What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 30 March 2004 - 02:31 AM
....Veteran; The most particular experience I had was one time in DMZ. We were in small village and there was a machine gunnet in the schoolhouse firing at us. We all spread out and hit the ground. I was a medical corpsman but I was only one in position. So they handed me grenade and said to throw it in the window and wipe it out. So when I got up close enough to see inside to drop it in, I noticed there was about twenty children sitting un the back of room in the corner with about two or three ladies. I threw in grenade and
Posted 30 March 2004 - 02:42 AM
Where are we now?
Posted 30 March 2004 - 03:29 AM
Trust me, a party drags more people than politics, particularly if we want to bring in the youth. No wonder the Roman lions used "bread and circus" to bring in the poor..*********
donq, you complemented kibbutz as better way of life and cooperation, when now, I see you consider kibbutz as a place of amusement able to to attract dancing mob.
*******But the greatest trick the warmongers, hypocrites, liars and spoiled, silver-spooned brats--who profit from America's culture of nepotism, cronyism, and corruption--have ever pulled is convincing the world they are "conservatives."*****
David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of PRAVDA.Ru http://english.pravd..._hypocrisy.html
Posted 30 March 2004 - 10:28 AM
Thats Pliny's view point.
Mine is the opposite- Gold is not necessay although I fully appreciate its value to society throughout history.
Glad you agree with me about how important Govt is to big
There could well be hyper-inflation in the US. Happened to Germany about 1923. They simply cancelled the money over night and printed new money.
I agree on the confidence matter, which is the critical factor for money.
I used the dictionary meaning of intrinsic: being an inherent and essential part of something or someone.
In short perhaps we can say its a representation/vital part of something eg bus ticket, of a specific service; and money, of an open market of anything.
But money representing either goods and services or gold, just as a bus ticket are only paper and of no value in their own property, the intrinsic part is - what they represent/value,
what they can be substituted for.
Money is firstly a medium of exchange, a practical alternative to carrying gold which is risky and heavy. Money is thus in the main simply a ticket/token with intrinsic value and public confidence.
Wealth isnt money. Wealth is the things/services/pleasures that money buys. Some people live in poverty and essentricity because they are afraid to touch the million dollars they have stored away somewhere. Common language says they are wealthy- because they are rich enough to be wealthy.
Most people seek employment/do business to get money for what
So a airline ticket is just a "piece of paper with ink on it" just like money, but who throws them away. We have to have the same confidence that when we approach the checkin counter our tickets are still valid and the flight not cancelled and the plane airworthy etc etc. No gold requided and none of those factors
we trust depend on gold.
I referred to man having seed, land, machinery, climate, need for food etc but couldnt proceed in the face of poverty and starvation
because he had no money/gold/foreign investor. I've added in gold this time. Rather pathetic isnt it. They need first ( and not a change of law making it legal for people to create food) a piece of paper/tokin that holds out a promise with confidence that there will be an exchange/return. In reality there is nothing from physically stopping them from plowing and planting seed and getting a form of wealth- food on the table in due season.
If they havent got gold in your patch they die because they therefore cant have any tokens of intrinsic value. Primative people would laugh their heads off at the stupidity of modern man and money and say they deserve to die.
The purpose of the tokin/tickets is to initiate/keep active the economy so that wealth is produced and the dispursion of the tokins in the interaction is intrinsic in that the holders will in due course have the means/right to partake of the wealth produced. In a simpler community such as a kibbutz, they dont need tokins to guarantee them a bed, food, nurse, daycare etc its available to all members, like barter.
But in a larger looser community the tokin with intrinsic value that guarantees a share in the wealth of the economy become necessary. Members of a national economy dont need gold anymore than members of a kibbutz.
If gold was in such abundance as paper, fine go ahead and have gold tokins issued to people for their efforts and interaction in
Dependance on the goldman, outside the economy, is the same as depending on the debt money of the banks which are autonomous/outside the economy. An airline tokin is not from outside the economy, its a practical facilitator created by the needs within their sector of the economy.
