f



OT : Making money from Java

It's Judson's thread about Micro Focus compiler fees/runtime which 
triggered this one in my mind.

If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its 
money from the language ?

Jimmy
0
11/15/2005 10:09:38 PM
comp.lang.cobol 4278 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

368 Replies
1979 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 15

James J. Gavan wrote:
> It's Judson's thread about Micro Focus compiler fees/runtime which
> triggered this one in my mind.
> 
> If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its
> money from the language ?
> 
> Jimmy

They sue people.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
11/15/2005 10:24:52 PM
Donald Tees wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> 
>>It's Judson's thread about Micro Focus compiler fees/runtime which
>>triggered this one in my mind.
>>
>>If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its
>>money from the language ?
>>
>>Jimmy
> 
> 
> They sue people.

Well let's say that's a less informative answer than that you use 
Clarion. And the price for Clarion, or have you discovered a freebie ?

Jimmy
0
11/15/2005 10:44:09 PM
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>>
>> If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its
>> money from the language ?

    There's a pretty good discussion about this on a blog:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware5/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=158765

    The conclusion is basically that they don't.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
11/15/2005 10:44:31 PM
Sun may not make money out of the Java SDK but it does make money out of 
connected products such as:

Java Dynamic Management Kit
 1 license = $6,000.00  - 
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=115668

Java Verified Trademark
 1 license = $2,000.00 - 
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=98722

Sun Java Studio Enterprise 8
 1 license = $1,895.00 each - 
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=140590

Sun Java System Application Server Enterprise Edition
 1 license per CPU = $10,000.00 each - 
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=126714

Sun Java Studio Creator
 1 license = $99.00 
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=115541

etc...

Then you could also get Sun's own hardware etc... etc...

--
Stephen

"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:C0tef.512281$1i.209224@pd7tw2no...
> It's Judson's thread about Micro Focus compiler fees/runtime which 
> triggered this one in my mind.
>
> If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its money 
> from the language ?
>
> Jimmy 


0
11/15/2005 10:47:37 PM
Also - companies like IBM licence Java from Sun

Which then leads to reciprocal deals.


IBM sells Websphere products
Sun says "Hey, make Websphere for Solaris"

Now Sun has their own products and other products pushing their own other 
products....

For a better understanding read what Sun's COO has to say.

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040712

DU

"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message 
news:jxtef.113259$S4.69557@edtnps84...
>> James J. Gavan wrote:
>>>
>>> If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its
>>> money from the language ?
>
>    There's a pretty good discussion about this on a blog:
>
> http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware5/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=158765
>
>    The conclusion is basically that they don't.
>
>    - Oliver
> 


0
defaultuser (532)
11/15/2005 11:28:33 PM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Donald Tees wrote:
> 
>> James J. Gavan wrote:
>>
>>> It's Judson's thread about Micro Focus compiler fees/runtime which
>>> triggered this one in my mind.
>>>
>>> If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its
>>> money from the language ?
>>>
>>> Jimmy
>>
>>
>>
>> They sue people.
> 
> 
> Well let's say that's a less informative answer than that you use
> Clarion. And the price for Clarion, or have you discovered a freebie ?
> 
> Jimmy

I work over the net, using PC-Anywhere on a high speed line. It is a
straight contract job, hourly rated. The customer owns all the software,
and it runs only on his machines. I do not have copies of any of the
developmental software, so the problem does not arise. PC-Anywhere cost
me $79, US. Clarion is a fairly expensive program, but I do not know the
price.

On my own machines, I have been trying out all sorts of stuff, all of it
either what I consider reasonable prices, or that I own valid copies of
from over the years. I spend about $1500 per year on new software of
various sorts, and get 10 or 15 products for that. I still do most of my
own work on my version 5.0 Fujitsu Cobol. I went to Fujitsu when MF went
to user fees, and I although I kept them current from Version 3 through
5, I stopped updating when they also got prohibitively expensive. The
upgrades after that were mainly for the net, and since that did not
apply, it struck me as a waste of money.

I still make money on that software, but it is reaching the point that I
have to decide whether to re-write or abandon. I wrote the skelton of
that system in the late 70's, to run on an Altos(using MF Cobol), so I
cannot complain, it's had a good run, but it's also had one too many
conversions. I maintain it using Fujitsu 5.

Which brings us to your answer.

Most of the companies that write "free" software make their money
writing software for a price. They really sell hours of programming time
directly to the person that wants the software written. That begs the
question "AND THE CUSTOMER ALLOWS THEM TO PUBLISH IT?" The answer is
yes.  It is the only sensible way.

You know the value of a software library. A source code software
library. Would you rather write software using a source code library
that includes everything written by several million programmers, or
would you rather start from scratch, yourself?

If you put what you write back into the library, you earn the right to
use everything in the library in your own code. What is the most
sensible development route?

Last question.  You want something written.  The best thing in the open
software market is product x, and you have a copy that "sorta does what
you want".  It comes 75% of the way, but does not do the job. Product X
is written by Company Y, who give it away free over the net. They are
are a contract programming firm, run by five programmers, all of whom
contract out at an hourly rate.  Who do you hire to get it to where you
can use it?

They make their money the same way we do, by hiring out at hourly rates.

Donald

P.S. "they sue people" was a joke, and should have had a smiley. If you
do a net search on "Sun Lawsuit" I expect you will see it.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
11/16/2005 12:38:54 AM
Stephen Gennard wrote:
> Sun may not make money out of the Java SDK but it does make money out of 
> connected products such as:
> 
> Java Dynamic Management Kit
>  1 license = $6,000.00  - 
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=115668
> 
> Java Verified Trademark
>  1 license = $2,000.00 - 
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=98722
> 
> Sun Java Studio Enterprise 8
>  1 license = $1,895.00 each - 
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=140590
> 
> Sun Java System Application Server Enterprise Edition
>  1 license per CPU = $10,000.00 each - 
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=126714
> 
> Sun Java Studio Creator
>  1 license = $99.00 
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=115541
> 
> etc...
> 
> Then you could also get Sun's own hardware etc... etc...

Thanks Stepehn. You are a brick. Nobody really gives anything away for 
free. As for Oliver's suggestion, I ain't going looking at blogs. The 
one and only I took a cursory look at was Daniel's, (X-Li) where the 
Democrats are villains and George is Saint Dubya :-)

PS: Did you take a shufti at the U of Surrey site just out of interest. 
I see I mistakenly called it the U of Guildford, 'cos I lived there back 
in '61 when first with Unigate.

Jimmy
0
11/16/2005 1:44:35 AM
defaultuser wrote:
> Also - companies like IBM licence Java from Sun

Thanks defazultuser.

Jimmy
0
11/16/2005 1:45:55 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> It's Judson's thread about Micro Focus compiler fees/runtime which 
> triggered this one in my mind.
> 
> If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its 
> money from the language ?

Consulting, certifications, training, and web traffic.  :)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
11/16/2005 2:29:45 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Thanks Stepehn. You are a brick. Nobody really gives anything away for 
> free. As for Oliver's suggestion, I ain't going looking at blogs. The 
> one and only I took a cursory look at was Daniel's, (X-Li) where the 
> Democrats are villains and George is Saint Dubya :-)

heh - you oughta see the next one I'm working on...

Why "Price Gouging" is *Good* for the Economy

I was planning on writing it when Katrina first came through - 
subsequent other pundits (whose job it is to write stuff) and 
Congressional hearings have given me lots of sources now.  :)

I haven't had much time *at all* to write stuff for it, though - my last 
one was written when Cindy Sheehan was still new news.  With 3 kids now, 
school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a 
coherent post.  My posts usually take a good hour or two to pull 
together, and I usually need that time all in one chunk.

I'm honored that my blog holds a unique place in your experience...  ;)

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
11/16/2005 2:42:31 AM
LX-i wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Stepehn. You are a brick. Nobody really gives anything away for 
>> free. As for Oliver's suggestion, I ain't going looking at blogs. The 
>> one and only I took a cursory look at was Daniel's, (X-Li) where the 
>> Democrats are villains and George is Saint Dubya :-)
> 
> 
> heh - you oughta see the next one I'm working on...
> 
> Why "Price Gouging" is *Good* for the Economy
> 
> I was planning on writing it when Katrina first came through - 
> subsequent other pundits (whose job it is to write stuff) and 
> Congressional hearings have given me lots of sources now.  :)
> 
> I haven't had much time *at all* to write stuff for it, though - my last 
> one was written when Cindy Sheehan was still new news.  With 3 kids now, 
> school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a 
> coherent post.  My posts usually take a good hour or two to pull 
> together, and I usually need that time all in one chunk.
> 
> I'm honored that my blog holds a unique place in your experience...  ;)
> 
Only read in the paper last night, there's now the ability to hang 
advertisements on to youse bloggers' messages. They've already coined a 
new word to convey blog spammer, but can't recollect it.

Cindy Sheehan - very, very vaguely sort of recall the name - spell out 
the connection/background - might wake my memory cells up.

Saw my favourite Prez two nights ago on PBS, Charlie Rose interview. 
Jimmy Carter; aging more of course, but still as bright as a button. 
He's been very, very diplomatic up until now. But now he is quite blunt 
- he doesn't care for Dubya and his White House coterie - specifically, 
Rumsfeld and pals wanted to take a crack at Iraq regardless.

He, (Jimmy C.), personally agreed with George Senior not following 
through from Kuwait into Iraq. I disagree. My feelings are that if Dad 
had done that, his son wouldn't be in the incredible Middle East mess 
that we now have. Worth reflecting we can thank his former Canuck speech 
writer, (David Frum), for the 'Axis of Evil' phrase. That's why our 
Iranian friends are now so keen to cozy up to the US.

Ironic that a Jewish speech writer should provide the ammo to assist an 
anti-Zionist to get elected Iranian president.

Jimmy
0
11/16/2005 3:25:08 AM
In article <60598$437a9c7b$45491c57$10191@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

[snip]

>With 3 kids now, 
>school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a 
>coherent post.

Must... resist... cheap... shot... no... pull... too... strong... oh, 
really?  I hadn't noticed all that much change in your coherency (or lack 
thereof)!

(sorry... next... time... will... try... to... stick... to... talking... 
like... William... Shatner...)

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
11/16/2005 5:53:59 AM
"Stephen Gennard" <stephen.gennard@somewhere.over.the.rainbow.com> wrote in
message news:dldtmj$gdp$1@hyperion.microfocus.com...
> Sun may not make money out of the Java SDK but it does make money out of
> connected products such as:
>
>... [product list]...

Not exactly a new concept.

Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
'free razor' promotions.

But you've never seen a  'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?

MCM










0
11/16/2005 2:01:00 PM
"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>
> Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
> 'free razor' promotions.
>
> But you've never seen a  'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?


Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these days. 
Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new PCs. But 
ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/16/2005 2:37:16 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
> 
>>Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
>>'free razor' promotions.
>>
>>But you've never seen a  'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
> 
> 
> 
> Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these days. 
> Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new PCs. But 
> ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.

No they don't cost an arm and a leg - they cost a bloody fortune.

Have one of those HP all-in-one laser printer, fax, scan, photo-copy 
etc. Nice piece of equipment. Still "liquid" cartridges though.

The Win 98 machine failed me so had to upgrade to a Win XP. Went to load 
the CD driver for the HP - "No can do", they chirruped. "We've made too 
many enhancements. Either download or get a fresh CD from us to 
upgrade". I don't think a cost came into it. "Oh hell. I don't want to 
jigger around". Part of the XP deal was a Lexmark laser, el cheapo for 
$100. I'll go with that.

Soon found out I was starting to buy lots of cartridges. Wife's friend 
in a messy divorce, moves out and in temporary apartment gets a low cost 
XP. But she's not yet connected for e-mailing, Webbing. So I gallantly 
offer to receive her e-mail. She's got a low-paying job with Hallmark, 
"card-stuffer". Temps who go around retailers and replenish the Hallmark 
stands with fresh cards.

Boy ! Are the Hallmark Area Manager and female supervisor switched on to 
the niceties of computing. After every conceivable thought, they are out 
e-mailing their some 30 card-stuffers with needed info and a lot of 
irrelevant crap. So I print, with Preferences, back-to-back, in black 
only and Low quality (Quick Print). Where I receive a threesome from 
Hallmark I've gotten cute and copy the relevant text for all three into 
Notepad and then print.

Regardless of what I do consumption on the cartridge is like feeding 
strawberries to a bloody donkey ! We have small kiosks in the shopping 
malls, franchises, which I bet started in the States. "Ink Jet Island" 
or some such title. They do a roaring trade just doing refills, max of 
two per cartridge; however let the original "ink" run  too low and you 
are SOL for a re-fill - doesn't work. (One tip though - if it's a 'good' 
cartridge not currently working, gently put the bottom in booze like 
vodka to soften up the "ink" - just touching booze, not immersed in it. 
Then gently wipe off residue and give it a try, having firstly tried to 
manually tap an imprint onto a spare piece of paper).

It's the local kiosk that wised me up. They consistently get complaints 
from consumers about the cheapy printers - how quickly the "ink" is 
exhausted. I didn't realize - Xerox - back in my accounting days 61'-'63 
before becoming a systems analyst, for an office of some 200 people 
(Accounts Receivable) we had ONE Xerox machine where you lined up and 
could photo ONE copy. So much progression in computing, I thought the 
Xerox approach was old hat. No so - there is a breed of printers that 
use those Xerox-style powder cartridges. They cost a bit more, but the 
'kiosk' said wait for a promotional flyer, when they are marked down. 
Only snag, the initial cartridge for black powder comes at $200 a crack, 
but last for .......... Well certainly longer than the damn things I'm 
using. Haven't yet gone back and asked how they handle coloured powder 
cartridges.

As for the "ink" cartridges, isn't it HP who do big sales in them ? Saw 
an article couple of months back. Woman suing HP (?) for $zillions - 
claiming they falsely advertise, (Print Progression Dialog), the 
cartridge is low on "ink" when in fact it is still about 25% full.

When's that next sale in this part of the Great White North .....?

Jimmy, Calgary AB
0
11/17/2005 12:06:02 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Only read in the paper last night, there's now the ability to hang 
> advertisements on to youse bloggers' messages. They've already coined a 
> new word to convey blog spammer, but can't recollect it.

Heh - I'll put ads on my website when I lose my mind...  As far as I 
know, my personal blog will always be ad-free.  They bug me - not *once* 
have I seen one that made me think "oh - I was going to go _there_, but 
now I think I'll go _here_!"

> Cindy Sheehan - very, very vaguely sort of recall the name - spell out 
> the connection/background - might wake my memory cells up.

She was the mom whose son died in Iraq, and 1 1/2 years later, decided 
to camp out just outside President Bush's Crawford, TX ranch, until he 
would "meet with her".  Seems as though she'd already met him, and was 
quite amicable.  Now, though, she's extremely anti-war.  That's all well 
and good, but I resented her painting her son as a victim.  (It's all in 
the currently "top" post at http://www.djs-consulting.com/personal - 
don't want to veer too much more into political stuff in here.)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
11/17/2005 3:16:29 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <60598$437a9c7b$45491c57$10191@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>With 3 kids now, 
>>school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a 
>>coherent post.
> 
> 
> Must... resist... cheap... shot... no... pull... too... strong... oh, 
> really?  I hadn't noticed all that much change in your coherency (or lack 
> thereof)!

Yeah - and that's just the stuff I actually posted.  You ought to see 
the stuff I *didn't* post...  :)

> (sorry... next... time... will... try... to... stick... to... talking... 
> like... William... Shatner...)

Durn it, doc, I'm a programmer, not a doctor!

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
11/17/2005 3:20:51 AM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
> 
>>Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
>>'free razor' promotions.
>>
>>But you've never seen a  'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
> 
> Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these days. 
> Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new PCs. But 
> ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.

Along those lines, we shopped cartridges, *then* got a printer.  The HP 
cartridges were almost $10 cheaper than Epson and Lexmark.  And it's 
printed great - my wife has even started making custom stationery with 
it.  :)

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
11/17/2005 3:23:25 AM
LX-i wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> 
>> Cindy Sheehan - very, very vaguely sort of recall the name - spell out 
>> the connection/background - might wake my memory cells up.
> 
> She was the mom whose son died in Iraq, and 1 1/2 years later, decided 
> to camp out just outside President Bush's Crawford, TX ranch, until he 
> would "meet with her".  Seems as though she'd already met him, and was 
> quite amicable.  Now, though, she's extremely anti-war.  That's all well 
> and good, but I resented her painting her son as a victim.  (It's all in 
> the currently "top" post at http://www.djs-consulting.com/personal - 
> don't want to veer too much more into political stuff in here.)
> 
Gotcha Daniel. The name was vaguely familiar - now I remember. Thanks.

Jimmy

0
11/17/2005 4:07:29 AM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:osHef.215$i7.134@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>> Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
>> 'free razor' promotions.
>>
>> But you've never seen a  'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?

So technically it's not a promotion and Gillette is not happy, but still, 
there they are :
http://www.freerazor.com/

> Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these 
> days. Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new 
> PCs. But ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.

Funny thing is that most people don't realize that it actually ends up 
cheaper to take your photos on cd to a photo processing lab to make decent 
copies.  The irony of people thinking they're saving money makes me feel 
warm and fuzzy inside.

> Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


0
defaultuser (532)
11/17/2005 5:00:59 AM
In article <f0012$437bf710$45491c57$12006@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <60598$437a9c7b$45491c57$10191@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> 
>>>With 3 kids now, 
>>>school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a 
>>>coherent post.
>> 
>> 
>> Must... resist... cheap... shot... no... pull... too... strong... oh, 
>> really?  I hadn't noticed all that much change in your coherency (or lack 
>> thereof)!
>
>Yeah - and that's just the stuff I actually posted.  You ought to see 
>the stuff I *didn't* post...  :)

Best left in the diapers/nappies, eh?

>
>> (sorry... next... time... will... try... to... stick... to... talking... 
>> like... William... Shatner...)
>
>Durn it, doc, I'm a programmer, not a doctor!

I always heard those lines as 'I'm a doctor, not a physician!'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
11/17/2005 8:24:06 AM
In article <a599d$437bf7aa$45491c57$12006@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Along those lines, we shopped cartridges, *then* got a printer.

I use http://www.printpal.com/ ... but I don't do so much printing that 
I've discovered any inferior qualities to the product.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
11/17/2005 8:27:30 AM
"defaultuser" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Funny thing is that most people don't realize that it actually ends up 
> cheaper to take your photos on cd to a photo processing lab to make decent 
> copies.  The irony of people thinking they're saving money makes me feel 
> warm and fuzzy inside.


Even cheaper is to upload the photos to a photo service. Here in the US, the 
Wal-Mart price for 4"x6" prints is $.12 online and $.15 on CD.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/17/2005 2:45:14 PM
Michael Mattias wrote:
> "Stephen Gennard" <stephen.gennard@somewhere.over.the.rainbow.com>
> wrote in message news:dldtmj$gdp$1@hyperion.microfocus.com...
>> Sun may not make money out of the Java SDK but it does make money
>> out of connected products such as:
>>
>> ... [product list]...
>
> Not exactly a new concept.
>
> Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands
> of 'free razor' promotions.
>
> But you've never seen a  'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?

"Give away the razor, sell the blades" marketing model has been replaced 
with "Give away the phone, sell the minutes" mantra.

Gillette DID give away blades, though. When the company went to all 
stainless blades, they had a warehouse in New Jersey full (millions upon 
millions) of now-obsolete "Blue Blades." They hired a salvage company to 
load hundreds of tons of razor blades on ocean-going barges for dumping at 
sea.

In due course, the barge company reported "mission accomplished" and 
collected their fee.

The barge company was mafia-controlled.

For several years Gillette wondered how drug stores and grocers up and down 
the northeast could sell BlueBlades so cheaply. 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
11/18/2005 1:12:45 AM
defaultuser wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
> news:osHef.215$i7.134@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> 
>>Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these 
>>days. Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new 
>>PCs. But ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
> 
> Funny thing is that most people don't realize that it actually ends up 
> cheaper to take your photos on cd to a photo processing lab to make decent 
> copies.  The irony of people thinking they're saving money makes me feel 
> warm and fuzzy inside.

See, if you went to work for one of those companies, you could feel all 
warm and fuzzy inside *and* profit from it at the same time!

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
11/18/2005 2:20:53 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <f0012$437bf710$45491c57$12006@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>>Durn it, doc, I'm a programmer, not a doctor!
> 
> I always heard those lines as 'I'm a doctor, not a physician!'

He might have said that once or twice - I don't know, it's been so long 
since I've seen them.  I'd be surprised if some of the Original Series 
isn't on DVD.  Maybe when finally subscribe to Netflix, I can rent them 
and watch again.  :)

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
11/18/2005 2:23:04 AM
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> It's Judson's thread about Micro Focus compiler fees/runtime which 
> triggered this one in my mind.
> 
> If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its 
> money from the language ?
> 
> Jimmy

You should note that the word "free" has two meaning here:

1) can you get Java implementation free of charge?

2) can you do what you want with the implementation?

Sun Java is distributed free of charge, but is not free in the second
sense. In fact, the main motivation for Sun to distribute Java free of
charge is to have a platform which they (at least partially) control.

Namely, there is Java the language and Java Virtual Machine (JVM). JVM
is quite similar to an operationg system: it offers numer of services
to the running program. The program can not run if JVM services are
not present. Sun designed JVM to be "portable": JVM can run on multiple
processors and on top of various operationg systems. In effect, JVM
can serve as a portability layer, making underlying operationg system
irrelevant.

Why this matters for Sun: ATM about 90% desktop machines run operating
systems form Microsoft. Historically, Microsoft used its position as
operating system vendor to promote its own application (see for example
Netscape accusations). So a vendor either has to be independent of
Microsoft OS or risk unfair competition. Like all major software vendors
Sun can not just ignore 90% of desktop market. But JVM allows to be
independent of Microsoft and still deliver on Microsoft platforms. The
same problem affects other companes, so they teamed with Sun to promote
Java.

Now, for this tactic to be effective JVM has to be popular, so Sun is
willing to distribute copies free of charge. They (and other companies
too) distribute may development tools for Java free of charge, again
this is part of their tactic to make JVM popular.

Note that Sun retains much control over Java (they had exclusive control,
but gave up part of to to other companies). One example may be "native"
Java compilers: it makes perfect sense to compile Java program into
native executables. One can gain some speed in this way, but more important,
the program is then independent of JVM. In particular, native compiler
would allow small "standalone" Java executables (important if you want
to minimize dowload size and suspect that the recipient has no (or incorrect)
JVM). But you will not get such a beast from Sun: this goes against their
tactic.

To put thing in more general perspective: compilers are relatively small
programs, which require moderate amount of work to create. Namely, a toy
compiler can be built in a few days, small usable one in few months. 
Mature compiler accumulates features (and code) over longer period so
it is more likely to represent few man years and industrial leader
may represent hundreds of man years. But the the law of diminishing
returns works strongly here: extra features take most of the effort.

OTOH compilers play pretty crucial way in software developement, so
there is motivation to create new ones.

Coming back to question of "free" software: the one who controls
software controls the society. Namely, quite a lot of things in
our life is controlled by software. For example, if a mailing program
does not allow a user to send e-mail to some address, it means that
the user can not send e-mail to this address. Of course, the user
may seek workarounds (for example use another program), but is
software in controlled by a single entity which deliberatly put some
limitation, then it may happen that there is no workaround and even
if there is one the control still may be quite effective. Also,
if software restricts information presented to the user, the 
user may even not notice that the control is present.

Some people belive that ability to modify software is very important
for our freedom. One of the persons who quite early formulated
such view was Richard Stallman:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy

You may find ideas above controversial: some people strongly object the
very idea, other accept the idea but disagree with Stallman on many
details. But there is a number of people who volunteered their time to
write software motivated by the idea.

Note, that making _all_ software free would work against current 
software houses. But part of Stallman's idea was peacefull coexistence
with closed-source software. So, free software can be used by
commercial companies as long as they do not try to turn it into non-free
software. In particular GNU C compiler was originally written by Stallman,
but now it contains many contribution from firms like IBM and Apple.

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch
hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl 
0
hebisch (123)
11/21/2005 6:22:23 AM
Just read your blog about Cindy Sheehan (that's two of us now). I agree
with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?

0
alistair7 (2054)
11/23/2005 2:30:29 PM
Save the vodka. Use warm water. Usually works for me.

0
alistair7 (2054)
11/23/2005 2:34:29 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Just read your blog about Cindy Sheehan (that's two of us now). I agree
> with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
> is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
> Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
> disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?


I would prefer to deal with the terrorists with our military on their soil 
than with our civilians on our soil. The U.S. came through two world wars 
with our homeland virtually unscathed because the wars were (fortuitously 
for us) fought mostly on the other guy's turf. Look at what happened to 
Europe, Russia, China and Japan. It doesn't take a genius to see which way 
is preferable. In fact, you have to be pretty stupid not to see it.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/23/2005 3:12:31 PM
Alistair wrote:
> Just read your blog about Cindy Sheehan (that's two of us now). I agree
> with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
> is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
> Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
> disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?
> 
Well I wont be reading his blog again, or any other blog for that matter.

You comment is so enticing, that's why I *try* and stay away from 
c.l.c., it becomes so time consuming. Yes I recently jumped back in, 
particularly feeling for Judson on the 'Runtimes'. I read this thinking, 
he's not been here for sometime, what pearls of wisdom is Alistair going 
to drop into my lughole about Java - bugger all :-)

So very, very briefly on your question. INCREDIBLE IMPLICATIONS for the 
US AND the Western World, no matter how this one turns out. You will 
recall the Vietnam pullout - much loss of face for the US. But this time 
around, the Islamists, particularly, will see that the WEST has lost 
both credibility and will.

Wanna bet - it will NOT occur in the last two years of Dubya's tenure. 
Perhaps not the next four years after, but some slight possibility it 
*might* occur in the next four. While Judson likes the idea of playing 
war games away from home, very sensible - it is no longer that simple. 
Remembering nobody is officially at war - but having stirred the Islamic 
hornets' nest we are in for a very long rough ride.

Guys, better get Dick Cheyney up here real quick to look at our oil 
reserves. Funding is there, but there needs to be some positive shoving 
on creating new pipelines. There's one route already goes south-east 
from Calgary, across Canada, landing up in Bill Klein's backyard. No pun 
intended, there's a pipedream - Alberta all the way to Texas.
What held us back was the sheer cost of extracting the oil from the 
sand. Now at $50 plus per barrel it's viable - with a 400 years supply 
for you folks.

(Alistair just told me a month ago, by an ex-Brit - want a new career - 
the Tarsands oil companies are advertising in N. England for welders 50K 
pounds sterling = $120,000 CDN. Not bad pickings for holding a lighted 
torch. Dammit, even a dishwasher up there makes $60K - but probably 
shells out $30K for rent to get at the extremely limited accommodation 
). Distance-wise good 8-10 hours north of Calgary by car.

Remember, you don't just nip around to the nearest hardware store for a 
bit of piping. Planning, land acquisition for the route, and 
construction. At best a pipedream today is only going to turn into a 
reality some ten years from now. That date might just dovetail into the 
pullout date from Iraq - just when the US needs a new source for oil.

There was an incredibly interesting six-part series in the Calgary 
Herald on the Athabasca Tarsands - full of statistics I can't remember, 
$BILLIONS involved, treated like Monopoly money. Firstly they've 
clarified now, second largest reserve behind Saudi Arabia, and the size 
of Florida. Huge economic pay-offs, not just to Alberta but Eastern 
Canada as well as the US. Down in the States Caterpillar maufactures the 
  HUGE Tonka toys they now use for scraping off just the top 25%; they 
still have to devise the technology to get at the remainder. Note the 
word 'scraping' - so we are scarring the area - so as well as pluses 
there is the downside like environmental concerns.

Jimmy
0
11/23/2005 11:42:12 PM
Alistair wrote:
> Just read your blog about Cindy Sheehan (that's two of us now). I agree
> with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
> is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
> Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
> disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?
> 

I guess that's directed at me.  :)  Finishing the job is the only way to 
go.  Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree 
with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we 
left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would 
cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the 
course until it's done).

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
11/29/2005 4:31:40 AM
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:31:40 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>I guess that's directed at me.  :)  Finishing the job is the only way to 
>go.  Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree 
>with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we 
>left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would 
>cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the 
>course until it's done).

Most people who disagree with the war believe that the war will not
accomplish those goals.  In this case, there is no "worse", as both
options are the same.
0
howard (6283)
11/29/2005 2:19:47 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>I guess that's directed at me.  :)  Finishing the job is the only way to
>>go.  Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree
>>with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we
>>left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would
>>cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the
>>course until it's done).
>
> Most people who disagree with the war believe that the war will not
> accomplish those goals.  In this case, there is no "worse", as both
> options are the same.

Neville Chamberlain was such a chap. Apparently there are a lot of people 
who simply cannot understand that, as horrible as war is, it is sometimes 
necessary to avoid something much worse. Thank God not everybody feels that 
way, or the Sadams & Hitlers & Stalins of this world would have a perpetual 
heyday. One of the reasons the world is as bad as it is, is that we don't 
confront and deal with such people soon enough. Remember Rwanda, Kosovo and 
scores of other atrocities? Too often the world stands by and watches while 
innocent citizens are slaughtered. Now, when someone is finally trying to 
deal with terrorists on a global scale, we hear this constant whining about 
this or that problem. It makes me sick. Of course there are problems! We 
live in an imperfect world; there are *always* problems. Since the dawn of 
history, Mankind has made no significant effort, has accomplished no 
significant thing, without mistakes and errors and frequent loss of life. 
Even large civil engineering projects often cost lives, for Heaven's sake! 
No matter what approach the US and our allies took toward dealing with 
terrorists, there would be mistakes, problems and loss of life, because 
major efforts made by human beings are always that way. Yet some people 
stand critically aloof, acting and speaking as if *they* could fix the 
terrorist problem with no mistakes, no failures, no loss of life. What 
unbelievable, shortsighted, blind-to-self arrogance and lack of 
understanding and honesty!

Any time people do bad things, other people suffer. And when those bad 
people are brought to account, other people suffer then, too. When you 
apprehend a criminal, he or she probably has loved ones out there who 
suffer, and law enforcement people often suffer and die in the process. But 
we must realize that it is not enforcement that is at fault, it is simply 
another unavoidable consequence of the bad actions of the perpetrator. 
Failure to prosecute criminals, either in law enforcement, or on a global 
scale, is far worse in the long run than taking them out, whatever the cost. 
The sooner you do it, the better. And no one since the beginning of time has 
ever done it without error or without pain. Unfortunately, many people do 
not understand these facts. But they are facts nonetheless, whatever people 
choose to believe.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/29/2005 3:25:25 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
 
> Neville Chamberlain was such a chap. Apparently there are a lot of people
> who simply cannot understand that, as horrible as war is, it is sometimes
> necessary to avoid something much worse. 

My father was there at the time.  When Chamberlain came back from Munich
with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
about it was cynicism.  Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
to take Hitler on sooner or later.

(Assuming that "Sun Valley" is the one in the US, then the following is
directed to you, Judson.  If not, then my apologies).

  And I'd remind you that it was promised in the States at the time that
they wouldn't get involved in war again; that a vast amount of public
opinion was prepared to let Europe go under and to deal with Hitler in a
business relationship; and it wasn't until Pearl Harbour that the US
went to war.  There was precious little will in the US at the time to
get after Stalin or Hitler: only after the US's direct interests were
involved did the country wake up.



>Now, when someone is finally trying to
> deal with terrorists on a global scale, we hear this constant whining about
> this or that problem. 

On a global scale?  Iraq and Afghanistan?  Neither of which had a hope
in hell of resisting a conventional armed attack  .. global?  Don't make
me barf.
Why not attack Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida (sp) originates and is
supported?  Why not North Korea, which does represent a definite threat
to world peace?  Or even China, which over the long term will very
likely replace the US as THE global power?

> No matter what approach the US and our allies took toward dealing with
> terrorists, there would be mistakes, problems and loss of life, because
> major efforts made by human beings are always that way. Yet some people
> stand critically aloof, acting and speaking as if *they* could fix the
> terrorist problem with no mistakes, no failures, no loss of life. What
> unbelievable, shortsighted, blind-to-self arrogance and lack of
> understanding and honesty!
> 

"If you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs".  All fine,
but suppose you had no business making an omelette in the first place? 
Your president lied and quoted myths to justify his invasion of Iraq;
now he's making your country more and more fascist in order to keep
criticism under control.  I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country
ruled by a Saddam, for sure, but I'd have to have run out of
alternatives before I'd want to live in a George Bush country.  

pl
0
lacey1 (490)
11/29/2005 6:27:10 PM
> When Chamberlain came back from Munich
> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
> about it was cynicism.  Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
> to take Hitler on sooner or later.

Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
in its plane and tank factories).

0
riplin (4127)
11/29/2005 8:02:23 PM
"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>> Neville Chamberlain was such a chap. Apparently there are a lot of people
>> who simply cannot understand that, as horrible as war is, it is sometimes
>> necessary to avoid something much worse.
>
> My father was there at the time.  When Chamberlain came back from Munich
> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
> about it was cynicism.  Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
>
> (Assuming that "Sun Valley" is the one in the US, then the following is
> directed to you, Judson.  If not, then my apologies).
>
>  And I'd remind you that it was promised in the States at the time that
> they wouldn't get involved in war again; that a vast amount of public
> opinion was prepared to let Europe go under and to deal with Hitler in a
> business relationship; and it wasn't until Pearl Harbour that the US
> went to war.  There was precious little will in the US at the time to
> get after Stalin or Hitler: only after the US's direct interests were
> involved did the country wake up.

You are quite correct. I was not trying to imply that the US has always been 
on the right side of these issues. However, France and England could, and 
should, have delt with Hitler much earlier, and much easier. After all he 
was in their back yard. Their delays in dealing with Hitler cost millions of 
lives.

>>Now, when someone is finally trying to
>> deal with terrorists on a global scale, we hear this constant whining 
>> about
>> this or that problem.
>
> On a global scale?  Iraq and Afghanistan?  Neither of which had a hope
> in hell of resisting a conventional armed attack  .. global?  Don't make
> me barf.

Give me a break! You've got to start somewhere.

> Why not attack Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida (sp) originates and is
> supported?  Why not North Korea, which does represent a definite threat
> to world peace?  Or even China, which over the long term will very
> likely replace the US as THE global power?

Good questions. As I said, these things never proceed perfectly. All we can 
expect of any leader is that they do their best, and we must realize they 
will never will be perfect. In my personal opinion, Bush is doing his best 
to do exactly what he said he would.

>> No matter what approach the US and our allies took toward dealing with
>> terrorists, there would be mistakes, problems and loss of life, because
>> major efforts made by human beings are always that way. Yet some people
>> stand critically aloof, acting and speaking as if *they* could fix the
>> terrorist problem with no mistakes, no failures, no loss of life. What
>> unbelievable, shortsighted, blind-to-self arrogance and lack of
>> understanding and honesty!
>
> "If you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs".  All fine,
> but suppose you had no business making an omelette in the first place?

Not sure exactly what you mean by "had no business." But we have 3,000 dead 
citizens that gives us the right make sure it does not happen again, to the 
best of our ability.

> Your president lied and quoted myths to justify his invasion of Iraq;

Bush was going on the same intelligence that England and a number of other 
countries had, and they agreed with him at the time. Now you nit pickers 
want to make him out a liar because the intelligence was flawed. Hear this: 
Intelligence like that is *always* flawed. The US was in posession of 
intelligence before Pearl Harbor that showed Japan was going to attack. The 
problem is, there were literally thousands of other intelligence items, and 
the entire picture wasn't that clear, to Roosevelt at the time. Like I 
said - the world is imperfect. Get used to it.

> now he's making your country more and more fascist in order to keep
> criticism under control.  I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country
> ruled by a Saddam, for sure, but I'd have to have run out of
> alternatives before I'd want to live in a George Bush country.

Great, stay where you are. We have plenty of nay-sayers and nit pickers here 
already. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/29/2005 9:19:12 PM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> When Chamberlain came back from Munich
>> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
>> about it was cynicism.  Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
>> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
>
> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
> in its plane and tank factories).


And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started 
breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole 
thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but 
better sooner than later.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/29/2005 9:23:12 PM
Peter Lacey wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> "If you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs".  All fine,
> but suppose you had no business making an omelette in the first place? 
> Your president lied and quoted myths to justify his invasion of Iraq;
> now he's making your country more and more fascist in order to keep
> criticism under control.  I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country
> ruled by a Saddam, for sure, but I'd have to have run out of
> alternatives before I'd want to live in a George Bush country.  
> 
Not quite sure what this has to do with 'Making money from Java'. But 
there's me buddy above, a Canuck located in Winterpeg, Manitoba I think.
And he's the one who quipped to me in a private e-mail, "You're too 
close to 'em to be making those comments :-)". Well Peter, better start 
looking, see if there's a plot going for sale on a reservation further 
up North.

And with due deference to our friends south of the 49th, I pointedly 
make an attempt to spell it 'Pearl Harbor'.

I know both Judson and Daniel have their hearts in the right place
- I'll type a quote, from what I thought was a very unlikely source. 
Stay tuned.

Jimmy
0
11/29/2005 9:41:08 PM
Richard wrote:
>>When Chamberlain came back from Munich
>>with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
>>about it was cynicism.  Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
>>to take Hitler on sooner or later.
> 
> 
> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
> in its plane and tank factories).
> 
Well the net effect was 'that he bought that year', but I don't think 
deliberately. He was an honest man, probably already suffering initial 
stages of cancer, but he was no match for the thugs he met at 
Berchesgarten. Difficult to gage his cabinet but Winston didn't just 
walk into the premiership. Seems initial choice was Lord Halifax the 
Foreign Minister who would have done a 'quisling' like Petain in France 
or Quisling himself in Norway.

Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike 
intensely the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American 
English spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute 
confusion in my mind. I really must download the English English 
spellchecker. I checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE' 
have entirely different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about. 
So you linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime 
candidates - go for it !

Jimmy
0
11/29/2005 10:10:00 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> 
>>Judson McClendon wrote:

> You are quite correct. I was not trying to imply that the US has always been 
> on the right side of these issues. However, France and England could, and 
> should, have delt with Hitler much earlier, and much easier. After all he 
> was in their back yard. Their delays in dealing with Hitler cost millions of 
> lives.

You are quite correct too. But you must remember that in the Britain of 
the Thirties there was only one lonely voice in the wilderness who truly 
comprehended, and his 'lectures' in the House of Commons went unheeded, 
or were scoffed at  - Winston Churchill.

>>On a global scale?  Iraq and Afghanistan?  Neither of which had a hope
>>in hell of resisting a conventional armed attack  .. global?  Don't make
>>me barf.
> 
> 
> Give me a break! You've got to start somewhere.

Who was it took over from my favourtie guy Jimmy C - Ronald Reagan. If 
you really wanted to start somewhere, howz about Persia/Iran. I think 
life might perhaps have been a little simpler now.

Jimmy
0
11/29/2005 10:19:34 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>> You are quite correct. I was not trying to imply that the US has always 
>> been on the right side of these issues. However, France and England 
>> could, and should, have delt with Hitler much earlier, and much easier. 
>> After all he was in their back yard. Their delays in dealing with Hitler 
>> cost millions of lives.
>
> You are quite correct too. But you must remember that in the Britain of 
> the Thirties there was only one lonely voice in the wilderness who truly 
> comprehended, and his 'lectures' in the House of Commons went unheeded, or 
> were scoffed at  - Winston Churchill.
>
>>>On a global scale?  Iraq and Afghanistan?  Neither of which had a hope
>>>in hell of resisting a conventional armed attack  .. global?  Don't make
>>>me barf.
>>
>> Give me a break! You've got to start somewhere.
>
> Who was it took over from my favourtie guy Jimmy C - Ronald Reagan. If you 
> really wanted to start somewhere, howz about Persia/Iran. I think life 
> might perhaps have been a little simpler now.


You may be right. I try to remember that we common folk just aren't privy to 
all the intelligence, by a long shot. Those decisions are probably a lot 
more difficult to make from where the President of the US sits. I can only 
imagine the thousands of pieces of information on a truly vast panorama of 
issues that must be presented to Bush and other leaders for assimilation. 
It's pretty obvious to me that, unless something unexpected happens, we're 
going to have to take on Iran, and maybe North Korea, eventually. Hopefully 
the new democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq will flourish, and the citizens 
of other Middle Eastern countries will fix their own governments as well. 
Much better than having to take governments down militarily. I fear that 
China and Russia will not put enough pressure on North Korea to get them to 
abandon their nuclear program, because they like NK being a thorn in the 
sides of the US, Taiwan and Japan. The Iranian government is fanatical and 
oppressive buy any standard, but KIM Jong Il is well and truly nuts. God 
help us if any of these maniacs start throwing nukes.

Don't know if you knew, or maybe forgot, but your buddy Jimmy C made it 
Official US Government Policy that the US *would* resort to nukes, if 
necessary to protect our access to the oil fields in the Middle East. At the 
time, there was great concern that the USSR would make a grab for them, and 
Carter was trying to head that off.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/29/2005 10:56:09 PM
> And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
> breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
> thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
> better sooner than later.

That is unlikely to be true.  WWII did not start in 1939 or 1941 but
much earlier for example in Spain in 1936 and China in the early 30s.
Intervening more forcefully against Germany would merely have escalated
the war earlier before England was ready (France was never ready).  As
it happens America blockading Japan's oil shipments in 1940 simply
brought forward the date when Japan and USA clashed to December 1941
and did not 'nip in the bud' Japanese expansion plans.

0
riplin (4127)
11/29/2005 11:04:32 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:Yk4jf.649505$oW2.279421@pd7tw1no...

> Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike intensely 
> the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American English 
> spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute confusion in 
> my mind. I really must download the English English spellchecker. I 
> checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE' have entirely 
> different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about. So you 
> linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime candidates - go 
> for it !

Well, hey.  Far be it from me to turn down a linguistics question.

Webster's Ninth Collegiate lists "gage" in this context simply as "var of 
gauge".   I agree, and prefer "gauge" as I do most primary spellings over 
alternatives and variants.   I never use "gage" in any of the other senses 
that that dictionary lists.

Now, as to "guage", I'll have to rely on your citation of the OED (small or 
great) for that one.  The same Webster's Ninth has nothing between 
"guacharo" and "guaiac".      ;-)

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
11/29/2005 11:04:47 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Who was it took over from my favourtie guy Jimmy C

I just remembered once driving by the Peanut Farmer's house in the 
neighboring state of Georgia. My Mom an Dad really liked Carter, and I took 
them by. This was either while, or shortly after, he was in office, and 
there were obvious security emplacements around. Difficult place to secure, 
because the house was not far back from the road.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/29/2005 11:08:58 PM
LX-i wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
> 
>> Just read your blog about Cindy Sheehan (that's two of us now). I agree
>> with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
>> is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
>> Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
>> disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?
>>
> 
> I guess that's directed at me.  :)  Finishing the job is the only way to 
> go.  Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree 
> with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we 
> left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would 
> cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the 
> course until it's done).
> 
Daniel and Judson,

There was a time when Britain could boastfully claim, "The sun never 
sets on the British Empire"; pick up a globe of the world and so much of 
it was painted in pink. What is related below occurred during the last 
death throes of colonialism and although still living in the UK at the 
time, I've totally forgotten the sequence of events. Whether the author 
is correct in his comparisons, I just don't know.

Food for thought :-

...............................

"It has become fashionable to remark that Iraq is turning into another 
Vietnam. No so. It is fundamentally different from that jungle-clothed 
country with its communist-led and united resistance. But is it looking 
remarkably like colonial Aden and what happened there. Consider the 
similarities.

- British occupying Aden against wishes of 90% of Arab people whose 
hellhole it properly was (ditto Iraq)

- The resistance were divided into two movements FLOSY and FLN, who 
loathed each other but could unite against us (ditto Iraq)

- Whole areas of city of Aden and hinterland off-limits and visitable 
only in armoured columns (ditto)

- Insurrectionists made plain once we were gone they would takeover and 
have a civil war (ditto and happened in case of Aden)

- Collaborators with us occupiers existed only in boltholes protected by 
us (ditto)

- Collaborators realizing they were dead if/when we left, began 
vaporising either changing sides or getting out (ditto)

- We claimed we would hand it all over when they had a 
democratically-elected government (ditto)

- British-trained native police completely infiltrated and wholly 
unreliable (ditto)

- The steady loss of our servicemen to no apparent purpose , except to 
save politicians' faces, sapped morale and empowered rising criticism at 
home (ditto)

- Finally British Establishment, never the sharpest knives in the 
cutlery drawer, asked the same question everyone else had been asking 
for the past two years: "What exactly are we dong there?" (Not yet, but 
soon)....

