Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 27 Nov 2006 12:15 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekep3f$8qk_013(a)s966.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ekco6n$g1o$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ekc2ig$8ss_002(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <ek9rql$lag$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <ek9i5l$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>[....] >>>>>It's similar to my inability to understand >>>>>how royalty functioned in Europe. >>>> >>>>It isn't that complicated. >>> >>>You don't understand what I'm talking about. I can't explain it >>>better. >> >>Ok, I guess I don't. > > Let me try. I was told the story of a king who was so ill > he should have been in bed. However, because he was king > he had to attend a function where he had to sit for hours > and hours. Because he did his kingly duty instead of treating > his infection, he died from the infection. I was told that > the option of skipping this function would have never occurred > to royalty as a choice. > > I don't think I can ever understand that flavor of a mindset. > But Europeans have no trouble understanding it; they even > expect it. I have personal experience of a similar situation, but different in a key aspect. One of the assistant directors at a US company I worked for literally worked himself into the grave. He had been advised by his doctor to quit and have a healthier life but due to (I assume) either dedication to the job, or dedication to the pay-packet he was getting, he ignored this advice and worked all the way to his heart attack. Over the years, I have worked with probably equal numbers of Americans, Europeans and Brits who share this (IMHO) insane work ethic. Not all have been royalty either.
From: T Wake on 27 Nov 2006 12:25 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekervb$8qk_004(a)s966.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456AF174.B3062C0E(a)hotmail.com>, <snip> > I'm still trying to learn how you run your country. You might want to remember this when you try to tell _us_ how _our_ country is run.
From: T Wake on 27 Nov 2006 12:34 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekepbd$8qk_014(a)s966.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4569E7A3.48FF43B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >>Thatcher was quite mad. >>> > >>> > I saw no evidence of madness in her book about her years in Downing >>> > Street. >>> >>> That really doesnt surprise me. >>> >>> >>She reckoned you could run a country like a small high street shop. >>> >>She >>> > fancied >>> >>herself as royalty of a type too. Quite barking mad, like an eccentric >>> >>aunt perhaps. >>> > >>> > This is your conclusion because she stopped obeying union leaders >>> > who were Communists and had a clear agenda of instilling this >>> > political theory in all corners of your country? >>> >>> Incorrect. It is a conclusion because she dismantled the UK's industry >>> and >>> devastated the UK economy for the next decade. >> >>And used the income from North Sea oil to pay to keep 4 miilion was it ? >>on > the >>dole. > > Which is an example of her mindset still quite socialist. Nothing could be further from the truth. This just shows you _really_ do not know what you are talking about. > It is > the duty of "royalty" to tend to his subjects. When that > responsibility tranfers from an extended family to a political > non-entity, it's socialism that quickly turns to some form > of communism. Gibberish. Please, when you are in a hole, stop digging. >> >>As a result the UK never really benefitted from being an oil exporting > nation. >> >>Yet more missed opportunities. > > Are they still on the dole? No. Unemployment is currently very low. > And do you not export oil yet? We were exporting oil. > Thatcher has been out for two decades. Do you really want > me to believe that it's her fault that your citizry still > can't be self-sufficient without government handouts? Where on Earth did this come from? You really do know nothing about the UK. Honestly, the best thing I can tell you is that when you really don't know *anything* about a subject, don't try to make proclamations about that subject.
