why did FZ hate Reagan so much?
Erick Easton
and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
but I think he did a lot of good.
Also, where is this Jazz Hall of Fame that FZ is supposedly a member
of? I can't find anything on it on the net.
Charles Ulrich
i_bench_pr...@eudoramail.com (Erick Easton) wrote:
> Also, where is this Jazz Hall of Fame that FZ is supposedly a member
> of? I can't find anything on it on the net.
FZ is in the *Rock* Hall Of Fame.
Bill
Frank was inducted into the Downbeat Critics HOF in 1994.
Les Cargill
>
> At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
> and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
> is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
> but I think he did a lot of good.
>
There's a lot of history there. Reagan was really hard on
nonconforming members of California society when he was
Governor.
> Also, where is this Jazz Hall of Fame that FZ is supposedly a member
> of? I can't find anything on it on the net.
I dunno, but it should be housed in a retired pawn shop.
--
Les Cargill
cheepnis
> At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
> and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
> is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
> but I think he did a lot of good.
>
He did alot of good? Name one thing (and don't tell me it was the end
of the cold war, he had very little to do with that).
I don't berlieve Frank was a libertarian, He was thinking of running
on the libertarian ticket then he read some of there platform and
thought better of it.I think his exact quote was "those guys are
closet anarchist". As for why he hated Reagan, Reagan was one of the
worst Presidents we ever had (The current president would be THE
WORST). Reagan was a born again christian and a senile old man which
was a dangerous combination for someone with their finger on the
button. He also committed impeachable acts by selling arms to Iran
(our enemy at the time) and using the profits to fund an illegal war
in south America.Basically violating the trust of the American people
and the constitution. I think by the end of his term there were 25
convicted felons in his cabinet, He rolled back every social program
he could, causing a homeless epidemic in the major cities (psychiatric
patients were released onto the street, in New York we lost 50,000
beds for the mentally unwell) Reagan was a union buster who fired the
air traffic controllers when the tried to strike for better wages. I
could go on but I'll stop here,I lived through it I know how crappy
things were and the historic record is there for all to see,just do a
little research . As for Frank being anti communist I think he didn't
like commmunism but he wasn't obsessed with it like Reagan, he just
felt it didn't work because people want stuff. Frank did say he was a
laissez faire "Adam Smith" capitalist,which is what I believe he meant
when he said he was a conservative. He wanted to go back to the model
of a small business which sinks or swims according to the market
place.Which is kind of a quaint old fashioned notion in todays world
of Global markets and corporate monopolies.I doubt Frank would have
gotten anywhere in todays music business, he could barely get on the
radio back then, could you imagine in todays world of clear channel
communications that he would get heard at all. If only the invisible
hand of the market actually still worked, now a days we have the iron
fist of the market. From what I can gather this is the extant of Zappa
conservative viewpoint.Reagan (and the current chimp in office) claim
to be in favor of smaller government but the reality is that they
always give us more government involvement in our private lives
(wanting to regulate abortion,being staunchly anti drug,look it how
much GW Bush has expanded goverment since he's been in office, we now
have a new department of homeland insecurity adn DARPa wanting to spy
on everyone of us) Reagans idea of smaller government was less
regulation for big business and more regulation for the little guy.
Frank certainly did not care for the Christian conservatism of Reagan
who wanted to take us back to the days before minorities and woman
could vote and everyone worshipped the same god or else. Where
companies were free to exploit the enviroment at the expense of
peoples health.Having lived through the eighties in the USA I can say
it was truly a scary time and the only thing that helped get me
through it was people like Frank who felt it was their duty to
ridicule these bastards. We could use more of that here and now.
My favorite reagan quote "facts are stupid things".
Cheapnis
PS
I realize I haven't posted here in a while but soemhow I couldn't help
myself, Like I said the 80's were a dark time because of Reagan and it
left some scars.I will slink off into the darkness once again. Good
Bye!
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
>
> Erick Easton wrote:
> >
> > At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
> > and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
> > is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
> > but I think he did a lot of good.
> >
>
> There's a lot of history there. Reagan was really hard on
> nonconforming members of California society when he was
> Governor.
Ruined a LOT of his fellow actors while president of the SAG.
Made acid a felony. Sold weapons to the Afghan mujahadin, predecessors
of Al-Qaeda.
Jim
>
> PS
> I realize I haven't posted here in a while but soemhow I couldn't help
> myself, Like I said the 80's were a dark time because of Reagan and it
> left some scars.I will slink off into the darkness once again. Good
> Bye!
The 80's were no worse than the quagmire of the 60's, remember the dems and
Vietnam?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
MS
have been inducted into both the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame and the Downbeat
Jazz Hall of Fame."
http://www.projectobject.com/press-00.html
"Charles Ulrich" <ulr...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:ulrich-108945....@news.vf.shawcable.net...
JW Moore
>i_bench_pr...@eudoramail.com (Erick Easton) wrote in message news:<ad1dbf17.03060...@posting.google.com>...
>> At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
>> and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
>> is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
>> but I think he did a lot of good.
>>
>
>He did alot of good? Name one thing (and don't tell me it was the end
>of the cold war, he had very little to do with that).
>
I won't tell you, but Gorbachev himself acknowledged that the cost of keeping up with
Reagan's military buildup eventually wrecked the Soviet economy and the USSR itself.
Vaclav Havel and Lech Walenca have repeatedly said that free-market pressure from the US
and Western Europe was the primary factor in freeing Czechoslovakia and Poland,
respectively, from Soviet Bloc repression. Romania, East Germany and the Baltic states
followed suit. Most economists (including those in the Reagan Administration) believed the
central-planning, socialist command economy model was fundamentally flawed and that the
USSR and client states would have collapsed eventually; the dramatic increase in military
spending (including the threat of SDI) accelerated the process by up to a decade.
FZ may have ridiculed Reagan, but the guy he really >hated< was Nixon. The reasons are
fairly self-explanatory.
<idiotic non sequitir rant snipped>
>I realize I haven't posted here in a while but soemhow I couldn't help
>myself, Like I said the 80's were a dark time because of Reagan and it
>left some scars.I will slink off into the darkness once again. Good
>Bye!
Why don't you slink into a library and check out a history book -- Locate the chapter on
the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union. A dictionary and a book on punctuation and
grammar wouldn't hurt either. Maybe you could audit a class at the local community
college. Or you can just keep your head stuck up your ass for all I care.
~~Jack
computeruser
"Erick Easton" <i_bench_pr...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:ad1dbf17.03060...@posting.google.com...
I understand it goes back to Regan in the 1960's as California's governor
Regan purportedly thought the long haired freaks and hippies should be put
in re-education facilities (concentration Moon).
I doubt if Frank could ever forgive Regan for that, yet I have wondered how
he was able to forgive Al Gore for his behavior around the PMRC and
censoring musicians. While frank was more of an independent with Libertarian
leanings, Gail Zappa seems to a pro leftist staunch Democrat.
I agree he seem to be a strong capitalist, laissez faire not only with the
economy but with most aspects of government, and yet he like most in
Hollywood leans toward the left.
computeruser.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/03
I AM
> I won't tell you, but Gorbachev himself acknowledged that the cost of keeping up with
> Reagan's military buildup eventually wrecked the Soviet economy and the USSR itself.
But Gorbachev is of course an old communist and hardly the one who'll
say that communism is worse than capitalism. If you look more closely,
you'll see that it's probably the huge expense of fighting in
Afghanistan that did the USSR in. And yes, the USA did support the
Mujahedin there, so they helped in the collapse of the Soviet Union. But
then again, they also helped in arming the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And
look who's fighting in Afghanistan now. Not making any point, mind you,
just trying to point out how empires never foresee their fall in
advance.
A lesson to be learned, perhaps.
A-Maze
Stan
i_bench_pr...@eudoramail.com (Erick Easton) wrote:
> At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
> and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
> is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
> but I think he did a lot of good.
Reagan was in no respect "laissez-faire." He believed in heavy government
intervention both in the domestic economy, propping up US-based businesses
by means of subsidies laundered through the military, and abroad, through
military attacks and covert action. And his administration was strongly
against the First Amendment, favoring state censorship through regulation
and intimidation.
> Also, where is this Jazz Hall of Fame that FZ is supposedly a member
> of? I can't find anything on it on the net.
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not Jazz.
--Stan
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam
Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize
himself."
--G. W. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
³Killing Iraqis was hard at first, but after a while it got easier.²
--Timothy McVeigh, veteran of Gulf War I
Hoodude
wrote:
>> > Also, where is this Jazz Hall of Fame that FZ is supposedly a member
>> > of? I can't find anything on it on the net.
>> FZ is in the *Rock* Hall Of Fame.
>Frank was inducted into the Downbeat Critics HOF in 1994.
And the Playboy Music Hall of Fame in 1993.
--
If they give you ruled paper, write the other way.
- Juan Ramón Jiménez
Richard Ballard
ja...@hotmail.com (JW Moore) writes:
>I won't tell you, but Gorbachev himself acknowledged that the
>cost of keeping up with Reagan's military buildup eventually
>wrecked the Soviet economy and the USSR itself.
>Vaclav Havel and Lech Walenca have repeatedly said that
>free-market pressure from the US and Western Europe was the
>primary factor in freeing Czechoslovakia and Poland,
>respectively, from Soviet Bloc repression. Romania, East Germany
>and the Baltic states followed suit. Most economists (including
>those in the Reagan Administration) believed the central-planning,
>socialist command economy model was fundamentally flawed and
>that the USSR and client states would have collapsed eventually;
>the dramatic increase in military spending (including the threat
>of SDI) accelerated the process by up to a decade.
The United States did win 'The Cold War' by outspending the
Soviet Union, but the victory was costly.
David Stockman, President Reagan's Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, wrote "The Triumph Of Politics: ...",
a discussion of Governmental economics during the Reagan
Administration. The book is heavy but enlightening reading.
<snip>
My opinions.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Cults In Our Midst: ..."
by Margaret Thaler Singer
commodious
(Erick Easton) wrote:
Any friend of the Religous Right is a fucking idiot. Just a thought.
If I remember correctly, in the episode of Crossfire where Frank goes
at it with John Lofton(really funny;FZ tells him to kiss his ass)
Frank talks about the country starting to lean toward a fascist
theocracy. My guess is he blamed Reagan and his Religous Right asshole
friends for supposedly taking the country in that direction.
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan
Piece
JYOB
>Any friend of the Religous Right is a fucking idiot.
Gee, thanx.....
the old geezer
Sam Rouse
jy...@aol.comTOG (JYOB) wrote:
If the shoe fits.... ;)
Les Cargill
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
> >
> > Erick Easton wrote:
> > >
> > > At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
> > > and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
> > > is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
> > > but I think he did a lot of good.
> > >
> >
> > There's a lot of history there. Reagan was really hard on
> > nonconforming members of California society when he was
> > Governor.
