Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#1721 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 January 2004 - 08:09 PM

John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<nJfJ+Ig7KB+$Ewga@wookie.demon.co.uk>...
> >A ROAD TO FREEDOM (UNLIKE RUSSIA'S)
> >
> >Why not build a new system? That offers PROSPERITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE and
> >FREEDOM; that discards the defects of both Communism and Capitalism;
> >and that places the system at the service of the human being, and not
> >the other way around.
> > Why not HUMANISM?
>
> Good sound bite, but where's the constitution ?

Here it goes: "All men are created equals (except for the ones that
are either slaves or forced to work for others)... Never mind, but why
be so general that nobody means what "equal" means. Why not spell it
out?

A COMMENT FROM A FRIEND:

The system you describe sounds awfully good. I'd say no country is on
the road you suggest, but it might be a good thing for world leaders
to read your article, since it could give them some goals. What a
wonder it'd be, for example, if George Bush announced some actual
long-term goals for the country, instead of reacting to events in a
knee-jerk fashion. I'm picking on George, but much the same can be
said of most any world leader I know of.

-Charles
>
>
> >Naturally, education and health care should be the maximum priorities;
>
> Why is that natural ? Taken literally that suggests that we should all
> be perpetual students until we are maintained in perpetuity in a PVS.

I said "or affordable," maybe we can have have higher education pay a
nominal fee for those who want to spend their whole life attending
university, though I haven't found many like that...

>
>
> >they should be free -or affordable, in the case of higher education-
> >and accessible to all.
>
> Oops ! New Labour speak with forked mouth parts...

That's the way it is in many places, including Canada. What's wrong
with that?

>
>
> > Education should emphasize the learning of
> >English -or
>
> If you're English

Scandinavia does speak English as a second language, and they are
pretty nationalistic. It's a matter of integrating into the modern
world, not to be confused with "globalization," which is integration
by and for the lions.

>
>
> > Esperanto,
>
> If you live in Esperant.

Or if you think like the French that they don't want to learn English.
It should be an option.
>
>
> > if we all ever agree on it-
>
> Any why should we ?
>
> Seems to me that we will evolve a world language, but it will evolve -
> I doubt it will ever be agreed before the fact. At least, not if the
> French are at the negotiating table !

We can agree to disagree. If they want to live without too bad for
them. Maybe it ought to be summitted to referendum.

>
>
> > and literacy...
>
> So we all have to study literature ?
>
> And what's wrong with sums ?

Literacy is not the science of studying literature. But to study
literature you got to be literate. Well, never mind.

>
>
> > in
> >computers.
>
> IN computers ?
>
>
> > Likewise, culture
>
> Whose culture ?

Yes, why not. Or you want the people to spend their time for ever
watching stupid sitcoms and soap operas, and of course, watching
commercials?
>
>
> > and sports should receive special
> >attention
>
> I'm all for sport as long as I can do it in a computer.

You can. You spend 2,600 calories typing--in a year... ;)

>
>
> > (for example, adopting the affordable child-care centers;
>
> Well yes, but how is this an example of the above ?

They should too be maximum priorities, that's all.
>
>
> > in
> >general, we would have much to learn from the Scandinavian model).
>
> And specifically...

Education, health care, culture, day cares, maternity leave, the
environment...

QUESTION: But you do pay terrible taxes, don't you?

ANSWER:
Also people who are Conservative, by Nordic standards, support the
basic concept of sharing a public responsibility for education and
health care. We can discuss the efficiency of the government in
running these programs, but you're not going to convince many
Nordeners that the solution to inefficiencies is to move the
responsibility to the individual.

Since the education of the youths is paid for through taxes instead of
parent's earnings, the most intelligent kids get educated regardless
of wealth. This is an advantage for the country as a whole. You can
also say: The educated pay back for their education through taxes.

The same applies to the health care, which additionally seems to be
remarkably cost efficient in the Nordic countries (compared to the US
at least).

more...

http://www.lysator.l.../scn/faq28.html

>
>
> >more...
> >
> >http://webspawner.co...ers/donquijote1
>
> Picking a tiny sample at random:
>
> "The homeless, who now occupy our better parks, should be
> incorporated into light but necessary duties, like picking up
> litter, in exchange for a decent wage; there should be no
> homeless."
>
> bids me to ask if you've ever done any work with the homeless ?
>
> What out of interest would the donkey policy have in store for the
> mentally ill ?

Suppose you give them the fish, is that what capitalism preaches? If
you don't you despise them, if you do you perpetuate the problem. The
solution (high expection here!) is: GIVE THEM THE FISH! Yeah man, let
one problem take care of the other!

>
>
> >In other words, we can say any change would begin by EDUCATING the
> >people.
>
> Have you asked them if they want to be educated ?
>
> Was this sort of education not also the first recourse of Mao et al ?

That's indoctrination into the system. But I mean real education of
the kind they get in Scandinavia and other places.

>
>
> > Actually Scandinavia is light years ahead of anything
> >America's 19th-century capitalism (Perot's words) is doing.
>
> Yes, I like Scandinavians, but specifically ?

For example take Copenhagen having 300 miles of bike lanes, or
forbiding kids' programming from commercials, or Denmark banning
hormones in chicken, or guaranteed day care centers and education for
the young, or 1 year maternity leave at 80% pay rate...
>
>
> >But if you want more practical ideas look at this neat ideas waiting
> >to be implemented...
> >
> >http://www.natcap.org/
> >
> >"If Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations was the bible for the first
> >Industrial Revolution, then Natural Capitalism may well prove to be it
> >for the next. I believe that the only real alternative to our 'take,
> >make, and waste' society lies in a revolution of aspiration and
> >inspiration. The aspiration must come from us, from seeing the world
> >we intend to leave our children and their children. The inspiration
> >will come from shared understanding of the principles for an economic
> >system consistent with how nature works, and from seeing that it can
> >be done, thanks to books like the stunning Natural Capitalism."?ƒ???‚?€"Peter
> >Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline
>
> Hmmm... I'm a great fan of Lovins et al, but I'm not sure how generally
> applicable his ideas are. He seems to have generated a lot of interest
> out of a very few projects, and when ever I try and implement industrial
> ecology on the ground there always seems to be staggering resistance to
> it. I grant that tends to be structural and political in nature, but
> that's the real challenge... Lovins doesn't tell me how to deal with
> that...

That's precisely what I'm talking about: Lending them a hand to bring
about that wonderful "revolution"...

>
>
> >That's right "Natural Capitalism" is waiting out there to be
> >implemented.
>
> But shat specifically is it waiting for ?
>
> Hell to freeze over ?
>
> The 'revolution' ?

It's waiting for leaders who are busy fighting terrorism, or waiting
for all the little animals of the jungle to say "enough!" to the big
hungry lions.

