Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 20:39 Don Bowey wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Don Bowey wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> krw wrote: > >>>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >>>>> krw wrote: > >>>>>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't > >>>>>>>>> delved into why that is. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It's possible that medical technology is too good. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Drugs in the inner cities, mainly. > >>>>> > >>>>> I could believe that but I fail to see where medical technology comes into > >>>>> it. > >>>> > >>>> The mothers are crack whores who don't seek medical care (they > >>>> would be found to be crack whores). These mothers then give birth > >>>> to crack addicted infants, usually prematurely and beyond hope, > >>>> though everything possible is still attempted. > >>>> > >>>>> It also sounds fwiw like another failing of US society when it comes to > >>>>> social > >>>>> issues. Pure capitalism is rather poor at dealing with these. > >>>> > >>>> Socialism is worse, as evidenced by "The Great Society", which was > >>>> the direct *cause* of much of this mess. > >>> > >>> Since when has the USA had socialism ? > >>> > >>> Graham > >> > >> There have been "pockets of socialism in the US, including one (productive > >> and profitable) in Alaska, which remained when the Territory of Alaska > >> became a state. It had no problem inter-working with US law. > > > > I'm sure it wouldn't. > > > > How did this example in Alaska come about ? > > > > Graham > > > I don't know the town's history. > > When I visited (by rented motorboat from Ketchikan), the obvious "means of > production" included a fishing fleet, a cannery, and a timber mill. The > largish island had good timber. There may have been more. I talked with a > few people and found that the neer-do-well characters in the town were > supported, but did not share the larger portion of income of those who > worked. > > I think the US may have paid a lease for use of the land on which the Air > Force had an airfield, which was also used by commercial flights. > > My guess is the citizens of Metakatla were astute enough to see that they > would do better by owning everything than by delivering their fish and > timber to some corporate cannery and mill. Right. This is Co-op thinking. It played a part in the birth of the British Labour Party. Co-ops make a heck of a lot of sense. It might be seen as benevolent quasi-capitalism where the capital is jointly funded. The co-op's members are in effect its 'shareholders'. Indeed traditional co-ops here used to issue a small 'divi' - meaning dividend - with all purchases. > Alaska's natives always seemed > to come out with less than a fair share of things, and this community had a > good solution. Sounds like it. > By the way, the state of Alaska makes an annual payment to all it's > citizens, according to their longevity in the Territory and State. This > money comes from payments received by the state for oil removed from AK by > the oil companies. Is this "socialist" or just a fair return of funds to > the citizens? That would perhaps depend on your political stance. It certainly sounds fair to me. Cheers, Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 20:41 Don Bowey wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested > > contracts. > > > > Graham > > You just went to the top my extreme-nonsense-author list. You reckon the need for re-construction wasn't considered until after the event ? Why were British companies excluded from tendering ? Graham
From: Don Klipstein on 25 Nov 2006 20:43 In article <26efc$4568e781$4fe7791$11166(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> I think of feudal systems as being very multilayered. The top guy bosses >> the next layer down around a lot but he also needs their support. >> Everything is nominally owned by the top guy but as a practical matter it >> is often owned by the next layer down. > >> Communism needn't have a large number of layers. It is as you say where >> the means of production is owned by the state. I don't think they can >> maintain that mindset without also assuming that the state will do a good >> job of running things. > >Old habits die hard. Look at the guy who just died of poisoning >in England. > >> [..communism on small scale vs large..] > >>>So the experiment is done, and so far as those >>>of us who undertand it, the impossibility of having an >>>effective large scale communism is proved impossible. > >> I almost think we need to call large scale and small scale communism >> different things. When the ruled and the ruler are no longer in direct >> touch with each other, a whole new dynamic sets in. > >Possibly it is that a gang mentality sets in, I don't >know. Perhaps that's why out multiple tiers in the US >work reasonably well. Maybe there is a gang mentality in recently-Communist Russia, and similar gang mentality in political parties that have enjoyed many years of rule! - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 20:39 T Wake wrote: > "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:phineaspuddleduck-0E0983.00291726112006(a)free.teranews.com... > >>In article <FOCdnQH6YZ2HQvXYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Well, not so much idiot but total lack of _any_ grasp of History. It has >>>been a fair while since our monarch had "absolute power." >> >>If one of course wanted to be totally picky and vindictive, you could >>point out it was not that much further after the US was founded. > > > ROTFL. > > You're as much a dunce as Puddledick.
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 20:39
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > In article <FOCdnQH6YZ2HQvXYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>Well, not so much idiot but total lack of _any_ grasp of History. It has >>been a fair while since our monarch had "absolute power." > > > If one of course wanted to be totally picky and vindictive, you could > point out it was not that much further after the US was founded. > Magna Carta limited the power of the king in 1215. It was more than 5 more centuries before the US was founded. But you're Welsh, so what would you know.... |