Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 8 Nov 2006 15:59 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > > > > I object because they're not heavy industry. > > Agreed. We've evolved into a country that only knows how to invent better > and better ways to serve each other hamburgers. We're now a heavily > service-based economy...it's been getting worse and worse since about 1945, > and what comes next can't be good. According to the suits, Britain is now a post-industrial economy. Manufacturing contributes ~ only 14.7% of the GDP now according to the TV nooz the other day. I wonder just how long this is sutainable ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Nov 2006 16:01 unsettled wrote: > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > > >>I object because they're not heavy industry. > > > > Agreed. We've evolved into a country that only knows how to invent better > > and better ways to serve each other hamburgers. We're now a heavily > > service-based economy...it's been getting worse and worse since about 1945, > > and what comes next can't be good. > > We need a broad based mix of business types. JHC ! It said something sensible ! Graham
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 8 Nov 2006 16:03 On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 03:15:13 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <87663$455065eb$4fe724c$5663(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >[....] >>> What traditional American values would these be? There never was a >>> golden age. It is a myth we all like to belive but if you look at the >>> past you find the horrors of today plus some. >>> >>> >>>>You know, the >>>>folks who made America great in the first place! >>> >>> >>> Read up on Franklin. You will find that he and most of the others who >>> made America great in the first place would make the religious right >>> blanch. >> >>What you've done this morning in two posts is to disclose >>the low esteem in which you hold people. > >You missed the word "some" in that. I hold some people in low esteem >because that is all they deserve. > >> You seem to have >>some idea that the base element always prevails. > >No, I don't hold any such belief nor can I imagine how you concluded that >from what I posted. > > >>The facts are somewhat different. Each human exhibits some >>degree of discontinuity in how they conduct their lives. >>Franklin did manage to achieve some pretty significant >>things, especially for someone whose first calling was >>as a tradesman/printer. > >That Franklin did some amazing stuff and all is absolutely true. He is >one of the people that made the US great. He was exactly the sort of >person that made the US great. He was not anything like a member of the >christian right. Ben Franklin, like most of us in our own lives, went through religious transitions. In his earlier days he followed more that of a pious moralist, then during his period in London he was at least an agnostic if not an outright atheist, then finally settled down into a pragmatic state of mind, feeling that man is the measure of virtue, not that virtue is the measure of man. His epiphany is spelled out in this comment, "I entertained an opinion, that although certain actions might not be bad _because_ they were fobidden by it, or good _because_ it commanded them, yet probably those actions might be forbidden _because_ they were bad for us, or commanded _because_ they were good for us." This was a kind of inverted version of moral cause and effect and it lit his later life. He concluded, considering the vastness of our universe, that if there was a God, that it would be "great vanity in me to suppose that the Supremely Perfect does in the least regard such an inconsiderable nothing as man." He felt a desire in the end to pay his respects "to something" but more as a matter of satisfying his own needs and nothing at all about believing that there was any kind of personal God. In fact, he didn't believe in such a thing at all towards the latter part of his life. Meanwhile, many of the others were Deists, which the modern Christian right would see as heathens of the worse sort. Even Washington, though more religious than many, would probably considered heretical. He completely endorsed Jefferson's view of the religious separation of church and state in a speech he made as President in the fall of 1789 at a Jewish synagogue in Newport -- and Jefferson's view of this was a VERY HIGH barrier, indeed. From one side to another, religion was to be kept out of government. Even _before_ the Philadelphia convention and before the US came to be, but soon after the US was granted vast territories in their cessation of hostilities with Britain, the earlier federal congress worried about surveying the huge area they'd won and about how to encourage people to emigrate out and develop them. Although Jefferson argued for 10x10 mile townships (first reading was in May 1784), they settled upon William Grayson's (he had been an aide-de-camp to Washington during the war) 6x6 as the size. With 36 square miles per township and after many other considerations were dealt with, it then came to the idea of wondering if there should be any special purposes assigned to any of land within each township. Timothy Pickering from Philadelphia addressed 'most earnest' letters to Rufus King, for example, complaining that no reservation of land was made for the support of ministers of the gospel, nor even for schools. In 1785, on April 12th, 1785, the committee for framing an ordinance for the disposal of the western lands finally made their report to the general congress, written by Grayson. It was a land law for people to go and to take possession of a seemingly endless domain. Formed out of differing opinions, but as an inducement for neighborhoods of the same religious sentiments to confederate for the purpose of purchasing and settling together, the division into townships was to have a perpetual reservation of one mile square in every township for the support of religion and another for the support of education. The house refused its assent to the reservation for the support of religion, as connecting the church with the state; but the reservation for the support of schools received a general welcome. And that is what passed. Keep in mind, this is _before_ the Philadelphia convention or the framing of the US Constitution and its later debate before ratification. Ben Franklin was one of the more liberal folks of his time, but in no way were there ANY people involved in any significant way with the US Constitution's formation, with views similar to those of the religious right today. Frankly, I think they would all be shocked to the core by them, in fact. To a person. Ben Franklin recalls something else to mind, by the way. He was one of those speaking out and opposing, in the Philidelphia convention, the idea that wealth should have anything to do with one's ability to be a "faithful guardian of liberty," as they discussed then. Here is a quip from Franklin on August 7th, 1787 with a preface of sorts, made during a heated discussion regarding some wealth requirements for service in the courts and legislatures of the US. At the time, and honestly since too, many felt that only those with land/wealth could truly be trusted with having a long term common interest in its future success. To many of our US founders, the common people weren't to be trusted. During the debates in Philadelphia on that day, Madison said: "In future times, a grea
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Nov 2006 10:25 In article <eislr0$8qk_007(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eiq592$qnu$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <eipt15$8qk_002(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <454FA606.6BE1BCE2(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> > >>>>> > My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >>>>> > no checks nor balances. >>>>> >>>>> ...and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has been >>>>> for the entire country. >>>> >>>>She doesn't think that Republicans require any checks and balances. That's >>>>what's really scary as they gradually dismantlke the provisions of the US >>>>Constitution ! >>> >>>The Republicans do not have a voting majority in Congress. >> >>Uh, they have more than 50% of the House and Senate. Except for the few >>things the Constitution requires to be by supermajorities, that IS a voting >>majority. > >No. You seem to think that all Republicans will "obey" the >President and ignore their constituencies. They will not. >So far, these politicians know which side their elective >bread is buttered. I'm seeing this changing in my state. >I hope it doesn't creep up to the Fed level. > >/BAH Ah, then you meant to say "Bush does not have a voting majority." However, except for immigration, what has the Republican Congress failed to give him?
From: lucasea on 8 Nov 2006 16:21
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45524591.4A629FE7(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> >> >>I object because they're not heavy industry. >> > >> > Agreed. We've evolved into a country that only knows how to invent >> > better >> > and better ways to serve each other hamburgers. We're now a heavily >> > service-based economy...it's been getting worse and worse since about >> > 1945, >> > and what comes next can't be good. >> >> We need a broad based mix of business types. > > JHC ! > > It said something sensible ! Yes, I was amazed. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, by sheer chance. Eric Lucas |