>
>
> > Our leaders don't see it,
>
> Oddly enough our best chance was probably Thatcher. At least she had a
> science degree even if she had her head up her arse in most other
> important respects.
>
> Trouble is, you can educate people until their heads explode, but put
> them in office and they still make a royal balls of it.
>
> Maybe we should cut to the chase and give common sense a chance somehow

Even if they had the best of intentions (which I doubt Thatcher ever
had) they would probably get caught up in the web of complicity,
corruption and deceit taking place at the upper end of the food
chain...

> ?
>
>
> > but how can you expect the
> >lions to admit that there's a jungle out there? ;)
>
> There you go, bringing cute cuddly animals into it again !

It ain't no cute. It's Satan the Lion himself... ;)
  • 0

#1722 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 January 2004 - 09:02 PM

> ><These greenies are save the bankers, corporates and oil in particular
> >first then fluff around whats left in their wake.>
>
> What strange form of broken message quoting is this ?

You may follow that debate at Pravda, found in my webpage. The most
read ever!
>
>
> >First of all, "Happy New Year All!"
> >OK, Bader, I see the "greens" as I see religion: Their cause is right,
> >their leaders are corrupt.
>
> Which ones and what evidence ?

The evidence? They have become another money-making scheme. They can
see anyone really challenging the system in Quixotic style ;)--and do
nothing, just stick to the jungle from which they profit. It happens
in most political and religious organizations...

HOW THE VULTURES BENEFIT FROM ORGANIZING THE LITTLE ANIMALS

One day the Vultures, who depended on the lion's leftovers, got
together to organize the little animals... One of the birds started
saying: "We should organize the Sheep to worship a poor Shepherd, who,
because he tried to save them, was crucified by the lion; but who left
the promise of the good sheep going to Paradise, in which there's no
lions..." Then another bird added: "Very clever. Likewise, we'll
organize them to denounce the abuses against the poor little animals
in 'other' jungles..."

Meanwhile, an Owl who had been observing the problems of the jungle,
and who had been invited by mistake, spoke this way: "The lion was
able to kill the poor Shepherd because the little animals did nothing.
Why not organize them to save them from the lion?"

And that's how the Vultures organized from then on the little animals
of the jungle--to defend them from the 'subversive owls'...

>
>
> ><Bikes: Back to a favourite eh DonQ.
>
> Says who ?

Bikes should be part of any comprehensive plan to save the
environment. Bike lanes in every major street are needed.

>
>
> >We have talked about people time (and money) being robbed.
> >A monetary reformed society would give people more time and money.
> >There would be a boom in SUVs and travel to and fro
> >having a good time for a while but eventually they will start to slow
> >down (those who are oldies- over thirty) and get closer to
> >nature, the simple things, take time and relax and start to be more
> >inventive and constructive rather than experimenting with energy.
>
> ?? So owning an SUV is "experimenting with energy" ??
>
> And "experimenting with energy" isn't "inventive and constructive" ?
>
> Ho hum...

I'm responding to "Bader," and I would say he meant hybrids. We do not
always agree, but we do see the lion and the need for change.

>
>
> > They
> >will start to ride a bike to walking tracks and parks
> >and soak in what man in incapable of producing and take a holiday from
> >expending what man does produce because the quality, quantity and the
> >price is far superior.
>
> Evidence ?

I guess he means the simple pleasures are free.

>
>
> >We just need to be unshackled not turn green in shackles.>
>
> Evidence ?

Nobody wants to fall into another pitfall like communism. It looked
good in paper and delivered little. We should say like Orwell, "All
saints are guilty until proven innocent," so the burden of proof in on
their side.

>
>
> >Right, no shackles, but no need to SUVs either. Smaller hybrid
> >vehicles (say like the Mercedes A Class) can deliver people in style
> >and comfort. Let's not forget that SUVs are also a danger--up to 16
> >times more dangerous--to smaller vehicles on the road...
>
> So train drivers better ?

They can be electric and they stick to a rail and rarely abandon it.
SUVs on the other hand are gas-guzzling Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles
and drive across all lanes as if they owned it. They are the lions of
the roads... ;)

>
>
> >".. the one (holcaust) being committed as we speak.
>
> Define ?

Africa (war, famine, AIDs), Latin America (war, poverty). Much more
deadly than any other Holocaust...

>
>
> > But of course the
> >lion claims to be the sheperd..."
>
> Specifically ?
>
>
> ><Rev 13:11 And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth and he
> >had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon.
> >:12 And exercises all the authority of the first beast in his
> >presence. ...
>
> Can you talk without allegory, simile, metaphor and indirection through
> religious text ?

OK, NO LION NO PROBLEM!

>
>
> >You described the wolf/lion in sheeps/shepherds clothing DonQ.
> >- LIKE A LAMB>
> >
> >I know, the lion never accepts being a predator.
>
> Why the **** not ? Seems to me that whatever you mean by acceptance,
> nobody has ever be able to ask the question to a real lion.

They use camouflage to get near the unsuspecting little animals. We
must assume the lion needs cunning and deceit to hunt. Otherwise the
little animals will take flight or organize in cooperatives to
resist... ;)

>
>
> > Always uses sheep
> >skin and the other lions claim they don't see the beast either. The
> >exception being Hitler and he lost the power game quickly...
>
> But not until he'd done considerable harm, so I wouldn't rule his sort
> out of any analysis just because they don't look like an oil industry.

He did but others using deceit last much longer and eat you while
claiming to protect you.

It's like the story... ;)

HOW THE BLACK SHEEP WERE EXPELLED

One day the Lion, who had been thinking how to best eat the sheep,
decided to dress as a sheep... This way the sheep trusted the new
"sheep" more and more every day, some confessing to him, others voting
for him, and most allowing to be trimmed by him...

Meanwhile, the Black Sheep thought this way: "If he got paws and big
teeth and roars, lion he is..."

And that's the reason why from then on the Black Sheep weren't allowed
to mingle anymore with the simple and common sheep...
  • 0

#1723 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 05 January 2004 - 04:46 AM

Howdy DonQ,
why doesn't secondhand rose join us here?
  • 0

#1724 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 05 January 2004 - 04:48 AM

Us black sheep should put on a white skin so others arent frightened to join us.
  • 0

#1725 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 05 January 2004 - 04:54 AM

second hand rose? who dis be mon?
  • 0

#1726 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 05 January 2004 - 09:45 AM

Thats why I called him/her secondhand rose.

Howdy Joe.
Its the correspondent DonQ is in touch with on another thread
which he relays back and forth with copies of posts.

The dude that wants evidence!

What he gets and comments on is secondhand, so until we know who dat he is secondhand rose, yeah?
  • 0

#1727 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 05 January 2004 - 07:38 PM

dis me true brodders...

