Harry The Horse wrote:
> name wrote:
> >
> > If it turns out that stiff penalties are sufficient to prevent most
> > people from criminal activities but are not effective to prevent
> > people from committing crimes under influence, perhaps additional
> > measures are warranted. I'm not advocating stiffer penalties in case
> > of crimes committed under influence, but I think it might be
> > reasonable to have a drinking licence similar to a driver's licence.
> > Just to make people more aware that the liberty to use alcohol comes
> > with certain responsibilities.
> >
> I think you are David Blunkett and ICMFP.

Actually my name is Niek Sprakel.

Cynic wrote:
> On 28 May 2006 09:24:15 -0700, "name" > wrote:
>
> >> If we could prevent this by giving up cornflakes. I think it is a
> >> price many would be willing to pay. The one is just as likely to be
> >> effective as the other.
>
> >I think it's rather obvious that terrorists depend on privacy for their
> >preparations
> >not to be detected. Many crimes could be solved or prevented if there
> >was no privacy.
>
> Only those that were not planned. It is not too difficult to keep
> things secret if a crime is planned beforehand, even if draconian
> inroads into our privacy were to be made.

Well, I agree that terrorism is probably even difficult to prevent with
a big-brother type of government that keeps track of everything we do,
say and think.

>
> >> You say that you are not concerned about your privacy. I don't
> >> believe you. You can easily prove me wrong. Simply post all your
> >> personal details in reply to my post. Name, address, telephone
> >> numbers, bank details, who you work for, your employee number, salary,
> >> pension details, medical history,and a summary of your present sexual
> >> activities.
>
> >This depends of course on the type of society you're in. Currently such
> >personal details could be abused, but it's not unthinkable society
> >could be reformed in such a way that abuse of personal information
> >isn't possible anymore.
>
> So why do you say that you are not concerned about privacy? You think
> that such abuses could never be carried out by the government?

That depends on the level of transparancy and accountability of the
government.

>
> >If in any situation where my personal information is secure because
> >it's linked to my DNA and nobody is able to impersonate me for instance
> >by abusing my personal information, I would be less concerened about
> >disclosing this personal information.
>
> Even if you were a member of a race that many people despised, and you
> thus prefered not to advertise the fact?

I hope racism is a thing of the past (at least in civilized modern
societies), like witch trials.

>
> >I often wonder why you should feel ashamed about certain things like
> >nudity, sexuality, diseases, other imperfections, etc.. and I've found
> >that it's something you can overcome and feel liberated from. For
> >instance, I suffer from IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) and this is
> >typically something that's difficult to discuss, even among close
> >friends or family. But once you overcome such inhibitions which happen
> >to be imposed from ones cultural background, it's a relief in many
> >ways. So instead of a tendency to keep this to myself and avoid
> >discussing things that are potentially embarrassing, I found it
> >worthwhile to strive towards overcoming these inhibitions and trying to
> >be open and honest about it.
>
> Would you feel the same way if , instead of a bowel condition, you
> happened to find children sexually attractive? You'd find it a relief
> to discuss your condition with friends and family?

Yes, if people were openminded enough to make a distinction between
someone who merely feels sexually attracted to kids (or dead people or
animals for that matter) as opposed to someone who abuses kids to
satisfy such sexual impulses.
Personally I think people should be respected regardless of their
sexual preferences, but that doesn't mean I condone abuse or coercion
of any kind. I'm also against sex between adults and kids on a
voluntary basis because kids are unable to make decisions in this
respect (similar to how kids are unable to make decisions regarding
alcohol or tobacco use).
I think it would be a good thing if most people would be openminded
enough to respect people regardless of their sexual preferences
(provided they don't give in to their sexual urges at the expense of
others).
I think the more openminded people are, the more civilized a society we
have.

>
> >Anyway, privacy is a complicated issue and it can be considered from
> >many angles, but in general I'm a proponent of an open society where
> >everybody feels free to share any information with anyone else, as
> >opposed to a closed society where everybody is afraid to disclose
> >anything private to anyone except their closest friends.
>
> So publish your ATM PIN number and prove it.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine. :-)

>
> --
> Cynic

Allow me to address people on other boards who want to have lengthy
discussions of alcohol consumption and morality. AFW exists for discussions
on wine and assumes the poster has accepted the consumption of alcoholic
beverages as part of their life.

What you are doing is harassing this group, like the group in the US who try
to disrupt military funerals because they disagree with the policy on
***/*******/transgender soldiers.

We believe in freedom of speech but your ad homonym questions and remarks
are unwanted. You should post them to alt.Schopenhauer/camus.com and pay a
visit to Manny Kant's, Voltaire's or John Locke's website to appreciate the
concept of freedom.

The only navels we'd like to contemplate are oranges for our Tequila
sunrises.......
"Harry The Horse" > wrote in message
...
> name wrote:
> >
> > I don't see what's your objection against this.
> > Granting the government greater powers (like keeping track of people
> > with ID cards, etc.) comes with a responsibility for the government to
> > ensure complete transparancy and full accountability in order to
> > prevent abuse of such powers.
> >
> When the mythical government that does that comes along, I will cheerfully
> submit to registering for its ID card. Until then, it can eat my shit.
>
>

On 28 May 2006 19:48:11 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>> Only those that were not planned. It is not too difficult to keep
>> things secret if a crime is planned beforehand, even if draconian
>> inroads into our privacy were to be made.
>
>Well, I agree that terrorism is probably even difficult to prevent with
>a big-brother type of government that keeps track of everything we do,
>say and think.

Stop thinking in terms of terrorism! That's how the government has
conditioned you to think.

Constant surveillance and other intrusions into our privacy doesn't do
a great deal to prevent or detect most petty crimes. Sure, a small
percentage are caught that otherwise would not have been, but for the
most part the criminals simply find a way around the privacy
intrusions. Which will be the case unless the intrusions are so great
that the quality of life of the population is grossly degraded.
>> Would you feel the same way if , instead of a bowel condition, you
>> happened to find children sexually attractive? You'd find it a relief
>> to discuss your condition with friends and family?

>Yes, if people were openminded enough to make a distinction between
>someone who merely feels sexually attracted to kids (or dead people or
>animals for that matter) as opposed to someone who abuses kids to
>satisfy such sexual impulses.

The mistake you are making is that you are advocating that people
should behave in a way that is suitable for the World that you would
like it to be, rather than the World as it really it. Whereas the
only sensible way to behave is in accordance with the way the World
actually is.

I can assure you that the vast majority of people do not make the
distinction between a non-offending paedophile, a person who looks at
photographs to satisfy their sexual desire, and a child abuser.

>Personally I think people should be respected regardless of their
>sexual preferences, but that doesn't mean I condone abuse or coercion
>of any kind.

OK, but be honest. If you knew that your friend was sexually
attracted to children, would you be comfortable with the idea of
leaving him alone with *your* children? Your ideal attitude should of
course mean that you should be just as comfortable as leaving your
wife alone with a heterosexual friend.

>> >Anyway, privacy is a complicated issue and it can be considered from
>> >many angles, but in general I'm a proponent of an open society where
>> >everybody feels free to share any information with anyone else, as
>> >opposed to a closed society where everybody is afraid to disclose
>> >anything private to anyone except their closest friends.

