Tea (rec.drink.tea) Discussion relating to tea, the world's second most consumed beverage (after water), made by infusing or boiling the leaves of the tea plant (C. sinensis or close relatives) in water.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rebecca Ore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article > ,
"Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote:

> I have nothing against polite
> reminders, especially sent over e-mail, but your patronizing tone is out of
> place here.


I can't send email from this program and I don't know if you're posting
with a real email address and there are other people besides you who
were going at it.

Plonk for a while.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
cc
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Crymad,

> The Prelinger Archives is a real treasure trove. Here's the link for
> the Children of Japan movie in its entirety


Thanks. That's an interesting doc. That reminded me of the novel "Shonen H"
(the first book I could read in Japanese thanks to the "ruby" on nearly each
word.).

Kuri

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
cc
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Crymad,

> The Prelinger Archives is a real treasure trove. Here's the link for
> the Children of Japan movie in its entirety


Thanks. That's an interesting doc. That reminded me of the novel "Shonen H"
(the first book I could read in Japanese thanks to the "ruby" on nearly each
word.).

Kuri

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Darawen Littlestich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

FWIW, I enjoyed the OT thread the gentlemen were having--expands my limited
knowledge of the world. Perhaps one day we could all meet and have a cuppa
together.

Rebecca Ore wrote:
> In article >,
> "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote:
>
> When you talk about Russian teas, it's interesting. When you talk
> about Russian political concerns about other powers in Asia, it's
> just not talk about tea. We need only enough personality to know
> that there's a human drinking tea, not more than that.
>
> (And could everyone else just stop responding to the off-topic
> political stuff or take it to political groups).
>
> Today, I bought some Chinese oolong from the tea shop in Reading
> Terminal Market, and served it to friends semi-gongfu style. It's not
> the best Ti Kuan Yin I've had, but it appeared to be a bit better than
> my China town red metal box general favorite.
>
> This is a tea drinking group, gentlemen. Can we talk about tea?



  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Plant
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alex igy.com9/17/04


> Let us say I have a problem. In 1981 when I was detained by KGB (it was the
> time of contra-detente) I told the interrogating officer that I believe that
> USSR will fell apart within 10 years. He laughed and told me that playing an
> idiot won't help me. I told him that I am not playing anything - he can ask
> around - I came to this conclusion the moment we invaded Afghanistan. In my
> analysis the slightest hope that USSR will be able to survive another 25-50
> years was shattered the day it happened.


Having visited Afghanistan, gotten to know the people somewhat, and having
studied the history of Afghanistan, I came to the same conclusion at that
time. Great minds think alike, you see. Now, predictions on the demise of
the United States, anyone?

> He made several calls and found out that I did say that many times. His
> attitude changed immediately. I was not an enemy - I was just sick in my
> head. He was nice. He was compassionate. And you know what? He let me go.
> Honestly, I swear, he just let me go. I have many witnesses of me telling
> everybody that USSR is no more way back in 1981 and of course later. And
> absolute majority of my friends be they pro- or anti-Soviet with a tiny-tiny
> exception of one or two - believed that I was an idiot.
>
> See, Michael, there are two ways to argue - address your opponent's
> arguments and dismantle them or put out your own that contradict your
> opponents arguments. Anything else is a political confrontation when
> everybody knows the result ahead of the time, people just make statements.
> So if that what you want to do- fine. But if you want to have a good,
> serious discussion about the matter - please, ARGUE. With arguments. Then,
> at the end you will probably find out that nobody has a problem - people
> just come to different conclusions because they evaluate things differently
> and have different view angles. And you won't have to suggest that I am
> crazy.


On the contrary. Here I like discussions about tea; although, I must admit
that my feeble attempts not to bore others sometimes fail.

> I'd love to meet that KGB guy, Major Kapustin some day. Thank him for
> letting me go and ask him what did it take for him to see that the King is
> naked and actually - dead....


....And, according to current events, much like democracy in our two
countries. Putin and Bush, hatched from the same egg, I sometimes think.
Sorry, not to belabor this.

I'm drinking a 1988 Pu-erh which can be tempermental, but never disappoints.
It's mint/camphor/light earth/touchingly sweet/gentle, but its complexity
varies with my health and my mood. While not an extraordinary tea, it does
present a good picture most likely of a fifteen year old.

Michael


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Having visited Afghanistan, gotten to know the people somewhat, and having
> studied the history of Afghanistan, I came to the same conclusion at that
> time. Great minds think alike, you see. Now, predictions on the demise of
> the United States, anyone?


If we won't find a way to get Likudniks out of the controlling the Congress,
do you have ANY doubts?
"One (wo)man - one term." for all elected officials on federal level
without exception, if you ask me.

>> I'd love to meet that KGB guy, Major Kapustin some day. Thank him for
>> letting me go and ask him what did it take for him to see that the King
>> is
>> naked and actually - dead....