G I Joe AKA THE MIGHTY HONKY
  • 0

#1728 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 06 January 2004 - 01:28 AM

Howdy Bader, GI
As you may have noticed I've been recycling some articles w/o even reading yours, but I'll do my best to catch up. In the meantime I got an interesting question...

Where do Politicians live?

You know, it's kind of a pattern...

Where the working class lives, you find litter, unattended parks,
homelessness, crime, dilapidation...

Where the 'Rich and Famous' live, you find well-kept green areas, free
and abundant parking, bike lanes, private beaches, security guards and
cameras...

And I wonder, where do the politicians of the run-down areas live?

Do they happen to live with the Rich and Famous?;)
  • 0

#1729 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 06 January 2004 - 03:17 AM

> >Here it goes: "All men are created equals (except for the ones that
> >are either slaves or forced to work for others)... Never mind, but why
> >be so general that nobody means what "equal" means. Why not spell it
> >out?
>
> It's a bit short on detail.

Well you can get an idea that things are running better in other
places, though no particular place has a monopoly on Paradise. We
could take Holland's bike lanes and Curitiba's programs for the
homeless or the Swiss decentralized system that achieves a high level
of welfare at low taxation or the kibbutz coops that implement
environmental policies. If you want more information research it
yourself or ask me. I may know the answer. :)

The thing is, "Why something that's working good elsewhere is not
applied here?" Aren't the politicians paid big time to look for
solutions? Are they looking the other way? Send them these solutions
or Natural Capitalism solutions or any solutions, do you expect an
answer?

HOW THE BIG PIGS RAN THEIR FILTHY PIGSTY

Once upon a time there was a race of pigs that were so systematically
destroying the environment that they became a threat to other species
as well as to themselves... One day the Big Pigs--having heard of the
art of politics--discovered that keeping the Pig Farm filthy was
economically convenient, but politically indefensible, and chose an
animal with beautiful feathers: the Ostrich...

And that was how the Pig Farm was run smoothly in the future by the
Ostrich: He posed for the Little Pigs, and they voted for the him. The
trait that most earned him the favor of the Big Pigs though was his
capacity to bury his head whenever anyone mentioned the mess
created...

> >A COMMENT FROM A FRIEND:
> >
> >The system you describe sounds awfully good. I'd say no country is on
> >the road you suggest, but it might be a good thing for world leaders
> >to read your article, since it could give them some goals. What a
> >wonder it'd be, for example, if George Bush announced some actual
> >long-term goals for the country, instead of reacting to events in a
> >knee-jerk fashion. I'm picking on George, but much the same can be
> >said of most any world leader I know of.
>
> Long term thinking is certainly a good idea, but tricky for people who
> have to get reelected every few years.

You have just mentioned one of the major problems of "democracy":

Politicians want to get elected now, and so they only care about short
term policies.

Whether the kids have a future or not, that's something for them to
worry about. I've heard that our politicians may be judged as Hitler
is judged toward Holocaust, but that's little consolation for those
who may have to live like rats. It was Jacques Cousteau who said,
"Living like rats is not my idea of life."

> >> >Naturally, education and health care should be the maximum priorities;
> >>
> >> Why is that natural ? Taken literally that suggests that we should all
> >> be perpetual students until we are maintained in perpetuity in a PVS.
> >
> >I said "or affordable,"
>
> Business as usual then !!

Utopia is a relative term. Though not perfect if all the world enjoyed
the standard of living of Scandinavia this would be a much, much
better world. Scandinavia however can herself explore into a
decentralized, low bureacratic system such as Switzerland. It can
certainly lower her taxes.

> > maybe we can have have higher education pay a
> >nominal fee for those who want to spend their whole life attending
> >university, though I haven't found many like that...
>
> How nominal ?

In Kuwait I heard it's something like $25 a semester or whatever. I
got to double check that.

> > not to be confused with "globalization," which is integration
> >by and for the lions.
>
> Say what you mean please.

Globalization is integration at the highest level (say like the US and
Mexico). Real integration among people is when you create the free
movement of peoples (like Europe), and they share a common language
which allows them to communicate with each other. In other words,
globalization is friendship among lions, real integration is
friendship among little animals.

> >Yes, why not. Or you want the people to spend their time for ever
> >watching stupid sitcoms and soap operas, and of course, watching
> >commercials?
>
> I don't think real culture can be taught. What people do with their
> time is up to them.

Yes and no. I would propose junk television on cable (you must pay for
it) and good television available for a fee like in the UK to everyone
who owns a TV set.

> > If
> >you don't you despise them, if you do you perpetuate the problem. The
> >solution (high expection here!) is: GIVE THEM THE FISH! Yeah man, let
> >one problem take care of the other!
>
> OK, I'll put that down as a 'no clue' response.

Sorry, it should have said, "Teach 'em how to fish!"

> >For example take Copenhagen having 300 miles of bike lanes,
>
> I generally found bike lanes a pain in the bum when I cycled a lot.

They do bring people out and there's safety in numbers among other
benefits.

> > or Denmark banning
> >hormones in chicken,
>
> Depends which ones I guess.

The chicken? The ones with the feathers not the ones with the
skirts... :)
>
>
> > or guaranteed day care centers and education for
> >the young, or 1 year maternity leave at 80% pay rate...
>
> Sounds reasonable, but how's it funded ?

Tax. But it ain't all. The majority of welfare in Scandinavia is
funneled into the young not into the old. We can say in America is the
other way around, but of course the elderly vote... ;)

> >That's precisely what I'm talking about: Lending them a hand to bring
> >about that wonderful "revolution"...
>
> But as I say, getting it done on the ground isn't at all easy.

As Johnny Walker says, "A mile of a thousand miles begins with a first
step." ;)

> >It's waiting for leaders who are busy fighting terrorism, or waiting
> >for all the little animals of the jungle to say "enough!" to the big
> >hungry lions.
>
> You mean waiting for motorists to vote for fuel price increases ?

If you give them *options* they may find quite a relief from going
nowhere in rush hour and paying big bucks for gas and car. Many may
even save the trip to the gym by biking to work.

> >Even if they had the best of intentions (which I doubt Thatcher ever
> >had) they would probably get caught up in the web of complicity,
> >corruption and deceit taking place at the upper end of the food
> >chain...
>
> Probably, so, writing protracted texts aside, what's the answer ?

The answer is not waiting for someone to fix the problem for us, but
one got to say "I want to change," and challenge anyone who doesn't.
Those who don't for whatever reasons belong to the indifferent many
who do nothing while the few bad ones got the upper hand. In the end
they belong in the same group.

> >> There you go, bringing cute cuddly animals into it again !
> >
> >It ain't no cute. It's Satan the Lion himself... ;)
>
> An analogy too far...

The Bible says Satan is out there roaring as a lion. We must be on the
lookout!
  • 0

#1730 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 06 January 2004 - 04:29 AM

DONQ that is a very facinating question.