>> So publish your ATM PIN number and prove it.

>You show me yours, I'll show you mine. :-)

I'm not the person who is claiming to be unconcerned about my privacy.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On 28 May 2006 19:48:11 -0700, "name" > wrote:
>
> >> Only those that were not planned. It is not too difficult to keep
> >> things secret if a crime is planned beforehand, even if draconian
> >> inroads into our privacy were to be made.
> >
> >Well, I agree that terrorism is probably even difficult to prevent with
> >a big-brother type of government that keeps track of everything we do,
> >say and think.
>
> Stop thinking in terms of terrorism! That's how the government has
> conditioned you to think.
>
> Constant surveillance and other intrusions into our privacy doesn't do
> a great deal to prevent or detect most petty crimes. Sure, a small
> percentage are caught that otherwise would not have been, but for the
> most part the criminals simply find a way around the privacy
> intrusions. Which will be the case unless the intrusions are so great
> that the quality of life of the population is grossly degraded.

I think it's more difficult than you think to avoid having your face
captured on camera if you commit a crime in public, provided there are
enough cameras. I don't see how cameras monitoring humans everywhere
are such a big intrusion on our privacy, just like the massive increase
in camera wielding tourists these days.

> >> Would you feel the same way if , instead of a bowel condition, you
> >> happened to find children sexually attractive? You'd find it a relief
> >> to discuss your condition with friends and family?
>
> >Yes, if people were openminded enough to make a distinction between
> >someone who merely feels sexually attracted to kids (or dead people or
> >animals for that matter) as opposed to someone who abuses kids to
> >satisfy such sexual impulses.
>
> The mistake you are making is that you are advocating that people
> should behave in a way that is suitable for the World that you would
> like it to be, rather than the World as it really it. Whereas the
> only sensible way to behave is in accordance with the way the World
> actually is.

That doesn't detract from the desire to improve the world and to strive
towards
a world where people are free to do as they please while respecting
each others freedom.

>
> I can assure you that the vast majority of people do not make the
> distinction between a non-offending paedophile, a person who looks at
> photographs to satisfy their sexual desire, and a child abuser.

In the past people didn't distinguish between witches and people
behaving somewhat mysteriously or unusually either, but we've come a
long way since those days.

>
> >Personally I think people should be respected regardless of their
> >sexual preferences, but that doesn't mean I condone abuse or coercion
> >of any kind.
>
> OK, but be honest. If you knew that your friend was sexually
> attracted to children, would you be comfortable with the idea of
> leaving him alone with *your* children? Your ideal attitude should of
> course mean that you should be just as comfortable as leaving your
> wife alone with a heterosexual friend.

I might take some extra precautions to minimize the risk, but I reckon
it depends mostly on various circumstances. Children are less able to
stand up for their rights than adults, so you have to be extra cautious
to protect them from potential harm.

>
> >> >Anyway, privacy is a complicated issue and it can be considered from
> >> >many angles, but in general I'm a proponent of an open society where
> >> >everybody feels free to share any information with anyone else, as
> >> >opposed to a closed society where everybody is afraid to disclose
> >> >anything private to anyone except their closest friends.
>
> >> So publish your ATM PIN number and prove it.
>
> >You show me yours, I'll show you mine. :-)
>
> I'm not the person who is claiming to be unconcerned about my privacy.

Ok, you've got a point. But I'm just saying that most of my privacy
concerns only have practical motivations. If possible (for instance in
a society where people are able to share information more freely
because sensitive information is less likely to be abused), I'd rather
get rid of privacy, since it's more of a burden and obligation than
something I enjoy as a right or privilege.

>
> --
> Cynic

Harry The Horse wrote:

> Although our counter-productive drugs laws might make you think that,
> fortunately not even the most extreme authoritarian has claimed that
> the state has such powers over the individual.

They can extract any fluid from your body, without your consent, and
you think they do not have such powers?

--
wigwambam

Joe, don't even bother responding to these cretons.

They don't have one original thought - all they do is post some obscure
"news item" hoping to raise some sort of reaction from others of their ilk.

They mostly originate from drugs.uk - that should tell you something.

I used to react regarding their cross posting - but now just sit here
waiting for the thread to run its course - which it eventually will.

Kindest regards from NZ

--

st.helier

On 29 May 2006 06:15:51 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>> Constant surveillance and other intrusions into our privacy doesn't do
>> a great deal to prevent or detect most petty crimes. Sure, a small
>> percentage are caught that otherwise would not have been, but for the
>> most part the criminals simply find a way around the privacy
>> intrusions. Which will be the case unless the intrusions are so great
>> that the quality of life of the population is grossly degraded.

>I think it's more difficult than you think to avoid having your face
>captured on camera if you commit a crime in public, provided there are
>enough cameras. I don't see how cameras monitoring humans everywhere
>are such a big intrusion on our privacy, just like the massive increase
>in camera wielding tourists these days.

Firstly, perhaps you should see the sort of quality those cameras
produce. Good enough to capture the number plates of illegally parked
vehicles,but more often than not insufficient to identify a person
unless you know that person well.

Secondly, my friend's elderly mother was once mugged right near a CCTV
camera. The police stated that they could not spare the manpower to
examine the tapes, and even if they did, it was unlikely that the
mugger would be recognisable.

They are mainly used to spot trouble starting outside pubs & takeaways
etc. This allows the police to stay off the streets until needed. Of
course, the police presence *used* to be a deterrant - so CCTV has
changed the situation from prevetative policing to reactive policing.
Maybe you see that as an improvement - I don't.

>> The mistake you are making is that you are advocating that people
>> should behave in a way that is suitable for the World that you would
>> like it to be, rather than the World as it really it. Whereas the
>> only sensible way to behave is in accordance with the way the World
>> actually is.

>That doesn't detract from the desire to improve the world and to strive
>towards
>a world where people are free to do as they please while respecting
>each others freedom.

But you do *not* change the World by behaving as if it has already
been changed.

>> I can assure you that the vast majority of people do not make the
>> distinction between a non-offending paedophile, a person who looks at
>> photographs to satisfy their sexual desire, and a child abuser.

>In the past people didn't distinguish between witches and people
>behaving somewhat mysteriously or unusually either, but we've come a
>long way since those days.

Have we? I really do not believe that at all. All that has changed
is the targets.

>Ok, you've got a point. But I'm just saying that most of my privacy
>concerns only have practical motivations.

So do mine. I am less concerned with an ordinary stranger than I am
with the government.

> If possible (for instance in
>a society where people are able to share information more freely
>because sensitive information is less likely to be abused), I'd rather
>get rid of privacy, since it's more of a burden and obligation than
>something I enjoy as a right or privilege.

Great. So start with the government. When they no longer wish to
keep secrets from me, I'll be less worried about keeping things from
them.