.....When we finally left Aden in '67 our rearguard practically had to 
fight its way off the dock as the wolves emerged from their alleys....

We simply have to face three questions over Iraq and stop ducking :-

1 - Is the situation getting steadily better, or steadily worse ? Only 
Iraqi/Anglo/Yankee politicians say the former. Every detached observer 
says the reverse.

2 - Iraq is a Muslim country. Occupation by Christians, even to keep the 
peace, is offensive. Would a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force. drawn from 
Islam, under the sign of the crescent and with considerable economic 
help, (cheap at the price), not do better ?

3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ? Our only future is to be free of 
hydrocarbons fuels.... ( then he makes a play for nuclear power - which 
gives me a touch of the shudders).... The 100th British soldier will 
come home in a coffin soon. Time to start thinking of alternatives and a 
real timed exit strategy.

.............

I think you have already hit your 2,000th mark in the States ?

Above, are those the meanderings of a 'bleeding heart' left-wing leaning 
Liberal or perhaps from the pen of a strident Socialist screaming "Love 
not War !". Not so. Page Down.



















Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a 
conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews 
blood each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And 
the author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - 
Frederick Forsyth.

Jimmy
0
11/29/2005 11:40:20 PM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
>> breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the
>> whole thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than 
>> never,
>> but better sooner than later.
>
> That is unlikely to be true.  WWII did not start in 1939 or 1941 but
> much earlier for example in Spain in 1936 and China in the early 30s.
> Intervening more forcefully against Germany would merely have escalated
> the war earlier before England was ready (France was never ready).  As
> it happens America blockading Japan's oil shipments in 1940 simply
> brought forward the date when Japan and USA clashed to December
> 1941 and did not 'nip in the bud' Japanese expansion plans.

When Hitler first began to expand Germany's military, shortly after grabbing 
power in 1933, it would have been fairly easy for England or France to have 
stopped him, even with military intervention, if necessary. Better military 
intervention in 1933-34 than full scale war in 1939-45. Japan was a 
different - the US was simply not in position to impose its will entirely on 
Japan in 1940, or the early 30's. Japan was too far away and the US did not 
have the military resources in the Pacific to back it up. But England and 
France sure could have done so to Germany in 1933-34, because Germany was 
not in position to defend itself, until after Hitler's military buildup had 
progressed.

Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after 
Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do much 
except get ready, until Germany invaded France.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/29/2005 11:49:10 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:EF5jf.652377$1i.549767@pd7tw2no...

> 3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ?

Well, it's not just Iraqi crude oil.  I remember a few little fires in 
Kuwait, and thus, I'd be inclined to think it's Kuwaiti, Iranian, Arabian 
and Syrian crude oil that need to be counted in the Iraq equation.

> Our only future is to be free of hydrocarbons fuels....

Ultimately I think that's true, and I think that future is virtually if not 
completely unattainable in any effective timeframe.

Whether that means, or forms a component of, the End of the World As We Know 
It remains to be seen; I know many who seem to think so, and are girding 
themselves for the Great Destruction.  But that gets us off into 
theology-land, and I'd rather not spend a whole lot of energy there in this 
forum.   My personal view is that if it is, it is, and nothing we do 
individually or collectively will do anything effective to prevent it.

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
11/29/2005 11:56:03 PM
> it would have been fairly easy for England or France to have
> stopped him, even with military intervention,

Both had been demilitarising since 1918 and had no forces or equipment
usable for such an endeavour even if the public would have supported it
which was unlikely.

> Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after
> Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do much
> except get ready, until Germany invaded France.

It was not just 'better' it was essential.  France never did manage to
'get ready' which is why they were overrun. France had an 'empty
generation' from WWI which meant that in the early 30s they had a
shortage of people of an age that would form an army or work the
factories.  Even in 39 or 40 they couldn't get enough men for either.

0
riplin (4127)
11/30/2005 12:30:02 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Daniel and Judson,
>
> There was a time when Britain could boastfully claim, "The sun never sets 
> on the British Empire"; pick up a globe of the world and so much of it was 
> painted in pink. What is related below occurred during the last death 
> throes of colonialism and although still living in the UK at the time, 
> I've totally forgotten the sequence of events. Whether the author is 
> correct in his comparisons, I just don't know.

He is way off target, Jimmy. Most of the Iraqis are happy the US is there, 
and most of the terrorists are from other countries. Remember, they are 
bombing Iraqi hospitals and other innocent civilians too, and the Iraqis 
don't like that any better than we would. Among my network of friends are a 
number of serviceman serving in Iraq, and they tell an *entirely* different 
story than the leftist news media. Did you know that in numerous surveys 
over the years, something like 98% if the people in the US news media vote 
Democrat (liberal)? Talk about biased! And foreign (non US) news media are 
even worse, particularly in Europe. Europeans, unless they get Fox News, 
never, ever get to hear the positive things going on in Iraq, like the 
extensive progress we have made in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. And 
because Fox News is virtually alone out there, Europeans think they are 
brainwashed. And Fox News isn't even conservative, they're really pretty 
neutral. Here in the US, Fox News trounces every other cable news service, 
combined.

> Food for thought :-
>
> "It has become fashionable to remark that Iraq is turning into another 
> Vietnam. No so. It is fundamentally different from that jungle-clothed 
> country with its communist-led and united resistance. But is it looking 
> remarkably like colonial Aden and what happened there. Consider the 
> similarities.
>
> - British occupying Aden against wishes of 90% of Arab people whose 
> hellhole it properly was (ditto Iraq)

This is a plain lie, as I said above. The majority of Iraqi citizens want us 
there, until the job is done.

> - The resistance were divided into two movements FLOSY and FLN, who 
> loathed each other but could unite against us (ditto Iraq)

It isn't mostly Iraqis who are attacking us there. The terrorists, 
particularly the inciters, mostly come from other countries.

> - Whole areas of city of Aden and hinterland off-limits and visitable only 
> in armoured columns (ditto)

Whole areas of Iraq aren't having these problems, too. You never hear about 
them in the media.

> 1 - Is the situation getting steadily better, or steadily worse ? Only 
> Iraqi/Anglo/Yankee politicians say the former. Every detached observer 
> says the reverse.

This is another outright lie. I know lots of sources, there on the ground, 
who insist we are making very good progress in lots of areas. Yes, we 
continue to have attacks, but these kind of attacks were far, far worse 
against occupation forces in Europe after WWII, and lasted for years. People 
like to forget that little detail. And the terrorist attacks aren't 
everything that's going on over there. Didn't these same people say there 
wouldn't be an election in Afghanistan, then that there wouldn't be one in 
Iraq. At some point it becomes obvious these people wouldn't see 'better' if 
it came up and bit them.

> 2 - Iraq is a Muslim country. Occupation by Christians, even to keep the 
> peace, is offensive. Would a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force. drawn from 
> Islam, under the sign of the crescent and with considerable economic help, 
> (cheap at the price), not do better ?

Iraq isn't Iran. There was never in recent times the religious fanatacism in 
Iraq that we've seen in e.g. Iran. Most of the fanaticism we see in Iraq is 
imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. BTW - much of the population of Iran, 
and for some reason, especially the younger people, really like the US. It 
is the ruling Mulas, not the general population, who so hate the US. I 
gurantee you won't hear that in the European media!

> 3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ? Our only future is to be free of 
> hydrocarbons fuels.... ( then he makes a play for nuclear power - which 
> gives me a touch of the shudders).... The 100th British soldier will come 
> home in a coffin soon. Time to start thinking of alternatives and a real 
> timed exit strategy.

Duh! It's not about the oil, it's about making sure the US or anybody else 
doesn't see another 9/11.

> Above, are those the meanderings of a 'bleeding heart' left-wing leaning 
> Liberal or perhaps from the pen of a strident Socialist screaming "Love 
> not War !". Not so. Page Down.
>
> Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a 
> conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews blood 
> each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And the 
> author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - Frederick 
> Forsyth.

Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a 
pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/30/2005 12:32:52 AM
"James J. Gavan" wrote:
> 

> Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike
> intensely the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American
> English spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute
> confusion in my mind. I really must download the English English
> spellchecker. I checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE'
> have entirely different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about.
> So you linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime
> candidates - go for it !
> 
> Jimmy

I have a 1958 US dictionary: it says that "gage" means a pledge to fight
or a challenge; or a pledge, period;  also an alternative spelling for
gauge.  Seems to me it's also a peach or a pear or something.

Can't you stop your spell checker changing things?  I don't allow my
servants that much liberty!

PL
0
lacey1 (490)
11/30/2005 12:47:08 AM
Judson McClendon wrote:
>! And foreign (non US) news media are
> even worse, particularly in Europe. Europeans, unless they get Fox News,
> never, ever get to hear the positive things going on in Iraq, like the
> extensive progress we have made in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. And
> because Fox News is virtually alone out there, Europeans think they are
> brainwashed. And Fox News isn't even conservative, they're really pretty
> neutral. Here in the US, Fox News trounces every other cable news service,
> combined.

And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
reporting.  That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
news.  Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
served in Vietnam.  If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
actually have their mike switched off?  Judson, you yourself need to get
out and hear it from other sources.
> 

> > 1 - Is the situation getting steadily better, or steadily worse ? Only
> > Iraqi/Anglo/Yankee politicians say the former. Every detached observer
> > says the reverse.
> 
> This is another outright lie. I know lots of sources, there on the ground,
> who insist we are making very good progress in lots of areas. 

Well, they would, wouldn't they?  Are you saying that "every detached
observer" is lying, or that the statement "Every detached observer says
the reverse" is a lie?  'Cause it ain't.

> 
> > 2 - Iraq is a Muslim country. Occupation by Christians, even to keep the
> > peace, is offensive. Would a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force. drawn from
> > Islam, under the sign of the crescent and with considerable economic help,
> > (cheap at the price), not do better ?
> 
> Iraq isn't Iran. There was never in recent times the religious fanatacism in
> Iraq that we've seen in e.g. Iran. Most of the fanaticism we see in Iraq is
> imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. BTW - much of the population of Iran,
> and for some reason, especially the younger people, really like the US. It
> is the ruling Mulas, not the general population, who so hate the US. I
> gurantee you won't hear that in the European media!

You haven't answered the question!

> 
> Duh! It's not about the oil, it's about making sure the US or anybody else
> doesn't see another 9/11.

Duh!  >>NO<< country can protect itself against another 9/11 unless it
keeps all its citizens under lock and key.  >>NO<< security is proof
against sufficiently determined terrorists.


> > Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a
> > conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews blood
> > each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And the
> > author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - Frederick
> > Forsyth.
> 
> Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a
> pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)

Well, if you truly believe that, then there is no point in discussing
anything with you.  The right-wing media have completely taken over your
thought processes. 


PL
0
lacey1 (490)
11/30/2005 1:00:30 AM
> - British occupying Aden

Did I mention that my grandfather was presented a lion skin cape by Ras
Tafari when the latter visited Aden in 1922.

0
riplin (4127)
11/30/2005 1:01:22 AM
"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
> Duh!  >>NO<< country can protect itself against another 9/11 unless it
> keeps all its citizens under lock and key.  >>NO<< security is proof
> against sufficiently determined terrorists.


So, just give up, eh? We can't *absolutely guarantee* we will not have 
another terrorist attack, so any attempt to defend ourselves is futile. 
Defeatism at its best.

You may not have noticed, but problems do get solved sometimes, even very 
difficult ones. And sometimes they get solved by war. But never, ever, ever 
are they solved by the kind of attitude you express above. Never. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/30/2005 1:21:46 AM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> 
>>>And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
>>>breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the
>>>whole thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than 
>>>never,
>>>but better sooner than later.
>>
>>That is unlikely to be true.  WWII did not start in 1939 or 1941 but
>>much earlier for example in Spain in 1936 and China in the early 30s.
>>Intervening more forcefully against Germany would merely have escalated
>>the war earlier before England was ready (France was never ready).  As
>>it happens America blockading Japan's oil shipments in 1940 simply
>>brought forward the date when Japan and USA clashed to December
>>1941 and did not 'nip in the bud' Japanese expansion plans.
> 
> 
> When Hitler first began to expand Germany's military, shortly after grabbing 
> power in 1933, it would have been fairly easy for England or France to have 
> stopped him, even with military intervention, if necessary. Better military 
> intervention in 1933-34 than full scale war in 1939-45. Japan was a 
> different - the US was simply not in position to impose its will entirely on 
> Japan in 1940, or the early 30's. Japan was too far away and the US did not 
> have the military resources in the Pacific to back it up. But England and 
> France sure could have done so to Germany in 1933-34, because Germany was 
> not in position to defend itself, until after Hitler's military buildup had 
> progressed.
> 
> Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after 
> Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do much 
> except get ready, until Germany invaded France.

What astonishes me, Judson, is that you seem to be espousing a complete
rejection of rule by law, and establishing instead a rule by armed
might. Somehow, that does not seem like you, nor United States public
opinion to me.

There is no doubt in my mind that the world needs a court of law, and a
set of laws that we can not only live under, but can actually result in
peace. Somehow, I do not think vigilantism, no matter how motivated, is
the answer.

By rejecting all calls for a world set of laws and a world set of courts
with troops to back them up, and insisting instead that an american
president be the sole adjudicator of all police action for the rest of
the world, the USA is begging to be told "no" by all, and to my mind,
rightly so.

Your patriotism act is downright scary. You are allowing your president
to do anything in the world to anybody in the world who is not a US
citizen, and to do things to citizens that would have been unheard of 10
years ago. You are espousing the complete break-down of law, and a
return to the rule of emperor.

There is a difference between saving the world from evil and conquering
for your own good.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
11/30/2005 1:54:16 AM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
>>Daniel and Judson,
<snip>

Wont even attempt a comment on previous - you are a believer.

>>>Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a 
>>conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews blood 
>>each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And the 
>>author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - Frederick 
>>Forsyth.
> 
> 
> Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a 
> pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)

You couldn't be more wrong about him. Already vitriolic about Socialism, 
(a novelist who hit it big time and plays the country gentleman on his 
own estate), he has as much contempt for John Major, Maggie's successor, 
as he does Tony Blair. Now Maggie, there's his gal - go give it to them 
girl ! He ain't no pacifist.

Whether you accept or reject his individual statements, as a 
Conservative, this is one I would have thought would support the 
fellow-right ideas of Republicans. He thinks you are dead wrong.

Jimmy
0
11/30/2005 5:37:05 AM
Richard wrote:
>>- British occupying Aden
> 
> 
> Did I mention that my grandfather was presented a lion skin cape by Ras
> Tafari when the latter visited Aden in 1922.
> 
You boastin' or complainin'? Grand-daddy wuz a colonial overseer :-)
0
11/30/2005 5:40:43 AM
Peter Lacey wrote:
> 
> And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
> countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
> reporting.  That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
> appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
> news.  Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
> served in Vietnam.  If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
> interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
> his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
> actually have their mike switched off?  Judson, you yourself need to get
> out and hear it from other sources.

Oh Peter. Don't watch it often, but obviously you were tuned into the 
same one as me on the 'Passionae Eye'. I'm with Peter on this one 
Judson, said blonde bitch made such a statement about VN (not sure about 
the numbers though). Interviewer was up on his history, said "No, I 
don't think so...". She promised to get back to him - never did. 
Similarly the asshole Peter is talking about, and an American-Irish 
asshole at that, refused to be interviewed for the program, although 
from clips from Fox his style is to tell 'guests' "SHUT UP !". Wouldn't 
be interviewed on camera but took accusing shots on Fox at the 
'Passionate Eye' that wanted to interview him.

You are severely duped about Fox. Peter mentioned BBC World News - you 
really should tune in - even if you don't want to believe them. Roughly 
a couple of weeks back, up came the American myth, "God, country and the 
flag. Everybody can become a Rockefeller'. A survey was done by some 
European-based economic think-tank. I know you aren't going to believe 
it, and the statement has no political content. 'You stand more chance 
in the rest of the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps from 
the guttter and making something of yourself, than you could ever hope 
to do in the U.S. of A.". Well I suppose Sudan and Darfur might not rank 
as high as USA in the league table.

>>Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a
>>pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
> 
> 
> Well, if you truly believe that, then there is no point in discussing
> anything with you.  The right-wing media have completely taken over your
> thought processes. 

Amen to very last comment.

Get this real straight Judson. We Canucks don't hate you; in fact many 
look kindly towards the States. But we do despair of your political 
thinking as a nation. And we really aren't thrilled about NAFTA - which 
is a set of initials for 'Play it the American way, or don't play at all'.

Jimmy
0
11/30/2005 5:59:46 AM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:1133310602.040480.50600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> it would have been fairly easy for England or France to have
>> stopped him, even with military intervention,
>
> Both had been demilitarising since 1918 and had no forces or equipment
> usable for such an endeavour even if the public would have supported it
> which was unlikely.
>
>> Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after
>> Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do 
>> much
>> except get ready, until Germany invaded France.
>
> It was not just 'better' it was essential.  France never did manage to
> 'get ready' which is why they were overrun. France had an 'empty
> generation' from WWI which meant that in the early 30s they had a
> shortage of people of an age that would form an army or work the
> factories.  Even in 39 or 40 they couldn't get enough men for either.
>
A very dear friend of mine was the daughter of a Sottish lord who shall 
remain nameless.   Through her, I met the nobleman himself. The old boy, 
having fought in France in World War I, shared my general low opinion of 
things French (don't ask... and don't start me. It is fair enough I state my 
bias up front...), and remarked to me once: "You know the trouble with the 
bloody French? They'll fight to the last Englishman..."

I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French champagne 
the other day. It isn't good to carry grudges :-).

Pete. 


0
dashwood1 (2140)
11/30/2005 7:35:39 AM
In article <PC3jf.27$Pc3.11@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>> When Chamberlain came back from Munich
>>> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
>>> about it was cynicism.  Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
>>> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
>>
>> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
>> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
>> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
>> in its plane and tank factories).
>
>
>And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started 
>breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole 
>thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but 
>better sooner than later.

Mr McClendon, Mr Plinston presents what appears to be a fact (in the 
radical sense of 'factum', a done thing) and your response employs a past 
subjunctive ('were they to have').

Had my Sainted Paternal Grandmother - may she sleep with the angels - 
wheels she would have been a trolley-car; in the cardgames of historical 
analysis shoulda/woulda/coulda are frequently trumped by 'did'.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
11/30/2005 1:33:09 PM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>
>> When Hitler first began to expand Germany's military, shortly after 
>> grabbing
>> power in 1933, it would have been fairly easy for England or France to 
>> have
>> stopped him, even with military intervention, if necessary. Better 
>> military
>> intervention in 1933-34 than full scale war in 1939-45. Japan was a
>> different - the US was simply not in position to impose its will entirely 
>> on
>> Japan in 1940, or the early 30's. Japan was too far away and the US did 
>> not
>> have the military resources in the Pacific to back it up. But England and
>> France sure could have done so to Germany in 1933-34, because Germany was
>> not in position to defend itself, until after Hitler's military buildup 
>> had
>> progressed.
>>
>> Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after
>> Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do 
>> much
>> except get ready, until Germany invaded France.
>
> What astonishes me, Judson, is that you seem to be espousing a complete
> rejection of rule by law, and establishing instead a rule by armed
> might. Somehow, that does not seem like you, nor United States public
> opinion to me.

I am not suggesting that, Donald. The WWI Armistice that Germany signed 
permitted England and France (and the US) to restrict Germany from building 
their military. And Germany was breaking that agreement building up their 
military. So the Allies *would* have been acting under legal, international 
agreement tohave stopped Hitler in 1933-34.

> There is no doubt in my mind that the world needs a court of law, and a
> set of laws that we can not only live under, but can actually result in
> peace. Somehow, I do not think vigilantism, no matter how motivated, is
> the answer.

Well, I have serious problems with international law, but for other reasons 
that I won't discuss here. But beyond that, for any legal system to be 
accepted it must work and do what it is supposed todo. International courts 
have been moderatly successful for petty things like banking or fishing 
rights. But when it comes to dealing with dangerous tyrants and terrorists, 
the international bodies are worse than useless. No government could, or 
should, stand by and permit its citizens to be killed by the thousands 
without doing whatever is necessary to prevent it. A government's *first* 
responsibility is to protect the lives, property and freedom of its 
citizens.

> By rejecting all calls for a world set of laws and a world set of courts
> with troops to back them up, and insisting instead that an american
> president be the sole adjudicator of all police action for the rest of
> the world, the USA is begging to be told "no" by all, and to my mind,
> rightly so.

Donald, now you surprise me. For a person as intelligent as yourself, how 
can it not be obvious to you that, for purposes of stemming terrorism and 
dealing with mass murders, the United Nations has been entirely ineffective. 
We're talking life and death here; what happened on 9/11 was no joke. Please 
do not expect a nation who is in dire danger *right now* to wait for years, 
or forever, for countries like France to decide we need protecting. Believe 
me, that *is not* going to happen. It *should not* happen. When someone 
starts killing US citizens by the thousands on US soil, there *will* be 
something done about it. The UN sat for months with countries who should 
have been our allies doing everything in their power to block any progress 
toward dealing with this deadly and imminent threat. That situation should 
have been unacceptable for any nation. It is unacceptable for the US people. 
For someone like yourself to not understand that just blows my mind. If the 
same thing happened to Canada, England, or even France, the US would be the 
first to support their efforts to get something done. First in the UN, but 
certainly by other means if necessary. And we would be there laying our 
lives and resources on the line to help, not sitting on the wayside taking 
potshots at them for doing something about it. This issue would *never* have 
been solved by the UN as it is right now. As Bush clearly pointed out in his 
address to Congress after 9/11, solving the terrorism problem may take 
generations. And with the UN sitting on its hands, if no one else acted, it 
would never be solved.

> Your patriotism act is downright scary. You are allowing your president
> to do anything in the world to anybody in the world who is not a US
> citizen, and to do things to citizens that would have been unheard of 10
> years ago. You are espousing the complete break-down of law, and a
> return to the rule of emperor.

Such comments are fine from someone sitting in their living room having a 
quiet discussion, with no imminent threat. But in times of war, and this is 
a war, countries all through history have done such things. In war, civil 
liberties are always abridged to some degree. It is an unfortunate but 
necessary thing in wartime. But you can believe that there are forces in the 
US that will make sure these things are watched very carefully, and that the 
laws will be changed again when the need is no longer imminent. The American 
people are not about to start tolerating an oppressive government, you can 
be sure of that, too. Again, I am surprised at you. and the rest of the 
world, for being so alarmist on this.

> There is a difference between saving the world from evil and conquering
> for your own good.

We're conquering for our and others' defense in a war against terrorism. 
Period.

You continue to surprise me, Donald. Do you really think the American people 
have an interest in imperialist conquest? We could have *owned* the world 
after WWII. No nation in history was in such a position. After being 
attacked by Japan, the US proceeded to obliterate Japan's military and 
infrastructure. Along with our allies, we did the same thing to Germany. 
With much of the rest of the world in ruins, we had an intact economy and 
infrastructure, an army of 15 million, the largest navy and air force the 
world had ever seen, and alone possessed atomic weapons. But what the US did 
was disarm and come home as quickly as we could. And what the US *did do* 
was forgive our allies' wartime debts, and spend billions of dollars of *our 
money* under the Marshall Plan to rebuild our allies and those very enemies, 
who now enjoy some of the freest and wealthiest cultures in the world. We're 
doing exactly the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan this very minute, 
though you rarely hear about that in the leftist media. The people in US 
territories and possessions have voted repeatedly to continue under the US. 
Anyone who says the US is out for imperialist conquest either has an 
incredible lack of understanding of the American people, or is outright 
lying. The American people want international friends and partners, not 
subjects. You can take that to the bank. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/30/2005 1:33:15 PM
In article <3v532hF13or8nU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French champagne 
>the other day.

I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved 
for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for 
products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark 
laws and all that.  Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines... 
but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.

>It isn't good to carry grudges :-).

Back in the 1980s a Jewish physician I knew purchased a BMW automobile... 
two, actually, one for him and one for the Missus (also Jewish), four-door 
500 series (I remember 523i but my memory is, admittedly, porous).  The 
Missus and her immediate family (parents and a sibling) emigrated to the 
USA from Germany (via Cuba... but that's another story) in 1939; most 
members of her extended family (about twenty-six people) did not get out 
and disappeared to... to wherever Jews in Germany during those years went.  
Several of his friends took him to task for purchasing a German product 
after all that; his response was 'That was a few years ago... and it is 
*such* a good car.'

One winter they hit a patch of glare ice and lost control of the car at 
60mph (100Kmph); it bounced around the road for a goodly distance, hitting 
guard-rails, telephone-poles, a postbox or two... and finally came to a 
stop.  Both passengers - the doctor and the Missus - were completely 
unscathed and despite the slamming-into-things that had just gone on both 
the driver's and passenger's doors opened as though nothing had happened.

As they watch a tow-truck hooking up the highly-damaged remains to take to 
the repair shop the physician said to his wife, rather matter-of-factly, 
'Well... I'd say that a fair amount has been paid back, wouldn't you?'

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
11/30/2005 1:50:20 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> Donald, now you surprise me. For a person as intelligent as yourself, how 
> can it not be obvious to you that, for purposes of stemming terrorism and 
> dealing with mass murders, the United Nations has been entirely ineffective. 
> We're talking life and death here; what happened on 9/11 was no joke. Please 
> do not expect a nation who is in dire danger *right now* to wait for years, 
> or forever, for countries like France to decide we need protecting. Believe 
> me, that *is not* going to happen. It *should not* happen. When someone 
> starts killing US citizens by the thousands on US soil, there *will* be 
> something done about it. The UN sat for months with countries who should 
> have been our allies doing everything in their power to block any progress 
> toward dealing with this deadly and imminent threat. That situation should 
> have been unacceptable for any nation. It is unacceptable for the US people. 
> For someone like yourself to not understand that just blows my mind. If the 
> same thing happened to Canada, England, or even France, the US would be the 
> first to support their efforts to get something done. First in the UN, but 
> certainly by other means if necessary. And we would be there laying our 
> lives and resources on the line to help, not sitting on the wayside taking 
> potshots at them for doing something about it. This issue would *never* have 
> been solved by the UN as it is right now. As Bush clearly pointed out in his 
> address to Congress after 9/11, solving the terrorism problem may take 
> generations. And with the UN sitting on its hands, if no one else acted, it 
> would never be solved.
> 

The entire world was 100% behind the United States after the New York
attack. If the United States had asked for, or even demanded, a set of
laws to deal with the issue at that time, they would have got it.

Instead, they demanded that everyone obey their president, and most of
the world said "No thank you".

I have yet to see evidence that the United States is lessening the
threat of terrorism in any way, shape or form. What I see, is the United
States executive office using it as an excuse to take over the worlds
largest oil field, and in such a way as to increase the terrorist base
on a daily basis.

They seem to have absolutely no compunction at all about breaking all
their own laws, limiting freedom in ways that no terrorist has ever been
able to do, and manufacturing "evidence" to justify actions against
groups that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorism.

I really doubt that press control over things like showing the dead on
TV has much to do with terrorism. It has to with your governments
control over the people that it governs.

The main reason that the UN has been ineffective at controling terrorism
is that the United States has been adamantly opposed to it for years.
They are not interested in *any* laws that do not give them complete
control over the money. They *need* people like the "Shaw of
Iran"(remember him? put into place as a puppet by the US?) to allow them
to exploit the natives.
> 
>>Your patriotism act is downright scary. You are allowing your president
>>to do anything in the world to anybody in the world who is not a US
>>citizen, and to do things to citizens that would have been unheard of 10
>>years ago. You are espousing the complete break-down of law, and a
>>return to the rule of emperor.
> 
> 
> Such comments are fine from someone sitting in their living room having a 
> quiet discussion, with no imminent threat. But in times of war, and this is 
> a war, countries all through history have done such things. In war, civil 
> liberties are always abridged to some degree. It is an unfortunate but 
> necessary thing in wartime. But you can believe that there are forces in the 
> US that will make sure these things are watched very carefully, and that the 
> laws will be changed again when the need is no longer imminent. The American 
> people are not about to start tolerating an oppressive government, you can 
> be sure of that, too. Again, I am surprised at you. and the rest of the 
> world, for being so alarmist on this.
> 
> 
>>There is a difference between saving the world from evil and conquering
>>for your own good.
> 
> 
> We're conquering for our and others' defense in a war against terrorism. 
> Period.
> 
> You continue to surprise me, Donald. Do you really think the American people 
> have an interest in imperialist conquest? We could have *owned* the world 
> after WWII. No nation in history was in such a position. After being 
> attacked by Japan, the US proceeded to obliterate Japan's military and 
> infrastructure. Along with our allies, we did the same thing to Germany. 
> With much of the rest of the world in ruins, we had an intact economy and 
> infrastructure, an army of 15 million, the largest navy and air force the 
> world had ever seen, and alone possessed atomic weapons. But what the US did 
> was disarm and come home as quickly as we could. And what the US *did do* 
> was forgive our allies' wartime debts, and spend billions of dollars of *our 
> money* under the Marshall Plan to rebuild our allies and those very enemies, 
> who now enjoy some of the freest and wealthiest cultures in the world. We're 
> doing exactly the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan this very minute, 
> though you rarely hear about that in the leftist media. The people in US 
> territories and possessions have voted repeatedly to continue under the US. 
> Anyone who says the US is out for imperialist conquest either has an 
> incredible lack of understanding of the American people, or is outright 
> lying. The American people want international friends and partners, not 
> subjects. You can take that to the bank. :-)

I agree, that is exactly what the American people want.  What I doubt is
that your executive branch want the same.  Your executive branch appear
to want the world oil fields, and will do anything to get them,
including lying, law breaking, secret police, and manufacturing evidence
to invade countries that had nothing to do with the attack.

The attack in New York was financed by Saudia Arabian citizens, the
executive branch's closest friends in the area to this day. It is also
the area's most oppressive government, and has been for years. Bush
socializes with these people and does bussiness with them on a regular
basis. At the same time, he is killing off civilians and bombing towns
as being "terrorist controled", but the definition of terrorist is
defined as "being anti-USA invasion".

That is not a "war on terrorism".  It is a recipe *for* terrorism. As
long as it keeps going on, the USA will be in a war, and as long as you
are in the war, then your executive branch can do whatever they want as
being justified by war. They get rich, and your people die.

You are being suckered.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
11/30/2005 2:44:06 PM
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:50:20 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved 
>for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for 
>products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark 
>laws and all that.  Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines... 
>but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.

How about we expand on this and only use sandwich for food from the
Earldom?

Or is this a matter of whom pays the lawyers and politicians the most?
0
howard (6283)
11/30/2005 3:25:20 PM
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:32:52 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>Iraq isn't Iran. There was never in recent times the religious fanatacism in 
>Iraq that we've seen in e.g. Iran. Most of the fanaticism we see in Iraq is 
>imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. BTW - much of the population of Iran, 
>and for some reason, especially the younger people, really like the US. It 
>is the ruling Mulas, not the general population, who so hate the US. I 
>gurantee you won't hear that in the European media!

Things are changing.   Religious fanatics certainly have more power
and success in Iraq than they did before we took over.
0
howard (6283)
11/30/2005 3:47:26 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Peter Lacey wrote:
>>
>> And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
>> countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
>> reporting.  That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
>> appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
>> news.  Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
>> served in Vietnam.  If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
>> interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
>> his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
>> actually have their mike switched off?  Judson, you yourself need to get
>> out and hear it from other sources.
>
> Oh Peter. Don't watch it often, but obviously you were tuned into the same 
> one as me on the 'Passionae Eye'. I'm with Peter on this one Judson, said 
> blonde bitch made such a statement about VN (not sure about the numbers 
> though). Interviewer was up on his history, said "No, I don't think 
> so...". She promised to get back to him - never did. Similarly the asshole 
> Peter is talking about, and an American-Irish asshole at that, refused to 
> be interviewed for the program, although from clips from Fox his style is 
> to tell 'guests' "SHUT UP !". Wouldn't be interviewed on camera but took 
> accusing shots on Fox at the 'Passionate Eye' that wanted to interview 
> him.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought Fox News was perfect, I only said they 
had a balance of liberal and conservative opinion. What you both to fail to 
understand is that you have been exposed to extreme liberal bias in the 
media so consistently and for so long, that you don't even have a correct 
mental picture of what conservatives are really about. All you ever see 
portrayed is distorted caricatures. You receive no balancing conservative 
viewpoints, because they were simply not out there until Fox News came 
along, imperfect as it is. And by then, your mental images were so 
influenced by liberal bias, that every conservative viewpoint you hear seems 
biased to you.

I was exposed to this liberal bias all my life. My parents were "yellow dog" 
Democrats. It was only when I got older and had a chance to see both sides 
with a more balanced eye that I became a conservative. I have seen both 
sides, I have been on both sides of this argument. I really doubt either of 
you can claim this. :-)

I respectfully insist it is you two who need to see more clearly. You should 
read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, if you don't believe there is profound 
liberal media bias. Bernard Goldberg documents it very clearly, and he *is* 
a liberal, who has never voted Republican in his life. Or read "Useful 
Idiots" by Mona Charen. You should definitely read at least one of 
"Slander", "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)",  "Treason", or "High 
Crimes and Misdemeanors" all by Ann Coulter, a truly brilliant and clear 
thinking conservative. :-)

> You are severely duped about Fox. Peter mentioned BBC World News - you 
> really should tune in - even if you don't want to believe them. Roughly a 
> couple of weeks back, up came the American myth, "God, country and the 
> flag. Everybody can become a Rockefeller'. A survey was done by some 
> European-based economic think-tank. I know you aren't going to believe it, 
> and the statement has no political content. 'You stand more chance in the 
> rest of the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps from the guttter 
> and making something of yourself, than you could ever hope to do in the 
> U.S. of A.". Well I suppose Sudan and Darfur might not rank as high as USA 
> in the league table.

Pardon me, but the distortions in the paragraph above are really serious. 
First off, no one that I ever heard has said anything like "everybody can 
become a Rockefeller." I don't know how easy it is to become wealthy in 
other places, but whoever made the statement "You stand more chance in the 
rest of the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps from the guttter 
and making something of yourself, than you could ever hope to do in the U.S. 
of A" must have come from another planet, because they couldn't possibly 
have actually looked at the situation here in the US. Just in the 90's 
alone, there were tens of thousands of regular production line laborers here 
who became millionaires from stock options. I write computer programs for a 
living and live in a near-rural suburb of a moderate city, and I live in a 
4600 sq ft house, valued at $300,000 here, but would go for very much more 
in a large city. I am by no means out of the ordinary here, and I grew up on 
a farm. My dad grew up in a family of 10 kids and only had shoes in the 
winter, and on Christmas they got maybe an orange and an apple. But before 
he died he owned several hundred acres of farmland and was very successful, 
though not 'wealthy'. My mom's dad only went through the third grade, but he 
hed several hundred acres of farmland before he died. Colin Powell grew up 
dirt poor in a large family. Condelesa Rice had a very modest beginning, 
right here in Birmingham. But all of us worked very hard for what we have, 
it doesn't fall off threes. :-) The American Dream is not, and never was, 
everyone becoming a Rockefeller, but everyone having a fair opportunity to 
make a good life with hard work. And that dream is very much alive and well 
here. The last time I checked, there were more millionaires in the US than 
anywhere else. And very, very many of those millionaires started out 
modestly. Sure, there are poor here. But there are many other reasons than 
lack of opportunity for that, for example "poverty mentality". Liberal 
programs for welfare and such have actually exacerbated the situation, 
rather than helped, in part because they enable failure and encourage poor 
women to stay single and pregnant. Welfare programs were made more 
restrictive a number of years ago, and the poverty situation has improved 
somewhat.

>>>Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's 
>>>a
>>>pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
>>
>> Well, if you truly believe that, then there is no point in discussing
>> anything with you.  The right-wing media have completely taken over your
>> thought processes.
>
> Amen to very last comment.
>
> Get this real straight Judson. We Canucks don't hate you; in fact many 
> look kindly towards the States. But we do despair of your political 
> thinking as a nation. And we really aren't thrilled about NAFTA - which is 
> a set of initials for 'Play it the American way, or don't play at all'.

I was opposed to and hate NAFTA myself. :-)

Jimmy, are you aware of the fact that during the 20th century over 90% of 
the patents granted worldwide were for processes developed in the US, even 
though the US is only about 5% of the world's population? Why do you think 
that is? Are we US citizens that stupid when all the rest of the world is so 
smart? Could it be possible that we here in the US are not quite as ignorant 
and dumb as everybody seems to think we are? It was the US that put men on 
the Moon, the US who mainly resisted and contained the USSR until it fell, 
and the US that created the Internet and countless other things that have 
been of great benefit to the whole world. Why are you and others so 
convinced it is the US who is wrong here? Did you know that when a disaster 
strikes somewhere, the US contributes more food and other relief then the 
rest of the world combined? The US has done more good than any other country 
in modern times, and rarely gets credit for it. And the US seems to be 
constantly vilified around the world. I realize that this is often directed 
against the US government rather than US citizens, but that is not always 
obvious when the epithets fly. Whether it is realized or not, Americans like 
other peoples and want to be friends with the rest of the world, and can be 
resentful when they are constantly lambasted as bad guys.

The US has its faults, like every other country. And believe me, the 
American people do not want the US to be the world's policeman. But one 
thing makes Americans get deadly serious, and that is when our homeland is 
physically attacked and our innocent families murdered. Nothing so inflames 
the American people as an unprovoked attack. (As an aside, I personally 
believe that the primary reason the American Indians were virtually wiped 
out was the fact that they started attacking the white man's families 
directly.) The worst thing the Japanese could have done in 1941 was to 
attack the US directly without warning (yes, I know they intended to give a 
token warning just before the attack). The US population went nuts, and the 
immediate, virtually unanimous sentiment was to get Japan at all costs. 
There was much sentiment at the time to let the Brits and Russians deal with 
Hitler, but Germany declared war on the US a few days later. (I always 
wondered why Hitler did that. In retrospect, it seems a particularly dumb 
move, but Hitler made a lot of those.) Even the World Trade Center bombing 
in 1993 and the embassy bombings didn't provoke the American people to such 
a degree. But 9/11 was like another Pearl Harbor. I was born after WWII, and 
in my lifetime I have never seen such widespread rage, and such unanimity of 
resolve against a common enemy, as there was after 9/11. The US began to 
gird itself for war, and if history is any guide, it won't be over until the 
enemy's ability to threaten us is eliminated, no matter what it costs or how 
long it takes. I can assure you that most Americans do not understand why so 
many people in the international community do not understand our motive and 
resolve on this issue. Americans would be highly sympathetic and supportive 
of anyone else in our situation.

This is not the way I would express my personal feelings, but many Americans 
I know would probably express it succinctly like this: "A lot of American 
blood has been spilled defeating tyranny in Europe and many other places 
around the world, but it looks like that didn't earn us much of a break when 
our homeland came under attack." Though my sentiments come from a different 
direction, I can't say I am entirely unsympathetic to that viewpoint. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/30/2005 4:10:48 PM
In article <eugro11f3p18fs5kk4ihkojtq73kp7vc8r@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee  <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:50:20 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved 
>>for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for 
>>products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark 
>>laws and all that.  Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines... 
>>but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
>
>How about we expand on this and only use sandwich for food from the
>Earldom?

Feel free to attempt this expansion, Mr Brazee... I'll await to read about 
the results on the newswires.

>
>Or is this a matter of whom pays the lawyers and politicians the most?

As much as any sort of legislation might be, perhaps.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
11/30/2005 4:13:36 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Daniel and Judson,
> <snip>
>
> Wont even attempt a comment on previous - you are a believer.
>
>>>>Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a
>>>conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews 
>>>blood each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And 
>>>the author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - 
>>>Frederick Forsyth.
>>
>> Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's 
>> a pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
>
> You couldn't be more wrong about him. Already vitriolic about Socialism, 
> (a novelist who hit it big time and plays the country gentleman on his own 
> estate), he has as much contempt for John Major, Maggie's successor, as he 
> does Tony Blair. Now Maggie, there's his gal - go give it to them girl ! 
> He ain't no pacifist.
>
> Whether you accept or reject his individual statements, as a Conservative, 
> this is one I would have thought would support the fellow-right ideas of 
> Republicans. He thinks you are dead wrong.


That may be, Jimmy, I don't know Mr. Forsyth. But he's still poorly 
informed, or somehow ill motivated, on this issue. Conservatives aren't in 
lock-step like cookies out of a cookie cutter, you know. :-)

I see conservatives here in the US as consisting of two very different 
groups. One group I would label the same as liberals often label all 
conservatives, "Fat Cat Conservatives." They have it, they intend to keep 
it, and they don't want anyone else to get it. Though this group exists, it 
is in reality a tiny fraction of all conservatives, many of whom (like me) 
have as much contempt for them as do liberals. Unfortunately, in politics 
they wield a disproportionate influence because of their wealth. The other 
group, the vast majority of conservatives, I would label "Heart 
Conservatives" who hold conservative views from personal conviction. We base 
our convictions (whether consciously or not) on traditional Judeo-Christian 
values, such as integrity, personal responsibility, reward for hard work, 
personal ownership of property, minimal government, etc. There are only 
narrow areas, such as personal responsibility, ownership rights and minimal 
government, where we Heart Conservatives have common ground with the Fat 
Cats, and even there it is for different reasons. My personal opinion of GWB 
is that he is a combination. He grew up among the Fat Cats, and I believe 
his dad GHWB is largely a Fat Cat. I was not happy when Reagan chose GHWB to 
run as VP. But I have corroboration, through a number of non media channels 
that I trust, that GWB's personal convictions are indeed as he claims. He is 
constantly vilified by the liberal media, but I believe GWB is an honest man 
who is who he says he is. I also believe your buddy Jimmy C is an honest 
man, though he is unfortunately hopelessly inept. I supported Jimmy C before 
he was elected, though his presidency was a comedy of ineptitude, and helped 
to bring about the lowest US public morale I have ever witnessed. Jimmy C 
wasn't entirely responsible, of course, but his ineptitude made it much 
worse.

Let me relate an anecdote that I hope will amuse, and maybe inform you. A 
friend who goes to my church told me about going to a meeting of a community 
group that helps people with certain kinds of needs, IIRC abused wives and 
children. He said that during the meeting, everyone was asked to stand and 
identify themselves. As they did, my friend was surprised that every single 
person seemed to be a conservative. After the meeting he asked the 
chairwoman about it. She laughed and said "Why, you don't see liberals in 
groups like this. They don't get personally involved with actually helping 
people." Though this is not true of all liberals, over the years the 
expression "Liberals are about form, not substance" has been born out in my 
personal experience much more often than not. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/30/2005 5:04:11 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
>>Peter Lacey wrote:
>>
>>>And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
>>>countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
>>>reporting.  That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
>>>appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
>>>news.  Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
>>>served in Vietnam.  If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
>>>interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
>>>his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
>>>actually have their mike switched off?  Judson, you yourself need to get
>>>out and hear it from other sources.
>>
>>Oh Peter. Don't watch it often, but obviously you were tuned into the same 
>>one as me on the 'Passionae Eye'. I'm with Peter on this one Judson, said 
>>blonde bitch made such a statement about VN (not sure about the numbers 
>>though). Interviewer was up on his history, said "No, I don't think 
>>so...". She promised to get back to him - never did. Similarly the asshole 
>>Peter is talking about, and an American-Irish asshole at that, refused to 
>>be interviewed for the program, although from clips from Fox his style is 
>>to tell 'guests' "SHUT UP !". Wouldn't be interviewed on camera but took 
>>accusing shots on Fox at the 'Passionate Eye' that wanted to interview 
>>him.
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that I thought Fox News was perfect, I only said they 
> had a balance of liberal and conservative opinion. What you both to fail to 
> understand is that you have been exposed to extreme liberal bias in the 
> media so consistently and for so long, that you don't even have a correct 
> mental picture of what conservatives are really about. All you ever see 
> portrayed is distorted caricatures. You receive no balancing conservative 
> viewpoints, because they were simply not out there until Fox News came 
> along, imperfect as it is. And by then, your mental images were so 
> influenced by liberal bias, that every conservative viewpoint you hear seems 
> biased to you.
> 

Judson, I actually laughed out loud at this. Some of us here, do not
live in the United States.  We read *world* news, and get a variety that
you have absolutely no conception of.

Of course, in Canada we have the most conservative, richest banker that
that we could find as head of the liberal party, and a rather stupid
religious bigot in charge of the conservative party. The only other
possibility is an academic with his head up his ass, so who am I to talk?