Harlem ny was once a very wealth community, then the upper class moved away and left it to the underclass.
Then those of the underclass that rose above their stations in life,
upon doing so, also left Harlem, and moved amongst whitey.
This would have been forbidden up until the early 60s, but as soon as any man that had the $$$$$$$ could live where he pleased Harlem was left with only the less fortunate the needy the uneducated. Their leaders moved to finer digs, away from the people they swore to defend. so goes the endless cycle of despair.

we must break the chains of despair, or we will all perish from our own lack of careing....... and selfishness..

G I Joe
  • 0

#1731 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 06 January 2004 - 05:53 AM

OK, we finally proved scientifically the existance of the beast. I rest my case...;)

PS: Guys, this is probably one of my most important debates. Please bear with me.

> > > > believes in Orwell's "The hope lies in the Proles..."
>
>
> part of your difficulty seems to lie in that
> you seem to have a somewhat 18th century
> view of 21st century realities.
>
> you seem to see the world as governed by feudal lords.

Sorry to say, worst. In the 18th century there were many powers
balancing each other, and even the biggest lion Napoleon was sent into
captivity with all honors. Now they are captured in holes, paraded in
the circus and executed...

The Jungle and the Lion - by Theo Warrior

After the downfall of the Soviet Union, the world has become a
unilateral zone with an unbalanced proportion of power and authority.
The United States, which then emerged as the only super power in the
world, introduced as well as imposed a new World Order in the world.
This World Order had nothing but a very basic rule of utmost
significance.

The rule stated that: Whatever the super power does or thinks is
righteous. In other words, it can be stated as: Everything that is in
the personal favor and interest of the super power is right and
acceptable while everything that is against the personal favor and
interest of the super power is wrong and condemnable.

Unfortunately, this was the same law as introduced thousands of years
ago in African Jungles...Might is right. Ironically, the super power
succeeded in converting the world into a jungle proclaiming itself as
the Lion of this Jungle.

http://www.selfgrowt...s/Warrior1.html

> and below, you claim that Owl goes to work
> for the 'king of the jungle' which is
> presumably Lion in your tale.
>
> have you ever known an Owl to become a lion?
>
> an Owl -is- a 'predator' and is, at least
> succeptible to predatory enticements.
>
> how does this distort Owl's vision?

Not at all. He's got nocturnal vision, so he doesn't want the
limelight. He's OK being an anonimous little animal and knows that the
only true revolution will NOT have a leader but it'll owned by all the
little animals. All revolutions are betrayed by their leaders, except
when they are really pacific like Gandhi and M.L.King. They can be
their inspiration: SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN SPIRIT.
>
> is Owl satisfied with finding 'lion equality'
>
> or does Owl seek -human- equality?
>
> can -you- see the difference?

All the animals got a right to exist. Lions can have a fine life so
long as they don't resist change when is needed. In human society--not
very different from animal jungle--Scandinavian lions decided to
change when they feared of the Russian Revolution stirring the little
animals. And now they--both the lions and the little animals--are some
of the happiest animals on Earth. It shows that the beast can be
tamed.

Probably the greatest danger though may be the Fox. He's very cunning
and can assume many roles. Sometimes it changes skins like in recent
Russia rather quickly or get elected under whatever party. He really
understand how the jungle works and sets up the lion to defend him.
> Don Quijote wrote:
> > Sure. A Mixed Economy including coops and capitalist enterprises would
> > allow *anyone* to find his own niche, whether you are cooperative type
> > or the predator type.
>
> you want a 'free economy' with a watchdog.
>
> well, that is the definition of a federalist system.
>
> -you- seem to be in favor of the spread of federalism.
>
> what you may seem to recognize is that the main
> trouble that may befall a federalist system
> is a faschist system.
>
> they are very nearly identical, and so, you
> need to get your owl to fly way up oin the sky
> and see that what may -appear- as a faschism
> is nothing more than a free economy with a watchdog.

In Fascism there's strong leader, the DUCE, which is the greatest lion
of them all. I said 'NO LION,' so that's out of the question, but you
got a point there. A federalist system like that of Switzerland may
work vary well in many circumstances like those of America.

>
> but, the watchdog must be looked after by the
> actual 'master' and that is those governed.
>
> meaning, -you- don't want the federal government
> to be a puppy dog for the thing that it must oversee
> and the thing the federal government was designed
> to oversee -is- the 'free economy'
>
> if the federal government becomes a puppy dog
> for the free economy, the free economy becomes
> tangled in the ropes of a faschist bundling.
>
> and more than likely, this is what may be called
> "right wing politics' inasmuch as the governement
> favors the so-called 'ruling class'
>
> only this 'ruling class' is the
> invention of the government itself.
>
> where 'left wing politics' would claim to
> favor no -special- ruling class, but -not-
> that no government is at all necessary.
>
> and still, what -you- want is a
> free economy with a watchdog.

Competition, my good friend, may be an understimated word, even under
what today is know as "capitalism." The lions do not compete with the
little animals. They prey on them! But guess what? What should be the
strategy of the little animals? It ain't too difficult to the Owl used
to watching life in the jungle. They band together and for a
"cooperative," where the lion can't prey. Cooperation is as much a
force in evolution as competition.

*FREE ACCESS COOPS CAN TAME THE LION BECAUSE THE LITTLE ANIMALS HAVE
CHOICES*

> Don Quijote wrote:
> > But must importantly the advices of the Owl
> > would insure the survival of all--including the lion!--for the jungle
> > is indefensible from the violent monkeys and environmentally doomed.
>
>
> yeah, but you say; "no lion no problem"
> and now you say, "yes lion no problem"

Remember, the Owl ain't talking about the physical beast but about his
hungry stupid behavior. The lion in Paradise is seating next to the
sheep. I haven't seen one picture yet of the sheep posing with a
decapitated lion. Although the stupid behavior of the beast may make
him kill himself!

> what you would dislike about the lion is
> his tendency to set himself up as a policy dictator
> and not any predisposition towards violence.
>
> -but- who is best suited to -be- the 'watchdog'?
>
> yeah, right, it looks like the Lion
> is best suited to be the watchdog,
>
> but when you force the Lion to consider his
> own survival needs, he distorts his vision
> to protect his own holdings.
>
> Owl isn't suitable watchdog.
>
> Owl is, at best, a suitable advisor to watchdog.
>
>
> what you may consider is that so-called
> 'monkeys' are not power mad by nature.
>
> but that lions do have a natural
> predisposition towards power madness.
>
> and so, the lion may exert a sense of
> troop authority over the more numerous
> but more benevolent monkeys.
>
> just like a human being becomes the
> pack leader for a group of hounds.

I'll give you a picture. Remember the Lion King? The bad lion hands
out juicy meat to the hyenas and they do the dirty work for him. The
animals at the upper end of the food chain deny the jungle and claim
they represent the rule of the law, not the law of the jungle!