>
> ...And, according to current events, much like democracy in our two
> countries. Putin and Bush, hatched from the same egg, I sometimes think.
> Sorry, not to belabor this.


Look at it from a different prospective. This is a big moment of truth. We
found a weak link in the western democratic model - which is normal for any
model. Now the critical point - we must understand if it is the model that
failed us or we failed the model.
To do that we have to find what actually happened. And that is where we have
done NOTHING. All explanations about militant Islam, "they hate us", etc.
make zero sense and do not stand the test of historic and factual critique.
So, we are not addressing the real problem. How can we find a real solution?
Russia - same thing. But to be honest, Russian population are much less
eager to believe the official story and many Russians do understand that the
state has an interest in being attacked to wiggle out of democratic mode.
The American public trusts the government to such extent that one wonders
which country actually was built on the ideas of the eternal nature of
tyranny of the government, US or Russia?

Sasha.


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Having visited Afghanistan, gotten to know the people somewhat, and having
> studied the history of Afghanistan, I came to the same conclusion at that
> time. Great minds think alike, you see. Now, predictions on the demise of
> the United States, anyone?


If we won't find a way to get Likudniks out of the controlling the Congress,
do you have ANY doubts?
"One (wo)man - one term." for all elected officials on federal level
without exception, if you ask me.

>> I'd love to meet that KGB guy, Major Kapustin some day. Thank him for
>> letting me go and ask him what did it take for him to see that the King
>> is
>> naked and actually - dead....

>
> ...And, according to current events, much like democracy in our two
> countries. Putin and Bush, hatched from the same egg, I sometimes think.
> Sorry, not to belabor this.


Look at it from a different prospective. This is a big moment of truth. We
found a weak link in the western democratic model - which is normal for any
model. Now the critical point - we must understand if it is the model that
failed us or we failed the model.
To do that we have to find what actually happened. And that is where we have
done NOTHING. All explanations about militant Islam, "they hate us", etc.
make zero sense and do not stand the test of historic and factual critique.
So, we are not addressing the real problem. How can we find a real solution?
Russia - same thing. But to be honest, Russian population are much less
eager to believe the official story and many Russians do understand that the
state has an interest in being attacked to wiggle out of democratic mode.
The American public trusts the government to such extent that one wonders
which country actually was built on the ideas of the eternal nature of
tyranny of the government, US or Russia?

Sasha.


  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Having visited Afghanistan, gotten to know the people somewhat, and having
> studied the history of Afghanistan, I came to the same conclusion at that
> time. Great minds think alike, you see. Now, predictions on the demise of
> the United States, anyone?


If we won't find a way to get Likudniks out of the controlling the Congress,
do you have ANY doubts?
"One (wo)man - one term." for all elected officials on federal level
without exception, if you ask me.

>> I'd love to meet that KGB guy, Major Kapustin some day. Thank him for
>> letting me go and ask him what did it take for him to see that the King
>> is
>> naked and actually - dead....

>
> ...And, according to current events, much like democracy in our two
> countries. Putin and Bush, hatched from the same egg, I sometimes think.
> Sorry, not to belabor this.


Look at it from a different prospective. This is a big moment of truth. We
found a weak link in the western democratic model - which is normal for any
model. Now the critical point - we must understand if it is the model that
failed us or we failed the model.
To do that we have to find what actually happened. And that is where we have
done NOTHING. All explanations about militant Islam, "they hate us", etc.
make zero sense and do not stand the test of historic and factual critique.
So, we are not addressing the real problem. How can we find a real solution?
Russia - same thing. But to be honest, Russian population are much less
eager to believe the official story and many Russians do understand that the
state has an interest in being attacked to wiggle out of democratic mode.
The American public trusts the government to such extent that one wonders
which country actually was built on the ideas of the eternal nature of
tyranny of the government, US or Russia?

Sasha.


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tea
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Which is what I thought newsgrous were supposed to do, as opposed to being
narrow- but that's me. When it comes to a kncokdown drag out argument,
that's too much, but a little banter doesn't hurt.
"Darawen Littlestich" > wrote in message
...
> FWIW, I enjoyed the OT thread the gentlemen were having--expands my

limited
> knowledge of the world. Perhaps one day we could all meet and have a cuppa
> together.
>
> Rebecca Ore wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote:
> >
> > When you talk about Russian teas, it's interesting. When you talk
> > about Russian political concerns about other powers in Asia, it's
> > just not talk about tea. We need only enough personality to know
> > that there's a human drinking tea, not more than that.
> >
> > (And could everyone else just stop responding to the off-topic
> > political stuff or take it to political groups).
> >
> > Today, I bought some Chinese oolong from the tea shop in Reading
> > Terminal Market, and served it to friends semi-gongfu style. It's not
> > the best Ti Kuan Yin I've had, but it appeared to be a bit better than
> > my China town red metal box general favorite.
> >
> > This is a tea drinking group, gentlemen. Can we talk about tea?