--
Cynic

Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such thoughts
led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's mistakes....have a
glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
Paul
"Jasbird" > wrote in message
...
> Europe to crack down on 'passive drinking', says leaked report
>
> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>
> Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield
>
> The campaigns to combat the effects of 'passive smoking' are widely
> credited for Europe's growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in
> the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the
> concept of 'passive drinking' as their killer argument.
>
> I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is
> due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high
> environmental or social toll of alcohol, the 'harm done by someone
> else's drinking'. The report is likely to inform proposals for a
> European Union alcohol strategy later this year.
>
> Dr Peter Anderson, the report's lead author, who has a background in the
> World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free
> Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the
> alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and
> addiction. 'You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is
> up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in
> mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug.. But when you talk
> about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification
> for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If
> there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less
> powerful' (1).
>
> The draft report doesn't mince its words when it comes to estimating the
> social harms of alcohol. 'The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU
> society in 2003 was estimated to be ?125bn (?79bn-?220bn), equivalent to
> 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found
> recently for tobacco.' (2) The report further highlights the broader
> social cost of drinking, with the proviso that 'these estimates are
> subject to a wide margin of error, [and] they are likely to be an
> underestimate of the true gross social cost of alcohol'.
>
> continued ...
> <http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/324/>
>
> = = = = = =
> Comment: Just in case there are any jokers out there who doubt this:
> 1) Prof. Nutt (member of the ACMD) recently said that alcohol was more
> dangerous than Ecstasy. Note that Ecstasy is a class A drug.
> <http://www.ourrights.0catch.com/Tale-of-two-Es.html>
> <http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/315>
> 2) In giving evidence before a parliamentary committee Prof. Rawlins
> (ACMD Chairman) said that, if it were to be an illegal drug, alcohol
> would be classed on the borderline between class A and B.
> <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc900-ii/uc90002.htm>
> search for "Q127" and read down to Q129.
>
> Note 2: ACMD = "Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs" - the
> government committee responsible for deciding upon the classifications
> of illegal drugs.
>

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:50:46 GMT, "Paul Parker" >
wrote:

>Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
>your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such thoughts
>led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's mistakes....have a
>glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
>
>Paul

If you actually read the article - which I guess you didn't (hence the
top post) - you'll discover that these are not my views nor even those
of the article's writer (Waterfield).

This is what the safety fanatics at the European Commission are talking
about. By all means live your life in ignorance. You are under no
obligation to be aware of what's happening in the world - until it hits
you were you weren't expecting it. No one made you read anything.

>"Jasbird" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Europe to crack down on 'passive drinking', says leaked report
>>
>> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>>
>> Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield
>>
>> The campaigns to combat the effects of 'passive smoking' are widely
>> credited for Europe's growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in
>> the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the
>> concept of 'passive drinking' as their killer argument.
>>
>> I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is
>> due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high
>> environmental or social toll of alcohol, the 'harm done by someone
>> else's drinking'. The report is likely to inform proposals for a
>> European Union alcohol strategy later this year.
>>
>> Dr Peter Anderson, the report's lead author, who has a background in the
>> World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free
>> Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the
>> alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and
>> addiction. 'You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is
>> up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in
>> mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug.. But when you talk
>> about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification
>> for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If
>> there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less
>> powerful' (1).
>>
>> The draft report doesn't mince its words when it comes to estimating the
>> social harms of alcohol. 'The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU
>> society in 2003 was estimated to be ?125bn (?79bn-?220bn), equivalent to
>> 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found
>> recently for tobacco.' (2) The report further highlights the broader
>> social cost of drinking, with the proviso that 'these estimates are
>> subject to a wide margin of error, [and] they are likely to be an
>> underestimate of the true gross social cost of alcohol'.
>>
>> continued ...
>> <http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/324/>
>>
>> = = = = = =
>> Comment: Just in case there are any jokers out there who doubt this:
>> 1) Prof. Nutt (member of the ACMD) recently said that alcohol was more
>> dangerous than Ecstasy. Note that Ecstasy is a class A drug.
>> <http://www.ourrights.0catch.com/Tale-of-two-Es.html>
>> <http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/315>
>> 2) In giving evidence before a parliamentary committee Prof. Rawlins
>> (ACMD Chairman) said that, if it were to be an illegal drug, alcohol
>> would be classed on the borderline between class A and B.
>> <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc900-ii/uc90002.htm>
>> search for "Q127" and read down to Q129.
>>
>> Note 2: ACMD = "Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs" - the
>> government committee responsible for deciding upon the classifications
>> of illegal drugs.
>>
>

Paul Parker wrote:

> Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
> your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such thoughts
> led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's mistakes....have a
> glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.

You can prove anything with statistics.
90% of teetotal scientists think that moderate drinking is moderately harmful.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Joe, this appeared posted onto that drugs.uk group - stirring up the
original cross poster.

It brought a smile to my face.......


(As Copied)

Jasbird" wrote in message ...
>
> 25% of all work related accidents are alcohol related. 17% of people
> admit to have been intoxicated at work within the last 6 months.
>

Number! Numbers! Numbers!

I too can make up any set of numbers to prove any theory I wish.

In my 40 years of working, I have never experienced intoxication at work -
but then again, I have never worked in England.

In my workplace, we are proud of a virtual accident-free record stretching
10 years.

Again I say "numbers!" - 25% of zero is still zero - why not say that
100% of work related accidents are attributable to alcohol!

>
> It isn't action from the EU that you should too worried about.


I am not worried in the slightest - it is you who has a "booze problem" -
your words!

I have for all of my adult life enjoyed 1-2 glasses of wine with my evening
meal or weekend lunch.

Neither myself or my friends and associates ever get "boozed" - again
believe that this is more an English (or Australian) phenominon.

>
> Alcohol ... "is a dangerous killer that leads to thousands of
> deaths every year"
>

Garbage - alcohol never killed anyone - the abnormal consumption of
alcohol is the killer.

>
> "Ethanol leads to 22 000 premature deaths per year in England ... These
> are from heart, liver and cancer deaths plus accidents and suicide, but
> a sizeable number - of the order of one a day - die from being poisoned
> by excessive intake. "
>


Again, an English problem - you have historically had an unhealthy track
record, probably caused by some sort of genetic defficiency, in association
with all alcoholic beverages - who knows, one day in the far, far future
things may change - but I won't hold my breath.

English people generally drink to excess, just to get ****ed - we
Europeans drink as part of the meal.

>
> "Alcohol also causes dependence and addiction - in about 10% of users -
> which often leads to serious damage to family and work life with huge
> social and health care costs. It is also a major contributory factor in
> suicide."
> - - - - - -
> - Quoted from: Prof. David Nutt. (Member of the ACMD (UK Advisory
> Council on the Misuse of Drugs).

See - an English academic - painting the world (EU) with a brush dipped
in English culture.

Alcohol DOES NOT cause addiction - it is the unhealthy consumption which may
cause problems - but only in those predisposed to alcohol addiction.

Go enjoy your "booze" - get ****ed! Urinate in the streets! Bash up a
couple of strangers!

But stop attacking the great majority of us who traditionally have consumed
wine with meals by judging them against your own "booze culture"

You are the one(s) with a problem!

As I said, it is probably genetic, and perhaps by continuing to kill each
other at the rate of 25,000 per year, the final solution is in your own
hands.

--

RA

"name" > wrote in message
> I watched the film, "Pianoman" yesterday evening. It is the story of
> a Jew in wartime Poland, and based on fact. The teenage son of a
> friend I was with said, "Why don't they just say that they are not
> Jewish?"
>
> Which would have been perfectly possible, had they not happily handed
> over their personal details to the government at a time when nobody
> thought that such political change was possible.

es;
But this is not how it worked.
You are misinformed.