>
> Ruined a LOT of his fellow actors while president of the SAG.
According to Studs Terkel and a bunch of other
people who can talk about it now, there really
were a boatload of Commies in Hollywood. I note
that even Arthur Miller never defended all the
Communist positions - people were just extremely
naive.
The Klaus Heine case made it a real security issue -
he sold the bomb technology to the Russians because
he thought there should be a balance of power.
So it's not a black or white issue. That the Military
Industrial Complex was out of control in no way
precludes the possibility that some of the things
it was doing were at least in the right direction.
Just because the wall fell doesn't mean everybody who
was a cold warrior was wrong.
This doesn't mean that the freak/hippie mess was all
that Communist, either.
This also doesn't mean that Tail Gunner Joe was right -
but there was a legitimate conflict going on, at least
in terms of balance of power.
> Made acid a felony.
Gee, that's bad because... ever hear Zappa hold forth
on that garbage? Sorry, but Zappa's anti drug stance was
*very* refreshing during the day.
> Sold weapons to the Afghan mujahadin, predecessors
> of Al-Qaeda.
Yeah., brilliant, that. I guess he'd never even read
Kipling...
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
That's like blaming the boils for somebody having smallpox.
> "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan
>
> Piece
--
Les Cargill
commodious
Take it up with Zappa....that's just my current view of what I imagine
his position to be......cough...cough..choke...
where am I?
commodious
It was just a though. I make no claim to accuracy.
JW Moore
>In article <3edf017a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>ja...@hotmail.com (JW Moore) writes:
>
>>I won't tell you, but Gorbachev himself acknowledged that the
>>cost of keeping up with Reagan's military buildup eventually
>>wrecked the Soviet economy and the USSR itself.
>>Vaclav Havel and Lech Walenca have repeatedly said that
>>free-market pressure from the US and Western Europe was the
>>primary factor in freeing Czechoslovakia and Poland,
>>respectively, from Soviet Bloc repression. Romania, East Germany
>>and the Baltic states followed suit. Most economists (including
>>those in the Reagan Administration) believed the central-planning,
>>socialist command economy model was fundamentally flawed and
>>that the USSR and client states would have collapsed eventually;
>>the dramatic increase in military spending (including the threat
>>of SDI) accelerated the process by up to a decade.
>
>The United States did win 'The Cold War' by outspending the
>Soviet Union, but the victory was costly.
>
Sure was, but on the whole I'd say it was money well spent, both from the free-market and
human-rights standpoints.
>David Stockman, President Reagan's Director of the Office
>of Management and Budget, wrote "The Triumph Of Politics: ...",
>a discussion of Governmental economics during the Reagan
>Administration. The book is heavy but enlightening reading.
>
Very important book I agree. A good companion book is Bill Grieder's "Education of David
Stockman", excerpts of which hastened Stockman's departure. In retrospect it seems
incredibly naive to think that cutting taxes would not be simpler than cutting even the
patently indefensible porkbarrel programs. Rosy Scenario always wins in the end.
~~Jack
Willie Nelson
Zappa was jealous because Reagan was popular and he wasn't
On the troll again....
Sam Rouse
ja...@hotmail.com (JW Moore) wrote:
> On 05 Jun 2003 16:52:17 GMT, rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) :
>
> >
> >The United States did win 'The Cold War' by outspending the
> >Soviet Union, but the victory was costly.
> >
>
> Sure was, but on the whole I'd say it was money well spent, both from the
> free-market and
> human-rights standpoints.
>
> >David Stockman, President Reagan's Director of the Office
> >of Management and Budget, wrote "The Triumph Of Politics: ...",
> >a discussion of Governmental economics during the Reagan
> >Administration. The book is heavy but enlightening reading.
> >
> Very important book I agree. A good companion book is Bill Grieder's
> "Education of David
> Stockman", excerpts of which hastened Stockman's departure. In retrospect it
> seems
> incredibly naive to think that cutting taxes would not be simpler than
> cutting even the
> patently indefensible porkbarrel programs. Rosy Scenario always wins in the
> end.
An even more important work to consider (as published near the end of the Reagan
administration) is the film Robocop by Paul Verhoeven. It seems even more
relevant today than the day it was released. For one thing, you can make a game
of every time Kurtwood Smith's character says something to which you can
logically append the word "dumbass!" (1 point) or the phrase "my foot up your
ass!" (5 points). Judging is performed by the other players. What you do with
the points is your prerogative.
And don't Ed 9's head look a lot like the end of a Telefunken U-47?
Les Cargill
>
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:52:01 GMT, Les Cargill
> <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >commodious wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4 Jun 2003 16:25:09 -0700, i_bench_pr...@eudoramail.com
> >> (Erick Easton) wrote:
> >>
> >> >At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
> >> >and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
> >> >is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
> >> >but I think he did a lot of good.
> >> >
> >> >Also, where is this Jazz Hall of Fame that FZ is supposedly a member
> >> >of? I can't find anything on it on the net.
> >>
> >> Any friend of the Religous Right is a fucking idiot. Just a thought.
> >> If I remember correctly, in the episode of Crossfire where Frank goes
> >> at it with John Lofton(really funny;FZ tells him to kiss his ass)
> >> Frank talks about the country starting to lean toward a fascist
> >> theocracy. My guess is he blamed Reagan and his Religous Right asshole
> >> friends for supposedly taking the country in that direction.
> >>
> >
> >That's like blaming the boils for somebody having smallpox.
>
> Take it up with Zappa....
Sorry, my medium discovered Ben & Jerry's and became a Large.
> that's just my current view of what I imagine
> his position to be......cough...cough..choke...
Yeah.
> where am I?
>
You are in a small stone room. There is a table in the room.
On the table is a key...
> >
> >> "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan
> >>
> >> Piece
--
Les Cargill
Bill
FZ was certainly anti-drug, but I don't believe he supported the
criminalization of drugs, and certainly not the "war on drugs"
overkill we've seen since the sixties. I'm not sure if he drew the
line at certain drugs or not, but at least on marijuana he seemed to
believe it should be a personal decision whether or not to use (as
long as he was free to exercise his personal preference not to be
around you when you're using).
Richard Ballard
ja...@hotmail.com (JW Moore) writes:
>On 05 Jun 2003 16:52:17 GMT,
>rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) :
<snip>
>>David Stockman, President Reagan's Director of the Office
>>of Management and Budget, wrote "The Triumph Of Politics: ...",
>>a discussion of Governmental economics during the Reagan
>>Administration. The book is heavy but enlightening reading.
>>
>Very important book I agree. A good companion book is
>Bill Grieder's "Education of David Stockman", excerpts of
>which hastened Stockman's departure. In retrospect it
>seems incredibly naive to think that cutting taxes would
>not be simpler than cutting even the patently indefensible
>porkbarrel programs.
In "The Triumph of Politics: ..." Mr. Stockman clearly states
that *he* wanted to cut defense spending (contrary to apparent
Reagan Administration wishes) and to raise taxes sufficiently
to _approach_ a balanced budget. The Reagan Administration
replied that raising taxes was a political impossibility.
>Rosy Scenario always wins in the end.
The network news coverage of this week's Moscow summit
showed the relative disrepair of Moscow's housing stock.
The United States never mounted a serious, long-term program
to develop affordable replacements for petroleum-based
energy. How would the United States and the Soviet Union
differ in the Twenty-First Century if some of the resources
spent 'fighting the Cold War' had been applied to domestic
development projects?
We did not lose the Cold War, but given the current trade
and Federal deficits and the current downsizing United States
domestic economy, I am not sure that *anybody* won the
Cold War.
Les Cargill
Good point, and one I confused up pretty good.
--
Les Cargill
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
Criminalizing a drug means jailing its users. Incarceration is
FAR worse than the crime (which is nothing of the sort). Plus,
the drug in question had legitimate therapeutic uses for
conditions such as alcoholism.
computeruser
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
news:3EDF0CEB.5DB4@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com...
> Les Cargill wrote:
> >
> > Erick Easton wrote:
> > >
> > > At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
> > > and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
> > > is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
> > > but I think he did a lot of good.
> > >
> >
> > There's a lot of history there. Reagan was really hard on
> > nonconforming members of California society when he was
> > Governor.
>
> Ruined a LOT of his fellow actors while president of the SAG.
> Made acid a felony.
How could this happen? When LSD/acid was criminalized Regan was only a
governor of California and no Federal authority. Felonies are federal
crimes. ????
computeruser
Les Cargill
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
> >
> > Bill wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:50:59 GMT, Les Cargill
> > > <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." wrote:
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >> Made acid a felony.
> > > >
> > > >Gee, that's bad because... ever hear Zappa hold forth
> > > >on that garbage? Sorry, but Zappa's anti drug stance was
> > > >*very* refreshing during the day.
> > >
> > > FZ was certainly anti-drug, but I don't believe he supported the
> > > criminalization of drugs, and certainly not the "war on drugs"
> > > overkill we've seen since the sixties. I'm not sure if he drew the
> > > line at certain drugs or not, but at least on marijuana he seemed to
> > > believe it should be a personal decision whether or not to use (as
> > > long as he was free to exercise his personal preference not to be
> > > around you when you're using).
> >
> > Good point, and one I confused up pretty good.
>
> Criminalizing a drug means jailing its users. Incarceration is
> FAR worse than the crime (which is nothing of the sort). Plus,
> the drug in question had legitimate therapeutic uses for
> conditions such as alcoholism.
I wasn't trying to justify the WOD - far from it. Any legitimate
use of LSD got lost in the politics long ago.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Some felonies are Federal, but there are State laws which describe
felonies as well.
> computeruser
>
> >Sold weapons to the Afghan mujahadin, predecessors
> > of Al-Qaeda.
--
Les Cargill
commodious
>On 4 Jun 2003 23:20:05 -0700, j_sain...@hotmail.com (cheepnis) :
>
>>i_bench_pr...@eudoramail.com (Erick Easton) wrote in message news:<ad1dbf17.03060...@posting.google.com>...
>>> At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
>>> and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
>>> is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
>>> but I think he did a lot of good.
>>>
>>
>>He did alot of good? Name one thing (and don't tell me it was the end
>>of the cold war, he had very little to do with that).
>>
>I won't tell you, but Gorbachev himself acknowledged that the cost of keeping up with
>Reagan's military buildup eventually wrecked the Soviet economy and the USSR itself.
>Vaclav Havel and Lech Walenca have repeatedly said that free-market pressure from the US
>and Western Europe was the primary factor in freeing Czechoslovakia and Poland,
>respectively, from Soviet Bloc repression. Romania, East Germany and the Baltic states
>followed suit. Most economists (including those in the Reagan Administration) believed the
>central-planning, socialist command economy model was fundamentally flawed and that the
>USSR and client states would have collapsed eventually; the dramatic increase in military
>spending (including the threat of SDI) accelerated the process by up to a decade.