We cant have democracy if we allow a power that we are subject to to be autonomous. We have done this by privatising the nations soveriegn control over money. Having this situation based on gold compounds the problem into a greater siege which not only will put the price of gold through the stratishere but also with interest rates as the planets billions auction for the money
limited by gold. In your world it would need to be a crime to save money or hoard gold and all gold mines should be nationalised.
DonQ has been mentioning the Lions central water hole through which he controls all life. That waterhole will be gold in your world.
Regardless of what system one uses, the vital issue first is who controls/hold the power over the economy of the citizens and then how to keep it honest.
Posted 30 March 2004 - 01:58 PM
September 11 And Operation Condor
From Mike Nelson
Indeed, the picture that emerges of U.S. policy is frightening. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's "green light, red light" human rights policy for the first time
So how did the neo-cons come to believe that time was ripe for fulfilling their dream of world conquest? A combination of factors had led them to embark on the pursuit of this dream: First, America's political, economic and military dominance in the post-Cold War era satisfied the pre-requisite conditions for its push in the fourth phase of its expansion. Second, the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc whetted their appetite while their zero-casualty exploits in Kosovo and Yugoslavia put a seal of approval on their fledgling geopolitical experiment. Third, the rise of China gave these racist Anglos an excuse to strike preemptively, since they are still cherishing this deep-seated fear of having to share the good life and limited resources with hordes of non-whites led by the Chinese, a fear that was highlighted in the recent breakdown of the Cancun talks over agricultural subsidies. Fourth, the Jewish desire for controlling water resources and ridding the Palestinians of financial support from Arabs and Iranians gave their plan the necessary political impetus on Capitol Hill during the 'smooth' phase of the war.
From Tony Blair's vantage point on the other side of the Atlantic, the main contention is that in the post-colonial world of Asia, Africa and Latin America many native peoples are still languishing in economic malaise under 'authoritarian' governments and so these folks must be missing their old colonial days and simply waiting for the Brits to return.
Otherwise how do you explain the smug confidence of a middle-level swashbuckling power like Britain attacking an ancient civilization like Iraq under false pretenses and still getting away with it? If the British parliament really hate Blair's policies with a vengeance as the hearing officials on Kelly's murder want the credulous world to believe, they would have gotten rid of Blair like they had dismissed Chamberlain at the beginning of WWII.
As it is, the British hearings are sounding more like a cunning facade providing a cover for Blair's tactical retreat. They have not touched the core issue which is the return of sovereignty to Iraq through a democratic election process in which Baath party members are allowed to participate.
Their real attitude can readily be seen in the case of Hongkong when on July 1 they instigated a huge demonstration through their surrogates against the anti-subversive Article 23 of the Basic Law, as if to show the world that Hongkongers would welcome their rule more than that of their own Chinese brethen in Beijing.
This of course was a disingenuous plot that simply could not have succeeded.
Hongkong's economic woes are those of a transitional economy re-adjusting to new economic realities. They have to do with her new role after China's Gaige Kaifang began to shift into high gear. The resultant inevitable changes rendered Hongkong's hitherto entreport status dispensable, and have absolutely nothing to do with China's resumption of sovereignty over the colony.
That's why the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) is so important to the continued prosperity of both the Mainland and the Hongkong SAR. Its ratification is as much a political counter-punch to the neo-cons in Washington and neo-colonialists in London as it is an economic lifeline thrown to the struggling Hongkongers bobbing in the raging currents of change.
The demise of the Soviet Union thirteen years ago presented before the Anglo-Jewish cohorts the unique opportunity to test their aura of invincibility. Certainly not all Americans share this false sense of vainglorious omnipotence but their voices are effectively muffled in the face of zero-casualty battlefield successes in the Balkans.
Understandably very few Americans are willing to sacrifice their own welfare for the wild ambitions of the neo-cons, for inherent in the latter's plan is the dismantling of social security services and zero taxation for capital gains of the rich, so much so that all financial resources could be concentrated in the military-industrial complex to build absolute dominance in Outer Space. That's why they are so worked up about the likely successes of Shenzhou manned missions and so miffed about their implications.