Once the relevant law was passed in Germany, and subsequently in all the
occupied (and even just friendly) countries the citizens had to establish,
by researching and referencing various "birth certificates" (in inverted
commas as some countries did not have birth certificates per se), birth
registries, churches, synagogues etc (therefore personal details not given
to/held by the government previously) their "racial purity".
This was a post facto requirement.

The people were not able to claim that they were not Jewish, Sinto,
Gypsy/Roma, Slav etc etc (Nazi Racial Purity Laws were not only against the
Jews) as they had to have a Certificate to prove their racial origins, a
result of the research mentioned above...

Read:
IBM and the Holocaust to see how it happened

And the film was I think
Pianist (Piano player), Polanski dir. 2002, the true story of Wladyslaw
Szpilman.

e_svoboda wrote:
> "name" > didn't wrote in message
> > I watched the film, "Pianoman" yesterday evening. It is the story of
> > a Jew in wartime Poland, and based on fact. The teenage son of a
> > friend I was with said, "Why don't they just say that they are not
> > Jewish?"
> >
> > Which would have been perfectly possible, had they not happily handed
> > over their personal details to the government at a time when nobody
> > thought that such political change was possible.
>
> es;
> But this is not how it worked.
> You are misinformed.
>
> Once the relevant law was passed in Germany, and subsequently in all the
> occupied (and even just friendly) countries the citizens had to establish,
> by researching and referencing various "birth certificates" (in inverted
> commas as some countries did not have birth certificates per se), birth
> registries, churches, synagogues etc (therefore personal details not given
> to/held by the government previously) their "racial purity".
> This was a post facto requirement.
>
> The people were not able to claim that they were not Jewish, Sinto,
> Gypsy/Roma, Slav etc etc (Nazi Racial Purity Laws were not only against the
> Jews) as they had to have a Certificate to prove their racial origins, a
> result of the research mentioned above...
>
> Read:
> IBM and the Holocaust to see how it happened
>
> And the film was I think
> Pianist (Piano player), Polanski dir. 2002, the true story of Wladyslaw
> Szpilman.

Could you please quote more carefully, since I didn't write the quoted
part at the top.

As a favour to his fundamentalist supporters, the Nazi model of racial
purity has been researched and adapted to modern circumstances. Based on
intelligence gathered since 9-11 and pre-Watergate FBI/NSA/DOD/CIA files
those citizens with dual loyalties (US & Israel) have been identified. As
future Administrations find it necessary to favor oil producing nations and
those who also leant the US money, these data will be important. The aim of
many of the fundamentalists is have religion part of public life---prayer in
school, 10 commandments required in public buildings, etc. So both factors
oil/debt and religious support may compel requirements that in order to
receive public funds and services, non-Christians acknowledge the primacy of
Jesus Christ much as "loyalty" oaths were required 1945-1960. Until the
Constitution is amended or suspended, Jews, atheists and Muslims can
continue to observe as they wish but have to public state that Mr. Christ is
the savior in order to collect SSA benefits, get a government grant or job
or treatment at a VA hospital.

When the Arab nations attempt to reacquire Caanan, the intelligence data
being collected will be used to segregate supporters of Israel perhaps into
the kind of camps used to house Japanese-Americans during World War II as
preface to a "kinder gentler" Holocaust. Assets confiscated like
newspapers, movie studios, clothing firms, law practices will be used to
balance the US budget.

All the above sounds like paranoia, but that's what German Jews thought
prior to the rise of the Nazi's. We are one terrorist attack in the US away
from making the unthinkable, possible again.



"e_svoboda" > wrote in message
...
> "name" > wrote in message
> > I watched the film, "Pianoman" yesterday evening. It is the story of
> > a Jew in wartime Poland, and based on fact. The teenage son of a
> > friend I was with said, "Why don't they just say that they are not
> > Jewish?"
>

With the greatest respect, Joe - this has what to do about wine?

Not a thing but the posters talking about "the Pianist" must have read the
Classic Comics version of Germany under National Socialism. By 1932 there
was nothing a person born Jewish could say or do other then get the hell out
of Europe. I realize I was off topic but I'm sick and tired of hearing how
my people went meekly to the gas chambers. There's a fact based film "The
Conspiracy" with Kenneth Branaugh which shows a group 2nd & 3rd level
beaurocrats dealing with the Final Solution as they would the roll out of a
new BMW line.

When they start the gulags here to "protect us" I'll be in Auckland ASAP.

I'll try to curb my reactions in the future.
"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
> With the greatest respect, Joe - this has what to do about wine?
>
>

"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" > skrev i melding
...
>
> When they start the gulags here to "protect us" I'll be in Auckland ASAP.
>
"Gulag"? I thought the proper American word was "Guantanamo"?
Anders

Well Jas if the link to the article worked, I would have read it,
unfortunately it didn't, besides from your remarks, you are offensive and
lacking in social skills. Besides why post on a news link for food and wine.
This is a place for those who enjoy food and wine to exchange tasting notes,
experiences, and promote the enjoyment of food and wine.

"Jasbird" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:50:46 GMT, "Paul Parker" >
> wrote:
>
>>Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
>>your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such
>>thoughts
>>led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's mistakes....have a
>>glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
>>
>>Paul
>
> If you actually read the article - which I guess you didn't (hence the
> top post) - you'll discover that these are not my views nor even those
> of the article's writer (Waterfield).
>
> This is what the safety fanatics at the European Commission are talking
> about. By all means live your life in ignorance. You are under no
> obligation to be aware of what's happening in the world - until it hits
> you were you weren't expecting it. No one made you read anything.
>
>>"Jasbird" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Europe to crack down on 'passive drinking', says leaked report
>>>
>>> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>>> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>>>
>>> Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield
>>>
>>> The campaigns to combat the effects of 'passive smoking' are widely
>>> credited for Europe's growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in
>>> the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the
>>> concept of 'passive drinking' as their killer argument.
>>>
>>> I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is
>>> due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high
>>> environmental or social toll of alcohol, the 'harm done by someone
>>> else's drinking'. The report is likely to inform proposals for a
>>> European Union alcohol strategy later this year.
>>>
>>> Dr Peter Anderson, the report's lead author, who has a background in the
>>> World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free
>>> Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the
>>> alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and
>>> addiction. 'You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is
>>> up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in
>>> mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug.. But when you talk
>>> about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification
>>> for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If
>>> there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less
>>> powerful' (1).
>>>
>>> The draft report doesn't mince its words when it comes to estimating the
>>> social harms of alcohol. 'The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU
>>> society in 2003 was estimated to be ?125bn (?79bn-?220bn), equivalent to
>>> 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found
>>> recently for tobacco.' (2) The report further highlights the broader
>>> social cost of drinking, with the proviso that 'these estimates are
>>> subject to a wide margin of error, [and] they are likely to be an
>>> underestimate of the true gross social cost of alcohol'.
>>>
>>> continued ...
>>> <http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/324/>
>>>
>>> = = = = = =
>>> Comment: Just in case there are any jokers out there who doubt this:
>>> 1) Prof. Nutt (member of the ACMD) recently said that alcohol was more
>>> dangerous than Ecstasy. Note that Ecstasy is a class A drug.
>>> <http://www.ourrights.0catch.com/Tale-of-two-Es.html>
>>> <http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/315>
>>> 2) In giving evidence before a parliamentary committee Prof. Rawlins
>>> (ACMD Chairman) said that, if it were to be an illegal drug, alcohol
>>> would be classed on the borderline between class A and B.
>>> <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc900-ii/uc90002.htm>
>>> search for "Q127" and read down to Q129.
>>>
>>> Note 2: ACMD = "Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs" - the
>>> government committee responsible for deciding upon the classifications
>>> of illegal drugs.
>>>
>>
>