....or by up to a year. How would one know? And exactly what did we
gain by contributing to the early collapse of the Soviet Union? Since
most folks think it would have collapsed anyway it may have been
prudent to wait it out. We didn't do our economy any favours by
cutting taxes and increasing spending.
jimmyo...@incamail.com
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
Prob with LSD was that too many people were having fun.
Les Cargill
>
> Prob with LSD was that too many people were having fun.
http://home.online.no/~corneliu/curmudge.htm
FRANK ZAPPA - ..." Thank God the
yuppies didnt reproduce. Did you ever consider that LSD was really one
of the most dangerous drugs ever manufactured because the people who
took it turned into yuppies? In the eighties it was not fashionable to
stand up for anything. It was a decade where bending over was the thing
you did to get ahead. The way up the ladder was with your mouth attacked
to the anal orifice of the creature- whatever its denomination- in front
of you. It was pushing upward and sucking at the same time as you went up
the rungs, with junk bonds spilling out of your pockets and your mind
reeling from the LSD experience that you had had in the sixties. The
yuppie lived in a special type of aquarium created for him by the Reagan
administration. It was an era when there was enough cash and enough
movement up and down in the stock market and enough shady deals that
these incompetent little shitheads were able to make vast amounts of
money to buy their Ferraris and snort their cocaine and ruin the
economy. Now there's nostalgia for the ability to do that.
People wish that the good old days of the eighties would come back.
When there was still something to steal."
I quoted this not because it's Holy Writ, but because it corresponds
well with my own obeservations and it's said better than I could have
said it.
--
Les Cargill
Martin Gregorie
>Can somebody verify the logic of this theory?
>
>http://geragos.2ya.com
Only if you can post a URL that works.
--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :
JW Moore
The argument could be made that the USSR would have eaten our lunch economically had it
not been for the lethal combination of totalitarianism and communism. Ditto China.
In truth there was a free market in the USSR; but only the oligarchs benefitted.
>We did not lose the Cold War, but given the current trade
>and Federal deficits and the current downsizing United States
>domestic economy, I am not sure that *anybody* won the
>Cold War.
>
Everybody won the Cold War, in one sense or another. Certainly the former Soviet Union and
client states are better off, at least the merchant classes there have opportunities
forbidden them until 1991. The US has been slowly but surely reorienting its military
objectives and terminiating Cold War programs. Defense spending declined significantly
during the 90s (the much-touted "peace dividend"). As for defecit spending, this is the
natural state of affairs in the US (and a virtuous one to Keynesians). After all, the
government shouldn't be taking away from the public more than it is spening on its behalf.
~~Jack
Richard Ballard
ja...@hotmail.com (JW Moore) writes:
<snip>
The Soviet Union is self-sufficient in petroleum and natural gas
(similar to the United States during its Industrial Era -- the
United States now is a post-Industrial Era nation). To my
knowledge there has *not* been extensive exploration for
petroleum and natural gas in mainland China, because previously
mainland China has not had significant heavy industrialization
and heavy need for petroleum. As a result I assume that mainland
China has significant untapped petroleum reserves (similar to
the United States during its Industrial Era).
IMO the effect of the Cold War was to retard domestic
industrialization in the Soviet Union -- the Soviets fed their
war machine rather than their people. But the natural
mineral resources of the Soviet Union were *not* expended
during the Cold War. The Soviet Union still has this
potential [which allows them to be a major reliable supplier
of petroleum and natural gas to (Western) Europe, to
earn a reliable source of hard foreign currency, and
provides diplomatic leverage with their customers
(particularly in winter)].
IMO mainland China itself stayed on the sidelines during
the Cold War. Mainland China did provide assistance to
some warring nations during this period, but mainland
China's battles primarily were regional (e.g., the ongoing
conflict with Taiwan), a very economical strategy. Mainland
China is a major manufacturing nation. They are our biggest
trading partner, we have a recurring foreign trade deficit
with them, and the dollars the mainland Chinese earn can be
used to purchase education, heavy industrial skills, and
other valuable American goods. Mainland China is rich in
natural mineral resources, they are industrializing further,
and their labor rates / standard of living is low, a powerful
combination.
IMO the United States has exported significant quantities
of dollars in exchange for petroleum since the 1970's.
The dollars are gone and the petroleum is gone (we burnt it
in our cars). IMO the end effect of this recurring export of
dollars for petroleum (and now for manufactured goods) is
an inevitable decline of the standard of living in, and the
power of, the United States.
We did not lose the Cold War, but I am not sure that we
won the Cold War. And I do not observe good faith efforts
to address the problems I discuss above.
Richard Ballard
More below.
In article <20030609071437...@mb-m04.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:
<snip>
IMO the Soviet Union and mainland China both have rich
natural mineral resources and are building a strong
domestic manufacturing base, while the United States
is a post-Industrial nation that depends upon other
countries for its energy and mineral needs and much
of its manufactured goods. Will computerization save us?
It hasn't yet. The United States is heavily computerized.
Computers bring economies of scale but we largely already
have achieved those economies of scale. Further
computerization will have less dramatic results while
causing personnel downsizing. This downsizing will
be particularly hard on middle management.
In addition, mounting 'hacker attacks' has become a form of
black art. I am amazed at the frequency and sophistication
of hacker attacks routinely occuring, and I shudder when I
think of the cost of developing countermeasures and applying
those countermeasures across our broad computer base.
Computer security is expensive, does not produce a salable
product, and we are awash in it. Our computerization costs
are rising.
The Soviet Union and mainland China are much less
computerized than we are, but current computer hardware
costs are *extremely inexpensive*. IMO the Soviet Union
and mainland China will be able to computerize in a very
cost-effective manner using techniques we already have
developed and debugged. Once they are computerized
the United States loses any competitive advantage we
have due to extensive computerization.
One other issue: mathematical competence. I was an
undergraduate in the early 1970's, a time when (mainframe)
computers were first being widely introduced. As engineering
students we were taught to use the (mainframe) computer
but we did not rely on it heavily.
When I reached graduate school (mainframe) computers
using numerical techniques were routinely used to solve
difficult mathematical equations. I have a solid grounding
in statistics, but most foreign graduate students seemed
to be better mathematicians than me. Foreign graduate
students often had not had access to (mainframe) computers
and numerical solution techniques. Foreign graduate
students had been forced to learn the mathematics and
they were very competent mathematicians.
Today we have very inexpensive and powerful desktop
and laptop computers, and many United States' students
have the attitude "I don't need to learn that theory --
my computer knows that theory." When they reach the
job market I hope these students' supervisors never say
"Your computer knows the theory? Then we will pay
your computer -- you go home!"
Engineers and scientists in the Soviet Union and mainland
China are very competent mathematicians. I doubt that they
will reinvent the wheel, but I have *no doubt* that they
can and will use inexpensive computerization effectively.
Richard Ballard
More below.
In article <20030609112513...@mb-m13.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:
<snip>
Technical personnel (and their families) in the Soviet Union
and mainland China do not enjoy our standard of living.
Their low labor rates will facilitate inexpensive
industrialization in those countries, but at a real human cost.
During graduate school I read the three volumes of "The Gulag
Archipelago" by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, ~1200 pages.
"The Gulag Archipelago" discusses life under Stalin, and I
remember its stories.
One Siberian labor camp hut held a group of engineers. The
camp commandant came to the engineers, said 'We have a
problem to solve, and we are going to make a game for you
to play. We are going to divide you into two teams. Each
team will address the problem. The members of the team
providing the best solution will receive an extra blanket.'
Each team's members were highly motivated.
I do not know the answer to this ethical dilemna. I am glad
I am not faced with it personally -- I have no extra resources.
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
There's one aspect of the current trend of 'chips with everything'
that bears watching: the inability to fix a failed device made with
this technology and the resulting advance of the throw-away culture
into inappropriate places.
Space technology is a good example. NASA and cronies look down in the
Russians use of electro-mechanical systems, thinking their own digital
systems are superior. However, when something breaks the Russian
systems can often be fixed or bodged by astronauts using conventional
tools while NASA's digital stuff can only be replaced. That gives NASA
a problem if, as is often the case, the closest spare is in Houston. I
know which systems I'd be happiest with if I was in space.
In truth, the only (dubious) advantage that digital systems have in
this type of circumstance is that it was cheaper to manufacture in
quantity.
Richard Ballard
Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
>In truth, the only (dubious) advantage that digital systems
>have in this type of circumstance is that it was cheaper to
>manufacture in quantity.
I believe that the speed of modern digital systems offers
levels of control and precision that can not be attained by
electromechanical systems. Servos are World War II era
technology, and servos never would have gotten us to
the moon. The Apollo program forced wonderful advances
in digital technology in order to fulfill the Apollo mission.
Early digital control systems were sampled digital analogies
to electromechanical analog control systems, but innovative
digital control techniques (unmatched in the analog domain)
have been developed for the several past decades.
Furthermore, analog systems by nature are not reprogrammable
and are autonomous. Consider the NASA interplanetary probes
that have been reprogrammed in mid-mission in response to new
knowledge and techniques. Digital technology and communications
permitted mission refinement by remote access -- impossible with
electromechanical analog technology.
Illustrative case: How would you build an automaton to explore
Mars using electromechanical analog technologies?
One other issue (that you alluded to). While numerically
controlled milling machines and other precision tooling
instruments produce wonderful results, there is a certain
amount of manual fitting involved in any electromechanical
assembly. Digital circuitry is, by nature, better able to
be modularized and constructed by machine, which (given
equivalent engineering design quality) tends to reduce
manufacturing costs, assembly time, and the possibiity of
assembly errors while encouraging economies of manufacturing
scale -- big lots of less expensive reliable products.
Example (I am an old amateur radio operator.): Currently
analog radio frequency (RF) communication has little commercial
potential -- this makes it a rare and expensive skill. Analog
RF design and construction is very tricky and can not exploit
the coding and noise-cancellation techniques possible in the
digital domain. Digital RF design and construction is less
critical (everything is 1's and 0's) and can exploit coding
and noise-cancellation algorithms. Bell Telephone Laboratories
pioneered digital communications techniques for use in the
telephone long-distance network.
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
>In article <ce9bev492d762re11...@4ax.com>,
>Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
>
>>In truth, the only (dubious) advantage that digital systems
>>have in this type of circumstance is that it was cheaper to
>>manufacture in quantity.
>
>I believe that the speed of modern digital systems offers
>levels of control and precision that can not be attained by
>electromechanical systems. Servos are World War II era
>technology, and servos never would have gotten us to
>the moon. The Apollo program forced wonderful advances
>in digital technology in order to fulfill the Apollo mission.
>
With respect, take a close look at the Apollo systems. More of the
system than you might think was electro-mechanical and analogue. I've
seen the Apollo computer. It was rugged, but very lacking in capacity.
All pilot input was via a digital pad, IIRC it was using ferrite core
memory and had only primitive, low component count integrated circuits
in it. It was contemporary with the first generation of IBM system/360
mainframes ( the 360/30, 40 and 50) and used essentially the same
technology.