>
>





  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tea
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Which is what I thought newsgrous were supposed to do, as opposed to being
narrow- but that's me. When it comes to a kncokdown drag out argument,
that's too much, but a little banter doesn't hurt.
"Darawen Littlestich" > wrote in message
...
> FWIW, I enjoyed the OT thread the gentlemen were having--expands my

limited
> knowledge of the world. Perhaps one day we could all meet and have a cuppa
> together.
>
> Rebecca Ore wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote:
> >
> > When you talk about Russian teas, it's interesting. When you talk
> > about Russian political concerns about other powers in Asia, it's
> > just not talk about tea. We need only enough personality to know
> > that there's a human drinking tea, not more than that.
> >
> > (And could everyone else just stop responding to the off-topic
> > political stuff or take it to political groups).
> >
> > Today, I bought some Chinese oolong from the tea shop in Reading
> > Terminal Market, and served it to friends semi-gongfu style. It's not
> > the best Ti Kuan Yin I've had, but it appeared to be a bit better than
> > my China town red metal box general favorite.
> >
> > This is a tea drinking group, gentlemen. Can we talk about tea?

>
>



  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tea
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Which is what I thought newsgrous were supposed to do, as opposed to being
narrow- but that's me. When it comes to a kncokdown drag out argument,
that's too much, but a little banter doesn't hurt.
"Darawen Littlestich" > wrote in message
...
> FWIW, I enjoyed the OT thread the gentlemen were having--expands my

limited
> knowledge of the world. Perhaps one day we could all meet and have a cuppa
> together.
>
> Rebecca Ore wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote:
> >
> > When you talk about Russian teas, it's interesting. When you talk
> > about Russian political concerns about other powers in Asia, it's
> > just not talk about tea. We need only enough personality to know
> > that there's a human drinking tea, not more than that.
> >
> > (And could everyone else just stop responding to the off-topic
> > political stuff or take it to political groups).
> >
> > Today, I bought some Chinese oolong from the tea shop in Reading
> > Terminal Market, and served it to friends semi-gongfu style. It's not
> > the best Ti Kuan Yin I've had, but it appeared to be a bit better than
> > my China town red metal box general favorite.
> >
> > This is a tea drinking group, gentlemen. Can we talk about tea?

>
>



  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tea
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote in message
om...
> > Having visited Afghanistan, gotten to know the people somewhat, and

having
> > studied the history of Afghanistan, I came to the same conclusion at

that
> > time. Great minds think alike, you see. Now, predictions on the demise

of
> > the United States, anyone?

>
> If we won't find a way to get Likudniks out of the controlling the

Congress,
> do you have ANY doubts?
> "One (wo)man - one term." for all elected officials on federal level
> without exception, if you ask me.


We've come close to doing that in New York City- and we have had a mess.
The good thing about careeer politicians is they know how the system works.
We now have a mayor who spent more than half his term learning how politics
is done in NY, and he angered a lot of people in the process. Some jobs
take a lot longer than one term to learn. I for one am glad that certain
politicians keep getting elected, since that way they're able to actually
help their constituencies and have influence. On the federal level, this
becomes very important on some of the larger committes, like defense,
health, and so on. Most American politicains are ill-travelled and know
almost nothing outside of their states. Freshman year is usually just a
learning experience for them- it can take a while before a senator or
representative can actually come up with something useful. But then, I'm an
American. In Russia it might be different.


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> We've come close to doing that in New York City- and we have had a mess.
> The good thing about careeer politicians is they know how the system
> works.
> We now have a mayor who spent more than half his term learning how
> politics
> is done in NY, and he angered a lot of people in the process. Some jobs
> take a lot longer than one term to learn. I for one am glad that certain
> politicians keep getting elected, since that way they're able to actually
> help their constituencies and have influence. On the federal level, this
> becomes very important on some of the larger committes, like defense,
> health, and so on. Most American politicains are ill-travelled and know
> almost nothing outside of their states. Freshman year is usually just a
> learning experience for them- it can take a while before a senator or
> representative can actually come up with something useful. But then, I'm
> an
> American. In Russia it might be different.


Our difference is ideological. I see the government as evil neccesity, you
see it as a source of protection and possible good. In that I follow the
traditional American Framers argument, and you - traditional Russian one. I
am a naturalized US citizen, BTW, living and paying taxes here for 18
years..


Sasha.


  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> We've come close to doing that in New York City- and we have had a mess.
> The good thing about careeer politicians is they know how the system
> works.
> We now have a mayor who spent more than half his term learning how
> politics
> is done in NY, and he angered a lot of people in the process. Some jobs
> take a lot longer than one term to learn. I for one am glad that certain
> politicians keep getting elected, since that way they're able to actually
> help their constituencies and have influence. On the federal level, this
> becomes very important on some of the larger committes, like defense,
> health, and so on. Most American politicains are ill-travelled and know
> almost nothing outside of their states. Freshman year is usually just a
> learning experience for them- it can take a while before a senator or
> representative can actually come up with something useful. But then, I'm
> an
> American. In Russia it might be different.


Our difference is ideological. I see the government as evil neccesity, you
see it as a source of protection and possible good. In that I follow the
traditional American Framers argument, and you - traditional Russian one. I
am a naturalized US citizen, BTW, living and paying taxes here for 18
years..


Sasha.




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> We've come close to doing that in New York City- and we have had a mess.
> The good thing about careeer politicians is they know how the system
> works.
> We now have a mayor who spent more than half his term learning how
> politics
> is done in NY, and he angered a lot of people in the process. Some jobs
> take a lot longer than one term to learn. I for one am glad that certain
> politicians keep getting elected, since that way they're able to actually
> help their constituencies and have influence. On the federal level, this
> becomes very important on some of the larger committes, like defense,
> health, and so on. Most American politicains are ill-travelled and know
> almost nothing outside of their states. Freshman year is usually just a
> learning experience for them- it can take a while before a senator or
> representative can actually come up with something useful. But then, I'm
> an
> American. In Russia it might be different.


Our difference is ideological. I see the government as evil neccesity, you
see it as a source of protection and possible good. In that I follow the
traditional American Framers argument, and you - traditional Russian one. I
am a naturalized US citizen, BTW, living and paying taxes here for 18
years..


Sasha.


  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tea
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote in message
om...
> > We've come close to doing that in New York City- and we have had a mess.
> > The good thing about careeer politicians is they know how the system
> > works.
> > We now have a mayor who spent more than half his term learning how
> > politics
> > is done in NY, and he angered a lot of people in the process. Some jobs
> > take a lot longer than one term to learn. I for one am glad that

certain
> > politicians keep getting elected, since that way they're able to

actually
> > help their constituencies and have influence. On the federal level,

this
> > becomes very important on some of the larger committes, like defense,
> > health, and so on. Most American politicains are ill-travelled and know
> > almost nothing outside of their states. Freshman year is usually just a
> > learning experience for them- it can take a while before a senator or
> > representative can actually come up with something useful. But then,

I'm
> > an
> > American. In Russia it might be different.

>
> Our difference is ideological. I see the government as evil neccesity, you
> see it as a source of protection and possible good. In that I follow the
> traditional American Framers argument, and you - traditional Russian one.

I
> am a naturalized US citizen, BTW, living and paying taxes here for 18
> years..
>
>
> Sasha.

Actually, I'm not taking a Russian one, although it might sound like it.
The Framers had various opinions on these things. Jefferson would have
agreed with you. However, brilliant as Jefferson was, he was wrong on a lot
of things. Slavery was one. Another was that Americans should all live in
the country and have have direct democracy. I'm a Hamiltonian, however. the
Hamiltonisn idea is really what led to us not just being thirteen states
hugging the Atlantic. Hamiliton, Madison, and others saw something larger.
Hamilton was the one who knew that banking would be important to the growth
of the new country. He wanted NYC to be the financial center. He wanted a
republic instead of a strict democracy, so the the mob wouldn't control the
government and vote in an unknowledgable fashion. He realized that cities
and states would eventually grow and become unwiedly if we avted like the
only major decisions would be whether to open the local commonses to cows.
In that way he was in agreement with Franklin, who understood that a foreign
policy would be crucial.
It's impossible to have complex foreign policy if you change your whole
government every 2-6 years. If Adams and Franklin had agreed with that
idea- if even Jefferson had given that idea more than lip service- none of
them would have acted as ambassadors in France for as long as they did. They
would have changed off and sent other people. One of the things that in my
opinion, makes the "American Idea' what it is, is a sense of continuity.
I've been living here for 42 years, ever since my behind was slapped in
Queens General Hospital- which doesn't mean much since most Americans don't
know American history. But I do know that if we had made up 5 Year Plans
like they did in Russia, and changed over the people in charge every time,
we wouldn't have been in very good shape. Instead we formed political
parties, and leaned to throw people out of office now and then. The bad
part is when you get guys like Strom Thurmond (Mr. Segregation to you) in
office for nearly forever. The good part is when you get Ted Kennedy or FDR,
or in some ways, Nixon (whose domestic policy sucked eggs, and whose foreign
policy opened China).
>
>



  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tea
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote in message
om...
> > We've come close to doing that in New York City- and we have had a mess.
> > The good thing about careeer politicians is they know how the system
> > works.
> > We now have a mayor who spent more than half his term learning how
> > politics
> > is done in NY, and he angered a lot of people in the process. Some jobs
> > take a lot longer than one term to learn. I for one am glad that

certain
> > politicians keep getting elected, since that way they're able to

actually
> > help their constituencies and have influence. On the federal level,

this
> > becomes very important on some of the larger committes, like defense,
> > health, and so on. Most American politicains are ill-travelled and know
> > almost nothing outside of their states. Freshman year is usually just a
> > learning experience for them- it can take a while before a senator or
> > representative can actually come up with something useful. But then,

I'm
> > an
> > American. In Russia it might be different.

>
> Our difference is ideological. I see the government as evil neccesity, you
> see it as a source of protection and possible good. In that I follow the
> traditional American Framers argument, and you - traditional Russian one.

I
> am a naturalized US citizen, BTW, living and paying taxes here for 18
> years..
>
>
> Sasha.

Actually, I'm not taking a Russian one, although it might sound like it.
The Framers had various opinions on these things. Jefferson would have
agreed with you. However, brilliant as Jefferson was, he was wrong on a lot
of things. Slavery was one. Another was that Americans should all live in
the country and have have direct democracy. I'm a Hamiltonian, however. the
Hamiltonisn idea is really what led to us not just being thirteen states
hugging the Atlantic. Hamiliton, Madison, and others saw something larger.
Hamilton was the one who knew that banking would be important to the growth
of the new country. He wanted NYC to be the financial center. He wanted a
republic instead of a strict democracy, so the the mob wouldn't control the
government and vote in an unknowledgable fashion. He realized that cities
and states would eventually grow and become unwiedly if we avted like the
only major decisions would be whether to open the local commonses to cows.
In that way he was in agreement with Franklin, who understood that a foreign
policy would be crucial.
It's impossible to have complex foreign policy if you change your whole
government every 2-6 years. If Adams and Franklin had agreed with that
idea- if even Jefferson had given that idea more than lip service- none of
them would have acted as ambassadors in France for as long as they did. They
would have changed off and sent other people. One of the things that in my
opinion, makes the "American Idea' what it is, is a sense of continuity.
I've been living here for 42 years, ever since my behind was slapped in
Queens General Hospital- which doesn't mean much since most Americans don't
know American history. But I do know that if we had made up 5 Year Plans
like they did in Russia, and changed over the people in charge every time,
we wouldn't have been in very good shape. Instead we formed political
parties, and leaned to throw people out of office now and then. The bad
part is when you get guys like Strom Thurmond (Mr. Segregation to you) in
office for nearly forever. The good part is when you get Ted Kennedy or FDR,
or in some ways, Nixon (whose domestic policy sucked eggs, and whose foreign
policy opened China).
>
>



  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To those who object to a little of political discussions here - sorry.
However, I think politics should not be frowned upon at this forum if for
no other reason than to keep the tradition of Boston Tea Party.

>> Sasha.

> Actually, I'm not taking a Russian one, although it might sound like it.
> The Framers had various opinions on these things. Jefferson would have
> agreed with you.


They did have various opinions, but the evil of the government and power's
natural proclivity for tyranny was a common denominator.

>However, brilliant as Jefferson was, he was wrong on a lot
> of things. Slavery was one. Another was that Americans should all live in
> the country and have have direct democracy. I'm a Hamiltonian, however.
> the
> Hamiltonisn idea is really what led to us not just being thirteen states
> hugging the Atlantic. Hamiliton, Madison, and others saw something larger.
> Hamilton was the one who knew that banking would be important to the
> growth
> of the new country. He wanted NYC to be the financial center. He wanted a
> republic instead of a strict democracy, so the the mob wouldn't control
> the
> government and vote in an unknowledgable fashion.


And the result is that a clique controls the goverment in a trostkiate
fashion.

>He realized that cities
> and states would eventually grow and become unwiedly if we avted like the
> only major decisions would be whether to open the local commonses to cows.
> In that way he was in agreement with Franklin, who understood that a
> foreign
> policy would be crucial.
> It's impossible to have complex foreign policy if you change your whole
> government every 2-6 years.


I vehemently disagree. American administrations were never really interested
in foreign policies and a frequient change without re-election craze will
most probably create the situation when foreign policy would be just left to
professionals, as it should.
In any case, as we can see today, 4-8 period, does not garanteed foreign
policy stability either, so your agrument does not work the way you
presented it.

>If Adams and Franklin had agreed with that
> idea- if even Jefferson had given that idea more than lip service- none of
> them would have acted as ambassadors in France for as long as they did.
> They
> would have changed off and sent other people. One of the things that in
> my
> opinion, makes the "American Idea' what it is, is a sense of continuity.
> I've been living here for 42 years, ever since my behind was slapped in
> Queens General Hospital- which doesn't mean much since most Americans
> don't
> know American history. But I do know that if we had made up 5 Year Plans
> like they did in Russia, and changed over the people in charge every time,
> we wouldn't have been in very good shape. Instead we formed political
> parties, and leaned to throw people out of office now and then. The bad
> part is when you get guys like Strom Thurmond (Mr. Segregation to you) in
> office for nearly forever. The good part is when you get Ted Kennedy or
> FDR,
> or in some ways, Nixon (whose domestic policy sucked eggs, and whose
> foreign
> policy opened China).



In current situation when there is almost an impossibility for a third
political party to play any role but taking away votes of its ideological
neighbour and promote the ideological adversary, the new grassroot ideas
cannot penetrate the discourse, which in my opinion is the only healthy way
to move through time. The sight of Republicans fighting for Nader to have a
chance in Florida must have convinced even the comatose that something is
wrong in this game.
However it creates the ideal situation for well-organized and well-funded
ideologically marginal or foreign interests to grab control of the helm and
even, as we see today, occupy the bridge. Now it is the test for the
seaworthiness of the crew to actually look at the compas and the charts
rather than listen to the fairytales and decide if they really want to go
where the bridge takes them
I say that if the crew wants to live, the current skipper has no chance and
will be thrown overboard with his officers. As a true believer in
Americanism I am hopeful that this is what will happened.

When I was saying "One man - one term" what I meant was to strengthen the
Congress. I believe that teh future of the republic depends on how
independant and strong the Congress is. If you know other ways to promote
strong, unbribed and independant-minded Congress, I will gladly forget about
my recipy. But I think you will agree that today the Congress is at its
all-times low. And that is where the real danger is.

Sasha.

P.S. I can almost smell the Twinnings in your breath. British, are we not?



  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To those who object to a little of political discussions here - sorry.
However, I think politics should not be frowned upon at this forum if for
no other reason than to keep the tradition of Boston Tea Party.

>> Sasha.

> Actually, I'm not taking a Russian one, although it might sound like it.
> The Framers had various opinions on these things. Jefferson would have
> agreed with you.


They did have various opinions, but the evil of the government and power's
natural proclivity for tyranny was a common denominator.

>However, brilliant as Jefferson was, he was wrong on a lot
> of things. Slavery was one. Another was that Americans should all live in
> the country and have have direct democracy. I'm a Hamiltonian, however.
> the
> Hamiltonisn idea is really what led to us not just being thirteen states
> hugging the Atlantic. Hamiliton, Madison, and others saw something larger.
> Hamilton was the one who knew that banking would be important to the
> growth
> of the new country. He wanted NYC to be the financial center. He wanted a
> republic instead of a strict democracy, so the the mob wouldn't control
> the
> government and vote in an unknowledgable fashion.


And the result is that a clique controls the goverment in a trostkiate
fashion.

>He realized that cities
> and states would eventually grow and become unwiedly if we avted like the
> only major decisions would be whether to open the local commonses to cows.
> In that way he was in agreement with Franklin, who understood that a
> foreign
> policy would be crucial.
> It's impossible to have complex foreign policy if you change your whole
> government every 2-6 years.


I vehemently disagree. American administrations were never really interested
in foreign policies and a frequient change without re-election craze will
most probably create the situation when foreign policy would be just left to
professionals, as it should.
In any case, as we can see today, 4-8 period, does not garanteed foreign
policy stability either, so your agrument does not work the way you
presented it.

>If Adams and Franklin had agreed with that
> idea- if even Jefferson had given that idea more than lip service- none of
> them would have acted as ambassadors in France for as long as they did.
> They
> would have changed off and sent other people. One of the things that in
> my
> opinion, makes the "American Idea' what it is, is a sense of continuity.
> I've been living here for 42 years, ever since my behind was slapped in
> Queens General Hospital- which doesn't mean much since most Americans
> don't
> know American history. But I do know that if we had made up 5 Year Plans
> like they did in Russia, and changed over the people in charge every time,
> we wouldn't have been in very good shape. Instead we formed political
> parties, and leaned to throw people out of office now and then. The bad
> part is when you get guys like Strom Thurmond (Mr. Segregation to you) in
> office for nearly forever. The good part is when you get Ted Kennedy or
> FDR,
> or in some ways, Nixon (whose domestic policy sucked eggs, and whose
> foreign
> policy opened China).



In current situation when there is almost an impossibility for a third
political party to play any role but taking away votes of its ideological
neighbour and promote the ideological adversary, the new grassroot ideas
cannot penetrate the discourse, which in my opinion is the only healthy way
to move through time. The sight of Republicans fighting for Nader to have a
chance in Florida must have convinced even the comatose that something is
wrong in this game.
However it creates the ideal situation for well-organized and well-funded
ideologically marginal or foreign interests to grab control of the helm and
even, as we see today, occupy the bridge. Now it is the test for the
seaworthiness of the crew to actually look at the compas and the charts
rather than listen to the fairytales and decide if they really want to go
where the bridge takes them
I say that if the crew wants to live, the current skipper has no chance and
will be thrown overboard with his officers. As a true believer in
Americanism I am hopeful that this is what will happened.