Gitmo isn't air conditioned---we can only be exiled to places with AC---some
"ranches" owned by friends of the VP might work as long as there are no
compulsory hunting trips.
"Anders Tørneskog" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" > skrev i melding
> ...
> >
> > When they start the gulags here to "protect us" I'll be in Auckland
ASAP.
> >
> "Gulag"? I thought the proper American word was "Guantanamo"?
> Anders
>
>

"Jasbird" > wrote in message
...
> Europe to crack down on 'passive drinking', says leaked report
>
> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.

Does that mean that the next time I visit France and order a diet Coke at
MacDonalds they won't serve me a Kronenberg instead?

Tom S
www.chateauburbank.com

On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:15:41 GMT, "Paul Parker" >
wrote:

>Well Jas if the link to the article worked, I would have read it,
>unfortunately it didn't, besides from your remarks, you are offensive and
>lacking in social skills. Besides why post on a news link for food and wine.
>This is a place for those who enjoy food and wine to exchange tasting notes,
>experiences, and promote the enjoyment of food and wine.

I didn't twist your arm to make you read this.

If you think the news is irrelevant then just ignore it.

Apologies for the broken link. They have rejigged their site design.
It'e possible that they changed it since first visited. Here is the
working link:
<http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/324/>

On Sat, 27 May 2006 10:30:44 GMT, Jasbird > wrote:

>Europe to crack down on ‘passive drinking’, says leaked report
>
>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>
>Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield

The working link is he
<http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/324/>

Apologies for the broken link. They have rejigged their site design.
It's possible that they changed it since I visited.

In > within
uk.politics.drugs, 'Jasbird' wrote:

>1) Many people who can't limit their drinking. How do we protect the
>vulnerable?

Don't. It's called evolution.

Smack em down when they harm others but otherwise let them do as they
will. When are we going to quit this desire to live as children for the
whole of our lives?

Dave J.

Joe, you are correct. Privacy is very important. Politicians appeal to the
masses and today it may be save to provide lots if registry info. Even if
we trust todays politicians they are not in power for eternity. The next
regime may not be as honest.

I agree with you. Nazi Germany kept records like no one kept records and
that is what made it so possible to locate all the jews.

Amazing the St. Hellier questioned you what this post had to do with wine.
Hell, the Nazi's loved wine :-)

St. Helier cannot really follow any post that does not end in this...the
nazis had TCA of the brain. Go screw cap them.





"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" > wrote in message
...
> Not a thing but the posters talking about "the Pianist" must have read the
> Classic Comics version of Germany under National Socialism. By 1932 there
> was nothing a person born Jewish could say or do other then get the hell
> out
> of Europe. I realize I was off topic but I'm sick and tired of hearing
> how
> my people went meekly to the gas chambers. There's a fact based film "The
> Conspiracy" with Kenneth Branaugh which shows a group 2nd & 3rd level
> beaurocrats dealing with the Final Solution as they would the roll out of
> a
> new BMW line.
>
> When they start the gulags here to "protect us" I'll be in Auckland ASAP.
>
> I'll try to curb my reactions in the future.
> "st.helier" > wrote in message
> ...
>> With the greatest respect, Joe - this has what to do about wine?
>>
>>
>
>

"dick neidich" wrote .........
>
> I agree with you. Nazi Germany kept records like no one kept records and
> that is what made it so possible to locate all the Jews.
>

Hhmmm - let me think about the obvious parallels

Doesn't that wonderful Christian fundamentalist nation, the US of A, tap
phone calls and emails of its own citizens in its own form a paranoid record
keeping?

>
> Amazing the St. Hellier questioned you what this post had to do with wine.
> Hell, the Nazi's loved wine :-)
>

Actually Dick, The Nazis preached abstinence in the name of promoting
national health.


>
> St. Helier cannot really follow any post that does not end in this.
> the Nazis had TCA of the brain.
>


No more than the average tee totaling, "God defend America - land of the
free and the home of the brave" shoot-from-the-lip, nuclear contaminated son
of Uncle Sam !!!!!!!

Get a life Dick !

Why don't you get your ass down here for a real touch of true freedom, like
driving from one end of the country to the other without risking being
thrown in Guantanamo Bay.



--

st.helier

Do some recent posts display the good sense of those Army Messes where
politics was banned from discussion lest they undermine unity of
purpose and interest or am I just failing to understand the sense of
humour of those of other nations?

If there is any excess heat being generated can we invoke the Kyoto
Convention or is that also too controversial?

Tim Hartley

Well st. helier, when you plan your visit here send me you
itinerary...perhaps we can arrange a custom tour for you in guantanamo
bay....

You might find after a day or so there are really no innocents there...they
are the worst of the worst...we probably should have tried them in military
tribunal and shot the guilty afterwards....

NZ is just a dinky country...with population and diversity in todays day
requires different approach to our problems. Your government probably spies
on you too....they just don't let you know.

Go drink another TCA infected wine :-)


"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
> "dick neidich" wrote .........
>>
>> I agree with you. Nazi Germany kept records like no one kept records and
>> that is what made it so possible to locate all the Jews.
>>
>
> Hhmmm - let me think about the obvious parallels
>
> Doesn't that wonderful Christian fundamentalist nation, the US of A, tap
> phone calls and emails of its own citizens in its own form a paranoid
> record keeping?
>
>>
>> Amazing the St. Hellier questioned you what this post had to do with
>> wine. Hell, the Nazi's loved wine :-)
>>
>
> Actually Dick, The Nazis preached abstinence in the name of promoting
> national health.
>
>
>>
>> St. Helier cannot really follow any post that does not end in this.
>> the Nazis had TCA of the brain.
>>
>
>
> No more than the average tee totaling, "God defend America - land of the
> free and the home of the brave" shoot-from-the-lip, nuclear contaminated
> son of Uncle Sam !!!!!!!
>
> Get a life Dick !
>
> Why don't you get your ass down here for a real touch of true freedom,
> like driving from one end of the country to the other without risking
> being thrown in Guantanamo Bay.
>
>
>
> --
>
> st.helier
>

"dick neidich" wrote ..........

>
> Well st. helier, when you plan your visit here send me you itinerary

Advance planning has commenced - we will probably restrict our presence to
the West Coast (CA & AZ) - have always wanted to drive the coastal route
from LA to SF - and take Kathryn to the Grand Canyon.

>
> You might find after a day or so there are really no innocents there
> they are the worst of the worst


Of that I have no doubt - but why doesn't the US abide by international
law, and stop paying lip service to human rights?