> not to dictate a pain and suffering upon the monkeys,
>
> but to provide some incentive to action.
>
> etc.
>
>
> and remember, you can make this
> mean anything you want it to mean.
>
> cuz the world isn't governed
> by lions owls and monkeys.
>
> it's lived in by human beings.
>
> maybe, if you could see these animal creatures
> walking on two legs in an upright manner, they
> would be serving their true predisposition and
> not this tendency towards the elevation of
> personal survival as the unltimate good.
>
> this is not a fault of any particular government
> system, but a value instituted by the nature
> of these surroundings.

No kidding. So they are human beings that behave like predators and
not predators that behave like human beings. Who can understand life
in the jungle!

> Don Quijote wrote:
> > Again, Owl wants to see a better world in
> > which he and others can be happy.
>
>
> lion wants to eat and then go to sleep.
>
> lion has to guard against predators.
>
> lion is able to oversee a free economy.

Free from who, competition? Can you get a Renault in America?

> Don Quijote wrote:
> > The way it is now, guy riding bicycle is fair prey to guy riding SUV.
> > It's like ant and dinosaur. The ants always have to be on the run not
> > to be stepped upon... :(
>
> when you say "prey" you say that guy
> in SUV seeks out to intentionally
> destroy guy on bicycle.
>
> if this were true, no guy on
> bicycle would be left, already.

Sometimes is only negligence, but for the dinosaurs to step on ants is
hardly an excuse for their need. No wonder God threw the asteroid,
didn't he?

> oh, and ants ain't really all that cooperative.
> ants never sign treaties woith other ant colonies
> and work peacefully with other ant colonies.
>
> they do, in fact, have wars with other
> ant colonies when they cross paths.
>
> an ant colony is very much like a single human being.
>
> it seeks out its own survival.
>
> etc.

So you do compare "civilized human behavior" with that of other
predators. But I'd say in defence of the good cooperative ants that
they not want more than they need and they not seek to rule the world.

to be continued...
  • 0

#1732 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 06 January 2004 - 08:19 AM

Like owls they live safely above the jungle floor where their pickings come from, and sit there above all with the appearance of knowing it all when in fact they are quite dumb.

The point in issue should be where is their vote in govt coming from, their constituents or their party, because they were elected to represent not their party but their constituents if democracy
is in fact working.
While it may help to live in their areas and should be expected to
it wouldnt mean they would live in the slums because electorates
are usually too big to be limited to one class or standard of living.

A free economy with a watch-dog:

A basic role of govt is to protect the citizens natural-born rights
of freedom etc. Modern day govts presume that it is their good
favour to define and grant human rights which established them as Lions covertly. They dont have this right other than by default by the people who let them. A govt watch-dog unchecked grows into big brother - eg Patriot Act 11- same as Nazi Gestapo.
In democracy people watch the dogs and would-be scavengers, tell their owls who then focus the eyes of govt onto the problem identified by the powers that be (the people).
I agree if govt become the puppy dog of economic/financial forces
(the corporate world of today) then we have fascism as in fact we do have in the developed world of the so called free-market, the
main construct of the NWO.

The economy has become a tool of govt on behalf of global corporate power and more so international bankers to dictate
policy- what is permisable and what is out of the question.
This is not a free-market nor democracy.
The market is only a part of an economy and an economy is both business, social and public sector interests all inter-relating.
The purpose of an economy like a govt is to meet the needs of the people not just business or bureacrats or any other sub-group.
A classic model is a coop where all are owners jointly running,
taking the same risk, responsibility and sharing equally in the profit and loss. THis doesnt preclude the greater contribution/skill/risk/share etc from having the greater benefit,
justice and equity are not cancelled out by ant-nest mentality
like Maos china.
I am not aware that justice and equity ruled in the 18th Century
- even less so today.

I would think twice about a federal system as opposed to the
common parliamentary system. The US and Australia are developing the down side which is the Fed govt becomes a lion over ruling and usurping the power of the state.
However both get subverted by the same means and in the face of the same majority who believe the newspapers.

In the animal kingdom the respective creatures fall in with the
natural order of things outside their control- as represented by
the foodchain model.
Human are made for and capable of better things while there are things we cant change as animals there are things we can. Our dilemma is that fewer and fewer people have power to enjoy the
privilage of making enough change that we dont feel trapped as in a foodchain. There is no vacuum of this power, it is going somewhere/someone/somegroup from others. Like in great depressions the public have this elusion that fortunes are lost,
evaporate into thin air. Not so, value and property change hands- from millions to a few who knew what was about to happen and few fortunate ones.
The game is to recognise the shift as not being nature but lion-nature and work out the rules of gravity working against the majority instituted by the smarter ones.
Owls dont know anything. When ever they think they hear anyone talking about these things, about who is ripping off who they are for ever asking WHO WHO, WHO WHO????
  • 0

#1733 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 06 January 2004 - 11:36 PM

> >SUV is at upper end of food chain (both environmentally and to other
> >on the road),
>
> Food chain seem like a pretty crap analogy really.

You better not be caught in an American road in a small car. If you
did you'd know what I mean. Once the SUVs drive past you at supersonic
speeds zigzaging all over the road, ignoring signal lights, you may
begin to understand.

Anyways, you think the fact of people driving big fat SUVs make them
any better? Do they feel like a lion? Should the drivers in small
cars, perhaps conscious of the environment, feel like the little
animals and run for their life? Or should they join the size war?

ARTICLE FRAGMENT

I'm beginning to understand why people hate SUVs

(snip)

Still, the ad for this particular highbrow SUV did bother me. It
declared that the Navigator is a car "that says 'you've arrived' and
'get out of the way' at the same time." I've arrived. Get out of the
way.

This ad is not meant to appeal to the guy who uses a vehicle to get
from point A to point B in the most efficient way and without mishap.
It is appealing to the gated-neighborhood suburbanite who drives a
quarter-mile to the nearest Starbucks for a latte and wants to knock
all those Neons out of his lane along the way.

"You've arrived." You've advanced up the corporate ladder, and now
you'd love to look way down at all the small fries whose knuckles
you've stepped on.

"Get out of the way." I'm doing something important, and you're not.
See, I'm driving a big, loaded, powerful Lincoln. I must be important.
Nothing you do can possibly be as meaningful as what I do.

If it weren't for this ad, by now I'd be concluding that SUVs are
becoming so commonplace that the status value is fading about like
that of the cell phone and every other former status symbol.

But because the manufacturer markets its product by appealing to the
worst in human nature, it will be a while before SUVs become as ho-hum
as minivans. The desire to feel superior, powerful and more important
than the average schmuck will never go away. There is a perpetual
market here.

http://www.aberdeenn...ing/4930248.htm
>
> SUVs consume a primary fuel. If they were specially bred to eat
> hedgehogs you'd have a point, but they aren't in a food chain so your
> analogy isn't one.