Personally, I think everyone in politics a complete bullshit artist.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
11/30/2005 5:10:31 PM
In article <0Wkjf.44674$6y4.3666@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Let me relate an anecdote that I hope will amuse, and maybe inform you. A 
>friend who goes to my church told me about going to a meeting of a community 
>group that helps people with certain kinds of needs, IIRC abused wives and 
>children.

This reminds me of... another anecdote.  Years 'n years back I met a woman 
at a social gathering who said that for one of the classes she was taking 
for her MA (I don't recall the discipline of the degree) she'd just 
completed a study of child/spousal abuse.  I deadpanned 'How 
interesting... did you come out for or against it?'

In the utterly shocked silence that followed I added 'Well... I was taught 
that one should not enter into a study with a preconceived notion of the 
outcome as that might effect the perceived results.  Has that changed?'

Fortunately she was not so full-of-self that she couldn't laugh.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
11/30/2005 5:31:10 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>>Iraq isn't Iran. There was never in recent times the religious fanatacism 
>>in
>>Iraq that we've seen in e.g. Iran. Most of the fanaticism we see in Iraq 
>>is
>>imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. BTW - much of the population of 
>>Iran,
>>and for some reason, especially the younger people, really like the US. It
>>is the ruling Mulas, not the general population, who so hate the US. I
>>gurantee you won't hear that in the European media!
>
> Things are changing.   Religious fanatics certainly have more power
> and success in Iraq than they did before we took over.

As I've said before, what is happening in Iraq with the terrorists is called 
in military parlance a "meeting engagement." IOW, both sides are 
concentrating the fight there. I see this as a Positive Thing for several 
reasons. Every terrorist we confront and kill with our military over there 
is one less terrorist who will bomb our civilians over here, and money spent 
to provoke terrorism there is money not spent to provoke terrorism here. You 
would never hear this from liberal news, but there *is not* an infinite 
number of people who would become suicidal terrorists. Many, yes, but a very 
finite and not enormously large, number. And they *must* have a support base 
to be successful. Right now they are killing Moslem civilians, and that is 
turning the Moslem civilian population against them. Please *do not* 
construe from that statement that I think killing Moslem civilians is any 
better than killing Christian civilians. I only mean that they're killing 
people in their support base, and that has got to be a Bad Thing for the 
terrorists over time.

This war against terrorism is going to take time, maybe a very long time. 
George Bush said early on that it might take generations. But it could also 
be much sooner than we think. There were times during WWII that looked very 
bleak indeed for the Allies. The early years 1939-1942 seemed an almost 
continuous series of defeats and setbacks. Adapting our military to deal 
effectively with this threat is not an overnight thing, but it is being 
done. The troops dealing with the terrorists now are learning. As you said, 
things are changing, and they will continue to change. We will soon see 
flourishing democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing prosperity and 
freedom, and this will be devastating to the dictatorial governments of the 
Middle East, eventually removing the terrorist support base. The people of 
the Middle East are well aware of these things. There have already been 
large public demonstrations in Lebanon for freedom and democracy. There will 
be many more in many places as democracy progresses in Iraq & Afghanistan. 
Free and prosperous people do not support terrorism.

No one who allows themselves to be stopped by problems ever accomplishes 
much. Almost every success story in history is fraught with problems, 
setbacks and naysayers. How many successful efforts in history were 
accompanied by shouts of "It's going badly, it's not going to work" or "You 
have to stop, you're making it worse, not better!"? I suspect, most of them. 
:-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/30/2005 5:56:26 PM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>
>> I didn't mean to imply that I thought Fox News was perfect, I only said 
>> they
>> had a balance of liberal and conservative opinion. What you both to fail 
>> to
>> understand is that you have been exposed to extreme liberal bias in the
>> media so consistently and for so long, that you don't even have a correct
>> mental picture of what conservatives are really about. All you ever see
>> portrayed is distorted caricatures. You receive no balancing conservative
>> viewpoints, because they were simply not out there until Fox News came
>> along, imperfect as it is. And by then, your mental images were so
>> influenced by liberal bias, that every conservative viewpoint you hear 
>> seems
>> biased to you.
>
> Judson, I actually laughed out loud at this. Some of us here, do not
> live in the United States.  We read *world* news, and get a variety that
> you have absolutely no conception of.

Well, at least I gave you a good laugh, that means it wasn't entirely 
wasted. :-)

> Of course, in Canada we have the most conservative, richest banker that
> that we could find as head of the liberal party, and a rather stupid
> religious bigot in charge of the conservative party. The only other
> possibility is an academic with his head up his ass, so who am I to talk?

With such conservatives as you describe, Donald, it makes my point. You 
don't get to see demonstrated what the majority of thinking conservatives 
are all about. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/30/2005 6:02:21 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:

> This issue would *never* have 
> been solved by the UN as it is right now. As Bush clearly pointed out in his 
> address to Congress after 9/11, solving the terrorism problem may take 
> generations. And with the UN sitting on its hands, if no one else acted, it 
> would never be solved.

Judson I really think the above could do with an actual quote - have you 
got one on Dubya and what he said *exactly*. (Otherwise I think you are 
doing an Anne Coulter - I think that's the name of the lady Peter was 
referring to. Attractive, intelligent, smooth, and quick to produce a 
fact without substantiation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but other than 
local Asian allies, I don't think a single Western nation fought in Viet 
Nam - unless you want to qualify the French at Dien bien Phu - but then 
it was French-Indo China anyway). Along with everybody else Canadians 
were in Korea, but then they took on a UN peace-keeping role. They again 
only actively got involved in 'war' as such, as a result of 9/11 and 
Saddam. Some naval vessels in the Gulf, several tours in Afghanistan, 
and currently - but small in numbers compared to US involvement.

As cynical humourist Jon Stewart pointed out with film clips, there's 
Dubya saying "It's over", followed by Congressional hearing snips where 
generals are saying something like, "Well we know historically that 
terrorism takes decades to cure". One can well imagine Donald Rumsfeld 
was not a happy camper when his subordinates made those remarks.

Jimmy
0
11/30/2005 6:43:48 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>
>> This issue would *never* have been solved by the UN as it is right now. 
>> As Bush clearly pointed out in his address to Congress after 9/11, 
>> solving the terrorism problem may take generations. And with the UN 
>> sitting on its hands, if no one else acted, it would never be solved.
>
> Judson I really think the above could do with an actual quote - have you 
> got one on Dubya and what he said *exactly*. (Otherwise I think you are 
> doing an Anne Coulter - I think that's the name of the lady Peter was 
> referring to. Attractive, intelligent, smooth, and quick to produce a fact 
> without substantiation.

If you read one of Coulter's books you would find that they are *very 
heavily* footnoted with references. My daughter and I were discussing 
exactly this a few days ago (my daughter has a degree in journalism), and 
she was expressing surprise at how very extensive the references are.

I thought I had taped GWB's address to Congress after 9/11, but I can't seem 
to find it. All I can tell you is that what I remember him saying was 
something very close to "This war against terrorism will take a long time, 
and we might not even live to see the end. Our children may have to complete 
the job." He went to some length to stress this was no quick fix, but a long 
haul deal. It's always annoyed me that the press kept harping on "quick war" 
as if they didn't listen to what he said. Of course, it's always easier to 
create a false strawman, then attack that.

> As cynical humourist Jon Stewart pointed out with film clips, there's 
> Dubya saying "It's over", followed by Congressional hearing snips where 
> generals are saying something like, "Well we know historically that 
> terrorism takes decades to cure". One can well imagine Donald Rumsfeld was 
> not a happy camper when his subordinates made those remarks.

I've paid careful attention to GWB's comments and have never heard him say 
anything that sounded to me that he was implying the war on terrorism would 
be anything but a long haul. But it's easy to see that he is a very casual 
person, and likes to speak as if he were talking to friends. I believe his 
remark "It's over" was simply referring to the immediate military action, 
meaning that the organized Iraqi military resistance had collapsed. Perhaps 
Bush should be more guarded, but I like his openness. People I highly 
respect and who have keen discernment have met personally with GWB and say 
that his openness and honesty are surprisingly real.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/30/2005 7:52:33 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <PC3jf.27$Pc3.11@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> When Chamberlain came back from Munich
>>>> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
>>>> about it was cynicism.  Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
>>>> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
>>>
>>> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
>>> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
>>> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
>>> in its plane and tank factories).
>>
>>And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
>>breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
>>thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
>>better sooner than later.
>
> Mr McClendon, Mr Plinston presents what appears to be a fact (in the
> radical sense of 'factum', a done thing) and your response employs a past
> subjunctive ('were they to have').
>
> Had my Sainted Paternal Grandmother - may she sleep with the angels -
> wheels she would have been a trolley-car; in the cardgames of historical
> analysis shoulda/woulda/coulda are frequently trumped by 'did'.


If you go back to what started this particular subthread, it was me saying 
that Bad People are usually dealt with much later than would have been wise. 
In that context, it makes perfect sense for me to respond to a 'did' with a 
'shoulda/woulda/coulda', because the "shoulda/woulda/coulda" was the essence 
of my point. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
11/30/2005 8:35:07 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that I thought Fox News was perfect, I only said they 
> had a balance of liberal and conservative opinion. What you both to fail to 
> understand is that you have been exposed to extreme liberal bias in the 
> media so consistently and for so long, that you don't even have a correct 
> mental picture of what conservatives are really about. All you ever see 
> portrayed is distorted caricatures. You receive no balancing conservative 
> viewpoints, because they were simply not out there until Fox News came 
> along, imperfect as it is. And by then, your mental images were so 
> influenced by liberal bias, that every conservative viewpoint you hear seems 
> biased to you.
<snip>

Judson,

Much, much too long to respond in detail with a tit for tat - and 
besides which it doesn't change people's thoughts.

My own political catharsis. Brought up in N. London, the first child of 
blue-collar workers, Irish immigrants. The Thirties were tough for 
everybody in the world. Educated by my parents saving like mad to send 
me to a catholic 'grammar' school rather than finish at an elementary.
They never espoused political thought, but Labour (Socialists) had an 
appeal to them - supporting the working man. My very first vote in the 
RAF - I went for Winston, the war hero. I told my parents, they were 
shocked but never made a judgment.

My new found adult experiences exposed me to the snobbishness and 
hypocrisy that existed in the military - just an extension of 
Establishment thinking that the gentry were the only ones who should be 
in charge. There are plenty of 'officers' in the military, but certainly 
a shortage of 'gentlemen'.

Not even a concrete awareness, but I didn't favour Labour, they had some 
bright ex-university types but too much influence from 'uneducated' 
vocal trade union leaders, "Oon-acustomhed as Ah am to spekin' in 
publick, Ah sez we gotta ....". A gross distorted characterization - but 
an attempt to convey my reaction. Similarly Conservatives - partially 
covered above, but that snotty attitude that they should be in charge 
and, "Oh deary, deary me why are you poor folks so want to doing so much 
complaining....". Didn't care for that either. So without a deliberate 
move I became a centrist in political thought, borrowing ideas from both 
Right and Left as I saw fit. There is after all no black and white in 
life. So politically for me, and though considerably too small in 
numbers to be effective in Parliament, I put my hat on the Liberals.

I'm still of that centrist view over here and regularly vote Liberal 
both federally and provincially. But I would dearly like to see Paul 
Martin and the current set get the boot in January - we just need a 
bloody change of team, fresh ideas, fresh approach etc., even if for 
only six months. Maggie Thatcher 12 or 13 years, same with Tony Blair, 
and from Chretien onwards, I believe our Liberals here have had a 
12-year stint. I will still vote Liberal come January; won't make a damn 
bit of difference, a fellow-catholic Jason Kennedy will still get the 
conservative seat he already holds and unless a thunderbolt descends 
from the sky - we will still finish up with a Liberal minority 
government in Ottawa - Back to Square One.

Now before you jump in - don't go quoting me on your two-term maximum 
for a president. You have an obsessiveness down there for writing 
everything down in a book and dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Want 
to change anything, folks keep coming back at you with quotes from the 
nth amendment to the Constitution, why you can or can't. It isn't a dig 
at J4 - but the COBOL specification is conceived in a similar fashion as 
an ANSI 'subsidiary'. Given a parliamentary form of government with the 
simple mechanism of a vote of no confidence in the ruling party, given 
current poll ratings, Dubya would already be out on his ear.

Some 50% of Americans would be dismayed, but the remainder of the 
population and the rest of the world, "Good riddance". I could suggest 
he is mentally-challenged - more clearly he is both stubborn and stupid, 
even though his 'folksy' style is that of the cunning fox in amongst the 
hens.

Above my route to political beliefs. Now to your suggestion that Peter 
and I are two virgins seduced by a Liberal media.

Firstly whether you are an entrepreneur or a 'performer' (newspaper 
columnist or anchor man/woman sat in front of a camera) the prime 
objective is to make money and show a profit. You get nowhere if your 
product can't capture an audience, i.e. generate incoming revenue from 
advertising spots. Now I find it extremely difficult to accept that 
fellow-minded liberals, their minds already made up, planned and 
deliberately started the various networks ABC, CNN, whatever. Same sort 
of thing goes for PBS which Republicans love to hate and try and reduce 
public funding. Same sort of mix in Canada with independent networks and 
UK with it's ITV etc. But Canada and UK have their 'independent' 
government funded CBC and BBC respectively. I think it's the same down 
in Oz with ABC.

Fox obviously appeals to a segment of the population that likes its 
message; people who like what they are hearing - it seems so close to 
their own perceptions. We often joke up here about 'ignorant Yanks'. 
Somebody coming across the border near Vancouver and asking for a map of 
downtown Canada. Some arriving with skis in July. And only last night
over a nice Christmas meal at a chicken joint called Swiss Chalet, an 
acquaintance said he was appalled down in Georgia, possibly at a gas 
station, when in response to telling the man he was from Canada, got the 
reaction, "Canada ? Oh that's somewhere up north isn't it ?". Without 
doubt there must be some Canucks in the same vein - but you do appear to 
have a preponderance. Whether Fox or CNN, not too difficult to guage 
that these intellectual bright bulbs can get sucked in by a message.

I rarely watch CBC, can't figure it out, but somehow doesn't fit my 
needs. Most times I'm looking at US channels, primarily for 
documentaries and decent exciting or uplifting movies. Only occasionally 
do I watch your news programmes - particularly during Gulf War II - but 
I really started to get bored with the constant repetitive message of 
embedded correspondents. And as for watching a camera mounted on the 
front of a car where the 'brave souls' inside were going up a long 
stretch of apparently dangerous road for some thirty minutes - Well ! As 
an outsider looking in on the goldfish bowl I haven't sensed the US 
public being duped by an evil liberal media. But as both Peter and I 
mentioned we certainly saw that being done on extracts from Fox with 
Anne Coulter and that bombastic re-incarnation of Joe McCarthy - and I 
still can't remember his damn name.

First off, the message we get up here is that you conservatives 
(Republicans) are in charge of the airwaves (radio). The likes of Rush 
Limbaugh or whatever his name is. But again a message is being trotted 
out that appeals to the particular listening audience.

Newspapers. Have no knowledge of how they operate in the States. A 
little refreshing here in Canada. Canadian Conrad Black; aka Lord Black 
of Coldharbour, dressed in his ermine robes, had to forgo his Canadian 
citizenship to get the UK title, firstly trying to sue Chretien for not 
allowing a Canuck to have a UK title, then actually gets it from a 
Socialist Prime Minister in 10 Downing Street ! (I do hope the courts in 
Illinois or Chicago put him away for his hanky-panky with 
Hollinger/Hollinger International). Dear Conrad successfully started up 
a paper in Canada and eventually finished up owning all the ones that 
mattered. An Anglophile he set up residence in UK and acquired the Daily 
Telegraph group. He in turn sold his Canadian interests to an avowed 
Liberal, Izzy Asper; Israel is now dead and his son Leonard runs the 
show, Canwest with TV affiliates.

Newspapering - to make money. The Calgary Herald is part of that Liberal 
owned group. Many moons ago the paper had as its editor an Irishman, 
suitably supported by his young feisty local lass, (born in UK during 
the Blitz and with a Canadian-Irish dad). Both the boss and the damsel 
were Liberals, and set the tone of the paper accordingly. ZONK ! went 
the advertising revenues as the downtown oil guys got pissed off with 
the message the paper was generating. After a few shuffles at 
musical-chairs, different management styles etc., we finish up to-day 
with a paper *owned* by Liberals. Money matters, so in a Conservative 
stronghold the right wing message matters. However, with some 
enlightenment the 'Left' is not ignored. Given a theme I'll see two 
articles juxtapositioned, Nigel Hanniford, elegant-looking Brit and how 
so smooth, up against a newcomer 'lefty' Naomi Lakrotvitz, chubby and 
not particularly attractive - both giving you the dirt from their point 
of view. I *really* like that - two points of view which I can balance 
in my mind and arrive at my own conclusions.

How the rest of Canada fares with hard print I don't know. Perhaps some 
other Canucks can comment.

I've gone on long enough already, and as Pete observed a while back, 
minds will remain unchanged. Hardly likely at 74 that I am going to have 
a political Epiphany, or you being sixty-ish will change your thoughts 
either. Only time will tell, perhaps we might see a pattern after Dubya, 
say 2012, but I suspect longer. I'm neither an optimist nor a pessimist, 
collecting thoughts in my head as events occur - there's no category for 
it but between 'optimist' and 'pessimist' call me a 'mellowist'. It 
figures, I can't gone on forever, even if they install an Energizer 
battery :-)

I don't go there myself at all frequently, but BBC does have a lot of 
back-up articles on their news items at their site. Just go take a look 
out of curiosity. Same applies to PBS - but I've never looked.
It used to be intriguing while domiciled in the UK to see Time magazine 
express its view of the UK, (Swinging London in the Sixties - big plus, 
British Food - what food ?, British Food Part 2 - hey it ain't so bad, 
they've improved, Economics - iffy etc....). Similarly I think the 
Economist did some articles about a year ago on how you are in the 
doggy-doo with your National Debt - particularly now that we have Gulf 
War II.

Meanwhile I'll keep tapping away at the keyboard to stop myself from 
going nuts and succumbing to Alzheimer's. Who knows, but for the bucks 
involved, I might just splash out for a touch screen - then I could 
write a dissertation for Rick on Touch Screens and the OO classes needed :-)

Jimmy, Calgary AB
0
11/30/2005 9:41:57 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:

> With such conservatives as you describe, Donald, it makes my point. You
> don't get to see demonstrated what the majority of thinking conservatives
> are all about. :-)
> --

Y'know, Judson, this argument is trotted out every time a proponent of
some group or other is presented with a rancid example of the group. 
The orthodox within the group immediately disown the bad example saying
that he isn't a true "whatever": liberals, conservatives, Catholics,
Protestants, skateboarders, Goth musicians (I include these two quite
seriously) ... the list goes on.  If the person was >>ever<< accepted as
a member of the group then it looks pretty feeble to attempt to distance
the group from him when he turns out to be undesirable.

As far as I understand it, "conservative" by your definition involves a
fairly rigid fundamentalist Christian component.  But I'm willing to
learn.  Exactly what do you mean by "conservative"?  Stake out your own
definition for criticism instead of just scoffing at everyone else!

PL
0
lacey1 (490)
11/30/2005 10:18:17 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
 >>Of course, in Canada we have the most conservative, richest banker that
>>that we could find as head of the liberal party, and a rather stupid
>>religious bigot in charge of the conservative party. The only other
>>possibility is an academic with his head up his ass, so who am I to talk?
> 
> 
> With such conservatives as you describe, Donald, it makes my point. You 
> don't get to see demonstrated what the majority of thinking conservatives 
> are all about. :-)

Sure I do ... it's called the Canadian Liberal Party. Essentially, our
Liberals are the equivalent of your conservatives, and our conservatives
are the equivalent of your religious right. The NDPer's are about the
same as your Ralph Nader's, with a union movement added in.

Our real liberals move to the woods, and refuse to have anything to do
with the whole damned lot, while the equivalent of your rednecks never
look up from the hockey rink and their beer. The countries are much the
same, it's the language that is different.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
11/30/2005 10:37:30 PM
In article <M%njf.44702$6y4.3174@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <PC3jf.27$Pc3.11@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>> When Chamberlain came back from Munich
>>>>> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
>>>>> about it was cynicism.  Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
>>>>> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
>>>> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
>>>> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
>>>> in its plane and tank factories).
>>>
>>>And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
>>>breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
>>>thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
>>>better sooner than later.
>>
>> Mr McClendon, Mr Plinston presents what appears to be a fact (in the
>> radical sense of 'factum', a done thing) and your response employs a past
>> subjunctive ('were they to have').
>>
>> Had my Sainted Paternal Grandmother - may she sleep with the angels -
>> wheels she would have been a trolley-car; in the cardgames of historical
>> analysis shoulda/woulda/coulda are frequently trumped by 'did'.
>
>
>If you go back to what started this particular subthread, it was me saying 
>that Bad People are usually dealt with much later than would have been wise. 

If one expects UseNet thread-drift to be ignored, Mr McClendon, one might 
wind up being disappointed.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 12:28:15 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:F0pjf.91$Gd6.17@pd7tw3no...
[snip]
> Meanwhile I'll keep tapping away at the keyboard to stop myself from
> going nuts and succumbing to Alzheimer's. Who knows, but for the bucks
> involved, I might just splash out for a touch screen - then I could
> write a dissertation for Rick on Touch Screens and the OO classes needed
:-)

There is no need for anything so formal as a dissertation,
Mr Gavan.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/1/2005 12:38:23 AM
In article <438E2529.647B6DE1@mts.net>, Peter Lacey  <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>> With such conservatives as you describe, Donald, it makes my point. You
>> don't get to see demonstrated what the majority of thinking conservatives
>> are all about. :-)
>> --
>
>Y'know, Judson, this argument is trotted out every time a proponent of
>some group or other is presented with a rancid example of the group. 
>The orthodox within the group immediately disown the bad example saying
>that he isn't a true "whatever": liberals, conservatives, Catholics,
>Protestants, skateboarders, Goth musicians (I include these two quite
>seriously) ... the list goes on.

Ahhhhh, the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy!  From 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman :

--begin quoted text:

Argument: "Ach! No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

--end quoted text

(note - in original 'true' is italicised)

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 1:21:59 AM
In article <F0pjf.91$Gd6.17@pd7tw3no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>There is after all no black and white in 
>life.

Everything's a shade of grey... and that's the black-and-white truth, eh?

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 1:33:20 AM
"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> With such conservatives as you describe, Donald, it makes my point. You
>> don't get to see demonstrated what the majority of thinking conservatives
>> are all about. :-)
>
> Y'know, Judson, this argument is trotted out every time a proponent of
> some group or other is presented with a rancid example of the group.
> The orthodox within the group immediately disown the bad example saying
> that he isn't a true "whatever": liberals, conservatives, Catholics,
> Protestants, skateboarders, Goth musicians (I include these two quite
> seriously) ... the list goes on.  If the person was >>ever<< accepted as
> a member of the group then it looks pretty feeble to attempt to distance
> the group from him when he turns out to be undesirable.

By the same token, opponents always trot out the weird fringe elements and 
try to label the whole group with that brush. Isn't that, in essence, what 
you and Donald are doing? :-)

> As far as I understand it, "conservative" by your definition involves a
> fairly rigid fundamentalist Christian component.  But I'm willing to
> learn.  Exactly what do you mean by "conservative"?  Stake out your own
> definition for criticism instead of just scoffing at everyone else!

Well, I mean to be disagreeing through discussion, not 'scoffing'. :-)

That word "rigid" is pejorative, and very much undeserved. Do you consider a 
physicist "rigid" if he believes the physical laws are what they are, quite 
apart from what you may think they are? No more should you consider a 
fundamentalist Christian "rigid" because he believes the same about 
spiritual laws. Belief that there are absolutes does not make one "rigid".

I'm not qualified to formally define what a conservative is, but I will try 
to answer your question about the "Christian component." :-)  I will say 
that, generally speaking, a 'conservative' is someone who wants to keep 
traditional things like values, and a 'liberal' is one who wants to change 
them. (If you want to read a Devine "poke in the eye" of liberals in that 
sense, see Proverbs 24:21,22 :-)

I can only speak about conservatives here in the US. While it is true that 
the great majority of 'real' Christians (those who have really received 
Jesus as their Savior, as opposed to those who simply go to church and obey 
certain rules) are conservative, the conservative community is much broader 
than that. Excluding the Fat Cat Conservatives, most conservatives share a 
more or less similar viewpoint about a range of issues. A few typical 
aspects of the conservative viewpoint are respect for authority, belief in 
integrity, duty, personal responsibility, limited government, personal 
freedom, accountability for your actions, fiscal responsibility, rights of 
ownership, strong parental authority, working for what you get, and getting 
what you work for, and so forth. Many conservatives come to believe in these 
things for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with religion or God. I 
don't even know if most conservatives would call themselves Christians, in 
the specific religious sense. However, it is a historical fact that these 
and many other common conservative positions are also common principles 
embodied in the traditional Judeo-Christian belief system. It is also a fact 
that many (if not most) liberal positions conflict with the Judeo-Christian 
belief system. It is difficult to overestimate the profound effect that 
Christianity has had on Western culture and the US in particular (see 
below). As a Christian, my personal worldview is profoundly influenced by my 
belief in God, in Jesus Christ as my Savior, and the Bible as God's written 
Word. From my viewpoint as a Christian, a liberal's trying to solve all 
problems with government is simply trying to replace God, and man's 
dependence on God, with dependence on man's government. But not every 
conservative is opposed to Big Government for those reasons. They and I can 
agree that Big Government is also bad for many other reasons. As a 
Christian, I believe in capital punishment for murder because God commands 
it. But many conservatives believe in capital punishment for other reasons, 
most of which I probably agree with. You see, both Christians and non 
Christians do math and write programs the same way. There are many practical 
areas in which you don't have to believe in Jesus to come to the same 
conclusions as a Christian, and vice versa. :-)

This is getting a bit aside, but related. It may help explain to some of you 
why the majority of Americans are conservative. There is a core set of 
beliefs that used to be much more prevalent in this country, and that set of 
beliefs came from America's deeply Christian roots. Many revisionists today 
try to deny this, but when you read what the Founding Fathers themselves 
wrote, it is clear they were almost all Christians (like 55 of 58), and 
frequently wrote about it. A while back the University of Austin did a 10 
year study of the documents that were used and referenced, and the 
authorities who were quoted, in the literature surrounding the creation of 
the United States. The second most quoted authority was Blackstone (legal 
authority). The most quoted authority, over two and a half times more often 
than Blackstone, was the Bible. In the minutes to the Continental Congress, 
there are records of discussions over some aspect of government between two 
or more people, each with a Bible open on their desks, quoting Scripture to 
support their positions. If they couldn't reach an agreement, they would 
call for prayer, the assembly would get down on their knees right there, 
pray for a half hour or so, then resume discussion. Many people do not 
realize that the specific reason the United States has three branches of 
government is because Isaiah 33:22 says "For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord 
is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King ... ." Back in the 1800's, the US 
Supreme Court would sometimes quote the Bible in their rulings. Anyway, 
these deeply Christian roots have profoundly impacted the commonly held 
belief systems of Americans down through the years, even many Americans who 
are not Christians or Jews. In this context, I am very much a conservative 
who wants to keep these traditional values.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/1/2005 2:05:03 AM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Our real liberals move to the woods, and refuse to have anything to do
> with the whole damned lot, while the equivalent of your rednecks never
> look up from the hockey rink and their beer. The countries are much the
> same, it's the language that is different.


What is that quote about England and the US being two peoples separated by a 
common language? :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/1/2005 2:07:58 AM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> 
>>Judson McClendon wrote:
>>
>>>With such conservatives as you describe, Donald, it makes my point. You
>>>don't get to see demonstrated what the majority of thinking conservatives
>>>are all about. :-)
>>
>>Y'know, Judson, this argument is trotted out every time a proponent of
>>some group or other is presented with a rancid example of the group.
>>The orthodox within the group immediately disown the bad example saying
>>that he isn't a true "whatever": liberals, conservatives, Catholics,
>>Protestants, skateboarders, Goth musicians (I include these two quite
>>seriously) ... the list goes on.  If the person was >>ever<< accepted as
>>a member of the group then it looks pretty feeble to attempt to distance
>>the group from him when he turns out to be undesirable.
> 
> 
> By the same token, opponents always trot out the weird fringe elements and 
> try to label the whole group with that brush. Isn't that, in essence, what 
> you and Donald are doing? :-)
> 

Yes, perhaps.

I have not posted in response to several things that Judson has said,
because I have been trying not to do just that. This evening, I spent an
hour trying to find how many war dead the arabs have suffered at the
hands of the american's during the two bush reigns, and could not find a
single american paper that has published the figure in the last year.
Perhaps it is there but simply unfindable in the clutter of reports on
american dead.  Thousands of those.

Perhaps it has not.  Anybody know?

Perhaps talking about the russian war dead fighting hitler is easier,
but it seems like a cop-out to me. *We* are public opinion. What we see
and write in this global village changes the world as we read and write.
I may be just a dumb old hippy programmer but the word "peace" to me,
still has meaning. It is not a religious greeting, or then again, maybe
it is.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
12/1/2005 3:02:53 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <F0pjf.91$Gd6.17@pd7tw3no>,
> James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>There is after all no black and white in 
>>life.
> 
> 
> Everything's a shade of grey... and that's the black-and-white truth, eh?
> 
> DD

So every OOP object is a simple bit, by definition.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
12/1/2005 3:07:42 AM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:3Rsjf.45340$6y4.28274@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
[snip]
> Many people do not
> realize that the specific reason the United States has three branches of
> government is because Isaiah 33:22 says "For the Lord is our Judge, The
Lord
> is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King ... ."

See < http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa47.htm >,
"The Particular Structure of the New Government and
the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts",
writing credit given to James Madison.

"The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this
subject is the celebrated Montesquieu."

See also < http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa48.htm >,
"These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated
as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other",
writing credit given to James Madison.

James Madison, who was there and wrote about it,
seems to credit Montesquieu.

See < http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_11.htm#006 >
for Montesquieu.

"6. Of the Constitution of England. In every government
there are three sorts of power: the legislative; the executive
in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and
the executive in regard to matters that depend on the civil law.

"By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts
temporary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates
those that have been already enacted. By the second, he
makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies,
establishes the public security, and provides against invasions.
By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes
that arise between individuals. The latter we shall call the
judiciary power, and the other simply the executive power
of the state.

"The political liberty of the subject is a tranquillity of mind
arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In
order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be
so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another.

"When the legislative and executive powers are united in
the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there
can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the
same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to
execute them in a tyrannical manner.

"Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not
separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined
with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would
be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be
then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power,
the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

"There would be an end of everything, were the same man
or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people,
to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that
of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes
of individuals."



0
ricksmith (875)
12/1/2005 3:59:29 AM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>>Our real liberals move to the woods, and refuse to have anything to do
>>with the whole damned lot, while the equivalent of your rednecks never
>>look up from the hockey rink and their beer. The countries are much the
>>same, it's the language that is different.
> 
> 
> 
> What is that quote about England and the US being two peoples separated by a 
> common language? :-)

The actual quote from Google, "England and America are two countries 
separated by a common language". George Bernard Shaw 1856 - 1950.

That's Brits and Yanks - not Canucks and Yanks. I gotta protest on this 
one - Donald's definition of Canadian political parties, particularly as 
I am reasonably *liberal* in most of my thinking, but not all (same-sex 
marriage for example is a sore issue), and by choice I am a *Liberal*.

Jimmy
0
12/1/2005 5:45:59 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
>> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Our real liberals move to the woods, and refuse to have anything to do
>>> with the whole damned lot, while the equivalent of your rednecks never
>>> look up from the hockey rink and their beer. The countries are much the
>>> same, it's the language that is different.
>>
>> What is that quote about England and the US being two peoples
>> separated by a common language? :-)
> 
> 
> The actual quote from Google, "England and America are two countries
> separated by a common language". George Bernard Shaw 1856 - 1950.
> 
> That's Brits and Yanks - not Canucks and Yanks. I gotta protest on this
> one - Donald's definition of Canadian political parties, particularly as
> I am reasonably *liberal* in most of my thinking, but not all (same-sex
> marriage for example is a sore issue), and by choice I am a *Liberal*.
> 
> Jimmy

Come on Jimmy.  Do you really see Martin, or any of his crop, as
envisonary leaders? They are a bunch of conservative, crotchety old men,
just like us. Howvever, he is an extremely competent money manager, and
I think relatively honest. But envisionary? Clear cut goals beyond
remaining in power? Mind you, I prefer that to Harper, who as near as I
can figure out has never ever wanted to do anything except stop other
people from doing *their* thing.

So far, he has decided to revoke the same sex marriage thing, and make
sure any liberal never holds office again.  Then he has announced plans
to hire special prosecuters to specifically press charges against
liberals, as apparently there is not one single honest liberal in the
country. Then he wants to jail every marijauna user in the country. How
the hell could I vote for that?

Donald

0
donald_tees (563)
12/1/2005 6:03:04 AM
In article <apooo1h97fa0pn9voc07rgcbv27erh9tj9@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:31:40 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> >I guess that's directed at me.  :)  Finishing the job is the only way to 
> >go.  Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree 
> >with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we 
> >left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would 
> >cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the 
> >course until it's done).
> 
> Most people who disagree with the war believe that the war will not
> accomplish those goals.  In this case, there is no "worse", as both
> options are the same.

That is the great thing about an all volunteer army.  Those that 
disagree can stay home and complain about lack of "shared sacrifice".
0
12/1/2005 6:10:39 AM
Donald Tees wrote:
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
>>In article <F0pjf.91$Gd6.17@pd7tw3no>,
>>James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>There is after all no black and white in 
>>>life.
>>
>>
>>Everything's a shade of grey... and that's the black-and-white truth, eh?
>>
>>DD
> 
> 
> So every OOP object is a simple bit, by definition.
> 
I thought they were called pixies.

Jimmy
0
12/1/2005 6:16:44 AM
In article <1133294543.404668.264520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

> > When Chamberlain came back from Munich
> > with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
> > about it was cynicism.  Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
> > to take Hitler on sooner or later.
> 
> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
> in its plane and tank factories).

As with all understanding, the converse of the thing becomes evident as 
well.  Chamberlain also gave Hitler the same year (plus the "sitzkreig" 
time) to consolidate his gains and build his forces as well.

If the 100 French divisions and the 4 or 5 English divisions on the 
undefended western border of Germany had acted, as promised, on the 
invasion of Poland, Nazism would have ended quickly and mostly 
painlessly.

In military matters, inaction is rarely the best course of action.
0
12/1/2005 6:21:21 AM
In article <1133305471.986029.59840@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

> > And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
> > breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
> > thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
> > better sooner than later.
> 
> That is unlikely to be true.  WWII did not start in 1939 or 1941 but
> much earlier for example in Spain in 1936 and China in the early 30s.
> Intervening more forcefully against Germany would merely have escalated
> the war earlier before England was ready (France was never ready).  As
> it happens America blockading Japan's oil shipments in 1940 simply
> brought forward the date when Japan and USA clashed to December 1941
> and did not 'nip in the bud' Japanese expansion plans.

While I can agree that France is never ready for a fight, they were most 
certainly in a great military position in September 1939.  So great a 
position that all they had to do was attack the mostly undefended 
western border while the Wehrmacht was busy in Poland.

It isn't like they would even have to take a cab to get there...the 
100-odd divisions were sitting on said border busily sewing their white 
flags.
0
12/1/2005 6:25:19 AM
In article <GL5jf.123$Pc3.106@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
 "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> When Hitler first began to expand Germany's military, shortly after grabbing 
> power in 1933, it would have been fairly easy for England or France to have 
> stopped him, even with military intervention, if necessary. Better military 
> intervention in 1933-34 than full scale war in 1939-45. Japan was a 
> different - the US was simply not in position to impose its will entirely on 
> Japan in 1940, or the early 30's. Japan was too far away and the US did not 
> have the military resources in the Pacific to back it up. But England and 
> France sure could have done so to Germany in 1933-34, because Germany was 
> not in position to defend itself, until after Hitler's military buildup had 
> progressed.
> 
> Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after 
> Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do much 
> except get ready, until Germany invaded France.

In that period, didn't England and France get some League of Nation 
resolutions to tell Hitler to stop it...or else the would get more 
League of Nation resolutions.

(hmmm, deja vu...)
0
12/1/2005 6:27:23 AM
In article <dmkamr$dch$1@reader2.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com () 
wrote:

> In article <3v532hF13or8nU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French champagne 
> >the other day.
> 
> I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved 
> for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for 
> products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark 
> laws and all that.  Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines... 
> but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
> 
> >It isn't good to carry grudges :-).
> 
> Back in the 1980s a Jewish physician I knew purchased a BMW automobile... 
> two, actually, one for him and one for the Missus (also Jewish), four-door 
> 500 series (I remember 523i but my memory is, admittedly, porous).  The 
> Missus and her immediate family (parents and a sibling) emigrated to the 
> USA from Germany (via Cuba... but that's another story) in 1939; most 
> members of her extended family (about twenty-six people) did not get out 
> and disappeared to... to wherever Jews in Germany during those years went.  
> Several of his friends took him to task for purchasing a German product 
> after all that; his response was 'That was a few years ago... and it is 
> *such* a good car.'
> 
> One winter they hit a patch of glare ice and lost control of the car at 
> 60mph (100Kmph); it bounced around the road for a goodly distance, hitting 
> guard-rails, telephone-poles, a postbox or two... and finally came to a 
> stop.  Both passengers - the doctor and the Missus - were completely 
> unscathed and despite the slamming-into-things that had just gone on both 
> the driver's and passenger's doors opened as though nothing had happened.
> 
> As they watch a tow-truck hooking up the highly-damaged remains to take to 
> the repair shop the physician said to his wife, rather matter-of-factly, 
> 'Well... I'd say that a fair amount has been paid back, wouldn't you?'
> 
> DD

Perhaps.

But I wouldn't want to try a crash like that in a Peugeot or a Renault.
0
12/1/2005 6:30:43 AM
Donald Tees wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> 
>>Judson McClendon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Our real liberals move to the woods, and refuse to have anything to do
>>>>with the whole damned lot, while the equivalent of your rednecks never
>>>>look up from the hockey rink and their beer. The countries are much the
>>>>same, it's the language that is different.
>>>
>>>What is that quote about England and the US being two peoples
>>>separated by a common language? :-)
>>
>>
>>The actual quote from Google, "England and America are two countries
>>separated by a common language". George Bernard Shaw 1856 - 1950.
>>
>>That's Brits and Yanks - not Canucks and Yanks. I gotta protest on this
>>one - Donald's definition of Canadian political parties, particularly as
>>I am reasonably *liberal* in most of my thinking, but not all (same-sex
>>marriage for example is a sore issue), and by choice I am a *Liberal*.
>>
>>Jimmy
> 
> 
> Come on Jimmy.  Do you really see Martin, or any of his crop, as
> envisonary leaders? They are a bunch of conservative, crotchety old men,
> just like us. Howvever, he is an extremely competent money manager, and
> I think relatively honest. But envisionary? Clear cut goals beyond
> remaining in power? Mind you, I prefer that to Harper, who as near as I
> can figure out has never ever wanted to do anything except stop other
> people from doing *their* thing.

Unless you can think of an example, I really can't think of any truly 
visionary leaders in world politics, other than perhaps some of the 
initial Third World leaders who sought their country's independence from 
colonial rule. It's become the nature of the beast for Western 
politicians to be plodders, in Britain, U.S. and here in Canada. If you 
take my timepiece analogy - UK and Canada, not US -

Conservatives sit at 11:55, Liberals around 12:00 and 
Labour/Socialist/NDP 12:05; each of course shifts by a minute or two to 
the left or right occasionally. In my view it progressed to that image 
from the UK I left in '75 and I think the comparison is fair for Canada 
as I arrived in '75.

The U.S. well there's that big void - there is no Left, but Republicans 
love to try and paint the Democrats into that position. So my American 
timepiece is :

Republicans around 11:50, Democrats - should be around 12:00, but to 
fill that void, some slight shift occasionally to 12:02. "You got it 
dead wrong !", protest our Republican friends. "Those bastards have 
moved the clock to 12:15 !"
> 
> So far, he has decided to revoke the same sex marriage thing, and make
> sure any liberal never holds office again.  Then he has announced plans
> to hire special prosecuters to specifically press charges against
> liberals, as apparently there is not one single honest liberal in the
> country. Then he wants to jail every marijauna user in the country. How
> the hell could I vote for that?

It was our wise Howard who wrote, "Image is everything in politics". 
Stephen Harper, carries a lot of image baggage; seen as remote and 
unfriendly, and for somebody brought up here in the West looks an 
absolute goofball dressed in cowboy duds.

Well you wouldn't vote for him would you - somebody trying to stop you 
having a 'stogie' (is that the correct word) ? :-)

Background for others, (particularly anybody who thinks they should 
bring their skis up here during July). Federal PC = Progressive 
Conservative Party of Canada - last but one Prime Minister, Brian 
Mulroney and Ronnie's friend. Kim Campbell, (first lady party leader), 
had a six-month stint and they were absolutely wiped out of federal 
politics, perhaps 2 seats, don't remember. So here in Calgary, Preston 
Manning having enshrined himself in Dad's cloak (Dad was Social Credit 
and a bible thumper on the airwaves), kick-started the Reform Party. 
Those good ole right-wingers in the States would have loved him. First 
one with a personality problem, nice guy, squeaky voice and wore 
goggles. The did an image makeover - but he still got the boot.

They changed name to Alliance Party, with a younger guy Stockwell Day, 
another Albertan, preacher and auctioneer. Still didn't work with the 
voting base in the East. Can't beat them, then join them. After a lot of 
haggling the remnants of the old PCs do a deal with the Alliance; a name 
change again - not sure of title but we are back to using the word 
'Conservative'. Yet again another Albertan as team leader - Stephen 
Harper referred to above.

Back here in the good old West it appears to me that myself and the 
other two Liberals here are the only ones who get it; the 
middle-of-the-road Eastern voters both in Quebec and Ontario are just 
not going to buy into a western, religiously-oriented conservative party 
which appears to Easterners to be totally focused on so-called Western 
values and interests. (Well just three of us - not strictly true - but 
consistently only some 25% vote for other than anything conservative 
either provincially or federally).

Jimmy
0
12/1/2005 7:35:51 AM
In article <EF5jf.652377$1i.549767@pd7tw2no>,
 "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Food for thought :-
> 
> ..............................
> 
> "It has become fashionable to remark that Iraq is turning into another 
> Vietnam. No so. It is fundamentally different from that jungle-clothed 
> country with its communist-led and united resistance. But is it looking 
> remarkably like colonial Aden and what happened there. Consider the 
> similarities.
> 
> - British occupying Aden against wishes of 90% of Arab people whose 
> hellhole it properly was (ditto Iraq)

Not even close.  The ~80% Shiite and Kurd peoples love and appreciate 
us.  They really like not being raped, tortured and murdered at the whim 
of the ~20% Sunni population like happened before we hit the scene.

Even that smallish Sunni population is fragmented.  A majority has 
adopted the political process and the rule of law -- see the recent 
constitutional election for numbers.  A minority of Sunnis, supported by 
strong external forces is indulging in "insurgancy".

So if you want to be close, you might try 90% of Iraq is happy and 
thankful for what the Americans have done.


> - The resistance were divided into two movements FLOSY and FLN, who 
> loathed each other but could unite against us (ditto Iraq)

Spot on.  We have Sunni Bathists and extra-Iraqi terriorists.  So two 
groups, right.


> - Whole areas of city of Aden and hinterland off-limits and visitable 
> only in armoured columns (ditto)

Nope.  Since Operation Iraqi Freedom I (OIF-1) ended, most of the 
armo(u)red vehicles have been left at home.

(This has been a great source of joy for the nattering nabobs of 
surrender-and-go-home.  They have complained that the light skinned 
vehicles are insufficient to the task at hand.)

IEDs are indeed a problem, but not as bad as say, L.A. traffic and 
murder deaths for the same time period.

Should we abandon L.A.?


> - Insurrectionists made plain once we were gone they would takeover and 
> have a civil war (ditto and happened in case of Aden)

If we cut and run, they will.  If we stay and stabilize, they will not.

I know of no nation that has ever had its freedom harmed by the 
stationing of American troops, while many have had it protected.  
Germany, Japan and Korea are obvious examples.  But some historical 
examples like England, Australia, New Zealand also come to mind.


> - Collaborators realizing they were dead if/when we left, began 
> vaporising either changing sides or getting out (ditto)

And every free Iraqi policeman (collaborator) or soldier (collaborator) 
they kill finds two more wanting to sign up.  Funny how that works.