> we probably should have tried them

My point exactly - even the worst of the worst deserve a fair trial rather
than questionable incarceration.



> NZ is just a dinky country...with population and diversity today requires
> different approach to our problems.

Absolutely 100% correct - and there is a certain security about hiding
down here in this corner of the South Pacific growing our food and wine in a
nuclear free environment, far from the modern madness of the Northern
hemisphere.



> Your government probably spies on you too....
> they just don't let you know.
>

No Dick, YOUR government spies on us too !!!!!!!!!!!



> Go drink another TCA infected wine :-)
>

With something approaching 80% of all NZ wines now under screwcap closures,
I cannot remember the last time I had a tainted NZ wine.

However, we have friends staying over the weekend: last night we have
several wines, none from NZ, all bottled under cork!

My very first experience with Grüner Veltliner was disappointing.

The wine was Salomon Undhof Wieden GV 2002 - quite lean and mean - but
interestingly, we all found a woodiness which we agreed was because we have
been drinking our local Rieslings and sauvignons bottled under screwcaps for
several years now, we put down to cork influence - not TCA though.

Next up I opened a M. Chapoutier Condrieu 2003 - an absolutely gorgeous
expression of Viognier, so unctuous !

The friend staying is in the wine trade - the red I served is actually
imported by his company - so I decanted and served blind a 2002 Joseph
Nebbiolo from South Australia (scarce as rocking horse crap!)

It took him a while, but by a process of elimination more than anything he
realised my practical joke.

A stunning wine: OK very young but s-o drinkable: fruit, acid and tannin in
perfect balance.

I simply don't know if anyone can find this wine, but it certainly gets an
A+ from me.

--

st.helier

"st.helier" > wrote in message
...



> Advance planning has commenced - we will probably restrict our presence to
> the West Coast (CA & AZ) - have always wanted to drive the coastal route
> from LA to SF - and take Kathryn to the Grand Canyon.

Hope you have a GREAT TRIP!!!! Sounds nice.


> Of that I have no doubt - but why doesn't the US abide by international
> law, and stop paying lip service to human rights?

Uhhh cause they are trying to bring screw caps into country :-)



> My point exactly - even the worst of the worst deserve a fair trial rather
> than questionable incarceration.

Military trial only. These are POW's not entitled to a trial in our courts.
The Supreme Court did not even have the right to rule on this issue in
reality for foreigners captured during war in a foreign country. For those
arrested in USA...that is very different. Our laws will get greatly
challenged and will cause big issues for us.


> No Dick, YOUR government spies on us too !!!!!!!!!!!

We have to spy on you...you are trying to steal our Kiwi Fruit business :-)


> My very first experience with Grüner Veltliner was disappointing.

I have tried several Gruner Veltliners and was not pleased with any of them.
I just think it is not my cup of tea...or wine.


St. Helier...I certainly understand that you guys in NZ have a bad
impression of the USA...but honestly we pay far more in taxes and support a
military that is often deployed lately,. If you dinky countrys had a
military presence that could stop wars, keep the world safe..my taxes would
go down. I think we have the military cause we can afford to do so and
other country don't and won't. Therefore...my proposal is you guys need to
do a better job and we can just let the UN tell you guys what to do. :-0

love and kisses here.

dickie

"Paul Parker" > wrote in message
news:qNLeg.2165$hv1.147@trnddc01...
> Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
> your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such
> thoughts led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's
> mistakes....have a glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
> Paul

And this is why this EU scare story will never go anywhere. Done in
moderation drinking can actually have a beneficial effect on the consumer's
health and no effect whatsoever on others. With smoking, on the other hand,
even small amounts of smoke are injurious to the health of the smoker and
those around him.

No comparison at all.

Bob

Bob Howes wrote:

>
> "Paul Parker" > wrote in message
> news:qNLeg.2165$hv1.147@trnddc01...
> > Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not
> > push your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine.
> > Such thoughts led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's
> > mistakes....have a glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy. Paul
>
> And this is why this EU scare story will never go anywhere. Done in
> moderation drinking can actually have a beneficial effect on the
> consumer's health and no effect whatsoever on others. With smoking,
> on the other hand, even small amounts of smoke are injurious to the
> health of the smoker and those around him.

Whee have you gained your knowledge of the injuries caused by small
amounts of smoke?
The lungs are made to be self healing a bit of smoke will not do any
harm at all.

> No comparison at all.

Wrong.

--
wigwambam

Bob Howes schreef:

> "Paul Parker" > wrote in message
> news:qNLeg.2165$hv1.147@trnddc01...
> > Actually wine has been shown to have health benefits, please do not push
> > your absurd standards on me or those who enjoy food and wine. Such
> > thoughts led to a dark era in US history...learn from other's
> > mistakes....have a glass of wine with your dinner and enjoy.
> > Paul
>
> And this is why this EU scare story will never go anywhere. Done in
> moderation drinking can actually have a beneficial effect on the consumer's
> health and no effect whatsoever on others. With smoking, on the other hand,
> even small amounts of smoke are injurious to the health of the smoker and
> those around him.
>
> No comparison at all.
>
> Bob

Most tobacco smokers are addicts, as opposed to most alcohol users that
are not addicted.
But most pot smokers on the other hand are not addicts and the damage
inflicted by smoking pot is also relatively minor in comparison to
tobacco (or alcohol for that matter).

"dick neidich" wrote ......

>> Advance planning has commenced - we will probably restrict our presence
>> to the West Coast (CA & AZ) - have always wanted to drive
>> the coastal route from LA to SF - and take Kathryn to the Grand Canyon.
>
>
> Hope you have a GREAT TRIP!!!! Sounds nice.

Your good wishes are a little premature - As indicated, our thoughts are
really just that, at present - we have no definite dates etc calendared -
we both loved our trip last year to France, and are anxious to return to see
more - possibly flying into Nice and "doing" the whole Med from Coastal
Tuscany through to Valencia or Málaga in Spain.

Then again, our friends, who stayed the weekend with us have suggested that
the four of us fly to Perth, do the wine regions of Western Australia before
catching ( with a couple cases of Veuve Clicquot or Bollinger) the Indian
Pacific train across the Nullabor to Adelaide before catching up with a few
winemaking acquaintances in South Australia.


> St. Helier...I certainly understand that you guys in NZ
> have a bad impression of the USA.


No Dick, I love the US as a most beautiful country (have visited many times
over the years) - I just don't like the hypocrisy which oozes out of
Washington.

You preach free trade - yet have some of the most protectionist restrictions
You bleat that your taxes are squandered on the military - yet arm and
armaments (with huge govt funding) rivals banking and oil as #1 businesses
in the US
You pay lip service to environmental concerns
In June 1987, when NZ enacted nuclear free legislation - we went from ally
to be rated under both Iraq and Iran on Washington's "favoured" list. (Who
is laughing now?????)

If Americans really want to stop wars, I respectfully suggest that you stop
starting them.

And you are right - NZ is a dinky little country - smaller than the
combined area of Florida and Georgia - population about 1/75th the size of
the US at 4 million.

But we *are* committed to free trade - with a virtual tariff free trading
environment: for decades, NZ has been rated as one of the least corrupt
countries in which to do business.

