80 Rectifier, Constitution & English Law
Peter Wieck
principle that "What is not expressly forbidden is (therefore) permitted".
ASIDE: One of the most manifest examples of this principle is the fact that
illegal drugs must be "listed" as such in order to be illegal. Hence, designer
drugs. If all "intoxicants", opiates or their derivatives were to be listed
generically, then alcohol, tobacco and several other legal items would suddenly
become illegal. Too many lobbies for that to happen again (once did with
totally unexpected consequences to some). One wonders if all drugs..... well,
that is way too far OT.
Innocent until proved guilty is the one that most got. Bill Jeffery got the
first point.
Roman Law derived its authority from a higher power (God, King, whatever) who
"granted" permissions to the people. Hence only those things expressly
permitted are given legal status. All other things are arbitrary and retained
by the Higher Power; and there are no unalienable rights.
Under English Law, on the other hand, unless something is expressly forbidden,
then it is a matter of right. SO, there does NOT need to be an exhaustive list
of such rights. Consider that if the founders were to be faced with the sorts
of surveilance commonly available today, they may have made specific reference
to the right of privacy in the constitution. But the brute fact of the matter
is that such intrusions were simply not in the repertory back then, so the
possible abrogation of those rights would not have crossed their minds. They
addressed what was currently in question, and what was currently at risk. They
did so at several different levels (hence my suggestion to read the
constitution for "content" rather than for ready-made conclusions). In some
cases, they stated that "Congress shall make no law....". In others, they
referred to the right as existing, but not necessarily limitless. In many
cases, exceptions are permitted "in accordance with the law".
Lest there are those out there who doubt the guiding principle cited above,
here it is in the 9th amendment to the Constitution, AKA "The Bill of Rights":
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X clarifies it as related to 'States' Rights' (misnomer: known as
"powers" as governments have no "rights"... the founders understood this
distinction, the Southern Separatists did not), but the "People" are also
mentioned, again. But I leave you to go there and verify this.
If all those who are wedded to #2 had read any further, this would have been a
piece of cake...
Sven's Point: See, since the Constitution does not forbid same-sex marriage
(actually, the constitution does not address sexuality whatsoever), there is no
constitutional barrier... hence the waffling and whimpering. And, given that a
2/3 majority of the State Legislators are required to ratify an amendment, it
is unlikely to be an issue outside of the courts. And the Conservatives are
acutely aware of this, so they can rant from the pulpit with no expectation of
consequence or the need to actually *do* something about it. Good sound-bites,
no backlash. If there ever was a definition for the perfect political issue,
this is the one. Applicable equally to flag-burning, prayer in schools... a
whole raft of stuff that is dead functionally, but sure makes a pretty corpse
to rant over. Note which color of the political spectrum uses these sorts of
issues most frequently. If you cannot make beneficial use of actual issues or
facts, baffle them with bullshit.
BUT, despite all the exhortations, ranting, mewling and puling, Life Does Go
On.....
Any takers on the statement: "What I say three times is true." ? I could up
the ante to a Globe 80 or a 1L6, but the winner would have to wait until
December to collect. The ST, I can do right now... unless you do not want a
package from Saudi Arabia in your mailbox (hee hee... Ashcroft will wanna know
what's in it).
NO research permitted, of course.
http://members.aol.com/pfjw/page1.html
Peter Wieck
Al-Khobar, KSA
Fred Nachbaur
Peter Wieck wrote:
> [...]
>
> BUT, despite all the exhortations, ranting, mewling and puling, Life Does Go
> On.....
Indeed it does. Sometimes with a vengeance. :)
> Any takers on the statement: "What I say three times is true." ? [...]
Arabic common law?
Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+
David Stinson
>>... (hence my suggestion to read the
> constitution for "content" rather than for ready-made conclusions)...
You assume that the common herd is capable of reading basic English
"for content." They can't even speak it, much less read and write it.
David Stinson
> Any takers on the statement: "What I say three times is true."
If either Boss Tweed, Huey Long or LBJ didn't say it first,
they should have....
Eddie Brimer
understand it, and break it don't for us dummies that can't comprehend what
simple words tell us. back to the original subject....the framers intended for
people to have guns. period. not controlled by the goverment. guns(weapons)
and the ability and the balls to use them, are what made this a free country.
guns keep the bad guys at least half-way honest. without them we would have
been conquered long, long ago. sad, but true. it is undeniable.
Eddie Brimer
2480 S. Beersheba Rd.
Sharon SC, 29742
visit my web page "THIS OLD RADIO"
http://members.aol.com/EB062559/THISOLDRADIOINDEX.html
Jeffrey D Angus
Eddie Brimer wrote:
> back to the original subject....the framers intended for
> people to have guns. period. not controlled by the goverment. guns(weapons)
> and the ability and the balls to use them, are what made this a free country.
> guns keep the bad guys at least half-way honest. without them we would have
> been conquered long, long ago. sad, but true. it is undeniable.
Additionally, and this was also their reasoning. Guns (weapons)
kept our government honest. We revolted once, and were perfectly
capable of revolting again. So, keep the people armed, and let
the government beware.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"
William Sommerwerck
Constitution, this country is "free" mostly because of tradition, and our
physical isolation. Weapons have little to do with it.
William Sommerwerck
The real threat to this country is the love of money. It's the wealthy that need
to be lined up against a wall and shot, but since we all bow down and grovel
before the great god Mammon, this is unlikely to ever happen.
Eddie Brimer
>Constitution, this country is "free" mostly because of tradition, and our
>physical isolation. Weapons have little to do with it.
c'mon william..take ALL (nukes too) of our weapons and see how long this is a
FREE country. you know it's true. we aren't free because it's a habit. it's
because most are scared to mess with us.
Eddie Brimer
>kept our government honest. We revolted once, and were perfectly
>capable of revolting again. So, keep the people armed, and let
>the government beware.
>
>Jeff
exactly
William Sommerwerck
The Germans wanted to invade the US during WWII. They were stopped by limited
technology -- there were no practical bombers that could make a round-trip
flight to America.
It doesn't matter how many guns citizens have (which is what we were talking
about) if you can drop lots of bombs on them.
--exray--
> <Groucho>And I have to say, this is a really revolting country.</Groucho>
>
> The real threat to this country is the love of money. It's the wealthy that need
> to be lined up against a wall and shot,
How much money must one have to be considered wealthy by William
Sommerwerck and just exactly how do you calculate that?
-Bill
Jeffrey D Angus
> The real threat to this country is the love of money. It's the wealthy that need
> to be lined up against a wall and shot, but since we all bow down and grovel
> before the great god Mammon, this is unlikely to ever happen.
And
> The Germans wanted to invade the US during WWII.
Funny you should mention the Germans....
That's exactly what they did. About 8 million of them.
So, which group of people are you proposing to pin some emblem on.
Perhaps a Green Triangle signifying too much money? And how do you
propose selecting them? Doe eugenics cover monetary worth? And lastly
what do you propose to do with all this redistributed wealth? Or do
you give it to the least affluent, then kill them off after they no
long qualify as being least affluent?
--exray--
> But that wasn't quite the point you were making.
>
> The Germans wanted to invade the US during WWII. They were stopped by limited
> technology -- there were no practical bombers that could make a round-trip
> flight to America.
>
> It doesn't matter how many guns citizens have (which is what we were talking
> about) if you can drop lots of bombs on them.
>
But we as Americans still have that Northern Threat to be concerned about.
http://cwd.ptbcanadian.com/index2.html
-Bill
John Goller, k9uwa
>
>
>How much money must one have to be considered wealthy by William
>Sommerwerck and just exactly how do you calculate that?
>-Bill
>
Hi Bill...
Typical Socialist William .... probably anything above the poverty
level would be considered too much money...
and
>We revolted once, and were perfectly
>capable of revolting again. So, keep the people armed, and let
>the government beware.
>
>Jeff
Yeah Right!.... I'm sure that the american public could do any serious
uprising against the US Gubmint ... we wouldn't be as well armed as the few
nut cases that are left in Iraq shooting at us...
Nose back into the corner... will go eat my meds now!
John k9uwa
Jim Bailey
> But we as Americans still have that Northern Threat to be concerned about.
>
Fred Nachbaur
Jim Bailey wrote:
>>But we as Americans still have that Northern Threat to be concerned about.
>>
>
> Those Canadians are a sneaky bunch ;-)
Shhh! There might be Americans reading this NG!
Cheers,
Agent Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+
Michael A. Terrell
You think? ;-)
--
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Hagstar
>
> the few
> nut cases that are left in Iraq shooting at us...