I'll put it another way. You are the hedgehog. They are up to 16 times
more dangerous to smaller vehicles, and you become fair prey because
it's a jungle out there. And nobody enforces responsible driving out
there, so you are on your own. :(

> >Not me. I even ride a motorbike on the road, but not bicycle. Only
> >bums do...
>
> Never tried a motorbike. Like the fuel efficiency compromise, hate
> serious injury !

It's a risk worth taking, if you are not into stunts or racing.

> >Evolve or die, that's the law of evolution. And if you pay attention
> >to it you may, well you know, go the way of the dinosaurs... ;)
>
> Dinosaurs evolved into birds - there's hope for the SUV yet.
>
> (OK, so they evolved into birds by the big one without feathers expiring
> in droves.

So long as they evolve into doves and not hawks, it should be fine. ;)

> >Because the violent monkey only had access to sticks and stones. Now
> >they may have WMD...
>
> You might have a point if only you can bring your self to express it.

Before some mad monkey could only grab a bow or something and put at
risk a few people. Now they can bring down a planeload of people. We
should declare the Law of the Jungle over, so everyone can have
justice and peace.

> > the lion spends money in wars and high-tech gadgets in space
> >rather than fix the jungle. The low-tech junk is artificially kept
> >running back on Earth. Then the poor little animals are forced to
> >fight his wars in exchange for the very things that should be free!
>
> Ooops ! Lost it again !

You don't think the bad lions want to keep the poor animals poor so
they can wait for them at the water hole? You think we can't have
justice for all and have an stable society? The "lion share" is the
major source of conflict!

> >Why think, if you can buy the paper for 35 cents?
>
> Because I can do it better than the editor ?

We are doing better than the editor here. The bad news is good
business for them... :(
  • 0

#1734 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 January 2004 - 01:10 AM

> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:...
> > > > > we assume monkey is 'Prole'
> > > > > is 'Owl' also "Prole"?
> > > > > if yes or no,
>
> Don Quijote wrote:
> > > > Yes, he's. Only gifted by good sight. He wish to live
> > > > in a happy garden, that's all... ;)
>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > what about rats and mice?
> > > is the Owl 'violent" at all?
>
>
> Don Quijote wrote:
> > Owl is an easy going bird. Interested in things small.
>
>
> so, for you, predatory behavior is ok as long
> as the 'victim' is small and insignificant.

OK, nobody's perfect, but I try not to make a bigger impact than
necessary. Gandhi may have been much perfect in that sense.

Big predators though go about needlessly killing to satisfy their
hunger. They leave nothing but trash in their path. I got GEO Metro,
they got Hummers. ;)

>
>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:...
> > > how does this distort Owl's vision?
>
> Don Quijote wrote:
> > Not at all. He's got nocturnal vision,
> > so he doesn't want the limelight.
>
>
> you claim that the Owl's vision is not
> distorted because the Owl doesn't
> want to be noticed.
>
> you mistake an Owl's predatory ingenuity
> for a laudable benevolence.

Nothing is distorting his vision because he doesn't want power or even
fame. He's very neutral and shy. His eyes betrayed him, like I said.
>
>
> Don Quijote wrote:
> > Probably the greatest danger though may be the Fox.
>
>
> the greatest danger is in your mirror.
>
> and i say this in the nicest possible way;
>
> you sound like a megalomaniacal 'duce' looking
> for 'lions' in every place where you are
> prevented from being 'number 1'.

I'm already #1, though not by the same standards as the big predators.
For me less is more--and more is less...

>
> you say;
>
> 'look over there, he's got something
> i want and cannot have, -he- is evil'

He's evil because he doesn't want anyone else to have a better life. I
don't care what he's got (if he doesn't hurt anyone), I care about
raising the little animals up.

>
>
> > > Don Quijote wrote:
> > > > Sure. A Mixed Economy including coops and capitalist enterprises would
> > > > allow *anyone* to find his own niche, whether you are cooperative type
> > > > or the predator type.
>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > you want a 'free economy' with a watchdog.
> >
> Don Quijote wrote:
> > In Fascism there's strong leader, the DUCE, which is the greatest lion
> > of them all. I said 'NO LION,' so that's out of the question, but you
> > got a point there. A federalist system like that of Switzerland may
> > work vary well in many circumstances like those of America.
>
>
> you should listen to yourself;
>
> "_I_ said no lion so therefore
> -that- is out of the question"
>
> you -sound- like a petty dictator
> who aspires to -be- IL DUCE

We don't need more duces. We got enough. I like the little animals to
be free from big leaders, wich is why I say, "We don't need lions or
violent monkeys that become lion." I know it may be too deep for you
;) but give it another try.
>
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > and still, what -you- want is a
> > > free economy with a watchdog.
>
>
> Don Quijote wrote:
> > Competition, my good friend, may be an understimated word, even under
> > what today is know as "capitalism." The lions do not compete with the
> > little animals. They prey on them!
>
>
> ay, famous amos -sold- his name.
> -nobody- put a knife to his throat.
>
> if nabisco just wanted him out of the way,
> they'd have just took his cookies and
> buried him under six feet of dirt.

The little animals got no choice but to go to the dirty waterhole.
They have a knife to their throte. The "knife" of hunger and thirst
when not the one of sleeping under a bridge...

> Don Quijote wrote:
> > But guess what? What should be the
> > strategy of the little animals? It ain't too difficult to the Owl used
> > to watching life in the jungle. They band together and for a
> > "cooperative," where the lion can't prey. Cooperation is as much a
> > force in evolution as competition.
>
>
> sounds like a demagogic ploy for one megalomaniacal
> duce to wrest control from another megalomaniacal DUCE.

A demagogic ploy based on the reality of life in Nature? The lion
wants the little animals to be unorganized so he can eat them better.
It even works for Unions among the human race.

>
> that is, sounds like some petty dictator with
> delusions of grandeur would like to use population
> numerics to steal control of burger king for himself.
>
> "look guys if we all group together
> we can take over macdonuts and _I'LL_
> be king of fast food."
>
> whereupon our petty dictator disappears into
> the woodwork leaving her entourage at a
> 'victory' party with stale leftovers.
>
> this is a very olde ploy and not one that
> would go unrecognized as exactly that by
> your pal the 'evil lion'
>
> 'evil' cuz he's got what -you- want and don't have.

Do you envy what Castro got? Nevermind you probably do...

>
> namely, overriding control of
> the donut sector of the economy.

The donut sector is a good example of how the lion shares: The little
animals get the 'hole'! ;)

> Don Quijote wrote:
> > *FREE ACCESS COOPS CAN TAME THE LION BECAUSE THE LITTLE ANIMALS HAVE
> > CHOICES*
>
>
> yeah, "free" until -you- get what -you- want.