And, like Australians, we call a spade a bloody spade - we do not pussy
foot around in telling our politicians - "You are wrong - pull your bloody
head(s) in!"

My last word - you can reduce your tax spend on the military tomorrow -
VOTE THE *******S OUT !!!!!

--

st.helier

p.s. love & kisses accepted !!!!!

Way Off Topic:
Voting the *******s out is not an option anymore. G-d himself decreed that
Bush #43 was a divine gift?---why else would the Palm Beach geezers hang
some Chads in 2000---President #44 must accept JC as his savior and deal
with the social agenda..before KY jelly and kinky devices are in every
household...After all the wealth in the US is redirected to the FOV, friends
of the Veep, our military fresh from stalemates in the Mid East, will take
on your kiwis. Gallo & Constellation will strike the first blow, either
buying most wineries or mass producing Kiwi style sauvignon blanc. Once
your economy is bollixed, then the Bush family election team will come in
and make the original inhabitants, the Maori, scapegoats, and elect
"friendly" candidates who will outsource most private industry and have the
boys from Dubai, Houston & Saudi Arabia turn your fiords, mountains, lakes
and islands into several giant malls, theme parks & condo's. Native NZers
get to serve in the US military and be relocated to more suitable vistas.
You do get to keep Vegemite, and Maori rituals and have them front Casinos.
The arrival of Greenpeace will be remembered in your history books as "the
Day of Infamy" and will be one of the rides at Disney's Auckland.
"st.helier" > wrote in message > And, like
Australians, we call a spade a bloody spade - we do not pussy
> foot around in telling our politicians - "You are wrong - pull your bloody
> head(s) in!"
>
> My last word - you can reduce your tax spend on the military tomorrow -
> VOTE THE *******S OUT !!!!!
>
> --
>
> st.helier
>
> p.s. love & kisses accepted !!!!!
>
>

Hey, I do not preach free trade...I would preach fair trade. Totally open,
non subsidized, or no trade.

As for NZ and Aus on Free trade that is also a crock. About 8 years ago I
did a project to sell product in your respective countries....we shipped my
samples to various companies in Aus and NZ but they kept getting seized by
agricultural attaches. There is an international tarriff code that was
present on my products but it would not clear your customs in either
country.

Trust me when I say this...you guys play games too when it comes to "Free
Trade". My products were denied access to market solely because they were
agricultural. I was told the in Aus. that they would not allow in due to
its local competition. NZ never would respond as to why they were denied.

Are you sure your market is totally open. I am not sure of that.


"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
>
> But we *are* committed to free trade - with a virtual tariff free trading
> environment: for decades, NZ has been rated as one of the least corrupt
> countries in which to do business.

to funny. :-)



"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" > wrote in message
...
> Way Off Topic:
> Voting the *******s out is not an option anymore. G-d himself decreed
> that
> Bush #43 was a divine gift?---why else would the Palm Beach geezers hang
> some Chads in 2000---President #44 must accept JC as his savior and deal
> with the social agenda..before KY jelly and kinky devices are in every
> household...After all the wealth in the US is redirected to the FOV,
> friends
> of the Veep, our military fresh from stalemates in the Mid East, will take
> on your kiwis. Gallo & Constellation will strike the first blow, either
> buying most wineries or mass producing Kiwi style sauvignon blanc. Once
> your economy is bollixed, then the Bush family election team will come in
> and make the original inhabitants, the Maori, scapegoats, and elect
> "friendly" candidates who will outsource most private industry and have
> the
> boys from Dubai, Houston & Saudi Arabia turn your fiords, mountains, lakes
> and islands into several giant malls, theme parks & condo's. Native NZers
> get to serve in the US military and be relocated to more suitable vistas.
> You do get to keep Vegemite, and Maori rituals and have them front
> Casinos.
> The arrival of Greenpeace will be remembered in your history books as "the
> Day of Infamy" and will be one of the rides at Disney's Auckland.
> "st.helier" > wrote in message > And, like
> Australians, we call a spade a bloody spade - we do not pussy
>> foot around in telling our politicians - "You are wrong - pull your
>> bloody
>> head(s) in!"
>>
>> My last word - you can reduce your tax spend on the military
>> omorrow -
>> VOTE THE *******S OUT !!!!!
>>
>> --
>>
>> st.helier
>>
>> p.s. love & kisses accepted !!!!!
>>
>>
>
>

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:26:45 +1200, "st.helier"
> wrote:

Ahhh, I love to talk about wines, but when you tweak the political
nose of an former US military man who coincidentally teaches political
science, I've got to rebut a bit. Many of your comments are certainly
grounded in fact, but many are weighted heavily with media
sound-biting that doesn't consider the total issue. So, interspersed
below, I note:
>
>No Dick, I love the US as a most beautiful country (have visited many times
>over the years) - I just don't like the hypocrisy which oozes out of
>Washington.
>
>You preach free trade - yet have some of the most protectionist restrictions

Spot on. While theoretically the Dems are pro-labor, the Reps are
supposed to be free market. Unfortunately political expediency has
drastically deteriorated that posture. We do have a lot of
protectionism but it should be noted that much of it is retaliatory.
(Note that Oz and NZ wines enter this country and compete quite
effectively in this environment.) Also please take a look at NAFTA as
a parallel to the EU market for minimal tarriffs.

>You bleat that your taxes are squandered on the military - yet arm and
>armaments (with huge govt funding) rivals banking and oil as #1 businesses
>in the US

Unfortunately drawing a parallel between US and anyone else in the
world regarding military requirements isn't possible. We've got global
responsibilities (admittedly debateable by some, but it seems as
though much of the world expects a bit of protection from us.) It
should be noted that as a percentage of GDP, our military spending is
reasonably low. The bleating comes from the welfare mentality which
think that all money should be taken from the "rich" (i.e. working
people) and distributed to the "poor" (i.e. lazy, uneducated,
dependent class.)

>You pay lip service to environmental concerns

Sorry, not true at all. We concern ourselves with environmental issues
both nationally and globally. Our smog levels are the lowest since the
'50s due to environmental actions for example. Our major lakes and
water ways have been significantly improved in the last forty years
(the Cayahoga River hasn't burned in decades!).

Oh, you mean Kyoto? Well we aren't the only industrialized nation that
hasn't signed. Balance between economic impact and symbolic actions
shouldn't be ignored.

>In June 1987, when NZ enacted nuclear free legislation - we went from ally
>to be rated under both Iraq and Iran on Washington's "favoured" list. (Who
>is laughing now?????)

Somewhat self-serving. You remain under the protection of our nuclear
umbrella, but you posture as some sort of holier-than-thou non-nuclear
peace-source nation. We love you anyway.
>
>If Americans really want to stop wars, I respectfully suggest that you stop
>starting them.

Yeah, just kill our people, destroy our major trade centers, attack
our capitol and we'll turn the other cheek. Please go back and check
on when WW I started--also WW II--also Korea--also Indochina and note
then when the US entered. Oh, you want to bracket your history
tighter? Who invaded Kuwait in 1990? Who initiated 9/11 (not a
national actor.)
>
>And you are right - NZ is a dinky little country - smaller than the
>combined area of Florida and Georgia - population about 1/75th the size of
>the US at 4 million.
>
>But we *are* committed to free trade - with a virtual tariff free trading
>environment: for decades, NZ has been rated as one of the least corrupt
>countries in which to do business.

Commendable. I particularly respect the lack of corruption.
>
>And, like Australians, we call a spade a bloody spade - we do not pussy
>foot around in telling our politicians - "You are wrong - pull your bloody
>head(s) in!"

And, we do not pussy foot around in telling other nations that we make
our own policy through our own political process which you may have
difficulty observing from 14,000 miles away.
>
>My last word - you can reduce your tax spend on the military tomorrow -
>VOTE THE *******S OUT !!!!!

Sorry, but the *******s we've got are the *******s we want. And, the
alternative is much weaker, much more socialist, much less free-market
and much more destructive of peace (recall Carter? LBJ?).

Now, let's share some good wine and get back to business.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Don't forget the 31% approval rating on Bush currently. I think Bush is
shooting for the 20% approval ratings. They weren't that low for Lincoln
during the Civil war.

Our policy was 100% accurate. The execution of policy has been greatly
flawed.

All that said...the alternative were weak as you stated.

Plus...NZ and Aus are really not free trade either. Like I said earlier..I
could not even get my samples to the account in the respective countries as
they kept getting seized by agricultural agents for their Customs.

Its all a sham on that note. We all do what is in our own best interest.
To make that seem like its American only...it BS.




"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:26:45 +1200, "st.helier"
> > wrote:
>
> Ahhh, I love to talk about wines, but when you tweak the political
> nose of an former US military man who coincidentally teaches political
> science, I've got to rebut a bit. Many of your comments are certainly
> grounded in fact, but many are weighted heavily with media
> sound-biting that doesn't consider the total issue. So, interspersed
> below, I note:
>>
>>No Dick, I love the US as a most beautiful country (have visited many
>>times
>>over the years) - I just don't like the hypocrisy which oozes out of
>>Washington.
>>
>>You preach free trade - yet have some of the most protectionist
>>restrictions
>
> Spot on. While theoretically the Dems are pro-labor, the Reps are
> supposed to be free market. Unfortunately political expediency has
> drastically deteriorated that posture. We do have a lot of
> protectionism but it should be noted that much of it is retaliatory.
> (Note that Oz and NZ wines enter this country and compete quite
> effectively in this environment.) Also please take a look at NAFTA as
> a parallel to the EU market for minimal tarriffs.
>
>>You bleat that your taxes are squandered on the military - yet arm and
>>armaments (with huge govt funding) rivals banking and oil as #1 businesses
>>in the US
>
> Unfortunately drawing a parallel between US and anyone else in the
> world regarding military requirements isn't possible. We've got global
> responsibilities (admittedly debateable by some, but it seems as
> though much of the world expects a bit of protection from us.) It
> should be noted that as a percentage of GDP, our military spending is
> reasonably low. The bleating comes from the welfare mentality which
> think that all money should be taken from the "rich" (i.e. working
> people) and distributed to the "poor" (i.e. lazy, uneducated,
> dependent class.)
>
>>You pay lip service to environmental concerns
>
> Sorry, not true at all. We concern ourselves with environmental issues
> both nationally and globally. Our smog levels are the lowest since the
> '50s due to environmental actions for example. Our major lakes and
> water ways have been significantly improved in the last forty years
> (the Cayahoga River hasn't burned in decades!).
>
> Oh, you mean Kyoto? Well we aren't the only industrialized nation that
> hasn't signed. Balance between economic impact and symbolic actions
> shouldn't be ignored.
>
>>In June 1987, when NZ enacted nuclear free legislation - we went from ally
>>to be rated under both Iraq and Iran on Washington's "favoured" list.
>>(Who
>>is laughing now?????)
>
> Somewhat self-serving. You remain under the protection of our nuclear
> umbrella, but you posture as some sort of holier-than-thou non-nuclear
> peace-source nation. We love you anyway.
>>
>>If Americans really want to stop wars, I respectfully suggest that you
>>stop
>>starting them.
>
> Yeah, just kill our people, destroy our major trade centers, attack
> our capitol and we'll turn the other cheek. Please go back and check
> on when WW I started--also WW II--also Korea--also Indochina and note
> then when the US entered. Oh, you want to bracket your history
> tighter? Who invaded Kuwait in 1990? Who initiated 9/11 (not a
> national actor.)
>>
>>And you are right - NZ is a dinky little country - smaller than the
>>combined area of Florida and Georgia - population about 1/75th the size of
>>the US at 4 million.
>>
>>But we *are* committed to free trade - with a virtual tariff free trading
>>environment: for decades, NZ has been rated as one of the least corrupt
>>countries in which to do business.
>
> Commendable. I particularly respect the lack of corruption.
>>
>>And, like Australians, we call a spade a bloody spade - we do not pussy
>>foot around in telling our politicians - "You are wrong - pull your bloody
>>head(s) in!"
>
> And, we do not pussy foot around in telling other nations that we make
> our own policy through our own political process which you may have
> difficulty observing from 14,000 miles away.
>>
>>My last word - you can reduce your tax spend on the military tomorrow -
>>VOTE THE *******S OUT !!!!!
>
> Sorry, but the *******s we've got are the *******s we want. And, the
> alternative is much weaker, much more socialist, much less free-market
> and much more destructive of peace (recall Carter? LBJ?).
>
> Now, let's share some good wine and get back to business.
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Richard Neidich" wrote ...............
>
> Hey, I do not preach free trade...I would preach fair trade. Totally
> open, non subsidized, or no trade.
>
> As for NZ and Aus on Free trade that is also a crock.
> About 8 years ago I did a project to sell product in your respective
> countries we shipped my samples to various companies in Aus and NZ but
> they kept getting seized by agricultural attaches.

Obviously, I cannot comment on Australia.

NZ depends heavily on agriculture - and we have an almost paranoic attitude
to the importation of all primary produce.

This whole country would be bankrupt if even one proven case of foot and
mouth disease was discovered.

That said, provided the documentation is complete and correct - you should
have had no problems: Are you sure that all the required declarations were
spick and span?

There is any amount of American produce (fresh fruit etc) and other products
down here - I am even looking at buying a (used) Cadillac (1998 Seville
SLS !)

Without making a catagorical denial, I am 99.9% sure that your problems
*were not* blocked on trade protectionist grounds - more like the Neidich
family live in a known Foor & Mouth danger zone, and your pet dog died of
rabies.

>
> Are you sure your market is totally open. I am not sure of that.
>

Hey, I am not suggesting that we are 100% tariff free - but, issues of
agricultural border restrictions aside (you will be heavily fined if you
even try to bring raw fruit into a NZ airport from overseas!) - I believe
that I am on safe grounds in stating that we are a paragon of free trade
virtue.

Send all the wine you want - the reason US wine is not imported is that
with the $US1 = $NZ1.60, and US wine being a comparatively expensive
commodity (by NZ standards) - you are just prices out of the market.

A wine which retails in the US for (say) $US40 would sell here for something
like $NZ75+. With the very best NZ Pinot Noir selling for way less than
that, and a whole range of Aussie reds just over the Tasman - some excellent
stuff on the shelves here for $NZ20-40, we just do not see much by way of US
wines on our shelves.

--

st.helier