> - We claimed we would hand it all over when they had a 
> democratically-elected government (ditto)

Which they will have on December 15th.  Against all of your predictions, 
25 million people will decide for themselves the direction they will 
take.  Isn't freedom great?

> - The steady loss of our servicemen to no apparent purpose , except to 
> save politicians' faces, sapped morale and empowered rising criticism at 
> home (ditto)

Again, should we abandon L.A.?

America has lost about 2k soldiers in this fight, with about 25% of them 
being non-combat accidents.  700 a year is a high rate to be sure, but 
hardly enough to justify cutting and running.  It is also approaching 
the number that would die in bar fights, drunk driving accidents, et al  
if they were not deployed.

Balance that against the island of freedom and democracy that is being 
established between Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia...


> - Finally British Establishment, never the sharpest knives in the 
> cutlery drawer, asked the same question everyone else had been asking 
> for the past two years: "What exactly are we dong there?" (Not yet, but 
> soon)....

One could ask that of the British Establishment about many things.  For 
example, I've long wondered why they worship the Queen.  Or, even more 
annoying, why that worshiped that annoying twit Diana.

The British Establishment is a couple hundred years past a clue in many 
things, why should its Aden policy have been any different.


> ....When we finally left Aden in '67 our rearguard practically had to 
> fight its way off the dock as the wolves emerged from their alleys....

That is a habit with the British.  Perhaps from excessive association 
with the French army?


> We simply have to face three questions over Iraq and stop ducking :-
> 
> 1 - Is the situation getting steadily better, or steadily worse ? Only 
> Iraqi/Anglo/Yankee politicians say the former. Every detached observer 
> says the reverse.

Ask yourself that on December 16th.


> 2 - Iraq is a Muslim country. Occupation by Christians, even to keep the 
> peace, is offensive. Would a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force. drawn from 
> Islam, under the sign of the crescent and with considerable economic 
> help, (cheap at the price), not do better ?

They why are you supporting a leader that would allow his picture to be 
taken with a tumbler of Scotch in his hand?  Not very Muslim if you ask 
me.

And they have a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force -- Poland, El Salvador, 
Australia, Korea, Japan, et al...some 60-odd nations have participated 
in the last three years.

Just because France and Germany have forgotten how to do anything but 
whine doesn't make it mono-national.


> 3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ? Our only future is to be free of 
> hydrocarbons fuels.... ( then he makes a play for nuclear power - which 
> gives me a touch of the shudders).... The 100th British soldier will 
> come home in a coffin soon. Time to start thinking of alternatives and a 
> real timed exit strategy.

I used to joke that I was a veteran of the First Oil War, but it was 
just a joke, oil isn't really what it is about.  The people that I know 
that are over there or have been over there are not about oil, they are 
about freedom -- and there are 25 million Iraqis that deserve that 
freedom as their natural human right.


> I think you have already hit your 2,000th mark in the States ?
> 
> Above, are those the meanderings of a 'bleeding heart' left-wing leaning 
> Liberal or perhaps from the pen of a strident Socialist screaming "Love 
> not War !". Not so. Page Down.

No, just someone that is unaware of the state of affairs in Iraq.  (and 
perhaps overaware of affairs in Aden)


> Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a 
> conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews 
> blood each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And 
> the author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - 
> Frederick Forsyth.

So?  Pat Buchannon claims the title of "right wing conservative" too.  
Any nut with a cross can be a "right wing conservative".  That doesn't 
entitle him to misstate the current Iraq status with impunity.
0
12/1/2005 7:54:55 AM
In article <438CF9AE.831AF4B4@mts.net>, Peter Lacey <lacey@mts.net> 
wrote:

> Judson McClendon wrote:
> >! And foreign (non US) news media are
> > even worse, particularly in Europe. Europeans, unless they get Fox News,
> > never, ever get to hear the positive things going on in Iraq, like the
> > extensive progress we have made in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. And
> > because Fox News is virtually alone out there, Europeans think they are
> > brainwashed. And Fox News isn't even conservative, they're really pretty
> > neutral. Here in the US, Fox News trounces every other cable news service,
> > combined.
> 
> And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
> countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
> reporting.  That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
> appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
> news.  Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
> served in Vietnam.  If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
> interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
> his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
> actually have their mike switched off?  Judson, you yourself need to get
> out and hear it from other sources.

Interesting point of view.  

The BBC is the gold standard for truth in media.  Wasn't there a big 
scandal at the beginning of the war where their own reported busted them 
for skewing the Iraq news?

Whatever.  I get most of my news from troops here at Fort Benning.  
First person accounts and all of that.  It is wonderful not to have a 
'filter'.
0
12/1/2005 7:58:35 AM
> While I can agree that France is never ready for a fight, they were most
> certainly in a great military position in September 1939.

Not true. They did not have a complete defensive line, due to Belgium
not completing thier part of it, they were poorly equiped because the
factories were not fully manned and were not even working overtime, and
all their planning was based on defence.

0
riplin (4127)
12/1/2005 8:24:19 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dmkamr$dch$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <3v532hF13or8nU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French 
>>champagne
>>the other day.
>
> I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved
> for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for
> products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark
> laws and all that.  Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines...
> but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
>
I knew that, Doc. And, yes, the word "French" is (technically) redundant.

(And "other places" get round the restriction by labelling their product 
"Methode Champagnoise". I have a degree of acquaintanceship with the 
libation being discussed... :-))

See, I have this problem. I don't automatically assume that everyone else 
knows what I know. When conversing in a public forum, I take the view that 
my post should be as acceptable to people as possible, without requiring any 
more knowledge than the average person who is not a pedant, might actually 
have. (Now, I do break this rule if conversing on a subject which is 
specialized and dear to my heart (like Quantum Mechanics...), where 
specialist knowledge is actually REQUIRED to participate, but that is a 
special case. (It's OK for certain people to produce extremely long 
rambling, boring,  posts on what they think about COBOL and the world in 
general, but if some of us want to have an "interesting" discussion, we get 
admonished, and requested to return to earth... And it's supposed to be an 
unmoderated forum too...Just as well I don't take this place to heart.)).

I added the word "French" to the above because it was apposite to my 
discussion of things French. I wanted to make it clear that it was the 
genuine product I bought, overcoming some of my prejudice in order to do so.

The important thing is not the champagne; it is the fact that I bent a bit, 
and bought a French product. A few years back I most certainly would not 
have.


>>It isn't good to carry grudges :-).
>
> Back in the 1980s a Jewish physician I knew purchased a BMW automobile...
> two, actually, one for him and one for the Missus (also Jewish), four-door
> 500 series (I remember 523i but my memory is, admittedly, porous).  The
> Missus and her immediate family (parents and a sibling) emigrated to the
> USA from Germany (via Cuba... but that's another story) in 1939; most
> members of her extended family (about twenty-six people) did not get out
> and disappeared to... to wherever Jews in Germany during those years went.
> Several of his friends took him to task for purchasing a German product
> after all that; his response was 'That was a few years ago... and it is
> *such* a good car.'
>
I know another survivor of that time who had exactly the opposite reaction. 
Funny things, people.

> One winter they hit a patch of glare ice and lost control of the car at
> 60mph (100Kmph); it bounced around the road for a goodly distance, hitting
> guard-rails, telephone-poles, a postbox or two... and finally came to a
> stop.  Both passengers - the doctor and the Missus - were completely
> unscathed and despite the slamming-into-things that had just gone on both
> the driver's and passenger's doors opened as though nothing had happened.
>
> As they watch a tow-truck hooking up the highly-damaged remains to take to
> the repair shop the physician said to his wife, rather matter-of-factly,
> 'Well... I'd say that a fair amount has been paid back, wouldn't you?'
>
Good story. Thanks.

Pete. 


0
dashwood1 (2140)
12/1/2005 9:40:00 AM
Hahaha! Great stuff Joe!

Pete.

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:joe_zitzelberger-906C61.01304301122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <dmkamr$dch$1@reader2.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com ()
> wrote:
>
>> In article <3v532hF13or8nU1@individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French 
>> >champagne
>> >the other day.
>>
>> I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved
>> for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved 
>> for
>> products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark
>> laws and all that.  Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines...
>> but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
>>
>> >It isn't good to carry grudges :-).
>>
>> Back in the 1980s a Jewish physician I knew purchased a BMW automobile...
>> two, actually, one for him and one for the Missus (also Jewish), 
>> four-door
>> 500 series (I remember 523i but my memory is, admittedly, porous).  The
>> Missus and her immediate family (parents and a sibling) emigrated to the
>> USA from Germany (via Cuba... but that's another story) in 1939; most
>> members of her extended family (about twenty-six people) did not get out
>> and disappeared to... to wherever Jews in Germany during those years 
>> went.
>> Several of his friends took him to task for purchasing a German product
>> after all that; his response was 'That was a few years ago... and it is
>> *such* a good car.'
>>
>> One winter they hit a patch of glare ice and lost control of the car at
>> 60mph (100Kmph); it bounced around the road for a goodly distance, 
>> hitting
>> guard-rails, telephone-poles, a postbox or two... and finally came to a
>> stop.  Both passengers - the doctor and the Missus - were completely
>> unscathed and despite the slamming-into-things that had just gone on both
>> the driver's and passenger's doors opened as though nothing had happened.
>>
>> As they watch a tow-truck hooking up the highly-damaged remains to take 
>> to
>> the repair shop the physician said to his wife, rather matter-of-factly,
>> 'Well... I'd say that a fair amount has been paid back, wouldn't you?'
>>
>> DD
>
> Perhaps.
>
> But I wouldn't want to try a crash like that in a Peugeot or a Renault. 


0
dashwood1 (2140)
12/1/2005 9:41:06 AM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-906C61.01304301122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <dmkamr$dch$1@reader2.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com () 
>wrote:

[snip]

>> As they watch a tow-truck hooking up the highly-damaged remains to take to 
>> the repair shop the physician said to his wife, rather matter-of-factly, 
>> 'Well... I'd say that a fair amount has been paid back, wouldn't you?'
>> 
>
>Perhaps.

The world is filled with Uncertainty, aye.

>
>But I wouldn't want to try a crash like that in a Peugeot or a Renault.

I have little desire to attempt crashes in vehicles of any sort... but 
perhaps I am merely unadventurous in my antiquity.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 10:36:54 AM
In article <3v7unjF14pii4U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dmkamr$dch$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <3v532hF13or8nU1@individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French 
>>>champagne
>>>the other day.
>>
>> I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved
>> for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for
>> products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark
>> laws and all that.  Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines...
>> but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
>>
>I knew that, Doc. And, yes, the word "French" is (technically) redundant.
>
>(And "other places" get round the restriction by labelling their product 
>"Methode Champagnoise". I have a degree of acquaintanceship with the 
>libation being discussed... :-))
>
>See, I have this problem. I don't automatically assume that everyone else 
>knows what I know. When conversing in a public forum, I take the view that 
>my post should be as acceptable to people as possible, without requiring any 
>more knowledge than the average person who is not a pedant, might actually 
>have.

Ahhhhhh... not-assuming can be seen as a kind of assuming, of course; to 
help in walking the crevasse between 'assuming the audience knows (x)' and 
'yammering in an incomprehensible and eyeball-glazing manner' the 
Academicians have developed the device - I don't know its technical name 
or even if it has one - which often takes the form of 'As we all know...'.

(In order to avoid a third person plural it is well known that it can be 
rendered 'As is well known' or, more commonly, 'As is commonly known')

[snip]

>The important thing is not the champagne; it is the fact that I bent a bit, 
>and bought a French product. A few years back I most certainly would not 
>have.

Oh, I *cannot* resist...

.... those who have read your postings from a few years back, Mr Dashwood, 
might have noticed that then, as well, you were more than a bit bent.

(note - 'bent' in this case is NOT being used in the sense of 'dishonest' 
or 'corrupt' but in the sense of 'twisted askew from the norm' or 
'slightly insane')

[snip]

>> As they watch a tow-truck hooking up the highly-damaged remains to take to
>> the repair shop the physician said to his wife, rather matter-of-factly,
>> 'Well... I'd say that a fair amount has been paid back, wouldn't you?'
>>
>Good story. Thanks.

Glad you enjoyed.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 10:49:55 AM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-BD088B.01103801122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <apooo1h97fa0pn9voc07rgcbv27erh9tj9@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

[snip]

>> Most people who disagree with the war believe that the war will not
>> accomplish those goals.  In this case, there is no "worse", as both
>> options are the same.
>
>That is the great thing about an all volunteer army.  Those that 
>disagree can stay home and complain about lack of "shared sacrifice".

.... while enjoying all the benefits of a war economy - production up, 
unemployment down - and all those occasions to wear black, too!  There was 
a song, years ago, that had verses like -

Come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
Supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,

.... and ...

Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send your sons off before it's too late.
You can be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 11:02:05 AM
In article <3Rsjf.45340$6y4.28274@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

[snip]

>I will say 
>that, generally speaking, a 'conservative' is someone who wants to keep 
>traditional things like values, and a 'liberal' is one who wants to change 
>them.

How interesting... I recall being taught that the conservative view is 
'that which is not permitted is forbidden' and the liberal was 'that which 
is not forbidden is permitted'.

>(If you want to read a Devine "poke in the eye" of liberals in that 
>sense, see Proverbs 24:21,22 :-)

Proverbs?  Once again they choose the words of the son (in this case 
Solomon) as superior to those of the father (David); take a gander at 
Ecclesiastes I:2.

[snip]

>A while back the University of Austin did a 10 
>year study of the documents that were used and referenced, and the 
>authorities who were quoted, in the literature surrounding the creation of 
>the United States. The second most quoted authority was Blackstone (legal 
>authority). The most quoted authority, over two and a half times more often 
>than Blackstone, was the Bible.

Mr McClendon, this was a sign of the times.  Printed works were scarce and 
it had been only rather recently that the Bible had been made available in 
the Common Tongue; if you take a look at, say, Bartlett's Quotations 
you'll find that the King James Version is alotted greater space than any 
other single source.

>Many people do not 
>realize that the specific reason the United States has three branches of 
>government is because Isaiah 33:22 says "For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord 
>is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King ... ."

Do you have a cite for this, Mr McClendon?  I recall being taught, lo, 
those many years ago, that the basis for the separation of powers was in 
the works of Montesquieu... a Frenchman.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 11:29:32 AM
In article <11ost7o6slihi22@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
>"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
>news:3Rsjf.45340$6y4.28274@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>[snip]
>> Many people do not
>> realize that the specific reason the United States has three branches of
>> government is because Isaiah 33:22 says "For the Lord is our Judge, The
>> Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King ... ."
>
>See < http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa47.htm >,
>"The Particular Structure of the New Government and
>the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts",
>writing credit given to James Madison.
>
>"The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this
>subject is the celebrated Montesquieu."

Thanks much, Mr Smith... I've noticed that when Godly Folks quote the 
Founders it seems that Madison is given short shrift; this might be due to 
sentiments like -

Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and 
Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by 
the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise 
discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself.


The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so 
long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well 
as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal 
incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported.  
A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to 
social harmony, and to political prosperity .

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent 
with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? 
In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The 
Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a 
national religion... The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a 
palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional 
principles:

.... and other such subtle, difficult-to-interpret sentiments.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 11:39:02 AM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> I have not posted in response to several things that Judson has said,
> because I have been trying not to do just that. This evening, I spent an
> hour trying to find how many war dead the arabs have suffered at the
> hands of the american's during the two bush reigns, and could not find a
> single american paper that has published the figure in the last year.
> Perhaps it is there but simply unfindable in the clutter of reports on
> american dead.  Thousands of those.
>
> Perhaps it has not.  Anybody know?

In 1991, I remember the news media saying that, because the Iraqi defeat was 
so swift and devastating, they could only guess at the number of Iraqi dead. 
War is a horrible business and this is grim, but after a single B52 carpet 
bombing pass you see only a series of overlapping craters in a field a 
hundred yards wide and a quarter mile long. After a whole flight of B52s 
carpet bomb an area, there's not much left to count. In 2003, the physical 
situation would have been at least as bad, plus the whole Iraq command was 
obliterated.

One big problem is that, since these numbers are all estimates anyway, the 
sources' political agenda can significantly affect the count. As you can see 
below, the numbers are very disparate.

A brief Google search turned up this link:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_notes.htm
======================================================
On 20 October 2003 the Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that 
between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 
3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants -- that is: civilians who did not take up 
arms.

On 12 November 2003 the British Medact [an affiliate of the nonprofit 
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War] estimated total 
Iraqi casualties from the war could range from 21,700 to 55,000. This study 
placed Iraqi military casualties at somewhere between 13,500 and 45,000. As 
of the same date, the IraqBodyCount.net estimated total Iraqi deaths as a 
range of between 7,840 and 9,668, derived from thousands of media reports 
from Iraq.
======================================================
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/1/2005 1:46:24 PM
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Whatever.  I get most of my news from troops here at Fort Benning.
> First person accounts and all of that.  It is wonderful not to have a
> 'filter'.

And what are you gleaning from their unfiltered accounts? Do they see 
progress in Iraq, or they in agreement with the news media, that we are 
accomplishing nothing there?
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/1/2005 2:01:24 PM
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:10:39 -0500, Joe Zitzelberger
<joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

>That is the great thing about an all volunteer army.  Those that 
>disagree can stay home and complain about lack of "shared sacrifice".

Why is it that when an unpopular war had mixed volunteers and
draftees, the soldiers were condemned by the people back home (I am a
Vietnam era veteran).    

But when an unpopular war has only volunteers now, the people who
condemn the war are careful to not blame the people doing the
fighting?

When some soldiers had not choice but to serve they were scum, but
when people choose to serve they're heroes?

0
howard (6283)
12/1/2005 2:34:39 PM
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:29:32 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>>I will say 
>>that, generally speaking, a 'conservative' is someone who wants to keep 
>>traditional things like values, and a 'liberal' is one who wants to change 
>>them.
>
>How interesting... I recall being taught that the conservative view is 
>'that which is not permitted is forbidden' and the liberal was 'that which 
>is not forbidden is permitted'.

Those are stereotypical criticisms, which don't match up very well
with reality.


One big trouble with the term "conservative", is that we have a wide
variety of traditional values, that vary by class, age, religion,
culture...

At various times it was conservative to support a king, slavery, Jim
Crow, the Church of England..., but as we have been accustomed to past
liberal changes, they become conservative.   Most of us are
conservative enough that the standards of beauty and art that we
appreciate are the ones we acquired in our formative years.   

The traditional definition above of "liberal" of wanting to change
values doesn't mean "change my values", it means "change your values",
which is exactly the same thing conservatives believe in.

0
howard (6283)
12/1/2005 2:48:46 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> One big trouble with the term "conservative", is that we have a wide
> variety of traditional values, that vary by class, age, religion,
> culture...
>
> At various times it was conservative to support a king, slavery, Jim
> Crow, the Church of England..., but as we have been accustomed to past
> liberal changes, they become conservative.   Most of us are
> conservative enough that the standards of beauty and art that we
> appreciate are the ones we acquired in our formative years.
>
> The traditional definition above of "liberal" of wanting to change
> values doesn't mean "change my values", it means "change your values",
> which is exactly the same thing conservatives believe in.


The point of using different terms to distinguish different things is 
obliterated by your definition above. :-)  I believe a more useful 
definition is, rather than use "my values" or "your values", use "prevailing 
societal values". In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change 
prevailing societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to 
maintain (conserve) them. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/1/2005 3:27:52 PM
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:27:52 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>The point of using different terms to distinguish different things is 
>obliterated by your definition above. :-)  I believe a more useful 
>definition is, rather than use "my values" or "your values", use "prevailing 
>societal values". In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change 
>prevailing societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to 
>maintain (conserve) them. :-)

I don't believe this is true.    If you turn on TV and see porn and
killing and a bunch of stuff you don't like, you don't take a poll to
find out whether these are "prevailing societal values".   You don't
take a conservative stand on abortion after determining what
"prevailing societal values" are.   Instead, you assume values that
you like that you see around you are "prevailing societal values", and
seek to preserve them, and that values you don't like that you see
around you are aberrations.

0
howard (6283)
12/1/2005 3:36:22 PM
Peter Lacey wrote:
>
> As far as I understand it, "conservative" by your definition involves
> a fairly rigid fundamentalist Christian component.  But I'm willing to
> learn.  Exactly what do you mean by "conservative"?  Stake out your
> own definition for criticism instead of just scoffing at everyone
> else!

There are, broadly, three kinds of conservatives and they differ from their 
liberal counterpoints in the following ways.

1. Economic conservatives tend to promote the general welfare through the 
economy; economic liberals tend to provide for the general welfare through 
the government.

2. Social conservatives tend to hold that morality is absolute (i.e., God 
given/inspired); social liberals tend to assert that morality is 
situational. A sub-set of this is the ends/means test: The end justifies the 
means vs. The means condems the end.

3. Sociological conservatives tend to promote equal opportunity; 
sociological liberals tend to promote equal outcomes.

There are other, less pressing, differences but almost all agree on the 
above. As any non-impaired person can see, liberals are basically evil.



0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/1/2005 3:39:29 PM
James J. Gavan wrote:
>
> Fox obviously appeals to a segment of the population that likes its
> message; people who like what they are hearing - it seems so close to
> their own perceptions. We often joke up here about 'ignorant Yanks'.
> Somebody coming across the border near Vancouver and asking for a map
> of downtown Canada. Some arriving with skis in July. And only last
> night over a nice Christmas meal at a chicken joint called Swiss Chalet, 
> an
> acquaintance said he was appalled down in Georgia, possibly at a gas
> station, when in response to telling the man he was from Canada, got
> the reaction, "Canada ? Oh that's somewhere up north isn't it ?".
> Without doubt there must be some Canucks in the same vein - but you do 
> appear
> to have a preponderance. Whether Fox or CNN, not too difficult to
> guage that these intellectual bright bulbs can get sucked in by a message.

"I don't even know what street Canada is on." (Al Capone)

> As an outsider looking in on the goldfish bowl I haven't sensed the US
> public being duped by an evil liberal media. But as both Peter and I
> mentioned we certainly saw that being done on extracts from Fox with
> Anne Coulter and that bombastic re-incarnation of Joe McCarthy - and I
> still can't remember his damn name.

Bill O'Reilly. I hear that objection often - that right-wing fanatics appear 
on Fox. It's strange that only Fox is the target for such. You never hear a 
similar complaint about the other networks regarding Dr. Phil, Ophra, Judge 
Judy, or even Lew Dobbs!

And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every 
derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.


As for our view of Canada, I've always regarded it as America's attic. 
Recently I've come to learn where my crazy aunt lives. 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/1/2005 3:51:37 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:3Rsjf.45340$6y4.28274@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> While it is true that the great majority of 'real' Christians (those who 
> have really received Jesus as their Savior, as opposed to those who simply 
> go to church and obey certain rules) ...

Hoo, boy.

One of the problems I have with 'real' Christians is that they're the ones 
who get to decide whether *other people* have "really received Jesus as 
their Savior".    They're the ones defining "really" for those around them, 
whether those around them agree or not.

I have seen *MANY* horrible things done by people who, in their own eyes and 
in the eyes of those who choose to be around them have "really" received 
Jesus as their Savior.    "Christians aren't  perfect, they're just 
forgiven", as they sometimes have on their bumper stickers.

My personal opinion is that someone who has gone from a position of "I am 
the master of *my* universe, and everybody else can go &~%@ themselves" to 
"There's some unseen Power out there that can help me be a better person" 
has made an *enormous* positive leap, and someone who comes along and does 
something like "oh, you poor, ignorant, deluded person.  You haven't done 
*nearly* enough.  What GOD wants you to do is ..." risks destroying the 
positive steps the person has already made.

Some people I know hold ideas like this:   "We share our experience, 
strength and hope with each other that we may solve our common problem and 
help others to recover ..." and "If you want what we have, and are willing 
to go to any length to get it, then ..." and "We are not saints.  The point 
is that we are willing to grow along spiritual lines."

Such folks can show me because they've done it themselves.  Many 
self-proclaimed Christians demonstrate to me that they do *not* have what I 
want, and the more they proclaim it the more convinced I become. 
Self-proclamation of one's own spiritual superiority does not speak to me of 
the virtue of humility.   St. Francis of Assisi is quoted as having said 
"Preach the gospel always.  When necessary, use words."   Show me.  Don't 
tell me.

And if someone *claims* to be a "real" Christian, and behaves in a way that 
does not *strike me* as reflecting well on them, or on Christianity, who am 
I to deny them the right to claim to me and to others that *their* 
understanding of how a "real" Christian behaves is oh-so-much-better than 
mine?

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
12/1/2005 5:16:46 PM
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:joe_zitzelberger-906C61.01304301122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...

> Perhaps.
>
> But I wouldn't want to try a crash like that in a Peugeot or a Renault.

I'd probably agree with you about Renault, but Peugeots, at least while they 
were still imported into the US, were right up there with the best of the 
German cars of the time in terms of sturdiness, pretty close in terms of 
safety (maybe not quite a par with the Volvo 144 and the Saab 99 and their 
direct descendants), and quite a bit better in terms of comfort, from all 
I've been able to gather.

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
12/1/2005 5:37:22 PM
Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
> Not even close.  The ~80% Shiite and Kurd peoples love and appreciate 
> us.  They really like not being raped, tortured and murdered at the whim 
> of the ~20% Sunni population like happened before we hit the scene.

<snip>

Good stuff Joe. I think one of your dates was December 16th this year. 
Doesn't cut it for me. I'll keep a copy of yours and I suggest you do 
the same. Let's see how your comments compare to reality as of 2007 Dec 
16. (Frankly if you are proven correct - I for one will be more than 
delighted).

Jimmy
0
12/1/2005 5:46:48 PM
In article <6s2uo11nc790nrov52vpe8jiosh8r8clar@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee  <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:29:32 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>>I will say 
>>>that, generally speaking, a 'conservative' is someone who wants to keep 
>>>traditional things like values, and a 'liberal' is one who wants to change 
>>>them.
>>
>>How interesting... I recall being taught that the conservative view is 
>>'that which is not permitted is forbidden' and the liberal was 'that which 
>>is not forbidden is permitted'.
>
>Those are stereotypical criticisms, which don't match up very well
>with reality.

I'm not very sure about things people call 'reality'... it might be that 
what I was taught was perfectly accurate but people, being people, manage 
to defy simple definitions.

>
>
>One big trouble with the term "conservative", is that we have a wide
>variety of traditional values, that vary by class, age, religion,
>culture...

That's right... when people call for a return to 'traditional values' I 
sometimes respond with 'Oh, you mean an hereditary monarchy where the 
Pharaoh marries his sister and both are revered as deities?  What... 
Christianity?  Compared to the Dynasties of the Nile it is an upstart!'

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 5:50:13 PM
In article <IBEjf.46509$6y4.17394@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

[snip]

>In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change 
>prevailing societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to 
>maintain (conserve) them. :-)

I don't know about you, Mr McClendon, but the United States of America of 
which I am an enfranchised citizen was founded by those who detested the 
status quo and populated by immigrants from a variety of societies.

My memory is, admittedly, porous, but the way I heard it most succinctly 
put was 'We are all the descendents of dissidents and revolutionaries.'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 5:54:58 PM
HeyBub wrote:
> Peter Lacey wrote:
> 
>>As far as I understand it, "conservative" by your definition involves
>>a fairly rigid fundamentalist Christian component.  But I'm willing to
>>learn.  Exactly what do you mean by "conservative"?  Stake out your
>>own definition for criticism instead of just scoffing at everyone
>>else!
> 
> 
> There are, broadly, three kinds of conservatives and they differ from their 
> liberal counterpoints in the following ways.
> 
> 1. Economic conservatives tend to promote the general welfare through the 
> economy; economic liberals tend to provide for the general welfare through 
> the government.
> 
> 2. Social conservatives tend to hold that morality is absolute (i.e., God 
> given/inspired); social liberals tend to assert that morality is 
> situational. A sub-set of this is the ends/means test: The end justifies the 
> means vs. The means condems the end.
> 
> 3. Sociological conservatives tend to promote equal opportunity; 
> sociological liberals tend to promote equal outcomes.
> 
> There are other, less pressing, differences but almost all agree on the 
> above. As any non-impaired person can see, liberals are basically evil.
> 
You presented an interesting set of comparisons, in the context of the 
States, not that I would agree with you in the general context of 
liberalism on a universal basis. The UKs old Whigs and Tories, 
(1700s-1800s), don't fit that image at all.

"almost ALL agree....". Who exactly is ALL ? (Republicans ?). But then 
you blew it, getting cute with your last sentence.

Jimmy
0
12/1/2005 6:18:49 PM
Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
> 

> 
> Not even close.  The ~80% Shiite and Kurd peoples love and appreciate
> us.  They really like not being raped, tortured and murdered at the whim
> of the ~20% Sunni population like happened before we hit the scene.
> 
<snip>
> 
> So if you want to be close, you might try 90% of Iraq is happy and
> thankful for what the Americans have done.
> 
<snip>
> 
> If we cut and run, they will.  If we stay and stabilize, they will not.
> 
<Snip>
> 
> > - We claimed we would hand it all over when they had a
> > democratically-elected government (ditto)
> 
> Which they will have on December 15th.  Against all of your predictions,
> 25 million people will decide for themselves the direction they will
> take.  Isn't freedom great?
> 

<snip>
  Or, even more
> annoying, why that worshiped that annoying twit Diana.
> 

Spot on, old chap!  (We emigrated from England in 1957).

<snip>
> 
> Ask yourself that on December 16th.

December 16th, 2008, you mean?  

> And they have a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force -- Poland, El Salvador,
> Australia, Korea, Japan, et al...some 60-odd nations have participated
> in the last three years.

And just what percentage of them were Islamic, as Jimmy suggested? 

Joe, you are taking far too rosy-tinted a view of all this.  The US has
indeed cleared out the top rank of tyrants, which is worth something,
but it hasn't changed the fundamental nature of the country.  It's an
Islamic country, with two major factions which are at each other's
throats, along with the oppressed Kurdish population.  The fact that the
US has imposed a constitution and a propped-up governing structure which
will become effective Dec. 15  makes absolutely no difference to the
population at large.  SInce the governing agreement has given the Sunnis
a disproportionate influence in the government-to-be (to get their
agreement and prevent all-out civil war) there is no reason to think
that they will give up attempts to retain their power.  The most likely
outcome of all this, over the next few years, is an Islamic state in all
but name, controlled by the clergy, which by being clergy are beyond
control by the people.  I presonally would think that that is SLIGHTLY
better than Saddam's murderous tyranny, but I hope not to have to make
the choice.  In any event, a western-style democracy such as you expect
isn't going to happen - for at least 25 years, if then.  Islam is not a
democratic way of doing things (albeit Mohammed, the prophet, was by all
accounts a fairly tolerant man, and albeit that most of the abuses in
the name of Islam have been done by ruthless men twisting his
teachings), Islam is a religion of the sword, the people of Islam are
not receptive to - and probably wouldn't accept the idea of - democracy;
an Islamic state just ain't going to be democratic.  AND - we have the
example of the former Russia: just throwing off tyranny does NOT mean
the immediate automatic establishment of freedom, democracy, prosperity,
peace, etc., etc.: the entire body of the people has to change.  And
that, my friend, your invasion has not accomplished and never will. 
Your army may have to remain there for the next thirty years!

PL
0
lacey1 (490)
12/1/2005 6:56:49 PM
HeyBub wrote:


> Bill O'Reilly. I hear that objection often - that right-wing fanatics appear
> on Fox. It's strange that only Fox is the target for such. You never hear a
> similar complaint about the other networks regarding Dr. Phil, Ophra, Judge
> Judy, or even Lew Dobbs!

Thanks for that!  At least I know his name now.  

As I don't watch the shows you mention, I can't comment on that.  But I
don't think any of them tell interviewees what they should say and
think, or tell them to shut up, as O'Reilly does.

> 
> And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every
> derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.

Given her known propensity to make things up and state them as facts,
I'd be extremely sceptical of anything except exact quotes from her
sources.  After that - given her bias, I'd wonder  what countering
quotes she hadn't bothered to include.

Perhaps you could consult some of his victims?

PL
0
lacey1 (490)
12/1/2005 7:11:55 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:3Rsjf.45340$6y4.28274@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> Do you consider a physicist "rigid" if he believes the physical laws are 
> what they are, quite apart from what you may think they are? No more 
> should you consider a fundamentalist Christian "rigid" because he believes 
> the same about spiritual laws. Belief that there are absolutes does not 
> make one "rigid".

    I think "rigid" in this context doesn't have much to do with what one 
believes at any one point in time (e.g. the belief that there are 
absolutes), but whether or not one is willing to re-evaluate their beliefs 
when presented with information that seems to contradict their beliefs.

    Case 1: A physicist proclaims "I've figured out how Gravity works. It 
works like such and such." Someone counters "What about in the space 
surrounding a black hole? It seems to behave in such and such a manner." 
Physicist replies "Hmm, I'll have to think about that some more." This 
physicist is non-rigid.

    Case 2: A physicist proclaims "I've figured out how Gravity works. It 
works like such and such." Someone counters "What about in the space 
surrounding a black hole? It seems to behave in such and such a manner." 
Physicist replies "Nonsense. The laws are correct. It is obviously you who 
is misunderstanding them." This physicist is rigid.

    Case 3: A fundamenalist Christian proclaims "The bible should be taken 
literally." Someone counters "What about these two parts? They contradict 
each other." Christian replies "Hmm, I'll have to think about that some 
more." This christian is non-rigid.

    Case 4: A fundamenalist Christian proclaims "The bible should be taken 
literally." Someone counters "What about these two parts? They contradict 
each other." Christian replies "Nonsense. If the bible says it, it must be 
literally true. It is obviously you who is misunderstanding it." This 
christian is non-rigid.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/1/2005 7:38:41 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:IBEjf.46509$6y4.17394@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change prevailing societal 
> values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to maintain (conserve) them. 
> :-)

    What if the prevailing societal values are considered "liberal"? I don't 
follow politics much, being relatively uninterested in it, but from what I 
understand Canada is generally considered to be "socially liberal" 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada).

    If a Canadian generally agrees with the prevailing liberal societal 
values (same sex marriages are okay, etc.) and wishes to conserve those 
values, would that Canadian be a liberal or a conservative?

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/1/2005 7:48:10 PM
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:48:10 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:

>> In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change prevailing societal 
>> values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to maintain (conserve) them. 
>> :-)
>
>    What if the prevailing societal values are considered "liberal"? I don't 
>follow politics much, being relatively uninterested in it, but from what I 
>understand Canada is generally considered to be "socially liberal" 
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada).
>
>    If a Canadian generally agrees with the prevailing liberal societal 
>values (same sex marriages are okay, etc.) and wishes to conserve those 
>values, would that Canadian be a liberal or a conservative?

Lables have meanings that change.   At one time "Liberal" meant pretty
close to what "Libertarian" means now.    One can come up with a case
that conservatives, conservationists, preservatives, and
preservationists" all keep things from changing and do the same thing.

In a two party system, it is easy to say that whatever party is
opposing the more conservative party is the opposite of conservative.
But that opposite in the U.S. and that opposite in Canada don't need
to have much in common.

Conservativism, generally harkens to values of a past - usually not a
past that actually existed, but an idealized past viewed through
filtered glasses.
0
howard (6283)
12/1/2005 7:54:32 PM
Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
> news:IBEjf.46509$6y4.17394@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> 
>>In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change prevailing societal 
>>values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to maintain (conserve) them. 
>>:-)
> 
> 
>     What if the prevailing societal values are considered "liberal"? I don't 
> follow politics much, being relatively uninterested in it, but from what I 
> understand Canada is generally considered to be "socially liberal" 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada).
> 
>     If a Canadian generally agrees with the prevailing liberal societal 
> values (same sex marriages are okay, etc.) and wishes to conserve those 
> values, would that Canadian be a liberal or a conservative?
> 
>     - Oliver 
> 
> 

I sort them differently.

Liberals wish to make up their own minds on morality.

Conservative wish to make up other peoples minds on morality.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
12/1/2005 8:13:28 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message 
news:cvkuo154sjfungkb2jgjmq2q28nl4tu9aj@4ax.com...

> Conservativism, generally harkens to values of a past - usually not a
> past that actually existed, but an idealized past viewed through
> filtered glasses.

Such, indeed, is my observation.  I lived through the 
supposedly-white-picket-fence Eisenhower era.   It was not all it has later 
been cracked up to be.

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
12/1/2005 8:43:08 PM
> Liberals wish to make up their own minds on morality.

> Conservative wish to make up other peoples minds on morality.

I am not sure from that which one you think is 'bad'  ;-)

0
riplin (4127)
12/1/2005 8:50:41 PM
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:13:28 -0500, Donald Tees
<donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Liberals wish to make up their own minds on morality.
>
>Conservative wish to make up other peoples minds on morality.

I see evidence of both sides of people wishing to make up other
peoples' minds on morality.
0
howard (6283)
12/1/2005 9:15:30 PM
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:43:08 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

>> Conservativism, generally harkens to values of a past - usually not a
>> past that actually existed, but an idealized past viewed through
>> filtered glasses.
>
>Such, indeed, is my observation.  I lived through the 
>supposedly-white-picket-fence Eisenhower era.   It was not all it has later 
>been cracked up to be.

It's not that different from picking ideals from the future, as viewed
through filtered glasses.   No sense in picking both the good and the
bad from the source you wish to idealize.
0
howard (6283)
12/1/2005 9:16:47 PM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Peter Lacey wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I understand it, "conservative" by your definition
>>> involves a fairly rigid fundamentalist Christian component.  But I'm 
>>> willing
>>> to learn.  Exactly what do you mean by "conservative"?  Stake out
>>> your own definition for criticism instead of just scoffing at everyone
>>> else!
>>
>>
>> There are, broadly, three kinds of conservatives and they differ
>> from their liberal counterpoints in the following ways.
>>
>> 1. Economic conservatives tend to promote the general welfare
>> through the economy; economic liberals tend to provide for the
>> general welfare through the government.
>>
>> 2. Social conservatives tend to hold that morality is absolute
>> (i.e., God given/inspired); social liberals tend to assert that
>> morality is situational. A sub-set of this is the ends/means test:
>> The end justifies the means vs. The means condems the end.
>>
>> 3. Sociological conservatives tend to promote equal opportunity;
>> sociological liberals tend to promote equal outcomes.
>>
>> There are other, less pressing, differences but almost all agree on
>> the above. As any non-impaired person can see, liberals are
>> basically evil.
> You presented an interesting set of comparisons, in the context of the
> States, not that I would agree with you in the general context of
> liberalism on a universal basis. The UKs old Whigs and Tories,
> (1700s-1800s), don't fit that image at all.

I'm aware that the current US definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" 
bear little resemblence to the classical definitions.

>
> "almost ALL agree....". Who exactly is ALL ? (Republicans ?). But then
> you blew it, getting cute with your last sentence.

I often remind myself of the CBS reporter, Pauline Kael, who famously said: 
"How can that be? No one *I* know voted for Nixon ! " 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/1/2005 11:02:02 PM
In article <dmnn8t$1h65$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message 
>news:cvkuo154sjfungkb2jgjmq2q28nl4tu9aj@4ax.com...
>
>> Conservativism, generally harkens to values of a past - usually not a
>> past that actually existed, but an idealized past viewed through
>> filtered glasses.
>
>Such, indeed, is my observation.  I lived through the 
>supposedly-white-picket-fence Eisenhower era.   It was not all it has later 
>been cracked up to be.

But... but it was the Oldene Dayse, when a (noun) could (verb), such as 
*ten* (noun) cannot, today!

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 11:16:03 PM
In article <IPIjf.7085$wf2.709977@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees  <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>I sort them differently.
>
>Liberals wish to make up their own minds on morality.
>
>Conservative wish to make up other peoples minds on morality.

Depending on what one determines to be the realm of morality... this seems 
remarkably close to what my fifth-grade teacher told us, lo, those many 
years ago.

'Democrats (in the USA usually thought of as the more liberal party) want 
the government out of your bedroom and into your wallet, Republicans (in 
the USA usually thought of as the more conservative party) want the 
government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/1/2005 11:20:23 PM
Peter Lacey wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>
>> Bill O'Reilly. I hear that objection often - that right-wing
>> fanatics appear on Fox. It's strange that only Fox is the target for
>> such. You never hear a similar complaint about the other networks
>> regarding Dr. Phil, Ophra, Judge Judy, or even Lew Dobbs!
>
> Thanks for that!  At least I know his name now.
>
> As I don't watch the shows you mention, I can't comment on that.  But
> I don't think any of them tell interviewees what they should say and
> think, or tell them to shut up, as O'Reilly does.

Well, that goes to technique, doesn't it? And O'Reilly's trademark is: "I'll 
give you the last word."

>
>>
>> And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every
>> derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.
>
> Given her known propensity to make things up and state them as facts,
> I'd be extremely sceptical of anything except exact quotes from her
> sources.  After that - given her bias, I'd wonder  what countering
> quotes she hadn't bothered to include.
>
> Perhaps you could consult some of his victims?

Gladly. But only "innocent" ones. Who did you have in mind ?

As Coulter said: "I've been asking for just one innocent person ruined by 
Joe McCarthy for six weeks, but until now all I had gotten was wild 
speculation about my personal life."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter080703.asp



0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/1/2005 11:40:31 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>>The point of using different terms to distinguish different things is
>>obliterated by your definition above. :-)  I believe a more useful
>>definition is, rather than use "my values" or "your values", use 
>>"prevailing
>>societal values". In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change
>>prevailing societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to
>>maintain (conserve) them. :-)
>
> I don't believe this is true.    If you turn on TV and see porn and
> killing and a bunch of stuff you don't like, you don't take a poll to
> find out whether these are "prevailing societal values".   You don't
> take a conservative stand on abortion after determining what
> "prevailing societal values" are.   Instead, you assume values that
> you like that you see around you are "prevailing societal values", and
> seek to preserve them, and that values you don't like that you see
> around you are aberrations.


This is quite true, but it doesn't change my point. Any given set of values 
makes one a liberal under certain circumstances, and a conservative under 
other circumstances. It's important to remember that 'liberal' and 
'conservative' are relative terms. One thing that might be more accurate 
more often in my description above is to use "traditional" rather than 
"prevailing". :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/1/2005 11:53:09 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Whatever.  I get most of my news from troops here at Fort Benning.
>> First person accounts and all of that.  It is wonderful not to have a
>> 'filter'.
>
> And what are you gleaning from their unfiltered accounts? Do they see
> progress in Iraq, or they in agreement with the news media, that we
> are accomplishing nothing there?

I have quite a few relatives in the military and I try to keep up with 
several soldiers who are blogging. I get emails forwarded from serving 
military to their relatives.

Virtually all of the communications I've received in the past year have 
expressed feelings from dismay to disgust at the media's reporting. Things 
ARE getting better, every day, in significant, measurable ways. Standard of 
living, employment, children enrolled in school, infant mortality, power 
dependability, sanitary sewage facilities, potable water, cars on the road, 
number of newspapers and TV stations (including satellite TV by the tens of 
thousands), hospital beds available, immunizations, the list is endless. 
There are two areas that have not seen much improvement: oil production and 
electric power distribution. I'm told that current efforts in these two 
areas are concentrated on repairing, and bringing up to standard, the 
facilities that already exist, before expansion can reasonably take place.

Now the media retort that these observations are but itty-bitty pieces of 
the puzzle, seen through one pair of eyes, and cannot take into account the 
big picture. One the other hand, the TV reporters never leave the Green Zone 
in Baghdad. You be the judge.

Amazingly, 85% of the military who've served in Iraq and Afghanistan 
re-enlist when their service period is up. This is a huge percentage. 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/1/2005 11:53:22 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>>In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change
>>prevailing societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to
>>maintain (conserve) them. :-)
>
> I don't know about you, Mr McClendon, but the United States of America of
> which I am an enfranchised citizen was founded by those who detested the
> status quo and populated by immigrants from a variety of societies.
>
> My memory is, admittedly, porous, but the way I heard it most succinctly
> put was 'We are all the descendents of dissidents and revolutionaries.'