No, I just want the sheep to go free. Do you think they were made to
live in a herd so they wood enrich the farmer?

> Don Quijote wrote:
> > No kidding. So they are human beings that behave like predators and
> > not predators that behave like human beings. Who can understand life
> > in the jungle!
>
>
> not you.
>
> -someone- is manipulating -your- soapbox.
>
> -they- are making a prey of -your- megalomania.
>
> -your megalomania has distorted -your- vision
> because -you- overemphasize someone else's
> high stature as -the- natural evil.
>
> and it shows itself in -your- demagogic attitude.
>
> that is, someone else is manipulating -your- soapbox
> to use -your- soapbox to further -their- demogogery.
>
> where demogoguery is;
>
> "lets all 'us' little guys group together
> to steal the lion's burgers and then _I_ will
> be the supreme burger king."
>
> little knowing that -you- have allowed yourself
> to become nothing more than a pawn in
> someone else's game.
>
> or, maybe you're just playing a game
> with yourself and failing miserably.
>
> go look in to 'demagoguery'
>
> it's been used before.
>

You know full well of the stupid hungry lion. The little animals feel
it everyday. Even the Bible denounces it. But you pretend not to
notice! You must quite high in the food chain.

> Don Quijote wrote:
> > Remember, the Owl ain't talking about the physical beast
> > but about his hungry stupid behavior.
>
>
> so -you- presumptively cast -yourself- as Owl.
>
> Athena may pop out of the woodwork on you
> and have you weaving baskets in the corner
> in your madness for the rest of eternity.
>
> there once was a girl names "Arachne"
>
> she challenged Athena to a spinning contest.
>
> Athena turned her into a spider.
>
> http://www.appleholl...om/arachne.html
> http://www.hipark.au...gy/arachne.html
>
> i'm going to cut this here.
> i'll look at the rest of
> it as i am able.
>
> oh, by the way, i don't have a scowl on my face.
>
> i'm just writing you a reply.

And David challenged Goliath too, and who do you think won?

It's only metaphorical 'cause I ain't got no stone...

But David was bold in the Lord! He said to Goliath,

"Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield:
but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the
armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.
This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite
thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of
the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to
the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there
is a God in Israel.

And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword
and spear: for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our
hands."

Then Goliath was red hot mad! He came towards David. But David was
ready because his God was on his side! David RAN straight towards
Goliath! David was ready to do some business! David put his hand in
his sheperd's bag and took out a stone and put it in his slingshot. He
slang it and hit Goliath right in his forehead and the stone sunk into
Goliath head. Goliath fell on face. David killed that mighty warrior
with a sling shot! Then David ran, and stood on top of Goliath and
took his sword out of it's sheath and cut off Goliath's head.

http://www.jesus-is-...com/goliath.htm
  • 0

#1735 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 January 2004 - 02:08 AM

> Just to clarify L for a moment. He is not a GW denialist. He points
> out that it ishappening, and that it is human caused. He just doesn't
> think that Kyoto is the answer, for all the usual economic good
> reasons.

If someone rejects Kyoto, but doesn't have another answer, then he
gives a s*** about the environment.

If the "developing countries" (whatever that euphemism means) got a
better deal out of it, offer something even better. Those who disobey
should be invaded and removed from power as promoters of environmental
terrorism.

I'd enlist in that army... ;)
  • 0

#1736 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 January 2004 - 02:38 AM

> Once done, let's work out which " resources " we are going to run out
> of in that long run. If you define long run as 100 years, current
> capitalist society is eminently sustainable. Define it as 10,000 ?
> maybe, maybe not. But you had better be a pretty good predictor of
> technology : you want to go back in the time machine and tell the
> first farmer he can't plant wheat because in 10,000 years some idiot
> screws up the Everglades with sugar cane ?
>
> Tim Worstall

From a Review to 'Natural Capitalism"...

"Whether all that the authors have organized and presented so
earnestly here can be assimilated and acted on by the people who run
the world is open to question."

It's so funny: The people who run the world haven't noticed the
environmental crisis! I wonder what do they worry about, the next
elections perhaps?

'Capitalism as an economic system is criticized as a financially
profitable, nonsustainable aberration in human development.'' Also
attracting debate is the free market, vilified as one of the forces
causing waste and pollution. This seems *unfair*, since the same
system is an underlying aspect of the solutions cited throughout the
book. Rather than abandon capitalism altogether, the authors argue for
modification, yielding what they call ``natural capitalism.'''

Does it seem "unfair" when the very capitalist solutions being
proposed are ignored by capitalism? Does it tell something about the
nature of capitalism? It reminds me of the stupid hungry dinosaurs...:(

http://www.amazon.co...#03163530007299
  • 0

#1737 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 January 2004 - 03:52 AM

Howdy Bader, all
I'll try catching up by answering this one. The other debates are VERY important now as they have a WIDE, WIDE audience. I got like three homeruns running now. Just look at the latest one...

http://www.google.co...ogle.com&rnum=5

<Like owls they live safely above the jungle floor where their pickings come from, and sit there above all with the appearance of knowing it all when in fact they are quite dumb.>

They claim to ignore life in the jungle, but if they don't live there how can they know? Drugs, prostitution, homelessness, littering, crime and other stuff is taking place in them but they swear by God they don't exist. Funny...;)

<The point in issue should be where is their vote in govt coming from, their constituents or their party, because they were elected to represent not their party but their constituents if democracy
is in fact working.
While it may help to live in their areas and should be expected to
it wouldnt mean they would live in the slums because electorates
are usually too big to be limited to one class or standard of living.>

I mean politicians running an specific area should be live in the worst of it, so they help lift it up.

<A free economy with a watch-dog:

A basic role of govt is to protect the citizens natural-born rights
of freedom etc. Modern day govts presume that it is their good
favour to define and grant human rights which established them as Lions covertly. They dont have this right other than by default by the people who let them. A govt watch-dog unchecked grows into big brother - eg Patriot Act 11- same as Nazi Gestapo.
In democracy people watch the dogs and would-be scavengers, tell their owls who then focus the eyes of govt onto the problem identified by the powers that be (the people).>

So in other words, Big Brother should be watched instead of the other way around.

<The economy has become a tool of govt on behalf of global corporate power and more so international bankers to dictate
policy- what is permisable and what is out of the question.
This is not a free-market nor democracy.
The market is only a part of an economy and an economy is both business, social and public sector interests all inter-relating.
The purpose of an economy like a govt is to meet the needs of the people not just business or bureacrats or any other sub-group.>

The goverment favors those at the upper end of the food chain who then defend the government against the little animals...