Furthermore, government programs that had ensured social stability since the days of FDR will be thrown to the wolves and more Americans will be pushed below the poverty line with no discernible signs of imminent relief.
One only has to note in today's news that the three Anglo governments still insist that invading Iraq was the right decision to make DESPITE their own intelligence confirmation that no WMDs have been found after months of intensive search to realize the commitment the neo-cons have made to their diabolical scheme. Bush, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Australian PM Howard co-ordinated amongst themselves to emphazise their solidarity on the same day after the CIA pronouncement. Amongst the three Anglos, Bush's blueblooded lineage can even be traced to English King Longshank whose cruelty against the Scot rebels was so well portrayed in the movie "Braveheart" starring Mel Gibson. To the Three Blind Mice, nothing is more important than to coordinate a race war against China.
These Anglos of course would never openly tell the American people that their plans for war in March were in fact independent of the existence of WMD in Iraq. On the contrary, such invasion plans were premised on their pre-war finding that Iraq did NOT possess WMD. If such weapons had existed, do you believe American General Tommy Franks would have sent his troops rapidly across the deserts of southern Iraq and spearheaded them directly into Baghdad?
Even the blind Mr. Magoo can tell by now -- after all that is said and done -- that the ultimate target of the neo-cons and neo-colonialists is China. That is the unspoken cloaked dagger in world diplomatic circles today. The three must have been able to seal their bond of commitment by mutually witnessing their shared erectile excitement in the nude privacy of Bush's Texan sauna room. They must have gleefully congratulated one another over the occupation of strategic Iraq, and that's why they had continued to insist today that their invasion plan was 'on target.' In their lexicon, 'target' means China, not Iraq.
Posted 30 March 2004 - 02:10 PM
Paul Kennedy? Back in 1987 the then relatively unknown history professor published the book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and almost instantaneously introduced the expression "imperial overstretch" into popular discourse. Although it did not take long for right-wing commentators to attack him, saying that it was the Soviet, not the US empire that had overstretched, his basic point remains the same.
The Air Force wants to return to the Cold War-era practice of basing fighter jets and other strike and support planes on Guam, the Pacific island that is in ready striking distance of the Korean peninsula, according to General William J Begert, commander of Pacific Air Forces. "These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases that we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo - even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar and Uzbekistan, although the US military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since September 11." When the wheels fall off
Posted 30 March 2004 - 02:13 PM
Every dominant chimpanzee has some subordinate chimpanzees. The same situation is in gorillas and human societies.
We can go even further ; every dominant country has some vassal subordinate countries. When foundation of despotic country is aggression and egoism, in subordinate coalition evaluates an egalitarianism .
The cooperative air of egalitarian societies is evolving as a respond and despite human dispositions toward dominance, as a self-defense.
Most common form of egalitarian societies will be nationalism. One blood or one religion egalitarian societies is respond to the aggressive dominance of single power.
In essence, humans will forever experience a tug of war" where intrinsic tendencies toward dominance, do battle with altruistic cultural and moral codes.
Egalitarian societies cooperate toward the winning of the dominance. And this is balance of power.
Of course single power dreams about status-quo , but fortunately power balance is dynamic process, like day after night.
Rocking Babylon will swap for Mecca in New York
Posted 30 March 2004 - 07:32 PM
<donq, you complemented kibbutz as better way of life and cooperation, when now, I see you consider kibbutz as a place of amusement able to to attract dancing mob.>
I rather have a "dancing mob" than a "killing mob.";) Other good reasons for it are:
-It's the simplest way to reach the young--and the not so young.
-People would "own" the Revolution (or whatever it is), not the Foxes. The Foxes can only thrive when the little people are indifferent.
-Happiness is no small matter for people. We can provide the good life at a cheap price.
Posted 30 March 2004 - 07:53 PM
Every dominant chimpanzee has some subordinate chimpanzees. The same situation is in gorillas and human societies.>
True, but we can be "smarter" than baboons and chimps, right? Alpha apes are into power games that deprive small apes of a decent live, and threaten to wipe out the whole jungle. Ape competition of the kind your suggest is only possible insofar as there's no WMDs. Once they fall in the hands of apes, sooner or later something will go wrong. The jungle is not sustainable.