When I was saying "One man - one term" what I meant was to strengthen the
Congress. I believe that teh future of the republic depends on how
independant and strong the Congress is. If you know other ways to promote
strong, unbribed and independant-minded Congress, I will gladly forget about
my recipy. But I think you will agree that today the Congress is at its
all-times low. And that is where the real danger is.

Sasha.

P.S. I can almost smell the Twinnings in your breath. British, are we not?





  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Joel Reicher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:

> I see the government as evil neccesity


That seems a thoroughly ridiculous and contradictory thing to say. If
you're using the word `necessity' in anything resembling the `common
sense' way, then governments are a necessity precisely because their
existence generate beneficial outcomes. That's beneficial, as in bene,
as in *good*.

To say it in more detail, necessity only has sense with respect to
something, namely the thing which creates the necessity. For example,
boiling water is a necessity for making hot tea (perhaps not *boiling*
it).

When people use the word necessity but omit what it is with respect
to, it is because that thing is taken to be a universal good that
doesn't need to be said explicitly. If you're going to disagree with
this use of necessity, you're going to have to explain how it can make
sense without respect to a `thing', or you're going to have to explain
how that unsaid thing can be other than a universal good.

Perhaps you do agree with this use of necessity, but have some bizarre
notion about apparently perceived `intrinsic' evil somehow trumping
good consequences.

Cheers,

- Joel
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Joel Reicher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:

> I see the government as evil neccesity


That seems a thoroughly ridiculous and contradictory thing to say. If
you're using the word `necessity' in anything resembling the `common
sense' way, then governments are a necessity precisely because their
existence generate beneficial outcomes. That's beneficial, as in bene,
as in *good*.

To say it in more detail, necessity only has sense with respect to
something, namely the thing which creates the necessity. For example,
boiling water is a necessity for making hot tea (perhaps not *boiling*
it).

When people use the word necessity but omit what it is with respect
to, it is because that thing is taken to be a universal good that
doesn't need to be said explicitly. If you're going to disagree with
this use of necessity, you're going to have to explain how it can make
sense without respect to a `thing', or you're going to have to explain
how that unsaid thing can be other than a universal good.

Perhaps you do agree with this use of necessity, but have some bizarre
notion about apparently perceived `intrinsic' evil somehow trumping
good consequences.

Cheers,

- Joel
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Calling someone's words "ridiculous" especially when you attack a well-known
and often used expression immediately cheapen your own words and arguments.
I repeat it here again and again - a good argument expressed in a polite and
friendly way makes deeper and more serious impact both on your opponent and
others who listen.

When a decision has to be made which is morally or culturally repugnant but
nevertheless no better choice is available for the moment such a thing
constitute "evil neccesity". Taxes are seen by a large portion of the
non-socialist Americans as "evil neccesity" for example. One may argue that
they are wonderful and not at all evil, but then most of the people who
benefit from taxation improportionally do and one may be one of them. Or one
may belong to a minority that uses the power of government and taxation to
advance its agenda. Or one may just like to be taxed (if physical and sexual
masocism is possible, why not finacial one?). It does not change the right
of others to see it their way without being "ridiculous".
Having prisons where human beings are incarcerated, having police use
firearms, wars, are all "evil neccesities" from a point of view of a
humanist. Calling them "bene" - "good" because there is an obvious usefull
"benefit" from having them is anti-humaine. Your position is well known as
justification of means by benefits of goals. It is not ridiculous, it has
its logic and its proponents. Communists, Nazis, Khmer Rouge, Spanish
inquisition, human cannibalism as means to avoid bigger wrath of gods and
avoid death of many by sacrificing few are among such proponents. Repugnunt
if you ask my opinion.

It is, IMHO, more noble and morally right to acknowledge the evil that one
has to tolerate or committ, than to justify anything on the base of
neccesity. Thus, bolsheviks in Russia and Khmer Rouge in Cambodia never
acknowledged their horrendous crimes as evil, since the proletarian
dictature was impossible without them, and they were "neccesary". In my
opinion the way South looked at slavery as "evil neccesity" was much more
moral, because they actually agreed that it was EVIL and IMMORAL. See "Evil
Necessity: Slavery and Political Culture in Antebellum Kentucky by Tallant,
Harold D."
My words may or may not make sense to you, but the habit of jumping and
labelling things "ridiculous" because they do not fit your logic or way of
thinking this morning cannot be a part of mature discussion.