Quite true. Our Founding Fathers were the most radical of liberals in their 
time. I would most certainly be a liberal if I lived in e.g. a dictatorial 
society.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/1/2005 11:56:34 PM
Peter Lacey wrote:
> Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Not even close.  The ~80% Shiite and Kurd peoples love and appreciate
>> us.  They really like not being raped, tortured and murdered at the
>> whim of the ~20% Sunni population like happened before we hit the
>> scene.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> So if you want to be close, you might try 90% of Iraq is happy and
>> thankful for what the Americans have done.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> If we cut and run, they will.  If we stay and stabilize, they will
>> not.
>>
> <Snip>
>>
>>> - We claimed we would hand it all over when they had a
>>> democratically-elected government (ditto)
>>
>> Which they will have on December 15th.  Against all of your
>> predictions, 25 million people will decide for themselves the
>> direction they will take.  Isn't freedom great?
>>
>
> <snip>
>  Or, even more
>> annoying, why that worshiped that annoying twit Diana.
>>
>
> Spot on, old chap!  (We emigrated from England in 1957).
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Ask yourself that on December 16th.
>
> December 16th, 2008, you mean?
>
>> And they have a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force -- Poland, El
>> Salvador, Australia, Korea, Japan, et al...some 60-odd nations have
>> participated in the last three years.
>
> And just what percentage of them were Islamic, as Jimmy suggested?
>
> Joe, you are taking far too rosy-tinted a view of all this.  The US
> has indeed cleared out the top rank of tyrants, which is worth
> something, but it hasn't changed the fundamental nature of the
> country.  It's an Islamic country, with two major factions which are
> at each other's throats, along with the oppressed Kurdish population.

You make a good point. Of the fifty-odd countries that are majority Muslim, 
only two are democratic (Turkey and Malaysia). (There was another, Lebanon, 
until the PLO and Syria moved in.) The rest are oligarchies, theocracies, 
monarchies, or out-and-out anarchies (Somalia and Sudan). Still, of the 
countries in the area, Iraq has the best chance of them all. High literacy, 
secular, emancipated, with significant natural resources.

> Your army may have to remain there for the next thirty years!

Iz okay. We've been in Korea for more than fifty. Even longer in Germany. 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/2/2005 12:01:49 AM
"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>> In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change prevailing societal 
>> values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to maintain (conserve) 
>> them. :-)
>
>    What if the prevailing societal values are considered "liberal"? I 
> don't follow politics much, being relatively uninterested in it, but from 
> what I understand Canada is generally considered to be "socially liberal" 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada).
>
>    If a Canadian generally agrees with the prevailing liberal societal 
> values (same sex marriages are okay, etc.) and wishes to conserve those 
> values, would that Canadian be a liberal or a conservative?


Being a liberal or a conservative is relative to the societal values. In the 
broadest sense, it is not the values themselves that makes one a liberal or 
conservative, it is the relationship between ones values and the prevailing 
values of the culture. When you speak of "liberal beliefs or values" or 
"conservative beliefs or values", those phrases only makes sense in context 
with the traditional cultural belief setting under which the terms are 
applied. Because these terms are relative to the society, a person who is a 
liberal in one place might be a conservative in another, and vice versa.

For example, someone in the US who wanted a Communist government would be 
extremely liberal. But in Russia during the fall of Communism, those who 
wanted to restore Communism were correctly labeled conservatives.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 12:07:39 AM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:q%Ljf.46804$6y4.39628@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> One thing that might be more accurate more often in my description above 
> is to use "traditional" rather than "prevailing". :-)

It was "traditional" in my youth for local governments to prohibit 
miscegenation.

It was "traditional" in my youth for the black students in our town to be 
educated in a one-room clapboard schoolhouse in the Flats while the White 
Folk went to the brand-new school in the center of town.

It was "traditional" in my youth for the winning team at the Texas-Texas A&M 
football team to be treated by the alumni to a night at the Chicken Ranch in 
LaGrange (yes, that's the place the Broadway musical was about).

What's so noble about preserving what's "traditional"?

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
12/2/2005 12:31:56 AM
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:20:23 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>'Democrats (in the USA usually thought of as the more liberal party) want 
>the government out of your bedroom and into your wallet, Republicans (in 
>the USA usually thought of as the more conservative party) want the 
>government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.'

I bet you went Repub!

Served you right!

Anna Nha
0
berlutte1 (21)
12/2/2005 12:48:32 AM
In article <D2Mjf.46807$6y4.34325@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change
>>>prevailing societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to
>>>maintain (conserve) them. :-)
>>
>> I don't know about you, Mr McClendon, but the United States of America of
>> which I am an enfranchised citizen was founded by those who detested the
>> status quo and populated by immigrants from a variety of societies.
>>
>> My memory is, admittedly, porous, but the way I heard it most succinctly
>> put was 'We are all the descendents of dissidents and revolutionaries.'
>
>
>Quite true. Our Founding Fathers were the most radical of liberals in their 
>time. I would most certainly be a liberal if I lived in e.g. a dictatorial 
>society.

Even when the dictator agreed with you?  How very interesting!

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/2/2005 1:44:03 AM
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>> One thing that might be more accurate more often in my description above 
>> is to use "traditional" rather than "prevailing". :-)
>
> It was "traditional" in my youth for local governments to prohibit 
> miscegenation.
>
> It was "traditional" in my youth for the black students in our town to be 
> educated in a one-room clapboard schoolhouse in the Flats while the White 
> Folk went to the brand-new school in the center of town.
>
> It was "traditional" in my youth for the winning team at the Texas-Texas 
> A&M football team to be treated by the alumni to a night at the Chicken 
> Ranch in LaGrange (yes, that's the place the Broadway musical was about).
>
> What's so noble about preserving what's "traditional"?


That depends entirely on what traditions you are trying to preserve, Chuck. 
:-)

Remember when 'conservative' and 'liberal' are used in the political 
descriptive sense, they are relative to the culture, they are not absolutes. 
If you use Liberal and Conservative in a proper name sense, like "The 
Liberal Party", then they are just names, like Jack or Sam.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 3:06:47 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change
>>>>prevailing societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to
>>>>maintain (conserve) them. :-)
>>>
>>> I don't know about you, Mr McClendon, but the United States of America 
>>> of
>>> which I am an enfranchised citizen was founded by those who detested the
>>> status quo and populated by immigrants from a variety of societies.
>>>
>>> My memory is, admittedly, porous, but the way I heard it most succinctly
>>> put was 'We are all the descendents of dissidents and revolutionaries.'
>>
>>
>>Quite true. Our Founding Fathers were the most radical of liberals in 
>>their
>>time. I would most certainly be a liberal if I lived in e.g. a dictatorial
>>society.
>
> Even when the dictator agreed with you?  How very interesting!


He would have to believe that he should abandon his dictatorship for a 
democracy to agree with me. I'm not sure that's highly probable. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 3:09:01 AM
HeyBub wrote:
> Peter Lacey wrote:
> 
>>HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bill O'Reilly. I hear that objection often - that right-wing
>>>fanatics appear on Fox. It's strange that only Fox is the target for
>>>such. You never hear a similar complaint about the other networks
>>>regarding Dr. Phil, Ophra, Judge Judy, or even Lew Dobbs!
>>
>>Thanks for that!  At least I know his name now.
>>
>>As I don't watch the shows you mention, I can't comment on that.  But
>>I don't think any of them tell interviewees what they should say and
>>think, or tell them to shut up, as O'Reilly does.
> 
> 
> Well, that goes to technique, doesn't it? And O'Reilly's trademark is: "I'll 
> give you the last word."
> 
> 
>>>And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every
>>>derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.
>>
>>Given her known propensity to make things up and state them as facts,
>>I'd be extremely sceptical of anything except exact quotes from her
>>sources.  After that - given her bias, I'd wonder  what countering
>>quotes she hadn't bothered to include.
>>
>>Perhaps you could consult some of his victims?
> 
> 
> Gladly. But only "innocent" ones. Who did you have in mind ?
> 
> As Coulter said: "I've been asking for just one innocent person ruined by 
> Joe McCarthy for six weeks, but until now all I had gotten was wild 
> speculation about my personal life."
> 
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter080703.asp

It is quite possible that Anne Coulter was not able to establish a hard 
connection with McCarthy. However don't let's get into the niceties of 
splitting hairs.

Adolf Hitler did not himself pull the switch at Dachau or Auschwitz, 
similarly nor did Heinrich Himmler - although with some smugness his 
'lieutenants' smirked when they saw the Reichsf�hrer-SS nearly puke on a 
tour of the gas chambers.

As to those affected by Joe, check out McCarthyism and the plague that 
ravaged the USA during his time, much to the disgust of Ike, 
(eventually). Joe may not have started it back in '47 - but he sure 
contributed to playing a good tune  :-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  In 1947 the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), chaired 
by J. Parnell Thomas, began an investigation into the Hollywood Motion 
Picture Industry. The HUAC interviewed 41 people who were working in 
Hollywood. These people attended voluntarily and became known as 
"friendly witnesses". During their interviews they named nineteen people 
who they accused of holding left-wing views.

One of those named, Bertolt Brecht, a playwright, gave evidence and then 
left for East Germany. Ten others: Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Albert 
Maltz, Adrian Scott, Samuel Ornitz,, Dalton Trumbo, Edward Dmytryk, Ring 
Lardner Jr., John Howard Lawson and Alvah Bessie refused to answer any 
questions.

Known as the Hollywood Ten, they claimed that the 1st Amendment of the 
United States Constitution gave them the right to do this. The House of 
Un-American Activities Committee and the courts during appeals disagreed 
and they all were found guilty of contempt of congress and each was 
sentenced to between six and twelve months in prison.

Larry Parks was the only actor in the original nineteen people named. He 
was also the only person on the list who the average moviegoer would 
have known. Parks agreed to give evidence to the HUAC and admitted that 
he had joined the Communist Party in 1941 but left it four years later. 
When asked for the names of fellow members, Parks replied: "I would 
prefer, if you would allow me, not to mention other people's names. 
Don't present me with the choice of either being in contempt of this 
Committee and going to jail or forcing me to really crawl through the 
mud to be an informer."

The House of Un-American Activities Committee insisted that Parks 
answered all the questions asked. The HUAC had a private session and two 
days later it was leaked to the newspapers that Parks had named names. 
Leo Townsend, Isobel Lennart, Roy Huggins, Richard Collins, Lee J. Cobb, 
Budd Schulberg and Elia Kazan, afraid they would go to prison, were also 
willing to name people who had been members of left-wing groups.

In June, 1950, three former FBI agents and a right-wing television 
producer, Vincent Harnett, published Red Channels, a pamphlet listing 
the names of 151 writers, directors and performers who they claimed had 
been members of subversive organisations before the Second World War but 
had not so far been blacklisted. The names had been compiled from FBI 
files and a detailed analysis of the Daily Worker, a newspaper published 
by the American Communist Party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There were those who decided to reap political gain from the fears of 
the American public, and the most notorious of these is Joseph McCarthy. 
Joe McCarthy was a Republican Senator who announced that he had lists of 
suspected communists. The list had names of many kinds of people, and 
they ranged from TV personalities to businessmen. He was often in the 
news, telling the American people that they were being overrun with 
communists, and that they must rid themselves of all the communists 
before America could be great again. Joe McCarthy�s political star began 
to rise. And America is still feeling the backlash from Joe McCarthy�s 
political ambition today.

In 1954, all of America watched avidly as the Senate held hearings for 
some of the people on the lists. The hearings were televised nationwide. 
Two future presidents were present at the hearings. Richard Nixon was a 
member of the HUAC, and Ronald Reagan appeared as a friendly witness.

The HUAC blacklisted many people. Blacklisting means putting people on a 
list of suspected communists. It meant that their professional 
reputation was destroyed, and that no one would hire them for fear of 
being thought a communist. The HUAC and Joseph McCarthy forced many 
people to testify at their hearings. They asked if the people had ever 
been communists, they asked if they were communists now, and they asked 
them for the names of people who could be communists. Most people did 
not want to answer, because they felt that it was a violation of both 
their civil rights and any people they might name.

The committee immediately blacklisted the ones who refused to cooperate. 
As a result of this, people who were afraid that they were going to be 
charged gave the names of people that they knew were not really 
communists. Many actors couldn�t star in movies anymore because they 
were blacklisted. Some authors for the big screen continued to write 
movies using fake names, but most never worked again. Some were forced 
to leave the country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anne Coulter is not old enough to remember this era. Are you old enough 
? The whole thing left a stench in the Western world.

For God's sake. I picked up a reference where 10-year old Shirley Temple 
was under suspicion - my little sweetheart. Larry Parks for one - scored 
bigtime with one or two movies playing Al Jolson. Never made a movie 
again after McCarthyism. Two who stood up strongly to protest this mess 
- Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall.

Jimmy, Calgary AB
0
12/2/2005 3:34:46 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> For God's sake. I picked up a reference where 10-year old Shirley Temple 
> was under suspicion - my little sweetheart. Larry Parks for one - scored 
> bigtime with one or two movies playing Al Jolson. Never made a movie again 
> after McCarthyism. Two who stood up strongly to protest this mess - 
> Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall.


I was around, but too young to remember. I also don't have a pig in this 
race. But I can tell you one thing, I have seen with my own eyes more than a 
dozen people at different times, who had protested loudly when accused by 
McCarthy, once it made no difference, publicly admit on interview to being 
involved. And those are just ones I have personally seen. I have also seen 
chat groups of several Hollywood personalities sitting around and joking 
about how virtually everyone in Hollywood at the time was at least 
sympathetic to the Reds. Like I said, I don't care one way or the other, but 
I believe McCarthy was right a whole lot more than he was wrong. Just 
because he was smeared doesn't make him wrong. He had very powerful enemies.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 4:03:01 AM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:48:10 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change prevailing societal 
>>>values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to maintain (conserve) them. 
>>>:-)
>>
>>   What if the prevailing societal values are considered "liberal"? I don't 
>>follow politics much, being relatively uninterested in it, but from what I 
>>understand Canada is generally considered to be "socially liberal" 
>>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada).
>>
>>   If a Canadian generally agrees with the prevailing liberal societal 
>>values (same sex marriages are okay, etc.) and wishes to conserve those 
>>values, would that Canadian be a liberal or a conservative?
> 
> 
> Lables have meanings that change.   At one time "Liberal" meant pretty
> close to what "Libertarian" means now.    One can come up with a case
> that conservatives, conservationists, preservatives, and
> preservationists" all keep things from changing and do the same thing.
> 
> In a two party system, it is easy to say that whatever party is
> opposing the more conservative party is the opposite of conservative.
> But that opposite in the U.S. and that opposite in Canada don't need
> to have much in common.
> 
> Conservativism, generally harkens to values of a past - usually not a
> past that actually existed, but an idealized past viewed through
> filtered glasses.

I suppose we can all assess in our minds what we think something means, 
and sometimes based on experiences. Dictionary-wise, you are correct in 
grouping - "conservatives, conservationists, preservatives, and
preservationists" - to conserve/preserve.

Not quite how I viewed English conservatism - I came to the conclusion 
that to conserve/preserve was, "I've made it in this world and want to 
hang on to what I've got. You haven't been so lucky. Pity......  F... 
you Jack up alright !"

One of the reasons that I thought the Canadian political party name 
Progressive Conservatives was an absolute absurdity.

Jimmy
0
12/2/2005 4:21:52 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dmmkgj$3cv$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <3v7unjF14pii4U1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message 
>>news:dmkamr$dch$1@reader2.panix.com...
>>> In article <3v532hF13or8nU1@individual.net>,
>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
> [snip]
>
>>The important thing is not the champagne; it is the fact that I bent a 
>>bit,
>>and bought a French product. A few years back I most certainly would not
>>have.
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... those who have read your postings from a few years back, Mr Dashwood,
> might have noticed that then, as well, you were more than a bit bent.
>
> (note - 'bent' in this case is NOT being used in the sense of 'dishonest'
> or 'corrupt' but in the sense of 'twisted askew from the norm' or
> 'slightly insane')
>
Well , that's a relief... "bent" has another connotation in some cultures. 
Thank you for clarifying precisely what you meant :-).

And yes, I plead guilty to being (as one of my heroes, the New York poet and 
musician, Paul Simon noted...) "still crazy after all these years"...

(I may be mad, but mine is a FINE madness!!!! :-))

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
12/2/2005 9:10:41 AM
In article <3vahcmF14t9qtU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dmmkgj$3cv$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <3v7unjF14pii4U1@individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:dmkamr$dch$1@reader2.panix.com...
>>>> In article <3v532hF13or8nU1@individual.net>,
>>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>The important thing is not the champagne; it is the fact that I bent a 
>>>bit,
>>>and bought a French product. A few years back I most certainly would not
>>>have.
>>
>> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>>
>> ... those who have read your postings from a few years back, Mr Dashwood,
>> might have noticed that then, as well, you were more than a bit bent.
>>
>> (note - 'bent' in this case is NOT being used in the sense of 'dishonest'
>> or 'corrupt' but in the sense of 'twisted askew from the norm' or
>> 'slightly insane')
>>
>Well , that's a relief... "bent" has another connotation in some cultures. 

Hmmmmm... perhaps similar to uses of 'warm' in German, referring to a 
certain sort of... sophistication regarding intimate preferences?

>Thank you for clarifying precisely what you meant :-).

I was bitten by the 'drunk/pissed/angry' confusion decades back, aye.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/2/2005 10:34:47 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:48:10 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change prevailing
>>>> societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to maintain
>>>> (conserve) them. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>   What if the prevailing societal values are considered "liberal"? I
>>> don't follow politics much, being relatively uninterested in it, but
>>> from what I understand Canada is generally considered to be "socially
>>> liberal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada).
>>>
>>>   If a Canadian generally agrees with the prevailing liberal societal
>>> values (same sex marriages are okay, etc.) and wishes to conserve
>>> those values, would that Canadian be a liberal or a conservative?
>>
>>
>>
>> Lables have meanings that change.   At one time "Liberal" meant pretty
>> close to what "Libertarian" means now.    One can come up with a case
>> that conservatives, conservationists, preservatives, and
>> preservationists" all keep things from changing and do the same thing.
>>
>> In a two party system, it is easy to say that whatever party is
>> opposing the more conservative party is the opposite of conservative.
>> But that opposite in the U.S. and that opposite in Canada don't need
>> to have much in common.
>>
>> Conservativism, generally harkens to values of a past - usually not a
>> past that actually existed, but an idealized past viewed through
>> filtered glasses.
> 
> 
> I suppose we can all assess in our minds what we think something means,
> and sometimes based on experiences. Dictionary-wise, you are correct in
> grouping - "conservatives, conservationists, preservatives, and
> preservationists" - to conserve/preserve.
> 
> Not quite how I viewed English conservatism - I came to the conclusion
> that to conserve/preserve was, "I've made it in this world and want to
> hang on to what I've got. You haven't been so lucky. Pity......  F...
> you Jack up alright !"
> 
> One of the reasons that I thought the Canadian political party name
> Progressive Conservatives was an absolute absurdity.
> 
> Jimmy

The english meaning of liberal also shares meaning with liberty.

Conservative has always, politically, meant preserving the status quo,
*regardless* of the value of that status quo.  Judson's idea that
somehow conservative really means "freedom" because it is "america" is
just a rather silly affectation of american society.

Conservative, when applied in politics, really means "mind your bloody
elders, *we* know what is correct, *you* do not, so shut up".

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
12/2/2005 12:28:25 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
>>For God's sake. I picked up a reference where 10-year old Shirley Temple 
>>was under suspicion - my little sweetheart. Larry Parks for one - scored 
>>bigtime with one or two movies playing Al Jolson. Never made a movie again 
>>after McCarthyism. Two who stood up strongly to protest this mess - 
>>Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall.
> 
> 
> 
> I was around, but too young to remember. I also don't have a pig in this 
> race. But I can tell you one thing, I have seen with my own eyes more than a 
> dozen people at different times, who had protested loudly when accused by 
> McCarthy, once it made no difference, publicly admit on interview to being 
> involved. And those are just ones I have personally seen. I have also seen 
> chat groups of several Hollywood personalities sitting around and joking 
> about how virtually everyone in Hollywood at the time was at least 
> sympathetic to the Reds. Like I said, I don't care one way or the other, but 
> I believe McCarthy was right a whole lot more than he was wrong. Just 
> because he was smeared doesn't make him wrong. He had very powerful enemies.

>"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
>whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Yep, they did not believe what he did, and they *should* have been
crucified.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
12/2/2005 12:34:42 PM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> The english meaning of liberal also shares meaning with liberty.

Yes, "liberty from constraint of traditional values." :-)

> Conservative has always, politically, meant preserving the status quo,
> *regardless* of the value of that status quo.  Judson's idea that
> somehow conservative really means "freedom" because it is "america"
> is just a rather silly affectation of american society.

I was speaking specifically about conservatives in the US. Here, socially 
dictatorial ideas like Political Correctness are *liberal* ideas. PC is 
quite the reverse of personal freedom. Restricting Christians rights to pray 
or express their beliefs publicly are the reverse of personal freedoms, and 
those are most definitely liberal ideas here. So please, don't give me this 
nonsense about liberals believing in personal freedom (for everybody). Yech! 
:-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 1:09:22 PM
In article <2TOjf.46944$6y4.13541@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change
>>>>>prevailing societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to
>>>>>maintain (conserve) them. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about you, Mr McClendon, but the United States of America 
>>>> of
>>>> which I am an enfranchised citizen was founded by those who detested the
>>>> status quo and populated by immigrants from a variety of societies.
>>>>
>>>> My memory is, admittedly, porous, but the way I heard it most succinctly
>>>> put was 'We are all the descendents of dissidents and revolutionaries.'
>>>
>>>
>>>Quite true. Our Founding Fathers were the most radical of liberals in 
>>>their
>>>time. I would most certainly be a liberal if I lived in e.g. a dictatorial
>>>society.
>>
>> Even when the dictator agreed with you?  How very interesting!
>
>
>He would have to believe that he should abandon his dictatorship for a 
>democracy to agree with me. I'm not sure that's highly probable. :-)

So... if the dictator advocated (x) and you advocated (x) you would feel 
bound to advocate (not x) until the advocating dictator abdicated.  That's 
a rather... flexible attitude, it seems.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/2/2005 1:26:18 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:50:20 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
> >I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved
> >for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for
> >products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark
> >laws and all that.  Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines...
> >but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
>
> How about we expand on this and only use sandwich for food from the
> Earldom?
>

I was schooled in the stately home which belonged to Lord Montague, the
first Earl of Sandwich. A sandwich is so named after his lordships
habit of slapping slices of meat between slices of bread for a meal at
the card tables. It is deemed to be a generic term much in the way that
the world deems cheddar to be a generic cheese which no longer needs to
be manufactured in the Cheddar Gorge and Stilton to be a chees that
never originated from Stilton. Champagne, although made earlier by
English monks, is not deemed to be a generic term (by the European
Union) but refers to the region from which the wine derives. I suppose
that the term Champagne could be applied to all wines originating from
that region of France regardless of whether they are carbonated or not.

> Or is this a matter of whom pays the lawyers and politicians the most?

No, just that the French are bloody minded in a way that the British
are not.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 1:31:47 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>>The english meaning of liberal also shares meaning with liberty.
> 
> 
> Yes, "liberty from constraint of traditional values." :-)
> 
> 
>>Conservative has always, politically, meant preserving the status quo,
>>*regardless* of the value of that status quo.  Judson's idea that
>>somehow conservative really means "freedom" because it is "america"
>>is just a rather silly affectation of american society.
> 
> 
> I was speaking specifically about conservatives in the US. Here, socially 
> dictatorial ideas like Political Correctness are *liberal* ideas. PC is 
> quite the reverse of personal freedom. Restricting Christians rights to pray 
> or express their beliefs publicly are the reverse of personal freedoms, and 
> those are most definitely liberal ideas here. So please, don't give me this 
> nonsense about liberals believing in personal freedom (for everybody). Yech! 
> :-)

Insisting that my children have to pray if they want to go to school is
freedom?  Saying, "NO" they do not, is dictatorial?

Nobody, ever, in the United States or Canada, has ever said you could
not pray any way you wanted to. Just do not insist they *I* have to be
part of your hypocracy. Insisting that *my* children be brainwashed by
your lackeys is not what *my* father went to war over, nor something *I*
wish to fight for.

Your response regarding McCarthy is typical.  You personally know of at
least a dozen people that later admited to having horrible belief
systems, so of course persecuting them was right. The fact that they are
*suppose* to have freedom to believe what they want is completely
irrelevant to you.

Did it ever occur to you, Judson, that a belief we, the strong and
wealthy in society, have to strike a balance? We can believe in helping
the weak without believing that weakness is a virtue. We can share our
wealth without believing that owning things is wrong. We can respect
other people's beliefs without giving up our own beliefs.

Freedom to agree only with the status quo is *NOT* freedom. Freedom to
use your leftovers is not the route to wealth either.

Donald

0
donald_tees (563)
12/2/2005 1:37:34 PM
Sophistication regarding initimate preferences?

Assuming that I have correctly got your drift:

My father once remarked (in Germany) that he could not understand how
the Germans ever managed to procreate as the German language was so
unromantic. 'Ich liebe dich' certainly has no soft edges or tones.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 1:41:28 PM
If the same thing should happen to Britain the US would be the first
to....

When Argentina invaded the British territory of the Falkland Islands
the US did everything that they could to persuade the British to give
up the islands. Fine friends indeed.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 1:46:30 PM
I beg to differ with regard to the comment where the US forgave it's
allies debts. Britain was still paying back for the lend lease years
after the war finished (I'm not sure whether that has stopped now).

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 1:51:12 PM
A British tv program (Top Gear, won an Emmy for the best non-scripted
tv show) does an annual survey of cars and their reliability. Of the 13
worst (unreliable) cars, 10 were French. As rioting was endemic in
Parisian suburbs at that time the comment was made that that was why
the French were burning their cars.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 2:04:03 PM
In article <1133530888.298727.64000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Sophistication regarding initimate preferences?

A euphemistic rendering of the condition of being attracted to members of 
the same sex.

>
>Assuming that I have correctly got your drift:
>
>My father once remarked (in Germany) that he could not understand how
>the Germans ever managed to procreate as the German language was so
>unromantic. 'Ich liebe dich' certainly has no soft edges or tones.

Hmmmmm... depends on the regional pronounciation, or so I was taught.  
The 'ch' is rendered in northern accents as a hard 'k', similar to the 
Dutch: 'Ik liebe dik', in southern accents it is pronounced as the English 
'sh': 'Ish liebe dish'.  Middle accents are a mix between the two, a sound 
that doesn't exist in English.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/2/2005 2:23:06 PM
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 01:44:03 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>>Quite true. Our Founding Fathers were the most radical of liberals in their 
>>time. I would most certainly be a liberal if I lived in e.g. a dictatorial 
>>society.
>
>Even when the dictator agreed with you?  How very interesting!

The term Liberal started off as being anti-king.    If the dictator
agreed, he would replace himself with a people's government.
0
howard (6283)
12/2/2005 2:24:01 PM
Not just a right-wing conservative (small c) but a right-wing
Conservative who represents the Conservative and Unionist Party (aka
the Tories) on the Daily Politics tv show. I view his comments as
tainted and skewed by his politics. However, every word reported above
is true.

And we do need Iraqi oil. Look at what happened to the price of oil
after the war was 'finished'.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 2:40:09 PM
Fox News? Don't you ever watch the Simpsons?

We get the BBC news service here and they do report the good things
going on over there. They also report the bad things, like contract
security personnel shooting up civilian cars for fun. Look for AEGIS
and see if you can find the video on their web site that shows these
incidents.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 2:45:51 PM
Surrendering to the Mullahs is a valid option (albeit one that would
not be popular). When they have complete control then the boot would be
on the other foot and we wouldn't have to worry about indiscriminate
suicide bombings (or should that be discriminate suicide bombings?) nor
would we have to pay lots oil. 

Musht remoove tung from cheeeek.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 2:55:40 PM
The Australians fought in Vietnam. Apparently (I've seen photographs)
they used tanks in the jungle with some degree of success. There was
another nation that helped the US in Vietnam but I can not remember
precisely whom. It may also be the case that British special forces may
have been involved but that is more guesswork rather than hard fact.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 3:02:21 PM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>The english meaning of liberal also shares meaning with liberty.
>>
>> Yes, "liberty from constraint of traditional values." :-)
>>
>>>Conservative has always, politically, meant preserving the status quo,
>>>*regardless* of the value of that status quo.  Judson's idea that
>>>somehow conservative really means "freedom" because it is "america"
>>>is just a rather silly affectation of american society.
>>
>> I was speaking specifically about conservatives in the US. Here, socially
>> dictatorial ideas like Political Correctness are *liberal* ideas. PC is
>> quite the reverse of personal freedom. Restricting Christians rights to 
>> pray
>> or express their beliefs publicly are the reverse of personal freedoms, 
>> and
>> those are most definitely liberal ideas here. So please, don't give me 
>> this
>> nonsense about liberals believing in personal freedom (for everybody). 
>> Yech!
>> :-)
>
> Insisting that my children have to pray if they want to go to school is
> freedom?  Saying, "NO" they do not, is dictatorial?

No, your children shouldn't have to pray in public schools if they don't 
want to. But telling my children they *can't* pray in public school is most 
definitely dictatorial, and that *is* the situation in many places here.

> Nobody, ever, in the United States or Canada, has ever said you could
> not pray any way you wanted to.

Boy, are you clueless here, Donald. You would be amazed at the number of 
lawsuits (many hundreds, maybe thousands) there have been, and still are, 
because Christian children were denied their right to pray in public school, 
even denied the right to pray over their food before eating! I know somne of 
these people personally. There have arisen a number of Christian 
organizations whose sole purpose is to help fund these litigations. Much of 
the funding on the other side comes ftom the ultra liberal ACLU. Americal 
Civil Liberties, my eye!

> Insisting that *my* children be brainwashed by
> your lackeys is not what *my* father went to war over, nor something *I*
> wish to fight for.

Agreed. I hope nobody is insisting that.

> Your response regarding McCarthy is typical.  You personally know of at
> least a dozen people that later admited to having horrible belief
> systems, so of course persecuting them was right. The fact that they are
> *suppose* to have freedom to believe what they want is completely
> irrelevant to you.

Again, you are misinformed. The Constitution of the United States clearly 
says it is Treason to espouse the violent overthrow of the United States 
Government. This is precisely what the Communist conspirators were about 
(See the Communist revolutions in Russa or China for details). So you are 
*dead wrong* to say they had the freedom to embrace and propagate such 
idealogy here in the United States.

> Did it ever occur to you, Judson, that a belief we, the strong and
> wealthy in society, have to strike a balance? We can believe in helping
> the weak without believing that weakness is a virtue. We can share our
> wealth without believing that owning things is wrong. We can respect
> other people's beliefs without giving up our own beliefs.
>
> Freedom to agree only with the status quo is *NOT* freedom. Freedom to
> use your leftovers is not the route to wealth either.

Of course. I'm happy to say that I have never thought or spoken otherwise. 
:-)

I want liberals to have the freedom to believe as they want. I just don't 
want them to force their ideology onto me and my children. That's what 
freedom and democracy are all about, is it not? :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 3:07:31 PM
90% of patents are registered in the US? How many of those are for
perpetual motion machines (one was recently patented in the US) and how
many for discoveries made elsewhere (such as the UK) and brought to the
US? And how many of those were patented in the US simply because
nowhere else allows patenting on that product/concept?


As for the number of millionaires - it is relatively easy being a
dollar millionaire, as the dollar is not worth what it used to be
worth. You could easily have been a Lira millionaire in Turkey just by
emptying the small change out of your pockets.


Sorry if people think that I'm beginning to sound a little anti-US but
I am pro-US and would/have forgiven the US for much of the wrong that
it has done the UK and the world over the years. I just can't help
think that there is something wrong with a president who believes that
he has the (God-given) right to bomb a free press office (Al Jazeera)
in an allied countries' territory (Doha in Qatar).

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 3:08:31 PM
No. Definitely not sugar. We use salt.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 3:12:30 PM
In article <q5m0p1hs455biol17uq8t1mn1lj3kjhs2s@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee  <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 01:44:03 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>>Quite true. Our Founding Fathers were the most radical of liberals in their 
>>>time. I would most certainly be a liberal if I lived in e.g. a dictatorial 
>>>society.
>>
>>Even when the dictator agreed with you?  How very interesting!
>
>The term Liberal started off as being anti-king.

The term 'radical' started off with meaning 'concerned with the root 
(radix)'... and has since taken a radical departure.  Terms change, 
although some more conservatively than others.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/2/2005 3:13:30 PM
A Liberal would never want to change societal values. A Liberal would
adopt a laissez-faire approach. A Conservative would always wish for
the status quo to remain unaltered.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 3:24:48 PM
Alistair wrote:
> If the same thing should happen to Britain the US would be the first
> to....
>
> When Argentina invaded the British territory of the Falkland Islands
> the US did everything that they could to persuade the British to give
> up the islands. Fine friends indeed.


Both the President and Secretary of Defense were later awarded the honour of 
Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, from 
Queen Elizabeth II for their roles in the conflict. 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/2/2005 3:29:21 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I was schooled in the stately home which belonged to Lord Montague, the
> first Earl of Sandwich. A sandwich is so named after his lordships
> habit of slapping slices of meat between slices of bread for a meal at
> the card tables. It is deemed to be a generic term much in the way that
> the world deems cheddar to be a generic cheese which no longer needs to
> be manufactured in the Cheddar Gorge and Stilton to be a chees that
> never originated from Stilton. Champagne, although made earlier by
> English monks, is not deemed to be a generic term (by the European
> Union) but refers to the region from which the wine derives. I suppose
> that the term Champagne could be applied to all wines originating from
> that region of France regardless of whether they are carbonated or not.

For years I have loved the "Wallace & Gromit" characters created by Nick 
Park. I love cheese (though I can't eat much because it gives me migraines), 
and in observing Wallace discuss all these different varieties of cheese in 
"A Grand Day Out", have learned that I must be a cheese plebeian. My cheese 
repertoire is pretty much just Cheddar (Mild, Moderate and Sharp), Colby, 
Swiss, Parmesan and Mozzarella. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 3:31:14 PM
Alistair wrote:
>
> Sorry if people think that I'm beginning to sound a little anti-US but
> I am pro-US and would/have forgiven the US for much of the wrong that
> it has done the UK and the world over the years. I just can't help
> think that there is something wrong with a president who believes that
> he has the (God-given) right to bomb a free press office (Al Jazeera)
> in an allied countries' territory (Doha in Qatar).

Same motivation that the British had in wishing or trying to get Lord 
Haw-Haw off the air or the US had regarding Toyko Rose.

If communications are being spread by your enemies that compromise your 
ability to prevail in a conflict, you at least have a duty to consider 
eliminating the source of the disinformation.

I understand that Pentagon people who get paid to think unthinkable thoughts 
are currently evaluating the BBC. 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/2/2005 3:38:34 PM
On 2 Dec 2005 07:24:48 -0800, "Alistair"
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>A Liberal would never want to change societal values. A Liberal would
>adopt a laissez-faire approach. A Conservative would always wish for
>the status quo to remain unaltered.

All political activists want to change societal values.

Virtually all people do, to some extent.
0
howard (6283)
12/2/2005 3:58:38 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If the same thing should happen to Britain the US would be the first
> to....
>
> When Argentina invaded the British territory of the Falkland Islands
> the US did everything that they could to persuade the British to give
> up the islands. Fine friends indeed.


That was very likely propaganda for Argentina. I do know for a fact that the 
US virtually stripped our entire east coast air forces of Stinger missiles 
and gave them to the Brits (who ran out of them). We also supported the 
Brits heavily with satellite intel, replacement parts and logistics. There's 
no way England could have won that war without significant US assistance, 
The British navy had been cut way too much, hardly a match for one US 
carrier group. And England did not have enough supply ships to keep their 
fleet on station, which is where our spare parts and logistics support 
helped a lot. But all this was done covertly to avoid provoking Argentina, 
with whom we had good relations and no quarrel. AFAIK, we gave no support to 
Argentina in that war. You bet your butt we're fine friends indeed! We've 
saved British butts often enough in the past to prove that (even though we 
did kick said butts outta here a couple of hundred years ago). :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 4:23:37 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I beg to differ with regard to the comment where the US forgave it's
> allies debts. Britain was still paying back for the lend lease years
> after the war finished (I'm not sure whether that has stopped now).


These were only token payments (probably for political reasons over here). 
None of our allies even paid the interest on those debts. I'm not protesting 
this, merely pointing it out. It was money well spent, as far as I'm 
concerned. And so was the Marshall Plan.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 4:28:19 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Surrendering to the Mullahs is a valid option (albeit one that would
> not be popular). When they have complete control then the boot would be
> on the other foot and we wouldn't have to worry about indiscriminate
> suicide bombings (or should that be discriminate suicide bombings?) nor
> would we have to pay lots oil.


Alistair, those people are bombing us because they hate and despise what we 
are and stand for. They want to destroy us and our beliefs. Nothing we could 
ever do would appease them, except for every one of us to turn wholesale to 
Islam. This is the principle of jihad - everyone who is not a Muslim is an 
Infidel, you must force them to become Muslims or kill them. It was fear of 
this exact same fanaticism, then conquering its way into Africa and Europe, 
that provoked the Crusades of the Middle Ages.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 4:46:41 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:FoZjf.47094$6y4.38133@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> > Your response regarding McCarthy is typical.  You personally know of at
> > least a dozen people that later admited to having horrible belief
> > systems, so of course persecuting them was right. The fact that they are
> > *suppose* to have freedom to believe what they want is completely
> > irrelevant to you.
>
> Again, you are misinformed. The Constitution of the United States clearly
> says it is Treason to espouse the violent overthrow of the United States
> Government. This is precisely what the Communist conspirators were about
> (See the Communist revolutions in Russa or China for details). So you are
> *dead wrong* to say they had the freedom to embrace and propagate such
> idealogy here in the United States.

Article III, Section 3,
"1. Treason against the United States shall consist only
in levying war against them, or in adhering to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall
be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
open court.
"2. The Congress shall have power to declare the
punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall
work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during
the life of the person attainted."

Federalist 83 [Alexander Hamilton],
"The United States, in their united or collective capacity,
are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the
Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer."
[caps original]

The "United States Government" is distinct from the
United States ("in their united or collective capacity")
and conspiracy, by definition, is not an overt act.

Mr McClendon, I wonder whether you may be confusing
'sedition' with 'treason'. Sedition is the 'incitement of
public disorder or rebellion against a government', which,
I suppose, would include incitement of "violent overthrow"
of that government; but, in the United States, sedition is
not treason, due to the definition of treason in the U.S.
Constitution. It is also my understanding that sedition is
not a crime (to distinguish between speech and acts);
but any violent act proceeding from it is likely a criminal
offense.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/2/2005 4:53:37 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1133532295.702705.276420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>  There was
> another nation that helped the US in Vietnam but I can not remember
> precisely whom.

Republic of Korea.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/2/2005 5:00:07 PM
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:34:47 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>
>I was bitten by the 'drunk/pissed/angry' confusion decades back, aye.

And nowaday you have become a sober/serene/happy codin' fool...

Lovely, really!

Paula Bia
0
berlutte1 (21)
12/2/2005 5:07:10 PM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> [snip]
>> > Your response regarding McCarthy is typical.  You personally know of at
>> > least a dozen people that later admited to having horrible belief
>> > systems, so of course persecuting them was right. The fact that they 
>> > are
>> > *suppose* to have freedom to believe what they want is completely
>> > irrelevant to you.
>>
>> Again, you are misinformed. The Constitution of the United States clearly
>> says it is Treason to espouse the violent overthrow of the United States
>> Government. This is precisely what the Communist conspirators were about
>> (See the Communist revolutions in Russa or China for details). So you are
>> *dead wrong* to say they had the freedom to embrace and propagate such
>> idealogy here in the United States.
>
> Article III, Section 3,
> "1. Treason against the United States shall consist only
> in levying war against them,

** or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. **

Joining the Communist Party and attending Communist rallies is certainly 
"adhering to" and most likely "giving comfort," especially if dues are paid, 
or if one hosts such meetings. Allowing a criminal to merely come into ones 
home and stay for a while can be prosecuted as aiding and abetting, or 
complicity. Remember Dr. Samuel Mudd, the doctor who treated John Wilkes 
Booth after Booth shot Lincoln? That's where the phrase "...'s name is 
Mud(d)" began.

I agree that sedition is also involved.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 5:45:38 PM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:11p0vdtp5dnut6b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1133532295.702705.276420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [snip]
> >  There was
> > another nation that helped the US in Vietnam but I can not remember
> > precisely whom.
>
> Republic of Korea.

Australians were there, too.






0
12/2/2005 6:14:49 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 90% of patents are registered in the US? How many of those are for
> perpetual motion machines (one was recently patented in the US)

Wow, Alistair, are you being serious? :-)  For a very long time (maybe since 
the 1800's) it has been the official policy of the US Pattent Office to 
reject all "perpetual motion" ideas without any review. The last time I 
looked there was such a statement on their website. :-)

> and how
> many for discoveries made elsewhere (such as the UK) and brought to the
> US? And how many of those were patented in the US simply because
> nowhere else allows patenting on that product/concept?

As I said, the 90% are for processes developed *in* the US. One 
insignificant little US invention that wasn't patented is this thing we are 
using right now, called the Internet. :-)

> Sorry if people think that I'm beginning to sound a little anti-US but
> I am pro-US and would/have forgiven the US for much of the wrong that
> it has done the UK and the world over the years. I just can't help
> think that there is something wrong with a president who believes that
> he has the (God-given) right to bomb a free press office (Al Jazeera)
> in an allied countries' territory (Doha in Qatar).

From that disclaimer, Alistair, you must appear to be anti-US, even to 
yourself. :-)

Does that "wrong the US has done" include our 5% of the world's population 
sending more aid to suffering people around the world than all the other 95% 
combined? :-)

Like so many others, you seem to easily overlook or take for granted the 
vast good the US does, then nitpick us to death over the few bad things. No 
country is perfect, but there isn't a country in the world that comes 
remotely close to doing as much for others as the US. Some of the most 
prosperous countries in the world are countries who made themselves enemies 
that we had to defeat, after which we immediately proceeded to rebuild. No 
country in history has shown the mercy, compassion and generosity toward 
defeated enemies as the US. But do we get credit for that? Of course not, we 
get castigated because we didn't do it *perfectly*, denounced as children 
demanding our way if we try to promote our agendas (as if everybody else 
doesn't promote theirs!), and slammed for our every mistake and failure. Not 
fair, Alistair, not fair. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 6:25:54 PM
> There was another nation that helped the US in Vietnam

New Zealand had a small artillery group there, and much anti-vietnam
war (and anti-american) protests. I remeber it well, being at
university and having an american girl friend at the time.

0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2005 6:45:43 PM
Alistair wrote:
> Not just a right-wing conservative (small c) but a right-wing
> Conservative who represents the Conservative and Unionist Party (aka
> the Tories) on the Daily Politics tv show. I view his comments as
> tainted and skewed by his politics. However, every word reported above
> is true.
> 
> And we do need Iraqi oil. Look at what happened to the price of oil
> after the war was 'finished'.
> 
Alistair,

You would absolutely seethe if I told you the buying price for a 
gigajoule of natural gas and its resulting stratospheric markup. And 
that's before any taxation has been added on !

Same goes for oil. The oilpatch can do very nicely, thank you, at $30 
per barrel showing a profit; so $50 plus is gravy.

Unfortunately the natural gas/oil producers do NOT control prices; that 
was further confirmed by a Saudi oil minister/OPEC official about three 
months back.

Canada is the major exporter of natural gas to the U.S. Where else are 
we going to sell it ? Not too practical to put it into small tins and 
ship it to Blighty. Subject to projected weather forecasts, bitter 
winters foreseen,  the effect of things like Katrina - it's the U.S. 
which sets its *own* prices by the future boys down in New York playing 
Monopoly with commodity prices.

Jimmy
0
12/2/2005 7:01:18 PM
> But telling my children they *can't* pray in public school is most definitely dictatorial,

Why do they want to pray in school ? There are plenty of places that
are specifically reserved for such practices.  I don't want to play
football in a church bit I don't think it dictatorial that I would be
told not to.

In any case there is no restriction on praying, just on organised
praying. If a child wants to quietly close their eyes and pray then I
doubt that anyone is doing mind-reading.

> even denied the right to pray over their food before eating!

Actually I think that was related to making _everyone_ 'pray over their
food before eating'. In other words it wasn't just that individuals did
something in their own way quietly in their own corner, but they tried
to impose it as a ceremony on the whole school.

"""Students can pray, even in schools if they choose to do so. They can
pray during lunch-breaks, walking or being transported to and from the
school, and of course, during their free time. School prayer advocates
know this; but the real purpose of the prayer-in-school movement is to
either coerce everyone into joining in prayer and religious ritual, or
having official government sanction of religion. That is clearly wrong,
a violation of the separation of government and religion."""