You spoke about how early apes coming out of the jungle 20 million years ago gave rise to humanoids. Well this is the next logical step in evolution, is it not?
Posted 31 March 2004 - 02:28 AM
Howdy, first let me tell ya a little story...
THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always getting the LION SHARE, and seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of the jungle, demanded JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a lion...
When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time...
NOTE: Other monkeys survived him...
Well, as you said the little animals should be telling the lions what they want. Is it though that they'll never will because they don't care or because they are afraid or that simply they see a fight between two lions?
The hope lies in the Proles...
Posted 31 March 2004 - 02:51 AM
Corn of the Cob Revolution?
<haha, can you see one of them attempting to "whip up the masses" into overthrowing the night-manager at the local wendy's? >
We haven't spoken in a long while, and have even forgotten about this thread...
Anyways the most immediate lion to most people--according to my theory of the jungle--would be the boss. And yes, we can easily convince the people that the night manager can shove in his stupid junk food, if only we can provide them with more healthy alternatives--and without the lion.
How can we call the uprising, the "Corn on the Cob Revolution"?
Well I got figured out some other yummy revolutions...
Posted 31 March 2004 - 04:00 AM
>>>I used the dictionary meaning of intrinsic: being an inherent and essential part of something or someone.<<<
Government authorization is not an inherent attribute of paper or ink. It is "assigned" significance and not intrinsic. With or without
government significance attached it is the same thing - paper and ink.
If a currency is a note that is a promise to be redeemed for gold
then the note holder owns the gold. Because gold is stored in the vaults of banks for safekeeping does not make the banks the owners of that gold. Fractional reserve banking was the first illegal action of bankers. They were illegally using the gold of the depositors for their own gain. That runs on banks occurred and banks went bankrupt did not seem to stem the practice of fractional reserve banking and it was legalized as a practice with fixed percentages.
When central banks stopped printing currencies backed by gold they essentially stole all the gold that had been deposited in their care. True, you may purchase gold but not many do because it is not as liquid as the fiat currency. Gold will always represent some value and thus wealth to whoever owns it. A fiat currency, or mere token, can become valueless overnight so it is not representative of "true" wealth.
So the common man can accumulate true wealth and thus feel more secure. If all his neighbours have true wealth, as well, then the power of wealth is held in the hands of the people. Not in the hands of government or banks. Governments in my opinion should be benign organizations. Banks should return the wealth of the people back to them and just do their job of safekeeping.
You would have to define happiness. If you say it would be different for everyone then how do you feel you could provide it?
It would be difficult without knowing what each individual's concept of it was. Your idea of it may not fulfill another's idea of it.
If you have the secret of providing happiness - let us know!
Interesting post about China.
>>>Eventually there is a long period of decline, marked by excessive acquisitiveness, consumption, war and social turmoil.
Where are we now?<<<
You ask the obvious. A rhetorical question, I assume?
Posted 31 March 2004 - 05:03 AM
It would be difficult without knowing what each individual's concept of it was. Your idea of it may not fulfill another's idea of it.
If you have the secret of providing happiness - let us know!>
Well the recipe is real simple. Fix as many dishes as you can and chances are most people would be pleased.
Picture this, Sunday morning, perfect day for bicycling--if it was safe--you go out and work out and take the sun, the breeze, etc. And then same Sunday morning, the Christians get on their SUVs and go to church and sing their Hallelujah, etc. Everybody happy, right?
Wrong! I got three beautiful bicycles that go unused because it's unsafe out there, and it would take me to load them in the car to actually launch them someplace else. And going out there and wasting gas is not my idea of fun--besides making wars over oil necessary. So then I say life is unbalanced toward *only* some people who are rewarded by the system and make life *miserable* for the rest. And the same goes for kayaking under the threat of motorboats or for an outing to the park that is occupied by the homeless and countless limitations out there. People is forced one lifestyle, and that makes many, many people unhappy.
So that's my recipe: Having CHOICES is the sure path to happiness...
