Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
You're just lucky the majority don't get to make the rules... William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom Reese Subject: RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Bob W wrote: ...Is the USA not a democracy? Not by the strict definition of democracy. It is a system of government where the majority of the people make the rules for everyone. Were it only so. William Robb -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Graywolf wrote: A politician can win the popular vote, and not be elected president. In fact it is possible that someone who was not on the ballet could become president, though that never has happened to my knowledge. What you really vote for is something like which party gets to appoint the president. In fact Kerry won the last election based on popular votes, but Bush got more electorial votes (barely). That is not democracy! Doesn't change your point about how the system works, but you're citing the wrong election. Bush won the popular vote in 2004 (in fact, he had more than 50% of it). It was in 2000 (against Gore) that he won the electoral count while coming in second in the popular vote.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
P. J. Alling wrote: It seems that the T34, (Russian), has a better reputation than it deserves, it was simple and robust, packed a big punch and had armor that would stand up to the main gun on a Panzer Mark IV. The Sherman M1A[X] had also had armor designed to stand up to the Panzer Mark IV. Unfortunately by the time the Sherman tank was facing German Armor in Europe the Germans had developed the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II tanks in the face of the T34. The T34 had most of the same problems against the later German tanks that the Sherman did, only slightly less flammable. By the way it was never supposed to be the job of American tanks to kill Armor, that was the job of a Tank Destroyer. No time to elaborate as I'm off to work 8-( but the T34 was revolutionary (groan...) in its armour design. m Herb Chong wrote: the US also sent virtually all of the trucks and much of the clothing. the British took the same and also US tanks. the Soviets never cared for anyone else's tanks, for good reason. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:07 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Part of the reason that Russia lost so many troops was that they, (not really they, Stalin) was willing to spend lives for propaganda victorys that the western allies' people wouldn't have stood for. The fact was that the West was not prepared to start a second front until 1943. The invasion of Italy in '42 was supposed to knock that power out of the war, and turned out to be much more difficult and costly than expected. frank theriault wrote: On 4/27/05, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history. I know that The West sent supplies to Russia. Canada sent tanks (I believe a smallish light tank called the Valentine, made in the Angus Railway Shops in Montreal was sent over to Russia by the hundreds). Other countries no doubt sent food and military supplies. Russia needed troops. And, she needed a second front to open. My point was simply that Russia was alone in it's fight against Germany on the Eastern front. Russia paid a higher price (in lives) for WWII than any other country. cheers, frank
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Quoting Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I dropped out a long time ago. Healthy debate can be fun. For some. But it's often taken personally by others. And the attacks become personal assults, coupled with presumption built on presumption. It does get tiring after a while. LOL! Something to do with people's attention span, I think. I can imagine bystanders saying that's why philosophy doesn't suit us. :-) Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
No doubt. The sloped armor of the T34 made with an American Steel formulation btw, could stop the relatively low velocity 75mm AP shells from the Panzer Mark IV cold. It was quite a surprise to the German tank crews. Germany answered with a higher velocity 75mm, (maybe it was a 76mm gun, I don't remember exactly), in the Panther tank which also featured improved armor, the larger and heavier Tiger which mounted the 88mm gun which would go through the Armor of almost anything in the field during WWII. If Germany could have built Panthers in the numbers that the Russians churned out T34s Russia would have lost a lot more men and equipment and we would have dropped the first atomic bomb on Berlin. The statistics are telling however Germany Produced 5,984 Panther tanks from 1943-1945, 1350 Tigers from 1942 -1944, and 480 of the heavier but slightly inferior, (to the Tiger I), Tiger II's for a total of 7,814 tanks that were equal or superior to the T34 in firepower and protection. From 1940-1944 the Russians produced 35,629 T34/76 tanks, I couldn't find production figures on the T34/85, but I'd bet they built lots. The ratio is about 4.5 to 1 T34/75s to everything the Germans had that could face it. That doesn't include Russian heavy tanks of all kinds who's production equaled the total production of all German medium and heavy tanks, (Panthers, Tigers and Tiger II's), from 1943-1945. The US produced 33402 M4 (75) Shermans, 10,883 M4 (76) and even produced almost 2200 M28 heavy tanks by 1945, more than the total number Tiger and Tiger II tanks, built by Germany. The high velocity Gun mounted in the Panther was designed to kill T34's. mike wilson wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: It seems that the T34, (Russian), has a better reputation than it deserves, it was simple and robust, packed a big punch and had armor that would stand up to the main gun on a Panzer Mark IV. The Sherman M1A[X] had also had armor designed to stand up to the Panzer Mark IV. Unfortunately by the time the Sherman tank was facing German Armor in Europe the Germans had developed the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II tanks in the face of the T34. The T34 had most of the same problems against the later German tanks that the Sherman did, only slightly less flammable. By the way it was never supposed to be the job of American tanks to kill Armor, that was the job of a Tank Destroyer. No time to elaborate as I'm off to work 8-( but the T34 was revolutionary (groan...) in its armour design. m Herb Chong wrote: the US also sent virtually all of the trucks and much of the clothing. the British took the same and also US tanks. the Soviets never cared for anyone else's tanks, for good reason. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:07 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history.
Re: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/28 Thu AM 06:54:38 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Part of the reason that Russia lost so many troops was that they, (not really they, Stalin) was willing to spend lives for propaganda victorys that the western allies' people wouldn't have stood for. The fact was that the West was not prepared to start a second front until 1943. The invasion of Italy in '42 was supposed to knock that power out of the war, and turned out to be much more difficult and costly than expected. There was also simple logistics to consider. Pulling back the majority of the war machine industry to east of the Urals and setting up the factories to start building again took time. Remarkably little of it in fact but, because of that, armaments were in short supply at the beginning of hostilities. All the generals could do was send unarmed men into combat in the hope of slowing the advance down. The film Piper at the gate (?) shows this to extremely disturbing effect. m frank theriault wrote: On 4/27/05, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history. I know that The West sent supplies to Russia. Canada sent tanks (I believe a smallish light tank called the Valentine, made in the Angus Railway Shops in Montreal was sent over to Russia by the hundreds). Other countries no doubt sent food and military supplies. Russia needed troops. And, she needed a second front to open. My point was simply that Russia was alone in it's fight against Germany on the Eastern front. Russia paid a higher price (in lives) for WWII than any other country. cheers, frank - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/28 Thu AM 07:36:14 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No doubt. The sloped armor of the T34 made with an American Steel formulation btw, could stop the relatively low velocity 75mm AP shells from the Panzer Mark IV cold. It was quite a surprise to the German tank crews. Germany answered with a higher velocity 75mm, (maybe it was a 76mm gun, I don't remember exactly), in the Panther tank which also featured improved armor, the larger and heavier Tiger which mounted the 88mm gun which would go through the Armor of almost anything in the field during WWII. If Germany could have built Panthers in the numbers that the Russians churned out T34s Russia would have lost a lot more men and equipment and we would have dropped the first atomic bomb on Berlin. The statistics are telling however Germany Produced 5,984 Panther tanks from 1943-1945, 1350 Tigers from 1942 -1944, and 480 of the heavier but slightly inferior, (to the Tiger I), Tiger II's for a total of 7,814 tanks that were equal or superior to the T34 in firepower and protection. From 1940-1944 the Russians produced 35,629 T34/76 tanks, I couldn't find production figures on the T34/85, but I'd bet they built lots. The ratio is about 4.5 to 1 T34/75s to everything the Germans had that could face it. That's part of the innovative design. IIRC, not only was the armour of a design that had very few flat surfaces, innovative in itself, it was also cast, allowing huge quantities to be made in the same time it took to fabricate ordinary armour. There was an earlier mention of diesel. I don't think the Russians used diesel much, for the simple reason that it was (and is) a bugger to keep liquid in the winter. Even now, all of the heavy transports and buses I saw in Siberia were petrol powered. That doesn't include Russian heavy tanks of all kinds who's production equaled the total production of all German medium and heavy tanks, (Panthers, Tigers and Tiger II's), from 1943-1945. The US produced 33402 M4 (75) Shermans, 10,883 M4 (76) and even produced almost 2200 M28 heavy tanks by 1945, more than the total number Tiger and Tiger II tanks, built by Germany. The high velocity Gun mounted in the Panther was designed to kill T34's. mike wilson wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: It seems that the T34, (Russian), has a better reputation than it deserves, it was simple and robust, packed a big punch and had armor that would stand up to the main gun on a Panzer Mark IV. The Sherman M1A[X] had also had armor designed to stand up to the Panzer Mark IV. Unfortunately by the time the Sherman tank was facing German Armor in Europe the Germans had developed the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II tanks in the face of the T34. The T34 had most of the same problems against the later German tanks that the Sherman did, only slightly less flammable. By the way it was never supposed to be the job of American tanks to kill Armor, that was the job of a Tank Destroyer. No time to elaborate as I'm off to work 8-( but the T34 was revolutionary (groan...) in its armour design. m Herb Chong wrote: the US also sent virtually all of the trucks and much of the clothing. the British took the same and also US tanks. the Soviets never cared for anyone else's tanks, for good reason. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:07 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/28 Thu AM 08:10:57 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/28 Thu AM 06:54:38 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Part of the reason that Russia lost so many troops was that they, (not really they, Stalin) was willing to spend lives for propaganda victorys that the western allies' people wouldn't have stood for. The fact was that the West was not prepared to start a second front until 1943. The invasion of Italy in '42 was supposed to knock that power out of the war, and turned out to be much more difficult and costly than expected. There was also simple logistics to consider. Pulling back the majority of the war machine industry to east of the Urals and setting up the factories to start building again took time. Remarkably little of it in fact but, because of that, armaments were in short supply at the beginning of hostilities. All the generals could do was send unarmed men into combat in the hope of slowing the advance down. The film Piper at the gate (?) shows this to extremely disturbing effect. Enemy at the Gate m frank theriault wrote: On 4/27/05, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history. I know that The West sent supplies to Russia. Canada sent tanks (I believe a smallish light tank called the Valentine, made in the Angus Railway Shops in Montreal was sent over to Russia by the hundreds). Other countries no doubt sent food and military supplies. Russia needed troops. And, she needed a second front to open. My point was simply that Russia was alone in it's fight against Germany on the Eastern front. Russia paid a higher price (in lives) for WWII than any other country. cheers, frank - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
The philosopher was Thomas Kuhn, professor at Berkley, California. http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ Jostein Quoting Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I believe it is stated this way, Jostein: The new way does not become the way until the last person who knew the old way dies. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Jostein wrote: Thanks, Frank. As you say, the enemy of the cold war era was dismantled in the eighties. IIRC, Gorbatchev rose to power and started the glasnost exactly 20 years ago. That's why I would call it an anachronism. One science philosopher (his name escapes me at the moment) claim that scientific paradigmas do not shift because a better theory comes along, but because the proponents of the old theory die out. :-) If that is transferrable to this discussion it's probably too early to call it an anachronism yet. It's just that it feels that way. :-) Cheers, Jostein Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Okay, I know I shouldn't, but I'll wade in on this discussion (I've been resisting so far...). What one has to remember, is that the Red Scare in the 50's and 60's was a fear of Russia and it's satellite states (The Soviet Block, the Iron Curtain, whatever you want to call it). I guess one could throw the People's Republic of China in there, but realistically, they weren't a threat. Soviet Russia called itself Communist. It called itself Marxist and Marxist-Leninist. It was none of those things. There was a Marxist or Communist revolution there in 1917, but it didn't take long before it stalled. I don't remember much about Marxism, but I seem to recall that it's only workable if it's a world-wide phenomenon. Once Lenin died and Trotsky was ousted by Stalin, the counter-revolution was complete. With Trotsky out of the picture, Stalin turned inward, and decided to build Russia's economy rather than export the revolution. Russia was a centralist state-capitalist dictatorship. It remained so until dismantled in the late 1980's. The cold war had little to do with political ideologies, it had to do with military domination and spheres of influence and keeping the military-industrial machine in high-gear after WWII. What better way than to continue with an arms race? The US also knew that the Russian economy wasn't nearly as strong as it seemed, and that by engaging in an arms race it would bankrupt Russia. But, after years and years of equating Marxism and Communism with the Russian system, and after years of being told it was evil, many in the West have come to loathe the words, without really knowing much about the political philosophy. Old habits die hard. I disagree with Paul WRT to the Red Scare being over in the US. We've seen some of it here in this discussion. Words like Marxist and Socialist and even Liberal are currently used as epithets in the current political climate on the US. Anyway, I'm not espousing any views here (or trying not to), but rather provide a brief history lesson WRT Jostein's question. Hope I haven't trampled on anyone's feathers. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 4/27/2005 This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Casting was more important than just for speed of production, (which is debatable, complex castings can be a bi***), using cast steel rather than stamped and welded steel plates for armor made for a more stronger hull with fewer weak points, (up until very recently, say about 40 years ago welded joints would be the weakest part of large metal constructions). mike wilson wrote: From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/28 Thu AM 07:36:14 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No doubt. The sloped armor of the T34 made with an American Steel formulation btw, could stop the relatively low velocity 75mm AP shells from the Panzer Mark IV cold. It was quite a surprise to the German tank crews. Germany answered with a higher velocity 75mm, (maybe it was a 76mm gun, I don't remember exactly), in the Panther tank which also featured improved armor, the larger and heavier Tiger which mounted the 88mm gun which would go through the Armor of almost anything in the field during WWII. If Germany could have built Panthers in the numbers that the Russians churned out T34s Russia would have lost a lot more men and equipment and we would have dropped the first atomic bomb on Berlin. The statistics are telling however Germany Produced 5,984 Panther tanks from 1943-1945, 1350 Tigers from 1942 -1944, and 480 of the heavier but slightly inferior, (to the Tiger I), Tiger II's for a total of 7,814 tanks that were equal or superior to the T34 in firepower and protection. From 1940-1944 the Russians produced 35,629 T34/76 tanks, I couldn't find production figures on the T34/85, but I'd bet they built lots. The ratio is about 4.5 to 1 T34/75s to everything the Germans had that could face it. That's part of the innovative design. IIRC, not only was the armour of a design that had very few flat surfaces, innovative in itself, it was also cast, allowing huge quantities to be made in the same time it took to fabricate ordinary armour. There was an earlier mention of diesel. I don't think the Russians used diesel much, for the simple reason that it was (and is) a bugger to keep liquid in the winter. Even now, all of the heavy transports and buses I saw in Siberia were petrol powered. That doesn't include Russian heavy tanks of all kinds who's production equaled the total production of all German medium and heavy tanks, (Panthers, Tigers and Tiger II's), from 1943-1945. The US produced 33402 M4 (75) Shermans, 10,883 M4 (76) and even produced almost 2200 M28 heavy tanks by 1945, more than the total number Tiger and Tiger II tanks, built by Germany. The high velocity Gun mounted in the Panther was designed to kill T34's. mike wilson wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: It seems that the T34, (Russian), has a better reputation than it deserves, it was simple and robust, packed a big punch and had armor that would stand up to the main gun on a Panzer Mark IV. The Sherman M1A[X] had also had armor designed to stand up to the Panzer Mark IV. Unfortunately by the time the Sherman tank was facing German Armor in Europe the Germans had developed the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II tanks in the face of the T34. The T34 had most of the same problems against the later German tanks that the Sherman did, only slightly less flammable. By the way it was never supposed to be the job of American tanks to kill Armor, that was the job of a Tank Destroyer. No time to elaborate as I'm off to work 8-( but the T34 was revolutionary (groan...) in its armour design. m Herb Chong wrote: the US also sent virtually all of the trucks and much of the clothing. the British took the same and also US tanks. the Soviets never cared for anyone else's tanks, for good reason. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:07 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/28 Thu PM 01:29:35 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Casting was more important than just for speed of production, (which is debatable, complex castings can be a bi***), using cast steel rather than stamped and welded steel plates for armor made for a more stronger hull with fewer weak points, (up until very recently, say about 40 years ago welded joints would be the weakest part of large metal constructions). I don't think we disagree.. mike wilson wrote: From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/28 Thu AM 07:36:14 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No doubt. The sloped armor of the T34 made with an American Steel formulation btw, could stop the relatively low velocity 75mm AP shells from the Panzer Mark IV cold. It was quite a surprise to the German tank crews. Germany answered with a higher velocity 75mm, (maybe it was a 76mm gun, I don't remember exactly), in the Panther tank which also featured improved armor, the larger and heavier Tiger which mounted the 88mm gun which would go through the Armor of almost anything in the field during WWII. If Germany could have built Panthers in the numbers that the Russians churned out T34s Russia would have lost a lot more men and equipment and we would have dropped the first atomic bomb on Berlin. The statistics are telling however Germany Produced 5,984 Panther tanks from 1943-1945, 1350 Tigers from 1942 -1944, and 480 of the heavier but slightly inferior, (to the Tiger I), Tiger II's for a total of 7,814 tanks that were equal or superior to the T34 in firepower and protection. From 1940-1944 the Russians produced 35,629 T34/76 tanks, I couldn't find production figures on the T34/85, but I'd bet they built lots. The ratio is about 4.5 to 1 T34/75s to everything the Germans had that could face it. That's part of the innovative design. IIRC, not only was the armour of a design that had very few flat surfaces, innovative in itself, it was also cast, allowing huge quantities to be made in the same time it took to fabricate ordinary armour. There was an earlier mention of diesel. I don't think the Russians used diesel much, for the simple reason that it was (and is) a bugger to keep liquid in the winter. Even now, all of the heavy transports and buses I saw in Siberia were petrol powered. That doesn't include Russian heavy tanks of all kinds who's production equaled the total production of all German medium and heavy tanks, (Panthers, Tigers and Tiger II's), from 1943-1945. The US produced 33402 M4 (75) Shermans, 10,883 M4 (76) and even produced almost 2200 M28 heavy tanks by 1945, more than the total number Tiger and Tiger II tanks, built by Germany. The high velocity Gun mounted in the Panther was designed to kill T34's. mike wilson wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: It seems that the T34, (Russian), has a better reputation than it deserves, it was simple and robust, packed a big punch and had armor that would stand up to the main gun on a Panzer Mark IV. The Sherman M1A[X] had also had armor designed to stand up to the Panzer Mark IV. Unfortunately by the time the Sherman tank was facing German Armor in Europe the Germans had developed the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II tanks in the face of the T34. The T34 had most of the same problems against the later German tanks that the Sherman did, only slightly less flammable. By the way it was never supposed to be the job of American tanks to kill Armor, that was the job of a Tank Destroyer. No time to elaborate as I'm off to work 8-( but the T34 was revolutionary (groan...) in its armour design. m Herb Chong wrote: the US also sent virtually all of the trucks and much of the clothing. the British took the same and also US tanks. the Soviets never cared for anyone else's tanks, for good reason. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:07 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