0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2005 7:03:50 PM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> But telling my children they *can't* pray in public school is most 
>> definitely dictatorial,
>
> Why do they want to pray in school ? There are plenty of places that
> are specifically reserved for such practices.  I don't want to play
> football in a church bit I don't think it dictatorial that I would be
> told not to.

See what I mean about liberals? Should my children have to leave the school 
grounds to pray over their food? Richard, your position is so blatantly 
biased and unreasonable that I am amazed you can't see it yourself. 
Comparing praying over one's food to playing football, as if they were 
equally distracting! What a pitiful example. FYI there are a number of 
churches who have baseball and softball teams. Probably some who have 
football teams too. They just don't practice inside the sanctuary. :-)

> In any case there is no restriction on praying, just on organised
> praying. If a child wants to quietly close their eyes and pray then I
> doubt that anyone is doing mind-reading.

In spite of your doubts, there are cases in court over this very issue. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 7:16:44 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> Again, you are misinformed. The Constitution of the United States clearly 
> says it is Treason to espouse the violent overthrow of the United States 
> Government. This is precisely what the Communist conspirators were about 
> (See the Communist revolutions in Russa or China for details). So you are 
> *dead wrong* to say they had the freedom to embrace and propagate such 
> idealogy here in the United States.

And you are misinterpreting that period of your history. Should all the 
idealists, regardless of political stripe, who took off to support the 
anti-fascists in the Spanish Civil War be classified as Commies (exactly 
as we think of the USSR, NKVD, KGB etc.).

Without being aware of minor details, like the fact as a Russian you 
could disappear into a gulag forever, through the 20s/30s there were 
many young idealists, and certainly some are illustrated in the 
roll-call for the investigations during the McCarthy era. Only young 
myself at the time, I never followed through on specific cases if any of 
them truly were dangerous Commies - some may have been. But I certainly 
get the impression, not the majority - just if you like, misguided 
idealists. (Take the arts - how conceivably could a movie star be a 
'Clear and Present Danger' ?)

Did some of these idealists succumb to Communism - certainly the 
Cambridge Four did - turning MI5/6 on their heads where they fed vital 
intelligence information to the USSR. But note that was the UK not US.

Jimmy
0
12/2/2005 7:19:14 PM
> 90% of patents are registered in the US?

There are several reasons for that, but mainly it indicates that the
USPO is broken. They get all their income from fees paid for _approved_
patents, thus their revenue is entirely dependent on approving patents.
This leads to approval for mere ideas, such as business models, and for
mathmatical expressions, such as program code or methods. It also leads
to accepting patents that actually do have prior art. All these would
(or should) be rejected in other countries.

This lax approach to patents has led to a business model in the states
where you patent every idea that you come across regardless of whether
it is truely patentable, whether it actually works, whether it has
prior art, is obvious or is trivial, and then extort money from anyone
that is vaguely in the same area.

As these scammers have no actual business other than litigation they
have no interest in exchange of licence as is the usual procedure, they
just want the money, and the courts are prepared to get it for them
regardless of the validity of the patent.

The defence against this, as MS and many others has been doing for some
time now, is to apply for patents for absolutely every idea that they
come across, whether it be theirs or someone elses.

The USPO is benefitting from this and has no interest in stopping it or
doing their job properly. Eventually business in the US will be
unsupportable because no matter what you do someone will patent it and
then use litigation (or the threat of it) to extort all your profits.

0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2005 7:22:12 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:UI%jf.47131$6y4.43662@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> > "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> >> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> > Your response regarding McCarthy is typical.  You personally know of
at
> >> > least a dozen people that later admited to having horrible belief
> >> > systems, so of course persecuting them was right. The fact that they
> >> > are
> >> > *suppose* to have freedom to believe what they want is completely
> >> > irrelevant to you.
> >>
> >> Again, you are misinformed. The Constitution of the United States
clearly
> >> says it is Treason to espouse the violent overthrow of the United
States
> >> Government. This is precisely what the Communist conspirators were
about
> >> (See the Communist revolutions in Russa or China for details). So you
are
> >> *dead wrong* to say they had the freedom to embrace and propagate such
> >> idealogy here in the United States.
> >
> > Article III, Section 3,
> > "1. Treason against the United States shall consist only
> > in levying war against them,
>
> ** or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. **
>
> Joining the Communist Party and attending Communist rallies is certainly
> "adhering to" and most likely "giving comfort," especially if dues are
paid,
> or if one hosts such meetings. Allowing a criminal to merely come into
ones
> home and stay for a while can be prosecuted as aiding and abetting, or
> complicity. Remember Dr. Samuel Mudd, the doctor who treated John Wilkes
> Booth after Booth shot Lincoln? That's where the phrase "...'s name is
> Mud(d)" began.
>
> I agree that sedition is also involved.

Mr McClendon, with all due respect, I see a lot of
the subjective and little of the objective in your words;
that is, it is *your* belief that assigns *enemy* and
without any stated objective criteria. Tell me, by what
objective criteria does speech by members of the
Communist Party cause harm? And for contrast, by
what objective criteria does speech by members of
the Republican and Democratic Parties not cause the
same harm? (Hint: The harm comes from the emotional
stress of having to listen to all that tripe (slang: something
spoken or written that is false or worthless). In other
words, what you seem to define as 'criminal', I see in
both the Republican and Democratic Parties!)

Dr Mudd was wrongly convicted of doing what all
physicians are obligated by oath to do! Today, those
accused of crimes and having injuries are routinely
treated by physicians before being taken to jail and
physicians are not charged with complicity in their
patients crimes.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/2/2005 7:22:20 PM
Alistair wrote:
> A Liberal would never want to change societal values. A Liberal would
> adopt a laissez-faire approach. A Conservative would always wish for
> the status quo to remain unaltered.
> 
Coo. So long ago, I'd forgotten that one; 'laissez-faire' = live and let 
live.

0
12/2/2005 7:22:55 PM
HeyBub wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
> 
>>If the same thing should happen to Britain the US would be the first
>>to....
>>
>>When Argentina invaded the British territory of the Falkland Islands
>>the US did everything that they could to persuade the British to give
>>up the islands. Fine friends indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Both the President and Secretary of Defense were later awarded the honour of 
> Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, from 
> Queen Elizabeth II for their roles in the conflict. 
> 
So ? And we have illustrious figures like Elton John and Mick Jagger 
being knighted. Who gives a s... Do you think HM actually decides who 
gets the gongs. Maggie Thatcher was Ronnies buddy.

Jimmy
0
12/2/2005 7:26:43 PM
> hardly a match for one US carrier group.

A US carrier group would have been inoperable in the Falklands about
75% of the time. The Harriers were routinely operating in sea and
visibilty conditions well below that which the US carriers close down.

For example a conventional deck landing requires sighting the deck at
300 ft. and has restrictions on deck pitching.  In conditions with 100
foot visibility and heavy pitching the Harriers went down to 50 ft and
crossed behind the carriers  which was throwing out flares.  When the
flares were sighted the Harrier followed them keeping to the left of
them until it found the carrier and then slid sideways onto the deck
halfway along at the centre of pitching.

0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2005 7:41:20 PM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
> Mr McClendon, with all due respect, I see a lot of
> the subjective and little of the objective in your words;
> that is, it is *your* belief that assigns *enemy* and
> without any stated objective criteria. Tell me, by what
> objective criteria does speech by members of the
> Communist Party cause harm? And for contrast, by
> what objective criteria does speech by members of
> the Republican and Democratic Parties not cause the
> same harm? (Hint: The harm comes from the emotional
> stress of having to listen to all that tripe (slang: something
> spoken or written that is false or worthless). In other
> words, what you seem to define as 'criminal', I see in
> both the Republican and Democratic Parties!)

Those things are supposed to be determined by the courts, of course. My 
point was simply to show that, assuming the Communist Party could be shown 
to be an enemy of the US (proving they were trying to start a revolution 
here would be a good start :), then there is Constitutional Law that could 
make joining and supporting the Communist Party an act of treason. And 
that's true. :-)

> Dr Mudd was wrongly convicted of doing what all
> physicians are obligated by oath to do! Today, those
> accused of crimes and having injuries are routinely
> treated by physicians before being taken to jail and
> physicians are not charged with complicity in their
> patients crimes.

I agree. My point was that it happened, not that it should have happened. 
:-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 7:43:17 PM
>> perpetual motion machines (one was recently patented in the US)

> Wow, Alistair, are you being serious? :-)  For a very long time (maybe since
> the 1800's) it has been the official policy of the US Pattent Office to
> reject all "perpetual motion" ideas without any review. The last time I
> looked there was such a statement on their website. :-)

Yes, he is being serious. There are many nonsense patents, including
one that describes a perpetual motion mechanism. The USPO also is
supposed to reject patents on ideas, mathematical formulas and those
with prior art.  But the don't, they take the money.

0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2005 7:49:12 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>>Judson McClendon wrote:
>>
>>Insisting that my children have to pray if they want to go to school is
>>freedom?  Saying, "NO" they do not, is dictatorial?
> 
> 
> No, your children shouldn't have to pray in public schools if they don't 
> want to. But telling my children they *can't* pray in public school is most 
> definitely dictatorial, and that *is* the situation in many places here.
> 

Bullshit. If your child said a prayer at their desk, all by themselves,
nobody would even know. What has been declared illegal is the entire
class being led in prayer by a school authority, as part of normal
schooling. The above statement is an out and out lie.

School authorities are acting en loco parentus for *all* the children in
the school, not just yours. Should a moslem teacher be given the right
to flout the koran, or is it just your religion that counts?

Insisting that they only way you can pray is if everyone else prays with
you as some sort of group activety is sheer sophistry. Even if it were
true, you still have the right to gather your own group together and do
what you wish.  Insisting that public institutions be part of your group
is outright bigotry.

>>Nobody, ever, in the United States or Canada, has ever said you could
>>not pray any way you wanted to.
> 
> 
> Boy, are you clueless here, Donald. You would be amazed at the number of 
> lawsuits (many hundreds, maybe thousands) there have been, and still are, 
> because Christian children were denied their right to pray in public school, 
> even denied the right to pray over their food before eating! I know somne of 
> these people personally. There have arisen a number of Christian 
> organizations whose sole purpose is to help fund these litigations. Much of 
> the funding on the other side comes ftom the ultra liberal ACLU. Americal 
> Civil Liberties, my eye!
> 
> 

Name one instance where a child, quietly alone at their desk, was asked
if they were silently saying a prayer, and was taken to court for a
positive answer.

Name one instance of a lawsuit was raised over a child saying prayers
*by themselves*.

You are indulging in outright fabrication.  There have been *no*
lawsuits where anybody has tried to stop a single christian, anywhere in
the united states, from saying prayers by themselves.

The lawsuits have been against public officials acting in their official
capacity that have tried to use their positions to make prayer part of
an official public function.  School assemblies *ARE* public, BTW.

If you want private schools where you can do whatever you wish, you can
have those as well. Of course you have to pay for them.

The children were not subjected to lawsuits to prevent them from doing
anything.  It was a group of adults that were denied the right to lead
other people's children in prayer, *and only while* they were acting in
an official capacity. There is absolutely nothing to stop the same
teachers from leading children in prayer all they want, on their own
time, and in their own church.

>>Insisting that *my* children be brainwashed by
>>your lackeys is not what *my* father went to war over, nor something *I*
>>wish to fight for.
> 
> 
> Agreed. I hope nobody is insisting that.
> 

You are, in fact.  Just a paragraph ago, you got all indignant about
lawsuits preventing teachers for leading prayers in public schools. My
kids go (went, grandkids now go) to public schools. I do not need
teachers telling my children they are going to hell, and everything they
learn at home is evil because their father is not christian. *I* brought
one of those lawsuits, for that very reason. Right here in Kitchener,
Ontario, Canada.

>>Your response regarding McCarthy is typical.  You personally know of at
>>least a dozen people that later admited to having horrible belief
>>systems, so of course persecuting them was right. The fact that they are
>>*suppose* to have freedom to believe what they want is completely
>>irrelevant to you.
> 
> 
> Again, you are misinformed. The Constitution of the United States clearly 
> says it is Treason to espouse the violent overthrow of the United States 
> Government. This is precisely what the Communist conspirators were about 
> (See the Communist revolutions in Russa or China for details). So you are 
> *dead wrong* to say they had the freedom to embrace and propagate such 
> idealogy here in the United States.

You did not say "working for another country".  You said "had sympathies
with the communism".  Communism is a philosopy, not a county. Capitalism
is also a philosophy. Having sympathies with capitalism does not mean
that I am loyal to the USA.  Get it?  There are millions of people,
world-wide, that believe socialism has a place, and also believe the
USSR sucked shit, big time.

I have symapthies with both. I do not trust ideologists of either
description, though I'd far rather deal with one that only believed in
self interest.

Now if you had said "I personally know dozens of people that later
admitted to being soviet spys" I would not have objected.  I'd have
asked you to name a couple. Can you name a couple that were
"espouse(ing) the violent overthrow of the United States Government", or
is that mere rhetoric?

> 
>>Did it ever occur to you, Judson, that a belief we, the strong and
>>wealthy in society, have to strike a balance? We can believe in helping
>>the weak without believing that weakness is a virtue. We can share our
>>wealth without believing that owning things is wrong. We can respect
>>other people's beliefs without giving up our own beliefs.
>>
>>Freedom to agree only with the status quo is *NOT* freedom. Freedom to
>>use your leftovers is not the route to wealth either.
> 
> 
> Of course. I'm happy to say that I have never thought or spoken otherwise. 
> :-)
> 
> I want liberals to have the freedom to believe as they want. I just don't 
> want them to force their ideology onto me and my children. That's what 
> freedom and democracy are all about, is it not? :-)

You are the only one arguing for force here. You are arguing that the US
military has the right to police the world, and kill on the behalf of
capitalist philosophy.  I am arguing that they do not ... that we should
each make our own decisions ... personally, politically, and spiritually.

You are arguing that children in public schools should be led in public
prayer by the civil servants hired to educate them.  I am not, I am
arguing that I should be free to teach my own children my own spiritual
values.

Donald
.... and the religious right so loved their world that they crucified christ.
0
donald_tees (563)
12/2/2005 7:53:27 PM
> They just don't practice inside the sanctuary.

Exactly, and school is an educational sanctury from the ignorence of
religious practices.

0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2005 7:54:01 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> Again, you are misinformed. The Constitution of the United States clearly 
>> says it is Treason to espouse the violent overthrow of the United States 
>> Government. This is precisely what the Communist conspirators were about 
>> (See the Communist revolutions in Russa or China for details). So you are 
>> *dead wrong* to say they had the freedom to embrace and propagate such 
>> idealogy here in the United States.
>
> And you are misinterpreting that period of your history. Should all the 
> idealists, regardless of political stripe, who took off to support the 
> anti-fascists in the Spanish Civil War be classified as Commies (exactly 
> as we think of the USSR, NKVD, KGB etc.).


Jimmy, I'm not really trying to defend McCarthy, or saying that those people 
you mention should have been branded as Communists. I'm only refuting the 
statement that people in the US had complete freedom to believe and espouse 
as they want. And I did so by pointing out that, when it comes to advocating 
the violent overthrow of the US Government, the US Constitution specifically 
forbids it. Since the US Government, including the Constitution and all 
statutory law, are subject to change peacefully through the democratic 
process, that seems to me to be a very reasonable restriction. Had the 
people of the US a will to do so, we could eliminate the Presidency and 
Congress and go for a Parliamentary government, all legally. The entire US 
Judiciary could be thrown out and rebuilt from the ground up, all legally.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 7:55:24 PM
Alistair wrote:
> A Liberal would never want to change societal values. A Liberal would
> adopt a laissez-faire approach. A Conservative would always wish for
> the status quo to remain unaltered.
> 

A liberal realizes that they are part of society, and *defines*
"changing social values" as changing their own values. It only appears
as "laissez-faire" to the other side.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
12/2/2005 7:56:07 PM
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>> hardly a match for one US carrier group.
>
> A US carrier group would have been inoperable in the Falklands about
> 75% of the time. The Harriers were routinely operating in sea and
> visibilty conditions well below that which the US carriers close down.
>
> For example a conventional deck landing requires sighting the deck at
> 300 ft. and has restrictions on deck pitching.  In conditions with 100
> foot visibility and heavy pitching the Harriers went down to 50 ft and
> crossed behind the carriers  which was throwing out flares.  When the
> flares were sighted the Harrier followed them keeping to the left of
> them until it found the carrier and then slid sideways onto the deck
> halfway along at the centre of pitching.


One reason the British carriers pitched is that they are small, almost tiny 
beside US main carriers, which are over 1000' long and have a 4 acre flight 
deck. Anyway, what makes you think a US carrier group doesn't have Harriers? 
Any carrier group headed for a ground invasion would have at lease one MAU 
(Marine Amphibious Unit) attached, which has lots of Harriers. :-)

Had it been a US carrier group down there, the Argentine AF would not have 
been able to get anywhere near enough to shoot Exocet missiles. Unlike the 
British fleet, which had only surface based radar, US carrier groups keep 
constant AWACS radar surveillance for hundreds of miles. The AWACS would 
have seen those Argentine fighters taxi for takeoff. They would have been 
taken out, likely from behind, by planes they never saw, vectored in by the 
AWACS, long before they approached the carriers. When a US carrier group is 
in operation, anyone within a hundred mile radius exists at the carrier 
group's discretion. There are not very many countries that have air forces 
larger than one US carrier group.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 8:24:01 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:br1kf.47148$6y4.28202@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> >
> > Mr McClendon, with all due respect, I see a lot of
> > the subjective and little of the objective in your words;
> > that is, it is *your* belief that assigns *enemy* and
> > without any stated objective criteria. Tell me, by what
> > objective criteria does speech by members of the
> > Communist Party cause harm? And for contrast, by
> > what objective criteria does speech by members of
> > the Republican and Democratic Parties not cause the
> > same harm? (Hint: The harm comes from the emotional
> > stress of having to listen to all that tripe (slang: something
> > spoken or written that is false or worthless). In other
> > words, what you seem to define as 'criminal', I see in
> > both the Republican and Democratic Parties!)
>
> Those things are supposed to be determined by the courts, of course. My
> point was simply to show that, assuming the Communist Party could be shown
> to be an enemy of the US (proving they were trying to start a revolution
> here would be a good start :), then there is Constitutional Law that could
> make joining and supporting the Communist Party an act of treason. And
> that's true. :-)

The Democratic Party started a revolution in government
under President Franklin Roosevelt. (One assessment I
recall seeing is that 11 of 12 'planks' of the Socialist
Workers Party platform (1932?) were eventually
implemented by Democrats.)

The Republican Party started a revolution in government
under President Reagan. (Pass out all manner of tax
breaks to promote economic growth and, earlier, President
Nixon announced an end to President Lyndon Johnson's
"Great Society," another revolution, shortly before
Johnson's death.)

The Reform Party started a revolution in government
by trying to stop both the Democratic and Republican
Parties from promoting their revolutions.

What parties are not trying to start or continue a
revolution to suit their ends?

I think by definition, "Constitutional Law" is a field
of study and its application, though I might guess that
you intended lower case "c" and "l".

Article VI, clause 2, "This Constitution, and the laws
of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land ...",
suggests that, if Congress could, in pursuance of 'this
Constitution' and without contradicting the First
Amendment, make a law effectively "abridging the
freedom of speech" of any political party, then, I
suppose ... well ... h'm ... sorry, I keep thinking we
need another revolution to throw the bums out.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/2/2005 8:41:34 PM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>> > Mr McClendon, with all due respect, I see a lot of
>> > the subjective and little of the objective in your words;
>> > that is, it is *your* belief that assigns *enemy* and
>> > without any stated objective criteria. Tell me, by what
>> > objective criteria does speech by members of the
>> > Communist Party cause harm? And for contrast, by
>> > what objective criteria does speech by members of
>> > the Republican and Democratic Parties not cause the
>> > same harm? (Hint: The harm comes from the emotional
>> > stress of having to listen to all that tripe (slang: something
>> > spoken or written that is false or worthless). In other
>> > words, what you seem to define as 'criminal', I see in
>> > both the Republican and Democratic Parties!)
>>
>> Those things are supposed to be determined by the courts, of course. My
>> point was simply to show that, assuming the Communist Party could be 
>> shown
>> to be an enemy of the US (proving they were trying to start a revolution
>> here would be a good start :), then there is Constitutional Law that 
>> could
>> make joining and supporting the Communist Party an act of treason. And
>> that's true. :-)
>
> The Democratic Party started a revolution in government
> under President Franklin Roosevelt. (One assessment I
> recall seeing is that 11 of 12 'planks' of the Socialist
> Workers Party platform (1932?) were eventually
> implemented by Democrats.)
>
> The Republican Party started a revolution in government
> under President Reagan. (Pass out all manner of tax
> breaks to promote economic growth and, earlier, President
> Nixon announced an end to President Lyndon Johnson's
> "Great Society," another revolution, shortly before
> Johnson's death.)
>
> The Reform Party started a revolution in government
> by trying to stop both the Democratic and Republican
> Parties from promoting their revolutions.
>
> What parties are not trying to start or continue a
> revolution to suit their ends?


The keyword is "violent", Richard. As I clearly pointed out, US Citizens are 
free to peacefully reform the government as much as they choose, through the 
democratic process.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 8:56:56 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Does that "wrong the US has done" include our 5% of the world's population 
> sending more aid to suffering people around the world than all the other 95% 
> combined? :-)

Whoa there now ! What's this I keep reading. UN (I think) - 
statistically you are amongst the lowest contributors, (bucks) to 
helping Third World. I can't even think what to look for - but that 
statement has come up several times.

Thought # 1 - is it relative to the fact that you don't actually 
contribute your full dues to UN. Carping abut the ineffectiveness of the 
UN doesn't help - I'm inclined to agree.

Thought # 2 - is it a reference to the fact that your percentage of aid 
is very low set against your GNP, (something like between 1-5% if I'm on 
the right track). I'm reasonably certain such articles go on to 
illustrate that teensy-weensy countries like Norway, comparatively, 
shell out more than the US.

But I know that 'unnamed' set of statistics I'm referring to, does exist.

Jimmy
0
12/2/2005 8:58:48 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:i21kf.47144$6y4.15970@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> See what I mean about liberals?

See what I mean about conservatives?  ;-)

> Should my children have to leave the school grounds to pray over their 
> food?

Should my children be required to sit quietly, smile, and accept as a Good 
Thing the idea of praying visibly and audibly praying over one's food in a 
public setting, given Matthew 6:6, if my children have been raised to be 
devout Bible-believing Christians?   ;-)

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
12/2/2005 9:06:51 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:YQOjf.46931$6y4.22742@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

>> What's so noble about preserving what's "traditional"?
>
>
> That depends entirely on what traditions you are trying to preserve, 
> Chuck. :-)

So, then, what "traditional" (replacing "prevailing") social values does the 
truly conservative wish to preserve, and what values characterized similarly 
should such a person wish to discard, and why?

Sounds a lot like "the conservative preserves the traditional social values 
that the conservative agrees with, and discards with impunity the 
traditional social values he doesn't agree with."    That isn't a very 
useful criterion upon which to decide whether one is conservative or not!

While the bastion of the Longhorns is arguably a pretty liberal place, I'd 
have to say the same ain't true of your average Aggie (or the town in which 
the school is found) ...

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
12/2/2005 9:13:59 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> For years I have loved the "Wallace & Gromit" characters created by Nick
> Park. I love cheese (though I can't eat much because it gives me migraines),
> and in observing Wallace discuss all these different varieties of cheese in
> "A Grand Day Out", have learned that I must be a cheese plebeian. My cheese
> repertoire is pretty much just Cheddar (Mild, Moderate and Sharp), Colby,
> Swiss, Parmesan and Mozzarella. :-)
> --
> Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)

Apparently, we Brits produce a greater range of cheeses than the French
fabrique fromage.
My cheese diet is also limited. For the record, Wallace and Gromit have
single-handedly saved Wensleydale chees from oblivion (never liked it
personally but it is probably nice with biscuits and fruit such as
peach, apple or grape).

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 9:50:35 PM
I suspect that we were in mittel-Deutschland. The ch was something of a
ch as in loch (Scots).

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 9:53:37 PM
That is a surprise to me. I dunno.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 9:56:21 PM
We should have shot them for treason ( sorry, forgot we lost the
colony!)

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 9:57:30 PM
I had suspected the NZ of it but wasn't sure. Ta.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 9:58:25 PM
You should have declared war and come in on our side.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 10:00:11 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Does that "wrong the US has done" include our 5% of the world's 
>> population sending more aid to suffering people around the world than all 
>> the other 95% combined? :-)
>
> Whoa there now ! What's this I keep reading. UN (I think) - statistically 
> you are amongst the lowest contributors, (bucks) to helping Third World. I 
> can't even think what to look for - but that statement has come up several 
> times.

The US gives far, far more support to 3rd world countries directly than 
through the UN. Perhaps that's where the apparent discrepancy lies. I was 
talking to my daughter recently and she had been discussing this very issue 
with an employee of the International Red Cross (who not an American) and 
they were saying essentially the same thing I have been saying. This person 
told my daughter that he had worked for the IRC many years and been present 
after many disasters, and every time you can see row after row after row of 
huge piles of stuff stamped from the US, and over to the side are these few 
piles of stuff stamped from other countries. No other country contributes 
more than a tiny fraction of what the US contributes.

> Thought # 1 - is it relative to the fact that you don't actually 
> contribute your full dues to UN. Carping abut the ineffectiveness of the 
> UN doesn't help - I'm inclined to agree.

You're putting the cart before the horse - we *stopped* paying *because* of 
the ineffectiveness.

> Thought # 2 - is it a reference to the fact that your percentage of aid is 
> very low set against your GNP, (something like between 1-5% if I'm on the 
> right track). I'm reasonably certain such articles go on to illustrate 
> that teensy-weensy countries like Norway, comparatively, shell out more 
> than the US.

You are only speaking about US government aid, which is only a small part of 
the total US aid to those in need. The IRC employee my daughter was talking 
with said (which agrees with what I know and have seen in print) that it is 
US Christian churches who give the major bulk of contributions. I saw a 
program on TV a few months ago about international charities. The head of 
the International Red Cross, along with the heads of several other 
international charity organizations like the Salvation Army, were 
interviewed. Every single one of them said that the great majority of 
charitable contributions worldwide came from US Christian chuches. I had 
forgotten about this program until I started responding to your post.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 10:02:37 PM
I'm just amazed that your president didn't demand the crown jewels as
well as bankrupting Britain.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 10:17:11 PM
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>>> What's so noble about preserving what's "traditional"?
>>
>>
>> That depends entirely on what traditions you are trying to preserve, 
>> Chuck. :-)
>
> So, then, what "traditional" (replacing "prevailing") social values does 
> the truly conservative wish to preserve, and what values characterized 
> similarly should such a person wish to discard, and why?

In the general political sense, there is no 'true conservative' or 'true 
liberal', because one is only 'conservative' or 'liberal' in relation to 
one's culture.

> Sounds a lot like "the conservative preserves the traditional social 
> values that the conservative agrees with, and discards with impunity the 
> traditional social values he doesn't agree with."    That isn't a very 
> useful criterion upon which to decide whether one is conservative or not!

You keep thinking in terms of 'being conservative' meaning 'believes these 
things', but the general political definition of 'conservative' and 
'liberal' are entirely relative. A person with the same beliefs can be a 
liberal in one society and a conservative in another. The terms speak to the 
relationship between a person's beliefs and the society he is in, not to his 
beliefs in an absolute sense. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 10:23:12 PM
Unfortunately, I worship not their god nor yours. I get the worst of
both utopias.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 10:24:16 PM
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> Should my children be required to sit quietly, smile, and accept as a Good 
> Thing the idea of praying visibly and audibly praying over one's food in a 
> public setting, given Matthew 6:6, if my children have been raised to be 
> devout Bible-believing Christians?   ;-)


As I pointed out, Jesus prayed publicly, He simply said not to do it for 
show.

Praying visibly? Why not? What conceivable offense is someone bowing their 
head? Praying audibly? Why should a person praying audibly over their food 
be any more objectionable than a person having an audible conversation? Both 
are simply talking, and one happens to be talking to God. Big deal. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 10:33:40 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I worship not their god nor yours. I get the worst of
> both utopias.


Yeah, but I'm not going to bomb you. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/2/2005 10:37:12 PM
Surely the values of a Liberal do not require changing. Therefore,
societal values do not require changing, if they reflect the Liberal
stance. A Liberal would not wish to change societal values unless they
wereclearly oppressive. Are they?.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 10:38:19 PM
At least Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose were based in antagonistic
countries. Qatar is a US ally!

Al Jazeera is not an enemy, unless you abhor free speech and honest
reporting.

Willthe Pentagon bomb the Strand, where the Been is based?

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 10:49:41 PM
>> Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after
>> Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do much
>> except get ready, until Germany invaded France.

> In that period, didn't England and France get some League of Nation
> resolutions to tell Hitler to stop it...or else the would get more
> League of Nation resolutions.

Hitler was protecting German people in territories that belonged to
Germany previously. These were, in the main until Poland, peaceful
occupations with the support of the local population.

0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2005 10:51:13 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> 
> One reason the British carriers pitched is that they are small, almost tiny 
> beside US main carriers, which are over 1000' long and have a 4 acre flight 
> deck. Anyway, what makes you think a US carrier group doesn't have Harriers? 
> Any carrier group headed for a ground invasion would have at lease one MAU 
> (Marine Amphibious Unit) attached, which has lots of Harriers. :-)

What's this all about - "Mine is bigger than yours ?". There was a time, 
in the days of Empire when the British Navy reigned supreme. Since then 
they have had to learn to cut their suit according to their cloth. I've 
seen somebody make reference to the RNzAF as almost being a nothingness. 
Same here in Canada. And told me some 10 years ago; the RAF I served 
with in NATO in Germany was LARGER than what is now the RAF based in the 
UK !

Meanwhile the US still insists on spending BILLIONS on defence/defense - 
which if you continue at the current rate will cripple your economy. No 
smugness on my part, what happens below the 49th inevitably has some 
effect on the Great White North. Example - say military cutbacks on 
vehicle purchases. Detroit ponders the problem which involves layoffs, 
then looks northwards at their subsidiaries in Canada.

Jimmy
0
12/2/2005 10:56:41 PM
Perpetual motion machines, please see the past years' issues of
Scientific American for references as I am too lazy to go and look them
up.

Internet a US invention? Not entirely. I know that one of your US
politicians claims to be the father of the internet because he (by
earlier threads in this newsgroup) was at least partly responsible for
financing research that set up the internet but AT LEAST ONE of the
three name sinvolved in the process was British (Tim Whats-his-face?
I'm not only lazy but under the affluence of incihol).

Anti-US for supporting press freedom? It is in your own constitution
for the rights of men to hold free thought. Is it not?

As for the US doing much for others. Have you paid the backpayments
that you owe to the UN yet?

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 10:59:22 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:

> The keyword is "violent", Richard. As I clearly pointed out, US Citizens are 
> free to peacefully reform the government as much as they choose, through the 
> democratic process.

No you cut out the 'keyword' or phrase when you snipped. Rick was 
thinking US, but his objective has universal appeal, "throw the bums 
out....". We could all handle a start from scratch.

Jimmy
0
12/2/2005 11:01:56 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message 
news:WW3kf.47878$6y4.5280@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> As I pointed out, Jesus prayed publicly, He simply said not to do it for 
> show.

No, the way I read it is that he said to avoid engaging in the *behavior* of 
the people whose *motives* are that it is for show.   Huge difference.

> Praying visibly? Why not? What conceivable offense is someone bowing their 
> head? Praying audibly? Why should a person praying audibly over their food 
> be any more objectionable than a person having an audible conversation? 
> Both are simply talking, and one happens to be talking to God. Big deal. 
> :-)

As it happens, I personally have no problem with a bowed head (and for that 
matter closed eyes and folded hands) in that context.

I have some problem with people making sure *other people* can hear that 
they're praying.  An omnipotent God shouldn't have any problem getting the 
gist of your thoughts without actually experiencing sound waves (or having 
to read lips).

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
12/2/2005 11:11:42 PM
And I didn't mention that my father's convoy got shot up with one fatal
casualty in Aden.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 11:12:48 PM
QUOTE: One could ask that of the British Establishment about many
things.  For
example, I've long wondered why they worship the Queen.  Or, even more
annoying, why that worshiped that annoying twit Diana.
UNQUOTE

We don't worship her. We love her. Something, as an ex-colony, you boys
won't understand.

Nor did we worship Diana, but she was a convenient hook to hang one's
hat upon.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/2/2005 11:17:27 PM
Alistair wrote:
> We should have shot them for treason ( sorry, forgot we lost the
> colony!)
> 
I *know* Richard advocates snipping out the previous message - but 
matey, above is going from the Gorblimey to the ridiculous.

Och the noo. Would yee kindly gie' us a wee hint on which topic yoooou 
are referrrring toooo, in yer next masterrr-piece ?
0
12/2/2005 11:23:35 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> You are only speaking about US government aid, which is only a small part of 
> the total US aid to those in need. The IRC employee my daughter was talking 
> with said (which agrees with what I know and have seen in print)...
<snip>

Frankly I don't know what I *am* talking about on this one :-). No rush, 
but seeing that your daughter is into journalism, how about some sites 
we could look at covering it from a government angle and then some 
indication of religious charitable donations, or if you like "Total by 
nation - all resources'. I wasn't the slightest bit surprised about your 
reference to the Sally Ann being up front in there charitable work.

(Not detracting form what you are saying - but as perhaps the most 
affluent country in the world, I'm not surprised you would outpace 
non-American religious charities).

Jimmy
0
12/2/2005 11:33:49 PM
> but she was a convenient hook to hang one's hat upon.

They said that about Twiggy, too, but I still prefer the coat stand
behind the door  ;-)

0
riplin (4127)
12/2/2005 11:43:52 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> You keep thinking in terms of 'being conservative' meaning 'believes these 
> things', but the general political definition of 'conservative' and 
> 'liberal' are entirely relative. 

I do hope you read that my definitions below are generalizations - there 
are always exceptions in any group.

Not me sport. I came to the conclusion that Conservatives in Britain 
were selfish, greedy and snobbish. (The latter being about the aura of 
royalty).

In Canada, and very much so Alberta, they are still selfish and greedy. 
Snobbish - no. For 'snobbish' substitute 'religious zealots', for some 
of them.

A person with the same beliefs can be a
> liberal in one society and a conservative in another. The terms speak to the 
> relationship between a person's beliefs and the society he is in, not to his 
> beliefs in an absolute sense. :-)

In UK I was a Liberal, in Canada I am a Liberal and if I was down south 
I would be a Democrat.

Jimmy
0
12/2/2005 11:44:44 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1133565447.665141.288290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> We don't worship her. We love her. Something, as an ex-colony, you boys
> won't understand.
>
> Nor did we worship Diana, but she was a convenient hook to hang one's
> hat upon.

Really?

"Extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem."

I think whether the Brits worship the Queen, or worshipped Diana, is 
arguable!  ;-)

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
12/3/2005 12:01:19 AM
Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1133565447.665141.288290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 
> 
>>We don't worship her. We love her. Something, as an ex-colony, you boys
>>won't understand.
>>
>>Nor did we worship Diana, but she was a convenient hook to hang one's
>>hat upon.
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> "Extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem."
> 
> I think whether the Brits worship the Queen, or worshipped Diana, is 
> arguable!  ;-)
>
As regards QEII - she was never as pretty as Diana, but not shabby (nor 
Margaret), when they were both young girls. Of course both princesses as 
they grew up took on the Victorian jowl, prominent in Andrew, D. of York 
and Charlie is getting there.

I like QEII - thinking of the young girl I 'served' in the RAF. I always 
think in terms of, "She does superbly the lousiest job in the world".

Apparently a fairly plain eater, so the notoriously bland English food 
should suit her. Can you just imagine her at one of those endless stream 
of royal banquets. Leans over to Phil and whispers, "Gawd, I'd love to 
be back home at Buck House wiv me feet up in slippers and get in an hour 
of 'Coronation Street'".

If you don't know what 'Coronation Street' is, don't bother. You haven't 
missed a damn thing - it is primarily addictive to a female audience in 
UK, in Canuckia and probably down there in the Antipodes. QEII is a 
known fan.

Jimmy
0
12/3/2005 12:29:06 AM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:dw2kf.47470$6y4.42863@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
[snip]
> The keyword is "violent", Richard. As I clearly pointed out, US Citizens
are
> free to peacefully reform the government as much as they choose, through
the
> democratic process.

Yet, Mr McClendon, you have repeatedly labeled
a political party and its U.S. citizen members,
participating in this "democratic process", as criminal.

The people are also free to reform the government
though the judicial process and I am certain that some
wish for a court order so strongly worded that the
injustice will meet a "violent" end. I am working
toward such an end, myself; because, as I have found,
the "democratic process" just doesn't work for all and
my attempts to end the injustice by "petition[ing] the
government for a redress of grievances" has also failed.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/3/2005 12:45:12 AM
In article <11ou709cpemqp41@news.supernews.com>,
 "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every 
> derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.

It is interesting that people still like to beat up on Joe McCarthy.

Not only have 50 years of lies about 'witch-hunting' hollywood actors  
been repeated so many times that they are now regarded as truth by many.  
But the KGB document dump in the early 1990's has been widely ignored by 
all of the McCarthy detractors.

If there is one many in the human history whose reputation deserves a 
serious apology, it is Joe McCarthy.  He was amazingly accurate at 
identifying actual KGB employees working for the US government at a time 
when we we involved in a hot war with the Soviet Air Force and two of 
their puppet states.

The Edward R. Murrow movie that came out last month was amazing in its 
avoidance of the information the KGB made public.  It is a very artful 
piece of propaganda.  Very reinforcing of the idea that if you tell a 
lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

So how do you address the simple, but unavoidable, fact that many of 
those fingered by McCarthy were quite guilty?  Do you just ignore it?
0
12/3/2005 12:57:36 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
>
> Meanwhile the US still insists on spending BILLIONS on
> defence/defense - which if you continue at the current rate will
> cripple your economy. No smugness on my part, what happens below the
> 49th inevitably has some effect on the Great White North. Example - say 
> military cutbacks on
> vehicle purchases. Detroit ponders the problem which involves layoffs,
> then looks northwards at their subsidiaries in Canada.

Don't worry about it. Current US defense expenditures are an almost 
insignificant $500 billion out of $12 trillion GDP. The US defense spending 
is now about 90% of ROW (Rest of World).

Meanwhile, the US economy is tooling along at 4.3% growth for the last 
quarter, compared to about 1% for most of Europe.

The US military does not buy vehicles from Detroit. 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/3/2005 1:28:46 AM
Alistair wrote:
> Perpetual motion machines, please see the past years' issues of
> Scientific American for references as I am too lazy to go and look
> them up.
>
> Internet a US invention? Not entirely. I know that one of your US
> politicians claims to be the father of the internet because he (by
> earlier threads in this newsgroup) was at least partly responsible for
> financing research that set up the internet but AT LEAST ONE of the
> three name sinvolved in the process was British (Tim Whats-his-face?
> I'm not only lazy but under the affluence of incihol).
>
> Anti-US for supporting press freedom? It is in your own constitution
> for the rights of men to hold free thought. Is it not?

No. There is no constitutional provision permitting uninhibited thought. As 
for "Freedom of the Press," well, every right has limits. First, the 
constitutional mention is directed only against the government. Anyone else, 
with the power to do so, may inhibit or suppress the press (such as refuse 
to sell them ink). Second, the protection only applies to prior restraint: 
the government cannot prevent you from printing anything, but can certainly 
fall on you like the Sword of God for what you DO print. There are many 
other nuances, but you get the idea.

>
> As for the US doing much for others. Have you paid the backpayments
> that you owe to the UN yet?

We allowed them to keep billions in oil-for-food money. Doesn't that count? 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/3/2005 1:39:31 AM
HeyBub wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> 
>>Meanwhile the US still insists on spending BILLIONS on
>>defence/defense - which if you continue at the current rate will
>>cripple your economy. No smugness on my part, what happens below the
>>49th inevitably has some effect on the Great White North. Example - say 
>>military cutbacks on
>>vehicle purchases. Detroit ponders the problem which involves layoffs,
>>then looks northwards at their subsidiaries in Canada.
> 
> 
> Don't worry about it. Current US defense expenditures are an almost 
> insignificant $500 billion out of $12 trillion GDP. The US defense spending 
> is now about 90% of ROW (Rest of World).

Funny that non-partisan journals like the Economist don't quite see it 
in the same light that you do. Even at chump change like $500 billion - 
is there even a suggestion of conservative fiscal restraint policies. 
Forget about Monica, last I read, Bill Clinton left Dubya with a fairly 
clean slate on debt.
> 
> Meanwhile, the US economy is tooling along at 4.3% growth for the last 
> quarter, compared to about 1% for most of Europe.

And meanwhile the majors in the auto industry are in trouble, Asian 
competition. They've been squeezing their auto part suppliers so much on 
price that they have put some of their vendors out of business. GM spun 
off Delphi to try and alleviate their own in-house problems. Didn't 
work, so Delphi is now pleading Chapter 11. Delphi's solution to their 
problem - pay workers currently earning about $29 per hour a new scale 
of $8 per hour.

Regrettably it may come to that as a result of international 
outsourcing. N. America cannot look forward to a rosy future, based on 
how it used to be. Slowly agreed, but the Third World is becoming an 
economic factor. We may all have to take a pay cut to survive.

Japan is a quick learner, not an imitator. Some 35 years before they 
gave Pearl Harbor any thought, Royal Navy trained, the Japanese Imperial 
Navy demonstrated to Imperial Russia in 1905 at Port Arthur, how a naval 
offensive should be mounted.

China is getting there but hampered between communist ideology and the 
benefits of capitalism; at the moment they are over-producing.

India, a sleeper through much of the last century even after 
independence in 1947. As I write, they are aggressively trying to buy 
into Canadian oil interests.

> The US military does not buy vehicles from Detroit. 

Well you could have fooled me. It was an *example*.
0
12/3/2005 2:58:06 AM
HeyBub wrote:
> 
>>As for the US doing much for others. Have you paid the backpayments
>>that you owe to the UN yet?
> 
> We allowed them to keep billions in oil-for-food money. Doesn't that count? 

No it doesn't. No more than you OWE US some $5Billion on lumber.  The 
ins and outs of the disagreement I don't know, but the whole contentious 
issue is based on the fact that the US claims that Canada subsidizes its 
lumber firms. True of false, I couldn't say. So US imposes an import 
levy on Canadian lumber to protect the US lumber industry. (Not gospel, 
but I think 20-25%).

But I do know that TWICE the WTO has found in favour of Canada. Third go 
around NAFTA, which means the U.S. was directly involved in the decision 
making. NAFTA found in favour of Canada - give them back the $5Billion 
you've been stashing in the States.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings - whatever the hell that means. 
But in true TV court-drama style, the US, fourth time around, goes for a 
plea bargain with the WTO. Incredibly WTO says, "No, perhaps you don't 
have to give them back their $5Billion".

We still keep waving our IOU. Which way is up ?

Celucci former Ambassador for Dubya, says cool it, relations are 
strained enough - but one of the jokers in our forthcoming election may 
just raise it as a hot potato. (Then of course there's always the wheat 
issue and the agonizing time over settling BSE (mad cow disease).
0
12/3/2005 3:16:32 AM
Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
> In article <11ou709cpemqp41@news.supernews.com>,
>  "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>>And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every 
>>derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.
> 
> 
> It is interesting that people still like to beat up on Joe McCarthy.
> 
> Not only have 50 years of lies about 'witch-hunting' hollywood actors  
> been repeated so many times that they are now regarded as truth by many.  
> But the KGB document dump in the early 1990's has been widely ignored by 
> all of the McCarthy detractors.
> 
> If there is one many in the human history whose reputation deserves a 
> serious apology, it is Joe McCarthy.  He was amazingly accurate at 
> identifying actual KGB employees working for the US government at a time 
> when we we involved in a hot war with the Soviet Air Force and two of 
> their puppet states.
> 
> The Edward R. Murrow movie that came out last month was amazing in its 
> avoidance of the information the KGB made public.  It is a very artful 
> piece of propaganda.  Very reinforcing of the idea that if you tell a 
> lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
> 
> So how do you address the simple, but unavoidable, fact that many of 
> those fingered by McCarthy were quite guilty?  Do you just ignore it?

Well you could, seeing as it is 50 years ago. However I think his name 
came up from you as an apologist on behalf of Anne Coulter. Perhaps I 
first mentioned his name; dunno.