<A classic model is a coop where all are owners jointly running,
taking the same risk, responsibility and sharing equally in the profit and loss. THis doesnt preclude the greater contribution/skill/risk/share etc from having the greater benefit,
justice and equity are not cancelled out by ant-nest mentality
like Maos china.
I am not aware that justice and equity ruled in the 18th Century
- even less so today.>

Same law--of the jungle I mean.

<I would think twice about a federal system as opposed to the
common parliamentary system. The US and Australia are developing the down side which is the Fed govt becomes a lion over ruling and usurping the power of the state.
However both get subverted by the same means and in the face of the same majority who believe the newspapers.>

Still voting with your feet makes a lot of sense. Different communities deciding what's best with a safety net in between can allow a lot of play, without ever crashing on the ground.

<In the animal kingdom the respective creatures fall in with the
natural order of things outside their control- as represented by
the foodchain model.
Human are made for and capable of better things while there are things we cant change as animals there are things we can. Our dilemma is that fewer and fewer people have power to enjoy the
privilage of making enough change that we dont feel trapped as in a foodchain. There is no vacuum of this power, it is going somewhere/someone/somegroup from others. Like in great depressions the public have this elusion that fortunes are lost,
evaporate into thin air. Not so, value and property change hands- from millions to a few who knew what was about to happen and few fortunate ones.
The game is to recognise the shift as not being nature but lion-nature and work out the rules of gravity working against the majority instituted by the smarter ones.
Owls dont know anything. When ever they think they hear anyone talking about these things, about who is ripping off who they are for ever asking WHO WHO, WHO WHO???? >

That was the Owl who sold her soul to the lion in order to explore life in other planets--in exchange for his scraps. The real wise Owl knows who the lion is...

You know, what you say before sounds so much like this friend of mine from Australia. This letter was written some years back but still carry a lot of punch...

USA & CUBA: ENEMIES OR ACCOMPLICES?

Sometimes I wonder whether the governments of the USA and Cuba are enemies or accomplices. Granted, they exchange very strong words about the embargo. But such show allows the Cuban regime to play the victim, while the American government plays the tough guy to satisfy the powerful in the Cuban exile community. In the meantime, the exiles themselves go the island packed with dollars, in fact, helping to finance the dictatorship, with the full complicity of the United States of America.

WHAT'S YOUR VERDICT?


LETTER FROM AUSTRALIAN FRIEND:

> WHAT'S YOUR VERDICT?

It has long seemed obvious to me that for all their posturing to the contrary, ALL governments are basically accomplices. Their enemies are their OWN people.

The governments of the US and USSR put on a big show about being cold war enemies for a long time, but the only thing they ever fired at each other was hot air. But they DID use each other as excuses for oppression of their own people (McCarthyism, Stalinistic purges etc) as well as dictatorial control over any nations who expressed any aspirations for self-determination (the USSR in Eastern Europe, the US in Vietnam, Latin America etc).

Every day you can see this sort of thing happening.

In Vietnam, you had largely poor, black Americans who had been demanding fair treatment by their leaders, sent overseas to kill (and be killed by) poor Vietnamese who had been demanding fair treatment from theirs. America finally withdrew, but not until the NLA (Vietcong) had been almost completely destroyed or forced into the North Vietnamese camp, so the winners were not the people of South Vietnam who had risen up against their own despotic leadership and its US supporters, but the Communist party of the North, who then sent their own cadres south to take over where the capitalist dictators had left off.

Western leaders demonised Saddam Hussein during the Gulf war, but no serious effort was made to get rid of him. Fleeing conscripts were massacred in huge numbers while his 'Revolutionary Guards' were allowed to withdraw virtually unscathed. When the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs rose up against him, the West stood silently by while those 'Guards' slaughtered them. When Saddam's agents were accused (on very flimsy evidence) of plotting to kill George Bush, the US reaction was to fire missiles into a residential suburb of Baghdad at 2:00AM. There was no chance of hurting Saddam or his spies, just the cleaners in the office block that was targetted and a few dozen sleeping civilians in the surrounding homes. The continued sanctions are starving the people of Iraq, who have no say in whether or not the military build chemical weapons (in fact they're the most likely target of those weapons), and will get no help at all if they try to get rid of the leaders who do have a say, but do you think that Saddam or his friends are going hungry?

At the Rio Earth Summit a few years ago we saw George Bush insisting that the developed countries would do nothing more about pollution control until the developing ones had introduced stricter regulation, and Mahathir Mohammed (of Malaysia) saying that developing countries could not be expected to clean up their act until the richer ones led the way. Voila! No one does anything, which suits Bush, Mahathir and their corporate friends and screws the ordinary people in both rich and poor countries.

Lately in Australia, the political and business elite have been insisting that we need to 'engage' more fully with Asia (which is true), but represent Asia as if the whole continent shared the values of the military and corporate despots that tend to run most of its countries. So we get leaders here insisting that the Australian press needs to use 'self-censorship' in order to avoid hurting the delicate feelings of Asian tyrants, (thus reducing Australian freedom of speech), while the likes of Suharto, Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew are portrayed as speaking for 'their' people (thus muffling the voices of ordinary Asians).

The 'Free Market' is about convincing the workers in country 'A' that they have to accept lower wages and conditions in order to compete with country 'B', while those in country 'B' are being told the same thing in order to compete with country 'A'. The real competition is the elite of both countries vs the people in both countries.

When you think about it, it's inevitable.

Castro flies all over the world, stays in top hotels, goes to expensive functions with corporate leaders and generally hobnobs with the 'beautiful people'. Not much in common with your average Havana construction worker, but a lot like, say, Bill Clinton. Is it surprising that Castro and Clinton might find that they share more objectives with each other than either of them share with workers in their own countries?

-Michael
  • 0

#1738 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 07 January 2004 - 06:08 AM

The primary fuel is currently this thread.
The SUV is the repetition of the same dialogue elsewhere forcing those who are able to talk to one another on this thread off the road.
  • 0

#1739 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 07 January 2004 - 05:25 PM

Bader,

I've said my piece here.

You seem to be staying on the road despite hazards!!!
  • 0

#1740 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 January 2004 - 07:30 PM

"Wilbur Braunlin 4" <wilburbraun@earthlink.net> wrote
> One can, up to a certain point in a finite system, obtain resources from
> other locations within the system in order to compensate for a lack of
> sustainability. Witness the First World's current rape of our planet's
> resources. For example, the USA has already used up over half of its
> domestic oil reserves. However, rather than cutting consumption or switching
> to sustainable energy sources, it now imports more petroleum. Thus, trade
> will keep things going for awhile, but not over the long-run when a resource
> that the global system relies on is dwindling.

This concept is so important. So you use up the resources in your
house and that makes you stronger. Then go to the next house and use
his as well, in exchange for certain benefits to the owner of the
house. Then there's another neighbor who refuses and you invade him.
And so on and so on until the entire village is yours... Then you die
for lack of other villages to invade...
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru