there YET ANOTHER INSTANCE of your FAILED ATTEMPT TO
USE LOGICAL REASONING. This is the year 1999, not 1564-1616, Pyro.
Which each FAILED ATTEMPT AT LOGICAL REASONING you demonstrate, the
evidence is PILING UP on USENET ARCHIVES that you are showing MENTAL
DEFECTIVENESS, and are becoming your own candidate for that Hitler
extermination program. YOU MUST *-PROVE-* YOUR ARYAN CANDIDACY
TO QUALIFY FOR THE "MASTER RACE" ELSE YOU WILL BE SENT TO AUSCHWITZ.
If I was unfair to J.S.Mill, THEN SHOW ME WHERE I MADE AN ERROR !!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> And again, MORON, it didn't take me more than 2 months to discover
> your ignorance on J.S. Mill and John Keats. It took you more than
> 2 months to discover that what you said and quoted was actually
> from Keats. It was you who asked me 2 days ago in what points you
> were wrong, and my answer to you was: YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING.
> We can see you acting in your real character, naked of that varnish
> of culture, laughing like a fool of your own ignorance, like an
> illiterate buffoon. Who else would place Cochran with Socrates,
> and Marsallis with Mozart? EXPLAIN THIS EUNUCH, IS THIS WHAT YOU
> CALL APPRECIATION FOR THE ARTS AND LOGICAL DISCOURSE?
YOUR FALSITY #17:
Well, if I'm wrong on EVERYTHING then surely you can show me
where I'm wrong on SOMETHING. I grant you one point for catching
the Mill/Keats misattribution, so that particular SOMETHING is not
a satisfactory argument for claiming me wrong on a hundred other
issues WHICH YOU LEFT BY THE WAYSIDE, i.e. questions you did not
answer and points you tacitly conceeded. I had responded in my
previous post by showing how Mill was philosophically not much
different from Keats and the other romantic poets of his time,
which means the Mill could just as well have AGREED with Keats on
the point. Indeed, the philosophy of "utilitarianism" is premised
upon conflation of "truth" & "beauty" because it places "the good"
ABOVE the use of valid methods to find truth. You -agreed- that
we need to find truth BEFORE discovering "the good" so if Mill is
not employing the correct philosophical means of truth discovery
then Mill's notion of "the good" is HIGHLY SUSPECT. How do you
estimate the "scoresheet" on these exchanges? How accurate are you
to the way OTHERS on this -newsgroup- estimate the "scoresheet?"
The Mill/Keats misattribution provided me an opportunity to CITE
for you the long passages from J.S.Mill that established consonance
with Keats. They're both off-base for the same reasons. I showed
some of the ERRORS in Mill's thinking. Care to comment, or do you
conceed all of THAT analysis? Do you resent "going to the mat?"
I'll say this also: you -NOTICE- how QUICKLY I was ready to
admit to a misattribution. EVERYONE ON THIS NEWSGROUP ALSO NOTICES
how Pyro and Agent99 pose themselves as "perfect people" without a
sin, arrogating their membership in an Aryan Race without PROVING
it to the newsgroup. My interest is not to "win" a debate, but to
discover something about the nature of truth. I don't have an axe
to grind and I'm not an ideologue. We see, however, TIME AND TIME
AGAIN, how the research CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATES that Pyro and/or
Agent99 have FAILED TO READ PLATO, FAILED TO READ MILL, FAILED TO
READ HITLER, FAILED TO STUDY PHILOSOPHY, FAILED TO APPLY DIALECTICS,
FAILED TO UNDERSTAND OUR SYSTEM OF LAW AND JUSTICE WITH REGARDS TO
THE DETERMINED GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THOSE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT,
RELIED UPON REPEATED USE OF _AD_HOMINEM_ ATTACK WHICH MEANS NOTHING
IN THE COURSE OF RIGOROUS AND ENGAGING DISCOURSE, REPEATEDLY SHOWED
RELIANCE UPON *-FALLACIOUS-* LOGIC, FAILED TO MAKE DEMONSTRATION
OF -RELEVANCY- TO *-THIS-* NEWSGROUP WHICH IS alt.fan.unabomber
AND *-NOT-* alt.revisionism , ENGAGED IN SLANDER AND EXAGGERATION,
SHOWED WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR DIPLOMATIC METHODS OF TRUTH INQUIRY,
the list goes on and on and I do not draw a conclusion to it...
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Those ROMANTICS that you desecrate, EUNUCH, are the foundation of
> MODERNISM and all subsequent movements in the ARTS. Again, MENTAL
> INSECT, you don't know what you are talking about.
YOUR FALSITY #18:
I agree that ROMANTICS are at a foundation of MODERNISM, but YOU
OVERSTATE AND EXAGGERATE YET AGAIN WHEN CLAIMING THEY ARE FOUNDATION
TO "all subsequent movements in the ARTS." Why are you so *-PROUD-*
about a "modernism" that led to two World Wars, the Soviet Union, and
this bloodiest of all travesties called the 20th-century? There's
nothing "artistic" about war and killing. ART IS ABOUT CREATION AND
LIFE, NOT DESTRUCTION AND DEATH. "Mental insect?" In my Kafkaesque
world of high-technology computer software engineering, the phrase
"mental insect" is a compliment, not an epithet. I've never claimed
to "KNOW" what I'm talking about, but perhaps you could OUTLINE some
criteria whereby this question can be settled once and for all. What
exactly and precisely, should I need to "DO" in order to "KNOW" what
I'm talking about? Let me put it another way. Share with us your
hyperborean "WISDOM" concerning how YOU determine whether you "KNOW"
what you're talking about. I'm actually VERY *-CURIOUS-* about your
METHODOLOGIES. I haven't seen you DEMONSTRATE them on the newsgroup,
though I'm reasonably certain that you could describe them for us
using less than 25 words.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> And by the way, all that "HA HA HA HA HA HA," EUNUCH, shows not
> laughter as you pretend, FOOL, but your insecurity, your stupidity,
> rage and frustration.
YOUR FALSITY #19:
Rage and frustration? At what, pray tell?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> Your duplicity and Sadducean trickery (i.e., buttkissing the Blacks
> for their sympathy, talking bullshit, presenting pygmies you admire
> as leaders of culture, etc.) shows you are an illiterate fool not
> qualified to debate culturally or otherwise.
YOUR FALSITY #20:
I don't recall "buttkissing" anybody, so I defer expertise on that
sort of activity to YOU. As for debating qualifications:
-----------------
EUTHYPHRO:
"Soc. And I should also conceive that the art of
the huntsman is the art of attending to dogs?
"Euth. Yes."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> You, IGNORANT EUNUCH, don't know anything about PHILOSOPHY, not
> even the meaning of it. Your lexicon is that of a gangmember.
> Again, your writing, like in a lie detector, shows not only
> _ignorance_ but also your hoofs. We know you are a bastard, now
> the only thing we have to determine is which of the 12 goats your
> mother fucks is your father.
YOUR FALSITY #21:
According to the dictionary I'd have to be an "illegitimate child"
in order to be a "bastard," but even "bastards" can attend to dogs.
You win the "vulgarity contest" hands down, Pyro. I was correct in
my strong suspicions that you could be sucked into that, hook, line
and sinker. The "12 goats" reference is apropos of what seems to
be YOUR ASSESSMENT of a (Satanic) Jesus and disciples. If you read
Matthew, however, you'll learn that Jesus REJECTED the temptations
of Satan. That would be premised, of course, on the assumption that
you can read AND UNDERSTAND what you read in spite of those numerous
coutra-indications you provide to this newsgroup.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
> On success, you wrote: "[success] goes according to one's desires."
> What do you know of anyone's desires, FOOL? Is your judgement on
> this as stupid as your judgement on literature, the arts,
> philosophy, and culture in general? Then this is an idiotic
> judgement that no one should care about. ;-)
YOUR FALSITY #22:
Alright, is it your "desire" to be a cultural contribution? I'll
need to REPEAT the ORIGINAL FULL TEXT of my posted definition taken
from the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY:
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Here's a "success" definition: persistence,
> duration, endurance, stamina. OED "successful" --
> attains to wealth or position or an object
> according to one's desire, (prominence in)
> subsequent history, prosperous achievement of
> something attempted.
What I ACTUALLY SAID, before it got -MaNgLeD- by your despotic text
butchery was that success "ATTAINS TO WEALTH OR POSITION OR AN OBJECT
according to one's desire." I DID *-NOT-* SAY "_goes_ according..."
so YOU MISQUOTED ME and RADICALLY CHANGED THE SENSE OF THE WORD !!!!
"Success" is *-NOT-* simply something which follows one's desire,
but very specifically that which "ATTAINS TO WEALTH OR POSITION OR AN
OBJECT according to one's desire" among my other definitions offered.
SINCE YOU WERE UNABLE TO *-READ-* THE DEFINITION CORRECTLY, ALSO
FAILING TO UNDERSTAND THE SENSE OF THE DEFINITION, YOU PROVIDED THE
"PROOF" OF MY ASSERTION THAT *-YOU-* ARE *-NOT-* SUCCESSFUL !!!
HOW CAN YOU BE SUCCESSFUL IF YOU DON'T SATISFY A CORRECT DEFINITION?
'scuse me now, I'm going to LAUGH some more -- ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
- regards
- jb
.
jum...@my-deja.com
From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> "So, J.S. Mill, who was heavily influenced by Coleridge and the
>> romantic movement, inclusive of his 'deep impressions' with poetry
>> such as Keats and Wordsworth, obtained a recasting of 'philosophy'
>> away from the classical dialectics and instead became yet another
>> of the WORTHLESS ROMANTIC RHETORICIANS..."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> When you say anything of this nature, the only thing you do is
> expose your own ignorance. To make this affirmation about the
> ROMANTIC MOVEMENT, which was probably the most vital and vigorous
> inspiration in the history of culture, is (again) a sacrilegious
> profanity. Think about this.
I AM thinking about this, though I'm not seeing much indication that
YOU are thinking about this. You conveniently excised the critical
portions of my observation by leaving off the remainder of that cite
which was:
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> So J.S.Mill, who was -heavily- influenced by
>> Coleridge and the romantic movement, inclusive of
>> his "deep impressions" with poetry SUCH AS KEATS
>> AND WORDSWORTH, obtained a -recasting- of
>> "philosophy" AWAY FROM CLASSICAL DIALECTICS and
>> instead BECAME YET ANOTHER OF THE WORTHLESS
>> ROMANTIC RHETORICIANS, particularly by "elevating"
>> the role of "opinion" and entertaining, as you
>> appear to do, the notion of -validity- to a
>> pluralizing of "truths" which in the case of
>> Plato's philosophy were invariably mentioned only
>> in context to myth, to the enemy's activity, or to
>> STATE PROPAGANDA.
In that passage I explained *-WHY-* I considered J.S.Mill's rhetoric
another worthless example *-BECAUSE-* it is "'elevating' the role
of 'opinion' and entertaining, as you appear to do, the notion of
-validity- to a pluralizing of "truths" which in the case of Plato's
philosophy were invariably mentioned only in context to myth, to the
enemy's activity, or to STATE PROPAGANDA." Once again, Pyro, you
are *-CAUGHT-* by your obfuscation tactics that *-FAIL-* to make
an address the the *-ESSENTIAL-* points of the argument. You need
to reply to the implicit *-QUESTION-* put forward: DO YOU FAVOR
an "elevating" of "the role of 'opinion'?" WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT
"truth" should be -pluralized- as "truths" so as to invoke Plato's
characterization of pluralized "truths" as "in context to myth, to
the enemy's activity, or to STATE PROPAGANDA?" You have left a long
trail of questions in the wake of these exchanges on the newsgroup,
which serve only to ILLUSTRATE YOUR UNRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCOURSE !
My position regarding the problem of rhetorical methods was in detail
*-SUBSTANTIATED-* by *-ARGUMENT-* from Plato's text, when I said:
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> On the table is whether Socrates can establish the
>> relative worthlessness of rhetoric, and Gorgias is
>> the man against whom that relative worthlessness
>> might be established because he is premier
>> rhetorician of ancient Greece.
In order to *-ESTABLISH-* the point I think you're trying to advance
YOU MUST ARGUE AGAINST SOCRATES AS EXPRESSED BY PLATO'S _GORGIAS_ !!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*-SOCRATES-* PROVED THAT RHETORICAL METHODS ARE *-INFERIOR-* AND
HE *-ILLUSTRATED-* WHY RHETORICIANS SUCH AS -MILL- WOULD NOT MEASURE
UP TO THE MUCH STRICTER STANDARDS OF *-DIALECTICS-* !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't try to convince me: convince *-SOCRATES-* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF YOU WISH TO *-SAY-* THAT SOCRATES IS "GREAT" THEN WHERE IS YOUR
DEFERENCE TO THAT SO-CALLED "GREATNESS" OF SOCRATES ?????????????
IT'S *-OBVIOUS-* THAT EVEN IN THE FACE OF THAT PUTATIVE "GREATNESS"
OF ONE SINGLE CASE YOU DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC POINT
OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHER IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION HISTORY!
IF YOU CANNOT *-DEMONSTRATE-* YOUR ABILITY TO *-ENGAGE-* WITH THE
FUNDAMENTAL SOCRATIC ARGUMENT THEN HOW CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY OF YOUR
OTHER ASSERTIONS, ALLEGATIONS, OPINIONS, ETC., TO BE CREDIBLE ????
YOUR CREDIBILITY HAS ALREADY GONE *-MINUS-* AND AMPLY PROVIDED BY
THE LURID DOCUMENTATION OF YOUR ELECTRONIC TRAIL ON THIS NEWSGROUP !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Either Socrates is correct, or incorrect. Which do you choose? If
you say Socrtes is incorrect THEN PROVE IT. PROVE YOU ARE "GREATER"
THAN THE SOCRATES YOU SAY IS "GREAT" --- OR *-ACCEPT-* DEFEAT !
Even the cites I had provided from J.S.Mill contained the following:
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> (From J.S.Mill's _Autobiography_, previously cited):
>>
>> "Great powers of generalization, rare ingenuity
>> and subtlety, and a wide perception of important
>> and unobvious truths, served him not for putting
>> something better into the place of the worthless
>> heap of received opinions on the great subjects of
>> thought, but for proving to his own mind that the
>> Church of England had known everything from the
>> first, and that all the truths on the ground of
>> which the Church and orthodoxy have been attacked
>> (many of which he saw as clearly as any one) are
>> not only consistent with the Thirty-nine articles,
>> but are better understood and expressed in those
>> articles than by any one who rejects them. I have
>> never been able to find any other explanation of
>> this, than by attributing it to that timidity of
>> conscience, combined with original sensitiveness
>> of temperament, which has so often driven highly
>> gifted men into Romanism from the need of a firmer
>> support than they can find in the independent
>> conclusions of their own judgment."
J.S.Mill himself -criticized- RECEIVED OPINION AS "WORTHLESS" SO
if you take Mill's writing as *-YOUR-* RECEIVED OPINION, THEN YOU
*-AGREE-* THAT J.S.Mill's opinions WHICH YOU RECEIVE are "WORTHLESS"
BY MILL'S ARGUMENT ITSELF !!! Mill's *-EXPLANATION-* IS THAT THE
PEOPLE WHO ACCEPT RECEIVED OPINIONS -*- INCLUDING THOSE OF MILL -*-
HAVE " *---TIMIDITY---* *---OF---* *---CONSCIENCE---* " and that
such men are seemingly INCAPABLE of finding "INDEPENDENT CONCLUSIONS
OF THEIR OWN JUDGMENT." Now I do NOT agree with Mill for these very
sorts of reasons -- that I find Mill self-contradictory -- BUT -IF-
YOU SUBSCRIBE TO MILL THEN YOU ARE ALLOWING MILL TO CALL -YOUR- OWN
"RECEIVED OPINIONS" as *-WORTHLESS-* and YOU ARE ALLOWING MILL TO
SAY YOU HAVE "TIMIDITY OF CONSCIENCE" and YOU ARE ALLOWING MILL TO
CLAIM THAT YOU CANNOT FORM "INDEPENDENT CONCLUSIONS OF...JUDGMENT."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS IS YET ANOTHER OF THE LONG LIST OF EXAMPLES *-WHY-* YOU ARE
DYSLEXIC. YOU HAVEN'T READ. YOU DON'T READ EVEN WHEN I POST TO
THE NEWSGROUP. YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND EVEN IF YOU TRY TO READ. THEN
YOU INSIST ON "BLAMING" OTHERS WHO *-CAN-* "READ AND UNDERSTAND"
FOR *-YOUR-* PROBLEMS OF DYSLEXIA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I had supplied this newsgroup with material discussing Ayn Rand, and
"objectivist" philosophy, with critiques of her apologist Peikoff:
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> (From article discussion Ayn Rand's Objectivism):
>>
>> "In short, Peikoff's definitions of inherently
>> dishonest ideas are so vague and subjective as to
>> be worthless, except to dogmatic moralizers who
>> can use such definitions to declare any idea to be
>> inherently dishonest."
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> (From article discussion Ayn Rand's Objectivism):
>>
>> "Moral judgment that requires us to determine the
>> mental state of another man, is worthless. Ever
>> since Rand proposed this impossible standard,
>> Objectivists have been scrambling to find ways to
>> implement it. Peikoff's concept of 'inherently
>> dishonest ideas' is simply the latest doomed
>> attempt. Actually, there is one very common
>> technique that most Objectivists use to determine
>> the mental state of another man. This technique is
>> called 'guessing'."
The critique appears to describe YOU: you are simply 'guessing'
with your blather BECAUSE YOU PROVIDE NO SUBSTANTIAL FORMAL ARGUMENT!
The notion of "moral judgment" over others *-IS-* WORTHLESS, and an
IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD. For the phrase "inherently dishonest" you may
substitute YOUR favorite phrase "politically correct." NEITHER HAS
ANY SEMANTIC VALUE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WELL-FORMED CONCEPTS !!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> When you trash the ROMANTICS, you are trashing Schiller, who
> inspired Beethoven to compose the 9th Symphony "Ode to Joy" --
> one of the most beautiful compositions in the history of music.
> You are not only trashing J.S. Mill, Wordsworth, Coleridge and
> Keats, but you are also trashing Lord Byron, Chataeubriand, Rilke,
> Becquer, Larra and Victor Hugo, Gautier, Goethe, Chopin, Verdi,
> Rossini, Falla, Granados, and Turina, Debussy, Ravel, Poe and
> Washington Irving, Goya, Delacroix, Schlegel, Tieck, Novalis,
> Constable and Turner, just to name a few ...
Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! I am NOT TRASHING ROMANTICS !!! ROMANTIC
RHETORICIANS ARE MERELY "WORTHLESS" IN CONTEXT TO *-PHILOSOPHICAL-*
ENDEAVOR. As poets, lyricists, musicians, artists, propagandists,
etc., they are WONDERFUL. As philosophers they are WORTHLESS !!!
READ MY WORDS DISCUSSING J.S.MILL *-VERY-* CAREFULLY. I SPOKE
ABOUT A PROBLEM OF "RECASTING OF PHILOSOPHY AWAY FROM THE CLASSICAL
DIALECTICS." THAT'S *-WHY-* ROMANTIC RHETORICIANS ARE WORTHLESS,
-NOT- BECAUSE OF THEIR MARVELLOUS AND MOST ADMIRABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE ARTS *-ASIDE-* FROM PHILOSOPHICAL ENDEAVOR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE ILLUSTRATED YOUR WILLFUL DYSLEXIC PROPENSITY !!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Romanticism was the inspiration for Gaudy. Without the ROMANTIC
> influence, you couldn't conceive the IMPRESSIONISTIC movement in
> painting: Monet, Manet, Pissarro, Renoir, Cezanne, Van Gogh,
> Toulouse-Lautrec, and Picasso, CUBISM, and ALL MODERN MOVEMENTS.
> To cut the ROMANTIC period from the history of culture would be
> like a castration, a cultural mutilation depriving the arts from
> one of the most vital, prolific, and rich influences history has
> ever known.
........ yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda ..........
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> By the way, you never explained by what standard you measured these
> artists to give them that low grade -- "WORTHLESS" -- and, on the
> other hand, how you derived the title of your group of Negroes as
> "SUCCESSFUL, ARTISTIC, AND CULTURAL TREASURES [...] RESPECTED
> INDIVIDUALS, LEADERS OF CIVILIZATION, AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THE
> POSITIVE GOOD."
...... take a vote .......
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> You must be a big masochist, trying to enter a debate with this
> ridiculous criteria, because every time you come to the "mat" you
> get crushed by your own words. Your position is not very
> respectable in this scenario. The title of "EUNUCH" was not
> bestowed upon you gratuitously; you placed yourself in this
> position with your stupid comments. You obtained the title "the
> old-fashioned way, you earned it."
Define the word "eunuch" as you're employing it here, and what
might be its significance to the price of tea in china.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> JB, it appears that you are using philosophy as a fig tree leaf,
> trying to cover your cultural nakedness. We also see it in your
> boasting: "I am reading a couple of dozen books." It doesn't depend
> on quantity, but quality: how much you read vs. how much you
> digest. By the way you express yourself, we can see you do not
> absorb too much of what you read.
MISATTRIBUTION !!! I DID *-NOT-* SAY YOUR ALLEGED CITE !!!
*****------ HERE'S WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID: ------*****
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> --- Max wrote:
>> Be forewarned: the book was an outgrowth of
>> Professor Hoggan’s Ph.d. thesis at Harvard and
>> contains over 700 pages.
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> I'll get to it as soon as I can finish the
> two-dozen other books now under review, many
> of which are 701-pages or more.
I SAID I WAS GOING TO "finish the two-dozen other books now under
review..." I DID *-NOT-* SAY "A COUPLE OF DOZEN" and I DID *-NOT-*
SAY I WAS "READING" THEM. YOU MADE ANOTHER *-MISATTRIBUTION-* !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DO NOT QUOTE WORDS THAT I DID NOT SAY !!! YOU ARE SLOPPY AND
SLIPSHOD AND A DISGRACE TO YOUR JUNIOR-HIGH SCHOOL MISEDUCATION !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#####################################################################
YOU CANNOT MAKE ANYTHING *-STICK-* UNLESS YOU ARE METICULOUS TO
THE FACTS !!! OBVIOUSLY: YOU CANNOT EVEN GET THE CITATION CORRECT,
WHILE YOU *-IRONICALLY-* ACCUSE *-OTHERS-* OF NOT READING !!!!!!!
LOOK AT YOURSELF, PYRO! YOU ARE REALLY STUPID, AND YOU DON'T KNOW IT!
#####################################################################
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Your subconscious is betraying you again when you say: "Eunuchs
> were highly regarded in Plato." You are admitting you are a eunuch,
> but want to be perceived as a respectable one. The plaintive
> litany in your replies to my writings show your ignorance,
> hypocrisy, and depravity. You refer to what you perceive to be
> wrong answers as "lies", and then you come to that brutal robbery
> and assault on John Keats, stealing one of his sentences and
> attributing it to J.S. Mill -- and refer to this MEGA LIE and
> PROFANATION as a mere "misattributuion." You are a hypocrite and a
> liar.
No, I spelled it as "misattribution," you klutz ...
Once again, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK ! Here's why YOU are the LIAR:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
First, I specifically *-DENIED-* being a "eunuch" WHICH APPARENTLY
YOU COULD NOT AND DID NOT READ, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> Listen, eunuch ...
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> I'm listening, but the fact that you feel the need
> to go about -telling- other people to listen
> points to the likelihood that THEY really don't
> WANT to listen to you. If you were a great
> musician then you'd NEVER need to "force" others
> to listen to you. The BASIC QUESTION is how much
> readers of this newsgroup would *-PAY-* to read
> your product, not whether you can "force" them to
> listen to you. That's the TEST of its worthiness.
> Most on this newsgroup might say instead that
> -YOU- should need to *-PAY-* -THEM- to read your
> stuff.
>
> YOUR FALSITY #1: I'm not a "eununch" so you're off
> on a wrong foot.
YOU DID NOT READ THE ABOVE, YOU CAN NOT READ, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------------
Next, I specifically asked you to provide a FOUNDATION FOR YOUR
LABELLING OF ME AS A "EUNUCH" WHICH YOU DID NOT DO! YOU CANNOT
READ, AND DID NOT READ, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ !!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> Jew-Man-"G", you are exactly like the Pharisees
>> and Sadducees, reading the laws and missing the
>> spirit of the laws for their own convenience.
>> They gave real meaning to the words HYPOCRISY,
>> DECEIT, and GREED, which probably represent your
>> own character. Therefore, ignorant eunuch, I do
>> not need to ask you for your definition of
>> TRUTH. You, FOOL, and people like you are the
>> assassins of TRUTH. What you are doing is raping
>> and profaning it, as you do to _BEAUTY_,
>> cultural leper. You bastardize everything you
>> touch.
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> YOUR FALSITY #13:
>
> Who is Jew-Man-"G" ? My handle is spelled
> "jumangi" which is a cognate of the movie by the
> same name starring Robin Williams. On what BASIS
> do you assert qualities "which probably represent"
> my character? Do you admit, by use of "probably,"
> that you're NOT SURE? Why not provide EVIDENTIARY
> ARGUMENT if you've got a point? Oh, I forgot just
> then: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY VALID ARGUMENT !!! THE
> TABLES ARE BEING TURNED ON *-YOU-* PYRO
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On WHAT FOUNDATION do you label
> me a "eunuch," an -IGNORANT- basis? More of your
> same -PROJECTED- -RATIONALIZATION- tactics, Pyro
> ??? Keep POSTING here, and I'll keep "touching"
> it. ( ha ha ha ha )
As for Keats, we've already had it out on that one and this is
what it was, since YOU FAILED TO READ IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> You are persistent in knowing in what point you
>> are wrong in your argument regarding "beauty and
>> truth" in Plato's philosophy. Alright then, YOU
>> ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING. First of all, the
>> quote, "beauty is truth, truth beauty" "all ye
>> know on earth and all ye need to know" is from
>> John Keats (not J.S. Mill). Don't forget that
>> the restful experience of enjoyable BEAUTY is not
>> limited to the contemplation of sensible
>> objects. We can experience it as well in the
>> contemplation of TRUTHS we understand.
>> "Mathematics rightly viewed possesses not only
>> _TRUTH_, but supreme BEAUTY," wrote Bertrand
>> Russell. You, eunuch, have put yourself on a
>> pedestal as a new "oracle of Delphi." And so, you
>> have made a good contribution to the pursuit of
>> TRUTH, except that to find truth we have to look
>> at the opposite of what you say.
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Keats: 1795-1821
> Mill: 1806-1873
>
> So J.S.Mill, who was -heavily- influenced by
> Coleridge and the romantic movement, inclusive of
> his "deep impressions" with poetry SUCH AS KEATS
> AND WORDSWORTH, obtained a -recasting- of
> "philosophy" AWAY FROM CLASSICAL DIALECTICS and
> instead BECAME YET ANOTHER OF THE WORTHLESS
> ROMANTIC RHETORICIANS, particularly by "elevating"
> the role of "opinion" and entertaining, as you
> appear to do, the notion of -validity- to a
> pluralizing of "truths" which in the case of
> Plato's philosophy were invariably mentioned only
> in context to myth, to the enemy's activity, or to
> STATE PROPAGANDA. Your "analysis" of Russell's
> "cite" is OUTRAGEOUSLY LAUGHABLE. Here's what
> seems to be *-YOUR-* logic: ( ha ha ha ha ha ha ha )
>
> "A has B."
> "A has C."
> "Therefore B has some kinship to C."
>
> Let's try it! Pyro has a son. Pyro has a
> daughter. Therefore Pyro's son and daughter
> COPULATE ?? Aha! NOW I UNDERSTAND ALL !!! YOU'RE
> RIGHT! Mill didn't say it and Keats did! AND IT
> TOOK YOU MORE THEN TWO MONTHS TO DISCOVER THAT !
> CONGRATULATIONS !!!!!! But Mill said pretty much
> the same, which we BOTH AGREE ON !!!! NOT
> *-OPPOSITE-* AS YOU CLAIM, BUT SIMILAR.
> PYRO IS A LIAR !!!
--------------------------------------
Here's where I had shown why Mill was FAMILIAR with, and very likely
SIMILAR to, Keats due to the spirit of the times ("romanticism").
The cited quote had followed, so if you want, then LOOK IT UP !!!
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Autobiography 4: People do NOT "reason"
> independently but as a group so
> Bingham's remarks are NOT about
> actual "reason." Mill details his
> involvement with -poetry- at this
> point which will influence him
> toward romanticism (which was
> going strong at that time in
> England), and here he was very
> likely familiar with Keats who
> was summarizing the same spirit
> of that age. HOWEVER, PLATO'S
> SOCRATES *-EXCORIATED-* POETS AS
> NOT CONTRIBUTING TO
> *-DIALECTICAL-* PHILOSOPHY. So
> with romanticism, Mill went off
> the rails.
----------------------------------
Here's where I had granted you the POINT for catching the Keats
misattribution. Did you need some more POINTS or something ???
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> And again, MORON, it didn't take me more than 2
>> months to discover your ignorance on J.S. Mill
>> and John Keats. It took you more than 2 months
>> to discover that what you said and quoted was
>> actually from Keats. It was you who asked me 2
>> days ago in what points you were wrong, and my
>> answer to you was: YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING.
>> We can see you acting in your real character,
>> naked of that varnish of culture, laughing like
>> a fool of your own ignorance, like an illiterate
>> buffoon. Who else would place Cochran with
>> Socrates, and Marsallis with Mozart? EXPLAIN
>> THIS EUNUCH, IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL APPRECIATION
>> FOR THE ARTS AND LOGICAL DISCOURSE?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> This is a sample of your vulgarity. You wrote: "Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
> Ha.." "cocksucker" "White race -- squirt squirt"
>
> You then try to appear like a good boy, saying such a thing as: "I
> never mentioned dick." Again, you brought that filthy language that
> I described as "gangmember lexicon".
Which is why you employ the use of the word "we" so frequently?
Ok! Let's go there ONE MORE TIME: <<<--------********* !!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> You, IGNORANT EUNUCH, don't know anything about
>> PHILOSOPHY, not even the meaning of it. Your
>> lexicon is that of a gangmember. Again, your
>> writing, like in a lie detector, shows not only
>> _ignorance_ but also your hoofs. We know you are
>> a bastard, now the only thing we have to
>> determine is which of the 12 goats your mother
>> fucks is your father.
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> YOUR FALSITY #21:
>
> According to the dictionary I'd have to be an
> "illegitimate child" in order to be a "bastard,"
> but even "bastards" can attend to dogs. You win
> the "vulgarity contest" hands down, Pyro. I was
> correct in my strong suspicions that you could be
> sucked into that, hook, line and sinker. The "12
> goats" reference is apropos of what seems to be
> YOUR ASSESSMENT of a (Satanic) Jesus and
> disciples. If you read Matthew, however, you'll
> learn that Jesus REJECTED the temptations of
> Satan. That would be premised, of course, on the
> assumption that you can read AND UNDERSTAND what
> you read in spite of those numerous
> coutra-indications you provide to this newsgroup.
------------------------------------------
> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> He later on claims, "you [Pyro] win the
>> vulgarity contest hands down," but forgets he
>> initiated the vulgarity by referring to me as a
>> "cocksucker."
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Allow me to remind the newsgroup that "Pyro,"
> under one or more of his various addresses, has
> this 1999 record of vulgarity on a.f.u.
>
> Pyro said "fuck" 6/28, 7/31, 8/24, 8/26, 9/24,
> 10/19 (3x), 10/27
> Pyro said "fucker" 10/29
> Pyro said "shit" 7/27, 8/5, 8/13, 10/19 (4x)
> Pyro said "fucking" 6/28, 7/2, 8/24, 8/30, 10/5,
> 10/19, 10/27
> Pyro said "bitch" 7/27, 7/31, 8/5, 8/26, 9/16
>
> My reference to the word "cocksucker" occured on
> 10/30. <----* PYRO WINS THE VULGARITY CONTEST ON
> BOTH "INITIATION" AND "VOLUME" !!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Add to the list of Pyro's mental aberrations the
> word *-DENIAL-* ! What do you know? It seems
> *-PROVEN-* that Pyro -IS- a "cocksucker."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Jumangi, the Freudian fantasies that you have _demonstrate_ that
> you are not only an ignorant bastard, but also a pervert. You
> wrote: "GET BEHIND ME, SATAN!!!" This indicates that the perverted
> imagery that you had was the result of being sodomized by Satan;
> and your "Ha Ha Ha.." "squirt squirt" shows that you, son of a
> bitch, like it by the persistence of your "Ha Ha Ha" in your
> writings. You really enjoy Satan's "instrument".
No, it means Satan wants to rip off your head and crap down your neck.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> And again, liar, you brought up this subject when you lacked
> reasonable arguments for the topic under discussion. It was your
> frustration of being ridiculed in front of your audience.
Which topic was that?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> We are still expecting your answers to Max's questions regarding
> the schools of philosophy and influences, as well as works, of that
> pithecanthropus, Johnny Cochran.
Here was my answer since YOU COULD NOT READ, YOU WOULD NOT READ,
YOU CAN NOT READ, AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ IT THE FIRST TIME !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max wrote:
>> Just wondering: what philosophical system is
>> Johnnie Cochran famous for? What philosophical
>> school does he belong to? Name some of his
>> philosophical writings? Would you categorize him
>> as an existentialist? Are there any differences
>> in your mind between a practicing attorney and a
>> philosopher? What predecessors in philosophy
>> influenced him the most? Since the opinions of
>> one’s contemporaries appear to be important to
>> you, who (other than you) has characterized
>> Johnnie Cochran as a great philosopher? Your
>> wife does not count. Possibly Jessie Jackson?
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> Cochran has hosted his own prime-time TV show,
> reaching more people with inquiries into topical
> events of legal interest than are current readers
> of Plato. No one has fairly predetermined what
> should be the groundrules in deciding boundaries
> for philosophy, nor whether all philosophers must
> cover all topics addressed by other philosophers
> elsewhere. No one has fairly stipulated that
> philosophers must belong to a school in order to
> philosophize or to be a philosopher. No one has
> fairly stipulated that philosophers must leave
> writings in order to be a philosopher. In fact,
> two chief personalities regarded as influential in
> philosophy left NO WRITINGS WHATEVER
> (Socrates/Jesus). Plato was the journalist who
> recorded the Socratic dialogues, NOT Socrates
> himself. I leave it to Cochran to tell us whether
> he is an existentialist: I can't see that issue as
> being much of a deciding factor either way. It's
> VERY LIKELY IN GENERAL that the attorneys,
> practicing or not, engage with dabblings in
> philosophy simply in the course of their work.
> For some it's a game while for others it's a job.
> Why should you say my wife does not count? I think
> she would take fair exception to that. And I
> would take fair exception if she were to take
> exception. Your view of philosophy which suggests
> an activity -inaccessible- to "common
> people-of-the-street" is rather disturbing, quite
> OUT OF CHARACTER from the public nature of Plato's
> philosophical expression, described in the
> dialogues. Discourse of Plato is common core
> curriculum for law students, particularly those
> aspiring to be trial lawyers in marshalling their
> arguments. No one has fairly claimed that
> everyone must agree on the merits/demerits of
> philosophy, nor how it should be defined, nor who
> its proponents and advocates must be. No one is
> fairly saying that philosophy began with Plato,
> nor that the Greek "golden age" is all philosophy
> has to offer. Philosophy embraces a rather wide
> assortment of topics which cannot possibly be
> covered by a single individual, so all we have are
> its bits and pieces scattered about. It is not
> difficult at all to assert someone as being a
> philosopher since all they need to do is
> philosophize. So I think you are voicing
> objection to the adjective of being "great" rather
> than the -fact- that lawyers and attorneys, by
> virtue of the legal enterprise, are for the most
> part considerably involved with activities of
> philosophical assessments. It would not be
> unreasonable to say that just as 95% of all of the
> mathematicians who have ever lived are alive
> today, 95% of all the philosophers who have ever
> lived could be alive today.
>
> Moreover, since you've brought up Jesse Jackson I
> shall add his name to an ever-growing list of
> great (prominent) black philosophers. You may
> also add Henry Louis Gates, Harvard Professor of
> History, and W.E.B.DuBois, and an extensive list
> of black civil-rights lawyers who fashioned the
> long struggle for civil-rights beginning prior to
> 1920, and not to neglect Martin Luther King. What
> is your object here, in asking for the obvious:
> that you will take potshots from your peanut
> gallery? "Let him without sin cast the first
> stone." If you are more famous, or of their
> stature, perhaps you have permission to criticize
> or to speak against them. They've already
> established a legacy which promises to exceed that
> of these newsgroup critics.
-----------------------
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Making a portrait of someone before their time happens often:
> Christian thought portrays people as sinners before they are born.
And the relevance of that "line of discourse" was what?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Gertrude Stein's portrait by Pablo Picasso never had any likeness
> of the sitter until many years later. For a good portrait what
> matters is the "likeness" and "truth" rather than when or how it
> was made.
Plato's dialogues have much to say regarding these matters of
matters of imitation and authenticity, but then I AM REMINDING YOU
THAT YOU DO NOT READ, YOU CANNOT READ, AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The "image" is not the same as the "original."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Shakespeare made a good portrait of you in "The Merchant of
> Venice," as Shylock. It is clear, and it is true, hypocrite!
LOGICAL FALLACY AGAIN !!! Shakespeare lived from 1564-1616
whereas I live in the 20th century. What an OAF YOU ARE !!!
I AM REMINDING YOU THAT YOU DO NOT READ, YOU CAN NOT READ, YOU
ARE UNABLE TO READ, AND YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ !!!!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Your claim that MODERNISM led to 2 world wars is nonsense. There
> were wars before MODERNISM. War is the result of man's greed and
> has nothing to do with an artistic movement. What you say is
> fallacious.
What you say is ILLITERATE !!! WORLD WARS DID NOT HAPPEN UNTIL
THE 20th-CENTURY. EVEN YOUR "NAZI FRIENDS" (sic!) KNOW THAT !!!
BUT YOU DO NOT READ, YOU CANNOT READ, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Your questions on beauty and truth have already been answered in
> previous posts to the "EUNUCH". Like trying to describe God, as
> the great philosopher said: "The question is complex, and life is
> short." You cannot find God by your own means in the same way you
> don't find truth and beauty only by your own means. "YOU HAVE TO
> BE TOUCHED BY IT." Then, ignorant EUNUCH, if this ever happens to
> you (and I have my doubts), you will be able to recover your
> virility in the appreciation for the arts, being cured of your
> cultural impotency.
WRONG AGAIN !!! WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES FOR THOSE APHORISMS ????
Define *-VIRILITY-* IN CYBERSPACE !!!!!!!! VIRTUAL SEX ?????
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. YOUR *-URGES-* ARE MISPLACED, PYRO !!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Those "losers" (according to your own criteria) that were rejected
> by the French Academy, and not allowed to expose their works in the
> Salon constitute some of the most appreciated styles in art today:
> IMPRESSIONISM and FAUVES (EXPRESSIONISM).
WHERE AND WHEN HAD I OFFERED CRITERIA FOR "LOSERS" ????
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> I believe Van Gogh is yet another "loser" according to you. He
> never sold a single painting in his life. Still, one of his works
> was among the most highly paid for in art history.
WELL, WHAT DO *-YOU-* THINK ?
WAS VAN GOGH PROPERLY COMPENSATED WHILE HE LIVED ?
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> The kind of success we are referring to has to do with _artistic or
> intellectual achievement_. It has absolutely nothing to do with
> money or status.
*****------- WHY, AND WHY NOT ??? --------*******
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Jumangi, you need to go back to Plato's "Georgias" and digest what
> you read. I believe you have spent so much time posting it in this
> forum that you have not had the time to read it. As ignorant as
> you are, I don't know if you will ever be able to absorb the
> substance and ideas it contains. For an idiot like you it is a
> heavy load that is keeping you like a prisoner instead of providing
> you with the wings of freedom of thought to guide you to art
> appreciation.
WHAT DID I MISS, EXACTLY ???? TELL ME, PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> You sound like a short-legged Clintonesque liar in your responses,
> trying to cover your stupidity and ignorance with verbiage.
WHAT DO SHORT-LEGS HAVE TO DO WITH HOW ONE SOUNDS ?????
VERBIAGE WHICH APPARENTLY YOU CANNOT READ AND HAVE NOT READ.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> It is time for you to turn the page on Plato and see a little bit
> of Aristotle. Later on, you will learn that "THE HEART ALSO HAS
> ITS REASONS."
WHAT REASONS ARE THEY ??????????????????????????????????????
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> And then, ignoramus, "Kant's philosophy states that we cannot know
> with certainty what the world is like 'in itself'. We can only
> know what the world is like 'for me' -- or for everybody. Kant's
> greatest contribution to philosophy is the dividing line he draws
> between things in themselves -- das ding an sich -- and things as
> they appear to us."
AND THEN EINSTEIN SHOWED HOW KANT WAS NAIVE !!! NEXT !
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> We can never have certain knowledge of things 'in themselves'. We
> can only know how things 'appear' to us.
YOU CAN'T EVEN KNOW THAT ANYMORE. STUDY QUANTUM MECHANICS !!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> As Calderon de la Barca wrote in "Life is a Dream": "What is life?
> A madness. What is life? An illusion, a shadow, a story, and the
> greatest good is little enough, for all life is a dream..."
IF LIFE IS A DREAM THEN CALDERON DE LA BARCA IS A DREAM. NEXT !
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> And as Coleridge writes:
>
> "What if you slept? And what if, in your sleep, you dreamed? And
> what if, in your dream, you went to heaven and there plucked a
> strange and beautiful flower? And what if, when you awoke, you had
> the flower in your hand? Ah, what then?"
WAS THAT LIKE THE LIZARD IN YOUR TAIL ?????????????????????
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> This is not "WORTHLESS"; it is a jewel in literature. Again,
> Jumangi, "Honey wasn't meant for the mouth of the ass."
MAYBE YOU CAN GET IT IN THE POLITICALLY CORRECT HOLE, THEN ...
SO HAVE LOTS OF *-NAZI-* BABIES AND SENT 'EM TO WW-III !!!
THEY'LL *-LOVE-* YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CRAPPED-UP LEGACY !!!
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> I can't imagine a world without the works you deem "WORTHLESS".
DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE ENTIRELY WORTHLESS. ROMANTIC RHETORICIANS
WERE WORTHLESS IN TERMS OF LACKING *-PHILOSOPHICAL-* IMPORT.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> I can't imagine a world without "Carmen", "La Boheme" or "La
> Traviata".
SO WHAT ????????????????????????????????????????????????????
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Perhaps you can substitute these with masterpieces from your list
> of "philosophers, artists, cultural treasures and leaders of
> civilization." Go ahead and name some of their masterpieces!!! ;-)
How about "Midsummer Night's Dream" by Mendelssohn, which Hitler
liked so much that he asked Richard Strauss to rescore it under a
new name? Yet Richard Strauss -refused- Hitler's request, saying
he could not improve upon a single note.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> You are a CULTURAL LEPER, a CULTURAL TERRORIST, and a MENTAL
> EUNUCH.
(1) Define your terms.
(2) Establish reasonable (mutally acceptable) criteria by which
individuals in general might be evaluted according to the
terms you wish to define.
(3) Illustrate why such terms have significance to anything
relevant in the course of a discussion.
(4) Show how from #(1) and #(2) you -deduce- your conclusions.
(5) Else, you can't establish anything. The _ad_hominem_ gets
used by people who cannot make a valid argument.
- regards
- jb
.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Review: The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (* 1/2)
Author: Steve Rhodes <Steve....@InternetReviews.com>
Date: 1999/11/09
Forum: misc.kids
THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF JOAN OF ARC
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 1999 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2
For moviegoers who think that the problem with today's cinema is its
reliance on subtlety and its lack of gore, Luc Besson (THE FIFTH
ELEMENT) has made just the movie for them, THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF
JOAN OF ARC, a movie so over the top that it could become a campy cult
classic.
Shortly after the film opens, an 8-year-old Joan of Arc (Jane
Valentine), who later becomes famous for hearing voices, leading
armies and getting burned at the stake, witnesses the brutal murder
and rape of her older sister Catherine. In 8MM, Joel Schumacher was
criticized for making a sleazy movie about a search for a snuff film.
Besson starts his movie by showing a snuff scene.
Catherine is attacked by an animalistic English soldier with
prominently bad teeth. (Poor dental health is so conspicuously
featured in the movie that you half expect a toothpaste product
placement.) After pinning her to the door with his body, the soldier
stabs her with his sword and rapes her as she dies. The camera
switches frequently to Joan's perspective, hidden behind the door that
her sister is being raped against. Thus our horror is intensified by
observing the rape through the sister's eyes. To dramatically
underscore the point that the English soldiers are like animals, we
witness them before the rape pouring stew on the top of the dirty
table so they can then eat off of it like dogs.
Soon afterwards in the movie, Joan sneaks into a church at night.
Like a bad horror movie, Besson has the interior lit by huge flashes
of lightning. As loud thunder crashes, Joan breaks into the box on
the altar where the communion chalice is kept. Guzzling the wine
until the blood of Christ drips all over her face, chin and throat,
she accomplishes her mission of being at one with God.
Milla Jovovich (THE FIFTH ELEMENT) plays the 19-year-old Joan of Arc
as an escaped mental patient with an orgasmic intensity. Her
performance, which at first seems quite impressive, quickly becomes
tediously repetitive. A beady-eyed John Malkovich is the duplicitous
Dauphin, whom Joan helps become Charles VII. Looking like she suffers
from gas, Faye Dunaway plays Charles's sourpuss mother, Yolande
D'Aragon.
Most of the movie consists of confusing battle scenes of hand-to-hand
combat. Frantically edited to match Joan's spastic energy, the scenes
are so full of gore that the MPAA should now retire the NC-17 rating.
If they can give this movie an R, which they did, then there is no
point any longer in pretending that the NC-17 rating even exists.
Besides the despicable opening scene of a murder to enhance one's rape
pleasure, there are plenty of decapitations with blood spewing
everywhere, severed arms and general random acts of horrific
depravity. Joan does save one man from getting his skull crushed by
one of her soldiers who wants to steal his teeth.
Besson shares the writing credits, if not exactly the honors, with
Andrew Birkin, the author of such gems as KING DAVID. Among the
laughably bad lines is one uttered by The Conscience (Dustin Hoffman
no less). "When does the pain end and the pleasure begin?" he asks
Joan. For THE MESSENGER's audience, it is as soon as the ending
credits begin to roll.
THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF JOAN OF ARC runs one hundred and forty one
long minutes, but who's counting? It is incorrectly rated R for strong
graphic battles, a rape and language. It should be considered NC-17
and would be inappropriate for anyone less than a high school senior.
Sadly, there was an 8-year-old next to me and other kids even younger
in our audience. What are these parents thinking?
The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, November 12.
In the San Jose area it will be playing at the AMC and the Century
theaters.
Email: Steve....@InternetReviews.com
Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com
jum...@my-deja.com
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~mksimpso/refs.htm
------------------------------------------
Pre-1920 References on Idiocy and Mental Deficiency
This bibliography is a chronologically organised list of references
pertaining directly or indirectly to idiocy and mental deficiency. The
cut-off date of 1920 is somewhat arbitrary, and in any case a
comprehensive listing becomes almost impossible from around the 1870s
onward with the founding of a number of key periodicals and the
increased production of books, articles and papers. Additional
contributions are very welcome and should preferably be e.mailed to
myself.
Paracelsus, 1567, De Generatione Stultorum, trans. P. Cranefield and
W. Federn, `The begetting of fools', Bulletin of the History of
Medicine, 41
Defoe, Daniel, 1697, `A hospital for natural fools', in An Essay upon
Projects
Diderot, D., 1749, Lettre sur les aveugles à l'usage de ceux qui
voient [english trans., 1773, An essay on blindness]
1771, (An) Account of the Rise and Present Establishment of the
Lunatic Asylum in Manchester. Manchester.
Cox, W., 1779, travellers account of Swiss cretins, Annual Register
Ald, T., 1782, Observations of the Nature, Kinds, Causes, and
Prevention of Insanity, Lunacy or Madness, Leicester, G. Ireland
Bentham, J., 1791, Panopticon; or, the Inspection House, Great
Britain.
Crichton, A., 1798, An Inquiry into the Nature and Origins of Mental
Derangement, 2 vols., London, Davies
Epée, Abbé de l', 1801, The method of Educating the Deaf and Dumb
Confirmed by Long Experience, trans. F. Green, London, G. Cooke
Itard, J., 1801, An Historical Account of the Discovery and Education
of a Savage Man, or of the First Development, Physical and Moral, of
the Young Savage Caught in the Woods Near Aveyron in the Year 1798,
trans Nogent, London, Philips
Itard, J., 1806, The Wild Boy of Aveyron, trans. E. Fawcett, P. Ayrton
and J. White (1972, London, New Left Books)
Pinel, P., 1806, A Treatise on Insanity, trans. D. Davis, London,
Cadell and Davis
Thelwall, J., 1810, Imperfect Development of the Faculties, Mental and
Moral, London, Richard Taylor and Co.
Collinson, D., 1812, A Treatise on the Law Concerning Idiots, Lunatics
and Other Persons non compos mentis, London, W. Read.
Rush, B., 1812, Medical Inquiries and Observations upon the Diseases
of the Mind, facsimile, New York, Hafner, 1962
Spurzheim, J., 1817, Observations on the Deranged Manifestations of
the Mind or Insanity, London, Baldwin, Craddock and Joy
Ray, I., 1831, A Treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity,
Boston, Little, Brown
Feuerbach, A., 1833, Caspar Hauser, trans. H. Lindberg, London
Uwins, D., 1833, A Treatise on those Disorders of theBrain and Nervous
System which are usually considered and called Mental, London, Renshaw
and Rush.
1834, Education of the deaf and dumb, North American Review, 4, 99-106
Itard, J., 1836, On the surgical treatment of deafness, Dunglison's
American medical Library, Philadelphia, Waldre, 75-92
Browne, W.A.F., 1837 What Asylums Were, Are and Ought to Be,
Edinburgh, Scotland.
Dix, Dorothea, 1843, Memorial to the Legislature of Massachusetts,
Boston, Munroe and Francis
Dix, Dorothea, 1845, Memorial Soliciting a State Hospital for the
Insane Submitted to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, February 3rd,
Harrisburg, PA, J.M.G. Lescue
Esquirol, J., 1845, Mental Maladies, trans. E. Hunt, Philadelphia
Guggenbuhl, J.J., 1845, Extracts from the First Report of the
Institution on the
Abendberg, near Interlachen, Switzerland; for the Cure of Cretinism,
London.
Seguin, Edouard, 1846, Traitement moral, hygiène et éducation des
idiots et des autres enfants arrières, Baillière Tindall,
1847, Asylums and schools for idiots, American Journal of Insanity, 4,
76?79
1847, Notices of books, essays and articles on insanity, American
Journal on Insanity, 4, 79-80
1847, Visit to the Bicêtre, Chambers Edinburgh Journal (series 2)
7(158), 20-22; (161), 71-73; (163), 105-107
1848, A village of lunatics, American Journal of Insanity, 4, 217-222
1848, Association of Medical Superintendents of American Institutions
for the Insane, American Journal of Insanity, 5, 19
1848, Schools and asulums for idiotic and imbecile, in American
Journal of Insanity, 5, 19-33
Howe, Samuel, 1848 The Causes of Idiocy, Edinburgh, Maclachlan and
Stewart,
Howe, S., 1848, Report Made to the Legislature of Massachusetts upon
Idiocy, Boston, Collidge and Wiley
1849, Witchcraft and insanity, American Journal of Insanity, 3,
246-261
1849, Idiots, American Journal of Insanity, 5, 373-375
Howe, S., 1849, The condition and capacities of the idiots in
Massachusetts, reproduced in American Journal of Insanity, 5, 374-375
Howe, S., 1850, Report to Massachusetts Senate, Boston, Senate
Document No. 38
1851, Constitution and By-laws of the Massachusetts School for Idiotic
and Feeble-minded Youth, Boston, Cross and Freeman
Howe, S., 1852, Third and Final Report on the Experimental School for
Teaching and Training Idiotic Children: Also, the First Report of the
Trustee of the Massachusetts School for Idiotic and Feeble-Minded
Youth, Cambridge, Mass., Metcalf and Co.
Lotze, R., 1852, Medical Psychology,
Wilbur, H., 1852, First Annual report of the Trustees of the New York
State asylum for Idiots to the Legislature of State, Albany, State
Printers
Dickens, C., 1853, 'Idiots', in Household Words, 7, 313-317.
1854, Account of the Ceremonies at the Laying of the Cornerstone of
the New York Asylum for Idiots, at Syracuse, September 8, 1854,
Albany, J. Munsell
Sidney, E., 1854, Teaching the Idiot, London, Society for the
Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce
Arlidge, John Thomas, 1859, On the state of lunacy and the legal
provision for the insane, with observations on the construction and
organization of asylums, London: Churchill.
Browne, J., 1860, Psychical diseases of early life, Journal of Mental
Science, 6, 284?320
1861, De Gérando, North American Review, 92, 391-415
Day, G., 1861, Report on some strange school for the deaf and dumb in
Europe: France, American Annals of the Deaf, 13, 98-109
DJ.L.D., 1862, 'On the condition of the mouth in idiocy', in Lancet,
1, 186.
Little, W., 1862, On the influence of abnormal parturition, difficult
labors, premature birth, and asphyxia neonatorum, on the mental and
physical condition of the child, especially in relation deformities,
Obsterical Transactions, 3, 293?346
Millard, W., 1864, The Idiot and his Helpers, Colchester, Essex Hall
idiot Asylum
1865, `Idiot asylums', and reports on Highgate and Earlswood asylums,
in Edinburgh Review, 122
Bernard, C., 1865, Introduction a l'étude de la médecine
expérimentale, [English trans. 1927]
Purdon, Henry. (1865) Peculiarities of the Deaf and Dumb as Regards
Medical Treatment and their Idiocyncrasies which have been Observed at
the Ulster Institution. Belfast, Northern Ireland: H. Greer.
Down, J., 1866, Observations on an ethnic classification of idiots,
Rep. Obs. London Hospital, 3, 259?262
Duncan, P. and Millard, W., 1866, A Manual for the Classification,
Training, and Education of the Feeble-Minded, Imbecile, and Idiotic,
London, Longmans Green
Howe, S., 1866, In Ceremonies on Laying the Cornerstone of the New
York State Institution for the Blind, at Batavia, Genesee Co., New
York, Batavia, Henry Todd
Séguin, E., 1866, Idiocy and its Treatment by the Physiological
Method, New York
Down, J., 1867, Observations on an ethnic classification of idiots,
Journal of Mental Science, 13, 121?123
Maudsley, H., 1868, The Physiology and Pathology of the Mind, 2nd ed.,
London
West, C., 1868, Diseases of Infancy and Childhood,, Philadelphia,
Henry C. Lea
Galton, F., 1869, Hereditary Genius: An Enquiry into its Laws and
Consequences, London, Macmillan
Greenwell, D., 1869, On the Education of the Imbecile, Strahan.
Seguin, Edouard, 1870 New facts and Remarks Concerning Idiocy, New
York, W. Wood & Co.
Down, J.L.H., 1871-72, 'On the relation of the teeth and mouth to
mental development', Transactions of the Odontological Society, 4,
268-288.
Bucknill, J., 1873, Idiocy, Journal of Mental Science, July
Down, J.L.H., 'Some of the causes of idiocy and imbecility', British
Medical Journal, 2, 89.
Krüsi, H., 1875, Pestalozzi: His Life, Work and Influence, New York,
American Book
Fraser, J. and Mitchell, A., 1876, 'Kalmuc idiocy: report of a case
with autopsy' in Journal of Mental Science, 22, 169-179.
Langdon-Down, John, 1876, The Education and Training of the Feeble in
Mind, H.K. Lewis,
Séguin, E., 1876, Report on education, R. Thurston, ed., Report of
Commissioners to Vienna International Exhibition, Washington
Shaw, T.C., 1876, 'On the measurement of the palate in idiots and
imbeciles, in Journal of Mental Science, 22, 196-201.
Charity Organization Society, 1877, Report of a Special Committee on
the Education and Care of Idiots, Imbeciles and Harmless Lunatics,
London, Longmans, Green and Co.
Dugdale, R., 1877, The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease and
Heredity, New York, G.P. Putnam
Ireland, William, 1877, On Idiocy and Imbecility, J. & A. Churchill,
Kerlin, I., 1877, The organization of establishments for the idiotic
and imbecile classes, Proceedings of the Association of Medical
Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons
19-35
Shuttleworth, G.E., 1877, 'Intemperance as a cause of idiocy', in
Journal of Mental Science, 23, 372-327.
Wilbur, H., 1877, The classification of idiocy, Proceedings of the
Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic
and Feebleminded Persons 29-35
Seguin, E., 1878, Recent progress in the training of idiots,
Proceedings of the Association of Medical Officers of American
Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons 3, 60-65
Knight, H., 1879, Status of the work, Proceedings of the Association
of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and
Feebleminded Persons 4, 96
Wilbur, H., 1879, Status of the work, Proceedings of the Association
of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and
Feebleminded Persons 4, 96
Kerlin, I., 1880, The Mind Unveiled, Philadelphia, U. Hunt
Lester, E.R. (1880) Degeneration: a Chapter in Darwinism, London,
MacMillan & Co.
Wilbur, 1880, Instinct not predominant in idiocy, Proceedings of the
Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic
and Feebleminded Persons 135-144
Brockett, L., 1881, In memory of Edouard Seguin, Proceedings of the
Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic
and Feebleminded Persons, 9?23
Shuttleworth, G.E., 1881, In Memory of Edouard Seguin, H.W.Wolff
Brown, C., 1882, A visit to four English institutions, Proceedings of
the Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for
Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons, 226-235
Ireland, William, W., 1882, 'On the diagnosis and prognosis of idiocy
and imbecility', in Edinburgh Medical Journal, 27, 1072-85.
Kerlin, 1882, The epileptic change and its appearance among
feeble-minded children, Proceedings of the Association of Medical
Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons
202-211
Stewart, J., 1882, The industrial department of the Kentucky
institution for the education and training of feeble-minded children,
Proceedings of the Association of Medical Officers of American
Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons 236-239
Tuke, D., 1882, Chapters in the History of the Insane in the British
Isles, London, Kegan Paul
Wilbur, H., 1882, Some of the abnormal characteristics of idiocy and
the methods adopted in obviating them, Proceedings of the Association
of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and
Feebleminded Persons 190-201
Bell, Alexander Graham. (1883) Memoir upon the formation of a deaf
variety of the human race. Washington: National Academy of Science.
Butler, A., 1883, Does the education of the feebleminded pay?
Proceedings of the Association of Medical Officers of American
Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons, 152
Galton, F., 1883, Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development,
London, Macmillan
Greene, H., 1884, The obligation of civilized society to idiotic and
feeble-minded children, Proceedings of National Conference Charities
and Correction, 264-271
Kerlin, I., 1884, Provision for idiotic and feeble-minded children,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 246-263
Richards, J., 1884, The education of the feeble-minded, Proceedings of
the Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for
Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons 18-29
Kerlin, 1885, Status of the work, Proceedings of the Association of
Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded
Persons, 369-372
Bryant, S., 1886, Experiments in testing the character of
schoolchildren, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 15,
338?349
Kerlin, I., 1886, [Provision for imbeciles:] Report of the committee
on provision for idiotic and feeble-minded persons, Proceedings of
National Conference Charities and Correction, 288-297
Seguin, E., 1886, Recent progress in the training of idiots, 1878.
Proceedings of the American Association of Mental Deficiency,
1876-1886, 60-65.
Shuttleworth, G., 1886, The health and physical development of idiots
as compared with mentally sound children of the same age, Proceedings
of the Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for
Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons 315-322
Down, J., 1887, Mental Affections of Children and Youth, London, J.&A.
Churchill
Jacobs, J., 1887, Experiments in prehension, Mind, 12, 75-79
Kerlin, I., 1887, Moral imbecility, Proceedings of the Association of
Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded
Persons 32-37
Powell, F., 1887, The care and training of feeble-minded children,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 250-260
Barrows, S., 1888, Discussion on provision for the feeble-minded,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 396-404
Jefferson, Francis, 1888, Canadian versus English deaf-mutes and
schools; the welcome home supper to J.D. Nasmyth of Toronto on his
return from England by the deaf-mutes of Toronto. Toronto.
Rogers, A., 1888, Functions of a school for feeble-minded, Proceedings
of National Conference Charities and Correction, 101-106
Shuttleworth, G., 1888, The ducation of children of abnormally weak
mental capacity, Journal of Mental Science, 34, 80?84
Wilbur, C., 1888, Institutions for the feeble-minded: the result of
forty years of effort in establidshing them in the United States,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 106-111
1889, Report of the Royal Commission on the Blind, the Deaf and the
Dumb. London.
Ashman, W., 1889, The medico-legal study of idiocy, Proceedings of the
Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic
and Feebleminded Persons, 17?31
Brown, G., 1889, Public aid for the feeble-minded, Proceedings of
National Conference Charities and Correction, 86-88
Galton, F., 1889, Natural Inheritance, London, Macmillan
Johnson, A., 1889, Discussion on the care of the feeble-minded,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 318-319
Wilmarth, A., 1889, Mongolian idiocy, Proceedings of the Association
of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and
Feebleminded Persons 57-61
Byers, A., 1890, Discussion on the care of the feeble-minded,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 441
Cattell, J., 1890, Mental tests and measurments, Mind, 15, 373?379
Kerlin, I., 1890, Discussion on the care of the feeble-minded,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 444-445
Warner, F., 1890, Lectures on Mental Faculty, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press
1891, Ear of Man (the): its past, present, and future. Boston.
Bonsall, A., 1891, Discussion on the care of imbeciles Proceedings of
National Conference Charities and Correction, 331-332
Burdett, H., 1891, Hospitals and Asylums of the World: Vol. 1 -
Asylums: history and administration; Vol. 2 - Asylum construction with
plans and bibliography, London, J.&A. Churchill
Galton, F., 1891, Retrospect of the work of the Anthropometric
Laboratory, Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 21, 32?35
Kerlin, I., 1891, Manual of Elwyn: 1863-1891, Philadelphia, Lippincott
Knight, G., 1891, Colony care for adult idiots, Proceedings of
National Conference Charities and Correction, 107-108
Osborne, A., 1891, The founding of a great institution and some of its
problems, Proceedings of the Association of Medical Officers of
American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons 15, 173-185
Blake, L., 1892, Some practical and speculative views derived from six
months' experience at Elwyn, Proceedings of the Association of Medical
Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded
Persons, 313?317
Evans, E., 1892, The Story of Caspar Hauser from Original records,
London
Fish, W., 1892, The colony plan, Proceedings of National Conference
Charities and Correction, 161-165
Fish, W., 1892, Report of the committee on rules of proceedure:
discussion, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 337-350
Keen, W., 1892, Linear craniotomy for the relief of idiotic
conditions, Proceedings of the Association of Medical Officers of
American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons 344-353
Knight, G., 1892, Report of the committee on rules of proceedure:
Discussion, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 348-349
Rogers, A., 1892, Report of five cases of mental and moral aberration
among the feeble-minded at the Minnesota school for feeble-minded,
Proceedings of the Association of Medical Officers of American
Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons 318-325
Salisbury, A., 1892, The education of the feeble-minded, Proceedings
of the Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for
Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons 219-234
Tuke, D., 1892, A Dictionary of Psychological Medicine, London,
Churchill
Burdett, Henry, 1893, Hospitals and Asylums of the World: their
origin, history, construction, administration, management and
legislation... . The portfolio of plans containing the plans
of...British, Colonial, American and foreign hospitals...in addition
to plans of all the hospitals of London. 4 vols. London: J. A.
Churchill.
Charity Organization Society, 1893, The Feeble-minded Child and Adult,
London, COS
Fernald, W., 1893, The history of the treatment of the feeble-minded,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 203-221
Weismann, A., 1893, The Germ Plasm: A Theory of Heredity, New York,
Scribner
Barr, M., 1895, Moral paranoia, Proceedings of the Association of
Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded
Persons, 522?531
Beach, F., 1895, Types of idiocy and imbecility, Proceedings of the
Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic
and Feebleminded Persons, 573?586
Beedy, H., 1895, Discussion on the care of the feeble-minded,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 467-468
Brewer, W., 1895, Discussion on the care of the feeble-minded,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 467
Follett, M., 1895, Discussion on the care of the feeble-minded,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 462
Knight, G., 1895, The feeble-minded, Proceedings of National
Conference Charities and Correction, 150-159
Knight, G., 1895, The feeble-minded, Proceedings of the Association of
Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded
Persons 559-563
Shuttleworth, G., 1895 Mentally Deficient Children: Their Treatment
and Training, H.K. Lewis,
US Department of the Interior, 1895, Report on the Insane,
Feeble-minded, Deaf and Dumb, and Blind (Eleventh Census: 1890),
Washington, US Government Printing Office
Warner, F., 1895, Report on the Scientific Study of the Mental and
Physical Conditions of Childhood, with Particular Reference to
Children with Defective Constitution and with Recommendations as to
Education and Training, London, Royal Sanitary Institute
Winespear, C., 1895, The protection and training of feeble-minded
women, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction,
160-163
Bicknell, E., 1896, Custodial care of the adult feeble-minded, Journal
of Psycho-Asthenics, 1, 51-63
Johnson, A., 1896, Permanent custodial care: report of the committee
on the care of the feeble-minded, Proceedings of National Conference
Charities and Correction, 207-219
Barr, M., 1897, President's annual address, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 2, 1-13
Bateman, F., 1897, The Idiot: His Place in Creation and His Claims on
Society, Jarrold and Sons, Norwich
Johnson, G., 1897, What we do, and how we do it, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 2, 98-105
LeGalley, 1897, Teeth and jaws of the feeble-minded, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 2, 55-60
Wells, K., 1897, State regulation of marraige, Proceedings of National
Conference Charities and Correction, 302-308
Bell, Alexander Graham, 1883, Memoir upon the formation of a deaf
variety of the human race. Washington: National Academy of Science.
Carson, J., 1898, Prevention of feeble-mindedness from a moral and
legal standpoint, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 294-303
Education Department (Defective and Epileptic Children) (Committee),
1898, vol. I: Report, Cd 8746; vol. II: Minutes of Evidence, Cd 8747,
London, HMSO Ireland, W., 1898, Affections of Children, Idiocy,
Imbecility and Insanity, London, Churchill
Johnson, A., 1898, Concerning a form of degeneracy, American Journal
of Sociology, 463-473
Knight, G., 1898, Prevention from a legal and moral standpoint,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 304-308
Rogers, A., 1898, Does the education of the feeble-minded pay?,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 2, 152-154
Talbot, E., 1898, Degeneracy: Its Causes, Signs and Results, London,
Scott
Taylor, J., 1898, Hints to the officers of institutions for the
feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 3, 76-81
Barr, M., 1899, The how, the why, and the wherefore of the training of
feebleminded children, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 4, 204-212
Dunlap, M., 1899, Progress in the care of the feeble-minded and
epileptics, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 255-259
Wylie, A., 1899, Investigation concerning the weight and height of
feeble-minded children, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 4, 47-57
Johnson, A., 1900, The self-supporting imbecile, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 4, 91-100
Lawrence, C., 1900, Principles of education for the feeble-minded,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 31, 210-218
Townsend, P., 1900, The care of the feeble-minded, Charity
Organisation Review, August, 151-158.
Wilmarth, A., 1900, Institution construction and organization, Journal
of Psycho-Asthenics, 5, 58-64
Montessori, M., sometime 1901-1906, Pedagogical Anthropology
1901, Concerning recent legislation, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 7,
83?84
1901, Report of Committee on Psychological Research, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 37, 483-485
Bancroft, M., 1901, Classification of thre mentally deficient,
Proceedings of the National Conference Charities and Correction,
191-200
Galton, F., 1901, The possible improvement of the human breed under
the existing conditions of law and sentiment, Nature, 64, 659?665
Johnson, A., 1901, Discussion on care of feeble-minded and epileptic,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 410-411
Polglase, W., 1901, The evolution of the care of the feeble-minded and
epileptic in the past century, Proceedings of National Conference
Charities and Correction, 186-190
Wissler, C., 1901, The correlation of mental and physical tests,
Psychological Review Monograph Supplements, 3
Barr, M., 1902, The imbecile and epilaptic versus the tax-payer and
the community, Proceedings of the National Conference Charities and
Protection, 161-165
Barr, M., 1902, The imperative call for our present to our future,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 7, 5?8
Fernald, W., 1902, The Massachusetts farm colony for the
feeble-minded, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 487-490
Johnson, A., 1902, Discussion on the feeble-minded and epileptic,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 492-495
Johnson, A., 1903, Report of committee on colonies for segregation of
defectives, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 245-253
Lincoln, D., 1903, Special classes for feeble-minded children in the
Boston Public Schools, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 7, 83-93
Perry, M., 1903, Minority report, Proceedings of National Conference
Charities and Correction, 253-254
Pinsent, E., 1903, On the permanent care of the feeble minded, The
Lancet, 21-2-1903, 513?515
Barr, M., 1904, Classification of mental defectives, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 9, 29?38
Barr, M., 1904, Mental Defectives: Their History, Treatment and
Training, Philadelphia, P. Blakiston's & Son
Fernald, W., 1904, Care of the feeble-minded, Proceedings of National
Conference Charities and Correction, 380-390
Shuttleworth, G. and Potts, W., 1904, Mentally Deficient Children,
H.K. Lewis,
Spearman, C., 1904 `General intelligence': objectively determined and
measured, American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201?292
Barr, M., 1905, Results of asexualization, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 9, 129
Craig, M., 1905, Psychological Medicine, London, Churchill
Jacob, A., 1905, Systematic physical training for the mentally
defective, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 9, 98-112
Risely, S., 1905, Is asexualization ever justifiable in the case of
imbecile children?, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 9, 92-98
Bruce, L., 1906, Studies in Clinical Psychiatry, London, Macmillan
Carson, J., 1906, Review of legislation for defectives in the United
States for the year 1905, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 11, 36-38
Down, J.L.H., 1906, 'Some observations on the Mongolian type of
imbecility', in Journal of Mental Science, 52, 188-190.
Norsworthy, N., 1906, The psychology of mentally deficient children,
Archives of Psychology, 1
Wilmarth, A., 1906, To whom may the term, feeble-minded, be applied?,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 10, 203-205
Binet, A. and Simon, T., 1907, Mentally Defective Children, trans. B.
Drummond, London, Edward Arnold
Butler, A., 1907, The burden of feeble-mindedness, Proceedings of
National Conference Charities and Correction, 1-10
Galton, F., 1907, Probability, the Foundation of Eugencis, Oxford,
Clarendon Press
Nosworthy (Norsworthy ), N., 1907, Suggestions concerning the
psychology of mentally deficient children, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 12, 3-7 Royal Commission on the Care and Control of
the Feeble Minded, 1908, eight vols., London, HMSO
Dunphy, M., 1908, Modern ideals of education applied to the training
of mental defectives, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 325-333
Farrell, E., 1908, Special classes in New York City schools, Journal
of Psycho-Asthenics, 13, 91?96
Fernald, W., 1908, Discussions, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 13, 116
Johnson, A., 1908, Custodial care, Proceedings of National Conference
Charities and Correction, 333-336
Johnstone, E., 1908, Practical provision for the mentally deficient,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 316-325
Milburn, R., 1908, Problems of feeble-minded, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 13, 51-73
Schwartz, K., 1908, 'Nature's corrective principle in social
evolution', in Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 13, 74-90.
Tredgold, Alfred, 1908, Mental Deficiency - Amentia, Baillière
Tindall,
Burt, C., 1909, Experimental tests of general intelligence, British
Journal of Psychology, 3, 94?177
Fry, E., 1909, The Problem of the Feeble-Minded, an abstract of the
Report of the Royal Commission
Maennel, B., 1909, [Auxilliary Education], trans E. Sylvester, New
York, Doubleday
Murdoch, J., 1909, Quarantine mental defectives, Proceedings of
National Conference Charities and Correction, 64-67
1910, Committee on Classification of Feeble-minded, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 15, 61?67
Barr, M., 1910, Mental Defectives, Philadelphia, Blakistons
Bullard, W., 1910, State care of high-grade imbecile girls,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 299-303
Bullard, W., 1910, The high grade mental defectives, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 14, 14-15
Tredgold, A., 1910, The feeble-minded, Contemporary Review, 97,
717?727
Webb, S., 1910, Eugenics and the Poor Law: the minority report,
Eugencis Review, 2, 233?241
Abelson, A., 1911, The measurement of mental ability, British Journal
of Psychology, 4, 268?314
Ayres, L., 1911, The Binet-Simon measuring scale for intelligence.
Some criticisms and suggestions, Psychological Clinic, 5, 187?196
Brown, S., 1911, The Essentials of Mental Measurement, London,
Cambridge University Press
Burt, C., 1911, Experimental tests and their relation to general
intelligence, Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 1, 93?112
Cave, F., 1911, Report of sterilization in the Kansas State Home for
the feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 15, 123-125
Diller, T., 1911, Some practical problems relating to the
feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 16, 20?25
Kuhlmann, F., 1911, Binet and Simon's system for measuring
intelligence in children, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 15, 76-92
Lapage, C.P., 1911, Feeblemindedness in Children of School Age,
Manchester, University of Manchester.
Myers, C., 1911, The pitfalls of `mental tests', British Medical
Journal, 1, 195
Sherlock, E.B., 1911, The Feeble Minded, London, MacMillan & Co.
Talbot, E., 1911, Developmental Pathology, Boston, Gorham Press
Davenport, C., 1912, The Nams, New York, Eugenics Record Office
Farnell, F., 1912, A consideration of feeble-mondedness, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 16, 160?172
Fernald, G., 1912, The defective delinquent class differentiating
tests, American Journal of Insanity, 72, 523?594
Fernald, W., 1912, The burden of feeble-minded, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 17, 87-111
Goddard, H., 1912, Discussion, Proceedings of National Conference
Charities and Correction, 283-284
Goddard, H., 1912, The Kallikak Family, New York, Macmillan
Kite, E., 1912, Mental defect as found by the field-worker, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 17, 145-154
Rogers, A., 1912, `The Kallikak Family', H. Goddard, book review,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 17, 83-84
Stern, W., 1912, The Psychological Methods of Testing Intelligence,
trans. G. Whipple, Baltimore, Warwick and York
Bernstein, C., 1913, Minutes, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 18, 59
Berry, C., 1913, Some limitations of the Binet-Simon Test of
Intelligence, Transactions, 5, 649?654
Bliss, G., 1913, The cottage plan in the care of the feeble-minded,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 18, 139-141
Davey, H., 1913, The Law Relating to the Mentally defective, London,
Stevens and Sons
Doll, E., 1913, Suggestions on the extension of the Binet-Simon
Measuring Scale, Transactions, 5, 665?669
Johnstone, E., 1913, Discussion, State care of the feeble-minded,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 18, 38-45
Kuhlmann, F., 1913, Degree of mental deficiency in children as
expressed by the relation of age to mental age, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 17, 132-144 Murdock(Murdoch ), J., 1913, State care
for the feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 18, 34-38
Vaughn, V., 1913, Race betterment, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 18,
128-138
Wormwald, J. and Wormwald, S., 1913, A Guide to the Mental Deficiency
Act, 1913, London, P.S. King
1914, 68th Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy,
Binet, Alfred and Simon, T., 1914, Mentally Defective Children, Edward
Arnold, (see 1907)
Burt, C., 1914, The measurement of intelligence by the Binet tests,
Eugenics Review, 6, 36?50 & 140?152
Douglass, M., 1914, Special lines of work and results sought, Journal
of Psycho-Asthenics, 19, 135?149
Farrell, E., 1914, The place of the School in the problem of mental
deficiency, Transactions, 3, 435?443
Holman, H., 1914, Seguin and His Psychological Method of Education,
London, Pitman
Johnstone, E., 1914, The extension of the care of the feeble-minded,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 19, 3-18
Kilpatrick, W., 1914, The Montessori System Examined, Boston, Houghton
Mifflin
McDougall, W., 1914, Psychology in the service of eugenics, Eugenics
Review, 5, 295?308
US Department of Commerce, Insane and Feebleminded in Institutions,
1910, Washington, US Government Printing Office
Van Wagenen, B., 1914, Surgical sterlization as a eugenic measure,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 18, 185-196
Barr, M., 1915, The prevention of mental defect, the duty of the hour,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 361-367
Berley, H., 1915, The psychosis of the high imbecile, American Journal
of Insanity, 75, 15?19
Butler, A., 1915, The feeble-minded: the need for research,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 356-361
Cornell, W., 1915, Methods of preventing feeble-mindedness,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 328-339
Fernald, W., 1915, What is practical in the way of prevention of
mental defect?, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 289-297
Fitts, A., 1915, How to fill the gap between the special classes and
institutions, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 20, 78-87
Goddard, H., 1915, The possibilities of research as applied to the
prevention of feeble-mindedness, Proceedings of National Conference
Charities and Correction, 307-312
Kuhlmann, F., 1915, What constitutes feeble-minded? Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 19, 214-236
Porteus, S., 1915, Mental tests for the feeble-minded: A new series,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 19, 200-213
Schlapp, M., 1915, Available field for research and prevention in
mental defect, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 320-328
Schlapp, A., 1915, Recent progress in dealing with feeble-minded and
netally defective dependent children, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 19,
175-187
Southard, E., 1915, The feeble-minded as subjects of research in
efficiency, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 315-319
Spearman, C., 1915, The measurement of intelligence, Eugenics Review,
6, 312?313
Terman, L. and Knollin, H., 1915, Some problems relating to the
detection of borderline cases of mental deficiency, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 20, 3-9
Webb, E., 1915, Character and Intelligence, British Journal of
Psychology Monograph Supplement 3, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press
Anderson, V., 1916, Feeble-mindedness as seen in court, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 21, 82?87,
Binet, A. and Simon, T., 1916, The Devlopment of Intelligence in
Children, trans. E. Kite, Baltimore, Williams and Watkins
Byers, J., 1916, A state plan for the care of the feeble-minded,
Proceedings of National Conference Charities and Correction, 223-229
Doll, E., 1916, Form board speeds as diagnostic age tests, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 20, 55?62
Estabrook, A., 1916, The Jukes in 1915, Washington, Carnegie Institute
Johnstone, E., 1916, Committee report: stimulating public interest in
the feeble-minded, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 205-215
Kirkbride, F., 1916, Types of buildings for state institutions for the
feeble-minded, Proceedings of National Conference Charities and
Correction, 250-257
Kuhlman, F., 1916, Part played by the state institutions in the care
of the feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 21, 3-24
MacMurphy, H., 1916, The relation of feeble-mindedness to other social
problems, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 21, 58-63
Mastin, J., 1916, The new colony plan for the feeble-minded, Journal
of Psycho-Asthenics, 21, 25-35
Terman, L., 1916, The Measurement of Intelligence, Cambridge,
Riverside press
Anderson, M., 1917, Education of Defectives in the Public Schools, New
York, World Book,
Bernstein, C., 1917, Self-sustaining feeble-minded, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 22, 150?161
East, E., 1917, Hidden feeblemindedness, Journal of Heredity, 8,
215?217
Mercier, C., 1917, Moral imbecility, The Practitioner, 99, 301?308
Punnet, R., 1917, Eliminating feeble-minded, Journal of Heredity, 8,
464-465
Tredgold, A., 1917, Moral imbecility, The Practitioner, 99, 43?55
Weidensall, J., 1917, The mentality of the unmarrie dmother, National
Conference of Social Work, 44, 287-294
Anderson, M., 1918, Instruction of the feebleminded, Conf.[erence?]