A politician can win the popular vote, and not be elected president. In fact it is possible that someone who was not on the ballet could become president, though that never has happened to my knowledge. What you really vote for is something like which party gets to appoint the president. In fact Kerry won the last election based on popular votes, but Bush got more electorial votes (barely). That is not democracy! A representive form of government does not by any means have to be a democracy, and in no case is it a pure democracy. However, that is pretty meaningless because no government that I have ever heard of is exactly what that government claims to be. Even in a pure dictatorship there is a lot of influence pedeling going on. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Keith Whaley wrote: Graywolf wrote: I think a republic does not have to be a democracy. A democracy on the other hand pretty much has to be a republic if it is the government of much more than a town. The way we elect the president in the US is diffinately not a democratic process. graywolf Why cetainly it is, Tom! Each person has his or her very own vote in the process. If they deign to vote at all, that is. Now, if you mean a one man, one vote process, where we tell the States' representatives to go home, and each vote has the same strength, well, that's another ball of snakes. I forget why, but my reading tells me that is (supposed to be) so. It would seem, intuitively, that if you dump all the levels of interference between the person voting and the people counting all the votes, and let each tick mark count as one vote...how better can it be done? keith -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 4/27/2005
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Actually it's the states who pick the President. The current system is an approach used by the various state legislatures that approximates direct elections. However the State Legislatures pick the way Electors are selected under the federal constitution. The USA never was a democracy at the federal level, nor was it meant to be. The Federal constitution does however mandate that states _must_ be representative democracys. Graywolf wrote: A politician can win the popular vote, and not be elected president. In fact it is possible that someone who was not on the ballet could become president, though that never has happened to my knowledge. What you really vote for is something like which party gets to appoint the president. In fact Kerry won the last election based on popular votes, but Bush got more electorial votes (barely). That is not democracy! A representive form of government does not by any means have to be a democracy, and in no case is it a pure democracy. However, that is pretty meaningless because no government that I have ever heard of is exactly what that government claims to be. Even in a pure dictatorship there is a lot of influence pedeling going on. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Keith Whaley wrote: Graywolf wrote: I think a republic does not have to be a democracy. A democracy on the other hand pretty much has to be a republic if it is the government of much more than a town. The way we elect the president in the US is diffinately not a democratic process. graywolf Why cetainly it is, Tom! Each person has his or her very own vote in the process. If they deign to vote at all, that is. Now, if you mean a one man, one vote process, where we tell the States' representatives to go home, and each vote has the same strength, well, that's another ball of snakes. I forget why, but my reading tells me that is (supposed to be) so. It would seem, intuitively, that if you dump all the levels of interference between the person voting and the people counting all the votes, and let each tick mark count as one vote...how better can it be done? keith
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Graywolf wrote: A politician can win the popular vote, and not be elected president. In fact it is possible that someone who was not on the ballet could become president, though that never has happened to my knowledge. What you really vote for is something like which party gets to appoint the president. Yeah, I know. Sad system, isn't it. In fact Kerry won the last election based on popular votes, but Bush got more electorial votes (barely). That is not democracy! It is if you wanted Bush to win. It isn't if you wanted Kerry to win. A representive form of government does not by any means have to be a democracy, and in no case is it a pure democracy. However, that is pretty meaningless because no government that I have ever heard of is exactly what that government claims to be. Even in a pure dictatorship there is a lot of influence pedeling going on. graywolf keith
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
I think a republic does not have to be a democracy. A democracy on the other hand pretty much has to be a republic if it is the government of much more than a town. The way we elect the president in the US is diffinately not a democratic process. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Tom C wrote: Bob W wrote: These definitions seem rather narrow to me, and are perhaps more specific to the situation in the USA than to the rest of the world. 'Republic' seems to have several definitions, of which the most common is 'not a monarchy'. Certainly the definition you have given does not sit well with some other states that are/were undoubtedly republics. Also, the site you've quoted, as well as Collin's email, seem to suggest that a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive. I don't know how well this idea would sit with the people of Ireland, or France, or Germany or the many other democratic republics. So again I think the definitions are too narrow and parochial. republic 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government democracy 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections I find the distinction be almost meaningless... esoteric may be the right word. Obviously if one goes strictly by definition 1 a (1) of republic, a republic does not have to be a democracy. If one goes by definition 1 b (1) of republic their essentially the same. In practice, if elected officials do just about whatever they want once in office, irregardless of the will of the majority of people, it's hard to see how it's a true democracy. An, allowed by the people, plutocracy is what we have here, since one must attain a significant degree of wealth to get noticed, get on a ballot, etc. Both major political parties are whorses of a different color, but they're both horses. It's one of the reasons why no noticeable improvement occurs. Tom C. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/2005
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
- Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:25 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. SNIP You're looking at this from the US viewpoint, Paul (and I can't blame you for that). From the Soviet viewpoint, however, things look a bit different. They just fought a war almost singe-handedly against the war machine of Nazi Germany, with more casualties than any other country. For years Stalin had been begging for some help, for a Western Front, while Churchill and FDR sat on their hands. The Allies did nothing to help the USSR during much of WWII. Then, here come those same armies, marching across Europe. All Stalin wanted was buffer states between Western Europe and the USSR. He (rightly or wrongly) considered Western Europe to be buffer states for the US, and part of the US sphere of influence. He also wanted a share of defeated Germany, which isn't so unfair, is it? SNIP Frank, I have to take some issue with you on this paragraph. The USSR was certainly not fighting the Nazis single-handed. You may recall that Britain fought from September of 1939 until the German invasion of Russia in 1941 with no manpower assistance from either of the two major powers, the USSR or the USA. Prior to 1941, Germany and Russia had a non-aggression treaty in place, which was breached by Hitler unilaterally with the invasion. Once the Russians were involved, much materiel and many lives were lost in convoy operations to ports such as Murmansk in attempts to supply Russia with the modern arms and supplies it did not have (read about PQ17 for the full horror of those voyages), and the lack of which led in some ways to the high casualties the Red Army suffered in the early stages of the war. Whatever the motivation of the Russians post-1945, even a cursory reading of Eastern European history of that period will show that, had Russia wanted only friendly states in Europe to act as a buffer, she did not need to militarily occupy nations which were supposed to have been liberated by the Allies, to overthrow or refuse to allow their legitimate governments to reform, and to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people for decades simply because they had been in those formations, such as the Free Polish Air Force, who fought with the Allies against Germany. Russia even incarcerated her own freed POW's because of Stalin's paranoia that they were corrupted by the West, after being held in POW camps in Europe. IMV, the Russian occupation of Europe was simply a device to steal the resources of the occupied countries of Eastern Europe (oil from Rumania, machine tools and expertise from Czecho-Slovakia and East Germany, for example). Growing up in Europe in the 1950's to 1960's, the threat from Russia seemed real enough: we had no way of knowing whether her territorial ambitions were satisfied or not, as the Iron Curtain which descended on Europe in 1945-6 was not relaxed until the 1990's. Look at Prague 1968, Gdansk 1980, Berlin 1949 for examples of Russia's inflexibility. Nothing personal - just record-straightening! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: John, This is a photography list. Take your food-talk elsewhere, please. It's only going to start another flame-war... LOL. But you have to break eggs to make an omelette. :-) Jostein (this is becoming entertaining again!) This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Thanks, Frank. As you say, the enemy of the cold war era was dismantled in the eighties. IIRC, Gorbatchev rose to power and started the glasnost exactly 20 years ago. That's why I would call it an anachronism. One science philosopher (his name escapes me at the moment) claim that scientific paradigmas do not shift because a better theory comes along, but because the proponents of the old theory die out. :-) If that is transferrable to this discussion it's probably too early to call it an anachronism yet. It's just that it feels that way. :-) Cheers, Jostein Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Okay, I know I shouldn't, but I'll wade in on this discussion (I've been resisting so far...). What one has to remember, is that the Red Scare in the 50's and 60's was a fear of Russia and it's satellite states (The Soviet Block, the Iron Curtain, whatever you want to call it). I guess one could throw the People's Republic of China in there, but realistically, they weren't a threat. Soviet Russia called itself Communist. It called itself Marxist and Marxist-Leninist. It was none of those things. There was a Marxist or Communist revolution there in 1917, but it didn't take long before it stalled. I don't remember much about Marxism, but I seem to recall that it's only workable if it's a world-wide phenomenon. Once Lenin died and Trotsky was ousted by Stalin, the counter-revolution was complete. With Trotsky out of the picture, Stalin turned inward, and decided to build Russia's economy rather than export the revolution. Russia was a centralist state-capitalist dictatorship. It remained so until dismantled in the late 1980's. The cold war had little to do with political ideologies, it had to do with military domination and spheres of influence and keeping the military-industrial machine in high-gear after WWII. What better way than to continue with an arms race? The US also knew that the Russian economy wasn't nearly as strong as it seemed, and that by engaging in an arms race it would bankrupt Russia. But, after years and years of equating Marxism and Communism with the Russian system, and after years of being told it was evil, many in the West have come to loathe the words, without really knowing much about the political philosophy. Old habits die hard. I disagree with Paul WRT to the Red Scare being over in the US. We've seen some of it here in this discussion. Words like Marxist and Socialist and even Liberal are currently used as epithets in the current political climate on the US. Anyway, I'm not espousing any views here (or trying not to), but rather provide a brief history lesson WRT Jostein's question. Hope I haven't trampled on anyone's feathers. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Hi, In a democracy, the majority rules. The minority has no rights under the law. The United States of America is not a democracy. It is a republic. snip With the greatest of respect, Tom, it seems to me that you (or those who share your viewpoint) are making up definitions to suit their agenda. [...mo' pearls] Frank has replied exactly as I would have liked to - except that he has done it so much better than I ever could. Bob
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, William Robb wrote: The Queen provides a last resort to reign in an out of control situation in Parliament, or an out of control government. That's right, the Queen has almost no power except for the right to dismiss 'her' government and call for a general election. Even when things are running smoothly, every 5 years or so the Prime Minister has to go to the Queen and ask for her to dissolve Parliament so that an election can be called. Her Honourableness could probably do something to help sort out our present dilemma, were she so inclined. Didn't something like this happen in Australia in the 1970s? Didn't the Governor-General (the Queen's representative) dismiss the governemnt and force a general election? Chris
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, John Francis wrote: frank theriault mused: But if England and Canada aren't democracies by your definition (since their constitutions prevent the majority from oppressing the minority), and they aren't republics (having a non-elected monarch), then what are they? They're what is generally referred to as parliamentary democracies, just as the system of government in the USA (and France, and ...) are known as democratic republics. I fort the UK was a constitutional monarchy? Or is that summat else? Chris
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Frank theriault wrote something that I replied to and I cited a webpage that discussed the difference between a democracy and a republic. I've since taken a close look at the page and I realized that that page had a political agenda. I did not cite that page to advance that political agenda. I do not necesarily agree with the opinions cited on that webpage. I apologize for citing that webpage. Tom Reese
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/27/05, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Stenquist mused: I don't know on what you base that comment, Paul. I don't know what they considered themselves, but they were neither communists nor Marxists. I base that comment on the name that the Soviets gave to their party. Perhaps it was a bad translation, but when they spoke of their party in English, they'd called it the Communist Party. Which is about as accurate as Democrat or Republican in the USA (and similar political labels in European countries). They're just names. Do you know the difference between Communism Capitalism? Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Buit under Communism, it's the other way round. Anyone remember what East Germany called itself? The German Democratic Republic. They ~may~ have been a republic (I really don't know), but they sure as hell weren't Democratic! vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/27/05, John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank, I have to take some issue with you on this paragraph. The USSR was certainly not fighting the Nazis single-handed. You may recall that Britain fought from September of 1939 until the German invasion of Russia in 1941 with no manpower assistance from either of the two major powers, the USSR or the USA. Correct. I meant that Russia didn't get any help on the Russian Front in terms of troops. AFAIK, there were only Russian troops involved in, for instance, Stalingrad (surely the bloodiest battle of the war, if not in the history of warfare). Britain certainly stood alone against Germany in the Battle of Britain, and I didn't mean to diminish that heroic feat. I recall reading that on what turned out to be one of the last nights of heavy bombing over English cities, Churchill asked his Air Marshall (can't remember his name), How many reserves do we have? (meaning how many planes on the ground, ready to go up?) The answer was None! Every English fighter capable of flying was in the air. Had the Germans sent one more wave of bombers, it would have been over. The Battle of Britain would have been lost. That's how close it was. Prior to 1941, Germany and Russia had a non-aggression treaty in place, which was breached by Hitler unilaterally with the invasion. Once the Russians were involved, much materiel and many lives were lost in convoy operations to ports such as Murmansk in attempts to supply Russia with the modern arms and supplies it did not have (read about PQ17 for the full horror of those voyages), and the lack of which led in some ways to the high casualties the Red Army suffered in the early stages of the war. Whatever the motivation of the Russians post-1945, even a cursory reading of Eastern European history of that period will show that, had Russia wanted only friendly states in Europe to act as a buffer, she did not need to militarily occupy nations which were supposed to have been liberated by the Allies, to overthrow or refuse to allow their legitimate governments to reform, and to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people for decades simply because they had been in those formations, such as the Free Polish Air Force, who fought with the Allies against Germany. Russia even incarcerated her own freed POW's because of Stalin's paranoia that they were corrupted by the West, after being held in POW camps in Europe. I didn't say that Russia wanted friendly buffer states. I'm not, and did not say that what was essentially the Russian occupation of East Europe was a good thing, or that I condoned it. I'm just saying that the Russian point of view was that they were entitled to what the US had: a group of allied states in which it could put military bases to fend off an attack (or launch one) on the enemy. I'll say it again (in case you didn't read that part of my previous post): Soviet Russia was one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen, especially under Stalin. Full stop. IMV, the Russian occupation of Europe was simply a device to steal the resources of the occupied countries of Eastern Europe (oil from Rumania, machine tools and expertise from Czecho-Slovakia and East Germany, for example). I agree that was a large part of it. Growing up in Europe in the 1950's to 1960's, the threat from Russia seemed real enough: we had no way of knowing whether her territorial ambitions were satisfied or not, as the Iron Curtain which descended on Europe in 1945-6 was not relaxed until the 1990's. Look at Prague 1968, Gdansk 1980, Berlin 1949 for examples of Russia's inflexibility. By the time Russia and the West had divvied up Europe after WWII, nuclear stalemate had set it. Russia wouldn't have dared take over any Western European countries; the stakes would have been too high. I know that hindsight is 20/20, and I know that the fear of the general population was real. I agree with what you say WRT Russia's inflexibility. I also mentioned (in my previous post) Hungary in 1956. Again, I don't defend what they did, but I also see that they had their reasons, and a different viewpoint of what was going on. Nothing personal - just record-straightening! I understand, John. I don't think we're too far apart here, but the difficulty is the forum in which we exchange these thoughts is quite limited. I'm sure sitting having a few beers during a long discussion, fleshing out our thoughts, we'd discover that we're more or less in accords. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/27/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have an agenda other than to point out the difference between a republic and a democracy.snip You coming to GFM this year, Tom? I seem to recall that you are. I think we'll have a fun discussion over a beer or two, eh? vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
But I'm going to stop now. I'm happy to discuss this off-list from here on in. Best news about this thread I've seen in several days! VBG Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 26, 2005 10:25 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. . . . Snip, snip, snip . . . I know we shouldn't talk politics on the list, but as I'm not promoting a particular political viewpoint, but rather discussing history, I actually don't think I'm being political. Okay, stop laughing. I really think that. I know many of you don't believe me, but it's true. Stop laughing now! vbg cheers, frank PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Quoting Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think a republic does not have to be a democracy. A democracy on the other hand pretty much has to be a republic if it is the government of much more than a town. The way we elect the president in the US is diffinately not a democratic process. As Frank noted, a nation with a government elected by the people (democracy) may still have a monarch as head of state and therefore not be a republic. I agree with you, though, that a republic doesn't have to be a democracy. There are, and historically have been, an awful lot of nations out there with republic in the official name whose governments aren't elected. So it seems that the working definition that would explain what's actually out there (rather than ideals based on original definitions) would be that in a democracy (democratic nation would probably be a better term but it's not what's usually used), the citizens elect the government; in a republic the head of state is not a monarch (doesn't matter for this definition whether the head of state is also head of government). There's a lot of overlap (many nations are democratic republics) some nations are one but not the other and a few are neither. ERNR