The main problem with WW2 servo systems was weight and bulk. By the
time of Apollo they were a lot smaller and lighter, but they were
still in there.
>Early digital control systems were sampled digital analogies
>to electromechanical analog control systems, but innovative
>digital control techniques (unmatched in the analog domain)
>have been developed for the several past decades.
>
So what? If they fail they're still not field repairable and must be
replaced.
>Furthermore, analog systems by nature are not reprogrammable
>and are autonomous. Consider the NASA interplanetary probes
>that have been reprogrammed in mid-mission in response to new
>knowledge and techniques. Digital technology and communications
>permitted mission refinement by remote access -- impossible with
>electromechanical analog technology.
>
That's true, and nice for unmanned probes, but is still way off the
issue I was addressing: that of repairability by the astronaut.
The same goes for cars. If your shiny new digitally controlled BMW or
Japanese wonder has its ECM fail you're buggered unless you're near a
fully equipped franchised repair centre and they happen to have the
correct module in store and with all current patch levels applied. If
you're in the sticks or driving London-Delhi the chances of this are,
um, unlikely.
On the other hand, the keen DIY motorhead or the average village
mechanic can fix a Jeep, series 2-4 Landrover, or pretty much any
pre-1990 car with the tools he has to hand.
<irrelevant points snipped>
Richard Ballard
Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
>On 10 Jun 2003 13:39:41 GMT,
>rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:
>
>>In article <ce9bev492d762re11...@4ax.com>,
>>Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
>>
>>>In truth, the only (dubious) advantage that digital systems
>>>have in this type of circumstance is that it was cheaper to
>>>manufacture in quantity.
>>
>>I believe that the speed of modern digital systems offers
>>levels of control and precision that can not be attained by
>>electromechanical systems. Servos are World War II era
>>technology, and servos never would have gotten us to
>>the moon. The Apollo program forced wonderful advances
>>in digital technology in order to fulfill the Apollo mission.
>>
>With respect, take a close look at the Apollo systems. More of
>the system than you might think was electro-mechanical and
>analogue. I've seen the Apollo computer. It was rugged, but
>very lacking in capacity. All pilot input was via a digital
>pad, IIRC it was using ferrite core memory and had only
>primitive, low component count integrated circuits in it.
>It was contemporary with the first generation of IBM system/360
>mainframes (the 360/30, 40 and 50) and used essentially the
>same technology.
Yet the 'primitive' digital technology was *required* to complete
the Apollo mission. Engineers and managers made the judgement
that existing analog techniques were not usable and new digital
technology was required.
>The main problem with WW2 servo systems was weight and bulk.
>By the time of Apollo they were a lot smaller and lighter, but
>they were still in there.
Some control systems are hybrid -- that is they contain both
electromechanical (analog) and digital components. The trend
for the past several decades has been to replace electromechanical
subassemblies with digital subassemblies wherever possible
for reliability, reprogrammability, and cost-effectiveness.
Today hybrid control systems tend to contain a higher percentage
of digital subassemblies than in the past.
>>Early digital control systems were sampled digital analogies
>>to electromechanical analog control systems, but innovative
>>digital control techniques (unmatched in the analog domain)
>>have been developed for the several past decades.
>>
>So what? If they fail they're still not field repairable and
>must be replaced.
'Field repairable' requires a certain amount of craftsmanship
on the part of the repair person. 'Field replaceable' combined
with built-in diagnostics permitting fault isolation to the
Field Replaceable Unit level allows a repair person with
a lower skill level to solve the problem. This is advantageous
in cases where the environment makes repair difficult (e.g.,
at the top of a television broadcast tower) or where a large
amount of schooling and experience is required in order to
create a sufficiently skilled repair person. Failed Field
Replaceable Units sometimes can be returned to a repair depot
where they can be repaired down to the piece part level in a
well-equipped and well-instrumented shop by specialists rather
than field repair persons.
>>Furthermore, analog systems by nature are not reprogrammable
>>and are autonomous. Consider the NASA interplanetary probes
>>that have been reprogrammed in mid-mission in response to new
>>knowledge and techniques. Digital technology and communications
>>permitted mission refinement by remote access -- impossible with
>>electromechanical analog technology.
>>
>That's true, and nice for unmanned probes, but is still way off the
>issue I was addressing: that of repairability by the astronaut.
In hazardous environments (such as the hard vacuum of outer space)
I believe that simplifying repair procedures is a requirement to be
considered. IMO Field Replaceable Units usually simplify repair.
>The same goes for cars. If your shiny new digitally controlled BMW or
>Japanese wonder has its ECM fail you're buggered unless you're near a
>fully equipped franchised repair centre and they happen to have the
>correct module in store and with all current patch levels applied. If
>you're in the sticks or driving London-Delhi the chances of this are,
>um, unlikely.
>
>On the other hand, the keen DIY motorhead or the average village
>mechanic can fix a Jeep, series 2-4 Landrover, or pretty much any
>pre-1990 car with the tools he has to hand.
I have visited Morocco. Mercedes Benz vehicles are very popular
in Morocco because Mercedes Benz maintains a global repair
capability. Repairability (either by replacing Field Replaceable
Units or by actual on-site repair) always is a requirement that
must be considered.
An item that can not be repaired or replaced is a mission
single point of failure. I either would guard that item carefully
or I would discard it completely.
I do not wish to be presumptuous, but I believe that any
person who has worked on a systems engineering project
has encountered these issues and trades.
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
>I do not wish to be presumptuous, but I believe that any
>person who has worked on a systems engineering project
>has encountered these issues and trades.
>
They certainly ought to have done, but many haven't.
In my experience all too many 'systems designers' won't see a project
through. Instead they vanish once the design is complete, never to be
seen again. In consequence they have little idea of how their designs
will work in practice and so will never learn from their mistakes.
That's why there are so many failed projects and so many are built
with inappropriate technology.
Kyle
> At least he appeared he did. They were both stauncly anti-communist
> and pro-laissez faire. Like FZ, I'm a libertarian and I think Reagan
> is one of the better president we've had. No, he wasn't he perfect,
> but I think he did a lot of good.
>
> of? I can't find anything on it on the net.
What's that video where Zappa had the Reagan impersonator spit Pepto
Bismal and get electrocuted?
Hoodude
<mar...@see.sig.for.address> wrote:
>The same goes for cars. If your shiny new digitally controlled BMW or
>Japanese wonder has its ECM fail you're buggered unless you're near a
>fully equipped franchised repair centre and they happen to have the
>correct module in store and with all current patch levels applied. If
>you're in the sticks or driving London-Delhi the chances of this are,
>um, unlikely.
>
>On the other hand, the keen DIY motorhead or the average village
>mechanic can fix a Jeep, series 2-4 Landrover, or pretty much any
>pre-1990 car with the tools he has to hand.
By coincidence, a mention of the following somewhat related opinion
article arrived tonight in a mailing list I'm subscribed to. I thought
it was quite amusing, and perhaps, ominous.
The electronic future of your car: prediction or prophecy?
by Douglas Flint
6/9/2003
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=6093
This really isn’t a Mechanic’s Tale. This is more of a biblical
prophecy telling of a future, both great and terrible, but one that
can no more be stopped than a wall of flowing lava or a tidal wave.
Remember where personal computers were in the early Nineties? People
played games on them and stored recipes on them, but by and large they
were the domain of a special group of people who could fight their way
through DOS and do really amazing time-saving and productive things.
But the capacity for what PCs became and are still becoming was all in
place. It just took the Windows operating system to make them
accessible to the masses, and accessible to people who could endlessly
improve them and find new things for them to do.
That is where automotive electronics are right now. The only thing the
automotive PCM (powertrain control module; i.e., the computer that
runs everything) needs now is two-way communications; in essence its
own cellphone or wireless modem, and the revolution will take off.
Central control
I’d like to use GM as my model because they’ve done a better job with
centralizing all the electricals and electronics on the car through
the PCM than anyone else. Unfortunately, instead of leapfrogging the
competition by light years, their goal will be to extort a
subscription fee and hook-up fee and tie you to a live operator, which
is a little like using Deep Blue (the IBM supercomputer) to gather
data, and then sending the reply using smoke signals.
Have you heard the OnStar commercial with the woman who has locked
herself out of her car at the daycare center with her child in the
car? She’s holding a cell phone. She calls OnStar and they unlock the
doors for her. Duh! The car has two-way communication. She’s holding a
phone. Punch in your code, call the car, which in essence has its own
phone number, and do it yourself! Oops, GM doesn’t get $895 if you do
that.
There may be a certain sector of people who can and will pay a
thousand dollars to have someone hold their hands and unlock their
door, but when another manufacturer starts offering my vision,
standard OnStar will fall like the billion-dollar Iridium Anywhere
phones, whose satellites gave astronomers everywhere spectacular views
as they burned up in the atmosphere.
Two-way street
Once two-way communication is standard in the car’s computer, and
either by emissions law or safety law it will be soon, the revolution
can start. The computer data connectors are already standard and the
method of data transmission is standard. When you buy your car you’d
receive a disk, and with a laptop computer you could program in as
many or as few features as you want, all accessible through your
mobile phone (or the phone you just borrowed if yours is locked in the
car).
I have a remote starter in my van that allows my wife to warm up or
cool down the van from the living room before stepping outside. People
pay upwards of $250 for this add-on when all the things needed to do
it are already in the car. Unlock the doors, blow the horn, and turn
the lights on at night before you step outside. Deter theft, defrost
the windows, take out the trash? Darn, it won’t do that, but anything
electrical you can think of, it can do.
And for the children, some nice features too. Say you’ve got a
daughter who’s paying too much attention to the “D”-Average Clod in
her biology class. And every night she takes the car to her friend
Stephanie’s house to study. A quick check of your PC shows the map
grid where she is and it’s not Stephanie’s. Or Junior takes after the
old man and has a bit of a lead foot. Well, just program the fuel and
timing curve to give him the performance of a ‘78 diesel Rabbit — no
turbo please. I’m sure he will thank you for the good mileage he’s
getting.
I know some of you out there are crying privacy rights, but the
Supreme Court ruled years ago that you have a lesser expectancy of
privacy in your car, and teenagers in their parents’ car have even a
lesser expectancy than that. Hopefully, when my son is old enough to
drive, there will also be an internal and external camera to keep an
eye on him.
Scary parts
Now the scary part. Obviously, with all this technology, turning the
car off remotely is the easiest of things to do. Good theft
protection, right? Heck, we could even blow up the airbag in the
thief’s face to teach him a lesson. We won’t do that.
But here is roughly what will happen. Every year in every state it
happens once or twice that a high-speed police pursuit goes terribly
wrong, and a minivan with mother and children gets broadsided, ending
in terrible injuries or death. The authorities and the media will cry
out that, if only the police had the ability to turn the engine off
remotely, or even just dramatically cut the power down (this would
work better because the driver would still have the power steering and
power brakes but a top speed of about five mph), these tragedies could
be avoided.