Social Work, 536-543
Anderson, V., 1918, Studies in personality among feeble-minded
delinquents seen in court, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 23, 117?142
Bernstein, C., 1918, Rehabilitation of the mental defective, Journal
of Psycho-Asthenics, 23, 92?103
Bernstein, C., 1918, Self-sustaining feeble-minded, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 23, 92-94
Hastings, G., 1918, Registration of the feeble-minded, Conference
Social Work, 527, 536
McCready, E., 1918, The treatment of mental defective through physical
and medical measures, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 23, 43-51
Matzinger, H., 1918, The prevention of mental defect, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 23, 11-21
Parsons, H., 1918, Mental defect as a bar to reformation, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 23, 163-168
Southard, E., 1918, Remarks on the progress of the Waverly researcher
in the pathology of the feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics,
23, 48-59
Taft, J., 1918, Supervision of the feeble-minded in the community,
Conference Social Work, 543-550
Fernald, G., 1919, The defective delinquent since the war, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 24, 55?64
Fernald, W., 1919, A state program for the care of the mentally
defective, Mental Hygiene, 3, 566-574
Fernald, W., 1919, State programs for the care of the mentally
defective, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 24, 114-125
Southard, E., 1919, An attempt at an orderly grouping of the
feeble-minded (hypophrenias) for clinical diagnosis, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 24, 99-113
Ballard, P., 1920, Mental Tests, London, Hodder and Stoughton
Bernstein, C., 1920, Colony and extra-institutional care for the
feebleminded, Mental Hygiene, 4, 1?29
Fernald, G., 1920, Curative treatment vs. punitive for defective
delinquents, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 25, 161?167
Fernald, W., 1920, An out-patient clinic in connection with a state
institution for the feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 25,
81-89
Kuhlmann, F., 1920, The results of mental re-examinations of the
feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 25, 147-160
Lapage, C., 1920, Feeblemindedness in Children of School Age,
Manchester, Manchester University Press
Tansley, A., 1920, The New Psychology and its Relation to Life,
London, Allen and Unwin
Barr, M. and Maloney, E., 1921, Types of Mental Defectives, P.
Blakiston,
Burt, C., 1921, Mental and Scholastic Tests, London, London County
Council
Doll, E., 1921, lassification of defective delinquents, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 26, 91?100
Mathews, M., 1921, One hundred institutionally trained male defectives
in the community under supervision, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 26,
60-70
Porteus, S., 1921, A social rating scale for defectives, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 26, 117-126
Vanuxem, M., 1922, Self-government as applied to feeble-minded women,
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 27, 18-26
Burt, C., 1923, Delinquency and mental defect, British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 3, 168?178
East, W., 1923, Delinquency and mental defect, British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 3, 153?167
Shrubshall, F., 1923, Delinquency and mental defect, British Journal
of Medical Psychology, 3, 179?187
Stoddart, W., 1923, Delinquency and mental defect, British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 3, 188?193
Davies, S., 1923, Social Control of the Feeble-minded: A Study of
Social; Programs and Attitudes in relation to the Problem of Mental
Deficiency, New York, Committee for Mental Hygiene
Crookshank, F., 1924, The Mongol in Our Midst: A Study of Man and his
Three Faces, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Ecob, K., 1924, New York state's accomplishments and immediate aims in
extra institutional care of mental defectives, Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics, 29, 20?31
Fernald, W., 1924, Thirty years progress in the care of the
feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 29, 206-219
Kline, G., 1924, Accompolishments and immediate aims in Massachusetts
in community care of the feeble-minded, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics,
29, 32-40
Greene, R., 1927, An ideal institution organization for 1000 to 15,000
beds, Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 32, 186-192
Descourdes, A., 1928, The Education of Mentally Defective Children,
trans E. Row, New York, D.C. Heath
Report of the Royal Commission on Lunacy and Mental Disorder, 1929,
London, HMSO
Board of Education and Board of Control, 1929, Report of the Joint
Departmental Committee on Mental Deficiency, The Wood Committee, 3
vols., London, HMSO
Murray K. Simpson : 12 September 1997
Joseph Hertzlinger
>Jews and Judaism in the United States a Documentary History (New York:
>Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), p. 14. Raphael is the editor of American
>Jewish History, the journal of the American Jewish Historical Society at
>Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
A typical quote from something out of print but not out of copyright.
Besides, I thought you racists would thank us.
>They are quick
>to try to make Whites feel guilty for the alleged injustices committed by
>(some) White people in the past, and even try to instill guilt into _recent_
>White immigrants in America about the sins committed by other Whites who
>lived in America centuries ago.
Wrong.
> The Jews have also decided to place the
>blame on ALL GERMANS for the alleged "Holocaust." They want ALL Germans --
>even Germans who did not live during WW2 -- to hand over tens of billions of
>dollars to them.
>
>Here is a quote from Elie Weisel:
Why are "proving" something about Jews (a plural term) by citing a single
person?
In any case, there are lots of German cars in synagogue parking lots.
age...@post.cz
at Oxford University, has just received a history
lesson himself about the Jewish role in Black slave
trade to the Americas.
``Pyro 1488`` <pyro...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>[Note: Agent99 and Martin FOU have gotten into a heated discussion on the
>Jewish role in the Negro slave trade. Agent99 has posted some of the quotes
>I have used in this forum in the past, and rather than to discuss the
>substance of the quotes, Martin FOU has decided to make some (inarticulate)
>personal attacks.]
>
>Martin FOU <martin...@sant.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>``whats the matter - can`t do your own work?``
>
>Why does it matter where the information comes from if it`s true? The
>sources are listed below, anyhow.
>
>Agent99 posted a quote from Dr. Raphael:
>
>> ``Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade;
>> indeed....in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique),
>> British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.``
>>
>> Dr. Marc Lee Raphael, head historian at the American Jewish Historical
>> Society at Brandeis.
>
>Martin FOU responded:
>
>>> page no? Publication date? What part of the quote is represented by
>``...``?
>
>No problem. Here it is:
>
>Jews and Judaism in the United States a Documentary History (New York:
>Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), p. 14. Raphael is the editor of American
>Jewish History, the journal of the American Jewish Historical Society at
>Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
>
>Agent99 posted these quotes:
>
>> ``In Charleston, Richmond and Savannah the large majority (over
>> three-fourths) of the Jewish households contained one or more slaves; in
>> Baltimore, only one out of three households were slaveholding; in New
>York,
>> one out of eighteen....Among the slaveholding households the median number
>> of slaves owned ranged from five in Savannah to one in New York.``
>
>Martin FOU responded:
>
>``And how many of the non-Jews had slaves? Notice how the `concentration` of
>Jewish slaveowners can be found were you would expect high ownership of
>slaves. Pathetic.``
>
>Per capita non-Jews owned less slaves and took advantage of Blacks to a
>_MUCH_ lesser degree.
>
>The Jews and their lickspittles are quick to point out that the actions of
>certain members of a particular race is not necessarily reflective of the
>whole. But they use this argument only when it suits them! They are quick
>to try to make Whites feel guilty for the alleged injustices committed by
>(some) White people in the past, and even try to instill guilt into _recent_
>White immigrants in America about the sins committed by other Whites who
>lived in America centuries ago. The Jews have also decided to place the
>blame on ALL GERMANS for the alleged ``Holocaust.`` They want ALL Germans --
>even Germans who did not live during WW2 -- to hand over tens of billions of
>dollars to them.
>
>Here is a quote from Elie Weisel:
>
>``There is a time to love and a time to hate; whoever does not hate when he
>should does not deserve to love when he should, does not deserve to love
>when he is able. Perhaps, had we learned to hate more during the years of
>ordeal, fate itself would have taken fright. The Germans did their best to
>teach us, but we were poor pupils in the discipline of hate....Every Jew,
>somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile
>hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.
>To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.``
>
>[Legends of Our Time (1968), pp.177-78.]
>
>In the above quote Elie generalizes about Germans and even states that the
>German (even those who did not live during WW2) personifies something (he is
>not explicit here) that is deserving of ``virile hate.``
>
>What a DISGUSTING race of hypocrites and liars! Shakespeare was right.
>Virtually all of the great thinkers of the past 2,000 years have been right.
>
>Here is a very telling quote on the Jewish role in Black slavery:
>
>``The Christian inhabitants [of Brazil] were envious because the Jews owned
>some of the best plantations in the river valley of Pernambuco and were
>among the leading slave-holders and slave traders in the colony.``
>
>-- Herbert I. Bloom
>
>[``A Study of Brazilian Jewish History 1623-1654, Based Chiefly Upon the
>Findings of the Late Samuel Oppenheim,`` Publications of the American Jewish
>Historical Society, vol. 33 (1934), p. 63.]
>
>[Bloom is a rabbi; B.A., Columbia University, 1923, Ph.D., 1937; M.H.L.,
>Jewish Institute of Religion, 1928, D.D., 1955; rabbi, Temple Albert,
>Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1928-31. President Kingston Ministerial
>Association, 1945-46, and 1959-60; B`nai B`rith; Zionist Organization of
>America; vice-president, National Prison Chaplain Board, since 1962; Social
>Action Committee of Central Conference of American Rabbis, since 1947;
>Author: The Jews of Dutch Brazil, 1936; The Economic Activities of the Jews
>of Amsterdam, 1937.]
>
>Keep in mind that most Black slaves ended up in South America, and in
>particular Brazil. If Martin FOU has any knowledge of history (and we know
>he does not), he will be able to see that the Jews played a KEY ROLE in the
>Black holocaust.
>
>Regards,
>Pyro
>
Sledujte zpravodajstvi, TV-program, pocasi, kursy, ...:
*** http://PRESS.CZ
jum...@my-deja.com
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max wrote:
> While it is difficult to know much about those posting on
> newsgroups, there are some things about Jumangi that can be stated
> with a certain amount of confidence.
-----------
> Jumangi wrote:
>> So, Pyro, tell us how YOU differentiate Sophocles from an ape.
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max wrote:
> Excuse me for butting in, but I would use the same criteria to
> differentiate your writing from Pyro’s. Yes, I realize you will
> interpret this to mean that I compared you to Sophocles.
You *-FAILED-* to read the ENTIRE ARGUMENT AGAIN !!!!!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@aol.com>
>> I differentiate Sophocles from an ape like I
>> differentiate Aristotle from Johnny Cochran, FOOL.
From: jum...@my-deja.com
> I'm sorry. You didn't understand the question.
> Here's what I mean to say. You have two samples
> of -writing-. One is from a black philosophy
> student and one is from a white philosophy student.
> HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHICH IS WHICH ?
> ANSWER THE QUESTIONS !!!!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Pyro wrote:
>>> I have posted an anthology of my writings because the individual
>>> who I have been discussing philosophy with ....
> Jumangi wrote:
>> Which individual was that? I don't recall having a philosophy
>> discussion (yet) with anybody on this list.
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max wrote:
> Sorry, Pyro, I have to agree with Jumangi on this one. I don’t
> believe it is possible to discuss philosophy with anyone who
> believes he has evidence that Johnnie Cochran is a great
> philosopher and Socrates was not.
If you have evidence to the contrary you have *-FAILED-*
to present it. LET'S FIND OUT IF YOU *-CAN-* DISCUSS PHILOSOPHY !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FIND YOUR EVIDENCE IN PLATO. DESCRIBE YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL METHODS !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Jumangi wrote:
>> Uh, I think you -CANNOT- make that "eunuch" word stick because
>> it's not the case, as I had informed you previously.
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max wrote:
> I don’t believe it is an improper use of language to call someone
> whose arguments are sterile (castrated) a "eunuch." This judgement
> is either supported by the facts (in this case, the quality of
> writing) or not. In other words, you informing anyone "previously"
> that you were not a eunuch has no bearing on the validity of the
> statement.
Define "sterile" argument and discuss why you find it invalid.
> Jumangi wrote:
>> YOU DO -NOT- QUALIFY AS A MASTER-RACE "ARYAN" SO GO TO AUSCHWITZ !!
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max wrote:
> Are you suggesting that all blacks should go to Auschwitz too?
It's a tourist trap these days.
>> Pyro wrote:
>>> He is a FOOL who cannot think abstractly.
> Jumangi wrote:
>> Who is? Your "evidence," "argument," and "demonstration?"
From: RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> -- Max wrote:
> Both Pyro and I have pointed out the evidence on numerous
> occasions. The fact that you cannot see or understand the proof
> does not mean it does not exist.
Evidence of what? I asked for all three. Use complete thoughts.
--------------------------
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> You mutilate the legacy of music, cutting off "Carmen," "La
> Traviata," and "La Boheme." Your response was, "SO WHAT?"
No sir. My "so what" response applied to your LACK OF IMAGINATION
w/r/t "a world without `Carmen', `La Boheme' or `La Traviata'."
Indeed, the cultural world would be impoverished without those
masterworks, but it's an insignificant matter what you can or can't
"imagine," having no bearing upon the works as cultural masterpieces.
Here was the *-DISCOURSE-* of the exchange that *-YOU-* multilated:
>> From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
>>> I can't imagine a world without "Carmen",
>>> "La Boheme" or "La Traviata".
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> SO WHAT ???????????????????????????????????
I wouldn't suppose that fans of "Carmen", "La Boheme", or "La
Traviata" give a rat's ass whether *-YOU-* can or can't "imagine"
a world without cultural contributions, and neither do I.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> When you say that lawyers philosophize to some degree, thus giving
> them the title of "philosophers," there is no reason why you can't
> say the same about kids going to school and learning. The striving
> and love of wisdom is the core of philosophy. According to your
> rationalization, lawyers are philosophers -- and so are children
> going to school.
Nope, that's YOUR *-STRAWMAN-* RATIONALIZATION ! I think one
of the ESSENTIAL FACTORS for philosophizing (at least in the Western
Tradition) is to UNDERSTAND WHAT SOCRATES SAID AND DID NOT SAY !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For the case of "Max/(RenoDecaro)" it would be essential to KNOW WHAT
SOCRATES DID AND DID NOT DO (whether Socrates "wrote" anything), but
"Max/(RenoDecaro)" DID NOT KNOW EVEN THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FACTS !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> TAKE NOTE CENSUS BUREAU OFFICE FOR THE YEAR
> 2000!!! The EUNUCH has placed philosophers as the most numerous of
> all professions in the USA!!! Far ahead of waiters and construction
> workers! This is one instance in which you would make Plato happy.
YOU ABUSE THE ARGUMENT BY INVENTING "FACTS." WHAT IS THE TERM -YOU-
WOULD APPLY TO THE PERSON WHO ARGUES UPON *-FALSE-* PREMISES ???
SINCE I DID *-NOT-* ADVANCE THAT STRAWMAN RATIONALIZATION, BUT -YOU-
DID, THEN THE *-EUNUCH-* TO WHOM YOU REFER, IS *-YOU-* ! IDIOT !
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Then, there is a chimpanzee in Tanzania that knows how to add and
> is able to feed himself with the use of a computer, by pressing the
> right buttons. According to your line of reasoning, he is also a
> philosopher.
I expect the chimp writes your material as well.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Aha! Now I understand why you refer to Cochran as a philosopher.
> You made a quantum leap from Plato to "quantum mechanics." This
> demonstrates you are an individual without any convictions.
> Certainly not a philosopher in the real sense (not according to
> your criteria, either). How does your Plato stand vs. the theory
> of quantum mechanics? I know you feel more comfortable now thinking
> of yourself as being a cluster of fart quarks, rather than the
> noble concept of being HUMAN.
Define the term "fart quarks" in quantum mechanics. Describe
the -ethical- principles of being fully human. Describe the size
of a "quantum leap." What is your argument which "demonstrates"
there are no convictions involved in "quantum mechanics?"
> From: jum...@my-deja.com
>> "Cochran has hosted his own prime-time TV show, reaching more
>> people with inquiries into topical events of legal interest than
>> are current readers of Plato. No one has fairly predetermined what
>> should be the groundrules in deciding boundaries for philosophy,
>> nor whether all philosophers must cover all topics addressed by
>> other philosophers elsewhere. No one has fairly stipulated that
>> philosophers must belong to a school in order to philosophize or to
>> be a philosopher. No one has fairly stipulated that philosophers
>> must leave writings in order to be a philosopher. In fact, two
>> chief personalities regarded as influential in philosophy left NO
>> WRITINGS WHATEVER (Socrates/Jesus). Plato was the journalist who
>> recorded the Socratic dialogues, NOT Socrates himself."
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> OK, let's follow through with your line of reasoning. So what if a
> philosopher doesn't leave behind any writings? Socrates left behind
> no writings. Let's take it a step further. So what if a
> philosopher never disseminates his thoughts (either by choice or by
> accident)? Does that make him less of a philosopher? Suppose Plato
> had died of an illness, or was killed, before he could write about
> Socrates. What that have made Socrates any less of a philosopher?
> Of course not! So why should the size of one's audience matter? Why
> does it matter how many persons one targets? Isn't it SUBSTANCE
> that matters? Insight? So what if a person runs a talk show?
You're right. Even without an audience for the "talk show"
Cochran's activity of discourse with his guests would still be
philosophizing. The falling tree in the forest makes a sound
even without observors to hear it. It's -substantial- because
they were hosting a forum discussing -LEGAL- issues, which is
considerably above your capacity for comprehension, apparently.
From: Pyro 1488 <pyro...@email.msn.com>
> Understand now, EUNUCH?
I understand that you've got a serious vacuum between your ears
and that you attempt to rely on specious _ad_hominem_ techniques
because you don't know how to construct a valid formal argument.
- regards
- jb
===============================================================
http://gams.nist.gov/Classes.html
---------------------------------
GAMS : Problem Taxonomy
[Home] . . . Search by [Problem] [Package] [Module]
[Keyword] . . . [Math at NIST]
Problem Taxonomy
A. Arithmetic, error analysis
A1. Integer
A2. Rational
A3. Real
A3a. Standard precision
A3c. Extended precision
A3d. Extended range
A4. Complex
A4a. Standard precision
A4c. Extended precision
A4d. Extended range
A5. Interval
A6. Change of representation
A6a. Type conversion
A6b. Base conversion
A6c. Decomposition, construction
A7. Sequences (e.g., convergence acceleration)
B. Number theory
C. Elementary and special functions (search also class L5)
C1. Integer-valued functions (e.g., factorial,
binomial coefficient, permutations, combinations, floor, ceiling)
C2. Powers, roots, reciprocals
C3. Polynomials
C3a. Orthogonal
C3a1. Trigonometric
C3a2. Chebyshev, Legendre
C3a3. Laguerre
C3a4. Hermite
C3b. Non-orthogonal
C4. Elementary transcendental functions
C4a. Trigonometric, inverse trigonometric
C4b. Exponential, logarithmic
C4c. Hyperbolic, inverse hyperbolic
C4d. Integrals of elementary transcendental functions
C5. Exponential and logarithmic integrals
C6. Cosine and sine integrals
C7. Gamma
C7a. Gamma, log gamma, reciprocal gamma
C7b. Beta, log beta
C7c. Psi function
C7d. Polygamma function
C7e. Incomplete gamma
C7f. Incomplete beta
C7g. Riemann zeta
C8. Error functions
C8a. Error functions, their inverses, integrals,
including the normal distribution function
C8b. Fresnel integrals
C8c. Dawson's integral
C9. Legendre functions
C10. Bessel functions
C10a. J, Y, H_1, H_2
C10a1. Real argument, integer order
C10a2. Complex argument, integer order
C10a3. Real argument, real order
C10a4. Complex argument, real order
C10a5. Complex argument, complex order
C10b. I, K
C10b1. Real argument, integer order
C10b2. Complex argument, integer order
C10b3. Real argument, real order
C10b4. Complex argument, real order
C10b5. Complex argument, complex order
C10c. Kelvin functions
C10d. Airy and Scorer functions
C10e. Struve, Anger, and Weber functions
C10f. Integrals of Bessel functions
C11. Confluent hypergeometric functions
C12. Coulomb wave functions
C13. Jacobian elliptic functions, theta functions
C14. Elliptic integrals
C15. Weierstrass elliptic functions
C16. Parabolic cylinder functions
C17. Mathieu functions
C18. Spheroidal wave functions
C19. Other special functions
D. Linear Algebra
D1. Elementary vector and matrix operations
D1a. Elementary vector operations
D1a1. Set to constant
D1a2. Minimum and maximum components
D1a3. Norm
D1a3a. L_1 (sum of magnitudes)
D1a3b. L_2 (Euclidean norm)
D1a3c. L_infinity (maximum magnitude)
D1a4. Dot product (inner product)
D1a5. Copy or exchange (swap)
D1a6. Multiplication by scalar
D1a7. Triad (alpha*x+y for vectors x, y and scalar alpha)
D1a8. Elementary rotation (Givens transformation)
D1a9. Elementary reflection (Householder transformation)
D1a10. Convolutions
D1a11. Other vector operations
D1b. Elementary matrix operations
D1b1. Initialize (e.g., to zero or identity)
D1b2. Norm
D1b3. Transpose
D1b4. Multiplication by vector
D1b5. Addition, subtraction
D1b6. Multiplication
D1b7. Matrix polynomial
D1b8. Copy
D1b9. Storage mode conversion
D1b10. Elementary rotation (Givens transformation)
D1b11. Elementary reflection (Householder transformation)
D2. Solution of systems of linear equations (including inversion,
LU and related decompositions)
D2a. Real nonsymmetric matrices
D2a1. General
D2a2. Banded
D2a2a. Tridiagonal
D2a3. Triangular
D2a4. Sparse
D2b. Real symmetric matrices
D2b1. General
D2b1a. Indefinite
D2b1b. Positive definite
D2b2. Positive definite banded
D2b2a. Tridiagonal
D2b4. Sparse
D2c. Complex non-Hermitian matrices
D2c1. General
D2c2. Banded
D2c2a. Tridiagonal
D2c3. Triangular
D2c4. Sparse
D2d. Complex Hermitian matrices
D2d1. General
D2d1a. Indefinite
D2d1b. Positive definite
D2d2. Positive definite banded
D2d2a. Tridiagonal
D2d4. Sparse
D2e. Associated operations (e.g., matrix reorderings)
D3. Determinants
D3a. Real nonsymmetric matrices
D3a1. General
D3a2. Banded
D3a2a. Tridiagonal
D3a3. Triangular
D3a4. Sparse
D3b. Real symmetric matrices
D3b1. General
D3b1a. Indefinite
D3b1b. Positive definite
D3b2. Positive definite banded
D3b2a. Tridiagonal
D3b4. Sparse
D3c. Complex non-Hermitian matrices
D3c1. General
D3c2. Banded
D3c2a. Tridiagonal
D3c3. Triangular
D3c4. Sparse
D3d. Complex Hermitian matrices
D3d1. General
D3d1a. Indefinite
D3d1b. Positive definite
D3d2. Positive definite banded
D3d2a. Tridiagonal
D3d4. Sparse
D4. Eigenvalues, eigenvectors
D4a. Ordinary eigenvalue problems (Ax = lambda x)
D4a1. Real symmetric
D4a2. Real nonsymmetric
D4a3. Complex Hermitian
D4a4. Complex non-Hermitian
D4a5. Tridiagonal
D4a6. Banded
D4a7. Sparse
D4b. Generalized eigenvalue problems (e.g., Ax = lambda Bx)
D4b1. Real symmetric
D4b2. Real general
D4b3. Complex Hermitian
D4b4. Complex general
D4b5. Banded
D4c. Associated operations
D4c1. Transform problem
D4c1a. Balance matrix
D4c1b. Reduce to compact form
D4c1b1. Tridiagonal
D4c1b2. Hessenberg
D4c1b3. Other
D4c1c. Standardize problem
D4c2. Compute eigenvalues of matrix in compact form
D4c2a. Tridiagonal
D4c2b. Hessenberg
D4c2c. Other
D4c3. Form eigenvectors from eigenvalues
D4c4. Back transform eigenvectors
D4c5. Determine Jordan normal form
D5. QR decomposition, Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization
D6. Singular value decomposition
D7. Update matrix decompositions
D7a. LU
D7b. Cholesky
D7c. QR
D7d. Singular value
D8. Other matrix equations (e.g., AX+XB=C)
D9. Singular, overdetermined or underdetermined systems of
linear equations, generalized inverses
D9a. Unconstrained
D9a1. Least squares (L_2) solution
D9a2. Chebyshev (L_infinity) solution
D9a3. Least absolute value (L_1) solution
D9a4. Other
D9b. Constrained
D9b1. Least squares (L_2) solution
D9b2. Chebyshev (L_infinity) solution
D9b3. Least absolute value (L_1)
D9b4. Other
D9c. Generalized inverses
E. Interpolation
E1. Univariate data (curve fitting)
E1a. Polynomial splines (piecewise polynomials)
E1b. Polynomials
E1c. Other functions (e.g., rational, trigonometric)
E2. Multivariate data (surface fitting)
E2a. Gridded
E2b. Scattered
E3. Service routines for interpolation
E3a. Evaluation of fitted functions, including quadrature
E3a1. Function evaluation
E3a2. Derivative evaluation
E3a3. Quadrature
E3b. Grid or knot generation
E3c. Manipulation of basis functions
(e.g., evaluation, change of basis)
E3d. Other
F. Solution of nonlinear equations
F1. Single equation
F1a. Polynomial
F1a1. Real coefficients
F1a2. Complex coefficients
F1b. Nonpolynomial
F2. System of equations
F3. Service routines (e.g., check user-supplied derivatives)
G. Optimization (search also classes K, L8)
G1. Unconstrained
G1a. Univariate
G1a1. Smooth function
G1a1a. User provides no derivatives
G1a1b. User provides first derivatives
G1a1c. User provides first and second derivatives
G1a2. General function (no smoothness assumed)
G1b. Multivariate
G1b1. Smooth function
G1b1a. User provides no derivatives
G1b1b. User provides first derivatives
G1b1c. User provides first and second derivatives
G1b2. General function (no smoothness assumed)
G2. Constrained
G2a. Linear programming
G2a1. Dense matrix of constraints
G2a2. Sparse matrix of constraints
G2b. Transportation and assignments problem
G2c. Integer programming
G2c1. Zero/one
G2c2. Covering and packing problems
G2c3. Knapsack problems
G2c4. Matching problems
G2c5. Routing, scheduling, location problems
G2c6. Pure integer programming
G2c7. Mixed integer programming
G2d. Network (for network reliability search class M)
G2d1. Shortest path
G2d2. Minimum spanning tree
G2d3. Maximum flow
G2d3a. Generalized networks
G2d3b. Networks with side constraints
G2d4. Test problem generation
G2e. Quadratic programming
G2e1. Positive definite Hessian (i.e., convex problem)
G2e2. Indefinite Hessian
G2f. Geometric programming
G2g. Dynamic programming
G2h. General nonlinear programming
G2h1. Simple bounds
G2h1a. Smooth function
G2h1a1. User provides no derivatives
G2h1a2. User provides first derivatives
G2h1a3. User provides first and second derivatives
G2h1b. General function (no smoothness assumed)
G2h2. Linear equality or inequality constraints
G2h2a. Smooth function
G2h2a1. User provides no derivatives
G2h2a2. User provides first derivatives
G2h2a3. User provides first and second derivatives
G2h2b. General function (no smoothness assumed)
G2h3. Nonlinear constraints
G2h3a. Equality constraints only
G2h3a1. Smooth function and constraints
G2h3a1a. User provides no derivatives
G2h3a1b. User provides first derivatives of function
and constraints
G2h3a1c. User provides first and second derivatives
of function and constraints
G2h3a2. General function and constraints
(no smoothness assumed)
G2h3b. Equality and inequality constraints
G2h3b1. Smooth function and constraints
G2h3b1a. User provides no derivatives
G2h3b1b. User provides first derivatives of function
and constraints
G2h3b1c. User provides first and second derivatives
of function and constraints
G2h3b2. General function and constraints
(no smoothness assumed)
G2i. Global solution to nonconvex problems
G3. Optimal control
G4. Service routines
G4a. Problem input (e.g., matrix generation)
G4b. Problem scaling
G4c. Check user-supplied derivatives
G4d. Find feasible point
G4e. Check for redundancy
G4f. Other
H. Differentiation, integration
H1. Numerical differentiation
H2. Quadrature (numerical evaluation of definite integrals)
H2a. One-dimensional integrals
H2a1. Finite interval (general integrand)
H2a1a. Integrand available via user-defined procedure
H2a1a1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2a1a2. Nonautomatic
H2a1b. Integrand available only on grid
H2a1b1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2a1b2. Nonautomatic
H2a2. Finite interval (specific or special type integrand
including weight functions, oscillating and
singular integrands, principal value integrals,
splines, etc.)
H2a2a. Integrand available via user-defined procedure
H2a2a1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2a2a2. Nonautomatic
H2a2b. Integrand available only on grid
H2a2b1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2a2b2. Nonautomatic
H2a3. Semi-infinite interval (including exp(-x) weight function)
H2a3a. Integrand available via user-defined procedure
H2a3a1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2a3a2. Nonautomatic
H2a4. Infinite interval (including exp(-x^2) weight function)
H2a4a. Integrand available via user-defined procedure
H2a4a1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2a4a2. Nonautomatic
H2b. Multidimensional integrals
H2b1. One or more hyper-rectangular regions
(includes iterated integrals)
H2b1a. Integrand available via user-defined procedure
H2b1a1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2b1a2. Nonautomatic
H2b1b. Integrand available only on grid
H2b1b1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2b1b2. Nonautomatic
H2b2. n-dimensional quadrature on a nonrectangular region
H2b2a. Integrand available via user-defined procedure
H2b2a1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2b2a2. Nonautomatic
H2b2b. Integrand available only on grid
H2b2b1. Automatic (user need only specify required accuracy)
H2b2b2. Nonautomatic
H2c. Service routines (e.g., compute weights and nodes for
quadrature formulas)
I. Differential and integral equations
I1. Ordinary differential equations (ODE's)
I1a. Initial value problems
I1a1. General, nonstiff or mildly stiff
I1a1a. One-step methods (e.g., Runge-Kutta)
I1a1b. Multistep methods (e.g., Adams predictor-corrector)
I1a1c. Extrapolation methods (e.g., Bulirsch-Stoer)
I1a2. Stiff and mixed algebraic- differential equations
I1b. Multipoint boundary value problems
I1b1. Linear
I1b2. Nonlinear
I1b3. Eigenvalue (e.g., Sturm-Liouville)
I1c. Service routines (e.g., interpolation of solutions,
error handling, test programs)
I2. Partial differential equations
I2a. Initial boundary value problems
I2a1. Parabolic
I2a1a. One spatial dimension
I2a1b. Two or more spatial dimensions
I2a2. Hyperbolic
I2b. Elliptic boundary value problems
I2b1. Linear
I2b1a. Second order
I2b1a1. Poisson (Laplace) or Helmholtz equation
I2b1a1a. Rectangular domain (or topologically rectangular
in the coordinate system)
I2b1a1b. Nonrectangular domain
I2b1a2. Other separable problems
I2b1a3. Nonseparable problems
I2b1c. Higher order equations (e.g., biharmonic)
I2b2. Nonlinear
I2b3. Eigenvalue
I2b4. Service routines
I2b4a. Domain triangulation (search also class P)
I2b4b. Solution of discretized elliptic equations
I3. Integral equations
J. Integral transforms
J1. Trigonometric transforms including fast Fourier transforms
J1a. One-dimensional
J1a1. Real
J1a2. Complex
J1a3. Sine and cosine transforms
J1b. Multidimensional
J2. Convolutions
J3. Laplace transforms
J4. Hilbert transforms
K. Approximation (search also class L8)
K1. Least squares (L_2) approximation
K1a. Linear least squares (search also classes D5, D6, D9)
K1a1. Unconstrained
K1a1a. Univariate data (curve fitting)
K1a1a1. Polynomial splines (piecewise polynomials)
K1a1a2. Polynomials
K1a1a3. Other functions (e.g., trigonometric,
user-specified)
K1a1b. Multivariate data (surface fitting)
K1a2. Constrained
K1a2a. Linear constraints
K1a2b. Nonlinear constraints
K1b. Nonlinear least squares
K1b1. Unconstrained
K1b1a. Smooth functions
K1b1a1. User provides no derivatives
K1b1a2. User provides first derivatives
K1b1a3. User provides first and second derivatives
K1b1b. General functions
K1b2. Constrained
K1b2a. Linear constraints
K1b2b. Nonlinear constraints
K2. Minimax (L_infinity) approximation
K3. Least absolute value (L_1) approximation
K4. Other analytic approximations (e.g., Taylor polynomial, Pade)
K5. Smoothing
K6. Service routines for approximation
K6a. Evaluation of fitted functions, including quadrature
K6a1. Function evaluation
K6a2. Derivative evaluation
K6a3. Quadrature
K6b. Grid or knot generation
K6c. Manipulation of basis functions (e.g., evaluation,
change of basis)
K6d. Other
L. Statistics, probability
L1. Data summarization
L1a. One-dimensional data
L1a1. Raw data
L1a1a. Location
L1a1b. Dispersion
L1a1c. Shape
L1a1d. Frequency, cumulative frequency
L1a1e. Ties
L1a3. Grouped data
L1b. Two dimensional data (search also class L1c)
L1c. Multi-dimensional data
L1c1. Raw data
L1c1b. Covariance, correlation
L1c1d. Frequency, cumulative frequency
L1c2. Raw data containing missing values
(search also class L1c1)
L2. Data manipulation
L2a. Transform (search also classes L10a1, N6, and N8)
L2b. Tally
L2c. Subset
L2d. Merge (search also class N7)
L2e. Construct new variables (e.g., indicator variables)
L3. Elementary statistical graphics (search also class Q)
L3a. One-dimensional data
L3a1. Histograms
L3a2. Frequency, cumulative frequency, percentile plots
L3a3. EDA (e.g., box-plots)
L3a4. Bar charts
L3a5. Pie charts
L3a6. X_i vs. i (including symbol plots)
L3a7. Lag plots (e.g., plots of X_i vs. X_i-1)
L3b. Two-dimensional data (search also class L3e)
L3b1. Histograms (superimposed and bivariate)
L3b2. Frequency, cumulative frequency
L3b3. Scatter diagrams
L3b3a. Y vs. X
L3b3b. Symbol plots
L3b3c. Lag plots (i.e., plots of X_i vs. Y_i-j)
L3b4. EDA
L3c. Three-dimensional data (search also class L3e)
L3e. Multi-dimensional data
L3e1. Histograms
L3e2. Frequency, cumulative frequency, percentile plots
L3e3. Scatter diagrams
L3e3a. Superimposed Y vs. X
L3e3c. Superimposed X_i vs. i
L3e3d. Matrices of bivariate scatter diagrams
L3e4. EDA
L4. Elementary data analysis
L4a. One-dimensional data
L4a1. Raw data
L4a1a. Parametric analysis
L4a1a1. Plots of empirical and theoretical density and
distribution functions
L4a1a2. Probability plots
L4a1a2b. Beta, binomial
L4a1a2c. Cauchy, chi-squared
L4a1a2d. Double exponential
L4a1a2e. Exponential, extreme value
L4a1a2f. F distribution
L4a1a2g. Gamma, geometric
L4a1a2h. Halfnormal
L4a1a2l. Lambda, logistic, lognormal
L4a1a2n. Negative binomial, normal
L4a1a2p. Pareto, Poisson
L4a1a2s. Semicircular
L4a1a2t. t distribution, triangular
L4a1a2u. Uniform
L4a1a2w. Weibull
L4a1a3. Probability plot correlation coefficient plots
L4a1a3c. Chi-squared
L4a1a3e. Extreme value
L4a1a3g. Gamma, geometric
L4a1a3l. Lambda
L4a1a3n. Normal
L4a1a3p. Pareto, Poisson
L4a1a3t. t distribution
L4a1a3w. Weibull
L4a1a4. Parameter estimates and tests
L4a1a4b. Binomial
L4a1a4e. Extreme value
L4a1a4n. Normal
L4a1a4p. Poisson
L4a1a4u. Uniform
L4a1a4w. Weibull
L4a1a5. Transformation selection (e.g., for normality)
L4a1a6. Tail and outlier analysis
L4a1a7. Tolerance limits
L4a1b. Nonparametric analysis
L4a1b1. Estimates and tests regarding location
(e.g., median), dispersion, and shape
L4a1b2. Density function estimation
L4a1c. Goodness-of-fit tests
L4a1d. Analysis of a sequence of numbers
(search also class L10a)
L4a3. Grouped and/or censored data
L4a4. Data sampled from a finite population
L4a5. Categorical data
L4b. Two dimensional data (search also class L4c)
L4b1. Pairwise independent data
L4b1a. Parametric analysis
L4b1a1. Plots of empirical and theoretical density
and distribution functions
L4b1a4. Parameter estimates and hypothesis tests
L4b1b. Nonparametric analysis (e.g., rank tests)
L4b1c. Goodness-of-fit tests
L4b3. Pairwise dependent data
L4b4. Pairwise dependent grouped data
L4b5. Data sampled from a finite population
L4c. Multi-dimensional data (search also classes L4b and L7a1)
L4c1. Independent data
L4c1a. Parametric analysis
L4c1b. Nonparametric analysis
L4e. Multiple multi-dimensional data sets
L5. Function evaluation (search also class C)
L5a. Univariate
L5a1. Cumulative distribution functions,
probability density functions
L5a1b. Beta, binomial
L5a1c. Cauchy, chi-squared
L5a1d. Double exponential
L5a1e. Error function, exponential, extreme value
L5a1f. F distribution
L5a1g. Gamma, general, geometric
L5a1h. Halfnormal, hypergeometric
L5a1k. Kendall F statistic, Kolmogorov-Smirnov
L5a1l. Lambda, logistic, lognormal
L5a1n. Negative binomial, normal
L5a1p. Pareto, Poisson
L5a1t. t distribution
L5a1u. Uniform
L5a1v. Von Mises
L5a1w. Weibull
L5a2. Inverse distribution functions, sparsity functions
L5a2b. Beta, binomial
L5a2c. Cauchy, chi-squared
L5a2d. Double exponential
L5a2e. Error function, exponential, extreme value
L5a2f. F distribution
L5a2g. Gamma, general, geometric
L5a2h. Halfnormal
L5a2l. Lambda, logistic, lognormal
L5a2n. Negative binomial, normal, normal order statistics
L5a2p. Pareto, Poisson
L5a2t. t distribution
L5a2u. Uniform
L5a2w. Weibull
L5b. Multivariate
L5b1. Cumulative multivariate distribution functions,
probability density functions
L5b1n. Normal
L5b2. Inverse cumulative distribution functions
L5b2n. Normal
L6. Random number generation
L6a. Univariate
L6a2. Beta, binomial, Boolean
L6a3. Cauchy, chi-squared
L6a4. Double exponential
L6a5. Exponential, extreme value
L6a6. F distribution
L6a7. Gamma, general (continuous, discrete), geometric
L6a8. Halfnormal, hypergeometric
L6a12. Lambda, logistic, lognormal
L6a14. Negative binomial, normal, normal order statistics
L6a16. Pareto, Pascal, permutations, Poisson
L6a19. Samples, stable distribution
L6a20. t distribution, time series, triangular
L6a21. Uniform (continuous, discrete), uniform order statistics
L6a22. Von Mises
L6a23. Weibull
L6b. Multivariate
L6b3. Contingency table, correlation matrix
L6b5. Experimental designs
L6b12. Linear L_1 (least absolute value) approximation
L6b13. Multinomial
L6b14. Normal
L6b15. Orthogonal matrix
L6b21. Uniform
L6c. Service routines (e.g., seed)
L7. Analysis of variance (including analysis of covariance)
L7a. One-way
L7a1. Parametric
L7a2. Nonparametric
L7b. Two-way (search also class L7d)
L7c. Three-way (e.g., Latin squares) (search also class L7d)
L7d. Multi-way
L7d1. Balanced complete data (e.g., factorial designs)
L7d2. Balanced incomplete data
L7d3. General linear models (unbalanced data)
L7e. Multivariate
L7f. Generate experimental designs
L7g. Service routines
L8. Regression (search also classes D5, D6, D9, G, K)
L8a. Simple linear (i.e., y = b_0 + b_1x) (search also class L8h)
L8a1. Ordinary least squares
L8a1a. Parameter estimation
L8a1a1. Unweighted data
L8a1a2. Weighted data
L8a1d. Inference (e.g., calibration) (search also class L8a1a)
L8a2. L_p for p different from 2
(e.g., least absolute value, minimax)
L8a3. Robust
L8a4. Errors in variables
L8b. Polynomial (e.g., y = b_0 + b_1x + b_2 x^2)
(search also class L8c)
L8b1. Ordinary least squares
L8b1a. Degree determination
L8b1b. Parameter estimation
L8b1b1. Not using orthogonal polynomials
L8b1b2. Using orthogonal polynomials
L8b1c. Analysis (search also class L8b1b)
L8b1d. Inference (search also class L8b1b)
L8c. Multiple linear (i.e., y = b_0 + b_1 x_1 + ... + b_p x_p)
L8c1. Ordinary least squares
L8c1a. Variable selection
L8c1a1. Using raw data
L8c1a2. Using correlation or covariance data
L8c1a3. Using other data
L8c1b. Parameter estimation (search also class L8c1a)
L8c1b1. Using raw data
L8c1b2. Using correlation data
L8c1c. Analysis (search also classes L8c1a and L8c1b)
L8c1d. Inference (search also classes L8c1a and L8c1b)
L8c2. Several regressions
L8c3. L_p for p different from 2
L8c4. Robust
L8c5. Measurement error models
L8c6. Models based on ranks
L8d. Polynomial in several variables
L8e. Nonlinear (i.e., y = F(X,b)) (search also class L8h)
L8e1. Ordinary least squares
L8e1a. Variable selection
L8e1b. Parameter estimation (search also class L8e1a)
L8e1b1. Unweighted data, user provides no derivatives
L8e1b2. Unweighted data, user provides derivatives
L8e1b3. Weighted data, user provides no derivatives
L8e1b4. Weighted data, user provides derivatives
L8e2. Ridge
L8e5. Measurement error models
L8f. Simultaneous (i.e., Y = Xb)
L8g. Spline (i.e., piecewise polynomial)
L8h. EDA (e.g., smoothing)
L8i. Service routines
(e.g., matrix manipulation for variable selection)
L9. Categorical data analysis
L9a. 2-by-2 tables
L9b. Two-way tables (search also class L9d)
L9c. Log-linear model
L9d. EDA (e.g., median polish)
L10. Time series analysis (search also class J)
L10a. Univariate (search also classes L3a6 and L3a7)
L10a1. Transformations
L10a1a. Elementary (search also class L2a)
L10a1b. Stationarity (search also class L8a1)
L10a1c. Filters (search also class K5)
L10a1c1. Difference
L10a1c2. Symmetric linear (e.g., moving averages)
L10a1c3. Autoregressive linear
L10a1c4. Other
L10a1d. Taper
L10a2. Time domain analysis
L10a2a. Summary statistics
L10a2a1. Autocorrelations and autocovariances
L10a2a2. Partial autocorrelations
L10a2b. Stationarity analysis (search also class L10a2a)
L10a2c. Autoregressive models
L10a2c1. Model identification
L10a2c2. Parameter estimation
L10a2d. ARMA and ARIMA models (including Box-Jenkins methods)
L10a2d1. Model identification
L10a2d2. Parameter estimation
L10a2d3. Forecasting
L10a2e. State-space analysis (e.g., Kalman filtering)
L10a2f. Analysis of a locally stationary series
L10a3. Frequency domain analysis (search also class J1)
L10a3a. Spectral analysis
L10a3a1. Pilot analysis
L10a3a2. Periodogram analysis
L10a3a3. Spectrum estimation using the periodogram
L10a3a4. Spectrum estimation using the Fourier transform
of the autocorrelation function
L10a3a5. Spectrum estimation using autoregressive models
L10a3a6. Spectral windows
L10a3b. Complex demodulation
L10b. Two time series (search also classes L3b3c, L10c, and L10d)
L10b2. Time domain analysis
L10b2a. Summary statistics (e.g., cross-correlations)
L10b2b. Transfer function models
L10b3. Frequency domain analysis (search also class J1)
L10b3a. Cross-spectral analysis
L10b3a2. Cross-periodogram analysis
L10b3a3. Cross-spectrum estimation using the cross-
periodogram
L10b3a4. Cross-spectrum estimation using the Fourier
transform of the cross-correlation
or cross-covariance function
L10b3a6. Spectral functions
L10c. Multivariate time series
(search also classes J1, L3e3 and L10b)
L10d. Two multi-channel time series
L11. Correlation analysis (search also classes L4 and L13c)
L12. Discriminant analysis
L13. Covariance structure models
L13a. Factor analysis
L13b. Principal components analysis
L13c. Canonical correlation
L14. Cluster analysis
L14a. One-way
L14a1. Unconstrained
L14a1a. Nested
L14a1a1. Joining (e.g., single link)
L14a1a2. Divisive
L14a1a3. Switching
L14a1a4. Predict missing values
L14a1b. Non-nested (e.g., K means)
L14a2. Constrained
L14b. Two-way
L14c. Display
L14d. Service routines (e.g., compute distance matrix)
L15. Life testing, survival analysis
L16. Multidimensional scaling
L17. Statistical data sets
M. Simulation, stochastic modeling (search also classes L6 and L10)
M1. Simulation
M1a. Discrete
M1b. Continuous (Markov models)
M2. Queueing
M3. Reliability
M3a. Quality control
M3b. Electrical network
M4. Project optimization (e.g., PERT)
N. Data handling (search also class L2)
N1. Input, output
N2. Bit manipulation
N3. Character manipulation
N4. Storage management (e.g., stacks, heaps, trees)
N5. Searching
N5a. Extreme value
N5b. Insertion position
N5c. On a key
N6. Sorting
N6a. Internal
N6a1. Passive (i.e. construct pointer array, rank)
N6a1a. Integer
N6a1b. Real
N6a1c. Character
N6a2. Active
N6a2a. Integer
N6a2b. Real
N6a2c. Character
N6b. External
N7. Merging
N8. Permuting
O. Symbolic computation
P. Computational geometry (search also classes G and Q)
Q. Graphics (search also class L3)
R. Service routines
R1. Machine-dependent constants
R2. Error checking (e.g., check monotonicity)
R3. Error handling
R3a. Set criteria for fatal errors
R3b. Set unit number for error messages
R3c. Other utilities
R4. Documentation retrieval
S. Software development tools
S1. Program transformation tools
S2. Static program analysis tools
S3. Dynamic program analysis tools
Z. Other
Last change in this page: March 24, 1997
==============================================================
The Paradox of our Time
-----------------------
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings,
but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints.
We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less.
We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but
less time;
We have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less
judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less
wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too
little, drive too fast, get too angry too quickly, stay up too late,
get
up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too
seldom.
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values.
We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years
to life, not life to years.
We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble
crossing the street to meet the new neighbor.
We've conquered outer space, but not inner space.
We've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul.
We've split the atom, but not our prejudice.
We write more, but learn less.
We plan more, but accomplish less.
We've learned to rush, but not to wait.
We build more computers to hold more information to produce more
copies than ever, but have less communication.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, and
short character; steep profits, and shallow relationships.
These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more
leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.
These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses,
but broken homes.
These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw-away morality,
one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything
from cheer to quiet, to kill.
It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the
stockroom; a time when technology can bring this letter to you, and
a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just
hit delete.
jum...@my-deja.com
From: Kathleen Hiltsley <khil...@iatp.org>
Subject: Alert: US Canada,
Japan attempt to use WTO against GMO safety measures
Date: Sunday, October 24, 1999 7:55 PM
TWN Information on WTO Negotiations for Seattle
21 October 1999
US, CANADA, JAPAN ATTEMPT TO USE WTO TO DILUTE/BLOCK
BIOSAFETY MEASURES
Dear friends and colleagues,
The Centre for International Environmental Law has produced a
Discussion Paper on the impplications of proposals to consider trade
in GMOs at the WTO.
It has been just written by Matthew Stilwell, managing attorney at
CIEL.
With Matthew's permission, we are helping to distribute the paper,
which raises important points that should be taken note of urgently.
As part of the WTO's process for preparing for Seattle, Canada and
Japan have put forward proposals that the Ministers at Seattle decide
to set up a new working group in the WTO to deal with GMOs and
biotechnology. Canada (in its paper WT/GC/W/359 dated 12 Oct 99)
proposes a "working party on biotechnology", Japan (in its paper
WT/GC/W/365 dated 12 Oct 99) calls it "examination group for new
issues including GMOs".
Meanwhile, the United States (in its paper WT/GC/W/288 dated 4 Aug 99)
in the context of future agriculture negotiations, has proposed to
address WTO disciplines "to ensure trade in agricultural biotechnology
products is based on transparent, predictable and timely processes."
As the CIEL paper points out, the aim of these proposals is to further
constrain the ability of importing countries to regulate GMO products.
(See especially Part III.D of the paper).
Part IV.3 of the paper also points out, that there is also a danger
that the proposals may adversely affect the Biosafety Protocol
negotiations and final outcome, by: (1) the argument that the protocol
should be delayed until the Working Party in WTO takes decisions; (2)
WTO disciplines (existing or new) could be used to further reduce the
protocol's SCOPE; (3) WTO discussions could be used to weaken the
protocol's PROVISIONS; (4) new "science-based" disciplines may be
promoted by these countries in the WTO which may then be used to
counter the biosafety protocol's use of the precautionary principle;
(5) affecting and changing the negotiating dynamic; (6) increase the
likelihood of using the "uncertainty" of WTO rules (this has already
been used by a few countries) to undercut the protocol.
The paper concludes (see Part V.A) that the existing rules in WTO are
sufficient to deal with GMO and biotechnology products, and that the
proposals to negotiate additional disciplines should not be accepted.
(This implies that the Canada and Japan proposals to establish a WTO
working group on biotechnology or GMOs should not be accepted, and
that the US proposal to address disciplines to ensure trade in biotech
products is "tranaparent, predictable and timely" should similarly not
be accepted). There are several other recommendations in Part V.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE LATEST
SEATTLE MINISTERIAL TEXT (DATED 19 OCT), IN 2 PLACES.
(i) There is a Para 71 entitled "Working Party on Biotechnology" which
states: "We agree to establish a Working Party on Biotechnology. The
Working Party shall have a fact-findijg mandate to consider the
adequacy and effectiveness of existing rules as well as the capacity
of WTO members to implement these rules. It is appropriate for this
Group to deliberate wiithin an X period of time.
This whole para is within square brackets, meaning that there is no
consensus at present to set up such a Working Party, nor on the
mandate etc. Thus the whole para is open for negotiation (which will
be done in the next two weeks).
(ii) In the draft Declaration's section on Agriculture, there is a
Para 29 (vi) on improving the rules and disciplines (of the WTO).
Under this section are listed various proposals. One of the proposals
is: "Disciplines to ensure that trade in products of agricultural
biotechnology is based on transparent, predictable and timely
processes." The language is simliar to the US proposal.
The negotiations in Geneva are now going full steam ahead. Those who
would like to influence the process by making your position known,
should do so as soon as possible. It would be more effective to make
your comments in reference to the proposals in para 71 and para 29
(vi) of the draft Seattle Ministerial Declaration referred to above.
With best wishes,
Martin Khor Third World Network mk...@igc.apc.org
PS. Many thanks are due to Matthew Stilwell and CIEL for the paper,
and for allowing it to be circulated. Permission to re-circulate or
use it should be obtained from Matthew at cie...@igc.apc.org.
PPS. Due to formatting problems, the footnotes do not appear in the
version below. Also, the table in Box 2 is not properly formatted
(although you can make out what the data refer to). Apologies for
this.
CIEL DISCUSSION PAPER
By Matthew Stilwell Centre for International Environmental Law Email:
cie...@igc.apc.org
IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES OF PROPOSALS TO CONSIDER TRADE
IN GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOS) AT THE WTO
I. INTRODUCTION
This discussion paper offers some preliminary observations about
proposals for the upcoming WTO Seattle Ministerial by three countries
- the United States, Canada and Japan - to consider trade in
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at the WTO. These proposals
raise significant issues for WTO Members - in particular developing
countries - including:
-- the potential that possible new WTO disciplines on trade in GMO
products will deregulate rather than regulate trade in biotechnology
products at the national level, thereby limiting governments' ability
to set national laws to test, and to control the import of,
genetically modified food products on the basis of the precautionary
principle;
-- the proper relationship between possible new WTO disciplines and
the need to regulate the transboundary movement of GMOs more
effectively at the international level, including through an effective
Biosafety Protocol;
-- the potential for new WTO disciplines to constrain national
labeling schemes designed to promote the consumer's right to know
about GMOs;
-- the proper role and limits of the multilateral trading system and
whether the WTO should consider the "new issue" of trade in GMOs,
including whether its inclusion will unbalance the existing
negotiating agenda and whether, on short notice, developing countries
have sufficient capacity to adequately represent their interests; and
-- broader questions about food security, agriculture, environmental
protection, human and animal health, and equitable development.
This discussion paper is not intended to offer a comprehensive
overview of this subject, but rather hopes to provide a useful
starting point for further analysis.
II. BACKGROUND ON GMOS, INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND THE "BIOTECH ALLIANCE"
Genetic engineering is a revolutionary technology. It has advanced to
the stage that it now allows scientists to change the characteristics
of living organisms by transferring the genetic information from one
organism, across species boundaries into another, to create a
genetically modified organism (GMO). As such, genetic engineering
allows the transfer of genetic material between organisms that would
never be able to breed in any natural or laboratory setting. For
example, genetic information from humans has been inserted into mice,
and fish genes into tomatoes. While genetic engineering promises
benefits to society, its revolutionary nature raises great ethical,
social, environment and development issues, and new regulatory
challenges (see Box 1).
Developing countries, in particular, have a strong interest in
regulating genetic engineering. This interest has been articulated
clearly at the Biosafety Protocol negotiations at which developing
countries have promoted strong multilateral rules to govern the
transboundary movement of GMOs. Issues of food safety, biodiversity
benefit sharing, and intellectual property also suggest the need for
careful consideration of the benefits and burdens of biotechnology.
Currently, most genetically engineered crops are proprietary, and are
owned almost exclusively by the private sector in industrialized
countries. Consequently, biotechnology may also have implications for
the ownership of food production and distribution systems. As noted by
a recent industry report, "biotechnology-driven consolidations in the
form of acquisitions, mergers and alliances continue to be a dominant
feature of the biotechnology industry.... This consolidation is
expected to continue. Genomics is pivotal to the growth of the
industry and is catalyzing a new generation of alliances, acquisitions
and mergers."
-------------------------------------------------
Box 1
Substantive Issues Surrounding the Creation, Use, and Trade in GMO
Products
Proposals to consider GMO issues at the WTO must be viewed in their
broader context, including the need for strong regulation to protect a
range of non-trade concerns. The issues surrounding trade in GMO
products are complex and raise particular concerns for developing
countries, including: Biodiversity protection - as recognized in the
Biosafety Protocol negotiations, the transboundary movement of GMOs
may threaten biological diversity. Genetically modified plants and
animals may, for example, transfer genetic material and associated
traits to traditional varieties, creating weeds, threatening
ecosystems and harming biological diversity. These impacts are of
special concern to many developing countries, which are home to a
large share of the world's biodiversity, an asset that, among other
things, promises significant economic benefits.
Intellectual property, traditional knowledge and benefit sharing -
many developing countries are concerned that companies from
industrialized countries are patenting genetic material developed by
developing countries without sharing the benefits as required by
Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Food security - may be affected in a number of ways. First,
biotechnology may change the nature, structure and ownership of food
production systems. While biotechnology is often promoted by
agri-business as an answer to the world's food problems, real food
security problems are caused not by food shortages, but by inequity,
poverty and the concentration of food production. Unless carefully
regulated, biotechnology is likely to further consolidate control in
the hands of a few large firms. Second, biotechnology, by increasing
the herbicide resistance of crops, may boost the use of chemicals to
kill weeds, and harm the environment. Third, while biotechnology is
promoted as a way to increase crop yields, the results are at least
currently, inconclusive. Finally, GMOs may also reduce crop
diversity. For instance, biological pollution can occur in the field.
This issue, as well as new technologies such as 'terminator
technology', which renders a crop's seeds sterile, could lead to
serious food security consequences.
Ethical and religious concerns - as biotechnology allows scientists to
move genetic material across species boundaries and allows, for
example, animal genes to be placed in plants, it raises new ethical
and religious concerns. The privatization of life, human cloning and
other possible applications likewise raise major ethical concerns
Human and animal life or health - genetic modification may change the
toxicity, allergenicity or nutritional value of food, and alter
antibiotic resistance, with implications for human and animal life and
heath. Testing GMO products is complex and expensive. Developing
countries may require improved capacity for testing and authorization
of these products.
Consumer's right to know - many consumers, for the reasons discussed
above, prefer not to consume products that are genetically modified
and have a valid claim to being fully informed.
Economic considerations - reports have characterized genetically
modified crops as adding little economic benefit. Genetically
modified seeds, and associated herbicides, are proving expensive and,
in many countries, consumers are indicating a strong preference for
non-genetically modified varieties. The Deutsche Bank recently noted
that "increasingly, GMOs are ... becoming a liability to farmers". In
addition, concerns have been expressed that genetically modified
organisms facilitate greater market concentration, with impacts for
competition and consumer welfare.
The linkages between these policies are complex and need to be
considered holistically to ensure that development goals of developing
countries are adequately reflected in discussions at the WTO and
elsewhere.
End of Box 1
----------------------------------------------
International production and trade in GMO products has increased
rapidly. This increase, however, is currently accounted for by only a
small number of WTO Members. According to one report, between 1996
and 1998, eight countries contributed to more than a fifteen-fold
increase in the global area planted with genetically modified crops.
Currently, 98% of this area is accounted for by three countries - the
United States, Canada and Argentina. These countries now form the core
of a "biotech alliance" that has formed to promote their joint
interests - and those of their large biotech and agribusiness firms -
at the national and international level. The remaining 2% is
accounted for by Australia, Mexico, Spain, France and South Africa.
The five principle genetically modified crops planted in these
countries were (in decending order) soybean, corn/maize, cotton,
canola/rapeseed and potato. The United States (which has agriculture
as its largest trade asset) in 1998 planted 50% of cornfields and 48%
of soy fields with genetically modified varieties. Similarly,
approximately 47% of Canada's canola crop was genetically modified
(See Box 2).
Investment by these countries in biotechnology has occurred against a
backdrop of declining consumer confidence in large export markets,
widespread calls by scientists, consumers and the public for greater
GMO regulation, and reports of declining GMO-related economic
benefits. Having misjudged consumer markets and, arguably,
over-invested in GMO products, GMO-exporting countries are now seeking
to protect their export markets, and to establish a system of
international rules that paves the way for future expansion of their
biotech and agribusiness firms. Pursuing the development of new WTO
disciplines forms an essential part of this strategy.
Currently, few developing countries have invested in genetically
modified crops. However, some may be concerned that biotech and
agribusiness companies may have imported and planted genetically
modified seeds without their knowledge. If so, these countries are
now placed in a difficult position, and may find themselves
simultaneously regulating GMOs at home, while considering whether to
support new disciplines on national regulations at the WTO. In the
coming weeks and months, these countries are likely to come under
significant pressure from the main GMO-exporting countries to join
them to promote new WTO disciplines. In the short term these countries
must protect their market access. Ultimately, however, it may be wiser
to adopt a "wait and see" approach, and to resist the temptation to
join forces with GMO-exporting countries. A number of perspectives
support this view. In terms of export strategy, rapidly changing
consumer markets and negative economic reports suggest that developing
countries may be better advised to characterize themselves as
"GMO-free" alternatives to the main GMO-exporters. In terms of
domestic economic policy, it may be preferable to invest scarce
administrative resources regulating biotech and agribusiness firms to
guarantee competitive agricultural markets, and to maintain sufficient
non- GMO products to satisfy changing consumer markets at home and
abroad. And in terms of environmental policy, it may be wise to enact
strong national environmental rules for GMO products, and to promote
the conclusion of a strong Biosafety Protocol to protect against
GMO-related risks to biodiversity.
----------------------------------------------
Box 2 - Percentage of Acreage Planted with Biotech Crops
1996
1997
1998
United States
Corn
13%
26%
50%
Cotton
9%
16%
39%
Soybeans
7%
23%
48%
Canada
Canola
5%
35%
47%
Corn
0%
3%
38%
Soybeans
0%
6%
Argentina
Soybeans
2%
23%
50%
----------------------------
III. PROPOSALS TO CONSIDER TRADE IN GMOS AT THE WTO
Examination of lawmaking at national and international levels reveals
a consistent pattern of behavior by the governments that have the most
to gain from the biotech industry. As discussed below, to promote
their joint interests, they have systematically advanced national and
international laws that benefit their biotech and agribusiness
industries, and have challenged national and international laws that
burden it. The WTO is no exception to this pattern, and in
preparation for upcoming negotiations three countries - United States,
Canada and Japan - have called for the WTO to consider GMO-related
trade issues.
A. Proposal by the United States
The United States has called for the WTO to address "disciplines to
ensure trade in agricultural biotechnology products is based on
transparent, predictable and timely processes." This proposal provides
little information about the nature or content of new disciplines or
how they may relate to existing commitments in the Agreement on
Agriculture or other WTO agreements. The United States has declared
its firm decision not to seek the reopening of the SPS Agreement, but
will not announce a finalized position on biotech for the Ministerial
until mid-November.
B. Proposal by Canada
Canada has called for the creation of a WTO Working Party on
Biotechnology. It argues that the WTO should "engage in a collective
exercise aimed at establishing how trade and investment in
biotechnology are covered by existing WTO provisions and whether the
latter constitute a sufficiently effective regime from the WTO
perspective." This Working Party would report within one year (two
years within the limit set for future negotiations). It would provide
any conclusions it considers appropriate, and its work would "not be
prejudicial as to the need, or not, of any future negotiations...".
C. Proposal by Japan
Japan argues that the WTO should "establish an appropriate forum to
address new issues, including GMOs". This could form "a sub-group of
an independent negotiating group on agriculture to identify topics on
food- related matters of GMOs" and, according to Japan, could
consider, among other things, whether "the relevant WTO agreements,
such as SPS, TBT and TRIPs ... are capable of responding to
[GMO-related] matters". These proposals are explicitly included in the
draft Seattle Ministerial Text. The Canadian and Japanese proposals go
further than the United States' current proposal. Given the close
history of cooperation between Canada and the United States on this
issue, however, the former's position may be seen as providing the
latter with a good "flank". In the event the Canadian proposal is
unsuccessful, the United States' becomes the obvious "fall-back"
position. Other WTO Members may wish to consider this carefully when
setting their initial negotiating position.
D. What might the "Biotech Alliance" want out of future negotiations?
Currently, the WTO includes no explicit disciplines on national
measures to regulate GMOs. Rather, GMOs are considered along with the
other products that are covered by the multilateral trading system
(see Box 3). However, it is clear from the above proposals, and from
statements at the WTO and elsewhere, that GMO-exporting countries
consider these existing WTO obligations to be insufficient and are
thus likely to seek new WTO disciplines. The ultimate form of these
is unclear. Nevertheless, it is likely that they would be intended to
further constrain the ability of importing countries to regulate GMO
products, and may conceivably include:
-- further disciplines on national GMO approvals to ensure, what is
termed as, "transparent, predictable and timely" processes. This may
involve re- interpretation of the SPS and/or TBT Agreements. The
terms "timely" and "predictable" may, for example, mean undue
constraints for national regulators, who would face deadlines for
dealing with GMO products that may need tie cnsmngtesin
r -ÕHocdrocedures to avoid unpredictable consequences for biodiversity
and environment;
-- additional, so-called, "science-based" disciplines on national GMO
regulatory and labeling schemes. This may, again, involve a re-
interpretation of the SPS and/or TBT Agreements;
--new WTO rules on "investment" in biotechnology (notably the Canadian
proposal mentions both "trade and investment");
--increased WTO protection of intellectual property rights under the
TRIPs Agreement by, for example, encouraging broad acceptance by WTO
Members of UPOV 91;
--other measures targeted at reducing the scope of the Biosafety
Protocol, and forestalling its successful conclusion.
-----------------------------------------
Box 3
Examples of WTO Agreements Having Implications for Trade in GMO
Products
TRIPs Agreement - Article 27.3(b) requires patents on GMOs, but allows
governments to exclude plants and animals from patentability, and to
use sui generis systems, rather than patents, to protect plant
varieties. Whereas GMO-exporting countries would like to increase
intellectual property protection, many developing countries have
called for the Article 27.3(b) exception to be extended.
TBT Agreement - the TBT Agreement includes disciplines on national
technical regulations and standards, including labeling. The TBT
Committee has heard arguments by the United States, Canada and
Argentina, among others, against the European Unions comprehensive GMO
labeling schemes.
SPS Agreement - the SPS Agreement's science-based disciplines apply to
national sanitary and phytosanitary measures, potentially including
those relating to certain food safety issues arising from genetically
modified products.
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - the GATT will apply to trade
in GMO products to the extent that it does not conflict with the other
WTO covered agreements.
Agreement on Agriculture - trade in agricultural products, including
genetically modified ones, are governed by this agreement. The
Agreement on Agriculture, unlike the other agreements, is included in
the "built-in" agenda and may therefore become the selected venue for
attempts by GMO exporting countries to develop new WTO disciplines in
relation to GMO- issues.
-------------------------------------
IV. RELEVANT ACTIVITIES IN OTHER INTERNATIONAL FORA AND RELATIONSHIP
WITH WTO DISCUSSIONS
WTO proposals to consider GMOs must be viewed in light of activities
in other international fora. Because GMOs raise such a variety of
issues - food security, intellectual property, biodiversity, economic
development, health, trade and others - they are being considered in a
number of international institutions. The list below is not
comprehensive, but identifies the most important discussions as they
relate to the WTO. As discussed below, GMO- exporting countries are
working systematically at the Biosafety Protocol negotiations, the
Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Transatlantic Economic
Partnership and in other international fora to promote their joint
interests. The following section discusses the relationship between
these institutions and the WTO. Developing countries must thus ensure
that they follow these developments closely, and coordinate to ensure
that their best interests are represented.
A. The Biosafety Protocol
1. Overview of the Biosafety Protocol Negotiations
The Biosafety Protocol is currently being negotiated under the
auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity to provide rules
for the transboundary movement of "living modified organisms". The
goal of the Protocol is to address the threats posed by GMOs to
biological diversity. To address these threats, early drafts of the
Protocol included measures for the tracking and labeling of GMO
products, and provisions for liability and compensation for
GMO-related environmental damage. These provisions, which were
promoted by developing countries and "like-minded" industrialized
countries, were ultimately removed from recent drafts of the Protocol
under pressure from a small group of GMO-exporting countries known as
the Miami Group.
2. Role of the Miami-Group of GMO-exporting countries
This group, comprising the United States, Canada, Argentina, Uruguay,
Chile and Australia, cited WTO perceived conflicts as a principal
reason for downgrading the Protocol's obligations. In addition to
removing from the most recent version of the text provisions for
labeling, and for liability and compensation, the Protocol's
provisions on "advanced informed agreement" of GMO shipments, and the
Protocol's scope (i.e. the products it covers), were narrowed to
minimize any negative impact on the Miami Group's trade prospects.
Among the Miami Group's goals was to exclude all GMOs destined for
human or animal consumption from the Protocol. In addition, the Miami
Group pushed to include a "savings clause" in the Protocol's text,
with the goal of subordinating the Protocol to the WTO agreements.
After the negotiations recently collapsed in Cartegena, Colombia, the
Biosafety Protocol negotiating group will meet in January 2000 to
reconvene discussions.
3. Considerations for Developing Countries at the WTO
In light of this history, developing countries may wish to give
careful consideration as to how the above proposals to bring biotech
discussions to the WTO may affect the Biosafety Protocol negotiations.
Again, given the early stage of discussions of GMO-related issues at
the WTO, it is difficult to predict how this debate may develop.
Nevertheless, a number of possibilities arise.
First, GMO-exporting countries may seek to use WTO discussions to
further delay the conclusion of the Biosafety Protocol negotiations.
For example, they could argue that the negotiations should be stayed
until the proposed WTO Working Group on Biotechnology has concluded
its "fact finding" work.
Second, WTO disciplines - either existing or new ones - could be used
to further reduce the scope of the Protocol. During the Biosafety
negotiations, the Miami Group sought to narrow the scope of the
Protocol by excluding GMO commodities. A broad definition of
"agricultural biotechnology products" at the WTO may be used to exert
further pressure to reduce the scope of the Biosafety Protocol.
Third, in addition to narrowing its scope, WTO discussions could
conceivably be used to further weaken the Biosafety Protocol's
provisions. For example, new WTO disciplines to ensure the "timely"
approval of shipments of GMO products may cut against the Biosafety
Protocol's provisions on "advanced informed agreement". During the
negotiations, Miami Group members argued that these provisions may
lead to unnecessary delays.
Fourth, any new "science-based" disciplines that are promoted by GMO-
exporting countries may support the Miami Group's efforts to eliminate
the precautionary principle from the Biosafety Protocol. In addition,
new obligations to prove risk before regulating GMO products may be
especially burdensome for developing countries, which may lack the
scientific and technical capacity to test shipments of GMO products.
Fifth, moving GMO issues into the WTO may change the negotiating
dynamic. Considering GMO issues at the WTO may allow GMO-exporting
nations to take advantage of the WTO's pro-trade orientation, to
exploit developing countries limited capacity to coordinate activities
in numerous international fora, and to undermine developing countries'
strong position at the Biosafety Protocol and other international fora
by negotiating anew with trade delegates who have not closely followed
these negotiations.
Finally, as noted above, during the Biosafety Protocol negotiations
GMO- exporting countries are using uncertainty about WTO rules to try
to undercut the Protocol. By bringing GMO issues to the WTO, they
increase the likelihood of their resolving this perceived uncertainty
in their favor by promoting new WTO disciplines. Rather than
requiring new disciplines on national regulation, dealing with
GMO-related risks requires stronger regulation and regulatory
capacity.
B. The Codex Alimentarius Commission
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (of the FAO/WHO) is considering
rules for the labeling of products containing GMOs. Its relevant
body, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, is considering the
adoption of an international standard for GMO labeling that is based
on a "substantial equivalence" test. The discussions at Codex are
important because they may affect the WTO-consistency of compulsory
GMO labeling schemes, and may also illustrate the new GMO-related
disciplines that GMO-exporting countries may seek to introduce through
upcoming WTO negotiations.
1. Codex, the "substantial equivalence" test for GMO labeling, and
"like products"
Under a "substantial equivalence" test, a genetically engineered food
that sufficiently resembles a conventional food product in outward
characteristics would be considered substantially equivalent, presumed
safe and treated the same as the non-genetically engineered food
product. This test, which is promoted at Codex by a small group of
GMO-exporting countries, provides an inadequate basis for regulatory
and labeling schemes. In addition to doubts about its scientific
credibility (the testing requirements for substantial equivalence are
minimal), this approach fails to consider "non-science" factors such
as the consumer's right to know about GMOs for ethical, religious and
other such reasons. In addition, a "substantial equivalence" test may
also threaten the WTO-consistency of national compulsory GMO labeling
schemes.
Interpreted properly, existing WTO rules should not restrict the
ability of national governments to implement GMO labeling schemes.
For example, the WTO's "non-discrimination" obligations, interpreted
properly, will not undermine national GMO labeling because GMO and
non-GMO products are not "like products" as they are physically
dissimilar. This physical difference arises because, as a result of
modification to develop different characteristics, these products
contain DNA and/or proteins that their natural counterparts do not.
To the extent these physical differences cannot be easily ascertained
at the border, "product-related processes and production methods" may
be used to determine whether the products are genetically modified.
Because GMO- and non-GMO products are not "like", a national labeling
scheme that treats them differently should not be characterized as
discriminating between like products.
This interpretation of WTO rules could be threatened if a substantial
equivalence test is adopted at Codex. On the basis of such an
international standard, a WTO dispute settlement panel may decide that
GMO- and "substantially equivalent" non-GMO products are "like
products". Consequently a compulsory labeling scheme that requires the
former, but not the latter, to be labeled could be found to contravene
the WTO TBT Agreement's non-discrimination requirements that forbid
WTO members from distinguishing among like products.
2. An unsound use of "sound science"
So far, the alliance of GMO-exporting countries has been unsuccessful
in their efforts to promote a substantial equivalence test at Codex.
However, in response to the EU and other countries' compulsory GMO
labeling schemes, the United States has called for national labeling
to be based on "sound science". This, in effect, is a call for the
WTO to do what Codex failed to - to require labeling to be based on
limited scientific methods of establishing differences between
organisms, rather than on the precautionary principle or a broader
"consumer's right to know" basis. This proposed use of science to
discipline national GMO-labeling schemes is, however, unsound. A
number of factors support this conclusion.
First, as noted above, "science-based" approaches to labeling fail to
recognize the right of a consumer to know whether a product contains a
GMO for "non-science-based" reasons such as, ethical, dietary and
religious factors.
Second, using "sound science" to deny consumers information about GMOs
may also undermine public support for upcoming WTO negotiations and,
more importantly, for the multilateral trading system itself. The WTO
would likely be characterized as forcing countries to import, and
consumers to consume GMO products against their religious, ethical,
dietary, economic and environmental preferences.
Third, additional science-based disciplines would be especially
burdensome for developing countries, and in particular the least
developed, which may lack the technology, institutional and technical
capacity both to test and label GMO products, and to avert GMO-related
health and environmental damage arising from undiscovered and
dangerous GMO products.
Finally, the use of "sound science" takes one step further the
approach of the Miami Group in the Biosafety Protocol negotiations.
In those negotiations, the group seeks to avoid the development of a
multilateral approach to tracking and labeling GMO products. The use
of science-based WTO disciplines on labeling would limit the capacity
of individual countries to develop comprehensive GMO regulations
unless they could prove a scientific basis for distinguishing GMO from
similar non-GMO products.
C. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
The OECD Working Group on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in
Biotechnology, and its Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and
Feeds, are undertaking a study of the implications of biotechnology.
These groups have the mandate of reporting in 2000 of "ways to improve
our approach to these issues through international and other
institutions, taking into account the reflections underway in other
fora."
This analysis undertaken at the OECD will help prepare industrialized
countries to participate in any WTO Working Group and subsequent
negotiations. Currently, discussion at the OECD are occurring without
substantial developing country input, and are thus unlikely to
adequately consider their interests. Moreover, a lack of similar
discussions and investigations by developing countries may place them
at a significant disadvantage in any future WTO discussions on
biotechnology.
Arguably, to counter pro-biotech arguments at the WTO by GMO-exporting
countries there is a need for developing countries to engage in a
joint examination of the scientific, economic and legal issues
surrounding biotechnology. Adequate preparation would be particularly
important in the event that a WTO Working Group on Biotechnology is
established with a one-year mandate.
D. The Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP)
The TEP has established a Biotechnology Working Group to improve
coordination between EU and US authorization processes for GM
products. The aim is to "benefit Americans and Europeans by reducing
the costs and time required for regulatory approval, and enhancing
trade while ensuring that we maintain high standards of product and
food safety." These countries are considering an "early warning and
problem prevention mechanism" to prevent disputes over GMO trade.
Developing countries may wish to examine US proposals for an early
warning system as this may provide an indication of what the United
States considers "transparent, predictable and timely processes".
E. Other international fora
Other international fora including the FAO and World Bank are
considering GMO-related issues. The work in these fora should be
considered when seeking a comprehensive review of international
GMO-related activity.
V. IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND PRELIMINARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
The substantive and institutional inter-linkages arising from the
development, commercialization and trade in GMO products are complex.
Proposals to bring biotechnology discussions to the WTO threaten to
add to this complexity, and raise serious issues for developing
countries. As noted repeatedly throughout this discussion paper, it
is too early to form precise conclusions about proposals to consider
GMO-related issues at the WTO.
Nevertheless, given the complexity of the issue, and the likelihood
that any future discussions would be unlikely to support the interests
of developing countries, these countries and other WTO Members may
wish to consider the following preliminary recommendations:
A. Recommendations related to the WTO
-- characterize existing WTO disciplines as adequate to deal with GMO-
related issues, and argue that further disciplines are not required;
-- note that Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement allows countries to
invoke the precautionary principle and take provisional measures to
stop imports. It is then incumbent on them to substantiate their
action with the necessary risk assessment. In the area of GMOs, it
should be understood that the burden of proof is on the exporter to
provide adequate scientific evidence that the products are safe;
-- agree that GMO products cannot be treated as 'like products' under
the provisions of the TBT Agreement. Therefore, labeling of GMO
products cannot be challenged as discriminatory under that Agreement.
GMO products are unlike non-GMO products on the basis of the
traditional WTO test for determining likeness of products which
considers: 1) consumer's tastes and habits 2) the products' physical
characteristics and 3) the products properties, nature and qualities;
-- insist that, in view of the linkages between GMOs and IPR
protection, the mandated substantive review of Article 27.3(b) should
be completed soon, and that sufficient time (i.e. 5 years from the
date of completion of the review) should be given to developing
countries to implement this Article. This review should clarify that
plants and animals and microorganisms and other living organisms and
their parts, as well as natural processes for their production are not
patentable. Moreover, national sui generis systems to protect plant
varieties should be compatible with countries` obligations under the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the FAO International
Undertaking for Plant Genetic Resources;
--note Japan's characterization of GMOs as a "new issue" and argue
against the inclusion, through a Working Group or other mechanism, of
such a complex and multifaceted new issue at short notice. The
introduction of broad discussions on GMOs threatens to overburden
developing countries and imbalance the agenda of future negotiations;
--consider any narrower proposals (such as the United States') to
negotiate new rules on agricultural biotechnology products in light of
the broader context of cross-issue and cross-institutional linkages.
Consideration of possible new disciplines, if any, should be preceded
by a successful conclusion of the Biosafety Protocol and balanced by a
comprehensive package of measures for developing countries;
--demand to undertake further study of the impact of agricultural
biotechnology on developing countries in preparation for possible
future WTO discussions. This may be undertaken with the assistance of
relevant international organizations including FAO, UNEP, UNCTAD, UNDP
and CGIAR;
B. Recommendations related to other organizations/initiatives
-- support the Biosafety Protocol negotiations and push for an early
conclusion of this agreement. The Biosafety Protocol provides the
appropriate forum for dealing with the GMO-related threats to
biodiversity and the environment;
-- ensure full coordination at both the national and international
level between trade negotiators that attend the WTO, and environmental
negotiators that attend the Biosafety Protocol as well as other
relevant international fora. Such coordination is essential to ensure
that trade negotiators are fully informed of the implications of
agreeing to consider GMO-related issues at the WTO;
-- take measures to ensure that developing country interests are
adequately considered in ongoing discussions at the OECD, and by the
European Communities and the United States in bilateral discussions.
----------------
Footnotes
In this paper, the term "GMO product" is used to refer both to
products of agricultural biotechnology and, where appropriate, to
other products of biotechnology that are traded within the
multilateral trading system.
See, Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1998, Report by
the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA), www.isaaa.org/frrbief8.htm.
Id.
Whose agenda? The corporate takeover of corn in SE Asia, Biothai,
Grain, Masipag and Pan Indonesia, August 1999, (noting that the
majority of patents on transgenic crops are held by a handful of
companies from the US and Europe, and three companies (DuPont-Pioneer,
Monsanto and Novartis) control the seed trade worldwide. This trend
is likely to exacerbate rather than address food insecurity.)
Id. (noting that, in the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service
has found that Roundup already threatens 74 endangered plant species).
Rosset, P., New York Times, 1 September 1999. A study by Dr.
Benbrook, former director of the Board of Agriculture at the National
Academy of Sciences, recently illustrated that in more than 8,200
field trials, Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds produced fewer bushels of
soybeans than similar natural varieties.
Two recent studies, while still preliminary, point to the need for
caution and for more concrete scientific studies before it is clear
that GMO products are safe for human consumption. In one study, rats
fed with genetically modified potatoes suffered reduced organ weights
and immune damage after 10 days. See, Stanley W.B. Ewen, Arpad
Puszti, Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis. Lancet 1999, 354. A second study,
conducted at Cornell University, illustrated that Monarch butterflies
exposed to pollen from genetically modified Bt corn correlated with a
higher mortality rates among Monarch butterfly larvae. See,
Transgenic pollen harms Monarch larvae, J.E. Losey, Cornell
University, Nature, 399; 214 May 20th, 1999. Suns 4506, 13 September
1999, (noting that scientists from the Institute for Applied Ecology,
Germany,consider that extensive use of antibiotic resistance genes
could increase the frequency of antibiotic resistance in bacterial
pathogens).
For example, seeds have to be purchased every planting season,
undermining the traditional method of saving and exchanging seeds. GM
seeds may also require specially tailored herbicides, which are
expensive. In the United States, the full Roundup Ready system for
soybeans (including weed management) cost farmers approximately 50 per
cent more in 1999 than the costs of planting soybeans in previous
years.
GMOs are Dead, Deutsche Bank Research: Food, Wine and Agribusiness,
May 21, 1999.
supra note 2.
Id.
Id., (note that data for China was not included in this calculation,
and that the area of transgenic crops planted by other nations is too
small to rate in the survey).
Id.
Supra, note 10.
Id.
We note that Japan is not currently a major GMO producing or exporting
nation and so may have a number of interests that differ from Canada
and the United States. However, Japan is currently ranks second in
the world after the United States in the number of biotechnology
products approved by government agencies. Supra, note 10.
Measures Affecting Trade in Agricultural Biotechnological Products,
Communication from the United States, 27 July 1999, para 1,
WT/GC/W/288.
Proposal for Establishment of a Working Party on Biotechnology in WTO,
Communication from Canada, 4 October 1999, para 6. WT/GC/W/359.
Id., para 7.
Proposal of Japan on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs),
Communication from Japan, 4 October 1999, para 4, WT/GC/W/365.
Id., para 6.
Id., para 7.
We note that the Biosafety Protocol negotiations are a
work-in-progress, and therefore these measures could thus be
re-inserted in the text in future negotiations.
For a more detailed discussion of the WTO consistency of GMO labeling
schemes, see Stilwell and Van Dyke, An Activist's Handbook on
Genetically Modified Organisms and the WTO (Consumer's Choice Council,
July 1999).
Japan - Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS11/AB/R at 23 (citing GATT Working
Party on Border Tax Adjustment, adopted on 2 December 1970, BISD
18S/97, 102). In determining the meaning of the terms "like" or
"similar" as used variously in the GATT, the Report of the GATT
Working Party on Border Tax Adjustment also suggested that "... the
interpretation of the term should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
This would allow a fair assessment in each case of the different
elements that constitute a "similar" product. GATT Working Party on
Border Tax Adjustment, BISD 18S/97 at para. 18.
11
16
Mark Ritchie, President
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
2105 First Ave. South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 USA
612-870-3400 (phone) 612-870-4846 (fax)
mrit...@iatp.org www.iatp.org
------------------------------------------
Kristin Dawkins
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
2105 First Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 USA
Central tel: (612) 870-0453 Direct tel: (612) 870-3410
Fax: (612) 870-4846 kdaw...@iatp.org
URL: http://www.iatp.org
jum...@my-deja.com
From: MichaelP <pap...@peak.org>
Subject: WTO News: The Road to Seattle Issue VIII
Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 8:05 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTO News: The Road to Seattle - Issue VIII October 21, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
- Calendars Available on the Web for Seattle Activities
- Possible Seminar Space Available Through WTO
- Invitation for WTO On-line Forum
- Homestays Available During the Seattle Ministerial
- Information on Observing WTO Activities in Seattle
- REVISED List of Biotechnology-Related Events in Seattle
- Global Environment & Trade Study: Public Briefing Series on
Trade & Environment
- Event: November 28: The WTO and the Global War System
- Events: December 1 & December 2: Linkages & Dumping
- Events: Gender & Trade in Seattle
- International Activists Tour U.S. to Counter The World Trade
Organization!
- WTO Seattle Host Organization Releases Calendar of
Business-Related Events
- Council Of European Chambers Of Commerce European Tradeweek
At The WTO Schedule
- Citizen Action Guide to the Environment & The WTO
- LIVE FROM SEATTLE: WORLD TRADE WATCH RADIO
- Foreign Policy in Focus Briefing Paper on the WTO
- NGOs on Government Delegations
- New Books on the WTO
- Recent Press: For Seattle, Triumph and Protest
CALENDARS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB FOR SEATTLE ACTIVITIES
http://www.seattlewto.org/calendar.html (This is a calendar which gives
time, day and contact information in a true "calendar" format)
http://www.ictsd.org/html/seattlecalendar.htm (This is more of a
schedule listing, with some more detailed information given)
POSSIBLE SEMINAR SPACE AVAILABLE THROUGH WTO
WTO has taken 10 rooms at the Madison Hotel in which it will schedule
seminars held by NGO's, upon request. Since many groups want to hold
seminars, it is important to get requests in promptly. Requests should
be made to Bernard Kuiten, mailto:bernard...@wto.org or by
telephone to Geneva: 011-739-52-54.
INVITATION FOR WTO ON-LINE FORUM
The World Trade Organization in conjunction with the World Bank is
organizing an on-line forum on the subject of "Developing Countries
and the Millenium Round". This forum will be held from 11 to 29
October and will be accessible through the joint WTO/World Bank Trade
and Development website (http://www.itd.org).
Expert panelists from the WTO and the World Bank will participate in
the forum.
Registered participants will be able to download a number of
background papers and the forum will be held in English as the
majority of panelists will be English speaking.
You can view the program and consult background papers at
http://www.itd.org/wb/dc_milrou.htm
If you wish to participate in the on-line discussion (comments,
questions etc), please contact mailto:webm...@wto.org for
information on how to register.
HOMESTAYS AVAILABLE DURING THE SEATTLE MINISTERIAL
This from Beth Farmer (mailto:Beth...@aol.com)Earthjustice, WTO
Project
There are several organizations that are collaborating homestay
opportunities for visitors during the Seattle Ministerial. All
homestays are free of charge.
Hotel rooms are practically full and homestay opportunities are
limited to first come/first serve, so if you have not yet made lodging
arrangements for your stay in Seattle, please consider making your
plans now. AND forward this message on to other individuals or groups
that you know are coming.
For domestic visitors and/or activists, please contact Mike Godfree at
People for Fair Trade. Mike can be reached at 206-770-9044
mailto:mgod...@u.washington.edu. People for Fair Trade will offer a
variety of homestay and lodging options including traditional
homestays, student housing, and camping information.
For international visitors, please contact Leslie Deichl at 206 682-
6986, or mailto:lde...@world-affairs.org. The World Affairs Council
is offering to arrange a limited number of homestays, sightseeing,
and/or a meal at a private home in the Seattle area.
If you still would like to find a hotel room, Alesha at Public Citizen
may be able to help. Call her at 202-546-4996 or
mailto:ale...@citizen.org to explore hotel options.
INFORMATION ON OBSERVING WTO ACTIVITIES IN SEATTLE
[This from Nadia Chelafa, mailto:nche...@consint.org]
There will be two locations for observing the open Ministerial
proceedings. A number of observers can be seated at the meeting itself
in the Convention Center, but not all of the 1000-plus who will be
credentialled. Thus, the Madison Hotel Ballroom will be equipped for
seating of the remainder of the credentialled observers to be seated
and to watch proceedings on the large screen from 10 a.m. to the end
of each session.
With respect to the opening day schedule, it is expected that the
opening ceremonies and scheduled speeches will take place in the a.m.
and the opening statements of each Minister who is not on the a.m.
program will commence around 3 p.m.
The Madison Ballroom also will be the site of daily NGO briefings from
8-9:30 a.m. and daily NGO debriefings on the day's activities at 6:30
p.m. In addition, the Madison Hotel will have facilities NGO's may use
for computer hook-ups, faxes and telephones.
-----------------------------
Please note this information is for those NGOs who will be accredited
in Seattle.
REVISED LIST OF BIOTECHNOLOGY-RELATED EVENTS IN SEATTLE
Biotechnology & The WTO: Events for Seattle, USA, November/December
1999
Biotechnology is sure to be a big issue this fall in Seattle when
trade ministers from around the world meet. Trade wars loom over
genetically modified organisms (GMOs); farmers are questioning the
benefits of planting GMO seeds, as food companies are eyeing the
premium in non-GMO products; and seed companies are demanding
segregation of GMO/non-GMO products; consumers are questioning the
safety of GMO products, as well as the increasing corporate control of
the food system…
Many events have already been planned in conjunction with the Third
Ministerial Meeting, and many will include discussions of
biotechnology, biodiversity, intellectual property rights, patenting
of life, the SPS Agreement and other related issues.
On Friday & Saturday, November 26 & 27, the International Forum on
Globalization is sponsoring a two-day Teach-In on Economic
Globalization and the Role of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The
Teach-In will take place at Seattle's Benaroya Symphony Hall. The
Teach- In will include panels, debates and discussions on agriculture,
food safety, the environment, human rights, biotechnology, national
sovereignty, labor rights, culture, public health, and the
increasingly dominant role of global corporations. For more
information, contact the IFG at (1) 415-771-3394, http://www.ifg.org,
mailto:i...@ifg.org
On the afternoon of Sunday, November 28, there will be a gathering of
biotech activists from around the world who are planning on being in
Seattle. This will be a time for activists who have been working on
various issues related to biotechnology to meet and exchange
information about their work. For more information, contact Gabriela
Flora at the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy at (1) 612-870-
3417, mailto:gfl...@iatp.org
On Monday, November 29, NGOs working on environment and health issues
have organized a day of press briefings, speakers, strategy sessions
and actions. These events will take place at Seattle's United
Methodist Church. For more information, contact Mark Vallianatos
(mailto:MValli...@foe.org) or Dan Seligman
(mailto:dan.se...@sierraclub.org).
On Wednesday, December 1, the Council for Responsible Genetics and the
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy are convening a session on
"No Patents on Life: Biotech in the Global Economy." This event will
take place at Seattle's Plymouth Congregational Church. For more
information, contact Phil Bereano at (1) 206-543-9037,
mailto:ph...@uwtc.washington.edu
On Wednesday, December 1, the Consumers' Choice Council will sponsor a
media briefing entitled "GMOs and the WTO: Food for Thought," which
will bring together experts from around the world to examine potential
problems with GMOs in relation to the environment, food security, and
ethics. The event will be held at the Bell Harbor Convention Center
from 2:00pm - 5:00pm. Confirmed participants include: David Bryer,
Executive Director, Oxfam U.K. and Ireland; Dr. Vandana Shiva,
Director, Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Ecology; and
Dr. Mae Won Ho, Reader in Biology, Open University, United Kingdom.
For more information, contact Chad Dobson at (1) 202-785-1950,
mailto:cdob...@attglobal.net
On Wednesday, December 1, the Global Environment & Trade Study will
host a public briefing on resolving the tensions between trade and the
environment, including a discussion of GMOs. This breakfast will take
place from 8:00-9:30am in the East Room of the Renaissance Hotel. For
more information, contact Susan Weuste at mailto:susan....@yale.edu
On Wednesday, December 1, the European Union Trade Forum will be
hosting a session on "Genetically Modified Products, National
Sanctions, British Beef, & American Hormones" in Room 120, Kane Hall,
of the University of Washington at 6:15pm. There will also be a short
reception on the second floor of Kane Hall (tickets $5 for the
reception only) beginning at 5:30. For more information, contact David
Hughes, President of the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce at (1) 425-481-
3669, or mailto:hac...@aol.com
Also on Wednesday, December 1, the Consumer Project on Technology will
be sponsoring an NGO discussion on TRIPS from 10:00am-12:00pm, at the
Madison Hotel. For more information, contact James Love at
mailto:lo...@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org, (1) 202-387-8030.
On Thursday, December 2 the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy
and the International Forum on Food & Agriculture, in conjunction with
ActionAid, Public Citizen and the regional host committee are
sponsoring Food & Agriculture Day. An afternoon strategy-sharing
workshop will be devoted to GMOs and agriculture, and the SPS
Agreement. The morning sessions will take place beginning at 10:00am
at the United Methodist Church, afternoon locations TBA. For more
information, contact Renske van Staveren at (1) 612-870-3423,
mailto:rvanst...@iatp.org
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT & TRADE STUDY: PUBLIC BRIEFING SERIES ON TRADE &
ENVIRONMENT
29 November - 3 December 1999
8:00 am - 9:30 am
Renaissance Hotel · East Room · 515 Madison Avenue · Seattle, WA
Monday, 29 November
Environment in the WTO Round – Setting the Agenda
Moderator: Daniel C. Esty (Yale Center for Environmental Law and
Policy) Maritta von B. Koch-Weser (Director General, World
Conservation Union/ IUCN) Gary Sampson (World Trade
Organization/United Nations University) Phil Condit (CEO, Boeing)*
Tuesday, 30 November 1999
Achieving Win-Win Opportunities
Moderator: Steve Charnovitz (Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering)* Lord Holme
(International Chamber of Commerce)* Beatrice Chaytor (Foundation for
International Environmental Law and Development) Christopher Stone
(University of Southern California Law Center)
Wednesday, 1 December 1999
GMO’s, Turtles and Trees: Can We Avoid Trade Tensions?
Moderator: Mark Ritchie (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy)
Lakshman Guruswamy (University of Tulsa Law School) Ronnie Hall
(Friends
of the Earth, United Kingdom) Business Leader
Thursday, 2 December 1999
WTO Transparency and Governance
Moderator: Ricardo Melendez (International Center for Trade and
Sustainable Development)* Ambassador Tran van Thinh (former EU GATT
Ambassador) Peter Pedersen (World Trade Organization)* Yolanda
Kakabadse (Environment Minister of Ecuador)*
Friday, 3 December 1999
Next Steps from Seattle
Moderator: James Cameron (Foundation for International Environmental
Law and Development) Victor Lichtinger (Especialistas Ambientales S.A.
de C.V., Mexico City) Simon Tay (National University of Singapore)*
Business Leader
* Invited, but attendance not yet confirmed
EVENT: NOVEMBER 28: THE WTO AND THE GLOBAL WAR SYSTEM
Sunday, November 28th 1999
Hildebrand Hall, Plymouth Congregational Church
1212 6th Avenue (at University), Seattle
2:30PM - 5:00PM
This public forum is being organized by peace groups from the U.S. and
Canada, and will examine how the World Trade Organization and economic
globalization prevents efforts to promote peace and human security.
The result is a global war system which drives the arms race and uses
military power to defend corporate interests around the world.
The forum will examine these areas:
1. WTO and economic globalization
2. Weapons corporations and economic conversion
3. Nuclear weapons and their abolition
SPEAKERS
Susan George, Transnational Institute
David Korten, Positive Futures Network
Alice Slater, Abolition 2000/Global Resource Action Center for the
Environment
Steven Staples, Int'l Network on Disarmament and Globalization
MODERATOR
Martin Fleck, Physicians for Social Responsibility.
SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS
Local Organizing Committee:
Northwest Disarmament Committee (USA) and End the Arms Race (Canada).
International Affiliates:
Abolition 2000 Working Group on Corporate Issues
The International Network on Globalization and Disarmament
Admission is free. For information, contact (206) 547-0952 or
mailto:ssta...@randomlink.com.
EVENTS: DECEMBER 1 & DECEMBER 2: LINKAGES & DUMPING
The CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics & Environment and
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy are pleased to announce the
following meeting which they will be organising at the NGO Centre at
Seattle on 1st December 1999
"THE VEXED ISSUE OF LINKAGES"
A Panel Discussion on the issue of linkages of trade with labour
standards or with environmental standards etc. Eminent speakers of
opposing views will debate the matter, which has become quite
controversial. Some of the industrialised countries, and members of
the civil society, are pushing for one or the other issue to be
incorporated into the WTO, while many in the civil society and the
developing countries as a bloc are against the incorporation of any
such standards into the multilateral trade regime. Their fear is that
such standards can be used as protectionist measure. On the other hand
there are many who feel that unless such standards are adopted
liberalised trade would not translate into fair trade. Another section
feels that amending trade rules to include such non-trade issues would
enhance the powers of the WTO, which is anyway quite powerful and
opaque.
Time: 1000hrs-1300hrs on Wednesday 1st December
________________________________________________________________________
The CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics & Environment are
pleased to announce the following meeting which it will be organising
at the NGO Centre at Seattle on 2nd December 1999
"ANTI-DUMPING AND THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM" A Workshop on the
issue of anti-dumping and the dispute settlement system at the WTO.
Increasingly, anti-dumping tool is being "misused" by countries, which
defeats the very purpose of trade liberalisation, and affects the
market access of countries adversely. Proposals to bring in some
tighter discipline on anti-dumping are being resisted. Secondly, the
WTO dispute settlement system has been a source of criticism for its
flaws: interpretation, lack of transparency, and the sheer cost of the
same. On studying dispute settlement vis-à-vis anti-dumping one finds
that anti-dumping issues are excluded from the normal dispute
settlement process. The Agreement on Anti-dumping allows consumer
organisations to submit their views on anti-dumping proceedings at
home, however the right of the civil society to be a part of the
dispute settlement system at the WTO is being resisted by several
developing countries. The resistance has some substance but solutions
need to be found rather than further the undemocratic nature of the
system.
Time: 1000hrs-1300hrs on Thursday 2nd December
VENUE: For both events:
Marion Room,
Renaissance Madison Hotel,
515 Madison Street, Seattle,
Washington 98104
Ph: 1-206-5830300
Fx: 1-206-6228635
Contact: Mr. Raghav Narsalay/ Mr. K.S. Sajeev
Until 28th November
mailto:cut...@jp1.dot.net.in
Ph: 91.141.20 2940/20 5802
Fx: 91.141.20 2968/20 3998
From 29th November to 2nd December
Doubletree Seatac Hotel
Seattle, Washington
EVENTS: GENDER & TRADE IN SEATTLE
The DAWN/Caribbean and Center of Concern project on Gender and Trade
is planning a panel for Tuesday, November 30 on "Southern Perspectives
on Gender and Trade." The panel will be late in the afternoon to avoid
conflict with the Labor Demonstration planned for that day. It will
take place at the Madison. For more information, contact Maria Riley,
Center of Concern, mailto:mri...@coc.org
Diverse Women for Diversity with the co-sponsorship of WEDO and Center
of Concern is planning a Women's evening of celebration at Pike's
Place on December 1, following the NGO Forum Day on Women. Everyone is
invited. Contact Shalini Bhutani mailto:divw...@del6.vsnl.net.in for
more information.
A women's caucus has been scheduled for 9:30 every morning at the
Madison Hotel. The Madison is the NGO center for accredited NGOs. For
more information, contact Maria Riley, Center of Concern,
mailto:mri...@coc.org.
Wednesday, December 1, has been tabbed "Women, Democracy &
Development" Day by the NGOs. Events will take place at the United
Methodist Church, downtown Seattle. For more information, contact
Maria Riley, Center of Concern, mailto:mri...@coc.org
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVISTS TOUR U.S. TO COUNTER THE WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION!
"The Road to Seattle: An Educational Road Show on Corporate
Globalization"
Dozens of women and men from Bangladesh, Bolivia, Canada, Germany,
India, Israel, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, West Papua
and the United States will gather at New York University, Thursday,
October 28, 1999, to kick off an international activist tour of North
America. The focus of the caravan, and its ultimate destination, is
the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, November 29
through December 3. The Gallatin School of Individualized Study at NYU
and the activist group Reclaim the Streets are sponsoring the event.
WHO: The People's Global Action Caravan
WHAT: North American tour kick-off rally in New York City;
Destination: Seattle
WHEN: 7pm, Thursday, October 28, 1999
WHERE: New York University, Main Building, Room 713, 100 Washington
Square East
The caravan consists of international activists and farmers crossing
the United States over the next 6 weeks and stopping in some 20
communities to raise awareness about the downsides of "corporate
globalization." They are part of an estimated 50,000 protesters
expected to turn out for the WTO meeting.
Representing every continent, the activists contend that the upcoming
meeting of the WTO could sow the seeds for the further erosion of
human rights, environmental protections and health and safety
standards. The participants are people who are directly impacted by
corporate globalization. This diverse group represents environmental,
human rights, workers, fishing and farming movements across the globe.
For more information, or to schedule interviews with participants or
organizers, please contact PCAN at (610)478-1888 or
mailto:pgaca...@aol.com or mailto:pgaca...@pcan.org.
###
Christopher James <mailto:cvj...@is8.nyu.edu>
Office of Public Affairs
Media Relations
Gallatin School of Individualized Study
212/998/6876 Voice
212/995/4694 Fax
WTO SEATTLE HOST ORGANIZATION RELEASES CALENDAR OF BUSINESS-RELATED
EVENTS
SEATTLE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 7, 1999--The Seattle Host Organization
(SHO) for the World Trade Organization ministerial November
29-December 3, 1999 today released a calendar of business-related
events to be held this fall in preparation for the global trade
meeting.
These events are open to the public and are sponsored by a range of
local business and trade organizations, in collaboration with SHO.
They cover a variety of topics such as the WTO, access to capital and
global markets for small and medium-sized businesses, how to find a
job in international trade, how to build global business
relationships, and an assessment of trade issues from various regional
perspectives.
"The enthusiasm within the business and trade community to present
programming about trade, careers in international business, resources
for small business, and the WTO has really been impressive," said Liz
Thomas, chair of the SHO Business Outreach Subcommittee. "SHO is
indebted to the hundreds of individuals and organizations in the state
who have made this calendar of events possible."
For more information on these and other events, visit the SHO website
at http://www.wtoseattle.org or contact Jayme White with the Seattle
Host Organization office at 206/770-3150, extension 5103.
COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE EUROPEAN TRADEWEEK AT THE WTO
SCHEDULE
From: Hungarian-American Chamber of Commerce of the Pacific Northwest,
15300 Northeast 163rd Street, Woodinville, WA 98072-8962, Tel/Fax:
425- 481-3669, mailto:HAC...@aol.com
October 11, 1999
Dear Colleagues:
Here is a preliminary attempt to put the Council of European Chambers
of Commerce European Tradeweek at the W.T.O. schedule onto a single
page.
Monday Nov 29 Luncheon hosted by the Dutch American Chamber of
Commerce Speaker and Topic to be Determined;
Tuesday Nov 30 Luncheon hosted by the French American CofC; Speaker: A
Distinguished Member of the French Delegation; Topic: France and the
W.T.O.
Wednesday Dec 1 Luncheon hosted by the Danish, Finnish and Norwegian
CofCs; Speaker: Mr. Knut Vollebek, Norwegian Minister of Foreign
Affairs; Topic: To be Announced.
Wednesday Dec 1 hosted by the Hungarian American CofC; Evening Panel
Discussion Genetically Modified Products, National Sanctions, British
Beef, American Hormones, etc; Panelists: A representative from the
European Union; Professor Matt Sparke, University of Washington;
Thomas Donohoe, President U S Chamber of Commerce (to be confirmed);
and a representative from the USTR (pending decision???); at Kane
Hall,120 UofW; reception followed by panel emceed by Barry Mitzman of
KCTS; WTO briefing by Ms. Istvan Major, Chief Hungarian Delegate to
the WTO, Geneva
Thursday, Dec 2 Luncheon hosted by the German American CofC; Speaker:
A high ranking Member of the German Delegation; Topic: Critical WTO
IssuesRelated to Trade With Germany"
Friday, Dec 3 Luncheon hosted by the Swedish American CofC; Speaker:
Mr. Leif Pagrotsky, Swedish Minister of Trade; Topic: Sweden - The New
World Technology Tiger of the North
Note: All Luncheons are at theSkyline Level in the Space Needle; cost
$35, and require an advance reservation with the respective chamber;
they begin at 1130 hrs and include a briefing on the day’s WTO. The
Panel discussion begins with a reception at 5:30 p.m (1730 hrs).
Tentative Schedule as of Monday October 11, 1999 – David Hughes,
HACofC
CITIZEN ACTION GUIDE TO THE ENVIRONMENT & THE WTO
[This from Beth Farmer, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, WTO project,
mailto:Beth...@aol.com]
I wanted to alert everyone to a new guide released by Friends of the
Earth, entitled "The World Trade Organization and the Environment: A
Citizen Action Guide."
This 14-page guide includes information on forests and the WTO,
finance and the WTO, what you can do, and more. To receive a copy of
the publication, you can contact Friends of the Earth, Tel:
202-783-7400, mailto:f...@foe.org.
LIVE FROM SEATTLE: WORLD TRADE WATCH RADIO
Help get this alternative coverage on your local non-commercial
station!
Syndicated columnist Norman Solomon and veteran radio journalist Julie
Light will co-host World Trade Watch, a series of five daily programs
from the historic WTO Summit in Seattle November 29-Dec. 3, 1999
Find out how you can get your local station to carry WORLD TRADE
WATCH! Programs are FREE to non-commercial stations.
CONTACT US TODAY Telephone: 510-251-1077 mailto:w...@radioproject.org
Co-Produced by CORPORATE WATCH: http://www.corpwatch.org, the NATIONAL
RADIO PROJECT: http://www.radioproject.org, and the INSTITUTE FOR
PUBLIC ACCURACY: http://www.accuracy.org
FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS BRIEFING PAPER ON THE WTO
Foreign Policy in Focus has a 4-page briefing paper available in print
or on the web that is an excellent resource for anyone who wants to be
informed on some of issues surrounding the trade debate. The
following URL links directly to "WTO and Developing Countries" This
essay provides a solid overview of WTO policies and effects on
developing countries.
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol3/v3n37wto.html
Key points in the article:
--The agenda of the WTO, the implementation of its agreements, and the
much-praised dispute settlement system all serve to advance the
interests of developed countries, sidelining those of the developing
countries.
--The least developed countries (LDCs) are marginalized in the world
trade system, and their products continue to face tariff escalations.
--Rules uniformly applied to WTO members have brought about
inequalities because each member has different economic circumstances.
For more information, contact: Tim McGivern, Foreign Policy in Focus,
mailto:irc...@swcp.com, http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org
NGOS ON GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS
This is a list of NGOs that will go as members of their government
delegation. Is anyone from other regions expecting to go in their
government's delegation? Please reply to mailto:rvanst...@iatp.org.
1. WWF representative in British official delegation.
2. Diakonia representative in Swedish official delegation.
3. Greenpeace NL, Netherland.
4. Kepa, Finland
5. MS - Danish Association for International Co-operation, Denmark.
6. ForUm, Norway.
7. Almost certainly NCOS will be included in the Belgian delegation.
8. Still to be confirmed but it is possible that representatives from
Conferderation Paysanne and from NBS will form part of their national
delegation.
NEW BOOKS ON THE WTO
The World Trade Organization: A Citizen’s Guide, by Steven Shrybman
(CCPA/Lorimer publishers)
As environmental lawyer and leading trade specialist Steven Shrybman
says in the preface to his new book on the WTO, "remaining uninformed
about issues that so directly bear on so many aspects of contemporary
life is a luxury no democratic society can afford." His book is a must
read for all who wish to participate in the much needed debate about
international trade in general and the WTO in particular.
The World Trade Organization: A Citizen's Guide is available at major
bookstores in Canada or from the CCPA. Steven Shrybman is Executive
Director of the Vancouver-based West Coast Environmental Law
Association. For more information including an excerpt from the book,
visit the CCPA web site at: http://www.policyalternatives.ca or call:
613-563-1341.
[This from: Bruce Campbell, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives, Suite 410, 75 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1P 5E7
Tel: 613-563-1341 Fax: 613-233-1458
mailto:bru...@policyalternatives.ca http://www.policyalternatives.ca
-------------------------
Book on Human Rights and the WTO
INCHRITI (the International NGO Committee on Human Rights in Trade and
Investment) is to lauch the following book, published in co-operation
with the Global Publications Foundation and ICDA, shortly before the
Seattle Ministerial Conference:
"Human Rights and Economic Globalisation: Directions for the WTO",
Mehra, M. (Ed.), Global Publication Foundation, Sweden. November 1999.
ISBN 91-973739-0-7.
Description:
"Do human rights matter to international trade policy in a
globalising economy? Or are they a distraction better left to
specialist bodies and kept well out of international economic bodies
such as the World Trade Organisation?
Copies of the book, with a Foreword by Mary Robinson, UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, will be given to all Head of
Delegations at the WTO as well Heads of National Commissions for Human
Rights to connect the trade and human rights policy communities.
INCHRITI is also planning other activities at Seattle and beyond -
details will be sent out in due course.
For review copies or more information, please contact: Malini Mehra,
INCHRITI/ PDHRE mailto:malin...@aol.com
------------------------------
Whose Trade Organization Corporate Globalization & the Erosion of
Democracy by Lori Wallach and Michelle Sforza.
Whose Trade Organization is a ground-breaking book which documents the
five year record of the powerful World Trade Organization(WTO). Based
on a year of intensive research, this book reviews the specific cases
and outcomes that have made the WTO increasingly controversial
worldwide. Not one public health, safety or environmental policy that
has been challenged before the WTO has been upheld; all have been
found to be "trade barriers," which must be eliminated. Most Americans
are unaware that such decisions are being made behind closed doors at
the WTO without the most basic due process guarantees.
For more information, contact: Margrete Strand Rangnes, Public Citizen
Global Trade Watch, 215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Washington DC, 20003 USA
mailto:mst...@citizen.org, 202-454-5106
RECENT PRESS: FOR SEATTLE, TRIUMPH AND PROTEST
October 13, 1999
New York Times
By SAM HOWE VERHOVEK
SEATTLE -- When Seattle beat 40 other U.S. cities early this year for
the right to be the host of a meeting of the world's governing trade
organization, local leaders were exultant. Here in what is often
called the most trade-dependent region of the nation, they said the
conference would be a chance to showcase Seattle as a world-class
center of high-tech innovation and a friend to global trade.
All that may still happen when 5,000 delegates and dignitaries from
134 nations -- including President Clinton -- gather to start a new
round of global trade negotiations here in November. Those
negotiations will encompass some of the most politically sensitive
issues facing the world's trading nations, including rules on
agriculture and new technologies. But it is increasingly clear that
the largest free-trade meeting ever held in this country has also
become a giant protest magnet for a broad array of environmental,
labor and other groups that say the trade body is a handmaid to
corporate interests whose authority should be sharply curtailed.
Three hundred groups are vowing to bring 50,000 people or more to
downtown Seattle to picket, demonstrate, hold teach-ins and cause
general disruption during the Nov. 30-Dec. 3 meeting that could turn
the city's streets into a carnival of protest and, perhaps, a morass
of gridlock.
It is a sign of how crucial trade issues have become to average people
that a meeting once might have excited only policy experts now has
drawn the attention of a cross-section of America that includes
farmers, fishermen and assembly-line workers.
The W.T.O. has already been entangled in spats over items that include
Caribbean-grown bananas, hormone-fed beef from the United States, gas
refined in Venezuela and Japanese imported liquor.
Even more contentious issues loom: over loss of price supports for
American farmers and over rulings about what kinds of genetically
modified foods countries can offer to consumers on supermarket
shelves.
Underlying all the individual issues is a fundamental disagreement
about the proper role of the trade organization. Proponents say it
serves a crucial role in bolstering the world economy by tearing down
trade barriers all over the globe. But opponents believe that the
W.T.O. is using its power as an arbiter in trade disputes to
systematically undermine laws passed by various countries to promote
health, food safety, environmental protection and better working
conditions.
It is from those diverse concerns that a vigorous protest movement has
emerged. Just how extensive or disruptive any protests will be is
difficult to gauge, partly because even the groups themselves, more
than 300 at latest count, are not exactly of one mind. Some say they
have no plans to be unduly raucous and simply want their perspective
to be heard by the trade negotiators, while others are boasting that
their goal is to bring the city to a standstill with guerrilla-like
tactics like scaling skyscrapers to unfurl huge banners, lying in the
street to stop traffic or chaining themselves to buildings and trees.
But the city is already budgeting $6 million for a major security
operation and Mayor Paul Schell, noting the potential for disruption,
has taken to joking: "I'm hoping for rain, frankly." While Seattle is
indeed likely to get some rain at that time of year, it may not dampen
the fervency of the protesters.
"I'm in the camp that wants to shut the W.T.O. down," explained John
Sellers, director of the Ruckus Society of Berkeley, Calif., which
recently helped to lead what was called a "Globalize This!" training
session for protesters at a farm near the Cascade Mountains, outside
Seattle.
"I think this is the largest gathering of unaccountable corporate
power that has ever occurred on this planet, and it should be
stopped," said Sellers, who described his group as "open to work with
anyone who is working for progressive social change on the left side
of the spectrum."
In some ways, the protesters have already scored important victories
and in Seattle, a city with a long history of union activity and a
decidedly favorable bent toward environmental causes, they are clearly
generating some sympathy. The local King County Council, for instance,
recently haggled over and nearly failed to approve wording for a
routine resolution of welcome to the W.T.O. delegates.
"I was thrilled when Seattle was selected," said Michael Dolan, a
field organizer for the protesters, who is deputy director of the
Global Trade Watch program of Public Citizen, a group founded by Ralph
Nader. "It's almost like they're giving us home-field advantage. There
are great labor unions here, great labor energy, all these
environmentalists."
The protesters have commanded the attention of local news
organizations and, in what was clearly a bid to defuse some of the
potential for conflict, the Clinton administration has taken the
unusual step of pressing the W.T.O.'s leaders to hold a one-day
meeting just before the conference gets under way to listen to the
protester's concerns. The president also plans to send several members
of his cabinet to Seattle in the weeks before the conference to talk
up the benefits of free trade.
The new director-general of the Geneva-based trade body, former New
Zealand Prime Minister Mike Moore, was in Seattle earlier this month
and used a forum at the University of Washington to concede that the
trade body had not done an adequate job of explaining its mission to
the public.
"I thought the case had been made," Moore said. "But I guess we have
to back up the truck and explain how we got here. We've never reached
out."
Advocates for the five-year-old trade organization and the 1948
framework pact that preceded it, the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, known as GATT, say it is helping to bolster the world economy
and lift workers out of poverty by bringing down barriers to trade all
over the globe.
But opponents believe the W.T.O. is using its power as an arbiter to
systematically undermine laws passed by various countries to promote
health, food safety, environmental protection and better working
conditions.
In just one such case, several Asian nations won a preliminary ruling
from the trade organization last year after they charged that the U.S.
laws intended to protect sea turtles from shrimpers' nets unfairly
blocked their exports to U.S. markets. The protesters also say a
ruling in favor of Venezuelan gas exporters had the effect of
weakening anti-pollution laws in the United States.
"The record of the W.T.O. speaks for itself," said Jeremy Madsen, an
organizer with the Citizens Trade Campaign, a coalition of dozens of
groups opposed to the W.T.O.. "It's not something that is beneficial
for workers, it's not beneficial for the environment. It has an
atrocious impact on everyone but the elite, the very wealthy."
Business groups, clearly alarmed at the attention the protesters have
already generated here, plan to organize their own campaign to promote
the benefits of free trade. However, as a spokesman for one such group
said, they do not exactly plan to rappel down the Space Needle to
explain their point of view and therefore may not draw as much
attention.
"I think the story in terms of media coverage is that we do pretty
well in print, but we lose big-time on the pictures," said Scott
Miller, a lobbyist with Procter & Gamble who is chairman of the United
States Alliance for Trade Expansion, a group backed by business and
based in Washington, D.C. "That will continue to be the dynamic."
Some opponents of the trade organization say the organization has
adopted secretive operating rules that are practically forcing critics
into public protests. Even when Moore came to Seattle on his scouting
trip, he was met with protesters who carried signs that said "Stop
child labor now" and "No globalization without representation."
"There isn't all that much left, really, because the system is so
closed," said Patti Goldman, managing lawyer of the Earthjustice Legal
Defense Fund, an environmental group. "It isn't democratic. There's no
participation process for the public to play a role. That is a
fundamental problem."
Schell, among others, is clearly walking a bit of a political
tightrope, but he says he simply wants to make sure that the city is a
good host to both those attending the trade conference and those who
come here to protest it.
"I've been on the other side of the picket lines, and so have a lot of
people here," the mayor said in an interview. "They need to be heard.
Seattle likes hosting these kinds of things. We see ourselves as an
open city, a center for creative debate.
"Now," he added, "one of the things I'm going to try to convey to the
protesters is that they are more likely to be effective if they find
the right ways to be heard. People listen better when they're not
being shouted at."
Madsen of the Citizens Trade Campaign said the protests would be
respectful.
"The intention of everyone involved is to have a very peaceful event,
or series of events, that really speak to the issues," he said. "The
goal is not really to disrupt the city per se. Traffic probably is
going to get clogged, it's going to be hard to get downtown. But a lot
of that won't have anything to do with us, it will have to do with
security perimeters set up by the police, the FBI. The potential for
real catastrophe is being greatly exaggerated."
But with such a widespread call to protest, and with some groups
already vowing disruption, the potential is certainly there, said Walt
Crowley, a local author and director of a Web site of Seattle history,
historylink.org.
"Clearly the labor movement, the environmental movement, and other
interest groups have legitimate concerns and even grievances with the
W.T.O.," said Crowley.
"They're trying to reform a process and the structures for guiding
international trade, they're not trying to blow them up," he said.
"But they kind of have a protest going on with festival seating, which
means you really have no control over who's sitting next to you. And I
think there's some anxiety that the theatrics of protest are going to
eclipse the content."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to WTO News: The Road to Seattle, send an
email to list...@iatp.org. In the body of the message
write: subscribe road_to_seattle. To unsubscribe, send an
email to list...@iatp.org, with the message unsubscribe
road_to_seattle.
The full text searchable archives to this and other news
bulletins produced by IATP can be viewed on the World Wide
Web at: http://www.newsbulletin.org.
Submissions to the Road to Seattle should be sent to Renske
van Staveren at: rvanst...@iatp.org, or faxed to Renske
at: (1) 612-870-4846.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to Use this Mailing List
You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the
road_to_seattle mailing list.
To unsubscribe, please send an email to list...@iatp.org. In the body
of the message type: unsubscribe road_to_seattle
For a list of other commands and list options, please send email to
list...@iatp.org. In the body of the message type: help
For other questions email sup...@iatp.org
jum...@my-deja.com
Re: RITALIN: Violence Against Boys
Author: Duane Phinney <geno...@fdt.com>
Date: 1999/11/14
Forum: alt.conspiracy
I can not stand child abuse especially by people who engage in it
through ignorance.
For every Doctor that you can quote that supports psycho drugs I can
quote two that oppose it. It's all about control or not being
bothered.
Bob Horn <rho...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> Your interpretation. The courts do not see it that way. Who the hell
> are you to tell me what's right anyway?
>
> Duane Phinney <geno...@fdt.com> wrote in message
>> Sounds like you are bragging about child abuse.
>>
>> Bob Horn <rho...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> What a crock of shit. My son has been on Ritalin for 8 years.
>>>
>>> <ll...@a-albionic.com> wrote in message news:...
>>>>
>>>> Forwarded from the New Paradigms Project
>>>> [Not Necessarily Endorsed]:
>>>> From: Ian Goddard <I...@Goddard.net>
>>>> To: igod...@erols.com <igod...@erols.com>
>>>> Subject: RITALIN: Violence Against Boys
>>>> Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 3:52 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Massachusetts News Prints Scathing Review of Ritalin
>>>>
>>>> (see: http://www.massnews.com/vioboy.htm)
>>>>
>>>> It's good to see a media source with the guts and moral
>>>> integrity to call the epidemic coercive and unethical
>>>> doping of children exactly what it is: "VIOLENCE."
>>>> (See my argument that it violates The Nuremberg
>>>> Code: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/nazi-rit.htm)
>>>>
>>>> The fact that almost all the children being targeted
>>>> for suppression by Ritalin are boys is a clue as to
>>>> what's happening: boyhood is being defined as an illness.
>>>> Having failed to heed the warnings of Dr. Thomas Szasz
>>>> (http://www.enabling.org/ia/szasz/index.html), the
>>>> psychiatric label game is entrapping an ever-larger
>>>> segment of society, subjecting more and more people
>>>> to the brain-disabling treatments of psychiatry. Hit
>>>> with a psychiatric label, a target is psychologically
>>>> injured, a drug is then offered as the cure, but the
>>>> addictive drug is a trap that, by inducing injurious
>>>> brain disfunction, renders the subject helpless and
>>>> at the mercy of the psychiatric establishment.
>>>>
>>>> One of the most important thinkers of our time,
>>>> Peter Breggin, MD, as defined this scenario:
>>>>
>>>> "I have coined the term iatrogenic helplessness
>>>> and denial (IHAD) to designate the guiding
>>>> principle of biopsychiatric interventions. It
>>>> describes how the biological psychiatrist uses
>>>> authoritarian techniques, enforced by brain-
>>>> disabling interventions, to produce increased
>>>> helplessness and dependency on the part of the
>>>> patient.
>>>>
>>>> "Iatrogenic helplessness and denial include the
>>>> patient's and the doctor's mutual denial of the
>>>> damaging impact of the treatment, as well as
>>>> their mutual denial of the patient's underlying
>>>> psychological and situational problems. Overall,
>>>> iatrogenic helplessness and denial account for
>>>> the frequency with which psychiatry has been
>>>> able to utilize brain-damaging technologies,
>>>> such as electroshock and psychosurgery, as
>>>> well as toxic medications."
>>>>
>>>> "Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry,"
>>>> page 11 (http://www.breggin.com/prbbooks.html)
>>>>
>>>> And now here's the article from The Massachusetts News
>>>>
>>>> =============== THE MASSACHUSETTS NEWS ==================
>>>>
>>>> ========== http://www.massnews.com/vioboy.htm ===========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RITALIN: VIOLENCE AGAINST BOYS
>>>>
>>>> Drug is being used to sedate active, young boys
>>>>
>>>> November 1--If Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer were in
>>>> a school in Massachusetts today, they'd be drugged with
>>>> Ritalin, according to many psychiatrists and other
>>>> experts.
>>>>
>>>> The drug is being used to sedate active, young boys
>>>> because the teachers are unable to relate to them. It
>>>> is in the same psychoactive category as cocaine.
>>>>
>>>> Somewhere between 29,000 and 48,000 children in
>>>> Massachusetts' public schools are operating under the
>>>> influence of Ritalin -- and they are almost all boys.
>>>>
>>>> The income to the drug company is between $30 to $60
>>>> per month per medicated child.
>>>>
>>>> A prominent psychiatrist tells Massachusetts News that
>>>> one of the key problems for children today, which may be
>>>> causing the increase in the number of children diagnosed
>>>> as mentally ill, is the increase in fatherless families.
>>>>
>>>> He is Dr. Peter Breggin, director of the International
>>>> Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology in
>>>> Bethesda, Maryland, who published an article in The
>>>> Boston Globe last month on its editorial page under the
>>>> headline, "Kids Are Suffering Legal Drug Abuse." However,
>>>> it did not mention the gender problem. Breggin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "In a society that's supposed to accept and even value
>>>> differences, drugging shy children reflects an extreme
>>>> of enforced conformity...
>>>>
>>>> "We are the first adults to handle the generation gap
>>>> through the wholesale drugging of our children. We may be
>>>> guaranteeing that future generations will be relatively
>>>> devoid of people who think critically, raise painful
>>>> questions, generate productive conflicts, or lead us to
>>>> new spiritual and political insights."
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Breggin tells Massachusetts News that most children
>>>> who have been labeled as having "Attention Deficit
>>>> Disorder," don't get enough attention from their fathers.
>>>> The parents may be divorced. Or the dads are preoccupied
>>>> with their work or other things.
>>>>
>>>> "The 'cure' for these children is more rational and
>>>> loving attention from their dads," says Breggin. "Young
>>>> people are nowadays so hungry for the attention of a
>>>> father that it can come from any male adult. Seemingly
>>>> impulsive, hostile groups of children will calm down when
>>>> a caring, relaxed and firm adult male is around."
>>>>
>>>> Many of these children are receiving Ritalin from their
>>>> school nurse. It is supposed to help these hyperactive
>>>> youngsters focus on their work.
>>>>
>>>> Yet whether the drug is even needed isn't clear; doctors
>>>> and scientists are split on the issue. And many critics
>>>> worry that mothers and fathers, schools and doctors may
>>>> be medicating kids who only need traditional discipline
>>>> and love -- not a pill.
>>>>
>>>> New York Times Writes About Massachusetts' Problem
>>>>
>>>> The New York Times wrote a story earlier this year about
>>>> the problem that these drugs are causing for overworked
>>>> school nurses in Massachusetts.
>>>>
>>>> Janet Douglass, a director of the School Health Institute
>>>> at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, said that
>>>> in a recent visit to a nearby elementary school she had
>>>> been struck by the overall level of medication.
>>>>
>>>> "I think they give out more psychotropic medication than
>>>> a psych hospital did when I did psych," she said. "Not
>>>> just Ritalin, but heavy-duty psychiatric medications."
>>>>
>>>> The Times reported that a survey of Boston schools showed
>>>> that the nurses had given about 200,000 doses of
>>>> medication. "But school officials said the survey was
>>>> imperfect and the actual number of doses was probably
>>>> higher."
>>>>
>>>> The exact number of Massachusetts children on Ritalin
>>>> isn't known because no one apparently keeps track of the
>>>> prescriptions except the drug makers, and they're not
>>>> talking.
>>>>
>>>> Abuse in New England Prep Schools
>>>>
>>>> The abuse of Ritalin as a recreational drug is also a
>>>> problem. It was first seen in New England prep schools,
>>>> according to Dr. Eric Heiligenstein, head of psychiatry
>>>> for the University of Wisconsin Health Services.
>>>>
>>>> "Ritalin abuse was first noticed at New England prep
>>>> schools where access is easy because so many students
>>>> have Ritalin prescriptions -- often not warranted by
>>>> medical need." According to the DEA, at least one in 30
>>>> Americans between ages 5 and 19 has a Ritalin
>>>> prescription.
>>>>
>>>> Because it has nearly the same chemical makeup as cocaine
>>>> and speed, Ritalin is often abused. The U.S. Drug
>>>> Enforcement Administration reports that Ritalin "ranks in
>>>> the 'Top 10' controlled drugs stolen from doctors and
>>>> pharmacies." Kids crush the Ritalin pills into powder and
>>>> snort it or inject it.
>>>>
>>>> Last fall, four youths allegedly stole 27 bottles of
>>>> pills from the nurse's office at Westford Academy,
>>>> reported the Boston Herald. Sixteen of the bottles
>>>> contained Ritalin. Other bottles held the depressant
>>>> Lorazepam. In 1996, a girl at Duxbury High School
>>>> overdosed on Ritalin and was hospitalized. With more
>>>> public schools handing out Ritalin to more and more kids,
>>>> there's more drug abuse. Some students even sell their
>>>> Ritalin prescriptions.
>>>>
>>>> A Harvard undergraduate, "David Green," says that he
>>>> frequently snorted Ritalin to help speed through his
>>>> homework. "In all honesty, I haven't written a paper
>>>> without Ritalin since my junior year in high school,"
>>>> said Green. "I even wrote my Harvard essay on it. It
>>>> keeps you up when you're tired, and makes you much more
>>>> aware of what you're doing. Although there are certain
>>>> risks involved, I think it's worth it."
>>>>
>>>> Another Harvard student, Nick Grossman, said that he knew
>>>> many Ritalin abusers at Harvard. "It was largely a prep
>>>> school drug, and it spread out from there," he said. "I
>>>> know a lot of people who do it."
>>>>
>>>> A recent study by researchers at the University of
>>>> California at Berkeley -- a study of 500 children over 26
>>>> years -- found that Ritalin is basically a "gateway" drug
>>>> to other drugs, in particular, cocaine. Lead researcher
>>>> Nadine Lambert, as reported in the Wall Street Journal,
>>>> concluded that Ritalin "makes the brain more susceptible
>>>> to the addictive power of cocaine and doubles the risk of
>>>> abuse."
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Breggin says: "Our society viewed with loathing those
>>>> who 'pushed' stimulant drugs on children. Yet today,
>>>> there are more children taking Ritalin and amphetamine
>>>> from doctors than ever received them from illegal
>>>> pushers."
>>>>
>>>> The Problem -- Not The Solution
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Breggin tells Massachusetts News: "These drugs can
>>>> make you psychotic. They can cause the same problems
>>>> they're supposed to treat -- inattention, hyperactivity
>>>> and impulsive behavior."
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, other sources show that the number of Ritalin
>>>> users nationwide keeps going up every year -- about 4
>>>> million kids today, up from 1 million in 1990. Production
>>>> of Ritalin is way up, as well -- a 700% increase since
>>>> 1990, according to the New York Times.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Breggin, author of Talking Back to Ritalin and
>>>> co-author of Talking Back to Prozac, says that, "Ritalin
>>>> does not correct biochemical imbalances -- it causes
>>>> them. Pediatricians, parents and teachers are not aware
>>>> of these hazards because a large body of research
>>>> demonstrating the ill effects of this drug has been
>>>> ignored and suppressed in order to encourage the sale of
>>>> the drug. . Parents and teachers and even doctors have
>>>> been badly misled by drug company marketing practices.
>>>> Drug companies have targeted children as a big market
>>>> likely to boost profits -- and children are suffering as
>>>> a result."
>>>>
>>>> More than 90% of Ritalin's market is in the United
>>>> States, which says something about how Ritalin is viewed
>>>> by health officials in other countries, said Breggin.
>>>> Ritalin was banned in Sweden in 1968 because it was
>>>> abused. Ritalin is rarely prescribed in Britain. In
>>>> March, the United Nations advised the World Health
>>>> Organization to investigate the use of Ritalin.
>>>>
>>>> Causing Tragic Violence?
>>>>
>>>> Ritalin and related drugs pushed in public schools are
>>>> being watched more closely now for tragic reasons. While
>>>> a direct link between violent behavior and the use of
>>>> Ritalin has not been proven, observers have concerns.
>>>> Consider the following:
>>>>
>>>> *** Shawn Cooper, a 15-year-old sophomore at Notus
>>>> Junior-Senior High School in Notus, Idaho, fired a
>>>> shotgun at his fellow students in April. Cooper was on
>>>> Ritalin.
>>>>
>>>> *** Thomas Solomon, a 15-year-old at Heritage High School
>>>> in Conyers, Georgia, shot and wounded six classmates in
>>>> May. Solomon was on Ritalin.
>>>>
>>>> *** Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old at Thurston High School in
>>>> Springfield, Oregon, killed his parents and two
>>>> classmates and wounded 22 other students last year.
>>>> Kinkel was on Ritalin and Prozac, an anti-depressant.
>>>>
>>>> *** Eric Harris, one of the Columbine High School
>>>> killers, was on the anti-depressant drug Luvox.
>>>>
>>>> *** Rod Matthews, 14, beat a classmate to death with a
>>>> baseball bat in 1986 in Canton, Massachusetts. Matthews
>>>> had been on Ritalin since the third grade.
>>>>
>>>> Yale researchers, as published in the March 1991 Journal
>>>> of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
>>>> Psychology, found in their study of Prozac at least one
>>>> 12-year-old who started having nightmares. What about?
>>>> The boy dreamed of killing his classmates at school until
>>>> he himself was shot. The researchers took the boy off
>>>> Prozac and he recovered. Then they put him back on the
>>>> drug, apparently thinking that the anti-depressant could
>>>> not have caused the nightmares. Once drugged again, the
>>>> boy started to have acute suicidal thoughts and
>>>> tendencies.
>>>>
>>>> The Yale researchers don't talk about this now, said
>>>> Breggin. Ritalin Basics According to the PDR, the
>>>> Physician's Desk Reference, "Ritalin is a mild central
>>>> nervous system stimulant and is used in the treatment of
>>>> attention deficit disorders." The PDR warns that patients
>>>> with a history of drug addiction or alcoholism should be
>>>> given Ritalin with caution "because such patients may
>>>> increase dosage on their own." PDR further states that,
>>>> "Long-term abuse can lead to tolerance and mental
>>>> dependence with varying degrees of abnormal behavior."
>>>>
>>>> Ritalin side effects may include an inability to fall
>>>> asleep and stay asleep, as well as nervousness. Other
>>>> side effects include: loss of appetite, abdominal pain,
>>>> weight loss and abnormally fast heartbeat. Some of the
>>>> less common side effects include: chest pain, dizziness,
>>>> headache, hives, jerking, pulse changes, skin rash,
>>>> Tourette's syndrome, severe and multiple twitching and
>>>> writhing movements.
>>>>
>>>> Ritalin should not be used in children under six years
>>>> old, says the PDR, because the "safety and effectiveness
>>>> in this age-group have not been established." PDR goes on
>>>> to state that "suppression of growth has been reported
>>>> with the long-term use of stimulants (the category of
>>>> which Ritalin is included)."
>>>>
>>>> Terrible side effects
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Breggin is more blunt. In his 1998 book, Talking Back
>>>> to Ritalin, he lists the following potential side effects
>>>> of the drug:
>>>>
>>>> *** Decreased blood flow to the brain, an effect recently
>>>> shown to be caused by cocaine where it is associated with
>>>> impaired thinking ability and memory loss.
>>>>
>>>> *** Disruption of growth hormone, leading to suppression
>>>> of growth in the body and brain of the child.
>>>>
>>>> *** Permanent neurological tics, including Tourette's
>>>> syndrome.
>>>>
>>>> *** Addiction and abuse, including withdrawal reactions
>>>> on a daily basis.
>>>>
>>>> *** Psychosis (mania), depression, insomnia, agitation
>>>> and social withdrawal.
>>>>
>>>> *** Possible shrinkage (atrophy) or other permanent
>>>> physical abnormalities in the brain.
>>>>
>>>> *** Worsening of the very symptoms the drug is supposed
>>>> to improve, including hyperactivity and inattention.
>>>>
>>>> *** Decreased ability to learn.
>>>>
>>>> The Food and Drug Administration classifies Ritalin
>>>> (methylphenidate) as a Schedule II substance. These
>>>> substances include: amphetamines, cocaine, morphine,
>>>> opium and barbiturates. Ritalin is more regulated in
>>>> other countries compared to the United States. America
>>>> consumes five times as much Ritalin as the rest of world
>>>> combined. In addition to the ongoing investigation by the
>>>> World Health Organization, the U.N. International
>>>> Narcotics Control Board has issued two official warnings
>>>> about America's apparent dependence on Ritalin.
>>>>
>>>> While about 4 million U.S. kids regularly take Ritalin,
>>>> the Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that about
>>>> 8 million kids and adults will be on the drug in 2000.
>>>> (About 90% of all Ritalin prescriptions are for kids.)
>>>> The average Ritalin script runs between $30 and $60 a
>>>> month. Most health insurance plans provide coverage for
>>>> Ritalin and Attention Deficit Disorder treatment.
>>>>
>>>> ========== http://www.massnews.com/vioboy.htm ==============
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms
>>>> Discussion List,
>>>> not necessarily endorsed by:
>>>> ***********************************
>>>> Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research
>>>> (POB 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy
>>>> research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum.
>>>> Quarterly journal, book sales,
>>>> rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly
>>>> Update Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs,
>>>> & resources.
>>>> To Discuss Ideas:
>>>> mailto:ll...@a-albionic.com http://msen.com/~lloyd/
>>>> For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
>>>> mailto:ja...@a-albionic.com
>>>> http://a-albionic.com/formaddress.html
>>>> For Discussion List:
>>>> mailto:majo...@mail.msen.com
>>>> text in body: subscribe prj <yo...@email.address>
>>>> **FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <frees...@a-albionic.com> **
>>>> Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html>
>>>> Every Diet Has Failed! What Can I do?
>>>> Click Below to "Ask Dr. Kathleen"!
>>>> http://www.radiantdiet.com/cgi-bin/slim/deliver.cgi?ask-1364
>>>> ***********************************
>>>
>>
>
================================================================
http://www.ndez.com/html/ndcurhor.html
--------------------------------------
Current Events UPDATED
10/6/99
Hormonally Challenged
By Michael Fumento
The American Spectator
Michael Fumento's article on the "endocrine disrutpion theory" is a
must-read for anyone concerned about junk science and its impact on
our society.
Alarmists claim man-made chemicals called "endocrine disrupters" are
causing widespread birth defects and lower sperm counts. Now an
authoritative report shows those warnings to be mostly hype. But don't
tell that to politicians or the press.
The hit film The Blair Witch Project took eight days to film, had
three actors, cost $35,000, and did exactly what it was supposed to:
make a box-office fortune while scaring the pants off viewers.
Contrast that with the new report by the nation's most respected body
of health science researchers, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
on what is probably the most volatile and terrifying environmental
issue of our day: chemicals that can harm the body's hormonal system.
It took four years to prepare, had 16 panelists, cost $1 million, and
yet too often came to conclusions resembling a Rorschach blot.
That's a shame, because it was the best opportunity to counter a
movement that would have us spend hundreds of billions a year for the
privilege of losing some of our useful chemicals and the products they
produce, including 95 percent of all U.S. baby bottles, vital drugs,
and medical equipment, and the pesticides that help make our food
prices the lowest in the world while keeping other nations'
populations from starving.
Nonetheless, the NAS report did contain enough scientific conclusions
to box the ears of the endocrine alarmists. Fill in the blanks with
the rest of what we've learned, and you find that this explosive
controversy is a dud for any creature able to read these words.
THE LITTLE BOOK OF HORRORS
"Endocrine disrupters," or to use the NAS report's more accurate term,
" hormonally active agents" (HAAs), took their place firmly in
America's collective cranial cavity - the part that generates fear -
with the publication of Our Stolen Future in 1996. World Wildlife Fund
zoologist Theo Colborn was chief author; his co-authors were Boston
Globe reporter Dianne Dumanoski, and J.P. Meyers of the
environmentalist W. Alton Jones Foundation. The Jones Foundation,
which gives millions each year to groups that support the endocrine
disrupter thesis, supported both the writing and promotion of the
book.
In the foreword, Vice President Al Gore calls it the next Silent
Spring, referring to Rachel Carson's 1962 book that kicked off the
environmentalist campaign against synthetic chemicals. But while
Silent Spring (and the environmental movement to date) had focused on
cancer, Our Stolen Future was an implicit acknowledgment that the
cancer campaign was faltering scientifically and that it was time for
a new gig.
And what a gig! According to the book's subtitle alone, our fertility,
intelligence, and even survival are threatened by these HAAs.
Virtually any real or possible human or animal health problem may be
blamed on these chemicals, including cancer, birth defects, falling
sperm counts, lesbian seagulls (giving rise to the term "gender
benders" for HAAs), and alligators with shrunken members.
Colborn's warnings are often terrifying. Just a bit too late for
Halloween of 1997 she told a convention in San Francisco: "There is
overwhelming evidence today that every unborn child will be exposed to
man-made chemicals that will prevent them from becoming healthy, whole
children."
As to what exposes us to these chemicals, the list is as broad as the
spectrum of alleged harms. It includes many pesticides, PVC (vinyl)
and other plastics, plastic softeners like phthalates,
pharmaceuticals, pipes, paints, tin cans, car interiors, dental
sealants, detergents, and cosmetics.
In the past year alone, products containing actual or alleged HAAs
have been the focus of major environmentalist group fear fests
concerning soft plastic toys, teethers, clear plastic baby bottles,
plastic wraps and containers used in cooking, and medical devices such
as blood bags and tubing. ABC's 20/20 and the increasingly politicized
Consumer Reports have proved invaluable allies in these efforts.
Yet aside from perhaps a few dozen chemicals, nobody has any idea of
how many man-made HAAs there are, much less whether they can cause
problems, or what doses would be required to cause them. Even for
those few dozen, labeling them HAAs is overly simplistic because their
hormonal influence depends on the dose, the type of animal exposed,
and other factors. Is a hammer a deadly weapon? Depending on the
circumstances, the answer can be either yes or no.
But in the of Colborn's book and a Tulane University study released in
the prestigious journal Science three months later that received
massive, unquestioning media coverage (Associated Press: "Study Finds
Combined Pesticides Are Incredibly More Dangerous"), Congress ordered
the EPA to begin testing upwards of 86,000 different chemicals.
While it was no doubt sheer coincidence that W. Alton Jones provides
heavy funding to the Tulane program, no lab could replicate the study
and eventually the researchers had to publish a retraction. But
Congress didn't retract its legislation, the media largely ignored the
Tulane retraction, and the EPA insisted it wanted to proceed.
Nevertheless, the agency has found itself utterly unable to decide on
how to do the initial screening, and testing has been delayed
indefinitely.
EXCRUCIATING EXPENDITURES
A widespread effort to reduce use of these chemicals, much less
outright bans, would be devastating. "Any industry that uses or
manufactures synthetic chemicals or depends on them, such as plastics,
toy-making, pesticides makers, farmers - all of these will feel
tremendous impact," says Endocrine/Estrogen Letter publisher Steve
Usdin. " Companies and ultimately consumers will be severely impacted
by the campaigns and publicity alone, regardless of any ultimate
scientific consensus."
Nobody can put a price tag on all this. But according to a 1993
industry- sponsored study, removing just one class of chemicals that
many environmentalists have branded endocrine disrupters
(organochlorines) could cost the country $100 billion a year. Removing
just one product singled out by environmentalists (bisphenol A) could
soon approach $2 billion yearly. Some of these chemicals could be
replaced at great expense; many could not currently be replaced at any
cost.
WANTED: NEW WAYS TO DEMONIZE MAN-MADE CHEMICALS
Why the sudden onslaught on HAAs? It reflects not so much a change in
natural science as in political science. After more than two decades
of popularity, the idea that everything man-made is a carcinogen has
fallen out of repute, not just with scientists but with the public.
Increasingly people have come to understand that while synthetic
chemicals cause cancer in massive-dose rodent tests about half the
time, the percentage is similar with natural chemicals. Furthermore,
solid evidence has emerged that rodents aren't simply tiny versions of
human beings. Berkeley biologists Lois Gold and Bruce Ames have shown
that, a third of the time, substances causing cancer in rats don't do
so in mice, and vice-versa. (See my article, "The Politics of Cancer
Testing" The American Spectator, August 1990.)
By 1994, only a fourth of the members of the American Association for
Cancer Research believed that human cancer risks can be assessed by
the massive-dose testing of rodents. Environmentalists continue to
refer to these rodent carcinogens as simply carcinogens, with the
clear message that they also cause cancer in humans. But more and
more, the public is either suffering cancer-scare fatigue, or simply
recognizing the unlikelihood that half of all man-made chemicals might
give them cancer.
Perhaps what really killed the cancer panic were National Cancer
Institute (NCI) reports, heavily covered by the media, that cancer
rates in the U.S., when adjusted for the aging of the population,
peaked in 1990. "When the NCI finally said cancer cases are down and
so are cancer deaths," says Michael Gough, a scientist with the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, "they had to find something." Our
Stolen Future gave them that something.
ALLIGATOR ANGST AND WILDLIFE WOES
Let's start with wildlife. You may believe that whatever two seagulls
do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own business. But withered
willies? Now that sounds serious. University of Florida zoologist
Louis Guillette insists that this could not only result in lower
reproductive rates among alligators and other animals but could also
portend problems for humans. Guillette's alligators are repeatedly
referred to as "sentinels" for human health, the proverbial "canary in
the coal mine," albeit with big teeth and bulging eyes. His work is
reflected in popular articles like "Havoc in the Hormones" and "
Hormone Hell." Many writers, such as the one who penned "Children at
Risk," readily extrapolate from gators to guys.
But it may be Guillette's claims that have the real shortcomings.
First, Lake Apopka, where Guillette's test subjects were found, is one
of the most heavily polluted lakes in Florida, a former dumping ground
for a vast variety of chemicals, some of which are believed to be HAAs
and others of which are not. It is perhaps the main tenet of
toxicology that "the dose makes the poison" and that enough exposure
to anything will hurt you, but conversely, at a low enough level it
will prove harmless. Further, even those who've never gotten closer to
an alligator than watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom are aware of
major differences between that animal's physiology and ours, such as
the brownish-green color, cold blood, tail, four legs, and long snout.
Moreover, despite myriad articles written about Lou Guillette's
alligators with small "penises," their members are actually called
"phalluses, " since they aren't used for urination.
The reader may be wondering, "How do you go about measuring a gator's
phallus?" Wildlife endocrinologist Timothy Gross, a colleague of
Guillette's at the University of Florida who took part in some of
Guillette's testing, told me that when they first began their phallic
studies, as a safety precaution Guillette and his colleagues only
grabbed the smaller gators. The problem is, smaller gators are
immature, and may not have fully grown phalluses. So this "completely
messed up the data set," says Gross.
Believe it or not, there is no way other than looking at the genitals
to determine what sex a gator is. According to Gross, what Guillette
calls undersized phalluses may have been oversized clitorises. There's
just no way of telling.
Guillette's conclusions were based on such shoddy evidence, Gross
says, that Gross insisted his name not be put on the research papers.
"It's speculation rather than solid data and they didn't put in
caveats," he notes. "It doesn't mean it doesn't occur, it just means
we don't know for sure."
"Have you told this to any other reporters?" I asked Gross.
"Oh sure," he said. "At least 50." But none bothered to relay it to
their readers. One writer who interviewed Gross for her book and then
sliced out his comments was Colborn herself. She also insisted upon
labeling alligator organs "penises." For a zoologist, that's no mere
mistake; when your objective is to make animals appear as surrogates
for humans, you draw just as little attention to the distinctions as
possible.
Poking holes in penile propaganda doesn't get HAAs off the hook for
disturbing wildlife. "I think it's very clear that endocrine-active
chemicals are indeed affecting wildlife," Gross says, naming fish,
freshwater turtles, and less-spectacular alligator problems as
examples. The NAS report reached the same conclusion. But these are
creatures that frequently have a rudimentary physiology, eat the same
contaminated food every day, and often have a lifelong exposure to a
single polluted area.
Guillette inadvertently made this point when he told a Florida
newspaper, " The alligator makes a beautiful model. It doesn't get up
and fly away. It doesn't move to another country for part of its life
cycle," he said. " They're going to stay their whole lives within a
mile-and-a-half of where they were born." But that makes the alligator
"a beautiful model" for what? How many humans have ever, at any point
in history, obtained all their food and drink from within a 1.5-mile
radius of their birthplace?
"Today you and I go out and eat beef from God knows where, chicken
that is uniform, and fruits, vegetables, and grains from all over the
world," points out Gross.
"I've never questioned there's a problem with wildlife," says Dr.
Stephen Safe, a Texas A&M toxicologist and NAS panelist. "But I'll
also say that a lot of really contaminated systems are making a
comeback. For example, the Great Lakes are really improving." Further,
he flatly rejects claims that a " boy is an alligator is a seagull."
"If you get an interesting result in a turtle egg or water flea," says
Safe, "some people will say 'There but for the race of God go I.' But
there's no evidence that any of those compounds, that some groups tout
as being horrible endocrine problems for the environment, cause
anything in humans."
DESPERATELY SEEKING SPERMATOZOA
Perhaps the most spectacular claim in Our Stolen Future is the one
alluded to in the title. No sperm, no future. It provided fodder for
articles around the world with titles like the New Yorker's "Silent
Sperm," Esquire's " Downward Motility," and Mother Jones's "Down for
the Count." Time magazine's science writer declared, "In study after
study, sperm counts in men the world over seem to be dropping
precipitously." Even before Our Stolen Future's publication,
Greenpeace had popularized the slogan, "You're half the man your
grandfather was."
Colborn focused on the work of Danish scientist Niels Skakkebaek and
British researcher Richard Sharpe, who indeed reported they'd found a
sharp decline in human sperm production. But they also found this had
leveled off in 1970, hardly support for a theory blaming a gradual
buildup of chemicals for causing the problem. Skakkebaek himself has
said, "It is premature to call for a ban on these or any other
chemicals before more research is done. They (environmentalists) are
misrepresenting this research."
Again, somehow there just wasn't space for this comment in Our Stolen
Future. Nor did virtually any media outlet report that shortly after
Colborn's book hit the stores, three different studies in the journal
Fertility and Sterility indicated there was no decline in sperm
counts.
The NAS report concluded, "No analysis to date can prove or disprove a
uniform global trend in sperm concentration," because studies
purporting to show a decline over time were comparing different
regions where data was taken at different times. As such, said the
NAS, "one cannot assume an environmental (cause) for the variability
observed in human populations."
This is all the more powerful considering that sitting on the NAS
panel was probably the world's top sperm-decline devotee, Shanna Swan
of the University of Missouri-Columbia. In late 1997, Swan and two
colleagues published a paper essentially claiming that today's males
are a third of the men their grandfathers were. They said the evidence
was clear that sperm counts were rapidly dropping in the U.S., and
faster yet in Europe. The media trumpeted Swan's findings. "Sperm
Counts Continue to Plunge," exclaimed the Calgary Herald. "Studies
Point to a Fearsome Chemical Risk," cried the Toronto Star. It seemed
just a matter of time before our sperm counts would fall below zero.
Conversely, reporters generally ignore one of the leading American
fertility specialists, Dr. Harry Fisch, director of the Male
Reproductive Center at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New
York. Like the earlier sensationalist sperm studies, "The differences
(in Swan's findings) represent geographic differences rather than data
over time," he explains. "Before 1970 nearly all the studies were from
the New York region, which has higher sperm counts," while the later
data represent areas of the country that for whatever reason have
lower sperm counts. "Just take out New York City from the analysis and
there's no decline."
As to Swan's European findings, he notes: "If you evaluate the
European data against previous European data, there actually appears
to be a slight increase." Instead, she compared Europe to the U. S.
Further, says Fisch, "If she had included data published after 1990 -
even using her own statistical methodology she would have found no
decline." Fisch says the report should have flatly ruled out a sperm
count decline, much less one caused by HAAs.
D.E.S. DENIAL
The panel was firmer concerning cancer of the breast or other parts of
the body most susceptible to hormone activity. While Colborn discussed
it on 27 pages, the NAS found that despite a massive number of studies
involving the usual suspects, such as the insecticide DDT and the
electrical insulator chemical PCBs, there was no evidence linking
these to cancer of the breast or prostate (another cancer commonly
associated with synthetic HAAs), or indeed any type of cancer.
It also doesn't help Colborn's case that while she devoted seven pages
to the alleged increase in U.S. breast cancer cases, NCI data released
later on showed that, as with cancer cases as a whole, those of the
breast had stopped increasing around 1990.
On the other hand, the NAS report's section on human fetal
abnormalities seems to range from ambiguous to alarming. To be so, it
essentially had to ignore the data on Diethylstilbesterol (DES), which
4 million to 5 million women took from the late 1930's to early 1970's
in hope of preventing miscarriages. Sadly, while it didn't prevent
miscarriages, it did cause birth defects.
Since DES was used for so many decades, by so many women, and at such
high levels, and has been studied so thoroughly, it makes the ideal
chemical with which to gauge not only what birth defects an HAA can
cause, but what it might do directly to the user.
Yet DES received three whole sentences of discussion in a 48-page
chapter, plus a bunch of tables stuck on as an appendix. "I was
shocked," says Robert Golden, a Potomac, Maryland toxicologist and DES
expert. "There is an enormous body of data on bad things DES did and
the report practically ignored it, particularly as to how this human
data could have been used to help judge if HAAs from the environment
might be a problem."
Even the DES appendix to Colborn's book omits all information about
dosage levels. Yet understanding the dose levels and their results,
says Golden, could tell us more about how HAAs affect humans than any
other body of evidence.
"With DES, there was no standard dose," he says, "and for some reason
the lowest doses were prescribed at the Mayo Clinic (in Rochester, New
York) and the highest at the University of Chicago. When you look at
Mayo (results), there's nothing coming out of there. Yet out of the
University of Chicago, there are all sorts of reproductive problems
such as small penises, decreased sperm, abnormal sperm." (There was,
however, no decreased fertility even among those with these defects.)
This information, omitted from the NAS report, shows that to have the
same risk of birth defects as from DDT - the known HAA vilified by
Rachel Carson - a woman would have to consume over a pound of DES
during her pregnancy.
Further, said Golden, "They also missed a whole body of literature on
women who conceived while on (powerfully estrogenic) birth control
pills they kept taking until they realized they were pregnant. Those
children had no defects."
NO PLETHORA OF PLANT PANIC
The NAS report also gives little attention to the large body of
literature on naturally occurring HAAs that we ingest in wheat,
potatoes, oats, rye, rice, barley, apples, and cherries. Over 300
plants have been discovered to contain HAAs, thereby "dosing" us at
rates vastly higher than anything man-made. According to NAS panel
member Safe, the overall hormonal effect of natural chemicals is 40
million times that of manmade ones. For instance, a clever clover in
Australia sterilizes its bitter enemy, the sheep, by literally
reshaping the ewe's sex organs. And throughout history women have
successfully used various plants, such as the pomegranate in ancient
Greece, as contraceptives.
Environmentalists, including the writers of Our Stolen Future,
acknowledge that plant HAAs can cause harm. But Colborn downplays the
the effects, in part by noting that "humans have adapted over over
millions of years to HAAs in many food plants."
Problem: These plants usually aren't the ones we most commonly eat
today. Soybeans, for example, contain significant levels of two
estrogen-like chemicals, including including that which sterilized so
many Australian sheep. Soybeans did not become a a significant part of
the American diet until after World War II. Today they're the source
of most of our food oil, of which the avergae American consumers about
49 pounds each year. So much for adaptation. Yet despite or even
because of soy's powerful hormone activity it appears to be healthy
for us in many ways.
AVOIDING A FINAL CONCLUSION
Jim Lamb, a member of the NAS panel and a toxicologist with the
environmental consulting form of Blasland, Bouck, and Lee in Reston,
Virginia, acknowledges the report's repeated hedging, data omissions,
and endless calls for more research, but calls it encouraging overall.
"You never see an NAS report that doesn't call for more research," he
says. "You do see NAS reports that calll for testing and regulatory
action, and this doesn't. That really means something."
But readers or even reporters can hardly be expected to know that.
They are more likely to have read Theo Colborn's craft comment to the
New York Times that she was "amazed and delighted" by the panel's
finding, implying that the report supported her book's position.
Sadly, this is the trend for scientific studies in general, especially
those concerning health scares, which seem to hibernate but never die.
The result is needlessly prolonging fear and the waste of precious
funds and researchers. All this reinforces the "precautionary"
princliple of "Ban anything until it is proven safe."
The NAS had the chance to strike against sophistry and panic. What it
produced was better than nothing. Yet in its effort to satisfy all of
the panelists, it dealt human hormone hysteria merely a bruising
roundhouse. Given the available science, it should have dealt a death
blow.
Copyright 1999 The American Spectator
===============================================================
http://www.ndez.com/html/ndcurunp.html
--------------------------------------
Current Events POSTED
9/13/99
Unpopular Science: Public Distrust of Science and
Technology Can be Deadly
by Micheal Fumento
American Outlook, Summer 1999
Copyright 1999 by Hudson Institute, Inc.
Our society seems to be embracing superstition and the paranormal in a
way it hasn't since alleged witches were toasted by the thousands in
Europe. A poll done just last year, comparing beliefs in 1976 with
beliefs today, showed the surprising rise in belief in the paranormal
in theU.S. (see fig. 1).
As the graph indicates, in 1998 45 percent of Americans believed in
faith healing, up from just 10 percent two decades ago. Belief in
astrology has risen from 17 percent to 37 percent. Belief in fortune
telling has almost quadrupled. Belief in spiritualism has risen even
more rapidly. ("Spiritualism," by the way, has nothing to do with
being spiritual but actually means talking to the dead.) For all the
talk these days about "Generation X," we seem to be raising
"Generation XFiles."
Biting the Hand That Feeds
Why this wholesale rejection of science when science is doing more for
us than ever? A very likely cause is the small but highly organized,
extremely dedicated group of people determined to convince us that the
products of science—especially chemicals—are our worst enemies. Also
responsible are reporters who swallow these stories uncritically. This
past February, for example, two major groups released reports on the
tenth anniversary of the infamous Alar scare. They said that the risks
to children from pesticides are at least as great as ever. They were
completely wrong, but you wouldn't know it from the media. The
Washington Post began its article on the Consumers Union report with
this frightening falsehood: "The same fresh peaches, grapes and apples
that supply vital nutrients for growing children are also exposing
millions of Americans to unsafe levels of potentially toxic pesticide
residues." Consumers Union's Ed Groth said that the report is "not
frightening. It's empowering. It's about giving consumers information
to make choices for themselves."
No, it wasn't; it was about fear. It was about scaring parents, as
reflected in subsequent headlines in the Post and other newspapers:
• "Fruits, Vegetables Found Overloaded with Pesticides"
• "Study Says Pesticides in Produce Are too High for Kids"
• "Pesticide Danger Seen in Fresh Fruits, Vegetables; Children Found
Most at Risk"
• "Some Fruits, Vegetables Endanger Kids, Study Says"
• "Poisons in the Produce U.S. Consumer Body Finds; Some Veggies
• Scarily High in Pesticides"
Unfortunately, such scary headlines will undoubtedly discourage
parents from feeding their children fresh produce. But we know that
fresh produce protects against disease, including cancer. Therefore,
it is likely that reports such as these will not prevent disease but
actually cause it. This type of hysteria is just another manifestation
of "chemophobia," an inordinate fear or hatred of chemicals produced
by the hand of man. This phobia originated many years ago with the
environmentalist attack on all man-made chemicals. But the blanket
attack failed because people quickly realized that they couldn't
possibly live without all or most of the artificial chemicals we
encounter in our daily lives.