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/27/05, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I'm going to stop now. I'm happy to discuss this off-list from here on in. Best news about this thread I've seen in several days! VBG Yes, well, despite my best intentions, I apparently lied, having posted some more this morning :-( -frank, who really, really, really will stop now -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Frank Theriault asked: You coming to GFM this year, Tom? I seem to recall that you are. Indeed I am. I think we'll have a fun discussion over a beer or two, eh? vbg I think we'll have several of both. grbay (that acronym should keep you busy for a little while) Tom Reese
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
I've been following the political discussion and I need to say that I think this list is not properly named. Instead the Pentax Discussion Mailing List it should really be called the Pentax Digression Mailing List. It wouldn't even change the initials, but it would so much more accurately reflect what really goes on here! If there were a contest to determine the world's greatest deliberative mailing list, I think we would have a shot. Have we ever had a filibuster? -- Alan P. Hayes Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design Pittsfield, Massachusetts Photographs at http://www.ahayesphoto.com/americandead/index.htm
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Instead the Pentax Discussion Mailing List it should really be called the Pentax Digression Mailing List. Or lately, - Political Discussion Mailing List. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Alan P. Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 27, 2005 11:14 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. I've been following the political discussion and I need to say that I think this list is not properly named. Instead the Pentax Discussion Mailing List it should really be called the Pentax Digression Mailing List. It wouldn't even change the initials, but it would so much more accurately reflect what really goes on here! If there were a contest to determine the world's greatest deliberative mailing list, I think we would have a shot. Have we ever had a filibuster? -- Alan P. Hayes PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
I believe it is stated this way, Jostein: The new way does not become the way until the last person who knew the old way dies. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Jostein wrote: Thanks, Frank. As you say, the enemy of the cold war era was dismantled in the eighties. IIRC, Gorbatchev rose to power and started the glasnost exactly 20 years ago. That's why I would call it an anachronism. One science philosopher (his name escapes me at the moment) claim that scientific paradigmas do not shift because a better theory comes along, but because the proponents of the old theory die out. :-) If that is transferrable to this discussion it's probably too early to call it an anachronism yet. It's just that it feels that way. :-) Cheers, Jostein Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Okay, I know I shouldn't, but I'll wade in on this discussion (I've been resisting so far...). What one has to remember, is that the Red Scare in the 50's and 60's was a fear of Russia and it's satellite states (The Soviet Block, the Iron Curtain, whatever you want to call it). I guess one could throw the People's Republic of China in there, but realistically, they weren't a threat. Soviet Russia called itself Communist. It called itself Marxist and Marxist-Leninist. It was none of those things. There was a Marxist or Communist revolution there in 1917, but it didn't take long before it stalled. I don't remember much about Marxism, but I seem to recall that it's only workable if it's a world-wide phenomenon. Once Lenin died and Trotsky was ousted by Stalin, the counter-revolution was complete. With Trotsky out of the picture, Stalin turned inward, and decided to build Russia's economy rather than export the revolution. Russia was a centralist state-capitalist dictatorship. It remained so until dismantled in the late 1980's. The cold war had little to do with political ideologies, it had to do with military domination and spheres of influence and keeping the military-industrial machine in high-gear after WWII. What better way than to continue with an arms race? The US also knew that the Russian economy wasn't nearly as strong as it seemed, and that by engaging in an arms race it would bankrupt Russia. But, after years and years of equating Marxism and Communism with the Russian system, and after years of being told it was evil, many in the West have come to loathe the words, without really knowing much about the political philosophy. Old habits die hard. I disagree with Paul WRT to the Red Scare being over in the US. We've seen some of it here in this discussion. Words like Marxist and Socialist and even Liberal are currently used as epithets in the current political climate on the US. Anyway, I'm not espousing any views here (or trying not to), but rather provide a brief history lesson WRT Jostein's question. Hope I haven't trampled on anyone's feathers. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 4/27/2005
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Actually this has not been a political discussion as all. We have be discussing definitions, not politics. With rare exceptions no one has made claims of one of them being better than the other, only what the differences are. It has been a most civil and interesting discussion. Most of those commenting have been on this list for many years, and are in fact the very people that provide the continuity of this list, and much of the expertise. I just wish those who are not interested in the subject would not bother to read the threads. But then they could not complain about it, could they. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Alan P. Hayes wrote: I've been following the political discussion and I need to say that I think this list is not properly named. Instead the Pentax Discussion Mailing List it should really be called the Pentax Digression Mailing List. It wouldn't even change the initials, but it would so much more accurately reflect what really goes on here! If there were a contest to determine the world's greatest deliberative mailing list, I think we would have a shot. Have we ever had a filibuster? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 4/27/2005
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
luben karavelov wrote: Tom C wrote: I have to type this quietly and in the dark. It seems to me, especially since that day in 2001, that the USA has been marching steadily towards becoming the USSA. :) When I was young (15 years old, in the end of communist regime) everybody's wish was to emigrate is US. Now nobody here (bulgaria) intends the emigrate in US. At that time (1989) or a little bit later I was going to a little club in my home town named Sgt Pappers lonley hearts club. I spent unforgetable moments the, with Beatles music. It's not the my music but I can understand it (I like punk). luben Oh, NO!! ;-P keith whaley
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
From the Soviet viewpoint, however, things look a bit different. They just fought a war almost singe-handedly against the war machine of Nazi Germany, No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history. Tom C.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Well, political philosophy, then. I'm really impressed by the ability of people on this list to have an interesting and civil discussion around topics that don't often lend themselves to cool consideration. Most good lists are sustained by a fairly small group of posters, it's a good bunch here, IMO. At 1:47 PM -0400 4/27/05, Graywolf wrote: Actually this has not been a political discussion as all. We have be discussing definitions, not politics. With rare exceptions no one has made claims of one of them being better than the other, only what the differences are. It has been a most civil and interesting discussion. Most of those commenting have been on this list for many years, and are in fact the very people that provide the continuity of this list, and much of the expertise. I just wish those who are not interested in the subject would not bother to read the threads. But then they could not complain about it, could they. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Alan P. Hayes wrote: I've been following the political discussion and I need to say that I think this list is not properly named. Instead the Pentax Discussion Mailing List it should really be called the Pentax Digression Mailing List. It wouldn't even change the initials, but it would so much more accurately reflect what really goes on here! If there were a contest to determine the world's greatest deliberative mailing list, I think we would have a shot. Have we ever had a filibuster? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 4/27/2005 -- Alan P. Hayes Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design Pittsfield, Massachusetts Photographs at http://www.ahayesphoto.com/americandead/index.htm
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Graywolf wrote: I think a republic does not have to be a democracy. A democracy on the other hand pretty much has to be a republic if it is the government of much more than a town. The way we elect the president in the US is diffinately not a democratic process. graywolf Why cetainly it is, Tom! Each person has his or her very own vote in the process. If they deign to vote at all, that is. Now, if you mean a one man, one vote process, where we tell the States' representatives to go home, and each vote has the same strength, well, that's another ball of snakes. I forget why, but my reading tells me that is (supposed to be) so. It would seem, intuitively, that if you dump all the levels of interference between the person voting and the people counting all the votes, and let each tick mark count as one vote...how better can it be done? keith
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Alan P. Hayes wrote: I've been following the political discussion and I need to say that I think this list is not properly named. Instead the Pentax Discussion Mailing List it should really be called the Pentax Digression Mailing List. It wouldn't even change the initials, but it would so much more accurately reflect what really goes on here! If there were a contest to determine the world's greatest deliberative mailing list, I think we would have a shot. I belong to another list that would certainly give THIS list a run for it's money. But, most of the rank liberal folks here would be loathe to even have me pronounce it's name. So, it shall remain nameless, but I'll tell you what... Scrub and carefully remove or transmogrify the subject matter from both lists, and only allow the off-topic material to remain, you quite literally would not be able to tell one from the other. Seriously! You could throw all the sentences in a bag, and randomly scater them in message after message, and you wouldn't be able to tell. What I'm saying is, that's how folks from all over, all walks of interest, deviate from the subject matter. Everybody does it! And you know what? That's precisely what keeps a list membership in the middle hundreds. It's more like family... keith whaley [...]