So let's get factual. As a result of your comments I went googling on 
good ole Joe. But now let's now get more specific, "avoidance of the 
information the KGB made public".  If this one is such a hot potater in 
your mind, I should be able to find a web link. Right ?

Some interesting links on KGB activity but none so far relative to good 
ole Joe. Care to point me at a site ?

Jimmy
0
12/3/2005 5:44:26 AM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> The keyword is "violent", Richard. As I clearly pointed out, US Citizens
> are
>> free to peacefully reform the government as much as they choose, through
> the
>> democratic process.
>
> Yet, Mr McClendon, you have repeatedly labeled
> a political party and its U.S. citizen members,
> participating in this "democratic process", as criminal.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but I really do wish you would stop 
putting words in my mouth. Your statement above is patently false. I haven't 
labeled *anybody* as a criminal. I have only mentioned a single point in the 
US Constitution that defines treason, and that was expressed conditionally, 
I *did not* state a conclusion.

> The people are also free to reform the government
> though the judicial process and I am certain that some
> wish for a court order so strongly worded that the
> injustice will meet a "violent" end. I am working
> toward such an end, myself; because, as I have found,
> the "democratic process" just doesn't work for all and
> my attempts to end the injustice by "petition[ing] the
> government for a redress of grievances" has also failed.


The judicial branch of the US Government was *never* intended to "reform the 
government". The clearly stated purpose of the judicial branch is to 
interpret and apply laws passed by Congress, and the Constitution, no more, 
no less. It is unfortunate that activist judges have chosen to go way past 
this, in essence bypassing congress altogether and creating their own law. 
Now, instead of a large group of elected people who are responsible to the 
people passing laws, you have a very small number of unelected people who 
are not responsible to the people, creating their own laws. Bad, bad, bad! 
Worse than bad. A serious breakdown of the way the government is supposed to 
work, and bypassing the checks and balances the founding fathers built into 
the system.

As far as not being able to get your agenda passed, we don't always get our 
way. That's life, get used to it. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/3/2005 6:00:21 AM
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> I have some problem with people making sure *other people* can hear that 
> they're praying.  An omnipotent God shouldn't have any problem getting the 
> gist of your thoughts without actually experiencing sound waves (or having 
> to read lips).


I can agree with that. More than one person sitting at a table and having 
common prayer, would want to make their prayer(s) audible to those sitting 
at their table. But praying in public and purposely being loud to make a 
show would fall under Jesus' Matthew 6:6 injunction as you say. We're 
finally in agreement! Hurrah! :-)

I hope you wouldn't be offended at someone praying in public and 
unintentionally being loud enough to be overheard? :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/3/2005 6:10:36 AM
I do wonder, as a Scot, what justification there is for the II in QEII
as I am not aware of any prior monarch by the name of Elizabeth within
the kingdom of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England. This one rankles
as King James VI is always refered to as James I by the English.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/3/2005 12:51:26 PM
HeyBub wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> 
>>Meanwhile the US still insists on spending BILLIONS on
>>defence/defense - which if you continue at the current rate will
>>cripple your economy. No smugness on my part, what happens below the
>>49th inevitably has some effect on the Great White North. Example - say 
>>military cutbacks on
>>vehicle purchases. Detroit ponders the problem which involves layoffs,
>>then looks northwards at their subsidiaries in Canada.
> 
> 
> Don't worry about it. Current US defense expenditures are an almost 
> insignificant $500 billion out of $12 trillion GDP. The US defense spending 
> is now about 90% of ROW (Rest of World).
> 
> Meanwhile, the US economy is tooling along at 4.3% growth for the last 
> quarter, compared to about 1% for most of Europe.
> 
> The US military does not buy vehicles from Detroit. 
> 
> 

Really?  The US dollar was worth 72 cents Canadian when I started my
current contract.  It is now at 86 cents. That is nudging a 20 percent
drop.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
12/3/2005 1:52:26 PM
Alistair wrote:
> Surely the values of a Liberal do not require changing. Therefore,
> societal values do not require changing, if they reflect the Liberal
> stance. A Liberal would not wish to change societal values unless they
> wereclearly oppressive. Are they?.
> 

huh?  Then maybe I am not liberal. My veiwpoints change constantly,
while I learn. As I change, so does society, in many cases.

Social mores are nowhere near the same as they were when I was a child
or even a teenager. I see humans as evolutionary beings.

I can think of several people that I thought fire-eyed radical nut cases
fourty years back, that today I can not only see their point, but tend
to agree with them.  Nutcase's are often the vangaurd of evolving social
change.

Allister, would you try to quote somewhat?  It can be difficult to
figure out what you are responding to at times.

Donald

0
donald_tees (563)
12/3/2005 2:03:58 PM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> James J. Gavan wrote:
>>
>>>Meanwhile the US still insists on spending BILLIONS on
>>>defence/defense - which if you continue at the current rate will
>>>cripple your economy. No smugness on my part, what happens below the
>>>49th inevitably has some effect on the Great White North. Example - say
>>>military cutbacks on
>>>vehicle purchases. Detroit ponders the problem which involves layoffs,
>>>then looks northwards at their subsidiaries in Canada.
>>
>>
>> Don't worry about it. Current US defense expenditures are an almost
>> insignificant $500 billion out of $12 trillion GDP. The US defense 
>> spending
>> is now about 90% of ROW (Rest of World).
>>
>> Meanwhile, the US economy is tooling along at 4.3% growth for the last
>> quarter, compared to about 1% for most of Europe.
>>
>> The US military does not buy vehicles from Detroit.
>
> Really?  The US dollar was worth 72 cents Canadian when I started my
> current contract.  It is now at 86 cents. That is nudging a 20 percent
> drop.

You have the proportions reversed, Donald. The US dollar has been worth more 
than a Canadian dollar for as long as I can remember. Right now that rate is 
(from xe.com):

    1.00 USD = 1.16130 CAD
    1.00 CAD = 0.861104 USD
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/3/2005 2:19:39 PM
In article <iBhkf.8277$wf2.1050370@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees  <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>I can think of several people that I thought fire-eyed radical nut cases
>fourty years back, that today I can not only see their point, but tend
>to agree with them.  Nutcase's are often the vangaurd of evolving social
>change.

Hmmmmm... on the one hand there's the progression from 'heresy!' to 
'impossible!' to 'ridiculous!' to 'obvious to any decent-thinking 
person!'... 

.... on the other hand Sagan's quote ('But the fact that some geniuses were 
laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They 
laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright 
brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.') has been posted and 
discussed here before.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/3/2005 2:32:16 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>>
>>Really?  The US dollar was worth 72 cents Canadian when I started my
>>current contract.  It is now at 86 cents. That is nudging a 20 percent
>>drop.
> 
> 
> You have the proportions reversed, Donald. The US dollar has been worth more 
> than a Canadian dollar for as long as I can remember. Right now that rate is 
> (from xe.com):
> 
>     1.00 USD = 1.16130 CAD
>     1.00 CAD = 0.861104 USD


Yes, I should have said the Canadian dollar was at 72 cents US.

I tend to be quite aware of exchange rates, because I get paid in US
dollars, but I spend Canadian dollars. I've taken a 15-20 percent hit in
pay over the year.

I have been thinking about our exchanges to date.  I suppose heated
exchanges are par for the usenet course.  It is somewhat easier to argue
things out in a civilized fashion over a pool game than over a terminal.

Some day, if you ever get up to Canada, I'll buy you a dinner, seeing as
I am probably the one the strident side of the fence ... even if you are
the one in the wrong. <G>.

I think, Judson, that a large part of the problem is that you see morals
and social "rules" as written in stone.(perhaps literally)  I see them
as fluid and evolving, both as we evolve spiritually, and as the mix of
people in our social structure changes.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
12/3/2005 2:39:52 PM
In article <1133614286.781188.64690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I do wonder, as a Scot, what justification there is for the II in QEII
>as I am not aware of any prior monarch by the name of Elizabeth within
>the kingdom of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England.

Perhaps the intervening years have caused a bit of a haze to be cast over 
such things... I recall, e'er-so-much closer to the fact than I am now, 
being taught that George Washington's birthday was 11 Feb 1732... but that 
became 22 Feb because of the Calendar Reform that was slow to sweep some 
parts of the world.

>This one rankles
>as King James VI is always refered to as James I by the English.

If such things are a source of ranklings then one's life, by certain 
standards, is blessed and soft, indeed.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/3/2005 2:56:08 PM
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-D6F3D4.19573202122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <11ou709cpemqp41@news.supernews.com>,
>  "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every
> > derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.
>
> It is interesting that people still like to beat up on Joe McCarthy.
>
> Not only have 50 years of lies about 'witch-hunting' hollywood actors  ..
>.....
> So how do you address the simple, but unavoidable, fact that many of
> those fingered by McCarthy were quite guilty?  Do you just ignore it?

IMO McCarthy's Bad Thing was not so much his identifications, but his
methods.

He abused the power We The People granted him as a member of Congress.  He
took for himself the positions of prosecutor, judge and jury; and he used
the power of his office and its inherent press attention to sucker We The
People into becoming the executioners (e.g., blacklists).

If we are to be a nation of laws and not a nation of men, all those accused
by McCarthy should have had their day in court before being convicted and
punished.

MCM





0
12/3/2005 3:25:04 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:Itakf.48010$6y4.16939@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> > "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> The keyword is "violent", Richard. As I clearly pointed out, US
Citizens
> > are
> >> free to peacefully reform the government as much as they choose,
through
> > the
> >> democratic process.
> >
> > Yet, Mr McClendon, you have repeatedly labeled
> > a political party and its U.S. citizen members,
> > participating in this "democratic process", as criminal.
>
> I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but I really do wish you would stop
> putting words in my mouth. Your statement above is patently false. I
haven't
> labeled *anybody* as a criminal. I have only mentioned a single point in
the
> US Constitution that defines treason, and that was expressed
conditionally,
> I *did not* state a conclusion.

Having reviewed this portion of the thread, I withdraw
and apologize for using "repeatedly". The rest stands.

> > The people are also free to reform the government
> > though the judicial process and I am certain that some
> > wish for a court order so strongly worded that the
> > injustice will meet a "violent" end. I am working
> > toward such an end, myself; because, as I have found,
> > the "democratic process" just doesn't work for all and
> > my attempts to end the injustice by "petition[ing] the
> > government for a redress of grievances" has also failed.
>
>
> The judicial branch of the US Government was *never* intended to "reform
the
> government". The clearly stated purpose of the judicial branch is to
> interpret and apply laws passed by Congress, and the Constitution, no
more,
> no less. It is unfortunate that activist judges have chosen to go way past
> this, in essence bypassing congress altogether and creating their own law.
> Now, instead of a large group of elected people who are responsible to the
> people passing laws, you have a very small number of unelected people who
> are not responsible to the people, creating their own laws. Bad, bad, bad!
> Worse than bad. A serious breakdown of the way the government is supposed
to
> work, and bypassing the checks and balances the founding fathers built
into
> the system.

See < http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm >,
"The Judiciary Department" [Alexander Hamilton],

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles,
than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to
the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised,
is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the
Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to
affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that
the servant is above his master; that the representatives
of the people are superior to the people themselves; that
men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what
their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the
constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the
construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the
other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot
be the natural presumption, where it is not to be
collected from any particular provisions in the
Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the
Constitution could intend to enable the representatives
of the people to substitute their will to that of their
constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the
courts were designed to be an intermediate body
between the people and the legislature, in order, among
other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned
to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the
proper and peculiar province of the courts. A
constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the
judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to
them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning
of any particular act proceeding from the legislative
body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable
variance between the two, that which has the superior
obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred;
or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred
to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention
of their agents"

Mr McClendon, it is one purpose of the "Judiciary
Department" "to keep the [legislature] within the limits
assigned to their authority" and therefore to reform
government by putting an end to its abuses and usurpations.
The problem I noticed, from studying past decisions, is
that "activist" judges from the 1880s through the 1940s
greatly expanded the power of Congress by
reconstructing the Constitution and the term "Judicial
Reconstruction" is used to describe, at least part of, this
period.

Whether individuals are elected or appointed is of no
concern since all are required, under Article VI, clause 3,
"to support this Constitution". The problem I have is that,
since the 1880s, they have repeatedly failed to do so.

> As far as not being able to get your agenda passed, we don't always get
our
> way. That's life, get used to it. :-)

My agenda, Mr McClendon, is to once again get
government to honor the constitutional obligation of
"to support this Constitution".

I am unable to "get used to it." I have an anxiety-related
illness known as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and
there has been nothing that, for me, triggers the anxiety
more than my relationship with government. It is the one
problem from which I can find no escape.

Until recently, I have been unable to bring myself to
proceed with a suit, due to my illness; but two more
recent events served to reduce my stress level.

At this point, I am making a list for FOIA requests
to complete the documentary evidence to show what
the U.S. knew and failed to account for when it passed
the law. I already have some public government and
non-government documents and have been "polishing"
the constitutional argument.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/3/2005 4:46:26 PM
Michael Mattias wrote:
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-D6F3D4.19573202122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> 
>>In article <11ou709cpemqp41@news.supernews.com>,
>> "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every
>>>derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.
>>
>>It is interesting that people still like to beat up on Joe McCarthy.
>>
>>Not only have 50 years of lies about 'witch-hunting' hollywood actors  ..
>>.....
>>So how do you address the simple, but unavoidable, fact that many of
>>those fingered by McCarthy were quite guilty?  Do you just ignore it?
> 
> 
> IMO McCarthy's Bad Thing was not so much his identifications, but his
> methods.
> 
> He abused the power We The People granted him as a member of Congress.  He
> took for himself the positions of prosecutor, judge and jury; and he used
> the power of his office and its inherent press attention to sucker We The
> People into becoming the executioners (e.g., blacklists).
> 
> If we are to be a nation of laws and not a nation of men, all those accused
> by McCarthy should have had their day in court before being convicted and
> punished.
> 
> MCM

Well said Michael. That's the message I'm getting from reviewing 
McCarthy articles.

Jimmy
0
12/3/2005 5:33:57 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
> 
>>I have some problem with people making sure *other people* can hear that 
>>they're praying.  An omnipotent God shouldn't have any problem getting the 
>>gist of your thoughts without actually experiencing sound waves (or having 
>>to read lips).
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with that. More than one person sitting at a table and having 
> common prayer, would want to make their prayer(s) audible to those sitting 
> at their table. But praying in public and purposely being loud to make a 
> show would fall under Jesus' Matthew 6:6 injunction as you say. We're 
> finally in agreement! Hurrah! :-)
> 
> I hope you wouldn't be offended at someone praying in public and 
> unintentionally being loud enough to be overheard? :-)

I just wonder Judson. I've never seen it. Is it likely we would see 
Muslims praying in a public eatery. There religion disciplines them to 
pray several times a day. I would anticipate they would seek some 
private space to kneel before Allah and perform their religious duties ?

Jimmy
0
12/3/2005 5:37:55 PM
Alistair wrote:
> I do wonder, as a Scot, what justification there is for the II in QEII
> as I am not aware of any prior monarch by the name of Elizabeth within
> the kingdom of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England. This one rankles
> as King James VI is always refered to as James I by the English.
> 
Scotland no, but QEI in England, and Wales and unfortunately Ireland. We 
always refer to her sister as Mary, (Bloody Mary) - strictly speaking 
she was Mary I - then there's William of Orange and his wife who really 
should be Mary II, being the daughter of the previous monarch James II.

And of course your James VI was the grandson of Henry VIII's sister Mary 
Rose.
0
12/3/2005 5:53:42 PM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> James J. Gavan wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile the US still insists on spending BILLIONS on
>>> defence/defense - which if you continue at the current rate will
>>> cripple your economy. No smugness on my part, what happens below the
>>> 49th inevitably has some effect on the Great White North. Example -
>>> say military cutbacks on
>>> vehicle purchases. Detroit ponders the problem which involves
>>> layoffs, then looks northwards at their subsidiaries in Canada.
>>
>>
>> Don't worry about it. Current US defense expenditures are an almost
>> insignificant $500 billion out of $12 trillion GDP. The US defense
>> spending is now about 90% of ROW (Rest of World).
>
> Funny that non-partisan journals like the Economist don't quite see it
> in the same light that you do. Even at chump change like $500 billion

It's often said economists are folks who lack the charisma to be 
accountants. The proportion of US GDP spent on defense is nowhere it's 
historical maximum. Most people who complain about US defense spending see a 
reduction in same as a method of "starving the beast," not as some altrustic 
advice from a friend.

> - is there even a suggestion of conservative fiscal restraint policies.
> Forget about Monica, last I read, Bill Clinton left Dubya with a
> fairly clean slate on debt.

Well, no. The budget was balanced under Clinton, but we still had debt.

>>
>> Meanwhile, the US economy is tooling along at 4.3% growth for the
>> last quarter, compared to about 1% for most of Europe.
>
> And meanwhile the majors in the auto industry are in trouble, Asian
> competition. They've been squeezing their auto part suppliers so much
> on price that they have put some of their vendors out of business. GM
> spun off Delphi to try and alleviate their own in-house problems. Didn't
> work, so Delphi is now pleading Chapter 11. Delphi's solution to their
> problem - pay workers currently earning about $29 per hour a new scale
> of $8 per hour.

If Delphi, for example, can get children in Bangladesh to work for 
$2.00/day, why should they pay union scale in Detroit?

>
> Regrettably it may come to that as a result of international
> outsourcing. N. America cannot look forward to a rosy future, based on
> how it used to be. Slowly agreed, but the Third World is becoming an
> economic factor. We may all have to take a pay cut to survive.

Excellent! If China or India can manufacture something cheaper, let 'em have 
it; we'll all be better off. Adam Smith settled this hash back in the 18th 
century. It amazes me how some people still have not caught up. Labor is a 
resource, like Bauxite. We don't mine Bauxite in the US, but we use a hell 
of a lot of Aluminum. It's not because we don't HAVE any Bauxite, I'm sure 
we could scrounge up trace amounts somewhere. It's just that it's better for 
everyone to get the raw materials for Aluminum where the resource is 
plentiful and cheap. Same with labor.

>
>> The US military does not buy vehicles from Detroit.
>
> Well you could have fooled me. It was an *example*.

You'll like this, then: One major supplier of Humvees and military light 
trucks is Schlumberger (sp?). They started out as a French oil field service 
company, sort of a competitor to Haliburton. Their assembly plants are right 
here in Texas. 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
12/3/2005 5:54:51 PM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Some day, if you ever get up to Canada, I'll buy you a dinner, seeing as
> I am probably the one the strident side of the fence ... even if you are
> the one in the wrong. <G>.

I'll be looking forward to it. :-)

> I think, Judson, that a large part of the problem is that you see morals
> and social "rules" as written in stone.(perhaps literally)  I see them
> as fluid and evolving, both as we evolve spiritually, and as the mix of
> people in our social structure changes.


Well, in the case of the Ten Commandments handed down by God to Moses on Mt. 
Sinai they really were written in stone. :-)

I don't see it as a "problem" like you do, but you are right that Christians 
see moral values as absolutes, because they are defined by God. If God does 
exist, and He does tell us in the Bible what He expects from us, as 
Christians believe, then it would be the dumbest, most irrational thing a 
Christian could do to simply thumb their nose at by rejecting His moral 
values! :-) If God is Who Christians believe He is, then Christians *must* 
believe His standards, or they are denying their very belief. If a person 
does not want to believe in God, or wants to believe in a god other than the 
Judeo-Christian God, then they certainly have that prerogative. But it is 
not logical (therefore not reasonable) to say "I don't mind people being 
Christian, as long as they don't have absolute moral values." That's like 
saying "I don't mind you believing in math, as long as you don't believe 
2+2=4." :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/3/2005 6:22:20 PM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> ...
> Mr McClendon, it is one purpose of the "Judiciary
> Department" "to keep the [legislature] within the limits
> assigned to their authority" and therefore to reform
> government by putting an end to its abuses and usurpations.
> The problem I noticed, from studying past decisions, is
> that "activist" judges from the 1880s through the 1940s
> greatly expanded the power of Congress by
> reconstructing the Constitution and the term "Judicial
> Reconstruction" is used to describe, at least part of, this
> period.


I think we're hashing semantics here. I just don't see the judicial action 
of keeping the legislature within Constitutional bounds as "reforming." 
Perhaps if the legislature were "not kept in bounds" for some period of 
time, such that being out of bounds was normal government activity, then I 
suppose you might legitimately call that a "reform", but that would be 
pushing the definition, IMO. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/3/2005 6:42:36 PM
Rick Smith wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:Itakf.48010$6y4.16939@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> 
> I am unable to "get used to it." I have an anxiety-related
> illness known as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and
> there has been nothing that, for me, triggers the anxiety
> more than my relationship with government. It is the one
> problem from which I can find no escape.

Rick,

No surprisingly, I have no idea what Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is, 
and very likely many others don't as well. But I wish you good luck and 
hope a cure can be found for your condition.

So often, most of us avoiding illnesses, just aren't aware. People in 
wheelchairs - how many of us see them in a shopping mall. Most often 
confined to an individual home, or if aged, tucked away conveniently in 
a nursing home. Apnea which Charles referred to, indicating severe 
apnea; only knew of it from a former sister-in-law who obviously had a 
milder version. Epilepsy - know that one, close to home, (not me). I 
remember ages back a young programmer flopping on the floor with 
convulsions, not strictly foaming but 'spitting' at the mouth. I was 
able to keep my cool, recognizing his symptoms.

Diabetes - Sri Lankan friends, both husband and wife have it, to varying 
degrees. Just over a month ago lost a beloved friend, a Scotsman I used 
to walk with down by the Bow River with our dogs. Us two old farts, he 
was '69, used to constantly sort out the world's problems railing 
against both Paul Martin and Dubya. He died from a combination of 
diabetes and heart condition brought on by the former.

Odd thing about illnesses - I got the impression that Charles' apnea 
occurred about the time of his mother's death. Attended above friend's 
memorial service. Both sons along with mother, gallantly seemed to take 
the whole thing in their stride. But the younger one looked a little 
tense. Me, I kept my cool through the whole thing until I shook hands 
with the youngest, (over from UK where he works); then I blew it - I 
sobbed. (And again brought some tears as I wrote this).	

Small wonder that younger son looked tense - the circumstances triggered 
hemorrhoids, for which he had to have an operation before returning to 
UK. Mentioned it out of interest to my doctor on next visit. Sure, he 
confirmed, stress can bring on an illness. He had recently a 15-year old 
boy whose mother had died - immediately it brought on severe diabetes 
for the youngster.

Good luck Rick.

Jimmy
0
12/3/2005 6:50:07 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have some problem with people making sure *other people* can hear that 
>>>they're praying.  An omnipotent God shouldn't have any problem getting 
>>>the gist of your thoughts without actually experiencing sound waves (or 
>>>having to read lips).
>>
>> I can agree with that. More than one person sitting at a table and having 
>> common prayer, would want to make their prayer(s) audible to those 
>> sitting at their table. But praying in public and purposely being loud to 
>> make a show would fall under Jesus' Matthew 6:6 injunction as you say. 
>> We're finally in agreement! Hurrah! :-)
>>
>> I hope you wouldn't be offended at someone praying in public and 
>> unintentionally being loud enough to be overheard? :-)
>
> I just wonder Judson. I've never seen it. Is it likely we would see 
> Muslims praying in a public eatery. There religion disciplines them to 
> pray several times a day. I would anticipate they would seek some private 
> space to kneel before Allah and perform their religious duties ?


Perhaps so, I'm no expert on Islam. But I have often seen videos on TV of 
thousands of Moslems praying together publicly in Moslem countries.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/3/2005 6:55:29 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>>Some day, if you ever get up to Canada, I'll buy you a dinner, seeing as
>>I am probably the one the strident side of the fence ... even if you are
>>the one in the wrong. <G>.
> 
> 
> I'll be looking forward to it. :-)
> 
> 
>>I think, Judson, that a large part of the problem is that you see morals
>>and social "rules" as written in stone.(perhaps literally)  I see them
>>as fluid and evolving, both as we evolve spiritually, and as the mix of
>>people in our social structure changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the case of the Ten Commandments handed down by God to Moses on Mt. 
> Sinai they really were written in stone. :-)
> 
> I don't see it as a "problem" like you do, but you are right that Christians 
> see moral values as absolutes, because they are defined by God. If God does 
> exist, and He does tell us in the Bible what He expects from us, as 
> Christians believe, then it would be the dumbest, most irrational thing a 
> Christian could do to simply thumb their nose at by rejecting His moral 
> values! :-) If God is Who Christians believe He is, then Christians *must* 
> believe His standards, or they are denying their very belief. If a person 
> does not want to believe in God, or wants to believe in a god other than the 
> Judeo-Christian God, then they certainly have that prerogative. But it is 
> not logical (therefore not reasonable) to say "I don't mind people being 
> Christian, as long as they don't have absolute moral values." That's like 
> saying "I don't mind you believing in math, as long as you don't believe 
> 2+2=4." :-)

But it's not quite as simple as you suggest, "If Christians believe in 
Him, then they must follow His rules".

As we are now well aware within the Muslim community Shiites and Sunnis. 
   Are there other factions in other cultural regions, say Indonesia.

And as to 'believers' who all agree on a common path, (R)at (C)atchers, 
Anglicans, Methodists, Salvation Army, a slew of evangelicals, Baptists 
(a couple of sub-divisions ?) and Monsieur Judson, Pentecostal. Might 
just get said bunch to perhaps agree on the Creed or Apostles' Creed - 
but even that I doubt, once each individual group starts qualifying.

Jimmy
0
12/3/2005 7:08:33 PM
Judson McClendon wrote:
>>I just wonder Judson. I've never seen it. Is it likely we would see 
>>Muslims praying in a public eatery. There religion disciplines them to 
>>pray several times a day. I would anticipate they would seek some private 
>>space to kneel before Allah and perform their religious duties ?
> 
> Perhaps so, I'm no expert on Islam. But I have often seen videos on TV of 
> thousands of Moslems praying together publicly in Moslem countries.

I'm sure as hell not thrilled about the word 'inclusive' which probably 
is used down in the States as much as up here. Inclusiveness ties in 
with multi-culturalism. All are welcome, but I deprecate ghettos - 
inevitably low wage-earners, newcomers with various shades of brown, 
congregate in cheaper areas of a town.

By all means bring their own religious beliefs, but if you land in the 
States become a Yank, if you land in Canada become a Canuck - and in 
both instances leave behind any political baggage.

Certainly you will see TV shots of Muslims in masses, (in tghe Muslim 
world), praying in unison, and that's the way their fanatical mullahs 
want to keep it. I don't see the Saudis for instance, changing their 
thoughts any time soon, do you ? Same goes for sharia, as practiced in 
N. Nigeria I believe.

Well we are lumbered because of multi-culturalism. Dammit always forget 
his name - but one of your former Secretaries of State, when interviewed 
used to say to the effect, "The British Empire carried the seeds of its 
own destruction in its knapsack". Translation - tell the local blacks, 
yellows or browns that they were now subjects of HM Queen Victoria and 
they would be entitled to the due process of British Law = 'Democracy'.
They took the Brits at their word, were educated by them and turned the 
tables. Ghandi did it with his silent revolution in India.

With varying degrees of success, other European countries did the same 
thing. The States were latecomers but got involved when you became the 
World Policeman.

In each case, where they may have tried to introduce 'colonials' to the 
Bible, to the best of my knowledge we never prohibited them from 
following their own customs or religious beliefs, openly espoused. Well 
there are exceptions - I think we told the Samoans it wasn't really nice 
to be eating one another.

So now back on our American and European turf - whites/blacks/browns and 
yellows are welcome and can bring in their own customs and religions. 
Now we truly get screwed. What used to be the norm, say 100 years ago, 
public exhibition of Christianity is no longer 'politically correct'; we 
must consider the sensitivities of the newcomers. Again I'm not wild 
about the result, but if we truly believe in democracy then we have to 
make some accommodation. That means on grounds of sensitivity, (coupled 
with your own Constitutional rules in the U.S.), the norm, pubic 
profession of Christianity has to be toned down - BUT - not denied.

It would appear not too many Americans are wild about the French. But I 
agree with them where the Muslim head shawl is forbidden in schools. One 
could claim it is religious-biased. Not in my mind. The French are 
objecting to the invasion of their rich and colorful culture by symbols 
from other countries. (While there are many catholics in France, don't 
forget the Revolutionary Republic turned France into a non-religious state).

Jimmy
0
12/3/2005 7:56:21 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>
>> I don't see it as a "problem" like you do, but you are right that 
>> Christians see moral values as absolutes, because they are defined by 
>> God. If God does exist, and He does tell us in the Bible what He expects 
>> from us, as Christians believe, then it would be the dumbest, most 
>> irrational thing a Christian could do to simply thumb their nose at by 
>> rejecting His moral values! :-) If God is Who Christians believe He is, 
>> then Christians *must* believe His standards, or they are denying their 
>> very belief. If a person does not want to believe in God, or wants to 
>> believe in a god other than the Judeo-Christian God, then they certainly 
>> have that prerogative. But it is not logical (therefore not reasonable) 
>> to say "I don't mind people being Christian, as long as they don't have 
>> absolute moral values." That's like saying "I don't mind you believing in 
>> math, as long as you don't believe 2+2=4." :-)
>
> But it's not quite as simple as you suggest, "If Christians believe in 
> Him, then they must follow His rules".
>
> As we are now well aware within the Muslim community Shiites and Sunnis. 
> Are there other factions in other cultural regions, say Indonesia.
>
> And as to 'believers' who all agree on a common path, (R)at (C)atchers, 
> Anglicans, Methodists, Salvation Army, a slew of evangelicals, Baptists (a 
> couple of sub-divisions ?) and Monsieur Judson, Pentecostal. Might just 
> get said bunch to perhaps agree on the Creed or Apostles' Creed - but even 
> that I doubt, once each individual group starts qualifying.


But why would those things bother someone who doesn't believe in any of 
them? :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/3/2005 11:18:32 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>  stress can bring on an illness. He had recently a 15-year old boy whose 
> mother had died - immediately it brought on severe diabetes for the 
> youngster.


Jimmy, your comment reminded me of something one of my kids told me a few 
days ago. They said Ray Charles' blindness was psychosomatic (real, but 
emotionally caused, not physically caused), and that seeing his father 
killed when he was young had brought it on. Perhaps I am the only person on 
the planet who didn't know this. I was dumbfounded that I hadn't heard 
before. Was this common knowledge?

How much more don't I know? There really is a Santa Clause, right? ;-) 
Actually, learning there wasn't a Santa Clause was very traumatic for me. 
Not because of Santa (I didn't care who brought the presents!), but because 
I had been systematically deceived by society, my teachers, even my own 
parents. I began to worry about what else I didn't know, and wondered "If I 
can't depend on my own parents to be honest with me, how do I know when I'm 
being lied to?" My parents were honest people, they just didn't see the 
Santa deal as a "real lie", but I did. With my kids, I was very low key and 
noncommittal about the Santa character, and as soon as they were old enough 
to ask, I told them the truth. I *never* told my kids Santa was real, or 
lied to them about anything else. They always woke up to presents under the 
tree on Christmas morning until their mid teens, but they knew who put them 
there. They liked that and are doing the same with their kids.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/3/2005 11:44:22 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:zNlkf.20349$ki.9642@pd7tw2no...
> Rick Smith wrote:
> > "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> > news:Itakf.48010$6y4.16939@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > I am unable to "get used to it." I have an anxiety-related
> > illness known as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and
> > there has been nothing that, for me, triggers the anxiety
> > more than my relationship with government. It is the one
> > problem from which I can find no escape.
>
> Rick,
>
> No surprisingly, I have no idea what Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is,
> and very likely many others don't as well. But I wish you good luck and
> hope a cure can be found for your condition.
[snip]
>
> Good luck Rick.

Well, thank you.

Also, I have been diagnosed with diabetes and am not
able to afford treatment. About two weeks ago--talking
to a neighbor--I was ask if I was a veteren. Yes, I replied,
and she told me to go to the VA Hospital (35 miles away).
Instead, I went to < www.va.gov >, found a program and
application for benefits, and located a recently opened
VA clinic only 5 miles away. Still, I have not submitted the
application because I had to consider whether the program
was consistent with "to support this Constitution". I have
my principles to protect!



0
ricksmith (875)
12/4/2005 2:33:44 AM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
>> stress can bring on an illness. He had recently a 15-year old boy whose 
>>mother had died - immediately it brought on severe diabetes for the 
>>youngster.
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy, your comment reminded me of something one of my kids told me a few 
> days ago. They said Ray Charles' blindness was psychosomatic (real, but 
> emotionally caused, not physically caused), and that seeing his father 
> killed when he was young had brought it on. Perhaps I am the only person on 
> the planet who didn't know this. I was dumbfounded that I hadn't heard 
> before. Was this common knowledge?

As to your comments on Santa. Ha Humbug you Scrooge :-) No wonder you 
took a swipe years ago when I wrote about Peter Pan on stage and 
Tinkerbell who had apparently disappeared. Says one character to the 
little ones in the theatre audience, "If you believe in fairies. Clap". 
The tiny tots clapped like mad ! Scrooge McClendon said, in the kindest 
way of course, that I should grow up :-)

I would still like to play make-believe - beats economic woes and 
anticipating the next disaster to occur in the Middle East.

Jimmy
0
12/4/2005 2:41:52 AM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:jElkf.49068$6y4.46087@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> > ...
> > Mr McClendon, it is one purpose of the "Judiciary
> > Department" "to keep the [legislature] within the limits
> > assigned to their authority" and therefore to reform
> > government by putting an end to its abuses and usurpations.
> > The problem I noticed, from studying past decisions, is
> > that "activist" judges from the 1880s through the 1940s
> > greatly expanded the power of Congress by
> > reconstructing the Constitution and the term "Judicial
> > Reconstruction" is used to describe, at least part of, this
> > period.
>
>
> I think we're hashing semantics here. I just don't see the judicial action
> of keeping the legislature within Constitutional bounds as "reforming."
> Perhaps if the legislature were "not kept in bounds" for some period of
> time, such that being out of bounds was normal government activity, then I
> suppose you might legitimately call that a "reform", but that would be
> pushing the definition, IMO. :-)

Well, when I wrote "to reform government by
putting an end to its abuses and usurpations",
I was using a definition from The Random House
College Dictionary, Revised Edition, 1975.

reform n. 6. to put an end to (abuses, disorder, etc.)

Yes, I agree that "reform" applies more to that
which occurred over some period of time.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/4/2005 3:15:24 AM
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I worship not their god nor yours. I get the worst of
> > both utopias.
>
>
> Yeah, but I'm not going to bomb you. :-)
> -- 


My neighbours will be able to sleep easy at night now.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/4/2005 6:24:38 PM
Allister, would you try to quote somewhat?  It can be difficult to
figure out what you are responding to at times.


Donald


Sorry folks, this is down to limitations with Google so I'm having to
adapt to the new technology which is not as good as the old technology
that I was used to.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/4/2005 6:29:01 PM
James wrote:
QUOTE Scotland no, but QEI in England, and Wales and unfortunately
Ireland. We
always refer to her sister as Mary, (Bloody Mary) - strictly speaking
she was Mary I - then there's William of Orange and his wife who really

should be Mary II, being the daughter of the previous monarch James II.


And of course your James VI was the grandson of Henry VIII's sister
Mary
Rose.
UNQUOTE

It is only the reigning monarch who acquires the number, never the
wife.
Re Elizabeth I, she was never the Queen of Scotland and therefore, as
far as numbering is concerned, Elizabeth II is in fact Elizabeth I of
England AND Scotland.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/4/2005 6:54:36 PM
Alistair wrote:

> Sorry folks, this is down to limitations with Google so I'm having to
> adapt to the new technology which is not as good as the old technology
> that I was used to.

Instead of hitting the 'reply' click on 'show options' and use the
'reply' there.

0
riplin (4127)
12/4/2005 7:10:16 PM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
> Also, I have been diagnosed with diabetes and am not
> able to afford treatment. About two weeks ago--talking
> to a neighbor--I was ask if I was a veteren. Yes, I replied,
> and she told me to go to the VA Hospital (35 miles away).
> Instead, I went to < www.va.gov >, found a program and
> application for benefits, and located a recently opened
> VA clinic only 5 miles away. Still, I have not submitted the
> application because I had to consider whether the program
> was consistent with "to support this Constitution". I have
> my principles to protect!


Rick, depending on the circumstances, if you are a veteran, the US 
Government probably *owes* you the medical treatment, by law. If you're 
entitled to it, then I recommend you take advantage of it, whatever you 
think of the current state of legal affairs. You don't have to agree with 
everything the government does (do any of us?) to take advantage of your 
rightful benefits. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/5/2005 5:01:39 PM
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1133564362.330129.265940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Internet a US invention? Not entirely. I know that one of your US
> politicians claims to be the father of the internet because he (by
> earlier threads in this newsgroup) was at least partly responsible for
> financing research that set up the internet but AT LEAST ONE of the
> three name sinvolved in the process was British (Tim Whats-his-face?
> I'm not only lazy but under the affluence of incihol).

    Tim Berners-Lee. I don't know who "invented the Internet", but Tim came 
up with the concept of hypertext, documents with links you could click on to 
take you to other documents, which led to the creation of the world wide 
web. I believe he was the lead developer of the original HTML language, the 
HTTP protocol, and the first "web browser" (which was text-based at the 
time).

    Later on, someone wrote the first graphical web browser, Mosaic, which 
really caused the web to take off, becoming the most popular use of the 
Internet, overtaking e-mail. Nowadays, it seems like Bittorrent and other 
peer to peer file sharing applications have overtaken the web, at least in 
terms of bandwidth consumed.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
12/5/2005 6:49:09 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:zl_kf.58847$6y4.51979@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
[snip]
> Rick, depending on the circumstances, if you are a veteran, the US
> Government probably *owes* you the medical treatment, by law. If you're
> entitled to it, then I recommend you take advantage of it, whatever you
> think of the current state of legal affairs. You don't have to agree with
> everything the government does (do any of us?) to take advantage of your
> rightful benefits. :-)

Apparently, the times I live in are far more interesting
than I could have imagined.

In researching the VA health care benefit, I located
"VA Pamphlet 20-67-1," Revised April 1970, which
I received in May 1971 when I separated. Under a
section on medical care, I found the following:

"Public Law 89-358 extends to veterans whose sole
service was after January 31, 1955, hospital care from
the VA on a bed-available basis for treatment of their
non-service-connected conditions, provided such
veterans state under oath their inability to defray the
costs of such care. ...

"Any Viet-Nam Era veteran who develops an active
psychosis within two years after separation from active
service and before the expiration of 2 years from the
date determined to end the war period, shall for
purpose of securing VA medical benefits be deemed
to have incurred the psychosis in the active service."

And on the last page, "No Time Limit ..... To file
compensation claim for injury or disease".

Two years ago, while filing for Social Security
Disability, I had to revisit the long list of incidents
associated with my problems. Some occurred while
I was in the military and, twenty-three months after
separation, I started experiencing the recurring
symptoms that finally sent me into psychotherapy.

To take advantage of my "rightful benefits," I now
also need to file for Veteran's disability benefits for
a determination of whether my disability is, or is not,
service-connected. Disability by a disease
(presumably, including mental illness) may be
considered service-connected if it is "aggravated
during active service." The difference is a bump in
 priority from Group 5 to Group 3 and elimination
of co-payments. It may also trigger a small pension
benefit; but I doubt it.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/6/2005 2:13:52 AM
Rick Smith wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:zl_kf.58847$6y4.51979@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> [snip]
> 
>>Rick, depending on the circumstances, if you are a veteran, the US
>>Government probably *owes* you the medical treatment, by law. If you're
>>entitled to it, then I recommend you take advantage of it, whatever you
>>think of the current state of legal affairs. You don't have to agree with
>>everything the government does (do any of us?) to take advantage of your
>>rightful benefits. :-)
> 
> 
> Apparently, the times I live in are far more interesting
> than I could have imagined.

Good luck. You've just got to love the following quote, from a certain 
lady's lips - more to follow under 'McCarthyism'.

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that
war."---MSNBC

Jimmy
0
12/6/2005 3:07:00 AM
"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Internet a US invention? Not entirely. I know that one of your US
>> politicians claims to be the father of the internet because he (by
>> earlier threads in this newsgroup) was at least partly responsible for
>> financing research that set up the internet but AT LEAST ONE of the
>> three name sinvolved in the process was British (Tim Whats-his-face?
>> I'm not only lazy but under the affluence of incihol).
>
>    Tim Berners-Lee. I don't know who "invented the Internet", but Tim came 
> up with the concept of hypertext, documents with links you could click on 
> to take you to other documents, which led to the creation of the world 
> wide web. I believe he was the lead developer of the original HTML 
> language, the HTTP protocol, and the first "web browser" (which was 
> text-based at the time).
>
>    Later on, someone wrote the first graphical web browser, Mosaic, which 
> really caused the web to take off, becoming the most popular use of the 
> Internet, overtaking e-mail. Nowadays, it seems like Bittorrent and other 
> peer to peer file sharing applications have overtaken the web, at least in 
> terms of bandwidth consumed.


You fellows are talking about the web, not the Internet. The Internet hosts 
the www, and email, and newsgroups, and ftp, etc. There's no doubt about who 
invented the Internet, it was DARPA, the US Defense Advanced Research 
Planning Agency (IIRC), a congregate think tank consisting of scientists and 
engineers at a number of universities, corporations and government agencies. 
In order to connect them usefully, a network was created, called DARPANET 
(1970's?), which grew and grew until DARPA split off for security reasons, 
leaving the remainder of the original network to expand into what we now 
know as the Internet.

The politician you refer to is Al Gore, a twit. Gore is pushing his 
intellectual envelope when he tries to spell "Internet". I'm sure he would 
claim to have invented the Moon too, if he thought it would buy him votes. 
;-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/6/2005 5:20:49 AM
In article <u82uo1h05gdpueu8klph6q0jq54iflg88c@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:10:39 -0500, Joe Zitzelberger
> <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> >That is the great thing about an all volunteer army.  Those that 
> >disagree can stay home and complain about lack of "shared sacrifice".
> 
> Why is it that when an unpopular war had mixed volunteers and
> draftees, the soldiers were condemned by the people back home (I am a
> Vietnam era veteran).    
> 
> But when an unpopular war has only volunteers now, the people who
> condemn the war are careful to not blame the people doing the
> fighting?
> 
> When some soldiers had not choice but to serve they were scum, but
> when people choose to serve they're heroes?

You are asking the wrong person.  It is the anti-war crowd of both that 
was calling all VN vets scum.  The do similar things today, but with 
much less tolerance, and much less media indulgence.
0
12/6/2005 3:27:07 PM
In article <kNikf.2818$rq3.1482@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:

> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-D6F3D4.19573202122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> > In article <11ou709cpemqp41@news.supernews.com>,
> >  "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every
> > > derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.
> >
> > It is interesting that people still like to beat up on Joe McCarthy.
> >
> > Not only have 50 years of lies about 'witch-hunting' hollywood actors  ..
> >.....
> > So how do you address the simple, but unavoidable, fact that many of
> > those fingered by McCarthy were quite guilty?  Do you just ignore it?
> 
> IMO McCarthy's Bad Thing was not so much his identifications, but his
> methods.
> 
> He abused the power We The People granted him as a member of Congress.  He
> took for himself the positions of prosecutor, judge and jury; and he used
> the power of his office and its inherent press attention to sucker We The
> People into becoming the executioners (e.g., blacklists).

That is what congressional committees do.  Why should his be any 
different?

And which "blacklists" do you mean?

> If we are to be a nation of laws and not a nation of men, all those accused
> by McCarthy should have had their day in court before being convicted and
> punished.

Who was convicted?  Who was punished?
0
12/9/2005 8:05:07 AM
In article <_gakf.22894$Gd6.5146@pd7tw3no>,
 "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
> > In article <11ou709cpemqp41@news.supernews.com>,
> >  "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > 
> >>And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every 
> >>derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.
> > 
> > 
> > It is interesting that people still like to beat up on Joe McCarthy.
> > 
> > Not only have 50 years of lies about 'witch-hunting' hollywood actors  
> > been repeated so many times that they are now regarded as truth by many.  
> > But the KGB document dump in the early 1990's has been widely ignored by 
> > all of the McCarthy detractors.
> > 
> > If there is one many in the human history whose reputation deserves a 
> > serious apology, it is Joe McCarthy.  He was amazingly accurate at 
> > identifying actual KGB employees working for the US government at a time 
> > when we we involved in a hot war with the Soviet Air Force and two of 
> > their puppet states.
> > 
> > The Edward R. Murrow movie that came out last month was amazing in its 
> > avoidance of the information the KGB made public.  It is a very artful 
> > piece of propaganda.  Very reinforcing of the idea that if you tell a 
> > lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
> > 
> > So how do you address the simple, but unavoidable, fact that many of 
> > those fingered by McCarthy were quite guilty?  Do you just ignore it?
> 
> Well you could, seeing as it is 50 years ago. However I think his name 
> came up from you as an apologist on behalf of Anne Coulter. Perhaps I 
> first mentioned his name; dunno.
> 
> So let's get factual. As a result of your comments I went googling on 
> good ole Joe. But now let's now get more specific, "avoidance of the 
> information the KGB made public".  If this one is such a hot potater in 
> your mind, I should be able to find a web link. Right ?
> 
> Some interesting links on KGB activity but none so far relative to good 
> ole Joe. Care to point me at a site ?
> 
> Jimmy

Try the Black Book of Communism,  
"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674076087/103-4451837-0851052?v=glance
&n=283155", for one.