Then one group, Greenpeace, schemed that rather than trying to swallow
the whole pig at once, they would do so one piece at a time. They
decided to single out all products containing chlorine or which used
chlorine in their production. They labeled chlorine "the Devil's
chemical." In so doing they were able to say that they were "only"
going after one set of man-made chemicals, well aware that chlorines
affect every facet of our lives because they are used in most
pesticides and pharmaceuticals, to purify our water, and in many
plastics. They also knew that chlorines are a common natural chemical,
showing up in harmless compounds such as sodium chloride (table salt).
But Greenpeace said, to the devil with the truth.
One use of chlorines is to soften plastic, which is normally hard and
brittle. Among such plastics is polyvinyl chloride, also known as PVC
or, to most of us, just plain vinyl. In December 1998, Greenpeace,
with the help of a segment on ABC's 20/20, launched a remarkably
successful campaign against PVC in toys and teething rings, resulting
in most major toy maker and sellers yanking them from the market not
because they believed that PVC posed a hazard to children but because
all the bad publicity posed a hazard to their sales. After this
victory, Greenpeace drummed up hysteria over PVC used in cooking
utensils and in medical instruments such as blood bags and dialysis
tubes. Again, their claims were utterly without scientific support,
but once again they enjoyed tremendous support from the media.
How does Greenpeace get away with all this unscientific nonsense? It's
partly through appeals to emotion and partly because much of our
media, including self-styled science or medical writers, are woefully
ignorant of science and medicine.
jum...@my-deja.com
Doing it for the Kids
When Ronald Reagan was president, he once said that he expected to see
the following headline in the Washington Post some day: "World to End
Tomorrow; Women and Children to Suffer the Most." During the Clinton
years, invoking The Children to support every scheme and
accomplishment, no matter how unrelated to them, has become a true art
form. A few years ago, for example, the president said, on national
TV, "For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there are
no Russian missiles pointed at America's children." It was truly
marvelous, this newfound ability of Russian engineers to make missiles
capable of wiping out whole cities that nonetheless would avoid kids.
Given this smarmy mentality, it is no coincidence that Greenpeace
began its anti-PVC campaign with a product—toys—used almost
exclusively by children. Winning there, they knew, would push the
camel's nose under the tent, and it would be a fairly simple matter
for the rest of the beast to follow.
Time and again, activists invoke "the children" in discussions of
safety issues, almost as if the American child had become an
endangered species. But nothing could be further from the truth. Life
expectancy in this country has been increasing by leaps and bounds,
but little of this increase is from progress against illness
associated with old age, such as heart disease and cancer. Adding a
few years to the life of an elderly person barely affects the data.
What is really pushing up longevity is that kids are dying at the
lowest rates ever. In fact, the death rate for children in the U.S.
today is less than one-third what it was just thirty years ago.
Average life expectancy in the U.S. has increased by five years in
just the last generation (see fig. 2), driven by the tremendous
decline in childhood deaths, from more than 4,000 per 100,000 live
births in 1970 to less than one-third that number today (see fig. 3).
I'm not a parent, though most of my friends are. For that matter, as
one might guess, so were my father and mother. I know from them what
it's like to fear for the health and lives of one's children. I know
that they have those moments of anguish when every little unexplained
bump or rash evokes a quick, chilling fear of cancer, when a bad cold
seems a harbinger of pneumonia. Such thoughts may be irrational, but
they are all part of being a parent. As a society, however, we cannot
afford to be irrational. We must recognize that children are healthier
than ever and living longer than ever. We have an obligation to use
our reason and ask the following question: If man-made chemicals are
really turning life into a minefield of risk, why are we so much
healthier than our ancestors who lived without these things? As Linda
Birnbaum, a top official with the EPA, recently noted, specifically
addressing chemophobia, "We need to . . . accept the fact that people
are living longer and healthier than we've ever lived before."
And, no, this increasing longevity and good health are not sheer
coincidence. They are in great part—though not entirely—the result of
our increasing use of man-made chemicals.
The Bad Old Days
The American Plastics Council recently concluded a wonderful TV ad
campaign which included a trip to a medieval food market. At first it
all seems like a beautiful fairy tale, as we so often we romanticize
the Middle Ages today. But then we see mounds of food—including
meat—left out in a state in which it must certainly be putrefying.
After it is bought and taken home, this food will continue to putrefy,
right up until the moment of consumption. Such food, of course, was
terribly dangerous. People eating this fly-covered, maggot-infested
fare dropped like flies. They died of E.coli, shigellosis, and all
sorts of horrible, food-borne diseases hardly anybody today has even
heard of. And when they weren't dying, they were often vomiting or
suffering horrible and sometimes deadly bouts of diarrhea. Most of
these diseases concentrated their effects on children and the elderly,
both of whom suffered the most and died in the greatest numbers.
If somebody takes away something that makes us healthier, we will be
sicker. These are the coming wages of bad science and chemophobia. But
there's much more in the pipeline. For example, even though we are a
wealthy nation, we still have limited resources, and disrespect for
science limits the money we allocate to scientific research. Hence
competition for research grants in the U.S. is tighter than ever. The
National Science Foundation, for instance, can fund only one-third of
the research proposals it receives each year.
Our nation's decreasing regard for science also creates misallocation
of another scarce resource: fear and worry. A person cannot be afraid
of or worried about everything all the time, and an increase in false
scares about modern technologies distracts us from real dangers.
Americans are suffering from worry fatigue. Consider just a few of the
fictional dangers foisted on us in just the past few years. "Just a
bite or two of an apple, peach, or pear" could "cause dizziness,
nausea, and blurred vision" in a child if the fruit has been treated
with a commonly used pesticide, says the Environmental Working Group.
Asbestos is deadly even when tucked behind inches of dry wall,
according to numerous false reports in the media. AIDS is poised to
kill every last American man, woman, and child, according to
congressional testimony given just a few years ago by the nation's top
health official, Donna Shalala. Sperm counts have fallen alarmingly
low. Or so we are told, day after day, week after week.
Profits and Prejudice
Much of this attention arises because the press see activist groups as
more credible than industry. The logic seems to be that industry just
wants to make a buck and will do whatever it takes to earn the largest
profit possible. "Whatever," in their minds, means polluting the
environment and even killing kids. "It would seem logical, would it
not," Ted Koppel said on an ABC Nightline segment on dioxin, "that
industry, which seems to have been responsible for a great deal of
dioxin getting into the atmosphere and into our total environment,
that they would have a vested interest in suggesting to the public at
large that it ain't all bad?" Maybe so, but Koppel simply ignored any
possible motives on the other side. Are chemicals the lifeblood of a
chemical company? Certainly. But just as surely, fear is the lifeblood
of many advocacy groups, including virtually all the environmentalist
ones.
"Environmentalists are quick to accuse their opponents in business of
having vested interests," The Economist has noted, "But their own
incomes, their fame, and their very existence can depend on supporting
the most alarming versions of every environmental scare." It added,
"Pressure groups, journalists, and fame seekers will no doubt continue
to peddle ecological catastrophes at an undiminishing speed." Many
environmental activists make a good deal of money from these fear
campaigns, in fundraising and book sales. Of course, businesses make a
lot of money, too, but they do it by selling things people want,
rather than something they don't want—fear. The press, unfortunately,
usually ignores this motive behind anti-scientific scares.
Actually, industry has stronger motivations for honesty than the
activists do. "Businesses today have product liability and can incur
legal damages if they place a dangerous product on the market," noted
Daniel Koshland Jr. when he was editor of Science magazine. "Public
interest groups have no such constraints at the moment." Not at that
moment and not at this moment, either. And the irrational popular
distrust of science and technology continues to rise.
Subversive Mission
Sadly, most reporters continue to believe that industry is always
wrong and those who oppose industry are always right. This is shown
clearly in a book published this year, Environmental Cancer: A
Political Disease? by S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman. One of
the many fascinating charts and tables in this book compares the views
of environmental activists with those of scientific experts. Asked,
"Is there a cancer epidemic?" two-thirds of the activists said yes,
whereas less than a third of the experts did. Asked, "Is industry
causing cancer rates to increase?" 64 percent of the activists said
yes, but less than a third of the experts agreed. The experts, of
course, were right and the activists were wrong: according to the
National Cancer Institute, U.S. cancer rates adjusted for age stopped
rising in 1990.
And how did the media do? An amazing 85 percent of reporters surveyed
believed that we face "a cancer epidemic" — a much higher number even
than among environmental activists. Over twice as many reporters as
scientists believed cancer-causing agents to be "unsafe at any dose."
The book also makes clear that this bias is indeed reflected in
coverage. The authors examined the frequency with which various agents
were cited in news reports as confirmed or suspected carcinogens:
man-made chemicals ranked first, outnumbering the second category,
tobacco, by almost two to one. The book also shows that reporters skew
scientific reality not just through the choice of stories to cover and
the flow of the story's narrative but also through the reporter's
selection of experts to quote. This book and other research confirm
that former Boston Globe environmental reporter, Dianne Dumanoski,
co-author of Our Stolen Future, is hardly alone in her stated belief
that "There is no such thing as objective reporting," and that she is
therefore justified in becoming "even more crafty about finding the
voices to say the things I think are true. That's my subversive
mission."
Clearly, when it comes to environmental, health, and risk issues, the
media often see themselves as not a medium between science (and
scientists) and the public but rather as a filter, a black screen, or
a magnifying glass. That is why so much of their audience—the American
people—is sadly misinformed and more likely to trust a fortune teller
than a scientist. Of course, some people would be chemophobic
regardless of how the issues were presented. One man on the Donahue
show, for example, after another guest pointed out that numerous
substances found to be carcinogenic in rodent tests are present
naturally in food, said, "I would rather take a chance on eating
natural food, even though it has cancer in it, than you putting
chemicals in my food to give me cancer." Yet this is surely a minority
viewpoint. Most of the public would react more rationally if given
proper information—real facts, real data, and sound science. In short,
if reporters just told the truth.
In one sense, an emotional appeal about science is entirely
appropriate and reasonable. Just as nobody has benefited more from the
scientific progress we have enjoyed in the postwar era than children,
nobody will suffer more from a slowing or stopping of that progress.
We have President Clinton's word that twenty megaton warheads will
miraculously bypass our kids. But we need to remember that when
activists and reporters mislead us about science, our kids are at
ground zero.
===================================================================
http://www.ndez.com/html/ndcurfic.html
--------------------------------------
Current Events POSTED
8/18/99
Science Fiction
by Gregg Easterbrook
The New Republic — 8/30/99 Issue
Buried in the back pages of the newspapers a week ago were reports
that the National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, had found no proof that synthetic chemicals act
as human "endocrine disrupters." The NRC declared the theory of
endocrine disrupters "rife with uncertainties" possibly true but
unsupported by experiments or health data. This may sound like a
humdrum scientific data blip. But it's major news. For three years
now, organizations ranging from environmental groups to Consumer
Reports have been proclaiming the existence of a deadly wave of
endocrine disrupters that cause cancer, infertility, and personality
abnormalities. It's been said that endocrine disrupters are so
malignant that they even render plastic plates and baby bottles
potential killers.
The notion of menacing endocrine-disrupter chemicals has gained
substantial backing from the talk show press, Congress, and the White
House. Vice President Al Gore has taken up the cause, declaring that
there exists a "large and growing body of scientific evidence" that
endocrine disrupters threaten humanity. Recently, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) began a major initiative to test some 15,000
synthetic substances for endocrine-disrupter effects, an effort slated
to continue despite the NRC's inability to verify the underlying
phenomenon.
It is possible that a human endocrine-disrupter effect exists and yet
eludes the National Academy of Sciences; some health problems of the
past have been slow to reveal themselves to researchers. It is also
possible that the endocrine disrupter is a case study in the art of
the politically potent false alarm. Cancer from power line
electromagnetism and asbestos in school walls, two ideas that, though
now discredited, once commanded national political attention despite
sketchy research, come to mind. Is there really danger here, or just
another stylish panic?
The idea of a plague of endocrine-disrupter chemicals jumped from
something discussed only in research circles to a topic entertained at
the White House level after the 1996 publication of Our Stolen Future,
one of the best-promoted books in publishing history. The work listed
three authors: Theo Colborn, a zoologist at the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF); Dianne Dumanoski, a writer; and John Myers, a former zoologist
who now heads the W. Alton Jones Foundation. The Jones Foundation,
which is to the left roughly what the Rutherford Institute is to the
right (through some weird convergence, they're both located in
Charlottesville, Virginia), invested in promoting Our Stolen Future
and also in funding studies to provide further evidence in support of
its thesis. Publication was accompanied by newspaper advertising, TV
appearances for the authors, and considerable newsmagazine coverage.
Gore wrote a lavishly complimentary foreword to the book, calling it
the "sequel" to Silent Spring, and, during the book launch, gave a
speech endorsing the volume and its theory. Within the book, and in
the marketing and press coverage, Colborn and Myers were repeatedly
depicted as detached, objective scientists, though neither lists an
academic affiliation and both are full-time employees of advocacy
organizations.
The thesis of Our Stolen Future, a well written and thoughtful book,
is that many synthetic compounds, from banned chemicals such as DDT
and dieldrin to such apparently benign substances as plastics used to
make baby bottles, mimic hormones when they enter the body; they
usually act like estrogen. Too much estrogen can reduce fertility (the
Pill contains estrogen) and interfere with fetal development.
Colborn came to her thesis from studies of birds of the Great Lakes
region, where several avian species are imperiled. She initially
hypothesized that residual toxins such as DDT and PCBs (both banned in
the United States for two decades but still present in trace
quantities in the biosphere) and dioxin (not exactly banned but very
tightly regulated) were causing a wildlife cancer epidemic. Her
research did not find unusual wildlife cancers but did turn up many
birds with reproductive problems. At about the same time, other
researchers were finding sexual abnormalities and congenital defects
among frogs, alligators, Florida panthers, and other creatures.
Colborn hypothesized that DDT, PCBs, and other compounds were
affecting the endocrine systems of wildlife. The NRC report validated
her theory on that point; it concluded that some synthetic compounds
do harm wildlife in ways that may be related to hormones, while saying
it could find no similar effect in people.
Three months after Our Stolen Future arrived in bookstores, a Tulane
University researcher named John McLachlan published a study that
appeared to lend terrifying immediacy to the book. One reason many
health researchers don't worry excessively about traces of toxic
chemicals is that, in very small amounts, they seem to have little or
no effect. But we aren't exposed to individual chemicals in isolation;
traces of many synthetic compounds are in our bodies. Tulane
researchers announced that they had studied the effects of small
amounts of four synthetic chemicals at the same time and discovered a
previously unknown amplification effect individual traces did little,
but together they made one another 1,000 times more potent as
endocrine disrupters. McLachlan was already one of the scientists on
whose research Our Stolen Future is prominently based; the text cites
him eight times. Now he had apparently found a dramatic confirmation
of the book's thesis.
EPA officials and members of Congress were aghast at the Tulane study.
A month after its release, Congress unanimously passed the Food
Quality Protection Act, which, among other things, directed the EPA to
begin studying endocrine disrupters. A total of five months elapsed
from the publication of Our Stolen Future to the enactment of major
legislation based on the book's thesis. Rarely has any work influenced
public debate faster.
Red flags about the Tulane study were missed. For one, Tulane's
endocrine program is funded partly by the Jones Foundation, the
organization behind Our Stolen Future coauthor Myers. For another,
McLachlan studied the effects of chemicals not on mice or cell
cultures but on yeast colonies. Yeast, a fungus, operates according to
principles entirely different from those of mammalian cytology; it is
a pitiful proxy for a person.
When other researchers attempted to replicate McLachlan's findings,
they couldn't even get the yeast to show the dubious effects he had
claimed. In July 1997, about a year after Congress passed the
endocrine-disrupter legislation, McLachlan quietly withdrew his paper,
saying "there must have been a fundamental flaw" in the experiment.
The panic button had been pushed over a scientific finding that, in
the end, was invalidated, just as much of the power line scare was
based on research later found to contain fabricated data. Many
newspapers, newsmagazines, and television newscasts that had
prominently reported the scary Tulane endocrine-disrupter claims said
nothing about McLachlan's retraction. The federal law stayed in
effect, and various lobbies continued to promote
endocrine-disrupter-related bills with ardor. In the fall of 1997,
months after the Tulane study crashed and burned, Colborn would
declare that "overwhelming evidence" supported her idea.
Our stolen future laid out the evidence that wildlife continues to
suffer from traces of DDT and PCBs, causing its authors to advocate a
global ban against these substances. That recommendation is dicey
because DDT is the most cost-effective counter to the malaria
mosquito, a much more pressing health threat in developing nations
than endocrine disruption. The book argued persuasively that, because
hormones are potent in tiny amounts, modest levels of
hormone-mimicking chemicals might pose a danger even as the overall
level of pollution declines. Our Stolen Future is further impressive
in that it counseled activists to let go of their obsession with a
"cancer epidemic," a notion that is strong in pop culture but not in
medical research. (Short version: cancer incidence increased from
about 1970 to 1990, but mainly because of cigarette smoking and the
aging of the population; in the 1990s, overall cancer incidence has
declined, though the rate of occurrence of a few types of the disease
continues to rise.) "We must move beyond the cancer paradigm," Our
Stolen Future declares. This aspect of the endocrine-disrupter theory
runs refreshingly against the grain.
So far so good. But Our Stolen Future went on to engage in broad
speculation about an entirely new category of health menace that is,
mysteriously, both deadly and undetectable; we're sick, and we don't
even know it.
First, the book lumped together nearly every form of observed wildlife
malady as indications of endocrine disruption, regardless of competing
explanations. Colborn spends several pages on deformities in frogs,
for example. Recent papers published in the technical journal Science
attribute frog deformities to a natural parasite, not a hormone
plague.
Next, Our Stolen Future based its case for the human
endocrine-disruption effect almost entirely on the example of
diethylstilbestrol (DES), the drug that, when taken by pregnant women,
caused thousands of girls to be born with abnormal reproductive tracts
or to develop cancer. DES was a horror, but the harm was caused by
large doses of chemicals that mothers ingested directly, not trace
quantities in the environment, leaving it unclear what DES by the
milligram tells you about dieldrin by the part-per-trillion. Jumping
off from DES, Our Stolen Future violated its own caution against
cancer fixation, suggesting that hormone-mimics leaching from such
common items as plastic plates may increase vulnerability to breast
and prostate cancer. The latest National Cancer Institute figures show
prostate cancer incidence declining and breast cancer incidence at a
constant level; both ought to be rising if common synthetic compounds
reduce resistance to these cancers. The NRC said it could find no
relationship between endocrine disrupters and breast or prostrate
cancer.
As the manifesto of a new health concern, Our Stolen Future is deeply
puzzling in that it declares the advent of a widespread, pervasive
harm without addressing why, if that were so, U.S. public health has
been improving steadily. Americans as a group have achieved longer
life expectancy, less heart disease, fewer strokes, and lower
mortality from almost all diseases, all during the same period that
society was inundated with the chemicals on which the
endocrine-disrupter theory is based. Perhaps, absent disrupter
chemicals, public health improvements would have been better still.
The point is that environmental pessimism rarely faces the complicated
reality of an improving society. Gore's Earth in the Balance is
notable in this regard, waiting until page 82 to make its first
mention of that fact that U.S. pollution is declining.
A fundamental objection to the endocrine-disrupter theory is that
people and animals are already exposed to chemicals that act like
estrogen. Many plants, including common foodstuffs such as potatoes,
carrots, and peas, contain "phytoestrogens," natural compounds that
mimic estrogen. The Greeks used the pomegranate as a contraceptive;
the fruit is high in an estrogen-mimic substance. Natural selection
theory says that plants evolved estrogen compounds as a defense, to
reduce the fertility of animals that graze on them; essentially, they
give their predators an oral contraceptive. Stephen Safe, a researcher
at Texas A&M University, estimates that the typical human diet
contains 40 million times more naturally occurring estrogen-mimic
chemicals than the typical person gets through exposure to synthetic
hormone-like compounds. It may be that synthetic estrogen-mimics
differ from their natural counterparts in ways that the human body
can't handle, but the NRC found no clear evidence of this.
Our Stolen Future declared that the most ominous sign of the
endocrine-disrupter plague was a global decline in sperm counts,
suggesting that hormone-mimic chemicals might lead to the extinction
of human life hence the "stolen future." The book's claim about sperm
count decline was received as a sensation, the science fiction clich
of a sterile human race suddenly looming real. Many media outlets
treated the vanishing-sperm theory credulously (notable exceptions
being The New York Times and The Seattle Times, which cast doubts from
the start). The WWF, the World Resources Institute, Greenpeace, and
other organizations began featuring endocrine-disrupter themes, with
Greenpeace fund-raising ads declaring, "you're half the man your
father was," owing to falling sperm counts.
On one level, the idea that environmentalism now warns in dire tones
of decreasing sperm counts is delightfully goofy, since it also warns
in dire tones of increasing human numbers. Population rising? Oh my
God! Fertility declining? Oh my God! Given that developing nations are
said by many greens to be committing social and environmental suicide
via population growth, if otherwise benign synthetic compounds really
reduce human fertility, then shouldn't we shower the world with
plastic plates?
But the state of the sperm is much less certain than the
endocrine-disrupter theory lets on. In Western countries, fertility
therapy is an expanding area of health care, with male fecundity
problems increasingly seen as being just as consequential as those of
females. But the boom in male reproductive medicine stems from the
fact that couples are postponing childbearing until the time of life
when sperm production naturally declines; you don't meet many
19-year-old guys in fertility clinics. On the question of sperm
itself, several respected studies, including one from Scotland, have
found both falling counts and lower sperm motility, mainly in northern
European men born after about 1970. Several equally respected studies
have found either no change or that sperm-count reductions are
regional, the conclusion of an important recent study at
Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center. "There is simply no consensus in
this area," says Larry Lipshultz, a urologist at Baylor College of
Medicine and an authority on fertility-related issues.
Advocates of the endocrine-disrupter theory make much of a study by
Danish researcher Niels Skakkebaek, who concluded in 1992 that,
globally, sperm counts declined 45 percent during the postwar era.
Skakkebaek's study has been the subject of intense criticism within
his field because for the early, baseline years he employed United
States sperm count figures, which are unusually high (you'll be proud
to know that America leads the world in sperm), and for the later,
alarming years, he mostly used sperm statistics from the developing
world, where men usually test with lower levels. Studies that compare
apples to apples, examining men in the same place, don't usually find
the scary swing Skakkebaek reported, with a few exceptions such as the
Scotland study.
Just why there are regional differences in sperm counts is unknown.
Recent reports published in the technical journal Fertility and
Sterility showed, for example, that New York men consistently exhibit
higher sperm counts than men in Los Angeles. Why? "No one has the
slightest clue," says Lipshultz. It seems that gawking at California
beach babes does not have the expected effect on the hormone
production of L.A. males. On the other hand, waiter, I'll take another
glass of that Manhattan tap water, please.
If sperm counts are lower in northern Europe or in the developing
world, it may be that some impending environmental threat lies
undetected. Absurdly, in the case of Europe, the explanation may be
more prosaic: underwear. For inexplicable reasons of fashion, since
the '70s European males have favored extremely tight, pantylike briefs
that are much more snug than briefs sold in the United States. The
testicles are outside the body for evolutionary reasons, because sperm
formation requires a cooler temperature than 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Very snug briefs that press the family jewels against the warmth of
the leg may interfere with sperm manufacture. (Believe it or not,
there's been academic research on the boxers vs. briefs controversy,
and the most recent study conducted at the State University of New
York at Stony Brook discounts snug underwear as the culprit.)
Or it may be that modern men are eating their way to lower fertility.
One of the plants richest in natural estrogen-mimic compounds is the
soybean. Until this century, soy was rarely a major component of the
human diet. During the postwar era, high-yield Green Revolution
strains have spread the cultivation of this nutritious bean, the
typical American now annually consuming (in oil and other products)
about 65 pounds of it. Meanwhile, soy has become a staple of the
developing world. Some researchers think the form of estrogen-like
compound in soy doesn't remain in the body long enough to have a
significant effect; others aren't sure. Either way, something to
ponder when ordering that healthful soyburger.
Though it is possible that the endocrine-disrupter theory will
eventually be proved right about sperm counts, it is not a good sign
that many advocates brook no disagreement on this point. Our Stolen
Future treats skeptics of the vanishing sperm as antediluvian,
declaring that criticism of the Skakkebaek study "recalls similar
disbelief at the first news in 1985 that a dramatic ozone hole had
developed." But, when the Antarctic ozone hole was detected, the
science world immediately embraced the finding; it was the political
world that disbelieved. In the case of claims about endocrine
disrupters, it is the political world that is jumping aboard, while
the world of science is not persuaded.
That there are fundamental reservations about the endocrine-disrupter
theory is something most environmental lobbies play down. The WWF has
a website devoted to the theory, and it's just a click away from
donation information. The site presents synthetic endocrine disruption
as an established medical condition; it lists "scientific consensus
documents" supporting the theory, but dates on the documents stop at
1996, when the retractions and counter findings started coming in. The
WWF, Greenpeace, and similar organizations gloss their contentions
about endocrine disrupters with the shiny adjective "scientific." Our
Stolen Future rolls out the word "science" on page after page, yet the
book contains sentences such as one that claims endocrine disrupters
"jeopardize the survival of entire species perhaps, in the long run,
even humans." Setting aside the unscientific hyperbole of extinction
warnings based on an effect whose existence has not yet even been
confirmed, humans are not a "species." The word "human" means "member
of the genus Homo," the term encompassing extinct ancestors such as
Homo habilis. People of today bear the species name Homo sapiens. A
small point, but one relevant to the work of thinkers who describe
themselves as scientific zoologists.
For her part, Colborn makes increasingly loose claims about endocrine
disrupters. She suggests that hormone-like chemicals may cause
"widespread erosion of the human potential," "aberrant and unhealthy
tendencies," and may contribute to "the breakdown of the family and
frequent reports of child abuse." Her reasoning? That divorce and
child abuse are happening at the same time as the use of synthetic
compounds expands, a formulation violating the Logic 101 rule that
correlation establishes nothing about causation. Colborn suggests
endocrine disrupters may be making test scores fall, but many test
scores are now rising. She suggests endocrine disrupters may
contribute to increased violence, but violent crime has been in
decline for almost a decade. "My heart aches for parents and those who
have chosen careers to work with children" because the next generation
is doomed, she said in a recent speech. After the NRC findings were
released, Colborn told Gina Kolata of The New York Times: "Just
because we don't have the evidence doesn't mean there are no effects."
Reading the literature on the endocrine-disrupter theory, one
encounters an almost longing sense of "please, please let this be a
disaster." The politics of instant doomsday require something fresh
and suitably bleak. In the United States, almost every ecological
problem, save global warming, shows a positive trend. Acid rain, water
pollution, and smog emissions are decreasing even as the economy
grows. Ozone-depleting CFCs have been banned, and the stratosphere is
expected to recover. The "poisoning of America" has failed to happen,
with toxic discharge by U.S. industry having fallen to less than half
the level of a decade ago, while almost everyone is leading longer,
healthier lives. The bald eagle is coming off the endangered species
list.
The greenhouse effect may be real, but it is amorphous and not due for
another century. There's a palpable sense in many environmental
quarters that the movement needs something new to be upset about,
something shocking and personal.
Perhaps there are dangerous endocrine disrupters. Obviously, we must
find out. If the EPA effort finds even one confirmed synthetic
hormone-mimic that harms people's health, then the scare has all been
worthwhile. But, in cases such as this, or the power line cancer or
asbestos in schools scares, it's strange to think how quickly
speculative, lightly researched claims, advanced by advocates with a
fund-raising interest, can go straight to the top of the national
policy agenda, while so many undeniably genuine problems languish.
(Copyright 1999, The New Republic)
================================================================
http://www.ndez.com/html/ndcursho.html
--------------------------------------
Current Events POSTED
8/18/99
A Shock to The System
by Mark Kingwell
The New York Times — 8/8/99
Ever since the first studies were published linking strong
electromagnetic fields with serious health problems, the public image
of power plants has been on a downward trajectory -- from symbols of
modernity and convenience to symbols of death and destruction.
Informed citizens across the land undertook righteous protests at the
local electrical substation, motivated by fear for their children's
health, not to mention their own property values.
That all changed last week. A Federal investigation declared that the
most influential studies about the hazards of electromagnetic fields
were completely false, and the scientist who'd published them had
actually faked his data. (He resigned in disgrace.) Shortly before
that, the National Cancer Institute announced that there was no
evidence tying electric power to leukemia in children.
Imagine: skies that are crisscrossed by humming high-tension wires
might not be raining down death on the people below. Communities that
are near switching stations don't necessarily face Love Canal levels
of contamination. Kids could be able to play safely near throbbing
electric generators (though running with scissors is still not
advised).
News like that should have bestowed a sense of blissful relief upon
everyone on the continent. But -- did you notice? -- it didn't. To the
contrary, for many who saw the story in their morning papers, it was
hard not to feel a little discomforted. It's always that way when
objects of terror turn out to be harmless.
For all the talk about making the world a safer place, the idea that
danger lies all around us, even in the most familiar substances, is
still appealing.
I myself enjoy the scientific evidence that fat is bad; it makes my
maniacal efforts to avoid it seem like common sense rather than
quasi-anorexic obsession (as my wife the psychologist believes). My
friend Bruce the marathon runner -- who asks ''Would you like some
nasty fat with that? Some heart clogger for you?'' each time he sees
someone reach for butter -- clearly enjoys the same evidence for a
different reason.
Knowing that the things one loves are dangerous lends indulgence a
kind of piquancy, the drama of teasing at the far edges of danger.
After a hard day of pulling cheese out of prepared sandwiches and
ordering my salad with dressing on the side, I enjoy my gin martini
with a twist all the more knowing it's bad for me. As a result, for
most of us, life is a weird mixture of bottled water, whole-wheat
bread and complex dietary supplements broken up by reckless bouts of
coffee drinking, dessert consumption and car travel.
But a recent flurry of reports suggests that some of the most
indulgent indulgences are really benign. Eggs are not so bad after
all. Neither is fat. Salt is a necessity. Chocolate may actually make
you live longer. Breast implants don't even seem to cause cancer. And
each time a new dictum is issued, we're left to make educated guesses
about whether to care or to ignore it.
But the bigger problem is that, with each contradictory report,
another piece of the complex world of risk crumbles. For more than
three centuries, we in the West have been trying to understand the
rules of contingency, to figure out the complex mathematics of chance.
We have invented whole disciplines (statistics) and professions
(actuarial science) to aid in the study of chance, and whole
industries (insurance) to distribute its costs.
The more each of life's myriad risks can be quantified and
categorized, the more life in general ceases to seem risky -- or at
least to seem quite so random. So finding out that electric power or
cosmetic surgery or delicious food is not hazardous can actually
prompt a peculiar crisis. It's scary to think that power stations
cause cancer, after all, but much scarier still to think that perhaps
no one knows what causes it.
With each overturned caveat, risk avoider and risk seeker alike are
set adrift, and modern life loses its familiar contours of virtuous
abstinence and delicious indulgence. The progress of scientific
inquiry is, in the end, contrary to the process of human expectation:
science establishes a proposition, then seeks to disprove it. The rest
of us establish a proposition then cling to it. My mother, once an
avid study tracker, lost her faith in risk altogether when cholesterol
was ruled back in and oat bran turned out to lack life-saving
properties. It's true: oat bran broke my mother's heart.
Eventually, in the face of so many contradictory studies, we'll all
have to give up our happy play of care and heedlessness and revert to
viewing risk as a mysterious, otherworldly force, an evil god without
a name or a number. When risk is revealed to be general and
ubiquitous, the fragile delusional economy of modern life is shaken.
With each overturned result, things make a little less sense. Even
irrational surrender to temptation loses its savor when there is no
rational way to behave instead.
The good news, by the way, is that some of the familiar danger vectors
are still secure. Smoking still causes cancer, airplanes still crash,
ultraviolet radiation and underdone hamburgers are still bad for you.
Most accidents occur in the home, handguns are dangerous and there are
some places you just shouldn't go after dark. Just as your mother told
you.
============================================================
http://www.ndez.com/html/ndcurwar.html
--------------------------------------
Current Events UPDATED
8/9/99
Greenwar
Wall Street Journal Editorial
August 9, 1999
Undoubtedly Postal employees are already groaning under sacks of
Greenpeace mailings after a recent Journal story (reference omitted).
It told how, after receiving a Greenpeace fax, Novartis, the big Swiss
drug and biochemicals company, instantly agreed to stop using
genetically engineered strains of corn and soybeans in its Gerber baby
food line. The company said it wanted to be "ready" just in case
European food phobia jumps the Atlantic.
As with all of Greenpeace's most highly publicized quests (the
campaign against polyvinyl chloride comes to mind), this one is purely
quixotic. Biotechnology is already everywhere. Coke has been using
high-fructose corn sweetener made from genetically modified corn for
years. Half of the soybean fields in the U.S., the world's largest
producer, are planted with genetically modified seeds. Soybeans and
their derivative products are estimated to exist in some form in 60%
of processed foods. No one has sprouted wings.
But Greenpeace needs a bogeyman, and biotech promises to be a
fund-raising bogeyman for decades to come. Novartis, which has its own
bioengineering businesses, probably should have weighed the long-run
costs before launching its preemptive surrender.
In Europe, across the whole food technology front, confusion and
hysteria have displaced reason and economics, with incalculable costs
to those who are trying to bring new and beneficial innovations to
market. The EU has a trade war going on with the U.S. over beef
hormones. Its regulators have stopped reviewing applications for new
genetically modified plant varieties. Now a "scientific steering
committee" is proposing a ban on antibiotics in animal feed even
though there is no scientific evidence for the claim that this
increases antibiotic resistance in humans.
On such Luddite tides ride a lot of unrelated interests. Putatively
responsible people like Prince Charles, who farms "organically" on his
ancestral estates, has joined the attack on "frankenfoods," thereby
putting himself on the same side of the argument as Britain's worst
tabloids. Another gentleman farmer, Greenpeace Director Lord Melchett,
who made his money by inheriting a chemicals fortune, was jailed
recently for leading a band of his zealots to destroy a government-run
experimental farm. Never mind that the farm was seeking the sort of
biotechnology-safety answers the group says it wants.
Such copycat attacks have been proliferating in recent weeks, becoming
a genuine epidemic. The British government is ruefully considering
conducting future tests at secret sites. Nor is it a coincidence that
these are the same criminal tactics that European farmers use against
each other, intercepting cattle and produce at the border and burning
them.
The breakdown in public order and government authority is only partly
traceable to the mishandling of "mad cow disease," tainted blood
scandals and the Belgian kiddie-porn capers. In Europe, on matters of
trade and technology, the mob has been running the show for a while.
Monsanto, the big life-sciences group, had this blow up in its face
when, beginning last year, it decided to make a point of not
segregating genetically modified soybeans from regular soybeans for
the European market. It wasn't Greenpeace but the supposedly
responsible leaders of the supermarket industry who led the backlash.
Malcolm Walker, head of the Iceland grocery chain, posing as the
defender of "consumer choice," denounced Monsanto in ads and
interviews. At Safeway, Chairman David Webster stormed a podium
recently to declare that his company was "fighting back against the
tide of genetically modified foods and ingredients hitting U.K.
shelves."
Such blather may be good marketing, but it encourages public distrust
and lawlessness. Just last week, a Monsanto farm in Ireland that was
testing a new sugar beet was attacked by vandals who poured
petrochemicals on the crop, damaging 60% of the acreage. The real
danger to public safety in Europe today is food paranoia and
vigilantism.
So far, fingers crossed and the Gerber decision notwithstanding, the
U.S. public has kept its head about bioengineered foods. Jeremy
Rifkin, who has been belaboring the frankenfoods theme in books for
years, has been pretty much on his own. We admire our farmers as
high-tech businesspeople, whereas the Europeans see theirs as zoo
exhibits. Alan Greenspan and low unemployment have left Americans with
relatively greater confidence in government.
All of these things, plus the fact that biotech could be painted as a
conspiracy of U.S. agribusiness, have worked against the industry in
Europe. When the Iceland grocery chain decided to use
genetically-modified foods as a wedge issue, it ran a picture of Bill
Clinton with the tagline "The U.S. President doesn't care what you put
in your mouth." One hesitates to speculate what Americans would have
made of the slogan. The best lesson we could learn from Europe is the
foolishness of allowing food technology and safety to become
politicized merely for the benefit of fund-raising by the fringe.
==============================================================
http://www.ndez.com/html/ndcurcom.html
--------------------------------------
Current Events POSTED
8/18/99
Comment: We Take Risks in Order to Progress Acid Test
by Matt Ridley
The Daily Telegraph — 8/2/99
WHEN a Bill was introduced for the Liverpool-Manchester railway in
1825, it was defeated by public hysteria whipped up by a
well-organised campaign of pamphlets and newspaper articles. As
recounted by Samuel Smiles, it was said that the railway would
"prevent cows grazing and hens laying. The poisoned air from the
locomotives would kill birds as they flew over them and render the
preservation of pheasants and foxes no longer possible. There would no
longer be any use for horses; and if the railways extended, the
species would become extinguished, and oats and hay would be rendered
unsaleable commodities. Boilers would burst and blow passengers to
atoms."
Worse, when George Stephenson said he confidently expected the trains
to travel at 20 miles an hour, he was told by the Bill's promoters
that "if he did not moderate his views and bring his engine within a
reasonable speed, he would inevitably damn the whole thing and be
himself regarded as a maniac fit for Bedlam". Twenty miles an hour was
considered a preposterous fantasy.
Of course, when the Bill was passed at the second attempt, the dangers
turned out to be greatly exaggerated and the benefits (and speeds)
greatly underestimated. But if Britain had then been in thrall to the
"precautionary principle", the mantra of the environmental movement,
the railway would never have been built.
Two academics, writing in Nature last week, point out the fallacy
behind the precautionary principle. By saying that all potential
risks, however remote, must be weighed more heavily than all potential
benefits, it would prevent all innovation. With genetically modified
plants, "the greatest uncertainty about their possible harmfulness
existed before anybody had yet produced one. The precautionary
principle would have instructed us not to proceed any further, and the
data to show whether there are real risks would never have been
produced".
LORD Melchett justifies his recent publicity stunt by reference to the
precautionary principle. Yet the risks he speaks of are as far-fetched
as the impact of locomotives on egg-laying hens. There are far greater
risks that we run if he gets his way: risks of throwing away not just
jobs and innovation in British agriculture, but the possibility of
using less land for feeding the world (and more for nature), using
less insecticide on farms and ending nutrient and vitamin deficiency
in the Third World.
jum...@my-deja.com
My assessment of these risks may seem exaggerated, but are we not told
to adopt the precautionary principle?
The stunt, of course, admirably succeeded in its chief aim — to get
Lord Melchett and Greenpeace on to the front pages. The environmental
multinational has recently failed in court to regain charitable status
in Canada, its country of origin, precisely because of this addiction
to publicity. The courts ruled that its stunts did not improve the
environment but did cost jobs.
Bill Durodie's pamphlet for the Science and Environment Forum
criticises the precautionary principle and quotes a senior official at
the World Health Organisation as arguing that it leads to "abstention
and paralysis in innovation and technology development".
The pamphlet sets out the almost incredible story of how phthalates
came to be banned in toys in several European countries including
Germany last week. Phthalates are chemicals used to soften PVC. There
is "not a shred of evidence that they have ever harmed a human being",
and at doses found in plastic toys and teethers they do not prove even
slightly toxic. None the less, to be cautious, several countries set
very low limits indeed for these chemicals.
In 1997, three products exceeded the ultra-low Danish limit (but not
that of the EU) and were banned, so Greenpeace demanded that all
toy-makers drop phthalates. Each time a manufacturer agreed or
disagreed, Greenpeace publicised this as if it were further evidence
that phthalates were harmful. Hysteria was built up about a chemical
for which no harm had been proved.
The willingness of governments and the media to be manipulated by
publicity stunts is astonishing.
===========================================================
http://www.ndez.com/html/ndcurabc.html
--------------------------------------
Current Events UPDATED
10/8/99
Anxious Pill Maker Puts ABC Interview of Its Chief on the Web
By Bill Carter
The New York Times— 10/7/99
A new twist on "Preemption." Couldn't happen to a nicer group of
folks.
A diet-product company on Wednesday posted on the Internet a complete,
unedited videotaped interview between an ABC News correspondent and
the company's chief executive in an effort to publicize its concerns
that ABC would broadcast an unfair report on the medical risks of its
popular dietary supplement.
An ABC News spokeswoman, Eileen Murphy, called the posting by the
company, Metabolife International Inc., "a not very subtle attempt at
intimidation" and said it would have no effect on the network's
reporting.
But news executives from ABC, as well as from CBS and NBC,
acknowledged that the move had implications for journalism, especially
because making interview material public before it is broadcast or
published makes the information available to competing news
organizations.
The executives all said the move could lead them to institute some
kind of agreement seeking to prevent an interview subject from
releasing a tape of network material before it was broadcast.
Metabolife, which has been the subject of several investigative
articles examining the safety of an ingredient in its diet pills,
bought full-page advertisements in The New York Times and The New York
Post on Wednesday to publicize the creation of the Web site.
Metabolife's decision to take the action was reported yesterday in The
Wall Street Journal.
Michael Ellis, the chief executive of Metabolife, said he became
concerned about ABC's fairness because the interview, which took place
on Sept. 9, "felt more like a deposition." He also said ABC did not
respond favorably when Metabolife informed the network that one of the
doctors cited as a critic of the company in the interview questions
had a conflict of interest because he was on the board of a
competitor, Slim Fast.
The Web site's address is: www.newsinterview.com. Ellis noted that the
ABC correspondent for the report, Arnold Diaz, runs his own Web site,
Schemes, Scams and Savin' a Buck, which he said put him on alert that
"we were being lumped in with scams in ABC's thinking." But Ellis
acknowledged that he had no idea what ABC intended to broadcast about
his company.
Requests by companies to tape interviews while networks are conducting
them have become common in recent years, and they are almost always
accepted. But companies usually use them to counter a news report they
consider unfair. David Westin, the president of ABC News, spoke at a
meeting of the ABC News staff on Wednesday morning and said
Metabolife's Web site posting could affect policies regarding taping
of interviews by interview subjects, perhaps creating the need for the
network to construct some kind of formal agreement that an interview
subject would not make public material from the interview until it was
broadcast or published.
"We are definitely going to think about the implications of this,"
said Shelby Coffey, the executive vice president of ABC News. "We
clearly have concerns about it. We don't want other people attempting
to get into and shift the journalism process."
Coffey said nothing on the Web site would have any effect on what ABC
eventually put into its broadcast, or on the timing of the broadcast.
The report is still in process and there is no date yet for it to
appear on ABC's newsmagazine "20/20." But an ABC News spokeswoman said
it was likely to be broadcast "within the next few weeks."
Neal Shapiro, the executive producer of NBC's newsmagazine "Dateline,"
agreed that the move by the company had implications for journalists
and said that executives at the network would talk about what steps it
could take.
Andrew Heyward, the president of CBS News, said he though this
particular circumstance was highly unusual. "It's expensive and
cumbersome for a company to do something like this," he said.
But he added: "It's an interesting idea to ask for an agreement that
the material not be used before we broadcast. That might be an option.
I just think that the fewer deals that are made between journalists
and sources, the better."
================================================================
http://www.ndez.com/html/ndcurtab.html
--------------------------------------
Current Events UPDATED
8/4/99
Tabloid Law
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908tabloids.htm
Atlantic Monthly — August, 1999
By Alex Beam
TABLOID LAWYER CORNERED IN CHURCH!
I FIRST learned about the tabloid wars during the after-service coffee
hour at my church, in Auburndale, Massachusetts. An older couple were
introducing their son, Jay Lavely, to the congregation. Lavely is a
lawyer in Los Angeles. Like most of the L.A. lawyers I would later
meet, he looks a decade younger than his age, which is fifty-five.
Whether they are well preserved or re-engineered I have no idea.
As we chatted, Lavely told me what kind of law he practices. He
represents celebrity clients in lawsuits against the supermarket
tabloids. He and his partner, Martin Singer, have represented Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Tom Selleck, Brad Pitt, and many other stars. We
briefly discussed an article I had read in the tabloid Globe, which
claimed that Schwarzenegger's heart-valve surgery had rendered him
unfit for action-hero roles. I thought the article was silly, but
Lavely took it quite seriously. His partner had already filed a $50
million libel suit against the paper.
Upon further acquaintance I learned that Lavely and his handful of
colleagues in the anti-tabloid bar despise the excesses of the three
mass-circulation weeklies -- the National Enquirer, the Globe, and the
Star. To those on the receiving end, the excesses are quite real.The
tabs routinely print confidential medical information about
celebrities, or compromising, invasive photos of them. The reporters
harass, bribe, and eavesdrop in their pursuit of tab-worthy stories. I
suppose it's a character failing, but I like the tabs. For one thing,
they have a puckish sense of mischief, borrowed from London's Fleet
Street, which is sorely lacking in America's self-important mainstream
newspapers. In surveys hardly anyone admits to buying the tabs. "I
glance at them in the check-out line" is the stock response. But
somebody must be buying them; five million copies are sold each week.
I occasionally buy them. I enjoy a half hour at the kitchen table
savoring their outlandish tales ("TINY POOCH FIGHTS OFF KNIFE-WIELDING
MANIAC TO SAVE TEEN"), oddball investigations ("GOVT. PLANS TO WASTE
$15 MILLION KILLING 800,000 HELPLESS ANIMALS"), and offbeat features
("SWIMSUITS MAKE WOMEN STUPID"). I've kept half an eye on the evolving
Elizabeth Taylor-Larry Fortensky soap opera, and I'm not too proud to
ogle some leafy telephoto pix of Brad (Pitt) and Jennifer (Aniston)
cavorting in their Caribbean hideaway -- before I read Richard
Holbrooke's latest fascinating op-ed piece on Kosovo, that is.
So, listening to Lavely's tales of suing, shoving retractions down the
tabloid editors' throats, and scoring big-dollar judgments against the
weeklies, I said to myself, Why would anyone want to do that?
CAROL BURNETT TABLOID SHOCKER!
One answer to that question is, Because it is possible. The modern era
of tabloid litigation began on a spring morning in 1976, when Barry
Langberg, a thirty-three-year-old entertainment lawyer, accepted a
phone call from the comedienne Carol Burnett.
"She called me up from New York, and she was in tears about this
article that had come out in the National Enquirer," says Langberg, an
intelligent, courteous whippet of a man whom his most ferocious
opponent calls "the patron saint of the tabloid bar." Langberg, too,
seems to have been dipped in southern California's fountain of youth.
Like every plaintiff's lawyer I interviewed, he is a relaxed but
stylish dresser and enjoys a well-appointed office with a magnificent
view of the dusky L.A. skyline. Twenty-odd years of suing the
deep-pocketed tabloids has made many a comfortable career in the City
of Angels.
Burnett explained herself: In a gossip-column item the Enquirer had
reported that "a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with
another diner, Henry Kissinger," at the Washington, D.C., restaurant
La Rive Gauche. Then Burnett "traipsed around the place offering
everyone a bite of her dessert." The tab recounted another altercation
with a different diner, strongly implying that Burnett was drunk.
"She was truly hurt by the article," Langberg told me in his office.
"Her parents were alcoholics; she had done a lot of high-profile
anti-alcohol campaigns. She wasn't thin-skinned, but this article had
a huge impact on her. At the time, there were tremendous obstacles to
this kind of suit. Times v. Sullivan [the landmark Supreme Court
ruling that granted the media extraordinary license when covering
'public figures'] was only twelve years old. There was a feeling that
if you were a star, you had to take that kind of abuse -- that it came
with the territory. And the Enquirer had a pretty good record of
getting out of trouble. I told Carol what the pattern was -- that the
Enquirer would make a lawsuit hard, long, drawn-out, and very
expensive. And she answered, 'I've got the time, the patience, the
resources, and the desire to do it.'"
Burnett proved to be the tabloid's worst nightmare: a determined,
wealthy, principled plaintiff. She rejected settlement offers. The
Enquirer published a retraction. She didn't care; she wanted to go to
trial. When the case finally came before a Los Angeles jury, in 1981,
she was as poised and charming on the witness stand as she had been in
countless television specials. Sadly for the Enquirer's (subsequently
dumped) law firm, Rogers & Wells, the case had a plethora of "bad
facts." In a deposition a Florida-based editor of the Enquirer said
that he distrusted the source of the original report and had rewritten
the item himself. A reporter testified that he had tried to fact-check
the item one hour before deadline and failed. Two of the restaurant's
employees came forward and said they had told Enquirer reporters that
Burnett hadn't been drunk at all.
Burnett won $1.6 million in damages. In 1986, after a series of
appeals reduced the award, she and Langberg settled with the Enquirer,
reportedly for $200,000. Burnett donated a portion of her award to the
journalism programs at the University of California at Berkeley and
the University of Hawaii.
On the heels of her suit three dozen celebrities, including Rory
Calhoun, Paul Lynde, Rudy Vallee, and Phil Silvers, filed look-alike
suits against the Enquirer. "The Enquirer had thirty cases filed
against them by people whose names are a fading memory on Hollywood
Squares," says Langberg's longtime nemesis, Gerson Zweifach, now the
Enquirer's chief litigator. "After Barry rang the bell, it sent the
message 'Bring 'em on!' It changed the entire landscape." The era of
tabloid litigation -- the extreme sport of First Amendment law -- was
born.
Tabloid litigation has taken us places the Framers never dreamed we
would go. Describing Burnett v. Enquirer in his First Amendment
history, Make No Law (1991), a puzzled Anthony Lewis asked, "Why
should inaccurate gossip about [movie stars'] private lives deserve an
especially high standard of First Amendment protection?" First
Amendment lawyers speak knowingly of "the Kato law," referring to a
California court's finding that O. J. Simpson's former houseboy was
defamed by the tabloid headline "COPS THINK KATO DID IT!" At the
beginning of his eleven-page opinion in the most recent Eastwood v.
Enquirer case, Judge Alex Kozinski allowed himself this moment of
levity: "Did defendant falsely represent that plaintiff had given it
an interview?
... Enquiring judges want to know."
"CREEPING TABLOIDISM!" LAWYER CLAIMS
When you say "supermarket tabloid," most Americans still think of
headlines like "JFK AIRLIFTED TO MARS" and "NEW JERSEY BABY BORN WITH
THREE HEADS," evergreen fodder for papers like the Weekly World News
and The Sun. But when Vanity Fair calls the 1990s the "tabloid
decade," it is paying homage to the three "fact-based" tabs, the
Enquirer, the Globe, and the Star. (The Enquirer and the Star are
owned by the same company.) These newspapers all have large staffs of
reporters and editors, some of them drafted from Fleet Street, who
gather information and print stories more or less the way other
journalists do.
Sure, the tabs do things a bit differently. They pay tipsters, and in
some cases they cross the line into entrapment. FBI agents briefly
investigated whether Suzen Johnson violated prostitution statutes when
she lured the veteran broadcaster Frank Gifford into a hotel room on
behalf of the Globe, which paid her $125,000 for her time, as it were.
In addition to bribing personnel such as maids and hairdressers to the
stars, the tabs use paparazzi with rifle-barrel lenses to stalk and
shoot celebrities in their sancta sanctorum.
The tabloids say they have a heavy investment in accuracy. Michael
Kahane, the general counsel for the Globe, explains that Globe
reporters compile extensive story files, consisting of notes, audio
and video tapes, and documents, including "source agreements," for
every article. "Colleagues of mine say they wish their daily
newspapers would use the same thoroughness that we do," Kahane says.
"Obviously, we're approaching this from a different level of
contention, because for us every story represents a potential
lawsuit." Lawsuits, of course, are expensive. A voir dire -to-verdict
litigation costs more than $1 million in lawyers' fees. Damage awards
are rare, but they can be big. The Globe, for instance, has been
ordered to pay $1.2 million to Khalid Khawar, a Pakistani freelance
photographer. In an article summarizing a book, the tabloid
erroneously accused Khawar of assassinating Robert Kennedy.
To forestall such snafus, the Globe has several in-house lawyers
available to vet copy before publication. Kahane claims that the
Globe, alone among the major tabs, regularly gives some of its sources
(including Suzen Johnson) lie-detector tests. The Los Angeles lawyer
Amy Hogue, who works with Kahane, says that Globe reporters routinely
make telephone or fax "comment calls" to the subjects of controversial
articles twenty-four hours before deadline. For his part Lavely
remembers more hurried morning calls than twenty-four hour
notices:"Many times they'll call and say 'We're going to press at
noon.'"
The Enquirer employs an eight-person research department to help with
fact-checking. The Washington, D.C., law firm of Williams & Connolly
handles its prepublication legal review. (The Enquirer's parent
company, American Media, spent approximately $20.8 million on
libel-related costs, including insurance, legal fees, and settlements,
over the past five years.) President Bill Clinton's lawyer David
Kendall, a Williams & Connolly partner, is famous at the tab for
green-lighting one of its most controversial stories, "LIBERACE'S
SECRET BATTLE WITH AIDS." The elaborate review system notwithstanding,
Langberg says, "Sometimes they make stuff up." Indeed, Kendall also
handled the prepublication review of the piece that led to Clint
Eastwood's most recent suit, which revealed that -- unbeknownst to
Kendall -- the Enquirer had bought and printed a fictitious interview
with the movie star.
But the tabs also get stuff right. Early in the O. J. Simpson case the
New York Times reporter David Margolick acknowledged that the Enquirer
had "broken numerous stories" relating to Nicole Simpson's murder. For
instance, the tabloid was the first to report Simpson's purchase of a
fifteen-inch stiletto. By dint of a Herculean search through
photographers' archives, the Enquirer found and printed a photograph
of Simpson wearing oversize Bruno Magli shoes like the ones that left
footprints at the murder scene -- shoes that Simpson had denied ever
owning.
The tabs' circulation has been declining during the tabloid decade,
supposedly because the mainstream press is becoming trashier -- that
is, more like the tabs. "Creeping tabloidism," Langberg calls it. Part
of me thinks this is rubbish. On the other hand, as I wandered around
Los Angeles interviewing lawyers, it was hard not to notice Monica
Lewinsky's picture on the front page of the Los Angeles Times every
day. (The Barbara Walters interview was about to air, and the Andrew
Morton book followed shortly thereafter.) A few weeks before, the New
York Times had printed a front-page story on Lewinsky's state of mind,
attributed to "a friend" -- the classic tabloid formula.
WANT TO SUE A TABLOID? MAKE MY DAY!
"Because the focus of the Company's publications on personality
journalism often involves controversial celebrities or subjects, the
risk of libel litigation arises in the ordinary course of the
Company's business."
-- American Media, 1998 Annual Report
Two decades after Carol Burnett's victory, it's still hard to win a
judgment against a tabloid. The First Amendment is a steep grade for
any plaintiff's lawyer to climb. And as he or she struggles uphill,
look who's rolling boulders down. Take Gerson Zweifach, a trim,
dark-haired forty-six-year-old First Amendment litigator at Williams &
Connolly. Zweifach emerged from Yale Law School just as Williams &
Connolly landed the National Enquirer account, and he cut his teeth on
the post-Burnett lawsuits. "Some of these cases were tremendously
entertaining," Zweifach recalls. "I had to defend the paper against a
'Hollywood personality' named Henry Wynberg. The Enquirer said he had
exploited Elizabeth Taylor. I learned that Henry had been charged in
L.A. for giving Quaaludes to girls at Beverly Hills High School, and
he had rolled back odometers. We went into court and said he had no
reputation to lose, that he was libel-proof. That was a relatively
novel argument at the time."
Zweifach seems to have been cast in the classic Williams & Connolly
mold: he is smart, sardonic, and pugnacious. We had a conversation
about Khalid Khawar's case against the Globe, which had overlaid a
thick arrow on a group photo in an effort to identify (wrongly) Khawar
as Robert Kennedy's killer. Speaking of Khawar's dogged pursuit of his
claim, Zweifach said, deadpan, "Some people just don't have a sense of
humor." During a lengthy interview in his Washington office he fussed
and fidgeted, and confessed to the litigator's love of combat: "I like
to be in court." He praised Barry Langberg with words similar to those
that Margaret Thatcher used to praise Mikhail Gorbachev: "I can do
business with Barry. At heart he's a trial lawyer. I'm a trial lawyer.
We like to try cases."
Earlier in his career Zweifach worked on the "review group" -- a
rotating coterie of Williams & Connolly lawyers who fly down to the
Enquirer's Florida headquarters to read the newspaper each week before
publication. Zweifach hated it. "It was like being a cornerback in
football. The only time anyone remembered your name was when you got
burned on an eighty-yard pass. I'd rather come into a situation where
the only place we have to go is uphill."
Zweifach's wish has been granted. Several years ago he litigated, and
lost, the Eastwood case, which was uphill from the get-go. Clint
Eastwood, the plaintiff, hated the Enquirer, and had settled a lawsuit
against it ten years before. And like Burnett, Eastwood was chock-full
of "bad facts" for the Enquirer.
On its cover the paper had trumpeted a lengthy "exclusive interview"
with Eastwood. Unfortunately, the interview never took place. The
paper also claimed "exclusive" access to a photo of Eastwood's new
baby, born to his former girlfriend, Frances Fisher. But the jury
learned that a photographer had taken a picture of a baby photo from a
distance when Fisher handed the snapshot to the actor Daniel Baldwin
at a movie premiere. "If she didn't want the world to see a photograph
of her daughter, she shouldn't have held it up," Zweifach grouses.
"She's there to pump a movie; the photographers are there to take her
picture." But even he allows that this particular intrusion
overreached. "Eastwood used the photo very effectively at trial. In
front of a jury you don't want to be making a legally correct,
unappetizing argument about why you printed someone's baby photo
without their permission." Fictional interview, purloined photo: the
judge and jury awarded Eastwood $800,000.
But a case with even worse facts for the Enquirer ended differently.
In 1993 Elizabeth Taylor, who had also successfully sued the weekly
before, filed a lawsuit concerning a cover story that was ridiculously
inaccurate. This time the Enquirer's reporter was following up on a
court filing by one of Taylor's neighbors, who claimed that Taylor's
husband at the time, Larry Fortensky, had picked a fight over a shared
fence. The reporter went to what he thought was the neighbor's house,
opened his checkbook, and the Enquirer ultimately printed the
resulting scoop on its cover: "LIZ & LARRY FORCE NEIGHBOR TO FLEE HIS
HOME IN FEAR." But the reporter had interviewed the wrong neighbor.
"This guy saw an opportunity," Zweifach says. "He took the money and
he told this harrowing tale. They put his picture on the cover. It was
a deeply flawed piece." It's hard not to laugh at a goof-up like this,
and even Zweifach cracks a smile when recounting the tale. "Look," he
says, "libel law isn't journalism finishing school."
Remember Times v. Sullivan ? A false report does not guarantee a libel
judgment. As a public figure, Taylor would have to prove that the
Enquirer had acted with actual malice, and had damaged her reputation.
Zweifach says, "The judge ruled that the effect of our report was no
different than if we had reported the court filing. He threw out the
case." Taylor had sued the Enquirer for libel, and for "commercial
misappropriation" of her name and celebrity. But California has an
automatic fee-shifting claim in this kind of case, so the judge
ordered Taylor to pay the tabloid $432,600 in legal fees. "We tried to
end the case, and she pushed it through two appeals," Zweifach says.
"She kept losing, and we kept winning."
The victory presented a quandary for the Enquirer. The tabloid hadn't
wanted to further anger Taylor, an audience favorite who appears --
against her will, no doubt -- in its pages about every other week. So
after the final appeal the Enquirer staged a party at the Four Seasons
Hotel in Palm Beach, where the editor, Steve Coz, announced that a
portion of the award would be donated to the fight against AIDS, one
of Taylor's favorite causes. A color photo of the check, "suitable for
framing," Zweifach says, sits in his Williams & Connolly office.
CELEBS' LAW DIFFERENT FROM YOURS AND MINE!
Libel and defamation law is heavily stacked in the tabloids' favor.
The same First Amendment invoked by Williams & Connolly to allow The
Washington Post to publish the Pentagon Papers grants the tabloids
enormous leeway in examining celebrities' lives. It's tough being a
public figure, as a recently minted celebrity like Kato Kaelin can
attest. Kaelin tried to sue the Globe for reporting that he had
"confessed" to a friend that he helped O. J. Simpson to dispose of
bloody clothing on the night of the attack on Nicole Simpson. A judge
tossed the suit out of court. Kaelin's lawyer, Gary Bostwick,
dolefully observed in the Los Angeles Times that his client was "a
little guy who became a public figure overnight because he heard some
thumping in the middle of the night."
Still, celebrity plaintiffs enjoy obvious advantages. The Globe lawyer
Amy Hogue surprised me with her claim that she and her colleagues have
"two strikes" against them when they walk into court. "People like
judges, who don't read and enjoy the Globe, have an idea that its
content is prurient, not true, and overly sensationalized," she
explains. "It's harder to persuasively take the high ground when
you're representing a tabloid." Furthermore, Los Angeles is home turf
for the celebrity plaintiffs. "Even in L.A. jurors are very excited to
be in the courtroom with a celebrity, very willing to believe a
celebrity, and willing to reward a celebrity for perceived wrongs,"
Hogue says. She is famous in the California bar for a delicate 1994
cross-examination of the Wheel of Fortune letter-turner and celebrity
survivor Vanna White. In a series of friendly questions Hogue had
White tell the jury about two Playboy photo spreads and her visits to
the Playboy mansion. "We had to be very careful, because at the time
she had this image as the girl next door," Hogue recalls. She lost the
case.
Dissatisfied with the flimsy protection afforded their clients by
traditional libel law, plaintiffs' attorneys like Langberg, Bostwick,
and Lavely have devised creative new assaults on the tabloids. "For
years the plaintiffs' bar has been looking to load up against our
client," Zweifach says. In the suit concerning Elizabeth Taylor's
neighbor, for instance, Taylor's lawyer included a "civil RICO" claim
against the Enquirer, accusing it of mail fraud under the
Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Still, tab lawyers
routinely shift cases from state to federal courts, where, they
believe, judges are less indulgent of outlandish legal appeals. (The
added paperwork in federal courts also imposes a heavier burden on
plaintiffs' lawyers, who are often working for a contingency fee.) In
the Taylor case a federal judge quickly dismissed the RICO claim.
Zweifach believes that plaintiffs like to file "California boutique
torts" other than libel and defamation in order to avoid the process
of pre-trial discovery. It might not be wise for a star depicted as
being drunk on a movie set to pursue a libel claim that would have the
tabloid's lawyers digging into his or her history of substance abuse.
As noted, a famous enough star can pursue a claim of commercial
misappropriation, complaining that the tabloid used the celebrity's
image without permission to sell newspapers. This gambit worked twice
for Clint Eastwood, in 1982 and in the interview-and-baby-picture
case, which was finally decided in 1997. In the more recent case
Eastwood won on all three of his counts -- misappropriation, invasion
of privacy, and an obscure claim under the federal Lanham Act, a
consumer-protection statute aimed at penalizing companies that make
false claims for their products. Eastwood's lawyers skirted the libel
laws entirely, admitting at trial that the offending interview was not
defamatory. Their only gripe was that it had never taken place.
More recently, celebrities have sought refuge in contract law. Michael
Jackson makes members of his entourage sign nondisclosure agreements.
If one blabs to the tabs, as someone inevitably does, Jackson's
lawyers can file an interference-with-contract claim. This has taken
on absurd proportions: some celebrities have asked wedding guests to
sign nondisclosure contracts as a condition of attending a ceremony
that might attract the interest of the tabs. "That's so tasteful,"
Zweifach scoffs. "You open up the Tiffany invitation and this contract
falls out of the envelope."
Moreover, celebrities' lawyers have been scoring some victories in the
burgeoning field of privacy law, which has not been well defined by
the courts. Judges and juries are now sympathetic to claims that seek
to protect "private facts." For instance, Gary Bostwick successfully
argued that the Enquirer should pay damages to Tamara Hood, the former
girlfriend of the comedian Eddie Murphy, because it had told too much
about her private life. A state appeals court acknowledged that Murphy
was a public figure, and that his actions were "generally newsworthy."
But when the Enquirer printed precise details of Murphy's financial
settlement with Hood and their son, Christian (he had bought her a
house and set up a trust fund for the boy), the court held that it had
overstepped: "We cannot say as a matter of law that the details of a
celebrity's financial support of his child and Ms. Hood's are
newsworthy." The truthfulness of the report, which just a few years
ago constituted an absolute defense, played little role in the court's
decision. Bostwick says, "Because of the new use of these privacy
torts, judges are ruling that the publication of truth cannot be
sanctioned under all circumstances."
Another category of privacy law -- trespass -- has provided new
opportunities for celebrity litigation, especially since the death of
Princess Diana. In California celebrities have even succeeded in
passing their own statute, outlawing so-called "constructive trespass"
("voodoo trespass," one of the defense lawyers calls it) by news
reporters. The 1998 law allows for treble damages on journalists who
intrude on "personal or familial activity under circumstances in which
the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy . . . regardless
of whether there is a physical trespass." Theoretically, this would
put an end to helicopters hovering over Barbra Streisand's wedding,
and to those snapshots I saw of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston
canoodling in the palms. ("Really? Where?" a concerned Lavely asked me
over lunch near his Century City office. "They're both clients of
mine.")
It could have been worse. Schwarzenegger, Steven Seagal, and other
stars initially lobbied state legislators for a fifteen-foot "bubble,"
or traveling restraining order, that would keep reporters and
photographers two car-lengths away from celebrities. But Lavely is
happy with what they got. "Aggressive paparazzi behavior can lead to
dangerous circumstances,"he says. "Think about it -- celebrities are
high-risk people in terms of stalking fans. Most of my celebrity
clients have one or more stalkers or pursuers." Zweifach's position on
"intrusive" photography is that bad behavior begets embarrassing
pictures. "Let's say we get pictures of Bruce [Willis] and Demi
[Moore] dancing on the bar at Planet Hollywood with their clothes off,
and not necessarily with each other -- this isn't the Mossad taking
these photos!" The constructive-trespass law, which was opposed by the
American Civil Liberties Union and by every major news organization in
California, has yet to be tested in court.
But as the plaintiffs' lawyers stray from the familiar ground of libel
and defamation law, they learn that new causes of action create new
problems. Kato Kaelin's libel claim against the Globe, for instance,
exposed him to an anti-SLAPP ("strategic lawsuits against public
participation") motion. This exotic procedure has flourished in
California, counteracting real-estate developers and oil companies
that have used SLAPP suits to silence neighborhood groups or
public-interest lobbies opposing their projects. A SLAPP suit
essentially levels a defamation claim at the critic of a controversial
project. The San Francisco Chronicle won a precedent-setting
anti-SLAPP motion against a bothersome litigant in 1995, and the Globe
did the same with Kato Kaelin. The judge accepted the Globe's claim
that Kaelin had filed a frivolous lawsuit, and slapped him with the
Globe's $25,000 legal bill. "I can't win anything," Kaelin complained
to the Los Angeles Times. "I can't understand a law where I'm paying
this company's lawyers while they're writing libelous stories about
me."
GOT A PROBLEM? MAYBE WE CAN SETTLE THIS... [L]IKE most civil actions,
the majority of tabloid lawsuits never come to trial. Often the
celebrity's lawyers will file a claim, fire off a press release, and
then quietly back off the suit. (One B-list actress issued a press
release and then neglected to file suit against the Enquirer. When
editor Steve Coz phoned her publicist, he learned that the star
planned to make her filing coincide with an upcoming movie-of-the-week
appearance.) Many of these suits are dismissed on summary judgment.
But where the plaintiffs have a legitimate claim, the tabloids are
amenable to extrajudicial settlements, which can be interesting
indeed.
The first level of mediation involves a retraction, which will satisfy
many aggrieved celebs. Retractions are hard to obtain. "The chances of
getting a retraction from any publication are about one in a hundred,"
Bostwick says. Bostwick has had bad experiences negotiating
retractions with the tabs. "The retraction can even be more damaging,
because they'll print the truth as they know it. For instance, they'll
say, ' We erroneously reported that so-and-so was arrested for driving
while intoxicated. In fact she was arrested for possession of drugs.'
And then another few million issues will go to press repeating the
damaging information. Or they'll repeat the allegation with some snide
comment. You have to be careful."
In Langberg's office I saw a tongue-in-cheek draft retraction that the
Enquirer wanted to print after inaccurately reporting that the
magician David Copperfield "conjured up a pack of trouble when he
offered to do a magic trick for a busty model at a party in Milan --
and stuck his hand down her cleavage!" In a blithe note to readers,
the editors suggested that they would like to make their mistake
"disappear." Langberg frowns on this kind of high jinks; he held out
for a straightforward admission of error. Retractions can cut both
ways. In 1997 the Enquirer forced Eddie Murphy to drop a $5 million
libel claim, reimburse its costs, and issue his own retraction: "After
an investigation of the matter, Mr. Murphy has concluded that the
National Enquirer did not publish its article about Mr. Murphy with
malice or recklessly."
Another Solomonic resolution is the "give-back," or "make-up," story,
a follow-up article that corrects some earlier mistakes. Such
resolutions are also full of pitfalls for angry celebs. "The tabs
always want to use the settlement agreement to get another story,
having the client's participation," Langberg complains. Still, it's
something. A classic give-back ran in the National Enquirer two years
ago, headlined "SORRY, MATT PERRY." The paper had erroneously reported
that the star of the TV sitcom Friends had checked into a
rehabilitation hospital for a drug problem. Although Perry had
previous well-documented problems with substance abuse, he happened to
be at the hospital ministering to his sick grandfather. "It was a
horrible mistake," Coz concedes. The give-back ran in the same space
as the mistaken report, with the same headline size. No litigation
ensued. Coz says, "It's a great example of how fair the National
Enquirer can be."
The great unmentionable in tabloid warfare is the "blackout." Very
rarely, when threatened with significant legal repercussions, a
tabloid will agree not to write about a certain celebrity for a while.
According to Los Angeles magazine, lawyers for the comedienne Roseanne
Barr obtained a lengthy blackout agreement from the Enquirer and the
Star as part of a settlement following charges that reporters stole
intimate letters from her. Lavely and Langberg say they have each
obtained a blackout but won't discuss the clients involved. "They hate
to give those," Langberg says. Kahane says the Globe agreed to a
couple of blackouts before he arrived, in 1995, but it doesn't give
them now. On the legal and ethical front a blackout amounts to prior
restraint -- the untouchable third rail of First Amendment
jurisprudence. Bostwick, who is also a professor of First Amendment
law at Loyola Law School, says he has never heard of a blackout
agreement and would never seek one: "Asking for a blackout is contrary
to my views."
Sometimes out-of-court settlements have a winsome aspect. The actress
Melissa Gilbert sued the Enquirer over a story that portrayed her as a
"deadbeat Mom" who forced her children to watch reruns of her TV
series, Little House on the Prairie. She dropped the suit, but as part
of the settlement Gilbert asked for and received a meeting with Steve
Coz. ("That's rare," Lavely remarks, "because most people would like
to wring his neck.") "She flew down here, and we had drinks and dinner
at the Delano Hotel, on South Beach," Coz told me. "We had a terrific
time. I think we have a budding friendship."
TABLOID ARMAGEDDON!
[I]F there is one thing the tabloids fear, it is the Godzilla
plaintiff -- the wealthy, aggrieved celebrity who just keeps on
coming. Carol Burnett was one: a celebrity of unimpeachable
reputation, rich, willing to spend, animated by principle, and
determined to punish her tabloid adversary. After being awarded $1.6
million Burnett proclaimed that she would have been happy to pursue
the suit for "one dollar plus cab fare." Clint Eastwood was another
such plaintiff. After researching Eastwood's behavior in a palimony
suit filed by his former girlfriend Sondra Locke, Zweifach knew that
Eastwood would be a tough nut. "Clint could have taken care of her,
but instead he fought her, and she gave him years of bad publicity.
He's a very stubborn man" -- $800,000 worth of stubborn where the
Enquirer is concerned.
Now the Twin Towers of tabloid litigation, Langberg and Zweifach, are
squaring off again. Langberg has a Godzilla client -- the lifestyle
diva Martha Stewart. "She has all the earmarks of the celebrity who
will go to the ends of the earth to get a judgment against us,"
Zweifach says. "She looks like she will walk through fire. Here's a
stunning fact: she sat in a Connecticut courtroom for several hours
day after day in a battle with a gardener over a $20,000 bill. This
could be a humdinger."
Two years ago the Enquirer printed a story headlined "MARTHA STEWART
MENTALLY ILL." The Enquirer quoted two mental-health experts, a doctor
and an author, opining that Stewart "shows indications of a
neurological brain disorder." They arrived at their conclusions after
reading excerpts from Jerry Oppenheimer's Just Desserts, an
unauthorized biography of Stewart, which was serialized in the
Enquirer. Stewart is understandably upset that an audience of two and
a half million readers may think she is mentally ill, on the say-so of
two purported experts who have never met her. One curiosity in the
case is that the sources approached the Enquirer, not vice versa.
"That's a good fact for us," Zweifach says.
Stewart's "claim for relief" is only three pages long -- what Zweifach
calls a "clean, pure" Barry Langberg filing. "The ... statement and
headline published in the Article are false and defamatory and expose
STEWART to contempt, ridicule, and obloquy," the suit reads. The
"defendants made the defamatory statements alleged above knowing that
they were false, or with reckless disregard for truth." It's Libel
101. No RICO, no Lanham Act, no "commercial misappropriation" or
"constructive trespass." In lapidary prose that would make his
law-school professors proud, Langberg requests $10 million in general
damages, with punitive damages to be awarded at trial.
Langberg is itching to go. "Martha's strong-willed; she has
principles; they lied," he says. "We're going to go to trial, and
we're going to win. I just hope Gerson doesn't make me an offer that's
so good I have to advise Martha to take it." When I spoke with
Zweifach in Washington, he was gleefully pawing through the
Oppenheimer book, a running sewer of derogatory allegations about
Stewart. He said he couldn't wait to get into the ring against
Langberg and his mega-wealthy client. "Anyone running a business
called ' Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia' is going to have millions of
dollars to throw at this." I spoke with Zweifach again after the two
lawyers had agreed to prolong the pre-trial discovery period. "We both
agreed to extend it, since we're busy loading up with psychiatrists.
Barry will have his psychiatrists, we'll have ours. Mazel tov! That's
the First Amendment. That's what's great about America."
Copyright © 1999 by The Atlantic Monthly Company.
All rights reserved. The Atlantic Monthly; August
1999; Tabloid Law - 99.08 (Part Two); Volume 284,
No. 2; page 55-68.
age...@post.cz
>
><age...@post.cz> wrote in message
>news:1999111823...@relay.globe.cz...
>> Thanks, Pyro. Martin Mevius, lecturer in history
>> at Oxford University,
>
>buddy 99 - did you mis this?
>(http://x42.deja.com/=sd/getdoc.xp?AN=543891101.1&CONTEXT=943194665.36588753
>9&hitnum=2) Where the hell did you get this ``information`` from? Have you
>just ``deduced`` this from my email
>address? Or is it just another example of twisting facts as you see fit? Why
>do you bother with stating `facts` which you obviously have no idea of? I
>suppose this is indicative of your normal modus operandi.
>
>Here is the list of faculty postholders at the History Faculty at Oxford
>University.
>http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/facmem.html. You will notice I am not among
>them.
>
Yes, and it says:
``In addition, many colleges employ both permanent and temporary
lecturers and have Junior Research Fellows or postgraduates
who give tutorials in particular subjects.``
On your paper ``NAVO schoot doel voorbij``, available at
http://www.rodehoed.nl/Roodkoper/9905jun/mevius.htm
the credit reads:
``Martin Mevius doceert geschiedenis aan de Universiteit van Oxford``
Forgot about that, didn`t you? Or do you have another
meaning for ``doceert``? You are or were a temporary
lecturer at Oxford.
>
> just received a history
>> lesson himself about the Jewish role in Black slave
>> trade to the Americas.
Cheers,
99
--
``The rest of your post should earn you a pen register
with the FBI, if you don`t already have one. A recent
post would have done the same thing. Three cheers for
the FBI, who may still be monitoring this group.``
--susan...@aol.com (SusanJ1111) to 99 in message
<19990813194840...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
displaying her commitment to free speech.
Vlidny zpusob hledani na internetu?
*** http://NAJDI.TO
Pyro 1488
List" was based on), revealed her thoughts on Spielberg's so-called magnum
opus in several recent interviews. Her perspective on her ex-husband's role
during the holocaust is in clear conflict to that held in Spielberg's
propaganda ploy, those seeking tens of billions in reparations from Germany,
as well as those who run Nizkook and their lickspittles who get paid to make
noise on newsgroups such as a.f.u.
In Her Own Words...
"There never was a 'Schindler's List'. It was drawn up by a man called
Goldman. This man took money to put a name on that list - no money, no place
on the list. I was told this by a Dr. Schwartz, in Vienna; he had paid in
diamonds to save his wife..."
"Hah! Neither of us [Emilie and Oskar] was a hero.."
"Oskar was always complex; he was playing both extremes, always, even at the
end with Nazis against the Jews."
-- Emilie Schindler
Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith, explains in ADL On the Frontile (January 1994, page 2) what it is
that makes "the" Holocaust different from all other atrocities which have
occured throughout history (many of them MUCH WORSE -- and even some
committed by Jews themselves):
God's Chosen Children: "The Holocaust is something different. It is a
singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near
successful attempt on the life of God's chosen children and, thus, on God
Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in
the Bible; and like its direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the
Sabbath and yearly with the Torah, it must be remembered from generation to
generation."
Regards,
Pyro
--
"DAVID IRVING knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the
Second World War. He discovers archives unknown to official historians and
turns their contents into densely footnoted narratives that consistently
provoke controversy... His greatest achievement is Hitler`s War, which has
been described as the 'autobiography the Fuehrer did not write' and is
indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round. Now he
has turned his attention to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister,
and the 75,000 pages of his diary held in formerly closed archive in Moscow.
The result is a characteristic Irving book: 530 pages of text and 160 pages
of relentless references. . . . Irving is particularly good on the events of
July 20 [the 1944 Bomb Plot against Hitler]. . . . Irving as usual, knows
more than anyone of the details [of the death of the Goebbels family in
1945]. He does not spare us. This final propaganda of the deed is, in a
gruesome way, the most interesting event in Goebbels' life."
-- John Keegan, The Daily Telegraph, April 20, 1996