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Are we through with this yet? Or do I have to go to the trouble of devising a spam filter that blocks this thread while continuing to allow ON TOPIC posts through? 150 messages a day is traffic enough, without adding another 50 per day about world history and politics, IMNSHO.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
You know, I never once have felt it my perogative to tell others what they should discuss on the list. If it was overtly offensive, maybe I would. But simply OT, no. Being on the list is like being in the world. Parts of it we like, parts of it we don't. That being said, your point is understood, I'm sure by all. It doesn't necessarially mean you shouldn't set up a SPAM filter if you don't like it though. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:58:47 -0700 Are we through with this yet? Or do I have to go to the trouble of devising a spam filter that blocks this thread while continuing to allow ON TOPIC posts through? 150 messages a day is traffic enough, without adding another 50 per day about world history and politics, IMNSHO.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Chris Stoddart mused: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, John Francis wrote: frank theriault mused: But if England and Canada aren't democracies by your definition (since their constitutions prevent the majority from oppressing the minority), and they aren't republics (having a non-elected monarch), then what are they? They're what is generally referred to as parliamentary democracies, just as the system of government in the USA (and France, and ...) are known as democratic republics. I fort the UK was a constitutional monarchy? Or is that summat else? The terms aren't mutually exclusive. The constituonal monarchy tag say's it's not an absolute monarchy; the powers of the monarchy are limited in some way. This doesn't have to involve a parliament; Magna Carta limited the powers of the British monarchy, but it was a few centuries later before any real form of parliament was set up. Even then, though, it wasn't a parliamentary democracy; it took a few more upheavals before anything like that came along. (The most significant of which - the British civil war - came about to a large extent because of a monarch who resisted limitations on his power, believing instead in the divine right of kings to do pretty much what he pleased without consulting his privy council)
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 27/4/05, David Oswald, discombobulated, unleashed: Are we through with this yet? Or do I have to go to the trouble of devising a spam filter that blocks this thread while continuing to allow ON TOPIC posts through? 150 messages a day is traffic enough, without adding another 50 per day about world history and politics, IMNSHO. Hmm, we must be down on members. Traffic is light. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
- Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:19 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. On 27/4/05, David Oswald, discombobulated, unleashed: Are we through with this yet? Or do I have to go to the trouble of devising a spam filter that blocks this thread while continuing to allow ON TOPIC posts through? 150 messages a day is traffic enough, without adding another 50 per day about world history and politics, IMNSHO. Hmm, we must be down on members. Traffic is light. All those bastards defecting to Canon :-) Christian
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
At 16:50 2005.04.27 -0400, you wrote: Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:58:47 -0700 From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Are we through with this yet? Or do I have to go to the trouble of devising a spam filter that blocks this thread while continuing to allow ON TOPIC posts through? 150 messages a day is traffic enough, without adding another 50 per day about world history and politics, IMNSHO. I dropped out a long time ago. Healthy debate can be fun. For some. But it's often taken personally by others. And the attacks become personal assults, coupled with presumption built on presumption. It does get tiring after a while. Collin While Lennon read a book on Marx, the quartet practiced in the park, And we sang dirges in the dark, the day the music died. Brendemuehl
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Keith Waley wrote: I belong to another list that would certainly give THIS list a run for it's money. But, most of the rank liberal folks here would be loathe to even have me pronounce it's name. Don't you paint me with that wide pinko brush, you, you, deviant. Tom C.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/27/05, David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we through with this yet? Or do I have to go to the trouble of devising a spam filter that blocks this thread while continuing to allow ON TOPIC posts through? 150 messages a day is traffic enough, without adding another 50 per day about world history and politics, IMNSHO. The thread has been labelled OT from the outset. It would be a very simple procedure to filter off all the OT threads, and then either delete or read the few that interest you at your leisure. I admit that this thread has rather dragged on, and I know that we really shouldn't be talking politics (or whatever this is) here, but at least it hasn't become anywhere near a flame war. Everyone's been most civil and considerate of one another. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/27/05, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history. I know that The West sent supplies to Russia. Canada sent tanks (I believe a smallish light tank called the Valentine, made in the Angus Railway Shops in Montreal was sent over to Russia by the hundreds). Other countries no doubt sent food and military supplies. Russia needed troops. And, she needed a second front to open. My point was simply that Russia was alone in it's fight against Germany on the Eastern front. Russia paid a higher price (in lives) for WWII than any other country. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
I understood that Frank. :) I just always like to get that bit about SPAM in whenever I can. I probably shouldn't have started my post with the word No, as that obviously led you to think I was disputing something when I really wasn't Sorry. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:40:12 -0400 On 4/27/05, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history. I know that The West sent supplies to Russia. Canada sent tanks (I believe a smallish light tank called the Valentine, made in the Angus Railway Shops in Montreal was sent over to Russia by the hundreds). Other countries no doubt sent food and military supplies. Russia needed troops. And, she needed a second front to open. My point was simply that Russia was alone in it's fight against Germany on the Eastern front. Russia paid a higher price (in lives) for WWII than any other country. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/27/05, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understood that Frank. :) I just always like to get that bit about SPAM in whenever I can. I probably shouldn't have started my post with the word No, as that obviously led you to think I was disputing something when I really wasn't Sorry. g -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
the US also sent virtually all of the trucks and much of the clothing. the British took the same and also US tanks. the Soviets never cared for anyone else's tanks, for good reason. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:07 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
It seems that the T34, (Russian), has a better reputation than it deserves, it was simple and robust, packed a big punch and had armor that would stand up to the main gun on a Panzer Mark IV. The Sherman M1A[X] had also had armor designed to stand up to the Panzer Mark IV. Unfortunately by the time the Sherman tank was facing German Armor in Europe the Germans had developed the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II tanks in the face of the T34. The T34 had most of the same problems against the later German tanks that the Sherman did, only slightly less flammable. By the way it was never supposed to be the job of American tanks to kill Armor, that was the job of a Tank Destroyer. Herb Chong wrote: the US also sent virtually all of the trucks and much of the clothing. the British took the same and also US tanks. the Soviets never cared for anyone else's tanks, for good reason. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:07 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops alive, as they were starving on the German front during the winter. Just a little history.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Russian tanks had wider tracks and less problems with muddy conditions than American or British designs. also, they ran OK on much poorer quality fuel. Herb... - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:00 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. It seems that the T34, (Russian), has a better reputation than it deserves, it was simple and robust, packed a big punch and had armor that would stand up to the main gun on a Panzer Mark IV. The Sherman M1A[X] had also had armor designed to stand up to the Panzer Mark IV. Unfortunately by the time the Sherman tank was facing German Armor in Europe the Germans had developed the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II tanks in the face of the T34. The T34 had most of the same problems against the later German tanks that the Sherman did, only slightly less flammable. By the way it was never supposed to be the job of American tanks to kill Armor, that was the job of a Tank Destroyer.
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
I think that free beer is a type of Freedom. Your damn right it is, and down here in this bastion of democracy people will fight to the death for it. ;) ROFL ;~\
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Honestly, What *is* this thing about some americans and marxism? I thought this phobia was a thing of the cold war in the sixties and seventies... Jostein Quoting Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.oekonux.org/texts/marketrelations.html and there's more, if you want to talk seriously. Collin This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/26 Tue AM 07:38:48 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Honestly, What *is* this thing about some americans and marxism? I thought this phobia was a thing of the cold war in the sixties and seventies... Jostein It's not Americans and it's not Marxism. It's a fear of the different. Happens all over the world and the action (metaphorical or not) is always the same. Shoot first, ask questions later. Americans just speak louder than everyone else. 8-))) mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Paul On Apr 26, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Jostein wrote: Honestly, What *is* this thing about some americans and marxism? I thought this phobia was a thing of the cold war in the sixties and seventies... Jostein Quoting Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.oekonux.org/texts/marketrelations.html and there's more, if you want to talk seriously. Collin This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, What *is* this thing about some americans and marxism? I thought this phobia was a thing of the cold war in the sixties and seventies... A lot of people (especially Americans) confuse Marxism with Soviet-style communism (though why they should continue to beat that now-literally-dead horse baffles me). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/26 Tue AM 11:20:07 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, What *is* this thing about some americans and marxism? I thought this phobia was a thing of the cold war in the sixties and seventies... A lot of people (especially Americans) confuse Marxism with Soviet-style communism (though why they should continue to beat that now-literally-dead horse baffles me). I think I can see a hoof twitching. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/26 Tue AM 11:20:07 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, What *is* this thing about some americans and marxism? I thought this phobia was a thing of the cold war in the sixties and seventies... A lot of people (especially Americans) confuse Marxism with Soviet-style communism (though why they should continue to beat that now-literally-dead horse baffles me). I think I can see a hoof twitching. I'm getting better! No you're not. You're not fooling anyone, you know. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Frank Theriault wrote: The word libertarian is a pretty wide-ranging one. Most people (I would guess) think of it as a whacko-right thing, but many on the left consider themselves to be leftist libertarians, Chomsky likely being the best known. Not disputing what you said, Glenn, just expanding or commenting on the word itself is all... From the Libertarian party website (http://www.lp.org/): LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties. Maximum personal liberty is a left wing position. Minimal government is a right wing position. It depends on whether your talking about liberty or economic philosophy. Tom (a Libertarian) Reese
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Cheers, Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Quite a few Americans still seem to take the U.S. Civil War personally. (That was in the 1860s. Governments claiming to be Marxist have existed rather more recently than that.) I believe that in other parts of the world there are people beating not only dead horses but pretty ancient fossils; however, since I live here, this is the example I can cite. Sorry, this won't do anything to clear up your puzzlement, but in case you were actually surprised by it, don't be. ERNR
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Free Beer Tomorrow Seen on the side of a bar in Savannah, Ga, a few weeks ago. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 26, 2005 2:56 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. I think that free beer is a type of Freedom. Your damn right it is, and down here in this bastion of democracy people will fight to the death for it. ;) ROFL ;~\ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/26 Tue PM 01:13:20 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Quite a few Americans still seem to take the U.S. Civil War personally. (That was in the 1860s. Governments claiming to be Marxist have existed rather more recently than that.) I was going to say Don't mention the war but I didn't mean that one 8-) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
So where's the photo? Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller Free Beer Tomorrow Seen on the side of a bar in Savannah, Ga, a few weeks ago.