When it is discovered how cheaply this technology can be put in,
either a major state, say California, or the federal government, will
demand it: after all, terrorists drive cars. Oh, and people who don’t
make their car payments, well, their cars won’t start (a company in
California already offers this as an add-on to high-risk financing),
and the repo man will have no problem finding them.
You may have guessed that I’m not thrilled with this power being given
to the authorities, but it will happen. If true form is followed, the
law will bear the name of someone killed in a pursuit crash. As for
casual speeding, your car will continuously be transmitting packets of
information, including your speed, and some states will have receivers
posted on the highway (look for Connecticut to start this), and simply
mail you an irrefutable ticket, as your own car has just ratted you
out.
Or in areas where they really don’t want you to speed (as opposed to
just wanting to give you a ticket), the speed limit sign will
broadcast the posted speed and your car’s PCM will limit you to five
miles over that. It will indeed be a brave new world, with all the
advances, like every car (and not just a Lexus) calling 911 when the
airbag deploys, but you will never be in your car alone.
And as a person who loves the anonymity and the absolute solitude of a
long car trip, I’m going to miss it.
Doug Flint owns and operates Tune-Up Technology, a garage in
Alexandria, Va.
--
If they give you ruled paper, write the other way.
- Juan Ramón Jiménez
Frunobulax
>What's that video where Zappa had the Reagan impersonator spit Pepto
>Bismal and get electrocuted?
You Are What You Is
really and for true,
cae
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:49:17 +0100, Martin Gregorie
><mar...@see.sig.for.address> wrote:
>
>>The same goes for cars. If your shiny new digitally controlled BMW or
>>Japanese wonder has its ECM fail you're buggered unless you're near a
>>fully equipped franchised repair centre and they happen to have the
>>correct module in store and with all current patch levels applied. If
>>you're in the sticks or driving London-Delhi the chances of this are,
>>um, unlikely.
>>
>>On the other hand, the keen DIY motorhead or the average village
>>mechanic can fix a Jeep, series 2-4 Landrover, or pretty much any
>>pre-1990 car with the tools he has to hand.
>
>By coincidence, a mention of the following somewhat related opinion
>article arrived tonight in a mailing list I'm subscribed to. I thought
>it was quite amusing, and perhaps, ominous.
>
<snipped most of interesting article>
Thanks for posting that. It looks worryingly prophetic to me and I can
only fault him on one minor thing:
">There may be a certain sector of people who can and will pay a
>thousand dollars to have someone hold their hands and unlock their
>door, but when another manufacturer starts offering my vision,
>standard OnStar will fall like the billion-dollar Iridium Anywhere
>phones, whose satellites gave astronomers everywhere spectacular views
>as they burned up in the atmosphere."
Except that they haven't burnt up. I admit that shortly after Iridium
went tits up I saw mention of 'Iridium flares' and thought this must
be the satellites burning up, but t'aint so. They're still there. The
'flare' is the sun reflecting off the flat, rectangular side of the
satellite antenna and its a really cool sight. If you're interested,
go to Heavens Above
http://www.heavens-above.com/main.asp
and either edit your location or register and permanently store your
location (the Configuration part of the page) and then the Iridium
flares calculator will tell you when and where to look to see this
reflection.
It can be really bright - I've seen it from a town park on a night
with a full moon on a night and a lot of moon driven air glow. The
flare still looked spectacular despite being within 5 lunar diameters
of the moon. Of course, some flares are brighter than others, but the
calculator tells you about that too.
NudeAdGuy
www.cdbaby.com/tuerff
"This is the B-side of our platter, sports fans...and I'm singing just for you,
covered in sequins!" -- Viv Stanshall
NudeAdGuy
<< Reagan was one of the
worst Presidents we ever had (The current president would be THE
WORST). >>
Umm, while GWB is definitely in the running let's wait till he's out to give
him the prize, okay? If you want to talk BAD presidents, try James Buchanan.
Try Martin Van Buren. Try Andrew Johnson. Try Grover Cleveland the second time.
Hell, try John Kennedy. One can only speculate since he was assassinated but it
can be argued (and I've read several arguments) that Lee Oswald may have done
the country a backhanded favor by knocking off JFK. Not that Johnson was any
better war-wise, but Kennedy was no economist and the national economy sucked
while he was in office.
So let Georgie boy fester in the back 40 for a few years before we say he's the
worst. (I think in 50 years people are going to forget about Bill Clinton's
womanizing and remember him as one of the best Presidents, but I'll wait that
50 years before I give him the title.)
By the way: Best, most effective President you never heard of: James K. Polk.
TT
Martin Gregorie
>J_saint_rock wrote:
>
><< Reagan was one of the
>worst Presidents we ever had (The current president would be THE
>WORST). >>
>
>Umm, while GWB is definitely in the running let's wait till he's out to give
>him the prize, okay? If you want to talk BAD presidents, try James Buchanan.
>Try Martin Van Buren. Try Andrew Johnson. Try Grover Cleveland the second time.
>Hell, try John Kennedy. One can only speculate since he was assassinated but it
>can be argued (and I've read several arguments) that Lee Oswald may have done
>the country a backhanded favor by knocking off JFK. Not that Johnson was any
>better war-wise, but Kennedy was no economist and the national economy sucked
>while he was in office.
>
>So let Georgie boy fester in the back 40 for a few years before we say he's the
>worst. (I think in 50 years people are going to forget about Bill Clinton's
>womanizing and remember him as one of the best Presidents, but I'll wait that
>50 years before I give him the title.)
>
>By the way: Best, most effective President you never heard of: James K. Polk.
>
I think history may look more favourably on Gerald Ford with the
perspective of 50 years, or so it looks from this side of the pond.
IIRC he did a good job on the economy and on rebuilding metaphorical
bridges knocked down by Nixon.
Bill
>
<snip>
> >
> I think history may look more favourably on Gerald Ford with the
> perspective of 50 years, or so it looks from this side of the pond.
> IIRC he did a good job on the economy and on rebuilding metaphorical
> bridges knocked down by Nixon.
>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> demon :
> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> uk :
All I remember is the "Whip Inflation Now" buttons and the Nixon pardon.
Richard Ballard
Bill <billf_...@patriot.net> writes:
>All I remember is the "Whip Inflation Now" buttons and
>the Nixon pardon.
The Federal Income Tax Code was *greatly revised* (and
simplified?) in 1985 under the Ford Administration. Many
deductions were dropped altogether (e.g., car loan interest)
and deductions for credit card interest were phased out.
Deductions for renovating and modernizing existing buildings
were eliminated -- a *major* Federal statement about Federal
subsidy for housing and urban renovation.
20:00:00
05:00:00
Miguel
> In article <3edff489...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> ja...@hotmail.com (JW Moore) wrote:
>
> > On 05 Jun 2003 16:52:17 GMT, rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) :
> >
> > >
> > >Soviet Union, but the victory was costly.
> > >
> >
> > Sure was, but on the whole I'd say it was money well spent, both from the
> > free-market and
> > human-rights standpoints.
> >
> > >David Stockman, President Reagan's Director of the Office
> > >of Management and Budget, wrote "The Triumph Of Politics: ...",
> > >a discussion of Governmental economics during the Reagan
> > >Administration. The book is heavy but enlightening reading.
> > >
> > Very important book I agree. A good companion book is Bill Grieder's
> > "Education of David
> > Stockman", excerpts of which hastened Stockman's departure. In retrospect it
> > seems
> > incredibly naive to think that cutting taxes would not be simpler than
> > cutting even the
> > end.
>
> An even more important work to consider (as published near the end of the Reagan
> administration) is the film Robocop by Paul Verhoeven. It seems even more
> relevant today than the day it was released. For one thing, you can make a game
> of every time Kurtwood Smith's character says something to which you can
> logically append the word "dumbass!" (1 point) or the phrase "my foot up your
> ass!" (5 points). Judging is performed by the other players. What you do with
> the points is your prerogative.
>
> And don't Ed 9's head look a lot like the end of a Telefunken U-47?
Do you base all of your knowlege on movies, Sam?
Sam Rouse
doctor...@earthlink.net (Miguel) wrote:
No, I rely on TV sitcoms for the important stuff.
SHERIFF OF HONK HONK
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW
Frank is dead!
Open the windows !
go out and breath the automn air!
get out of the tomb! - lobs frieght winged mantis
****************************************************************************************
'ZOOGS RIFT'" ALLEGED "PERSON" OR IS IT JUST "IMAGINARY PLAYMATE"?
~ GORGE CO
****************************************************************************************
Who are you?
What is your name?
Do you understand? NAME? ~ Michael Gula, 1974
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
"Too bad they can't come up with a drug that makes people
smarter. Maybe someday." - Unknown
=========================================================================================
"To hide, to piss us off, to get away with it, and make Zappafans look
stupid. It looks so utterly stupid, it's actually pretty smart." --
Geir
==========================================================================================
|*| /^^^\
|-| ( | "o" | )
_|-|_ (_--- _)
| | | | _| |_
|| | / ( . . ) \
\\ / // | | \\
\_ _/ // | ' | ))
\\_ // ||__ _|| //
\_/ ||0/ /O ll"
() / / ()
|| ||
ooO Ooo
FUCK SURVIVOR = MY HORSE
ITS VERY SAD
STEEL METAL BARS
USUALLY LEAP ALL OVER IT
+-----------.-----------+
| \ ( ) / |
| \ | | / |
|\ \ | | / / |
| \ \| |/ / |
| \ EAT ME / |
| ( | ) |
| ( MIGGY * ) |
| *-----------* |
+-----------------------+
| |
| |
| |
\.\|.||/..
BE IN MY STUDIO
DARLING EVERYNIGHT
I WILL MAKE A PAGE FOR YOU
AND NOTES PUT ON WHITE
JINKLE AND THEN TWIRL IN LAP DISSOLVE
PRETEND TO SEE THE WORDS
RELEASE A FLOCK OF BRUTUSES
//*.*//BAT AT THE MEIN STATION WITH A GULA UP//*.*//)
HAHAHA GOOD CHOICE SAMWICH
Richard Ballard
that Frank Zappa fans are of above average intelligence and
are open-minded.
I remember Governor Reagan's Presidental campaign and
I remember President Reagan's two-term Administration.
President Reagan's Administration was marked by concerns:
did President Reagan comprehend his Administration's
policy details; was President Reagan's staff running roughshod
without Presidential supervision (e.g., Iran/Contra); and how
could President Reagan justify simultaneous massive Defense
buildups and massive Federal deficits?
Have you ever had a blister on your heel? Such a nagging
disability affects your ability to concentrate on daily matters.