Source: Talking Point, BBC News
Having lived in the US last year, I can say most of the comments here
belittling this lawsuit stem from ignorance of life in the US. People
here in the UK are MUCH more aware of what is healthy. In the US "Big
Food" dominates the airwaves and the vast majority of people are
genuinely misinformed. Americans live off processed food regularly now.
Having said that, I think the lawsuit is partially misguided because bad
food is no more than half the problem of obesity that is now coming to
the fore in the US. The other half is the lifestyle the country imposes
on people. In the US you are literally FORCED to drive everywhere - even
a 5 minute hop to a local supermarket. People live in a system where
they do everything sitting down. So it is not just that massive amounts
of calories (with little nutrition) are readily and cheaply on offer,
but that burning any of it off in the normal course of a day is near
Posted 31 March 2004 - 05:22 AM
Michael Moore Prepares Provocative 9-11 Project
Now he's working on another film, Fahrenheit 9-11, due for release late this summer. As the title implies, the subject is terrorism. It's also a reference to Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's classic science fiction novel about censorship.
The film will feature Moore on a quest for answers to troubling questions -- a recurring role he first assumed in Roger & Me, the hilarious and heartbreaking 1989 tale of woe in his hometown of Flint, Mich., after General Motors closed 11 auto manufacturing plants and laid off 33,000 workers.
"You know the question a lot of people were asking after Sept. 11 -- 'Why do they hate us?' The question I want to ask is, 'Why DON'T they hate us?' -- and then take my camera around the world a bit and show what's done in our name," Moore says.
Terrorism is wrong, he says. But when he has finished cataloguing misdeeds by the U.S. government and corporations, viewers will feel lucky their country hasn't drawn more attacks.
Posted 31 March 2004 - 06:01 AM
But how does having choices bring one happiness? >
Communism is supposed to make people happy but it provides no choices, but is everybody the same? And in capitalism you got more leeway when it comes to voting, but you still got to work for capitalist A or B, and the lion still eats you.
So the best solution is to provide options so people look for their own happines, whether is gathering at church or riding the bicycle around town on Sunday morning.
Facilitating choices for everyone is freedom. Having no choices is dictatorship.
Posted 31 March 2004 - 06:32 AM
In the USSR, the surplus labour of the workers does not, strictly speaking, directly enrich their comrade the director of the enterprise. it simply strengthens his power as an organizer and a bureaucrat. His surplus-value is a surplus-value of power. (But this new-style surplus-value is nevertheless subject to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Marx's laws of economic life are confirmed today in the economy of life.) He earns it, not on the basis of money-capital, but on the basis of a primitive accumulation of confidence-capital gained by his docile absorption of ideological matter. The car and the dacha which are thrown in to reward his services to the Socialist Fatherland, to Output and the Cause, foretell a form of social organization in which money will indeed have disappeared, giving way to honorific distinctions of rank, a mandarinate of the biceps and of specialized thought. (Remember the special treatment given to Stakhanovites, to 'heroes of space' and scrapers of catgut and canvas.)
In capitalist countries, the material profit gained by the employer from both production and consumption is still distinct from the ideological profit which the employer is no longer alone in deriving from the organization of consumption. This is all that prevents us from reducing the difference between manager and worker to the difference between a new Jaguar every year and a mini lovingly maintained for five. But we must recognize that the tendency is towards planning, and planning tends to quantify social differences in terms of the ability to consume and to make others consume. With the differences growing in number and shrinking in significance, the real differences between rich and poor is diminishing, and mankind is levelled into mere variations on poverty. The culmination of the process would be a cybernetic society composed of specialists ranked hierarchically according to their aptitude for consuming and making others consume the doses of power necessary for the functioning of a gigantic social computer of which they themselves would be simultaneously the programme and the printout. A society of exploited exploiters where some slaves are more equal than others.
Posted 31 March 2004 - 06:42 AM
>>>Solution is to provide options so people look for their own happiness...<<<
Who has more freedom and choices than the idle rich? They are the most miserable, I can assure you. So how can freedom and choices provide happiness? They are things that are necessary, I think, in the pursuit if happiness. Without them you are very limited but they alone do not equate to happiness.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users