You could also look at the declassified "verona" intelligence from the 
US government in 1995 for some additional information

But if all you want is a website that someone else put together, here 
are the first few that popped up on google.com with a realistic search 
key of "kgb archives mccarthy":

  http://www.spongobongo.com/em/em9820.htm
  http://www.greaterthings.com/Conspiracy/kgb_exonerates_mccarthyism.htm
  http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/mccarthy.html
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Hiskey

You served with the RAF in the second world war didn't you?  Were you as 
lackadaisical about having Nazi sympathizers and assistants in the 
English Army as you seem to be Soviet ones in the American Army?
0
12/9/2005 8:24:15 AM
In article <1133532295.702705.276420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> The Australians fought in Vietnam. Apparently (I've seen photographs)
> they used tanks in the jungle with some degree of success. There was
> another nation that helped the US in Vietnam but I can not remember
> precisely whom. It may also be the case that British special forces may
> have been involved but that is more guesswork rather than hard fact.

There were about 25.  The ROK army was the number two contributer with 
two divisions.  Most of the others were in the company sized element 
range.  IIRC, Australia sent two battalions to support the SEATO effort.
0
12/9/2005 8:25:56 AM
In article <Ji4kf.18266$Gd6.7345@pd7tw3no>,
 "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Judson McClendon wrote:
> > "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > One reason the British carriers pitched is that they are small, almost tiny 
> > beside US main carriers, which are over 1000' long and have a 4 acre flight 
> > deck. Anyway, what makes you think a US carrier group doesn't have 
> > Harriers? 
> > Any carrier group headed for a ground invasion would have at lease one MAU 
> > (Marine Amphibious Unit) attached, which has lots of Harriers. :-)
> 
> What's this all about - "Mine is bigger than yours ?". There was a time, 
> in the days of Empire when the British Navy reigned supreme. Since then 
> they have had to learn to cut their suit according to their cloth. I've 
> seen somebody make reference to the RNzAF as almost being a nothingness. 
> Same here in Canada. And told me some 10 years ago; the RAF I served 
> with in NATO in Germany was LARGER than what is now the RAF based in the 
> UK !
> 
> Meanwhile the US still insists on spending BILLIONS on defence/defense - 
> which if you continue at the current rate will cripple your economy. No 
> smugness on my part, what happens below the 49th inevitably has some 
> effect on the Great White North. Example - say military cutbacks on 
> vehicle purchases. Detroit ponders the problem which involves layoffs, 
> then looks northwards at their subsidiaries in Canada.
> 
> Jimmy

We have to spend that money.

The US has been (almost) single-handedly defending 17 NATO countries 
with near-zero defense budgets for 60 years.  We also have to protect 
another half-dozen Pacific rim countries that couldn't buy a row boat 
and a Piper Cub with their defense budgets.

But it won't cripple our economy -- we spend four times as much on 
feel-good social programs as we do weapons and troops.  Our economy is 
doing just fine anyway.

Detroit is ill for other, unrelated, reasons.
0
12/9/2005 8:50:03 AM
In article <1133425459.710130.30230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

> > While I can agree that France is never ready for a fight, they were most
> > certainly in a great military position in September 1939.
> 
> Not true. They did not have a complete defensive line, due to Belgium
> not completing thier part of it, they were poorly equiped because the
> factories were not fully manned and were not even working overtime, and
> all their planning was based on defence.

Who needs a complete defensive line to attack?
0
12/9/2005 9:04:10 AM
In article <J5Xjf.5157$Et5.353943@news20.bellglobal.com>,
 Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> James J. Gavan wrote:
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:48:10 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> In general, a "liberal" is one who wants to change prevailing
> >>>> societal values, and a "conservative" is one who wants to maintain
> >>>> (conserve) them. :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   What if the prevailing societal values are considered "liberal"? I
> >>> don't follow politics much, being relatively uninterested in it, but
> >>> from what I understand Canada is generally considered to be "socially
> >>> liberal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada).
> >>>
> >>>   If a Canadian generally agrees with the prevailing liberal societal
> >>> values (same sex marriages are okay, etc.) and wishes to conserve
> >>> those values, would that Canadian be a liberal or a conservative?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Lables have meanings that change.   At one time "Liberal" meant pretty
> >> close to what "Libertarian" means now.    One can come up with a case
> >> that conservatives, conservationists, preservatives, and
> >> preservationists" all keep things from changing and do the same thing.
> >>
> >> In a two party system, it is easy to say that whatever party is
> >> opposing the more conservative party is the opposite of conservative.
> >> But that opposite in the U.S. and that opposite in Canada don't need
> >> to have much in common.
> >>
> >> Conservativism, generally harkens to values of a past - usually not a
> >> past that actually existed, but an idealized past viewed through
> >> filtered glasses.
> > 
> > 
> > I suppose we can all assess in our minds what we think something means,
> > and sometimes based on experiences. Dictionary-wise, you are correct in
> > grouping - "conservatives, conservationists, preservatives, and
> > preservationists" - to conserve/preserve.
> > 
> > Not quite how I viewed English conservatism - I came to the conclusion
> > that to conserve/preserve was, "I've made it in this world and want to
> > hang on to what I've got. You haven't been so lucky. Pity......  F...
> > you Jack up alright !"
> > 
> > One of the reasons that I thought the Canadian political party name
> > Progressive Conservatives was an absolute absurdity.
> > 
> > Jimmy
> 
> The english meaning of liberal also shares meaning with liberty.
> 
> Conservative has always, politically, meant preserving the status quo,
> *regardless* of the value of that status quo.  Judson's idea that
> somehow conservative really means "freedom" because it is "america" is
> just a rather silly affectation of american society.
> 
> Conservative, when applied in politics, really means "mind your bloody
> elders, *we* know what is correct, *you* do not, so shut up".
> 
> Donald

Interesting.

The liberals held near absolute power in America for almost 70 years.  
Didn't that make them the 'elders' that must be obeyed?

The terms really have been reversed recently.  The conservatives are the 
'angry rebels' while liberals are the large, entrenched, power block 
telling people what is correct.

(that could transition into a whole "political correctness" post, but I 
will resist...this thread has gone on far too long...)
0
12/9/2005 9:22:13 AM
In article <11p0v22oopk4h7e@corp.supernews.com>,
 "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:

> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:FoZjf.47094$6y4.38133@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Your response regarding McCarthy is typical.  You personally know of at
> > > least a dozen people that later admited to having horrible belief
> > > systems, so of course persecuting them was right. The fact that they are
> > > *suppose* to have freedom to believe what they want is completely
> > > irrelevant to you.
> >
> > Again, you are misinformed. The Constitution of the United States clearly
> > says it is Treason to espouse the violent overthrow of the United States
> > Government. This is precisely what the Communist conspirators were about
> > (See the Communist revolutions in Russa or China for details). So you are
> > *dead wrong* to say they had the freedom to embrace and propagate such
> > idealogy here in the United States.
> 
> Article III, Section 3,
> "1. Treason against the United States shall consist only
> in levying war against them, or in adhering to their
> enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall
> be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
> witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
> open court.

It seems like handing over classified documents and/or designs of 
weapons systems to an active enemy of the US would fit the above 
description.

Do you disagree?
0
12/9/2005 9:32:23 AM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-FED058.04221309122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

[snip]

>The liberals held near absolute power in America for almost 70 years.  

Which seventy were those, Mr Zitzelberger... the ones that included the 
winning of WWII ('liberals dropped the Bomb!'), the rise in the middle 
class (and union membership) in the 1950s ('Eisenhower warned us against 
the 'military-industrial complex'... he meant the liberals!') and the 
expansion of involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s ('liberals started the 
war in Vietnam... and then tore the country apart protesting against 
themselves for doing so!')?

The logic here seems... worthy of scrutiny, to say the least.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/9/2005 9:44:23 AM
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-2C9912.03050509122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <kNikf.2818$rq3.1482@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:joe_zitzelberger-D6F3D4.19573202122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> > > In article <11ou709cpemqp41@news.supernews.com>,
> > >  "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every
> > > > derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.
> > >
> > > It is interesting that people still like to beat up on Joe McCarthy.
> > >
> > > Not only have 50 years of lies about 'witch-hunting' hollywood actors
...
> > >.....
> > > So how do you address the simple, but unavoidable, fact that many of
> > > those fingered by McCarthy were quite guilty?  Do you just ignore it?
> >
> > IMO McCarthy's Bad Thing was not so much his identifications, but his
> > methods.
> >
> > He abused the power We The People granted him as a member of Congress.
He
> > took for himself the positions of prosecutor, judge and jury; and he
used
> > the power of his office and its inherent press attention to sucker We
The
> > People into becoming the executioners (e.g., blacklists).
>
> That is what congressional committees do.  Why should his be any
> different?

Congressional committees, at least as I understand their
function, conduct fact-finding to determine whether
legislation is needed and discussions concerning proposed
legislation. I recall from some years ago, though I can not
recall the context, that no legislation was ever discussed,
while McCarthy was running *his* hearings. It was the
absence of any clear legislative agenda that made *his*
different.

> And which "blacklists" do you mean?
>
> > If we are to be a nation of laws and not a nation of men, all those
accused
> > by McCarthy should have had their day in court before being convicted
and
> > punished.
>
> Who was convicted?  Who was punished?

< http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/linkbackups/huac_blacklist.htm >
seems to answer the remaining questions you pose.
The "page" is rather long.

-----selected quote
The blacklist was not a new witches' brew concocted
by the Association of Motion Picture Producers (AMPP)
to protect the movie industry from a new threat,
"Communist infiltration." Blacklists had been routinely
used by employers in other industries against union
organizers for over a century, and frightening attacks
on freedom of expression, both political and artistic, have
occurred in the United States ever since the signing of the
Declaration of Independence. Our own government and
assorted "defenders of American ideals" have periodically
shelved our First Amendment rights whenever it has
conveniently suited their cause to do so. Do you
remember reading about the Alien and Sedition Acts of
1798, the government seizure of abolitionist literature in
the 1830s or the ruthless actions taken against railroad
strikers in the 1890s in your high school history classes?

The motion picture blacklist era was simply the
calculated product of movie studio executives acting from
primal economic fear. They believed the film industry
would lose vast portions of its audience if they didn't
cooperate with Congressional investigating committees.
Just like today, the primary concern of studio executives
during the blacklist was not politics or art, but the bottom
line. As a result, several hundred performers whose only
"crime" was belonging to or supporting organizations or
causes deemed "subversive," were sacrificed by the film
industry to a manufactured and manipulated national
hysteria over the threat of Communist world domination.
-----end quote



0
ricksmith (875)
12/9/2005 10:20:41 AM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-BB0C96.03241509122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <_gakf.22894$Gd6.5146@pd7tw3no>,
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>> Some interesting links on KGB activity but none so far relative to good 
>> ole Joe. Care to point me at a site ?

[snip]

>But if all you want is a website that someone else put together, here 
>are the first few that popped up on google.com with a realistic search 
>key of "kgb archives mccarthy":
>
>  http://www.spongobongo.com/em/em9820.htm

An admitted opinion-piece, Mr Zitzelberger.

>  http://www.greaterthings.com/Conspiracy/kgb_exonerates_mccarthyism.htm

An interesting assertion and essays by Ann Coulter and James Drummey.

>  http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/mccarthy.html

A newspaper editorial.

>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Hiskey

See below for another wikipedia reference, Mr Zitzelberger.  Have you ever 
seen 'Our Man in Havana'?  The FBI's evaluation of its own intercepts 
included ( from http://cryptome.org/fbi-nsa.htm#IV.A ):

--begin quoted text:

Assuming the the messages could be introduced in evidence, we hen have a 
question of identity. The fragmentary nature of the messages themselves, 
the assumptions made by the cryptographers in breaking the messages, and 
the questionable interpretations and translations involved, plus the 
extensive use of cover names for persons and places, make the problem of 
positive identification extremely difficult. Here, again, reliance would 
have to be placed on the expert testimony of the cryptographers and it 
appears that the case would be entirely circumstantial.

--end quoted text

(more interesting is the later consideration that taking someone to trial 
would 'lead to the exposure of Government techniques and practises'... 
like the kind which produced the fragementary, questionable, 
likely-inadmissable evidence mentioned above.  'The food here is 
terrible... and the portions so small, too!')

>
>You served with the RAF in the second world war didn't you?  Were you as 
>lackadaisical about having Nazi sympathizers and assistants in the 
>English Army as you seem to be Soviet ones in the American Army?

There was an active Declaration of War between Great Britain and Germany, 
Mr Zitzelberger... such things tend to change the relationships between 
nations.

Now, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#VENONA_files :

--begin quoted text:

In 1995, when the VENONA transcripts were declassified, further detailed 
information was revealed about Soviet espionage in the U.S. VENONA 
specifically references at least 349 people in the U.S. - including 
citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents - whom the NSA identified 
engaged in clandestine activities with Soviet intelligence agencies.

--end quoted text

.... and later mentions the failure of McCarthy to supply Senator Lehman 
with anything.  (I'm not sure if that was the same incident as the 'get 
them out by sundown' exchange during the Army-McCarthy hearings.)

The actual list is purported to be here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers

.... and *here* some debate might begin.  I do not have a little list of 
those whom McCarthy or his minions actually accused in public; if someone 
might help in finding that then cross-referencing might be a simple 
matter.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/9/2005 10:22:57 AM
In article <11pimpb6pngbvf4@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
>"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:joe_zitzelberger-2C9912.03050509122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...

[snip]

>> Who was convicted?  Who was punished?
>
>< http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/linkbackups/huac_blacklist.htm >
>seems to answer the remaining questions you pose.

This seems to be a reference to HUAC, Mr Smith, not McCarthy.  While 
working towards the same goal they are neither identical nor synonymous.

(Interesting to compare the names here, though, with the names in the 
Venona traffic 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers))

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/9/2005 10:29:19 AM
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-68185F.04322309122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <11p0v22oopk4h7e@corp.supernews.com>,
>  "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > Article III, Section 3,
> > "1. Treason against the United States shall consist only
> > in levying war against them, or in adhering to their
> > enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall
> > be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
> > witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
> > open court.
>
> It seems like handing over classified documents and/or designs of
> weapons systems to an active enemy of the US would fit the above
> description.
>
> Do you disagree?

As I understand it, those handling classified
documents are bound by law to not transfer or
otherwise disclose such information, whether to
an "enemy" or not, and are prosecuted when
they have been found to have done so. [This
understanding comes from having once handled
such documents, in the military, and having
been cleared, as a civilian, to maintain equipment
at a defense contractor, where one such weapons
system was designed.]

One of the issues with treason is the definition
of "enemy". I simply do not see the definition
as open-ended as others seem to have expressed.
That is, I believe there must be a state of war,
whether declared or not, for treason to apply.

For the cases mentioned, any violation of an
agreement to not disclose may be prosecuted
without ambiguity and, where no agreement was
signed, the crime of espionage applies, again,
with ambiguity. Particularly, since treason requires
"the testimony of two witnesses to same overt
act".



0
ricksmith (875)
12/9/2005 11:11:23 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnbm9u$3bt$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <11pimpb6pngbvf4@corp.supernews.com>,
> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:joe_zitzelberger-2C9912.03050509122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Who was convicted?  Who was punished?
> >
> >< http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/linkbackups/huac_blacklist.htm >
> >seems to answer the remaining questions you pose.
>
> This seems to be a reference to HUAC, Mr Smith, not McCarthy.  While
> working towards the same goal they are neither identical nor synonymous.

I think, Mr Dwarf, that it is, more precisely, about
"blacklisting" and the motion picture industry; something
more closely related to McCarthy than whatever other
intent the HUAC may have had. Perhaps, McCarthy
concentrated more on actors because they are better
known to the public.

-----another quote, same source
For their own political gain, exposure and blacklisting
of "subversive" citizens was taken up first by Republicans,
then by Democrats. Such political opportunism made
Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon household names.
-----end quote

And some may have been pressured into making false
statements.

-----yet another quote, same source
Jeff Corey Interview:
Q. You were blacklisted despite being a World War II
     veteran?

A. I was in the Navy and received a citation, signed by
     Navy Secretary Forrestal, for outstanding achievement
     in combat photography for putting myself at risk while
     shooting a photo sequence of a kamikaze attack on the
     U.S.S. Yorktown. The funny thing is that I was actually
     out at sea on the Yorktown when a HUAC informant,
     Mark Lawrence, named me as being present at various
     Communist meetings.
-----end quote

The relationship, I see, is that McCarthy sought to have
witnesses "name names" thus cause those individuals to be
placed on a "blacklist". To be placed on a "blacklist" was
to be convicted ("guilt by association") and the punishment
was the inability to work in one's chose field.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/9/2005 1:02:51 PM
In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnbm9u$3bt$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <11pimpb6pngbvf4@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:joe_zitzelberger-2C9912.03050509122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Who was convicted?  Who was punished?
>> >
>> >< http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/linkbackups/huac_blacklist.htm >
>> >seems to answer the remaining questions you pose.
>>
>> This seems to be a reference to HUAC, Mr Smith, not McCarthy.  While
>> working towards the same goal they are neither identical nor synonymous.
>
>I think, Mr Dwarf, that it is, more precisely, about
>"blacklisting" and the motion picture industry; something
>more closely related to McCarthy than whatever other
>intent the HUAC may have had. Perhaps, McCarthy
>concentrated more on actors because they are better
>known to the public.

That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a kind 
of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what they 
see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.  

'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone *McCarthy* 
went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'

(one of the cites given earlier was an editorial from a profit-free 
newspaper funded by a Korean Christian-charismatic industrialist, 
http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/mccarthy.html ; I found it interesting to 
read there:

--begin quoted text:

Critics have claimed that McCarthy "never actually exposed a communist," 
but Mr. Herman notes the case of Mary Jane Keeney, a State Department 
employee whom McCarthy accused of being a Soviet agent. In fact, she was 
employed by State even though the FBI knew she had spied for the KGB. 
"McCarthy didn't know that specifically, but the fact that he could come 
so close is significant," Mr. Herman says.

And Mary Jane Keeney's name was on the sheet of paper that McCarthy waved 
to the Republican women of Wheeling, W.Va., 50 years ago, when he said, "I 
have here in my hand a list . . .."

--end quoted text

Perhaps my efforts are shoddy but I have been unable to locate, 
*anywhere*, a copy of this list (or 'the sheet of paper that McCarthy 
waved'); perhaps someone might be kind enough to assist me in finding it 
so that it might be compared, say, to the declassified Venona documents.

(I was unable to find any of the 'Hollywood Ten' on the Venona list to 
which I've already posted a link and I've read various descriptions in 
various places of McCarthy's 'list of 205' which had it to be blank papers 
or a list of State Department employee numbers of folks who had, for 
whatever reason, failed security examinations... but never a list of two 
hundred five names.)

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/9/2005 2:10:17 PM
Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
> In article <_gakf.22894$Gd6.5146@pd7tw3no>,
>  "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Try the Black Book of Communism,  
> "http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674076087/103-4451837-0851052?v=glance
> &n=283155", for one.
> 
> You could also look at the declassified "verona" intelligence from the 
> US government in 1995 for some additional information
> 
> But if all you want is a website that someone else put together, here 
> are the first few that popped up on google.com with a realistic search 
> key of "kgb archives mccarthy":
> 
>   http://www.spongobongo.com/em/em9820.htm
>   http://www.greaterthings.com/Conspiracy/kgb_exonerates_mccarthyism.htm
>   http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/mccarthy.html
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Hiskey

Thanks for the references Joe, I'll check them out - those are not ones 
currently on my list that I checked out. I see Doc pre-empted me on this 
topic. Not good enough - you are going to have to endure a very long 
message with site quotes covering the whole miserable period.
> 
> You served with the RAF in the second world war didn't you?  Were you as 
> lackadaisical about having Nazi sympathizers and assistants in the 
> English Army as you seem to be Soviet ones in the American Army?

Not quite that old Joe. I was 14 when the Japanese surrendered :-) But 
RAF starting with an apprenticeship, (and I had to sign on for 12 years 
to get the apprenticeship) - Feb 1949 to Sep 1961.

Only last night I discovered I was one of Britain's unsung heroes :-). 
Reading the right-wing tabloid my wife gets for the crossword puzzle, 
there was an article about ex WWII vets who had commissioned their own 
medals for battles the government hadn't recognized - can't remember, 
but say something like the naval convoys that took supplies to the USSR.
As part of the article it said one of the people quoted had been 
responsible for the government introducing the Suez Canal Zone Crisis 
medal for activity during 1951-1954. "Hey that's me" sez I. googled on 
British Medals. Sure enough I qualified - 'cos I was there Dec 1951 
until Jul 1954.

The medal article filled me in on the background history. About 1936 
Egypt was concerned that the Italian Fascists might move their way from 
Libya, so they entered into a treaty, (perhaps 30 years) 1936 - 1956, 
with the Brits. Went OK initially right through WWII with Brits all over 
Egypt and particularly Cairo. Roughly '49 onwards the Gyppos wanted the 
Brits to leave, first King Farouk, then Neguib and lastly Nasser. 
Rioting, burning vehicles, stabbings, some shootings. So the Brits 
retrenched to what was called the Canal Zone - pure guess - a territory 
parallel to the Canal heading some 30 miles west. That's when yours 
truly joins the drama serving King and Country (Lizzie was Queen in 
'53). Got dumped at this godforsaken hole Abu Sueir, on the old Cairo 
Road which runs West to East to Ismailia and is also parallel to the 
Sweet Water Canal, (which I've referred to before). 'Sweet' it ain't !

Continuous negotiations between the British army commander and his 
'friends' in Cairo to have a graceful pull-out. I think they headed for 
Cyprus in 1955 after I had returned to Blighty. (That in turn created 
the Cyprus problem EOKA, Colonel Grivas and Archbishop Makarios etc., 
splitting the island into the two ethnic groups, Greek Cypriots and 
Turkish Cypriots). Anyway appears some 80,000 of us (Army and RAF) were 
plonked in the Canal Zone and there were something like some 500 plus 
deaths, shootings, snipings, stabbings. Now one life lost is too many, 
but 500 over a 2.5 year period from amongst 80,000 personnel ?

People just love this Internet stuff - incredulous as it may seem there 
is a site for Abu Sueir and other places in the Zone. I read one young 
guy in the RAF Regiment (Air Force marines, if you like), could only 
have been 18, relating an attack by Gyppos on Abu Sueir. Well I'm 
buggered if I remember it - and I was either in bed or in my office when 
this 'assault' occurred ! Granted I was a desk jockey, but I never once 
felt endangered the whole time I was there.

As to applying for that medal - gimmie a break - what a joke !

More follows on McCarthyism - lots more !

Jimmy
0
12/9/2005 5:34:19 PM
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:44:23 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>The logic here seems... worthy of scrutiny, to say the least.

So is your wacky positions on dime-a-rands, old chicken!

Ruth Less
0
berlutte1 (21)
12/9/2005 5:44:59 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <joe_zitzelberger-FED058.04221309122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>The liberals held near absolute power in America for almost 70 years.  
> 
> 
> Which seventy were those, Mr Zitzelberger... the ones that included the 
> winning of WWII ('liberals dropped the Bomb!'), the rise in the middle 
> class (and union membership) in the 1950s ('Eisenhower warned us against 
> the 'military-industrial complex'... he meant the liberals!') and the 
> expansion of involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s ('liberals started the 
> war in Vietnam... and then tore the country apart protesting against 
> themselves for doing so!')?
> 
> The logic here seems... worthy of scrutiny, to say the least.

Without checking I could probably write, 'The liberals held near 
absolute power in Canada for almost 70 years; perhaps even longer'.

Doesn't that tell you something about both countries. The average voter 
is not inclined to either the left or right, but is more comfortable 
with something in the middle. Now Georgie boy has hit a sensitive nerve 
- the secular post WWII society, and those of a religious persuasion 
have had a re-think about their definition of what is morally acceptable.

Jimmy
0
12/9/2005 6:00:07 PM
In article <HCjmf.81424$Eq5.18313@pd7tw1no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <joe_zitzelberger-FED058.04221309122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
>> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> 
>>>The liberals held near absolute power in America for almost 70 years.  

[snip]

>> The logic here seems... worthy of scrutiny, to say the least.
>
>Without checking I could probably write, 'The liberals held near 
>absolute power in Canada for almost 70 years; perhaps even longer'.

With or without it... there, you just did!

>
>Doesn't that tell you something about both countries.

Not really... without carefully-established criteria it doesn't seem to 
tell me much about the authors, either.

'You know... things just aren't like the way they were.'

'You know... things never *were* like the way they were.'

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/9/2005 6:56:12 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>The liberals held near absolute power in America for almost 70 years.
>
> ... and the
> expansion of involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s ('liberals started the
> war in Vietnam... and then tore the country apart protesting against
> themselves for doing so!')?


JFK & LBJ, both Democrats, were president, and both houses of congress were 
Democratically controlled. Take a wild guess. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/9/2005 8:54:06 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message news:Itakf.48010
> The judicial branch of the US Government was *never* intended to "reform 
> the government". The clearly stated purpose of the judicial branch is to 
> interpret and apply laws passed by Congress, and the Constitution, no 
> more, no less. It is unfortunate that activist judges have chosen to go 
> way past this, in essence bypassing congress altogether and creating their 
> own law.

Depends on how you define "never".  Clearly, the Supreme Court disagreed 
with you in the decision known as Marbury v. Madison, handed down by 
Marshall in 1803, during Jefferson's administration as president, some 
fourteen years or so after the adoption of the constitution.

    -Chuck Stevens 


0
12/9/2005 11:46:56 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnc389$8t9$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
[snip]
> That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a kind
> of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what they
> see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.
>
> 'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone *McCarthy*
> went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'

Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.

-----begin quote
Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
all the personal, but within one year the State
Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
been dismissed from the government.
-----end quote

Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
into resigning.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/10/2005 4:45:13 AM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a kind
>> of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what they
>> see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.
>>
>> 'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone *McCarthy*
>> went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'
>
> Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.
>
> -----begin quote
> Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
> subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
> State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
> all the personal, but within one year the State
> Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
> proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
> 81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
> been dismissed from the government.
> -----end quote
>
> Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
> never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
> into resigning.


Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of 
something then they're therefore innocent. If this were the case, then we 
would have no crime, because everyone who was truly guilty would have 
already been convicted. Being certain someone is guilty, and being able to 
prove that in court, are two very different things. :-)

Unfortunately, many innocent people who become suspects at some point get 
smeared in the press before a trial. I don't know how well it works in 
practice, but I understand that in Canada it is illegal to disclose the name 
of someone charged with a crime, unless they are actually convicted. I 
really like that idea, because many innocent people's lives have been ruined 
by the media here in the U.S. before they had their day in court.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/10/2005 8:33:49 AM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:wnwmf.566$w7.288@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> > <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a
kind
> >> of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what
they
> >> see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.
> >>
> >> 'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone
*McCarthy*
> >> went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'
> >
> > Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
> > < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.
> >
> > -----begin quote
> > Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
> > subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
> > State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
> > all the personal, but within one year the State
> > Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
> > proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
> > 81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
> > been dismissed from the government.
> > -----end quote
> >
> > Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
> > never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
> > into resigning.
>
>
> Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of
> something then they're therefore innocent.

Mr McClendon, you seem to have missed the implication,
in the article, that none of the 110 were convicted of
anything. I simply did not comment on the 81 who
"either resigned or been dismissed".

The question of "innocent" must, I believe, mean "innocent
of wrongdoing". One's appearance on a list is simply
guilt by association and not guilt of wrongdoing. One of
the articles I read mentioned a young actress, Nancy Davis,
who found her name on a "blacklist". She approached the
President of SAG, one Ronald Reagan, and asked that
her name be removed from the list. It was and they later
married. Was Nancy Reagan a Commie because her
maiden name appeared on a list? Was she guilty of any
wrongdoing?



0
ricksmith (875)
12/10/2005 11:47:14 AM
In article <x7mmf.439$w7.332@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>The liberals held near absolute power in America for almost 70 years.
>>
>> ... and the
>> expansion of involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s ('liberals started the
>> war in Vietnam... and then tore the country apart protesting against
>> themselves for doing so!')?
>
>
>JFK & LBJ, both Democrats, were president, and both houses of congress were 
>Democratically controlled. Take a wild guess. :-)

Mr McClendon, your editing might, of course, be seen as a kind of 
dishonesty, removing two of three points... and ignoring 'started' in the 
statement above.  Did either of the presidents you mention do this. or are 
you looking to concentrate on the word 'expansion' to the exclusion of all 
others?

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/10/2005 12:48:42 PM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > -----begin quote
>> > Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
>> > subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
>> > State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
>> > all the personal, but within one year the State
>> > Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
>> > proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
>> > 81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
>> > been dismissed from the government.
>> > -----end quote
>> >
>> > Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
>> > never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
>> > into resigning.
>>
>> Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of
>> something then they're therefore innocent.
>
> Mr McClendon, you seem to have missed the implication,
> in the article, that none of the 110 were convicted of
> anything. I simply did not comment on the 81 who
> "either resigned or been dismissed".

I didn't miss the implication, I simply said that lack of conviction does 
not prove innocence. Being on a list doesn't prove guilt, either. But your 
statement about the 29 is essentially meaningless as far as substantive 
evidence is concerned, and this was my point. :-)
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/10/2005 12:53:09 PM
In article <11pknip16lcqr26@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnc389$8t9$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
>[snip]
>> That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a kind
>> of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what they
>> see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.
>>
>> 'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone *McCarthy*
>> went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'
>
>Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
>< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.
>
>-----begin quote
>Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
>subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
>State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
>all the personal, but within one year the State
>Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
>proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
>81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
>been dismissed from the government.
>-----end quote
>
>Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
>never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
>into resigning.

Here's where you may run into trouble, Mr Smith... you see, Tydings was 
of a different political party than McCarthy, this makes his conclusions, 
to some, suspect.  It is not enough that a Senator makes a statement, it 
is not enough that a Senate Committee comes to a conclusion... they have 
to be composed of members of the Proper Party, as well, or so I have seen.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/10/2005 1:02:35 PM
In article <wnwmf.566$w7.288@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a kind
>>> of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what they
>>> see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.
>>>
>>> 'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone *McCarthy*
>>> went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'
>>
>> Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
>> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.
>>
>> -----begin quote
>> Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
>> subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
>> State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
>> all the personal, but within one year the State
>> Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
>> proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
>> 81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
>> been dismissed from the government.
>> -----end quote
>>
>> Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
>> never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
>> into resigning.
>
>
>Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of 
>something then they're therefore innocent. If this were the case, then we 
>would have no crime, because everyone who was truly guilty would have 
>already been convicted. Being certain someone is guilty, and being able to 
>prove that in court, are two very different things. :-)

Not quite, Mr McClendon... you see, certain legal traditions - which, 
perhaps, might be foreign to you - are based on something which has been 
called 'the presumption of innocence', that a person is to be presumed 
innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; this is a basis of law in 
the United States of America with which I am familiar.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/10/2005 1:06:09 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnejlb$3tg$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <11pknip16lcqr26@corp.supernews.com>,
> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> >
> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dnc389$8t9$1@reader2.panix.com...
> >> In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
> >[snip]
> >> That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a
kind
> >> of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what
they
> >> see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.
> >>
> >> 'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone
*McCarthy*
> >> went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'
> >
> >Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
> >< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.
> >
> >-----begin quote
> >Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
> >subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
> >State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
> >all the personal, but within one year the State
> >Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
> >proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
> >81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
> >been dismissed from the government.
> >-----end quote
> >
> >Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
> >never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
> >into resigning.
>
> Here's where you may run into trouble, Mr Smith... you see, Tydings was
> of a different political party than McCarthy, this makes his conclusions,
> to some, suspect.  It is not enough that a Senator makes a statement, it
> is not enough that a Senate Committee comes to a conclusion... they have
> to be composed of members of the Proper Party, as well, or so I have seen.

In the 4+ years, following the end of the committee's
hearings, the executive branch, under the administrations
of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, investigated
however many of the 110 they chose. The 29 and the
81 are results attributable to the executive branch and
therefore, presumably, outside Senate politics.

The weakness, as I see it, is the absence of any
references for the article. The source of the information
was never stated.



0
ricksmith (875)
12/10/2005 5:22:00 PM
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:FaAmf.3707$MA2.1901@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> > "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> >> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > -----begin quote
> >> > Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
> >> > subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
> >> > State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
> >> > all the personal, but within one year the State
> >> > Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
> >> > proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
> >> > 81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
> >> > been dismissed from the government.
> >> > -----end quote
> >> >
> >> > Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
> >> > never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
> >> > into resigning.
> >>
> >> Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of
> >> something then they're therefore innocent.
> >
> > Mr McClendon, you seem to have missed the implication,
> > in the article, that none of the 110 were convicted of
> > anything. I simply did not comment on the 81 who
> > "either resigned or been dismissed".
>
> I didn't miss the implication, I simply said that lack of conviction does
> not prove innocence. Being on a list doesn't prove guilt, either. But your
> statement about the 29 is essentially meaningless as far as substantive
> evidence is concerned, and this was my point. :-)

Four years of investigation seems not to have revealed
sufficient evidence to convict any of the 110. I do not
know what may have been found for the 81 which led
them to either resign or be dismissed, which is why I
chose not to comment on them; but for the 29 there,
apparently, was not enough evidence to warrant any
further action. Thus I conclude they "were never shown
to have 'deserved it'."



0
ricksmith (875)
12/10/2005 5:48:42 PM
But presumption of innocence until convicted in a court of law does not
apply in Guantanamo.

0
alistair7 (2054)
12/10/2005 7:03:52 PM
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:06:09 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>
>Not quite, Mr McClendon... you see, certain legal traditions - which, 
>perhaps, might be foreign to you - are based on something which has been 
>called 'the presumption of innocence', that a person is to be presumed 
>innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; this is a basis of law in 
>the United States of America with which I am familiar.

Yeah right! Give a holler to Jose Padilla, old chicken!
0
berlutte1 (21)
12/10/2005 8:49:58 PM
In article <11pm3t9ah65b914@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnejlb$3tg$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <11pknip16lcqr26@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>> >
>> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dnc389$8t9$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> >> In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >[snip]
>> >> That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a kind
>> >> of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what they
>> >> see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.
>> >>
>> >> 'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone *McCarthy*
>> >> went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'
>> >
>> >Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
>> >< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.
>> >
>> >-----begin quote
>> >Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
>> >subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
>> >State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
>> >all the personal, but within one year the State
>> >Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
>> >proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
>> >81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
>> >been dismissed from the government.
>> >-----end quote
>> >
>> >Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
>> >never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
>> >into resigning.
>>
>> Here's where you may run into trouble, Mr Smith... you see, Tydings was
>> of a different political party than McCarthy, this makes his conclusions,
>> to some, suspect.  It is not enough that a Senator makes a statement, it
>> is not enough that a Senate Committee comes to a conclusion... they have
>> to be composed of members of the Proper Party, as well, or so I have seen.
>
>In the 4+ years, following the end of the committee's
>hearings, the executive branch, under the administrations
>of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, investigated
>however many of the 110 they chose. The 29 and the
>81 are results attributable to the executive branch and
>therefore, presumably, outside Senate politics.

Ummmmmm... that presumption might be a bit... presumptive, Mr Smith.  
Didn't you know that it has been asserted that 'liberals held near 
absolute power in America for almost 70 years'?  That being the case 
then... *something* might be concluded about their influence in the 
McCarthy debacle, I'm sure.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
12/11/2005 1:26:04 AM
In article <1134239695.595850.127500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>But presumption of innocence until convicted in a court of law does not
>apply in Guantanamo.

It certainly seems that way, Mr Mclean, and those who have been called 
'decent citizens' have said they consider it to be a blight and a stain 
upon a good nation's escutcheon.

It has been suggested that if one expects perfection in matters in which 
humans are involved one might be disappointed... but it seems that this 
suggestion has not made it to some corners of the globe.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/11/2005 1:29:04 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> -----begin quote
>>> Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
>>> subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
>>> State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
>>> all the personal, but within one year the State
>>> Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
>>> proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
>>> 81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
>>> been dismissed from the government.
>>> -----end quote
>>>
>>> Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
>>> never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
>>> into resigning.
>>
>>Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of
>>something then they're therefore innocent. If this were the case, then we
>>would have no crime, because everyone who was truly guilty would have
>>already been convicted. Being certain someone is guilty, and being able to
>>prove that in court, are two very different things. :-)
>
> Not quite, Mr McClendon... you see, certain legal traditions - which,
> perhaps, might be foreign to you - are based on something which has been
> called 'the presumption of innocence', that a person is to be presumed
> innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; this is a basis of law in
> the United States of America with which I am familiar.


Quite right. But human judicial systems are fallible, and a finding of 
guilty or innocent in a legal sense does not mean true guilt or innocent in 
an absolute sense, which was what I was trying to express.
-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 


0
judmc (1220)
12/11/2005 1:45:45 AM
In article <ZuLmf.1394$w7.1349@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -----begin quote
>>>> Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
>>>> subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
>>>> State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
>>>> all the personal, but within one year the State
>>>> Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
>>>> proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
>>>> 81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
>>>> been dismissed from the government.
>>>> -----end quote
>>>>
>>>> Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
>>>> never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
>>>> into resigning.
>>>
>>>Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of
>>>something then they're therefore innocent. If this were the case, then we
>>>would have no crime, because everyone who was truly guilty would have
>>>already been convicted. Being certain someone is guilty, and being able to
>>>prove that in court, are two very different things. :-)
>>
>> Not quite, Mr McClendon... you see, certain legal traditions - which,
>> perhaps, might be foreign to you - are based on something which has been
>> called 'the presumption of innocence', that a person is to be presumed
>> innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; this is a basis of law in
>> the United States of America with which I am familiar.
>
>
>Quite right. But human judicial systems are fallible, and a finding of 
>guilty or innocent in a legal sense does not mean true guilt or innocent in 
>an absolute sense, which was what I was trying to express.

Mr McClendon, what you try to express might have some validity when a 
human judicial system can promise to do its best to insure 'a perfect 
trial'... at the moment I believe the most that is offered is a 'fair' 
one.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, mighta... not apparently applicable at all, Mr 
McClendon.  'Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' 
given and no proof of guilt in a court of law established... innocence is 
to be presumed.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
12/11/2005 2:09:23 AM
In article <11pimpb6pngbvf4@corp.supernews.com>,
 "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:

> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-2C9912.03050509122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> > In article <kNikf.2818$rq3.1482@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:joe_zitzelberger-D6F3D4.19573202122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> > > > In article <11ou709cpemqp41@news.supernews.com>,
> > > >  "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > And if you read Ann Coulter's book you'll find that virtually every
> > > > > derogatory thing said about Joe McCarthy was fiction.
> > > >
> > > > It is interesting that people still like to beat up on Joe McCarthy.
> > > >
> > > > Not only have 50 years of lies about 'witch-hunting' hollywood actors
> ..
> > > >.....
> > > > So how do you address the simple, but unavoidable, fact that many of
> > > > those fingered by McCarthy were quite guilty?  Do you just ignore it?
> > >
> > > IMO McCarthy's Bad Thing was not so much his identifications, but his
> > > methods.
> > >
> > > He abused the power We The People granted him as a member of Congress.
> He
> > > took for himself the positions of prosecutor, judge and jury; and he
> used
> > > the power of his office and its inherent press attention to sucker We
> The
> > > People into becoming the executioners (e.g., blacklists).
> >
> > That is what congressional committees do.  Why should his be any
> > different?
> 
> Congressional committees, at least as I understand their
> function, conduct fact-finding to determine whether
> legislation is needed and discussions concerning proposed
> legislation. I recall from some years ago, though I can not
> recall the context, that no legislation was ever discussed,
> while McCarthy was running *his* hearings. It was the
> absence of any clear legislative agenda that made *his*
> different.

Congressional committees discuss whatever they feel like discussing.  
Currently the analog-TV to digital-TV switch is popular - hardly a 
federal government function - but popular nevertheless.

The "is legislation needed" gives a complete open end to any committee.  
They can pass legislation on anything.  They can legislate that PI == 3 
or the gravity of the earth is really 10 n/m/s.

Perhaps the result in the case of JM the answer was a simple "No, 
legislation is not needed" was the end result.  That still falls into 
your definition.

> > Who was convicted?  Who was punished?
> 
> < http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/linkbackups/huac_blacklist.htm >
> seems to answer the remaining questions you pose.
> The "page" is rather long.

The page was quite long.  And wholly unresponsive and inaccurate.

In the first part, Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC or any 
blacklist.  He was but a twinkle in the voters eyes when this was going 
on.

In the second part, the so-called 'blacklist' did not exist.  There was 
no official congressional list of actors that could not be employed.  
The US government never said "don't hire these people".  There were only 
movie studios that made a sensible business decision that hiring 
communist agitators was bad for business.

I would suggest that any business today would be wise in avoiding hiring 
members of Al-Qaeda.  And I will assert that _every_ legal department of 
_all_ the 17,000-ish public corporations in the US agree with me.  The 
liability of hiring such a person is so huge that they are simply not 
employable if their political affiliation is known beforehand.

If you think that constitutes a 'blacklist' on the part of publicly 
traded companies like Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest 
Airlines, etc... well, you might be right...

Care to try again?  Who did _McCarthy_ punish?

Hint:  The "Big Lie" technique only works if the listener is uninformed.
0
zberger (61)
12/11/2005 6:59:52 AM
In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
 "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:

> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnbm9u$3bt$1@reader2.panix.com...
> > In article <11pimpb6pngbvf4@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > >news:joe_zitzelberger-2C9912.03050509122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> Who was convicted?  Who was punished?
> > >
> > >< http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/linkbackups/huac_blacklist.htm >
> > >seems to answer the remaining questions you pose.
> >
> > This seems to be a reference to HUAC, Mr Smith, not McCarthy.  While
> > working towards the same goal they are neither identical nor synonymous.
> 
> I think, Mr Dwarf, that it is, more precisely, about
> "blacklisting" and the motion picture industry; something
> more closely related to McCarthy than whatever other
> intent the HUAC may have had. Perhaps, McCarthy
> concentrated more on actors because they are better
> known to the public.
> 
> -----another quote, same source
> For their own political gain, exposure and blacklisting
> of "subversive" citizens was taken up first by Republicans,
> then by Democrats. Such political opportunism made
> Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon household names.
> -----end quote

Interesting that you quote JM as "concentrating on ... actors" but you 
give us a second-hand quote of someone claiming that JM 'concentrated on 
actors'.  

All of his hearings are public record.  His speeches are public record 
and widely available.  Where do you see that JM actually 'concentrated" 
on any actors?  If your claim is accurate, certainly you can find a cite 
that has JM actually targeting some actors?

Perhaps my historical education is lacking, but I only know of JM 
'concentrating' on persons in the military hierarchy (including 
civilians in the path) that could compromise the Korean/Cold War effort.


> And some may have been pressured into making false
> statements.
> 
> -----yet another quote, same source
> Jeff Corey Interview:
> Q. You were blacklisted despite being a World War II
>      veteran?
> 
> A. I was in the Navy and received a citation, signed by
>      Navy Secretary Forrestal, for outstanding achievement
>      in combat photography for putting myself at risk while
>      shooting a photo sequence of a kamikaze attack on the
>      U.S.S. Yorktown. The funny thing is that I was actually
>      out at sea on the Yorktown when a HUAC informant,
>      Mark Lawrence, named me as being present at various
>      Communist meetings.
> -----end quote
> 
> The relationship, I see, is that McCarthy sought to have
> witnesses "name names" thus cause those individuals to be
> placed on a "blacklist". To be placed on a "blacklist" was
> to be convicted ("guilt by association") and the punishment
> was the inability to work in one's chose field.

What blacklist?  Who had it?  Who distributed it? And what did McCarthy 
have to do with it?

How was anyone prohibited from working in their