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2006 12:45 John Fields wrote: > Bottom line is that even if I do stretch the truth I'm not being > hypocritical and excusing my behavior by stating that two wrongs > don't make a right, Graham _is_ by trying to throw the > responsibility for his actions on someone else. Eh ? What did I do ??? > Do you understand? I'm quite baffled. Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Nov 2006 12:50
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:6f64d$456af1d5$4fe771a$31908(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:a5561$456a320c$4fe4a0f$24482(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>>In article <24c3f$4569e4d0$4fe775f$22843(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>[... crack addicts ....] >>>> >>>> >>>>>Well if the Brits want to help them so much...... >>>> >>>> >>>>If it cost $10 a day to keep them off drugs, it is cheaper than putting >>>>them in jail. The brits want to help them. This may be the more >>>>practical answer even though I don't see how they can keep an addict >>>>away from drugs. >>> >>>That's really the whole point. They can't be kept away from >>>drugs unless they're confined, and even then for various >>>reasons guards in any number of jurisdictions have been >>>known to sneak drugs to them. >> >> >> Which is why spending money to jail them is not a good option, unless the >> intention is to detain the offender for the rest of their life - >> eventually they are released and are allowed to cause problems back in >> polite society. > > The druggie problem is usually a dual one. The largest > percentage resort to crime to acquire the funds with > which to purchase. Long term incarceration tends to reduce > the crime rate. Very true. The problem is the longer the incarceration, the less able the addict is to function at any level outside of jail. With long term, prolific offenders, long term jail sentences may be the best (only?) option. With minor, young, offenders sending them into the penal system (with its associated impact on future employment and the like) may only make the problem worse. > For women, the crime is usually prostitution in the most > careless modes, and that yields to disease transmission. Fair one. Sadly, for some women prostitution is the only job they are qualified for. Even if the drug addict cleans up in jail, when they are released if they cant find work, turning tricks is a good way to get enough money to live and once they are back into that lifestyle, re-addiction is (IMHO of course) almost certain. >> Treatment is not massively effective, but it is slightly more effective >> than detention. > > I can accept that even without proof. These maters have been > argued to death for decades. > >> If it does prove to be cheaper over the long term then the low pass rate >> may become a moot point as generally cost wins most arguments for >> spending public money. > > This is one realm where studies help. The government used to > put out a triennial report on drug addiction. I haven't seen > the last two or three. Sadly, publishing studies about drug related offences seem to have tailed off over here as well. I suspect they do not make "good reading" with regards to the war on drugs. >> There is always the option to just shoot them, but that is pretty >> drastic. > > I was suggesting we ship them to the UK. :-) Always an option, I suppose....... >>>There's what appears to be an insurmountable problem dealing >>>with addicts and addiction. Empathy and kindness is taken >>>as a sign of weakness to be used to advantage against anyone >>>extending help to them. > >> Not always. A significant percentage of drug addicts appreciate and >> respond to the empathy - yes a larger percentage fall to the lure of >> their chemical addictions more, but not all. > > I've known a few middle class ones fighting the addiction from > time to time. In the end it went from what appeared to be simple > drug addiction to drig addition combined with pretty severe > psychosis. The triennial report I mentioned above had some > correlation between the drug of choice and the particulars > of the mental illness. It is a shame reports like this seem to have fallen by the wayside. >> It is not just people with addictions to recreational drugs who have this >> problem though. While the effects of the addiction may well differ >> massively there are still lessons to be learned when it comes to weaning >> each type of addict off. > > I live in a rural area, in a poor county. One judge wears > all the judicial hats. One of the functions is called > "drug court." While he's extremely harsh with criminal > offenses, often someone originally arrested for criminal > offenses gets transferred to his drug court where things > are more lenient and he works with the offender to try to > wean them off. It is usually a cycle of AA or NA and if > needed some psychotherepy (with no insurance, the state > picks up the tab) and frequnt random substance abuse > testing. When they fail, they're immediately arrested > and carted back to jail. In the early stages "slips" > are expected, but 30, 60, and 90 day stays are the > consequence in the later stages. On first glance, this seems like quite a worthwhile method of dealing with the problem. It would be interesting to see how this could be scaled up to metropolitan areas. > The individual granted drug court leniency ha to sign > a contract with the court at the outset, agreeing to > the program. They can refuse and be sent back to deal > with their charges in criminal court instead. > > The biggest problem is the least expensive, alcohol. Unfortunately, it is the same over here. > This county expends a lot of time and effort on individuals > with substance abuse problems. I should go ask what their > failure rate is. > >>>It would be nice to be able to do something for them that >>>works and actually provides rehabilitation, but that >>>doesn't seem to be in the cards unless some significant >>>advance is made in medicine. > >> Sadly true. At the moment it is a toss up between two far from ideal >> options. > > Wonder what sort of $ would result from "a cure" if there > is a single one. Antabuse hasn't seemed to get too good > a play. It is a difficult one. A "drug" which cured drug abuse may be viewed as a one-shot deal by pharmaceutical companies, and as such not that profitable. A drug which replaced addiction to [insert substance], but needed to be taken long term to work would be more appealing - but it is really a case of swapping one addiction for another. I suspect that until this problem can be resolved few, if any, drug companies are going to be willing to spend the money required to research a cure for addiction. |