I'm having a dejavu- wasn't that what we said about the Vietcong?
John H.
Jim Bailey
>
"He who does not understand history is destined to repeat it."
"Large nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they
must."
John Goller, k9uwa
Same thing John.... ya can't tell the difference between a VC and
the Ones that were supposedly on our side..... and in Iraq it is
I am sure the same ... we won't quit loosing people until we leave
the place....
Just hand the keys back to the IRaqis and tell them to be good
of the next time we have to come back will just nuke the whole
mess of them.....
Wish it was that simple!
John k9uwa
Eddie Brimer
>
>"Large nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they
>must."
>
>
Eddie Brimer
>about) if you can drop lots of bombs on them.
you said weapons. you have to have te best weapons and the ability and the
nerve to use them, (or at least make a lesser armed group think so) or you
perish. been like that since the beginning of time. it will always be like
that. mankind isn't really all that nice. we would like to think we are, but
we aren't.
Hagstar
>
> you guys have lost your frikin' mind.
1. Ad Hominem: Attacking the person, not the argument.
John H.
Bill Sheppard
>small nations accept what they must."
Dunno zackly where you're comin' from there, Jim. But never before in
human history has a nation possessed an arsenal of such overwhelming
firepower as the U.S. does, and shown greater restraint in using it..
even when such use is tactically called for (such as on the Torabora
cave complex).
America could militarily colonize the world on a whim, but
does not, due to its in-built moray of non-aggression and non-comquest.
Bill (oc)
William Sommerwerck
> accept what they must."
And because the US is a moral, Christian country, whatever we do _must_ be good
and right, and other countries are therefore obliged to accept it.
William Sommerwerck
> make a lesser-armed group think so), or you perish.
True, but that is merely the awful necessity. It doesn't move us in the
direction of being better.
> [It's] been like that since the beginning of time. It will
> always be like that.
Error, error, error. Not if people choose to change. This is the same lame
excuse for keeping things as they are.
> Mankind isn't really all that nice. We would like to think we are,
> but we aren't.
If people started recognizing that, it would be a major step towards a more-just
world.
Fred Nachbaur
Bill Sheppard wrote:
>>"Large nations do what they wish, while
>>small nations accept what they must."
>
>
> Dunno zackly where you're comin' from there, Jim. But never before in
> human history has a nation possessed an arsenal of such overwhelming
> firepower as the U.S. does, and shown greater restraint in using it..
> even when such use is tactically called for (such as on the Torabora
> cave complex).
I agree whole-heartedly. (And that's coming from someone not exactly
enamoured by American foreign policy.)
> America could militarily colonize the world on a whim, but
> does not, due to its in-built moray of non-aggression and non-comquest.
>
> Bill (oc)
It's also in her best interests not to do so. Every such military
colonization effort has ended in disaster for the aggressor.
Cheers,
Peter Wieck
You are both awfully nice guys, but….
Let's look at your statements, both delivered more-or-less as absolutes. If I
distill them too brutally, please feel free to clarify your intent.
Guns and the willingness to use them made us free in the first place.
Guns in the hands of the populace keeps the government wary.
We did it before, we might do it again (revolt by force of arms).
OK, now. Let's list a few countries where the population is by any measure, far
better armed than the population of the United States. These are in no
particular order.
Angola
Congo (qualifying flavor of the month)
Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)
South Africa
Columbia
Any of several Balkan states
Chechnia
Malaysia
Liberia
Southern tier of Mexico
Switzerland
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Vietnam
Sri Lanka
The list goes on.
Now, let's list a few very poorly armed countries relative to the general
population of the United States:
England
Japan
Germany
Italy
Spain
France
China
India
Albania
All of the Scandinavian countries except Finland
It becomes quite clear that there is no correlation between an armed populace
and freedom, security, good government, decent life-style or any other related
condition as it touches the general life of the common person. In some cases,
an armed populace leads to anarchy, in others to rigid conformance. It is the
internal ethos of the people involved that makes the difference. Not any
guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
Guns DO NOT necessarily equate to freedom (personal or otherwise).
The lack of Guns DOES NOT necessarily equate to oppression.
To force the correspondence diverts from the actual reasons for freedom, the
understanding of them, and the protection of them. Those reasons are threatened
EVERY DAY… "Eternal Vigilance is the price of Freedom" (Thomas Jefferson) has
nothing to do with force-of-arms, but with attention to and protection of our
rights and those of others. The "unalienable rights" that have been quoted here
on several occasions: That, by the way, is from the Declaration of
Independence, and therefore has no Constitutional Force. All our "rights"
derive from the ninth amendment in general, and the first through eighth
specifically. In that light, the ninth amendment becomes pretty damned
important.
MANDATORY RADIO CONTENT: I asked once before: Who owns the airwaves. Well, the
basic answer _is the people of the United States_. Your government (and mine)
is making a concerted effort to destroy the value of that ownership. Do
something about it rather than sitting on your butts worried about your guns.
If there is one voice in the broadcast media (and we are fast approaching that
condition), Dave Stinson's "Common Herd" will become even more sheeplike and
inert in whatever passes for their thinking.
http://members.aol.com/pfjw/page1.html
Peter Wieck
Al-Khobar, KSA
Eddie Brimer
>more-just
>world.
>
>
heck...we all know it. we just can't help ourselves. i guess it just goes
back to a trust issue. our natural instincts tell us not to trust anybody and
to protect ourselves at all costs.....i can't see it changing. nice to pretend
that maybe we could all just start being nicer to each other, but it's not
going to happen. we are a very violent, selfish species really.
Eddie Brimer
>does not, due to its in-built moray of non-aggression and non-comquest.
>
>Bill (oc)
>
amen. i get so tired of people making us out to be some kind of bully. by
gosh, we could be a bully if we wanted to.
Fred Nachbaur
Peter Wieck wrote:
> [...]
>
> MANDATORY RADIO CONTENT: I asked once before: Who owns the airwaves. Well, the
> basic answer _is the people of the United States_.
One moment please! Since airwaves do not give a hoot about artificially
created national borders, I take issue with your claim of US ownership.
However, until such a time as it can be shown that our radio
transmissions affect cultures not on this planet, I think it safe to say
"Who owns the airwaves? The people of the world."
> Your government (and mine)
> is making a concerted effort to destroy the value of that ownership. Do
> something about it rather than sitting on your butts worried about your guns.
> [...]
I agree. I found it interesting that you omitted Canada in your list of
countries in which the populace is essentially unarmed, and finds the US
obsession over guns puzzling at best, frightening at worst. We're
actually a lot more concerned about other freedoms -- such as freedom of
movement and expression. Perhaps partly because of this, Canada is very
tolerant of free radio. (I hate the term "pirate" radio, because it's a
complete misnomer; free radio does not take over, or take away from
anything or anyone else. Nor do I like the term "unlicensed radio"
because it implies being somehow illegitimate because of the lack of an
assigned license.)
Another reason that there are so many free radio stations here is that
we've essentially reduced Industry Canada (our equivalent of the FCC) to
the bare minimum required to stop communications interference. The
result is that they won't even bother investigating a free radio station
unless they receive a complaint of interference or illegal activity
(e.g. hate-mongering).
Fred Nachbaur
Eddie Brimer wrote:
>>If people started recognizing that, it would be a major step towards a
>>more-just
>>world.
>>
>>
>
>
> heck...we all know it. we just can't help ourselves.
Ah, but we *can* change ourselves. Hopelessness is a fallacy far more
insidious than any of the obvious ones in the "Big 7" that Peter
recently enlightened us on.
> i guess it just goes
> back to a trust issue. our natural instincts tell us not to trust anybody and
> to protect ourselves at all costs.....
I don't agree. I think that our natural instincts are to act
collaboratively; after all, we are a social species. On the contrary, I
believe that mistrust is a learned response, and a direct result of
civilization.
If you take a look at so-called "primitive" human cultures, both here
before the advent of "civilized" man, and elsewhere (Africa, Australia,
etc.) you'll find that trustworthiness is inately assumed unless proven
otherwise.
> i can't see it changing. nice to pretend
> that maybe we could all just start being nicer to each other, but it's not
> going to happen. we are a very violent, selfish species really.
It's precisely that attitude that maintains the status quo! If you don't
admit to the possibility of change, how can change occur?
Bill Sheppard
>It's also in her best interests not to do
>so. Every such military colonization effort >has ended in disaster for
the aggressor.
If she _were_ prone to doing so (colonizing the world), who's to stop
her? America's nuclear sub fleet has the power to put the world under
military checkmate and domination virtually overnight. Yet she chooses
to be benefactor and breadbasket to the world.
Stop and think for a moment- think of this level of
military power in the hands of Schikelgruber (Hitler) and Tojo.
Bill (oc)
William Sommerwerck
> back to a trust issue. our natural instincts tell us not to trust anybody and
> to protect ourselves at all costs.....i can't see it changing. nice to pretend
> that maybe we could all just start being nicer to each other, but it's not
> going to happen. we are a very violent, selfish species really.
Then what is the reason -- the justication -- for being good? Simply worrying
that some Supreme Being is going to punish us isn't enough.
By the way, protecting yourself is not that same thing as aggressively taking
advantage of others.
William Sommerwerck
> by gosh, we could be a bully if we wanted to.
But we are. Just as any other country that has power, then decides to use it for
its own. Indeed, one of the arguments of the "neo-conservatives" is that, if we
have power, we ought to use it.
I feel that one of the best things about having power is _not_ having to use it.
William Sommerwerck
> her? America's nuclear sub fleet has the power to put the world under
> military checkmate and domination virtually overnight. Yet she chooses
> to be benefactor and breadbasket to the world.
> Stop and think for a moment- think of this level of
> military power in the hands of Schikelgruber (Hitler) and Tojo.
You are conveniently overlooking that fact that we ARE economically and socially
"colonizing" the world. That's one of the problems.
Peter Wieck
>socially
>"colonizing" the world. That's one of the problems.
>
William: Relax about this, really. Our "power" is quite temporary and relies on
the sufferance of the rest of the world. It is time that you recognize that
although some individuals may not like policemen or janitors, they are
necessary lubricants to the operation of society. Much in the same way the US
serves as the policeman-cum-janitor for much of the world. Reviled until
needed. When a suitable replacement comes along, or they learn to do it
themselves; they will stop selling us their oil at cut-rate prices (consider
what they _Could_ get for it... and we would pay it as long as we had the cash
to do it) and sell it elsewhere where they can get similar goods at much
cheaper prices (such as China). With 2/3 of our oil-supplies cut off
permanently, ANWAR having about 19 months total capacity (after some $15
billion in development costs) and the STR having another 15 months or so (check
these figures on the DOE website, if you doubt them), we would then instantly
become a third-rate (but nuclear) power, unable to 'project' other than capital
weapons for lack of fuel.
Again, the figures do not lie, however much they are denied. The US with about
5% of the world's total population uses 25% of the world's total energy
supplies. China, with about 1/3 of the world's total population uses 6.25% of
the world's total energy supplies.... They would consume 150% of the ENTIRE
world's present proven supply were they to consume as we do.
Again, I would not look for threats to our freedoms from overseas, but from our
own government... I hear Ashcroft is out selling the so-called "Patriot Act"
right now!
Jefferson must be twirling in his grave. Hmm.... neither of my parents spoke
English as a first language, and neither were born in the US.... Hmmm....
Bill Turner
ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL.
PLEASE EXCUSE CAPS, SHORT REPLIES, STROKE
Bill Turner, WA0ABI, 1117 Pike St., Saint Charles,MO 63301. Phone
636-949-2210
Plastic Dial covers, any size, any shape. $14.00
Glass Dial covers, 2" to 8 7/8" x 1/16" incr, $14.00
ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITORS, new, 7/8"DIA. X 3" OR 3 1/4" long, shiney red
or blue cover, brown hot glue end seal with printed inscription the long
way down the length, a metal mounting strap with a hole for mounting.
Exactly like the ones so popular in rhe 40's, 50's, 60's.
33uF-47uF 160 volts, $2.50
33 uF-33uF-33uF 160 volts $3.00
47 uF-47uF-47uF 160 volts $3.50
33uF -47uF 160 volts 47uF/100 $4.00 with bias cap.
33uF-47uF 94 uF/100 volts $4.00 (AC/DCbattery sets) 22uF-22uF 450 volts
$4.00 (for AC sets) 22uF-22uF-22uF 450 volts $4.50 (for AC sets)
CUSTOM CAPACITOR FOR HALLICRAFTERS (CARDBOARD TYPE) AND ZENITH T/O (CAN
TYPE) . ASK FOR QUOTE. ALL POSTAGE PAID,cash, money order, check
For a business SASE a copy of the Pocket Resouce Guide and my personal
four page catalog of pieces, parts, and manuals.
Leo
That's probably because Canada is far from being 'essentially unarmed'
- estimates run as high as 16.5 million firearms in this country with
a population of 32 million people, or better than 1 gun for every 2
Canadians (man, woman and child). This is indeed disconcerting to the
Canadian Government, whose recent mandatory registration program has
recorded just over 6 million firearms so far....where'd the other 10
million go? Hmmmm.....
BTW, its the high crime rate involving firearms in the US, not the
obsession with firearms, that puzzles us! Go see the movie "Bowling
For Columbine" when you get a chance - it might clear that
misconception up a bit for you.
Canadians overwhelmingly prefer long guns to handguns (handguns have
had the hell regulated out of them here since the 1930s, and are
illegal for hunting). Without a Constitutional amendment to guarantee
continued private ownership, we tend to be a lot quieter about them as
well....
But I wouldn't say we were unarmed. Just about everyone I know has
one or two huntin' irons in their house and/or cottage....and I'm a
big city boy!
Details - http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article119.htm
Mandatory radio content - you also mentioned that we are more open to
the concept of pirate radio in Canada - seems to me we have the same
laws in place prohibiting this type of operation as the US. What
leads you to that conclusion?
73, Leo
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:48:27 GMT, Fred Nachbaur
<fnac...@netscape.net> wrote:
>snip
>I agree. I found it interesting that you omitted Canada in your list of
>countries in which the populace is essentially unarmed, and finds the US
>obsession over guns puzzling at best, frightening at worst.
>snip
William Sommerwerck
> HISTORY CHANNEL.
So don't forget... order before midnight tonight!
Actually, I did. There was a terrific show about "Hitler's Wonder Weapons," one
of which was a bomber that supposedly could have made it to North America and
back.
William Sommerwerck
> obsession with firearms, that puzzles us! Go see the movie
> clear that misconception up a bit for you.
That's the point -- the US is a violent, drug-abusing society. No one quite
knows why.
Other countries have comparable rates of gun ownership, but not the gun
violence.
Eugor
<will...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> you said weapons. you have to have te best weapons
>> and the ability and the nerve to use them (or at least
>> make a lesser-armed group think so), or you perish.
>
>True, but that is merely the awful necessity. It doesn't move us in the
>direction of being better.
>
>
>> [It's] been like that since the beginning of time. It will
>> always be like that.
>
>Error, error, error. Not if people choose to change. This is the same lame
>excuse for keeping things as they are.
One can only choose to change oneself. If others choose not to
change, then one is in an extermely precarious position. When I was a
teenager, I was studious, minded my own business and was the target of
any bully in the area. Talking reasonably only made things worse.
Only when I started swinging at the sign of any threat did I get any
peace.
Brian McAllister
Sarasota, Florida
Eddie Brimer
>insidious than any of the obvious ones in the "Big 7" that Peter
>recently enlightened us on.
yes...and ourselves are all we control. hopelessness??? how about realistic?
we are talking society in general, not individuals.
>I don't agree. I think that our natural instincts are to act
>collaboratively; after all, we are a social species. On the contrary, I
>believe that mistrust is a learned response, and a direct result of
>civilization.
i don't understand your reasoning. most people...especially in cities. don't
even know their neighbors. don't care to. only time we are nice to people is
when they agree with us. collectively, not individually.
>If you take a look at so-called "primitive" human cultures, both here
>before the advent of "civilized" man, and elsewhere (Africa, Australia,
>etc.) you'll find that trustworthiness is inately assumed unless proven
>otherwise.
i'll bet there were more than a few "clubbings" in those days.
>It's precisely that attitude that maintains the status quo! If you don't
>admit to the possibility of change, how can change occur?
i wish i could be so optimistic. tell me once in recorded history when we all
just "got along". i really want to feel that one day we will live in a world
witout guns, without prisons, without murder and crime. (again we are talking
collectively, not individually). but in my heart, i can't see it happening.
Eddie Brimer
>that some Supreme Being is going to punish us isn't enough.
to me it is.
>By the way, protecting yourself is not that same thing as aggressively taking
>advantage of others.
agreed. unless the aggression is pro-active.
--exray--
> Again, the figures do not lie, however much they are denied. The US with about
> 5% of the world's total population uses 25% of the world's total energy
> supplies. China, with about 1/3 of the world's total population uses 6.25% of
> the world's total energy supplies.... They would consume 150% of the ENTIRE
> world's present proven supply were they to consume as we do.
Thats pretty much apples and oranges, Pete. China CAN'T consume
proportionate to the US, at least not anytime soon. Desperately low
wages, even by their standards, won't be filling up their highways with
SUV moms anytime soon. If things were to change, the cost of their
products would skyrocket and their manufacturing economy would fall flat
on its face...and they wouldn't be able to fill the tanks of their SUVs.
We Americans kinda know how this comes around.
I think your same numbers of 5% using 25% can also be twisted around and
shown to reveal the most productive society (of any consequential size)
the planet has ever seen.
Just a little tidbit for you and William to read between the
lines...Cuba is entirely self-sufficient for energy and I imagine ranks
pretty low on Pete's Tabular Scale of Consumption Per Capita. Wonder
how they became such an efficient consumer?
-BM
William Sommerwerck
> Cuba is entirely self-sufficient for energy and I imagine ranks
Presumably because they had no choice. But...
Low consumption and efficiency are not the same thing.
Bill Jeffrey
Eddie Brimer wrote:
> you said weapons. you have to have te best weapons and the ability and the
> nerve to use them, (or at least make a lesser armed group think so) or you
> perish.
Now that's just what Saddam said, and look where it got him. It begins
to appear that while he may have had WMD at one time, he might have
gottten rid of them more recently. But he worked hard at making the
rest of the world ("lesser" in his eyes) believe he still had them
(witness the UN resolutions), and it lost him his country, his power,
and his kids. This might not be the best approach to positioning
yourself on the world stage.
Bill Jeffrey
--exray--
You skipped the "per capita".
Although thats not the point I was trying to make, you gave a perfect
example of seeing only the part that you want to see.
I suppose my analogy was along the same lines. Pete picked some
legitimate statistics and applied the conclusion that it was "bad"
without further consideration of where all that energy is going and what
the result is in the way of human output, if not convenience.
Before I send Peter scurrying back to his World Almanac, let me say for
the record that I indeed agree we Westerners are a wasteful society and
I'll make no argument there. But nor do I want to lead the life of the
typical Chinese denizen.
The reality is that we probably use equal to China's energy consumption
simply in repackaging, marketing, shipping, purchasing and disposing of
THEIR industrial output. Thats not going to show up in Peter's list,
though.
Of course maybe he's just buttering you up for a nice post with your
guys after they kill all the wealthy and rob their money.
Its all in how you look at it, right?
-Bill
Jeffrey D Angus
you've chosen to conveniently ignore?
Jeff
Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> The real threat to this country is the love of money. It's the wealthy
>> that need
>> to be lined up against a wall and shot, but since we all bow down and
>> grovel
>> before the great god Mammon, this is unlikely to ever happen.
>
>
> And
>
>> The Germans wanted to invade the US during WWII.
>
>
> Funny you should mention the Germans....
>
> That's exactly what they did. About 8 million of them.
>
> So, which group of people are you proposing to pin some emblem on.
> Perhaps a Green Triangle signifying too much money? And how do you
> propose selecting them? Doe eugenics cover monetary worth? And lastly
> what do you propose to do with all this redistributed wealth? Or do
> you give it to the least affluent, then kill them off after they no
> long qualify as being least affluent?
>
> Jeff
>
>
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"
Eddie Brimer
>Now that's just what Saddam said, and look where it got him.
yes, he perished.... at least from power. he didn't use his weapons as
protection or to deter attackers. he used it aggressively and he didn't have
the ability to defend himself. where do you think we would be right now had
saddam or bin laden had the capability to defeat us? we would be defeated. no
doubt.
William Sommerwerck
My statement stands. Low per-capita energy consumption does not mean the energy
is being used efficiently or productively.
You have to look at what the energy is being used for.
Fred Nachbaur
Leo wrote:
> [...]
>
> Mandatory radio content - you also mentioned that we are more open to
> the concept of pirate radio in Canada - seems to me we have the same
> laws in place prohibiting this type of operation as the US. What
> leads you to that conclusion?
Well... I do have to be a little guarded in my reply. But I know of six
free radio stations within a 50 km radius of here, two of which have
been in operation for over ten years. (Most but not all simply
rebroadcast Vancouver rock stations. One of the exceptions broadcasts
non-stop classical music in FM stereo, apparently from a multi-disc CD
jukebox.)
The operator of one of the longest-running ones (in a town ironically
enough named after an American city) used to get yearly visits from the
(then) DOC, and he would obligingly shut down the station, only to fire
it back up a half-hour later. For the past five years they haven't even
bothered with the token visit.
So, while this may not necessarily apply to all of Canada, it's my
observation that at least here in south-central BC, free radio is
tolerated as long as its operators run a clean signal and don't offend
the neighbors. ;-)
Fred Nachbaur
Well, these are questions that have been pondered and debated for a long
time. So it's unlikely that we'd achieve a consensus any time soon.
Just a couple more points to ponder:
1) The attitude with which we view the possibility of mankind's ultimate
"liberation" depends on whether we view human beings as basically good
(the humanitarian approach) or basically evil (the biblical approach). I
think we're still steeped in the biblical model more than we'd care to
admit, because we (and here I include myself*) tend to assume the worst,
instead of hoping for the best, in unknown situations.
2) Twice in your post you differentiated between the individual and the
collective. You do have a good point; the "mob mentality" is what often
transforms decent, compassionate human beings into creatures more
vicious than any animal could ever be. But, on the other hand, is not
the collective merely the sum of its parts? We cannot change the world
outside of ourselves; but it *is* within our power to change ourselves.
Freedom implies self-determination, which implies that we *are* capable
of change.
Cheers,
Fred
* When I was younger, I innocently (or naively) would walk in the
seediest parts of a very large American city, without ever even coming
close to being mugged. Would I get away with it today? Probably not. I'd
be expecting the worst, even against my own professed willingness to
trust the unknown.
e...@ex.ex
> I did NOT miss the "per capita."
>
> My statement stands. Low per-capita energy consumption does not mean the energy
> is being used efficiently or productively.
>
> You have to look at what the energy is being used for.
Uh yeah. Thats kinda what I was trying to point out to you. Your and
Peter's beloved socialist systems in places like China have nothing to
do with justifying/condemning the US using "% consumption" as a basis
for comparison.
-Bill
William Sommerwerck
merely killing all the rich people doesn't solve the fundamental problem.
The simple (arguably simple-minded) answer is that human values have to change.
First, people must have direct control over the wealth they create. That they
don't is why there is so much economic injustice.
Second, everyone should have to work (ie, go out in the fields and get dirty) to
produce the food they eat -- so that if they refuse to work, they starve to
death. The "disconnect" between our work and the necessary things we work
for is a major problem.
Third, we have to change our minds about what is important in life. Personal
relationships, spiritual progress, and intellectual development have to take
precedence over accumulating wealth.
It would take many pages to cover these ideas in any depth. One of these days...
> Where's the answer to this, William? Or is this one of the questions
> you've chosen to conveniently ignore?
>> The real threat to this country is the love of money. It's the wealthy
Hagstar
>
>
> America could militarily colonize the world on a whim
But we couldn't beat one backward Southeast Asian country. More than a
whim, we had years and years of solid support from the American people-
I laugh at the old "our hands were tied" story. Korea was a draw. Sure-
we can nuke 'em, and inherit the ashes. Not that aggression doesn't have
a place, guys, but you have a vastly outdated idea of power. Lots of
little guys all over the world have World War II in a suitcase, and we
have guys ready to head for the hills with same should we ever be
invaded. Technology is making us all more equal- for better and for
worse. The recently late Edward Teller, father of the H bomb, said his
goal was to make us all really scared of every other one of us- then,
peace would come.
I say, go get 'um, but the question is- how ?
John H.
--exray--
> I was being hyperbolic (though I certainly wasn't obvious about it), because
> merely killing all the rich people doesn't solve the fundamental problem.
Now you are pissing backwards. Che Guevara and his idealistic ilk would
have YOU shot for back-sliding.
>
> The simple (arguably simple-minded) answer is that human values have to change.
>
> First, people must have direct control over the wealth they create. That they
> don't is why there is so much economic injustice.
People DO have such control. And they like it. Its only the "have-nots"
that are whining all the while they are struggling to be a "have". This
is human nature...its not gonna change anymore than a jungle tiger
preferring fresh meat.
>
> Second, everyone should have to work (ie, go out in the fields and get dirty) to
> produce the food they eat -- so that if they refuse to work, they starve to
> death. The "disconnect" between our work and the necessary things we work
> for is a major problem.
I think this is true both in the capitalist system as well as your form
of socialism. There's a very well accepted understanding that what you
work for means more than what was passed out to you gratis. The major
difference is that capitalism really does require you to go out and get
dirty and reap the benefits of doing so. Bad Boy Bill Gates oughta be
the poster child. Socialism only requires, well I won't bother
repeating the ad-nauseum verbose, that you show up for the job.
The problems that you see in society these days are exactly
that....there are those who prefer to live off of the fat of others and
they get real cranky when they ponder why they are less fat than the
actual achievers without knowing the reason why they remain as the
underclass. If there were no fat to measure themselves against would
this be your Utopia?
>
> Third, we have to change our minds about what is important in life. Personal
> relationships, spiritual progress, and intellectual development have to take
> precedence over accumulating wealth.
Ah, but healthy intellectual development is probably Key Number One in
accumulating wealth, tangible or spiritual (disregarding for the moment
that all your wealthy people only became wealthy by dodging your firing
squad). Killing off the wealthy is what the US nation did to native
Indian tribes and remains what much of the Third World still struggles
to achieve...blindly shooting themselves in the arse.
One cannot achieve real wealth simply by killing or ripping off his
fellow man whether by capitalism or socialism. From a short-sighted
perspective it may seem this way. It does really boil down to
individual values. Secret Police and such may keep it in check for a
generation or two but in the longer run it simply doesn't wash. You can
trace this mistake from ancient Egypt to the Cold War to tomorrow's
headlines about Cuba. It doesn't fly...those cultures who embrace the
individual human individuality and spirituality are still the strongest
survivors across recorded history.
The common denominator is that the human soul is enforced by its
propensity to achieve. You can measure that on Wall Street, at the
Pulpit, or in the queue at the Soup Kitchen.
Your brand of socialism denies and discourages all of that and thats the
only spirit that has a hope of reforming society into a better place.
So there.
-Bill M
--exray--
> Bill Sheppard wrote:
>
>>
>> America could militarily colonize the world on a whim
>
>
> But we couldn't beat one backward Southeast Asian country. More than a
> whim, we had years and years of solid support from the American people-
> I laugh at the old "our hands were tied" story.
Hmm John, I might have to pull age rank on that evaluation. I don't
recall any "solid support" or even mediocre support and thats exactly
why it failed.
-BM
Mark Oppat
England, Canada, Sweden, Australia, etc, are MUCH freer countries than we
are in many ways, and they dont have guns everywhere, and have about 1/20
the death by guns, or the crime, that we have. They laugh at our gun
laws...
We have to have huge police departments, prisons, emergency wards, all
because we are so violent. Also, because we cant seem to develop a less
than puritan drug policy.
I was just in England. Saw almost no police in London, and the small towns
have part time police depts! I know, we lost a wallet!
National defense has nothing to do with our gun laws. Do you actually think
no country attacks us because you we got guns everywhere? That's been a
nice hillbilly dream for many years, but its hardly based on any reality.
The europeans dont want the USA anymore. Not civilized enough for them.
MANDITORY RADIO CONTENT:
See ya at Charlotte, next March, Eddie. One of the better swap meets in the
USA!
Mark Oppat
(smart ass knowitall yankee)
Antique Audio
near Detroit
"Eddie Brimer" <eb06...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030920164453...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> it appears that peter is the only one that can read the constitution,
> understand it, and break it don't for us dummies that can't comprehend
what
> simple words tell us. back to the original subject....the framers
intended for
> people to have guns. period. not controlled by the goverment.
guns(weapons)
> and the ability and the balls to use them, are what made this a free
country.
> guns keep the bad guys at least half-way honest. without them we would
have
> been conquered long, long ago. sad, but true. it is undeniable.
Leo
Thanks for the reply. Interesting - I didn't know that! But, if
there's laws on the books that are not enforced, then the laws might
as well not be there - one needs only to drive their car on the
streets of Toronto these days to see this theory in practise!
73, Leo
--exray--
> The europeans dont want the USA anymore. Not civilized enough for them.
Hehehe...thats the best one so far.
-BM
Sven Franklyn Weil
> I feel that one of the best things about having power is _not_ having to use it.
Isn't that what Jeff Angus said about what he was taught regarding
legally packign heat in Los Angeles? Having the gun means NOT using
it. or something like that...
--
Sven Weil
New York City, U.S.A.
Mark Oppat
nation, we need to learn somehow to "play nice" in the world sandbox. This
means we start paying attention to some pretty detail stuff, and quit acting
like the blowhard drunk who just whipped out his gun at the wedding
reception.
Most Americans have not looked into WHY we are being "attacked". Our
enemies have good reasons in THEIR way of thinking. They have a different
reality that we have absolutely no concept of... and to them, it is the
"RIGHT" thing to do... or, the ONLY thing to do is attack us. Well, guess
what....we have brought much of this apon ourselves.
Our foreign affairs under several presidents has not been what I would call
"enlightened".
What seems trivial to us is sometimes the KEY ingredient to massive anti-USA
sentiment.
Example: during the gulf war, we apparently dragged some of our equipment
thru a "holy" area. This set off Bin Laden... and, quite a few others. We
didnt have to do it, but there you are. A small change might not have set
the snowball rolling.
Mark Oppat
just another solder sniffing egghead...and radio restorer,
Antique Audio
near Detroit.
"Eddie Brimer" <eb06...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030921085524...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >It doesn't matter how many guns citizens have (which is what we were
talking
> >about) if you can drop lots of bombs on them.
>
> you said weapons. you have to have te best weapons and the ability and
the
> nerve to use them, (or at least make a lesser armed group think so) or
you
> perish. been like that since the beginning of time. it will always be
like
> that. mankind isn't really all that nice. we would like to think we are,
but
> we aren't.
Jeffrey D Angus
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> Second, everyone should have to work (ie, go out in the fields and get dirty) to
> produce the food they eat -- so that if they refuse to work, they starve to
> death. The "disconnect" between our work and the necessary things we work
> for is a major problem.
The communists were really good at that. They were called re-education
camps. A look at the Chinese cultural revolution will show what the
net result of this agenda is.
--exray--
> In article <vmroaqd...@corp.supernews.com>, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>I feel that one of the best things about having power is _not_ having to use it.
>
>
> Isn't that what Jeff Angus said about what he was taught regarding
> legally packign heat in Los Angeles? Having the gun means NOT using
> it. or something like that...
>
'doo-rate' can tell you about. At least among the guys I have known,
that Eastern Zen-shit makes them even MORE aware of the consequences of
getting into something...resulting in a whole different philosophy than
what we on the 'outside' might think about it.
I think thats pretty cool and maybe 8000 years of Oriental philosophy
STANDS A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE of being better than our 2000 years of
homily from the eastern Mediterranean.
Talk to any black-belt guy who crippled for life a bunch of street thugs
when they tried to jump him...you'll see what I mean about the philosophy.
-ex
Peter Wieck
>do with justifying/condemning the US using "% consumption" as a basis
>for comparison.
Yikes!
There is no love lost between myself and "socialist" systems... I lean far more
towards personal responsibility and hewing to the social contract... ain't
nohow the same thing. "Liberal" does not mean blind and stupid... that
condition tends to cluster at the other end of the spectrum (and they speak
well of us too).
But, speaking of seeing only what one wishes to see, Bill, your blind-spot is
wide enough for a 747. My point was that the United States' present primacy
exists on the continued ability to import 2/3 of its oil, and essentially
ignore alternate sources in any effective or coordinated way (and if you think
that discounts wind, corn, and fuel-cells, just compare the funds spent on
actual research into these things vs. the amount of funds spent on just
advertizing gasoline & oil products.... that will be purchased anyway... in a
single year).
The Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the Europeans, Australia, Canada,
Argentina now more-or-less produce everything that the US produces including
food, airliners, fighter jets, tanks, construction equipment cars, trucks
computers, helicopters, weapons, candy and cloth....
The producers and sellers of oil no longer depend on the US for their market. A
number of other countries are presently _Very Actively_ wooing the Saudis (some
of these people who are doing the wooing live on this compound) to change
all-or-part of their deliveries to their own countries.
Saudi ARAMCO for the first time is now purchasing computer, server and control
equipment from other than American sources. They stopped purchasing American
vehicles years ago. About 50% of their heavy construction equipment is now
Japanese, and much of their valves, pipes and fittings are German. This was
once American turf.
The Oil Embargoes in the past were clearly temporary hiccups... Imagine if that
condition were chronic.
THAT was my point... not comparing socialism to communism to capitalism to
globalism or to any other "ism".
http://members.aol.com/pfjw/page1.html
Peter Wieck
Al-Khobar, KSA
--exray--
>>Peter's beloved socialist systems in places like China have nothing to
>>do with justifying/condemning the US using "% consumption" as a basis
>>for comparison.
>
>
> Yikes!
>
> There is no love lost between myself and "socialist" systems... I lean far more
> towards personal responsibility and hewing to the social contract..
Then you have to personally read and parse what you are posting.
. ain't
> nohow the same thing. "Liberal" does not mean blind and stupid..
Thats too open ended...I won't go there....
>
> But, speaking of seeing only what one wishes to see, Bill, your blind-spot is
> wide enough for a 747. My point was that the United States' present primacy
> exists on the continued ability to import 2/3 of its oil, and essentially
> ignore alternate sources in any effective or coordinated way (and if you think
> that discounts wind, corn, and fuel-cells, just compare the funds spent on
> actual research into these things vs. the amount of funds spent on just
> advertizing gasoline & oil products.... that will be purchased anyway... in a
> single year).
And the problem is?
I know what the problem is. You presented it as the big hog country is
just bullying around the planet to suck up resources and I think it is a
lack of personal conviction. In the 70s we were all for Pintos and
Vegas and small jap cars but the pending situation is more critical now
than then and there's not so much as a whisper from the
public>>>politicians to do anything about it.
I lived in Kansas at the time and the oil guys were crying the blues
when prices dropped to $8/barrel. They shut off the pumps and went home
crying about their losses and haven't come back even at $20-30.
The best thing this country (US) could do now, or could have done over
the past 30 years is to develop alternative resources so that the whole
Arab/Israeli civil war need not dictate our survivial. Can't blame the
Bushes or Jimmy Carter or any party. Its pretty much common sense if
gas cost those SUV Moms $6/gallon the consumption mentality would go
down. I fear the reprisal would only be political, not logical given the
past 20-30 years of effort.
BTW, gas is still less than $1/gallon in St.Croix, USVI. On a clear day
we can see St. Croix but our gas is $2/gallon. In the rest of the
Caribbean $3 wouldn't be out of line. If the mainland US were presented
with such prices would a 'change' become important? I wonder that when
people hardly sneeze at $500/mo payments for Mom's second SUV.
>
> The producers and sellers of oil no longer depend on the US for their market. A
> number of other countries are presently _Very Actively_ wooing the Saudis (some
> of these people who are doing the wooing live on this compound) to change
> all-or-part of their deliveries to their own countries.
Back to your World Almanac, Pete. You just finished saying that the US
hogs up 25% of said resources. Weeny contracts with places like Belgium
don't drive the market.
>
> Saudi ARAMCO for the first time is now purchasing computer, server and control
> equipment from other than American sources. They stopped purchasing American
> vehicles years ago. About 50% of their heavy construction equipment is now
> Japanese, and much of their valves, pipes and fittings are German. This was
> once American turf.
Cone Mills in NC went Swiss for all their machinery about three years
before they closed down lock, stock and barrel and moved to Mexico. I
don't know what your point is here? other than ARAMCO is paying too much
and may soon bail??
> THAT was my point... not comparing socialism to communism to capitalism to
> globalism or to any other "ism".
You are one of the fortunate that has seen how the US influence outside
of the borders reflects an economy that most don't see...especially US
politicians. Even here in the nearby Caribbean you can go into shops
and not see a single American product on the shelves. I find that
distressing....not that Dominica or Canada is going to overwhelm the
market but the fact that the US is really failing to compete in even the
simplest of markets.
-Bill
Peter Wieck
>hogs up 25% of said resources. Weeny contracts with places like Belgium
>don't drive the market.
Um.... 't'ain't Belgium or the Netherlands...
It's Japan, China, (which produces NO significant oil of its own), Pakistan,
India, South Africa, and, of all places, Russia, amongst others.
Represenatives from all of the above (except Russia) are on this compound,
whose sole job it is to get Saudi oil diverted to their countries as the
'primary' contractor. That covers near 1/2 the population of the world. Y'all
gotta see what is happening on the ground rather than in the sanctity of your
own well-protected minds.
>You are one of the fortunate that has seen how the US influence outside
>of the borders reflects an economy that most don't see...especially US
>politicians. Even here in the nearby Caribbean you can go into shops
>and not see a single American product on the shelves. I find that
>distressing....not that Dominica or Canada is going to overwhelm the
>market but the fact that the US is really failing to compete in even the
>simplest of markets.
>
Yep. And it's scary. One more thing. Saudia Airlines, Gulf Air and Emirates Air
used to be 100% US-made airliners, up until only a very few years ago. Most of
them now are using Airbus as their primary hardware supplier. This is Big $$
concentrated in relatively few items. There are those that will say that
European subsidies are supporting this, but the EX-IM bank amounts to the same
thing. What is even sadder is that *most* of the specifications for these
purchases were written by American spec-writers in the employ of the Saudis to
favor US companies.... Scary.
They do still seem to like American speakers, though. Infinity, Jensen and Bose
are quite popular.
William Sommerwerck
>> That they don't is why there is so much economic injustice.
> People DO have such control. And they like it. It's only the "have-nots"
> that are whining all the while they are struggling to be a "have". This
> is human nature...its not gonna change anymore than a jungle tiger
> preferring fresh meat.
No, they don't. You're not reading what I wrote. Read it, and think about it.
>> Second, everyone should have to work (ie, go out in the fields and get dirty)
>> to produce the food they eat -- so that if they refuse to work, they starve
to
>> death. The "disconnect" between our work and the necessary things we work
>> for is a major problem.
> I think this is true both in the capitalist system as well as your form
> of socialism. There's a very well accepted understanding that what you
> work for means more than what was passed out to you gratis. The major
> difference is that capitalism really does require you to go out and get
> dirty and reap the benefits of doing so.
NOT AT ALL. One of the worst things about capitalism is that you can leverage
your wealth so that you never have to work at all. You are confusing working
with having a job, income with creating wealth.
Again, you're not reading what I wrote, or thinking about it.
> The problems that you see in society these days are exactly that
> there are those who prefer to live off of the fat of others and they
> they get real cranky when they ponder why they are less fat than the
> actual achievers without knowing the reason why they remain as the
> underclass. If there were no fat to measure themselves against would
> this be your Utopia?
It is the capitalists that live off the fat of the land. When you have money,
you can buy the labor of others. Why do you think Marx called factory workers
"wage slaves"? And this didn't start with industrialization.
I've seen people write that the wealthiest people are the wealthiest precisely
because they produce the most. If you believe this, I've got some swamp land in
Florida... Is it not interesting that the "executives" at most businesses don't
actually produce anything?
>> Third, we have to change our minds about what is important in life. Personal
>> relationships, spiritual progress, and intellectual development have to take
>> precedence over accumulating wealth.
> Ah, but healthy intellectual development is probably Key Number One in
> accumulating wealth, tangible or spiritual (disregarding for the moment
> that all your wealthy people only became wealthy by dodging your firing
> squad). Killing off the wealthy is what the US nation did to native
> Indian tribes and remains what much of the Third World still struggles
> to achieve... blindly shooting themselves in the arse.
I don't think that's what you meant to say. The aboriginal peoples had little
"wealth" in the usual sense. Killing them off allowed the Americans to use the
land for more "constructive" purposes.
> One cannot achieve real wealth simply by killing or ripping off his
> fellow man whether by capitalism or socialism. From a short-sighted
> perspective it may seem this way. It does really boil down to
> individual values. Secret Police and such may keep it in check for a
> generation or two but in the longer run it simply doesn't wash. You can
> trace this mistake from ancient Egypt to the Cold War to tomorrow's
> headlines about Cuba. It doesn't fly... those cultures who embrace the
> individual human individuality and spirituality are still the strongest
> survivors across recorded history.
And ours does? Unbridled capitalism is not individuality. Mindless religious
fundamentalism is not spirituality.
> The common denominator is that the human soul is enforced by its
> propensity to achieve. You can measure that on Wall Street, at the
> Pulpit, or in the queue at the Soup Kitchen.
What achievements are of any real value? See, for example, Matthew 5:46. 6:24,
too.
> Your brand of socialism denies and discourages all of that and that's
> the only spirit that has a hope of reforming society into a better place.
> So there.
Reforming society? But everything is right the way it is.
You've swallowed the "dominant paradigm" lock, stock, and barrel (sorry for the
mixed metaphor), without thinking about it, along with all the meretricious
excuses that "justify" it. Your responses to my suggestions are knee-jerk
reactions designed to keep you from thinking about why things are the way they
are.
