Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Nov 2006 06:16 In article <4557D798.93FCF98D(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >krw wrote: > >> There are others that don't "need" a "living wage". > >Very rich ppl ? Dependents. As in children and teenagers and humans who are about to have to support themselves or be forever on welfare. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Nov 2006 06:40 In article <j6l9l2914tfv63ue83ugqup502mj0ne188(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Fri, 10 Nov 06 14:01:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >><snip> >>In this medium, the only way to figure out if I'm wrong is >>to say something and let people stomp all over it. I do >>not know of any other way to learn. Passive doesn't work >>in newsgroups. My style for firguring things out >>is definitely not passive; I am not patient enough to wait >>for the divine to hand me answers. I go looking for them. > >I read the entire reply, but don't feel motivated to respond to each >part individually. You seem to keep bringing up _your_ idea (and it >is NOT supportable by records of the discussions of the time) that >this was about people with superior abilities to get things done (my >paraphrasing, not your words.) You point out "the way new people got >to learn," and so on, and that's how it comes across -- that this was >a necessary approach to an almost 'parent/child' kind of relationship >between those with wealth and those without. I think that argument >can be made, of course. Those with wealth had access to education and >a breadth of view simply unavailable to those born without ready >access to resources and the time to think deeply. (This very >discussion here is evidence of your point and that this continues >today, as I'm lucky enough to have been born in the US and have an >education and can spend some of my time thinking about and worrying >over various ideals about how we may improve our society; whereas >there are many people in the world who cannot afford this luxury and >must simply focus on staying alive for a time.) My approach to learning how things work is to trace the knowledge flow with its eddies, stops, etc. When studying civilizations' evolutions, this seems to be key along with trade. It's still my workframe in trying to figure out what goes wrong. One of my methods of learning specifics is to try to figure out what physical work makes things go. Foreign policy, statesmanship, banking, federal reserves, etc. are very mysterious to me. > >But again, although I understand how you might argue that this _may_ >have been a motivation (because there is logic to your argument), it >is the case that this was not the argument being made, even if it was >an underlying assumption made as part of it. However, their argumetns >went further than this, and frankly I'm not inclined to believe that >the arguments they did make were insincere or disingenuous. My thinking was wrong. I figure I have about hundred more books to read before I can start to correct it. > >George Mason's, "The true idea is that every man having evidence of >attachment to the society, and permanent common interest with it, >ought to share in all its rights and privileges," pretty much spells >out clearly the rest of what I've read them saying. Although I >suspect they many of them may have shared the idea that wealth and >education put them in better stead (Franklin did NOT share this idea, >nor did Butler, nor did Rutledge, to name three), they were more >concerned and focused upon the idea Mason expressed clearly and >directly. > >Mason had earlier initiated a discussion on the narrow point of >suffrage, saying, "Eight or nine states have extended the right of >suffrage beyond the freeholders. What will the people there say if >any should be disfranchised?" It was his opinion that some of these >people _should_ perhaps become disenfranchised and he was worried >about how those people in those states would react to a federal >constitution that _might_ serve to undo what had already been done for >them. In the end, this was left up to the states to avoid the >conflict, allowing the states to select the means by which >representatives would be selected for congress. But it was already >the case that those without wealth and the pinnacle of education were >already enjoying the right of suffrage in some of the states. So this >wasn't a new discussion and at least to some of the states, it had >already been decided in favor of all and not just a few. So there is >also experience with broader suffrage. > >I don't mean to conflate the two ideas: that of a right to suffrage >to select representatives and that of a right to _be_ a representative >who votes in congress. They are distinct ideas, but related. Which >is why all this came up in the span of a week or two in the federal >convention. > >There were other parts of these discussions I've studied but didn't >include here for brevity. I'm not basing my opinion upon just those >quotes I've selected for you. But from many, many hours of reading >their own words in context. For example, foreigners was a concern >brought up in this context, because again they do not have permanent >common interests they share. It really was about the level of common >interest, personal motivation, and not so much about being a better or >wiser "parent," so to speak. (Though that may have been underneath >some of what was said, as an unstated assumption.) > >By the way, when the prior articles of confederation were framed and >the idea of intercitizenship first developed for it, it included most >everyone who was a part of the overall community, but