Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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? > > |
|
|||
|
|||
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? > > |
|
|||
|
|||
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? > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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). > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"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). > > |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Plant > writes:
> Joel 9/29/04 > > > [Multitudinous eructations of moral philosophy....] > > 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. > > Not to get mixed up in this clash of titans, and speaking of irrelevancy, by > all means please take it elsewhere. Sorry, you're quite right of course. Cheers, - Joel |
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Plant > writes:
> Joel 9/29/04 > > > [Multitudinous eructations of moral philosophy....] > > 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. > > Not to get mixed up in this clash of titans, and speaking of irrelevancy, by > all means please take it elsewhere. Sorry, you're quite right of course. Cheers, - Joel |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Goo Worship | Vegan | |||
Dont Worship The Antichrist | General Cooking | |||
Worship | General Cooking | |||
I'm tired of food "worship" | General Cooking | |||
I'm tired of food "worship" | Marketplace |