One of the fundamental problems with both capitalism and communism is that
neither has much regard for individual rights or needs.
I find it interesting that you seem to know what "my form of socialism" is, when
I haven't much discussed my beliefs in that area.
William Sommerwerck
> Our enemies have good reasons in THEIR way of thinking. They have
> a different reality that we have absolutely no concept of... and to them,
> it is the "RIGHT" thing to do... or, the ONLY thing to do is attack us.
Oh, what you just said... Are you ever gonna get it...
It doesn't matter whether their belief system is "right" or "wrong." What
matters is that they believe it, and act accordingly -- not that they are acting
simply out of being "evil." I don't see how you can deal with other people when
you don't at least acknowledging that they act on motives that are valid TO
THEM.
A man who says that foreign policy can be reduced to "We're good -- they're
bad." is leading us and them to destruction.
William Sommerwerck
>> to produce the food they eat -- so that if they refuse to work, they starve
to
>> death. The "disconnect" between our work and the necessary things we work
>> for is a major problem.
> The communists were really good at that. They were called re-education
> camps. A look at the Chinese cultural revolution will show what the
> net result of this agenda is.
Again, a total failure to even BEGIN to think about what I said.
John Bartley
>
> England, Canada, Sweden, Australia, etc, are MUCH freer countries than we
> are in many ways, and they dont have guns everywhere, and have about 1/20
> the death by guns, or the crime, that we have. They laugh at our gun
> laws...
The truth is that we are no more "free" than anywhere else. We're
regulated to death, and supervised and spied on through everything from
polls and taxes to the information collected by the banks and credit
card companies we have to deal with.
As far as the gun registration idea goes, I believe that in the circle
of customers that I have known for the last decade, that approximately
1/4 or less of them have registered all their firearms, most have only
registered enough to keep the gubmint happy, and about 1/4 haven't
registered anything, and don't intend to.
--
regards from ::
John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5
( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
William Sommerwerck
> regulated to death, and supervised and spied on through everything
> from polls and taxes to the information collected by the banks and
> credit card companies we have to deal with.
And you think THAT'S a lack of freedom?
You haven't begun to think...
Hagstar
>
> I don't
> recall any "solid support" or even mediocre support
How about the first four years- heard not a peep 1963-67....
John H.
Bill Jeffrey
Peter Wieck wrote:
> My point was that the United States' present primacy
> exists on the continued ability to import 2/3 of its oil, and essentially
> ignore alternate sources in any effective or coordinated way
Interesting you should say this, Peter. Just recently, some company put
forward a plan to build a big wind-generation farm in Nantucket Sound -
miles offshore, between the mainland and Nantucket Island. Who suddenly
leaped up with a nationwide-televised campaign to kill the plan? A
bunch of Hollywood liberals who own homes on Nantucket - the same
Hollywood liberals who whine about US dependence on oil, and how we
should emphasize development of renewable resources. It's hard to be
proud of these guys ... and a good example of the many reasons I can no
longer consider myself a liberal.
Bill Jeffrey
Eddie Brimer
is there ANYTHING about your birthplace (USA) that you like? you are beyond
liberal in my opinion.
John Stone
pf...@aol.comnopqr wrote on 9/22/03 2:27 AM:
> Yep. And it's scary. One more thing. Saudia Airlines, Gulf Air and Emirates
> Air
> used to be 100% US-made airliners, up until only a very few years ago. Most of
> them now are using Airbus as their primary hardware supplier. This is Big $$
> concentrated in relatively few items. There are those that will say that
> European subsidies are supporting this, but the EX-IM bank amounts to the same
> thing. What is even sadder is that *most* of the specifications for these
> purchases were written by American spec-writers in the employ of the Saudis to
> favor US companies.... Scary.
>
> They do still seem to like American speakers, though. Infinity, Jensen and
> Bose
> are quite popular.
Great, but guess which country manufactures virtually all the internal
components for these speakers, and in some cases, the entire speaker system?
Hint: Ch*na.
Sven Franklyn Weil
> though. Infinity, Jensen and Bose
> are quite popular.
Aren't those actually made in China to these people's specs?
Peter Wieck
Says Made in USA on the box....
Even the high-end Yamaha speakers say "Made in USA".
John Stone
sv...@gordsven.com wrote on 9/22/03 9:03 AM:
> In article <20030922032716...@mb-m27.aol.com>, Peter Wieck wrote:
>> though. Infinity, Jensen and Bose
>> are quite popular.
>
> Aren't those actually made in China to these people's specs?
Sure, mostly everything in China is done to spec. So we design things, but
we don't make them anymore. How much longer before the Chinese do their own
design, own manufacturing, own marketing, etc. Right now, the Chinese are
paying the price for technology transfer. Once finished, they will move it
to the next level.
Peter Wieck
> leaped up with a nationwide-televised campaign to kill the plan? A
>bunch of Hollywood liberals who own homes on Nantucket - the same
>Hollywood liberals who whine about US dependence on oil, and how we
>should emphasize development of renewable resources. It's hard to be
>proud of these guys ... and a good example of the many reasons I can no
>longer consider myself a liberal.
>
Are you sure of your facts? Not necessarily doubting it, but NIMBYism is not
necessarily confined to liberals... I know a few people who have houses ("home"
is a concept which is made, not owned; "house" is one sort of container for it,
which may be owned.) on Nantucket, none of whom could be described even
remotely as a "liberal", and most of whom could care less about dependence on
foreign oil. Also, given that Hollywood actors are not typically the sharpest
pencils in the drawer when it comes to managing anything other than their own
egos, they hardly form a representative sample of any particular persuasion...
from Arnold, Ronald (MHRIP), Charlton, to Ed Asner.
John Stone
pf...@aol.comnopqr wrote on 9/22/03 9:13 AM:
in article 20030922101352...@mb-m17.aol.com, Peter Wieck at
pf...@aol.comnopqr wrote on 9/22/03 9:13 AM:
Peter, the fact is that there is almost no driver manufacturing left in the
US except for large woofers and some pro sound products. There's also no
capacitor manufacturing, and little or no inductor manufacturing done here.
The terminal plates, hardware, and most cabinets are now sourced off shore
(China has virtually overtaken the cabinet business). Some companies haven't
yet moved all final production, but it's happening very quickly. I won't
name names, but some very well known companies have recently shut down their
production lines in the US. (surprise, surprise) Where most speakers are
concerned, "Made in USA" simply means "Assembled in USA". And you will see
that label less and less in the near future.
Peter Wieck
>is there ANYTHING about your birthplace (USA) that you like? you are beyond
>liberal in my opinion.
Eddie, given my family history, if I did not like the US, nothing could hold me
there. I do like it a great deal. It is far-and-away the best place in the
world to live based on direct and indirect experience, but that DOES NOT mean
that it is by any means perfect. Knee-jerk demands that the emperor not only
has cloths, but that they are in the latest style serves no one.
The biggest problem I have in general with "the US" if I must speak in global
terms is the general perception that its people are so closed-minded as to even
give Parochialism a bad name. In general, and at this particular moment, our
government is not doing US businesses ANY favors. My fear (and it is for the
quality-of-life in the land that my parents chose, and I choose) is that we go
along blindly and blithely believing in our invincibility until it is too late
to avoid a very serious crash. From 7,000 miles away perspectives change.
Dealing with business people at ALL levels (we are charter members of the local
KSA CofC), I see many facets of the issue.
See, things are not always planar (only two sides). Often-times, there are
facets and complications.
William Sommerwerck
> is there ANYTHING about your birthplace (USA) that you like?
> you are beyond liberal in my opinion.
Then good for Peter, if "beyond Liberal" means "having good sense" and "seeing
things (more or less) as the are."
No one asks to be born. Are we (that is, anyone, anywhere, any time) supposed to
blindly accept the social values, the religions, the belief systems, the
governments we live under and bow down in front of them and unquestioningly
worship them?
Everyone, everywhere, should hate the country they live in, hate the social
norms they live under. Progress is otherwise impossible.
Let me tell you the three things I detest about "my" country...
>> The ignorance and stupidity of its citizens.
>> The grubby, vulgar materialism it wallows in
and spreads throughout the world.
>> Its political hypocrisy.
It if weren't for these things, the U S of A would be a truly great country. And
I mean that sincerely. Of course, everything would be good if it weren't bad.
William Sommerwerck
>> are quite popular.
> Aren't those actually made in China to these people's specs?
At least some of them are. You'd be amazed at how good they can be -- and
they're dirt cheap.
John Stone
will...@nwlink.com wrote on 9/22/03 9:42 AM:
Yup, excellent "value for money" from some, and not so good from others. But
where the all out best is concerned, it still ain't coming out of
China---yet.
Sven Franklyn Weil
> we don't make them anymore. How much longer before the Chinese do their own
> design, own manufacturing, own marketing, etc. Right now, the Chinese are
John, they already do. Look at all the no-name consumer electronics in
places like Walmart, K-Mart, etc. Walk into any 99 cent store. All those
brands are just owned by a distributor who buys pre-designed stuff from
third partys in China and gets their name slapped on them.
I betcha that New York-based brands like Coby, Trisonic, J-Win, etc
and Metro-Los Angeles based Lasonic don't design their products. They
look at offerings from third party manufacturers and pick what they want.
Then they have it branded with their name.
Why do you think you get the same US$20.00 5" black & white TV sets
branded Coby, JWin, Nihon, ElectroBrand, Lasonic, Trisonic, Transonic,
Cougar, etc. etc. etc.
Not to mention that most of this stuff is manufactured by National,
Provincial or Township owned factories. This is why you have 100
factories making the same style work glove, electric triple-tap,
light-bulb socket, sink-drain mesh strainer, etc.
When was the last time anyone bought a General Electric-packaged
lampholder to repair a table lamp? The socket itself is not even stamped
GE anymore.
It's branded either Exelcior, Canal or SunLite - or whoever is selling it
cheapest this year. I think GE recently re-did its contracts for such
things....Sun Lite is the manufacturer of choice. And I think it's a
state-owned company.
Sven Franklyn Weil
> US except for large woofers and some pro sound products. There's also no
> capacitor manufacturing, and little or no inductor manufacturing done here.
Wait a minute...what about my good ole Vishay-Sprague Atoms?
Aren't they still USA made (as opposed to American made, which can mean
anywhere from Canada to Argentina)?
--exray--
>
>>People DO have such control. And they like it. It's only the "have-nots"
>>that are whining all the while they are struggling to be a "have". This
>>is human nature...its not gonna change anymore than a jungle tiger
>>preferring fresh meat.
>
>
> No, they don't. You're not reading what I wrote. Read it, and think about it.
I can read it a zillion times, Wm and I still feel in control of my own
wealth and destiny.
>
> NOT AT ALL. One of the worst things about capitalism is that you can leverage
> your wealth so that you never have to work at all. You are confusing working
> with having a job, income with creating wealth.
Thats the good thing about capaitalism. One can be energetic and
productive and provide for the have nots at a cheaper price based on
economy of scale.
>
>>underclass. If there were no fat to measure themselves against would
>>this be your Utopia?
>
>
> It is the capitalists that live off the fat of the land. When you have money,
> you can buy the labor of others. Why do you think Marx called factory workers
> "wage slaves"? And this didn't start with industrialization.
I don't see this as a problem. It provides jobs that otherwise may not
exist and gives an opportunity for survival to those who might not have
it otherwise. Of course this is how socialism works too.
>
> I've seen people write that the wealthiest people are the wealthiest precisely
> because they produce the most. If you believe this, I've got some swamp land in
> Florida... Is it not interesting that the "executives" at most businesses don't
> actually produce anything?
Certainly all the wealthy aren't productive in the material sense but
thats not a crime. Somebody has to 'manage' the workforce and the
operation related to production. Same thing exists in socialism.
> I don't think that's what you meant to say. The aboriginal peoples had little
> "wealth" in the usual sense. Killing them off allowed the Americans to use the
> land for more "constructive" purposes.
Wealth in that they had food to eat, shelter and an ongoing surviving
society.
>
> And ours does? Unbridled capitalism is not individuality. Mindless religious
> fundamentalism is not spirituality.
Capitalism certainly does promote individuality. I don't see how you
can say otherwise. Mindless religion is a whole nuther topic...more
related to socialism than capitalism.
>
> You've swallowed the "dominant paradigm" lock, stock, and barrel (sorry for the
> mixed metaphor), without thinking about it, along with all the meretricious
> excuses that "justify" it. Your responses to my suggestions are knee-jerk
> reactions designed to keep you from thinking about why things are the way they
> are.
Au contraire, Wm. I'm very considered and comfortable with my opinion.
Maybe 'they' programmed me that way but its easy to see throughout
history what works and what doesn't.
>
> I find it interesting that you seem to know what "my form of socialism" is, when
> I haven't much discussed my beliefs in that area.
>
Well, you've displayed enough of your form of socialism to give us all a
clue.
Adios,
ex
--exray--
"not a peep" hardly translates to "solid support".
-BM
Eddie Brimer
little teaser indicating that you know or think we are heading into some kind
of "crash"...as far as working with people from all walks of life...i do too.
if you are not careful, some of the propaganda that is spread about the US and
about it's goverment and people start to take hold in your mind and you
actually start to believe that BS and turn on your country. (john walker
syndrome) i realize we are not perfect. never will be. but at least we live in
a society where we can strive to be. let them be our critics. all the while,
these countries wallow in the same problems, both social and economic, that
thay have for decades. it's easy to sit back and be critical of the leader....
--exray--
> Everyone, everywhere, should hate the country they live in, hate the social
> norms they live under. Progress is otherwise impossible.
I suppose thats another metaphor for something you MEANT to say?
-BM
Fred Nachbaur
Eddie Brimer wrote:
> peter,
> is there ANYTHING about your birthplace (USA) that you like? you are beyond
> liberal in my opinion.
Peter may or may not answer this for himself, but it's clear to me that
he dearly loves the country of his birth (and presumably to which he
holds citizenship). However, he has seen it and its foreign policy from
an outside perspective.
I was born in Germany, raised in Canada, lived in the USA for many
years, and have travelled in Europe. I am by choice a Canadian citizen.
Though I love Canada dearly, I do not blindly and unthinkingly support
everything that my government does on my behalf.
Eddie, with all due respect, you need to get out more.
I'm not sure what you meant by "beyond liberal," but it could be
construed as a very high compliment. In my youth I was "liberal" (and
even worked as a member of Gene McCarthy's campaign team in '68). Later
I became "conservative." Nowadays I don't think I'm either, but try to
view each issue in its own light, rather than the one issued by the
"party line."
Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+
Peter Wieck
>-BM
>
>
Dwight David Eisenhower (my kind of "Republican"), and who coined the term
"military-industrial complex" as a cautionary, warned about going into Viet Nam
without a clear exit-strategy.
Would that he were here today.
William Sommerwerck
things.
Claudia & Reed Park
Peter Wieck wrote:
>Aren't those actually made in China to these people's specs?Says Made in USA on the box....
Maybe just the box was made in USA. Some companies in Canada
used to put packaged in Canada on goods that were made over seas.
Tried to fool us Canadians into thinking we were buying local products.
Which raises another nasty thought. In our grocery stores, the produce
is marked "local Produce." I asked where we get granny smith apples
from in the winter, and was told Africa. Local produce now means
from somewhere you can get it within 24 hours from. Maybe I should
demand to be allowed to make a local phone call to Africa and not
have to pay long distance rates. :-)
Even the high-end Yamaha speakers say "Made in USA".
A long time ago, they created a town in Japan called Usa. So they
could sell Jap parts and clothes marked made in USA. Maybe the
States should go back to marking stuff made in U.S.A.
Reed - VE1NU
--------
Looking for information on Marconi SMR-3 and
Northern Electric R8119A receivers.
John Goller, k9uwa
>
>
>It's funny that someone who's handle is exray is so incapable of seeing
through
>things.
>
of the rest of us totally disagree with your position.
Ditto what BM said!
John k9uwa
Hagstar
>
> peter,
> is there ANYTHING about your birthplace (USA) that you like?
After attacking the person instead of the argument, it's always good to
fall back on the old "with us or against us routine" (Rumsfeld LOVES
this). Peter is a far better American that anybody else here, including
me. He has BOTHERED to educate himself on our government, our history,
the foundation of our law and traditions, and on and on. I've learned a
lot from him, and some of it I was embarrassed not to know, and glad to
learn. I don't see him offering nearly as much opinion as others do,
it's mostly simple facts. Facts, by the way Eddie, you almost never
bother to refute. A diversity of opinion is one of the most important
things that DOES make the USA great, but the current climate of American
politics is drifting to a much more right wing shallow, flag waving
intolerance.
WHAT frauds the New Conservatives are in any case. To be a conservative
is to believe in limited federal power, pay as you go don't mortgage the
future, and keeping jobs here at home. I support those things- Dubya
don't.
John H.
--exray--
After that statement by Wm and a bit of further thought, I think he is
putting us on and this whole socialist bs is just to yank our collective
chain.
-Bill