specifically >excluded paupers, vagabonds, fugitives, and slaves. Combined with the >fact of many states including specific suffrage for more than a >wealthy few (under This was the setting leading into the federal >convention. > >My point is simple, your comments seem based on your reasoning about >what _may_ have been, not about what actually _was_. I recommend that >the latter takes precedence over the earlier. Yes, definitely. I'm trying to catch up on my history learning. It had been grossly neglected for 50 years. > >I don't often get a chance to apply what I'm learning as a hobbyist on >this period of time, though, so I thank you for the excuse to write a >little about it. Thank you for doing the writeups and the gentle scolding. Once in a while, you may borrow my vitual baseball bat if I get too set in my ways. This was not a good thread to talk sense; I was so buried in nonsense I did not realize I was reading motes of sanity. My apologies for being a dufus(sp?). /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Nov 2006 06:47 In article <d4b1c$45574288$49ecffa$23510(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <T9m5h.2411$6t.94(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej4k9c$8ss_030(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>In article <sq15h.3588$IR4.1362(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. >>>>>>>It eliminates wage competition. >>>>> >>>>>Only at the bottom end. Everyone else still competes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> People's real productivity is >>>>>>>no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >>>>> >>>>>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any time >>>>>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>$10k/year? Yes. >>>>> >>>>>That's not living. >>>> >>>>You don't that. It is only your opinion that's not living. >>>>People do live on that kind of cash flow. >>> >>>And what you conveniently snipped is the fact that, in order to reach the >>>poverty level, someone would have to nearly double that wage. Living in >>>poverty isn't "living", it's "existing". There's a big difference. >> >> >> I will continue to snip the rest of a message if it starts >> being useless to me. >> >> I "lived" in poverty when a child but I didn't know it. You >> have middle class values and have no idea what is required for >> living. > >I never met anyone who grew up during the great depression >who didn't think they had a good life and a good childhood >on account of not having much. My folks were on farms and knew they were a lot better off than cityfolk who did not grow their own food. They also knew how to make their own things and did. > >Take the model of hunter-gatherer tribes. They wouldn't >begin to understand a value system that thought they are >just "existing." Still the totality of their posessions >was limited to what they could carry. That kind of thinking goes hand-in-hand with this "career" nonsense. I keep running into people who have the attitude that the only jobs they will ever do are those that have to do with their "career" whatever the hell means. IOW, even if they have no money and no posh jobs are available, they will not go out and get a job that pays for their labor. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Nov 2006 06:50 In article <zLydneSYPPpJzcrYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej7fr2$8qk_045(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <zYSdnU6Ae7GypsvYnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej4k9c$8ss_030(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <sq15h.3588$IR4.1362(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. >>>>>>> It eliminates wage competition. >>>>> >>>>>Only at the bottom end. Everyone else still competes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> People's real productivity is >>>>>>> no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >>>>> >>>>>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any >>>>>time >>>>>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $10k/year? Yes. >>>>> >>>>>That's not living. >>>> >>>> You don't that. It is only your opinion that's not living. >>>> People do live on that kind of cash flow. >>> >>>Yeah but normally do-gooder ex-popstars have charity events to support >>>them. >> >> I had myself down to $12K. > >Well, if you let Bono know, I am sure he can arrange for coloured bracelet >to be made in a third world sweat shop to raise awareness of your plight. I would not accept a cent. You don't get it, do you? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Nov 2006 06:53
In article <iMqdndygs8fA08rYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej725c$8ss_002(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <Tel5h.2388$6t.1435(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej4gig$8ss_012(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> Why do you think Arabs asked >>>> the western world for help? In all other cases, this would have >>>> been unthinkable. >>> >>>No, that the house of Saud is a US puppet is widely acknowledged around >>>the >>>world. Not unthinkable at all. It just happened to be a slightly neater >>>way of getting things done. >> >> You have a lot of delusions. I'd like to figure out how you got >> them. >> > >Oh no, another irony meter bites the dust. > >Are you asserting here that the Saudi royal family are not widely considered >a government which is obedient to the US? I'm not asserting. It is politcally dangerous for a Muslim to be associated with Western culture unless that piece of culture has been approved by the Imams (I think that's the name of the people who do approvals). /BAH |