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
So where's the photo? Only in my mind. It's my reason to go back. I saw it from the front seat of a Cab @ 65mph while on my way to the airport. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 26, 2005 9:47 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. So where's the photo? Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller Free Beer Tomorrow Seen on the side of a bar in Savannah, Ga, a few weeks ago. PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Obfuscating the discussion by talking about free beer only avoids the issue. The revolutionary era of the 60s stood out because of the violence. Maybe more recently people have heard of the Shining Path Castro. Not long ago I went to the reasonably prestigous Ohio State University here in Columbus looking to enroll in the EE program. WRT the program, it's impressive. But in the broader curriculum was a required course. It was a course in dialectics. And on the shelf of the counselor I talked to was her notebook distinctly labelled MARX. Unlikely it concerned old toys or movies. Marxism is a philosophy. Communism is a form of government derived from it. So is National Socialism. And western Socialism. All are Marxist by definition, in one component or another. Whether it's redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism, the green movement, the peace movement, whatever mechanism is its expression, the philosophy is the dominant perspective in most if not all governmental educational systems. When John Kerry would, in the last presidential campaign, speak of our government as a democracy and Bush would use the term republic, the divergence of their world views was clarified. /* THE POINT */ To deny its existence because of a form adaptation is to miss the reality of its influence. It is endemic enough to be missed as it doesn't stand out as distinct. It is now dominant. /* THE POINT */ For those wanting to understand it in its simplicity, the clearest expression of a Marxist philosophy in pop culture would be John Lennon's Imagine. As far as Christianity is involved, The Challenge of Marxism by Klaus Bockmuehl would be a good read. Published by Intervarsity Press. There is no phobia here. No irrational fear that they're going to invade my house and take all of my possessions. It's a rational and reasoned concern. Collin (subvert the dominant marxist) Brendemuehl Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Here in the US where they never had to live under the system you can still find Marxists as well, spooky... Jostein wrote: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Cheers, Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
taking a course in philosophy makes you a philosopher in the same way taking a course in photography makes you a photographer. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
This begs a link: http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/v17_02_03.html :) All I need to know about communism I learned from J. Edgar Hoover, j On 4/26/05, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Cheers, Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Juan Buhler - SIGGRAPH 2005 Sketches and Posters Chair http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Collin, May I humbly suggest that you pour out your rational and reasoned concern about GPL software propagating marxist ideas somewhere else? Dragging your religious views into it isn't exactly going to help your case either. best regards, Jostein - Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:09 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Obfuscating the discussion by talking about free beer only avoids the issue. The revolutionary era of the 60s stood out because of the violence. Maybe more recently people have heard of the Shining Path Castro. Not long ago I went to the reasonably prestigous Ohio State University here in Columbus looking to enroll in the EE program. WRT the program, it's impressive. But in the broader curriculum was a required course. It was a course in dialectics. And on the shelf of the counselor I talked to was her notebook distinctly labelled MARX. Unlikely it concerned old toys or movies. Marxism is a philosophy. Communism is a form of government derived from it. So is National Socialism. And western Socialism. All are Marxist by definition, in one component or another. Whether it's redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism, the green movement, the peace movement, whatever mechanism is its expression, the philosophy is the dominant perspective in most if not all governmental educational systems. When John Kerry would, in the last presidential campaign, speak of our government as a democracy and Bush would use the term republic, the divergence of their world views was clarified. /* THE POINT */ To deny its existence because of a form adaptation is to miss the reality of its influence. It is endemic enough to be missed as it doesn't stand out as distinct. It is now dominant. /* THE POINT */ For those wanting to understand it in its simplicity, the clearest expression of a Marxist philosophy in pop culture would be John Lennon's Imagine. As far as Christianity is involved, The Challenge of Marxism by Klaus Bockmuehl would be a good read. Published by Intervarsity Press. There is no phobia here. No irrational fear that they're going to invade my house and take all of my possessions. It's a rational and reasoned concern. Collin (subvert the dominant marxist) Brendemuehl Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Thanks Albano. Very cool. I remember reading that comic book as a child in the fifities. I think it was distributed in schools. The best part is where the commies take Joe Kennedy's building for a government headquarters: the Chicago Merchandise Mart. It ranks right up there with the classic fright film Reefer Madness. But on the heels of two world wars, people in the US were genuinely frightened by the expansion of communism in Asia and Europe. Perhaps needlessly, but it's understandable. That people can't get over it today is not understandable. Paul This begs a link: http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/v17_02_03.html :) All I need to know about communism I learned from J. Edgar Hoover, j On 4/26/05, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Cheers, Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Juan Buhler - SIGGRAPH 2005 Sketches and Posters Chair http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May I humbly suggest that you pour out your rational and reasoned concern about GPL software propagating marxist ideas somewhere else? Dragging your religious views into it isn't exactly going to help your case either. There's one thing that communism and Christianity have in common (and I forget who said this, though it was in regards to Christianity): it hasn't *failed*, it's never been tried! :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
There's one thing that communism and Christianity have in common (and I forget who said this, though it was in regards to Christianity): it hasn't *failed*, it's never been tried! :) Quite true, most 'Christian' religions bely the claim and blatantly disregard the prinicples of their so-called founder. I know people don't want to discuss this, so I will post and then shutup. Superficially at least, Christianity and components of Marxism have some similarities. Love your neighbor as yourself and The Golden Rule implies a system where one does not take advantage of one's fellowman and prosper for it, while returning little of benefit to one's neighbor. If taken to the ultimate end, it very may well imply a classless society. Tom C.
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Collin, May I humbly suggest that you pour out your rational and reasoned concern about GPL software propagating marxist ideas somewhere else? Dragging your religious views into it isn't exactly going to help your case either. This hardly looks fair, Jostein. Wasn't Collin commenting on other people's posts, both about Marxism and Christianity? I think he's as entitled to express his opinions on those subjects as anyone else, as long as he's being polite about it, which he was. ERNR - Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:09 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Obfuscating the discussion by talking about free beer only avoids the issue. The revolutionary era of the 60s stood out because of the violence. Maybe more recently people have heard of the Shining Path Castro. Not long ago I went to the reasonably prestigous Ohio State University here in Columbus looking to enroll in the EE program. WRT the program, it's impressive. But in the broader curriculum was a required course. It was a course in dialectics. And on the shelf of the counselor I talked to was her notebook distinctly labelled MARX. Unlikely it concerned old toys or movies. Marxism is a philosophy. Communism is a form of government derived from it. So is National Socialism. And western Socialism. All are Marxist by definition, in one component or another. Whether it's redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism, the green movement, the peace movement, whatever mechanism is its expression, the philosophy is the dominant perspective in most if not all governmental educational systems. When John Kerry would, in the last presidential campaign, speak of our government as a democracy and Bush would use the term republic, the divergence of their world views was clarified. /* THE POINT */ To deny its existence because of a form adaptation is to miss the reality of its influence. It is endemic enough to be missed as it doesn't stand out as distinct. It is now dominant. /* THE POINT */ For those wanting to understand it in its simplicity, the clearest expression of a Marxist philosophy in pop culture would be John Lennon's Imagine. As far as Christianity is involved, The Challenge of Marxism by Klaus Bockmuehl would be a good read. Published by Intervarsity Press. There is no phobia here. No irrational fear that they're going to invade my house and take all of my possessions. It's a rational and reasoned concern. Collin (subvert the dominant marxist) Brendemuehl Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
This hardly looks fair, Jostein. Wasn't Collin commenting on other people's posts, both about Marxism and Christianity? I think he's as entitled to express his opinions on those subjects as anyone else, as long as he's being polite about it, which he was. ERNR The OT stuff is what keeps the list interesting IMO sometimes. I disagree that religion is a taboo topic as long as the dialog is courteous. A lot better than this Film is Dead rubbish. ;)
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
ERNR I think Collin brought up the subject by claiming that free software was Marxist. I don't know what the context was because he has a habit of creating new subject lines, and not quoting the previous discussion. John On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:39:11 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Collin, May I humbly suggest that you pour out your rational and reasoned concern about GPL software propagating marxist ideas somewhere else? Dragging your religious views into it isn't exactly going to help your case either. This hardly looks fair, Jostein. Wasn't Collin commenting on other people's posts, both about Marxism and Christianity? I think he's as entitled to express his opinions on those subjects as anyone else, as long as he's being polite about it, which he was. ERNR - Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:09 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Obfuscating the discussion by talking about free beer only avoids the issue. The revolutionary era of the 60s stood out because of the violence. Maybe more recently people have heard of the Shining Path Castro. Not long ago I went to the reasonably prestigous Ohio State University here in Columbus looking to enroll in the EE program. WRT the program, it's impressive. But in the broader curriculum was a required course. It was a course in dialectics. And on the shelf of the counselor I talked to was her notebook distinctly labelled MARX. Unlikely it concerned old toys or movies. Marxism is a philosophy. Communism is a form of government derived from it. So is National Socialism. And western Socialism. All are Marxist by definition, in one component or another. Whether it's redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism, the green movement, the peace movement, whatever mechanism is its expression, the philosophy is the dominant perspective in most if not all governmental educational systems. When John Kerry would, in the last presidential campaign, speak of our government as a democracy and Bush would use the term republic, the divergence of their world views was clarified. /* THE POINT */ To deny its existence because of a form adaptation is to miss the reality of its influence. It is endemic enough to be missed as it doesn't stand out as distinct. It is now dominant. /* THE POINT */ For those wanting to understand it in its simplicity, the clearest expression of a Marxist philosophy in pop culture would be John Lennon's Imagine. As far as Christianity is involved, The Challenge of Marxism by Klaus Bockmuehl would be a good read. Published by Intervarsity Press. There is no phobia here. No irrational fear that they're going to invade my house and take all of my possessions. It's a rational and reasoned concern. Collin (subvert the dominant marxist) Brendemuehl Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