Sasha.


"Joel Reicher" > wrote in message
...
> "Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:
>
>> I see the government as evil neccesity

>
> That seems a thoroughly ridiculous and contradictory thing to say. If
> you're using the word `necessity' in anything resembling the `common
> sense' way, then governments are a necessity precisely because their
> existence generate beneficial outcomes. That's beneficial, as in bene,
> as in *good*.
>
> To say it in more detail, necessity only has sense with respect to
> something, namely the thing which creates the necessity. For example,
> boiling water is a necessity for making hot tea (perhaps not *boiling*
> it).
>
> When people use the word necessity but omit what it is with respect
> to, it is because that thing is taken to be a universal good that
> doesn't need to be said explicitly. If you're going to disagree with
> this use of necessity, you're going to have to explain how it can make
> sense without respect to a `thing', or you're going to have to explain
> how that unsaid thing can be other than a universal good.
>
> Perhaps you do agree with this use of necessity, but have some bizarre
> notion about apparently perceived `intrinsic' evil somehow trumping
> good consequences.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Joel



  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Joel Reicher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:

> Calling someone's words "ridiculous" especially when you attack a well-known
> and often used expression immediately cheapen your own words and arguments.
> I repeat it here again and again - a good argument expressed in a polite and
> friendly way makes deeper and more serious impact both on your opponent and
> others who listen.


I didn't mean to be impolite, I just honestly think it is a ridiculous
thing to say. How else should I express that belief? I didn't call
*you* ridiculous.

The fact that it's a "well known and often used expression" doesn't
count for much. Below I believe you are trying to discredit
utilitarianism, and it could be that this popular expression is a
product of that very view. Trying to have your cake and eat it too?

> When a decision has to be made which is morally or culturally repugnant but
> nevertheless no better choice is available for the moment such a thing
> constitute "evil neccesity". Taxes are seen by a large portion of
> the


Governments are not intrinsically morally or culturally repugnant, and
I still think it's ridiculous to say that they are.

> non-socialist Americans as "evil neccesity" for example. One may
> argue that they are wonderful and not at all evil, but then most of
> the people who benefit from taxation improportionally do and one may
> be one of them. Or one may belong to a minority that uses the power
> of government and taxation to advance its agenda. Or one may just
> like to be taxed (if physical and sexual


I'm not going to argue about taxation with you, but confusing a
particular realisation or implementation with the idea itself is a
seriously misleading way of thinking. The contingent will become the
necessary, and the extrinsic, intrinsic.

> masocism is possible, why not finacial one?). It does not change the right
> of others to see it their way without being "ridiculous".
> Having prisons where human beings are incarcerated, having police use
> firearms, wars, are all "evil neccesities" from a point of view of a
> humanist. Calling them "bene" - "good" because there is an obvious usefull
> "benefit" from having them is anti-humaine. Your position is well known as
> justification of means by benefits of goals. It is not ridiculous,
> it has


I'm not a utilitarian, and you suggesting that I am one is yet another
hint that you jump very quickly to oversimplified views. Luckily for
you, oversimplification also reduces argument to unproductive dogmatic
assertion, eh?

> its logic and its proponents. Communists, Nazis, Khmer Rouge, Spanish
> inquisition, human cannibalism as means to avoid bigger wrath of gods and
> avoid death of many by sacrificing few are among such proponents. Repugnunt
> if you ask my opinion.


Ah, the good old "pick the bad apple to discredit the batch"
argument. I'm surprised one bad tea doesn't put you off tea drinking
entirely, if you're so easily swayed.

Utilitarianism has its strengths, and deserves more careful
consideration than you are giving it.

> It is, IMHO, more noble and morally right to acknowledge the evil that one
> has to tolerate or committ, than to justify anything on the base of
> neccesity. Thus, bolsheviks in Russia and Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
> never


You're not listening. I'm not saying that good ends can justify evil
means. I'm saying it seems ridiculous to say that the means,
i.e. governments, are evil to begin with, once the necessity of them
has been established. Their good and their necessity are, perhaps,
identical, because there doesn't seem to be any aspect to their moral
value beyond their necessity.

And before you make the mistake, I'm not claiming that all governments
are good. I'm saying that government, in principle, is good.

Now, if you really want to say something to the point, show why the
idea of government in and of itself is evil. Stop knocking
utilitarianism -- it isn't relevant.

Cheers,

- Joel
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Goo Worship [email protected] Vegan 1 27-08-2006 11:42 PM
Dont Worship The Antichrist Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD General Cooking 22 25-03-2006 12:09 PM
Worship Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD General Cooking 2 03-03-2006 08:16 AM
I'm tired of food "worship" scarlyn mejia General Cooking 8 08-12-2003 10:21 PM
I'm tired of food "worship" mcdickenm Marketplace 6 08-12-2003 08:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"