While in office President Reagan underwent tests for colon
cancer. President Reagan had several operations to remove
colon polyps, and President Reagan had a series of subsequent
tests to verify that colon cancer was not present. The result of
these surgical procedures and tests was that President Reagan
did not have cancer, and the seriousness of the medical
situation was downplayed in the press. But President Reagan
must have been *uncomfortable and preoccupied* during this
medical episode.
Surgery and disability reminds us of our mortality, and distracts
us from daily matters. I never have heard historians speculate
whether President Reagan's medical problems might have
preoccupied his attention during part of his Adnministration,
and I never have heard historians speculate whether President
Reagan's preoccupation with his own physical health might have
helped create an attention vacuum that allowed creation of
unfortunate policies. To my knowledge historians seldom
consider physical health in judging leaders. (Other example:
Former President Kennedy's back pain seldom is discussed.
Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt's weakness from polio
seldom is discussed.)
But like a blister on the heel, physical disabilities can cause
Presidential inattention with resulting creation of unfortunate
policies.
My opinions.
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
>The following discussion is marginally off-topic, but I believe
Assuming you're right, and I can't immediately see any holes in your
reasoning, I think it follows that President Reagan put personal
vanity ahead of the good of his country when he ran for a second term
and was thus a bad president. A man who truly put his country first
would consider his medical condition, realise he could not give 100%
of his attention to the job and not seek a second term.
zappa fan killer
i always thought you were a moron but this proves it
the economy was good there was no terrorism
and he brought about an end to communism
he just have his bust at mt rushmore
id worry more about my own goverment
remember what happed the last time the english
pushed the americans too far!
once again an example of how politics ruins things
Richard Ballard
Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
I believe that the Republican and Democratic parties
each nominate their best team of candidates for each
Presidential / Vice Presidential election ...
... and United States citizens choose with their votes.
zappa fan killer
wrote:
let me guess
your a rocket scientist
Tom Yost
wrote:
>
> ... To my knowledge historians seldom
>consider physical health in judging leaders. (Other example:
>Former President Kennedy's back pain seldom is discussed.
>Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt's weakness from polio
>seldom is discussed.)
>
>But like a blister on the heel, physical disabilities can cause
>Presidential inattention with resulting creation of unfortunate
>policies.
>
Wonder if Clinton was concerned about the loss of his essence of
purity?
Tom
Martin Gregorie
What a load of old cobblers.
Reagan stuffed your economy.
Reagan supported a few state terrorists (remember Contra-gate?)
Reagan may have bankrupted the USSR, but he wrecked your economy in
the process.
As to the War of Independence: you've been reading too much re-written
history. True-hearded American homespun farmers vs. the Redcoats is so
much revisionist bullshit. Be sure to watch the TV series that's about
to be screened on that war and you might learn something about the
realpolitik, expansionism and racism of it all.
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
...you're telling me the Chosen One can't refuse to run?
Steve Hagel
i guess you had to be there...
"Tom Yost" <t...@gSePsApMac.com> wrote in message
news:hhgpfvo62a13rehut...@4ax.com...
zappa fan killer
wrote:
guess he didnt like you very much then
Richard Ballard
"Steve Hagel" <steve...@cox.net> writes:
>zappa hated reagan because zappa hated stupidity.
>
>i guess you had to be there...
I suspect that FZ believed former Governor Reagan's
policies infringed upon civil liberties.
My opinions.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
Richard Ballard
Tom Yost <t...@gSePsApMac.com> writes:
>Wonder if Clinton was concerned about the loss of his essence
>of purity?
I believe that former President Clinton was concerned about
reducing the Federal deficit without throwing a credit-saturated
United States domestic economy into a recession.
Richard Ballard
Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
>As to the War of Independence: you've been reading too much re-written
>history. True-hearded American homespun farmers vs. the Redcoats is so
>much revisionist bullshit. Be sure to watch the TV series that's about
>to be screened on that war and you might learn something about the
>realpolitik, expansionism and racism of it all.
>
>--
>martin@ : Martin Gregorie
>gregorie : Harlow, UK
>demon :
>co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
>uk :
"The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia's founding" by Robert Hughes
(ISBN 0-394-75366-6) is a historically detailed and interesting
discussion concerning English colonial policies and practices.
Richard Ballard
Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
I believe that Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates
believe the Offices they seek are manageable tasks.
I also believe that Presidential and Vice Presidential
candidates expect other members of their party (e.g.,
staff candidates and Congressional candidates) to
cooperate in implementing their Party's consensus
platform.
>--
>martin@ : Martin Gregorie
>gregorie : Harlow, UK
>demon :
>co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
>uk :
My opinions.
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
>In article <egjpfv8r5hgf14vmp...@4ax.com>,
>Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
>
>>As to the War of Independence: you've been reading too much re-written
>>history. True-hearded American homespun farmers vs. the Redcoats is so
>>much revisionist bullshit. Be sure to watch the TV series that's about
>>to be screened on that war and you might learn something about the
>>realpolitik, expansionism and racism of it all.
>>
>>--
>>martin@ : Martin Gregorie
>>gregorie : Harlow, UK
>>demon :
>>co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
>>uk :
>
>"The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia's founding" by Robert Hughes
>(ISBN 0-394-75366-6) is a historically detailed and interesting
>discussion concerning English colonial policies and practices.
>
With respect, Australia was anomalous. There's no other English colony
that was founded explicitly as a penal colony and no other whose
initial population were involuntary transportees. All the rest were
founded by volunteers who were out for a better life and (often) a
fast buck.
The TV documentary series I mentioned was written by a man who was
incensed by the wholesale rewriting of history in 'The Patriot', so he
made a set of programs that shows, warts and all, all the factions
involved in the War of Independence and what their agendas were. He
covers:
- the poor leadership of the British army and its political bosses
- Paul Revere and fellow idealists who started the revolution
and had it hijacked by the Boston aristocrats
- why the Native Americans sided with the British and lost out
when the British lost the war
- why most Africans in the Americas sided with the British
(slavery - which was already outlawed in Britain)
- the way the War was used as an excuse to expand westwards
and dispossess the Indians
- why the French Royalists helped the Americans, went bankrupt as
a result and how that in turn caused the French revolution.
He reckoned there are close parallels with methods and attitudes of
the Zionists and their expansionism and dispossession of the
Palestinians post WW2.
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
You miss my point: Reagan must have known he was a sick man when he
ran the second time and must also have known how that would affect his
ability to be an effective President. That he still ran shows that he
put his own fame and glory ahead of serving his country. In my opinion
this made him a bad president regardless of his other actions or lack
of them.
Richard Ballard
Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
The North American colony of Georgia was founded as
a penal colony. British policies implemented in Georgia
were not as (a-hem) harsh as the policies the British
utilized in Australia.
I got no problems
The door is open for exits
05:05:05 05:23:23
101810181018 101810181018
Richard Ballard
Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
I missed nothing.
My earlier reply answered both your earlier comments
and your current comments. However ...
I believe the failures of the Reagan Administration can
be attributed to staffing failures. IMO Presidential staff
are filters that channel issues into three categories:
1) This (relatively unimportant) issue can be handled at
the staff level -- the President need not be involved.
Appropriate decisions at this level remove micromanagement
load from the Presidential schedule.
2) The staff should study this (important) issue and
summarize it for Presidential attention. Appropriate
decisions at this level remove uncertainty from the
Presidential schedule.
3) The President must become aware of this (critical)
issue immediately. Few people have the President's
direct telephone number -- a trusted function.
IMO the Reagan Administration Presidential staff made
poor decisions in these filtering areas.
Of course, the President is responsible for the selection
and quality of the Presidential staff ...
My opinions.
commodious
wrote:
Not 'explicitly'. It also served as a buffer between the Carolinas and
Spanish Florida. The reason the policies weren't as harsh is because
Oglethorpe founded the colony to get debtors out of harsh prison
environments.
commodious
According to your opinion they would all be bad presidents. You have
to be an ego-maniac to find yourself in the position of president.
Fame and Glory is what it's all about. Unless, of course, you buy into
the Mom and Apple Pie ideal perpetrated by the phonies.
commodious
wrote:
Your last sentence contradicted everything before it.
commodious
wrote:
>In article <JU4La.84437$Pc5.10602@fed1read01>,
>"Steve Hagel" <steve...@cox.net> writes:
>
>>zappa hated reagan because zappa hated stupidity.
>>
>>i guess you had to be there...
>
>I suspect that FZ believed former Governor Reagan's
>policies infringed upon civil liberties.
FZ in a 1986 radio interview: "Don't vote Republican"
or, if you prefer, from the 1988 Broadway the Hardway album:
"Facts are Stupid Things" -- Ronald Reagen
Martin Gregorie
I think that goes without saying. Likewise, I would expect every
president to think he is the best man for the job when he is elected
for his first term. I also suspect that, unless he had already been
vice-president, he'd have little idea of just what the job requires of
the incumbent. I could be wrong here, but I don't think being state
governor would be much preparation for the presidency.
>Fame and Glory is what it's all about. Unless, of course, you buy into
>the Mom and Apple Pie ideal perpetrated by the phonies.
>
Indeed, but there a big difference between being a naive first termer
or a fit and healthy second termer and running for a second term with
the knowledge that you're really not mentally or physically up to the
job.
In the latter is pretty inexcusable, regardless of whether you're
talking about the US President or the British Prime Minister.
Richard Ballard
commodious <jcpr...@hotmail.comeonin> writes:
Georgia *was* supposed to be a self-sustaining commericial
colony based upon silk production. That failed because
silkworms ate white mulberry leaves, not the black mulberry
leaves native to Georgia. Nevertheless, many of Georgia's
original settlers were convicts.
IMO the conditions were not as harsh for practical reasons.
Colonists needed a certain amount of freedom to farm and
grow/harvest commercial crops. In addition, it is easier to
implement (a-hem) harsh procedures on a island that
experiences winter conditions and is arable only at the
coast -- no where to run and little to eat. Australia was
worse than Georgia, and small Tasmania was worse than Australia
(in terms of convict treatment).
BTW, a significant number of the original Australian convicts
starved to death -- they did not have the existing infrastructure
of arable land or lush natural foliage to sustain them. And the
Australian convicts produced some masterpieces of drystone
construction -- you can't eat drystone.
My opinions.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
Richard Ballard
commodious <jcpr...@hotmail.comeonin> writes:
I suspect that based upon former President Reagan's
term(s?) as California Governor, FZ believed that the
Democratic Party agenda better supported civil liberties.
My opinions.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
Richard Ballard
commodious <jcpr...@hotmail.comeonin> writes:
Read my lips: The responsibility of leadership.
My opinions.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
I know nothing about Georgia and hadn't previously heard about its
founding purposes. Nonetheless, offering people imprisoned for debt
the chance to go elsewhere rather than remain in prison.
Is this what Oglethorpe did or did I misunderstand you, Mr.
Commodious?
That sounds somewhat different to transport to Australia. This
involved exporting prisoners, some arrested on pretty trivial charges,
and using them for hard labour on arrival, which is what happened in
Australia. Think chain gangs.
>Georgia *was* supposed to be a self-sustaining commericial
>colony based upon silk production. That failed because
>silkworms ate white mulberry leaves, not the black mulberry
>leaves native to Georgia. Nevertheless, many of Georgia's
>original settlers were convicts.
>
Definitely different. Australia was founded as a pure prison colony
(initially at Sydney) though unforced colonists turned up later,
especially during the gold rush.
>IMO the conditions were not as harsh for practical reasons.
>Colonists needed a certain amount of freedom to farm and
>grow/harvest commercial crops. In addition, it is easier to
>implement (a-hem) harsh procedures on a island that
>experiences winter conditions and is arable only at the
>coast -- no where to run and little to eat.
>
Winter conditions? Pretty mild: much milder than most of the US
eastern seaboard for sure.
IIRC there is nowhere around the Australian coast that gets regular
snow during winter apart from the mountains that separate the desert
from the eastern coastal strip - and they were not settled with better
land nearer the coast.
I think you're somewhat under informed about the Australian climate.
> Australia was
>worse than Georgia, and small Tasmania was worse than Australia
>(in terms of convict treatment).
>
>BTW, a significant number of the original Australian convicts
>starved to death
>
A dinkum Aussie had better comment on these points: I know nothing
about early Australian history apart from a bit about Cook, the
founding of Sydney as a convict colony and the Ballarat gold rush. And
Ned Kelly.
> -- they did not have the existing infrastructure
>of arable land or lush natural foliage to sustain them. And the
>Australian convicts produced some masterpieces of drystone
>construction -- you can't eat drystone.
>
The rainfall round Sydney and down the coast to Melbourne is pretty
reasonable so sheep and cattle could be farmed without needing
irrigation. The serious droughts happen on the inland side of the
mountains.
Les Cargill
<snip>
>
> With respect, Australia was anomalous. There's no other English colony
> that was founded explicitly as a penal colony and no other whose
> initial population were involuntary transportees. All the rest were
> founded by volunteers who were out for a better life and (often) a
> fast buck.
>
The colony of Georgia was founded as a penal colony.
> The TV documentary series
I didn't see a title mentioned. I'd be inetrested to see if it's
available here.
> I mentioned was written by a man who was
> incensed by the wholesale rewriting of history in 'The Patriot', so he
> made a set of programs that shows, warts and all, all the factions
> involved in the War of Independence and what their agendas were. He
> covers:
>
> - the poor leadership of the British army and its political bosses
No question - the British didn't manage the war very well, but were
also at a severe logistical disadvantage. I doubt the Colonies
were ever very profitable. They'd originally been founded as
a source of ships' timber and tar.
> - Paul Revere and fellow idealists who started the revolution
> and had it hijacked by the Boston aristocrats
That was bound to happen. Dunno how Boston Washington and
most of the other Framers later were, really. Adams and his
crew were a significant portion of the Revolution, no
doubt.
> - why the Native Americans sided with the British and lost out
> when the British lost the war
The Native Americans were hosed from the foundation of the
Plymouth colony. Somebody of European origin was
gonna settle the whole continent, one way or t'other.
> - why most Africans in the Americas sided with the British
> (slavery - which was already outlawed in Britain)
Since there was pretty tight coupling between American
production and British business, it's pretty apparent that
the Colonies represented a means of the British having their
cake and eating it too. All that cotton went to British textile
mills ( this mostly after the Revolution, but still...)
> - the way the War was used as an excuse to expand westwards
> and dispossess the Indians
Expansion was already in progress.
> - why the French Royalists helped the Americans, went bankrupt as
> a result and how that in turn caused the French revolution.
And that's quite true.
>
> He reckoned there are close parallels with methods and attitudes of
> the Zionists and their expansionism and dispossession of the
> Palestinians post WW2.
Or maybe the Norman conquest? There are some differences between
Israel and the U.S.
>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> demon :
> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> uk :
--
Les Cargill
Steve Hagel
If you're a multi-millionaire
Democrats is fair,
If all you own is what you wear
Neither of 'em's REALLY right,
'Cause neither of 'em CARE
and much of the rest of the song. also, check out "agency man" -- written
about governor 20 mule team in a prophetic foreshadowing of the decline of
america (which brought us president 20 mule team, and has culminated in
today's terrifying boob in chief).
if you're going to drag fz into this political science seminar, at least let
him speak for himself.
Take a day
And walk around
Watch the nazis
Run your town
Then go home
And check yourself
You think we're singing
'Bout someone else . . . but you're
Plastic people!
(Woooooooooooooooooooh!)
Oh baby, now . . .
You're such a drag
"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030628084331...@mb-m03.aol.com...
Richard Ballard
Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>No question - the British didn't manage the war very well, but
>were also at a severe logistical disadvantage. I doubt the
>Colonies were ever very profitable. They'd originally been
>founded as a source of ships' timber and tar.
I believe the British viewed their North American colonies
as an *immature* source of raw materials and an *immature*
captive market for British manufactured goods. Britain's
North American colonoes were *not* extremely profitable
at the time of the Revolution.
The American Revolutionary War occured long before the
California gold rush. Had the British known about
California gold they might have thrown additional
resources into vanquishing rebellious colonists.
My opinion is based upon viewing The Crown of India
displayed in The Tower of London, and some knowledge
of British colonial administration during the era of
the rajahs in India.
Richard Ballard
Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
>On 28 Jun 2003 17:59:35 GMT,
>rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:
>
>>In article <bpfrfv0nspaeh04ko...@4ax.com>,
>>commodious <jcpr...@hotmail.comeonin> writes:
>>
>>>On 28 Jun 2003 14:56:58 GMT,
>>>rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <ms7rfv0vk8b74uon1...@4ax.com>,
>>>>Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>On 28 Jun 2003 12:43:32 GMT,
>>>>>rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:
<snip>
>>>>>>"The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia's founding" by
>>>>>>Robert Hughes (ISBN 0-394-75366-6) is a historically detailed
>>>>>>and interesting discussion concerning English colonial policies
>>>>>> and practices.
>>>>>
>>>>>With respect, Australia was anomalous. There's no other English
>>>>>colony that was founded explicitly as a penal colony and no
>>>>>other whose initial population were involuntary transportees.
>>>>>All the rest were founded by volunteers who were out for a better
>>>>>life and (often) a fast buck.
>>>>
>>>>The North American colony of Georgia was founded as
>>>>a penal colony. British policies implemented in Georgia
>>>>were not as (a-hem) harsh as the policies the British
>>>>utilized in Australia.
>>>
>>>Not 'explicitly'. It also served as a buffer between the Carolinas
>>>and Spanish Florida. The reason the policies weren't as harsh is
>>>because Oglethorpe founded the colony to get debtors out of harsh
>>>prison environments.
>>
>I know nothing about Georgia and hadn't previously heard about its
>founding purposes. Nonetheless, offering people imprisoned for debt
>the chance to go elsewhere rather than remain in prison.
Cheap slave labor and a favor to the crown in emptying
overcrowded prisons.
<snip>
>That sounds somewhat different to transport to Australia. This
>involved exporting prisoners, some arrested on pretty trivial charges,
>and using them for hard labour on arrival, which is what happened in
>Australia. Think chain gangs.
The significant differences were administrative.
Think military governors rather than civilian governors.
Think martial law rather than civil law.
>>Georgia *was* supposed to be a self-sustaining commericial
>>colony based upon silk production. That failed because
>>silkworms ate white mulberry leaves, not the black mulberry
>>leaves native to Georgia. Nevertheless, many of Georgia's
>>original settlers were convicts.
>
>Definitely different. Australia was founded as a pure prison colony
>(initially at Sydney) though unforced colonists turned up later,
>especially during the gold rush.
>
>>IMO the conditions were not as harsh for practical reasons.
>>Colonists needed a certain amount of freedom to farm and
>>grow/harvest commercial crops. In addition, it is easier to
>>implement (a-hem) harsh procedures on a island that
>>experiences winter conditions and is arable only at the
>>coast -- no where to run and little to eat.
>>
>Winter conditions? Pretty mild: much milder than most of the US
>eastern seaboard for sure.
Then Mr. Robert Hughes' statements concerning convict
winter deaths due to starvation and exposure must be
erroneous. Odd, he researched existing historical records.
>IIRC there is nowhere around the Australian coast that gets regular
>snow during winter apart from the mountains that separate the desert
>from the eastern coastal strip - and they were not settled with better
>land nearer the coast.
>
>I think you're somewhat under informed about the Australian climate.
Once again, my source is "The Fatal Shore: ..." by Robert Hughes.
>>Australia was worse than Georgia, and small Tasmania was worse
>>than Australia (in terms of convict treatment).
>>
>>BTW, a significant number of the original Australian convicts
>>starved to death
>>
>A dinkum Aussie had better comment on these points: I know nothing
>about early Australian history apart from a bit about Cook, the
>founding of Sydney as a convict colony and the Ballarat gold rush.
>And Ned Kelly.
Same source.
>> -- they did not have the existing infrastructure
>>of arable land or lush natural foliage to sustain them. And the
>>Australian convicts produced some masterpieces of drystone
>>construction -- you can't eat drystone.
>>
>The rainfall round Sydney and down the coast to Melbourne is pretty
>reasonable so sheep and cattle could be farmed without needing
>irrigation. The serious droughts happen on the inland side of the
>mountains.
Same source. BTW, the survival rate for later convict arrivals
to Australia improved due to the existence of cleared and
once plowed fields -- they were not forced to start from scratch
when planting.
And Australian convicts were not given a great deal of time to
chase and herd freerange cattle by the military administration.
For that matter, while the early ships to Australia might have
carried a few horses and mules I doubt they carried cattle.
>--
>martin@ : Martin Gregorie
>gregorie : Harlow, UK
>demon :
>co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
>uk :
My opinions based upon reading "The Fatal Shore: ..."
Richard Ballard
"Steve Hagel" <steve...@cox.net> writes:
>if you're going to drag fz into this political science seminar,
>at least let him speak for himself.
>
>Take a day
>And walk around
>Watch the nazis
>Run your town
>Then go home
>And check yourself
>You think we're singing
>'Bout someone else . . . but you're
>
>Plastic people!
>(Woooooooooooooooooooh!)
>Oh baby, now . . .
>You're such a drag
I believe that your FZ lyric quote from the (1966) "Freak Out!"
album is societal rather than political. The overall context
equates 'plastic' with indifference, although their are some
hints concerning discomfort over credit cards. ("I dunno honey
... maybe it's your heirs pray or some thing ...").
>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030628084331...@mb-m03.aol.com...
>
>>In article <hhgpfvo62a13rehut...@4ax.com>,
>>Tom Yost <t...@gSePsApMac.com> writes:
>>
>>>Wonder if Clinton was concerned about the loss of his essence
>>>of purity?
>>
>>I believe that former President Clinton was concerned about
>>reducing the Federal deficit without throwing a credit-saturated
>>United States domestic economy into a recession.
I got no problems
The door is open for exits
05:05:05 05:23:23
101810181018 101810181018
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
Martin Gregorie
<lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Martin Gregorie wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> With respect, Australia was anomalous. There's no other English colony
>> that was founded explicitly as a penal colony and no other whose
>> initial population were involuntary transportees. All the rest were
>> founded by volunteers who were out for a better life and (often) a
>> fast buck.
>>
>
>The colony of Georgia was founded as a penal colony.
>
>> The TV documentary series
>
>I didn't see a title mentioned. I'd be inetrested to see if it's
>available here.
>
I don't have one or a TV, so haven't seen it. Sorry. One of the guests
on a BBC Radio 4 talk show was the writer and two of the other guests
were an American historian and an American who'd studied the origins
of Israel.
The story is that the TV documentary series, probably called something
like 'The American War of Independence' will appear soon on US TV. No
network was mentioned. Soon sounded like within a few weeks -
certainly this year.
The historian said its content is commonly agreed with by historians
but that the popular history of the War of Independence had been so
heavily re-written that this program content would be quite startling
for the man in the street and anybody who hadn't gone past history as
taught in school.
The parallels between the War of Independence and the founding of
Israel were pointed up by the guy who'd studied the Zionists and the
founding of Israel.
>> I mentioned was written by a man who was
>> incensed by the wholesale rewriting of history in 'The Patriot', so he
>> made a set of programs that shows, warts and all, all the factions
>> involved in the War of Independence and what their agendas were. He
>> covers:
>>
>> - the poor leadership of the British army and its political bosses
>
>No question - the British didn't manage the war very well, but were
>also at a severe logistical disadvantage. I doubt the Colonies
>were ever very profitable. They'd originally been founded as
>a source of ships' timber and tar.
>
Certainly true - especially the logistics. I'm not certain about the
colonial profitability, but part, at least, of the trade was rather
profitable for all concerned. It was triangular and worked like this:
- sugar prices were high. The Caribbean sold sugar directly to England
and imported manufactured goods and textiles. That was a separate
trade.
- as a result arable Caribbean land was too valuable to use for
growing food for slaves. Food had to come from somewhere.
- the New Englanders and Pennsylvanians traded salt cod, vegetables
and cereals to the Caribbean to feed the slaves in return for
molasses. Hence the unlikely taste for salt cod in Caribbean cookery
(no cod live in the Caribbean).
- the New Englanders used the molasses to make rum. The rum was traded
to England in exchange for manufactured goods and textiles.
Details from 'Cod' by Mark Kurlansky.
OTT: This book also describes George Washington's 1757 election to the
Fairfax County seat in the House of Burgesses. His campaign expenses
include 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch and an unknown
amount of wine, cider and beer to get the voters pissed. The county
only had 391 voters that year. Man, I wish I'd been a voter in those
days.
>> - Paul Revere and fellow idealists who started the revolution
>> and had it hijacked by the Boston aristocrats
>
>That was bound to happen. Dunno how Boston Washington and
>most of the other Framers later were, really. Adams and his
>crew were a significant portion of the Revolution, no
>doubt.
>
'Cod' says they were all merchants and the revolution was really about
cod, tea, tobacco and molasses. They pretty much kicked the 'rights of
man' under the table because it would have been embarrassing to talk
that way with all the slaves about. After all, Jefferson was a slave
owner.
>> - why the Native Americans sided with the British and lost out
>> when the British lost the war
>
>The Native Americans were hosed from the foundation of the
>Plymouth colony. Somebody of European origin was
>gonna settle the whole continent, one way or t'other.
>
True enough.
>> - why most Africans in the Americas sided with the British
>> (slavery - which was already outlawed in Britain)
>
>Since there was pretty tight coupling between American
>production and British business, it's pretty apparent that
>the Colonies represented a means of the British having their
>cake and eating it too. All that cotton went to British textile
>mills ( this mostly after the Revolution, but still...)
>
Indeed, which is why I'm not so sure that the American trade was as
unprofitable as you think it might have been. Probably small compared
with the Indian trade, but then everything else was too.
>> - the way the War was used as an excuse to expand westwards
>> and dispossess the Indians
>
>Expansion was already in progress.
>
>> - why the French Royalists helped the Americans, went bankrupt as
>> a result and how that in turn caused the French revolution.
>
>And that's quite true.
>
>>
>> He reckoned there are close parallels with methods and attitudes of
>> the Zionists and their expansionism and dispossession of the
>> Palestinians post WW2.
>
>Or maybe the Norman conquest? There are some differences between
>Israel and the U.S.
>
I don't think that's the case. IMO the difference is that the numbers
of invaders during the Norman Conquest (and the Roman Conquest of 55
BC for that matter) were small compared with the local population,
while the founding of the American colonies and Israel involved the
arrival of much larger numbers of people.
Both Norman and Roman conquests are better seen as replacement of one
small ruling class with another. The British take-over of India also
fits this pattern. In all three cases a lot of native rulers remained
in power but with different allegiances imposed. By contrast, the
founding of both the American colonies and Israel involved a mass
migration of 'just plain folks' as well as ruling classes and their
armed forces.
commodious
That was his intent. It was an attractive idea to the king because,
like I said, it served as a buffer between the English Carolinas and
Spanish Florida.
Steve Hagel
what, pray tell, has plastic to do with indifference?
how about compliant, docile, impressionable, influenceable, malleable,
moldable, pliable, pliant, suggestible, susceptible, tractable, yielding,
artificial, pseudo, superficial, synthetic, conformable, bogus, counterfeit,
ersatz, fabricated, faked, false, hyped up, mock, phony, queer, sham,
simulated, specious, spurious, substitute, synthetic, unnatural, unreal.
and, for conceptual continuity junkies, consider the references during the
period to the stink of burning plastic, and to frank's old pals kenny and
ronnie burning plastic models.
but what do you care...christ, your poasts and many of the others here are
reminiscent of a sheet of instructions for a cheap appliance made in chine:
english words stitched together without the benefit of any meaningful
context or understanding of the the language.
social? political? reagan? convicts? credit cards? heir's pray? what
the? "you think we're singin' 'bout someone else." how would you survive if
you were alive shitty little person?
god i miss frank.
"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030628210841...@mb-m12.aol.com...
Richard Ballard
"Steve Hagel" <steve...@cox.net> writes:
>like i said, i guess you had to be there.
>
>what, pray tell, has plastic to do with indifference?
>
>how about compliant, docile, impressionable, influenceable, malleable,
>moldable, pliable, pliant, suggestible, susceptible, tractable, yielding,
>artificial, pseudo, superficial, synthetic, conformable, bogus, counterfeit,
>ersatz, fabricated, faked, false, hyped up, mock, phony, queer, sham,
>simulated, specious, spurious, substitute, synthetic, unnatural, unreal.
>
>and, for conceptual continuity junkies, consider the references during the
>period to the stink of burning plastic, and to frank's old pals kenny and
>ronnie burning plastic models.
>
>but what do you care...christ, your poasts and many of the others here are
>reminiscent of a sheet of instructions for a cheap appliance made in chine:
>english words stitched together without the benefit of any meaningful
>context or understanding of the the language.
>
>social? political? reagan? convicts? credit cards? heir's pray? what
>the? "you think we're singin' 'bout someone else." how would you survive if
>you were alive shitty little person?
>
>god i miss frank.
Sir, I believe you are overdue for some healthful excercise
followed by a nap.
Biggo
> I believe that the Republican and Democratic parties
> each nominate their best team of candidates for each
> Presidential / Vice Presidential election ...
>
> ... and United States citizens choose with their votes.
|\
8-| )
|/
I strongly believe you're kidding. Please, say you're f*c*in' KIDDING!
--
||_ (o) __ __ __ | Biggo. <mailto:big...@dplanet.ch>
|'o\| |/o \/o \/o \ | On The aaria: http://OnTheaaria.webhop.org
|._/|_|\__/\__/\__/ | * An out of control ego will sometimes get in the
/_/ /_/ | way of your success. (Todd H.)
Biggo
> I suspect that based upon former President Reagan's
> term(s?) as California Governor, FZ believed that the
> Democratic Party agenda better supported civil liberties.
"Neither of 'em's REALLY right 'cause neither of 'em CARE"
Richard Ballard
big...@dplanet.ch (Biggo) writes:
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I believe that the Republican and Democratic parties
>>each nominate their best team of candidates for each
>>Presidential / Vice Presidential election ...
>>
>> ... and United States citizens choose with their votes.
>
> |\
>8-| )
> |/
>
>I strongly believe you're kidding. Please, say you're
>f*c*in' KIDDING!
'Best' is an ambiguous term. 'Most effective' both in terms
of getting elected, and in terms of governing once elected,
is specific.
And those votes do count.
One way to look at it: Given a 25 percent voter turnout, when
you cast your vote you not only are voting for you, you are
voting for your three fellow citizens who didn't bother to vote.
Kinda makes a fellow feel superior ...
I got no problems
20:05:15 20:05:15
'Life in the trailer park'
is a *long* sentence
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Combatting Cult Mind Control"
by Steven Hassan
Richard Ballard
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I suspect that based upon former President Reagan's
>>term(s?) as California Governor, FZ believed that the
>>Democratic Party agenda better supported civil liberties.
>
>"Neither of 'em's REALLY right 'cause neither of 'em CARE"
FZ testified before Congress speaking against a proposed
rating system for albums (similar to the X, etc. rating
system used in the film industry). In a sense he was
acting as 'elder statesman' for the recording industry.
I doubt that his Congressional appearance motivated many
fans to rush out and purchase FZ albums. I believe Frank
cared about preserving his artistic (and underlying economic)
freedom.
zappa fan killer
wrote:
>big...@dplanet.ch (Biggo) writes:
>
>>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I suspect that based upon former President Reagan's
>>>term(s?) as California Governor, FZ believed that the
>>>Democratic Party agenda better supported civil liberties.
>>
>>"Neither of 'em's REALLY right 'cause neither of 'em CARE"
>
>FZ testified before Congress speaking against a proposed
>rating system for albums (similar to the X, etc. rating
>system used in the film industry). In a sense he was
>acting as 'elder statesman' for the recording industry.
>I doubt that his Congressional appearance motivated many
>fans to rush out and purchase FZ albums. I believe Frank
>cared about preserving his artistic (and underlying economic)
>freedom.
>
> I got no problems
>20:05:15 20:05:15
>'Life in the trailer park'
> is a *long* sentence
>
>Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
i think it was some what self serving since he had already been black
listed before
and that his material would certainly be labeled
hell id bet they would make him label an all instrumental cd
citing the violence of his orchestration and composition
.
"killing zappa fans was difficult at first,
but , after a while it got easier"
Ninja General Retard and AFFZ veteran
step away from the crack pipe man, you'll thank me later