this *IS* religion. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:47 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. A lot better than this Film is Dead rubbish. ;)
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Haha! Tom C. From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:09:47 -0400 this *IS* religion. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:47 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. A lot better than this Film is Dead rubbish. ;)
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Hi, The revolutionary era of the 60s stood out because of the violence. Maybe more recently people have heard of the Shining Path Castro. Just because they call themselves Marxists, doesn't mean they are. Do you think the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda is doing the work of the Lord? Should all God-fearing people be tarred with the same brush because a bunch of psychopathic lunatics adopt the name? Not long ago I went to the reasonably prestigous Ohio State University here in Columbus looking to enroll in the EE program. WRT the program, it's impressive. But in the broader curriculum was a required course. It was a course in dialectics. And on the shelf of the counselor I talked to was her notebook distinctly labelled MARX. Unlikely it concerned old toys or movies. And? Universities are there to teach people stuff. Marxism has been important and influential in history. It should therefore be taught. Just because people teach a subject, it doesn't mean they adopt the philosophy. You can be sure that in most universities the same people teach Marxism, political conservatism, classical liberalism and so on, throughout the spectrum. Any decent university will teach this stuff in a detached, independent and academic way. The purpose of going to university is to broaden your mind, learn how to learn, and expose yourself to other ways of thinking and being. You don't have to accept it all, or adopt every crazy idea that people come up with. But you should at least learn how to evaluate ideas in their own terms, learn how to approach them critically and logically, without having to rely on what your Bible studies group leader tells you. If you want to learn about a subject, say Marxism or Christianity, the best way to learn about is not from people who are either strongly pro, or strongly anti. For example, I would not expect to learn much about Christianity from either Ian Paisley or Alisteir Crowley. Similarly, do not expect to learn much about Marxism from either Marxists or fanatical anti-Marxists. Instead find someone who is interested in political philosophy in general, and who has a detached, academic interest in it. They will give you a good, wide-ranging view of the subject, and be able to put it in the context of other political philosophies. They will be able to point out the pros cons honestly, and help you to find your own opinion. Which may still coincide with your Bible studies group leader's opinion, but at least it will be your own. Marxism is a philosophy. Communism is a form of government derived from it. So is National Socialism. And western Socialism. All are Marxist by definition, in one component or another. Whether it's redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism, the green movement, the peace movement, whatever mechanism is its expression, the philosophy is the dominant perspective in most if not all governmental educational systems. Utter nonsense. When John Kerry would, in the last presidential campaign, speak of our government as a democracy and Bush would use the term republic, the divergence of their world views was clarified. In what way? Is the USA not a democracy? Are you suggesting that Kerry is a Marxist? Really? /* THE POINT */ To deny its existence because of a form adaptation is to miss the reality of its influence. It is endemic enough to be missed as it doesn't stand out as distinct. It is now dominant. /* THE POINT */ Nobody's denying the existence of Marxism, or minimizing the harm that was done in it's name. But most of us can recognise what is and is not Marxism. This is the difficulty you seem to have. Everything you dislike is automatically labelled Marxism. For those wanting to understand it in its simplicity, the clearest expression of a Marxist philosophy in pop culture would be John Lennon's Imagine. QED. Most of the sentiments expressed in Imagine could have come from the Sermon on the Mount. Imagine all the people living for today is essentially the same as Consider the lilies. Which of these sentiments, except for 'no religion too', would Jesus disagree with? Imagine there's no countries, It isnt hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, No religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace... Imagine no possesions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man, Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... You may say Im a dreamer, but Im not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us, And the world will live as one. As far as Christianity is involved, The Challenge of Marxism by Klaus Bockmuehl would be a good read. Published by Intervarsity Press. There is no phobia here. No irrational fear that they're going to invade my house and take all of my possessions. It's a rational and reasoned concern. Perhaps you should do what Jesus asked, and give away your house and all your possessions. Then you would have
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
ERN, I totally agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion. Since this thread goes on, I will post once more. Collin was quite clear about his opinions when he started this thread, and did not refer to any other thread in this forum. Knowing us, I'd say there probably was a reference, but without stating it I'm lost. I just don't have time to read all this list has to offer. :-) For a while, there was an entertaining discussion about GPL and Marxistic roots, but it took, IMHO, a rather nasty turn with Collin's last post. One thing I do remember about the science of philosophy from my own reading, is the importance of building one's thoughts in logical steps. If there are thoughts based on dogmas or assumtions, those should be explained. In his last post, Collin shared some personal experiences where he made a point of finding a book about Marx in the office of a professor teaching dialectics, and that the Democratic candidate at the last election talked about democracy where the Republican candidate talked about republic; neither of which I can understand why he finds worth mentioning as rational and reasoned indications of precence of marxistic thoughts in the heads of the professor or any of the candidates. On the contrary, he *assumes* that these tokens are indications of marxistic thoughts. He goes on to reason that since marxism is a philosophy, and governmental education programmes also are built on a philosophy, the education programmes are also marxist. While logically valid, it *assumes* that the philosophy is the same, which he goes no way to prove. Instead, he sets up a dogmatic point, in capital letters: quote /* THE POINT */ To deny its [marxism] existence because of a form adaptation is to miss the reality of its influence. It is endemic enough to be missed as it doesn't stand out as distinct. It is now dominant. /* THE POINT */ ---unquote--- I added the word in brackets. Since the point is funded on reasoning where the assumptions are not clearly made, it's only food for flame wars and not arguments to propagate a reasonable discussion. Also, he introduced religion with reference to a book that noone will have time to read while this discussion is still on, and without putting forward any logical connection between christianity and his thoughts so far. Therefore, I don't think I was being unfair to Collin when I kindly asked him to stop. Cheers, Jostein PS. The free beer argument was not mine, either. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Collin, May I humbly suggest that you pour out your rational and reasoned concern about GPL software propagating marxist ideas somewhere else? Dragging your religious views into it isn't exactly going to help your case either. This hardly looks fair, Jostein. Wasn't Collin commenting on other people's posts, both about Marxism and Christianity? I think he's as entitled to express his opinions on those subjects as anyone else, as long as he's being polite about it, which he was. ERNR - Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:09 PM Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Quoting Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Obfuscating the discussion by talking about free beer only avoids the issue. The revolutionary era of the 60s stood out because of the violence. Maybe more recently people have heard of the Shining Path Castro. Not long ago I went to the reasonably prestigous Ohio State University here in Columbus looking to enroll in the EE program. WRT the program, it's impressive. But in the broader curriculum was a required course. It was a course in dialectics. And on the shelf of the counselor I talked to was her notebook distinctly labelled MARX. Unlikely it concerned old toys or movies. Marxism is a philosophy. Communism is a form of government derived from it. So is National Socialism. And western Socialism. All are Marxist by definition, in one component or another. Whether it's redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism, the green movement, the peace movement, whatever mechanism is its expression, the philosophy is the dominant perspective in most if not all governmental educational systems. When John Kerry
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Just because they took the door off the closet, don't mean the bogeyman is gone. GRIN! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Jostein wrote: Honestly, What *is* this thing about some americans and marxism? I thought this phobia was a thing of the cold war in the sixties and seventies... Jostein Quoting Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.oekonux.org/texts/marketrelations.html and there's more, if you want to talk seriously. Collin This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/2005
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Bob W wrote: ...Is the USA not a democracy? Not by the strict definition of democracy. It is a system of government where the majority of the people make the rules for everyone. Here is a site discussing the differences: http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm The United States is a republic. The minorities (are supposed to) have a voice and rights too. In practice, some groups want to turn it into a democracy (i.e. the Christians and their attempts to erase the separation between church and state). Are you suggesting that Kerry is a Marxist?... Kerry said many things during the campaign that I thought were socialist in principle. Perhaps that is what Collin meant. Tom Reese
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
No, to be a photographer you have to buy a camera. What do you have to buy to be a philosopher? GRIN! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Doug Brewer wrote: taking a course in philosophy makes you a philosopher in the same way taking a course in photography makes you a photographer. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/2005
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/26/05, Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: taking a course in philosophy makes you a philosopher in the same way taking a course in photography makes you a photographer. Funny. I majored in philosophy in University. I forget most of it. I'm not a philosopher. I've never taken a photography course. You guys can decide if I'm a photographer. LOL cheers, frank, who doesn't like labels anyway... -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/26/05, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip. A lot better than this Film is Dead rubbish. ;) Hey! I resemble that! g -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Hi, ...Is the USA not a democracy? Not by the strict definition of democracy. It is a system of government where the majority of the people make the rules for everyone. Here is a site discussing the differences: http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm The United States is a republic. The minorities (are supposed to) have a voice and rights too. In practice, some groups want to turn it into a democracy (i.e. the Christians and their attempts to erase the separation between church and state). These definitions seem rather narrow to me, and are perhaps more specific to the situation in the USA than to the rest of the world. 'Republic' seems to have several definitions, of which the most common is 'not a monarchy'. Certainly the definition you have given does not sit well with some other states that are/were undoubtedly republics. Also, the site you've quoted, as well as Collin's email, seem to suggest that a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive. I don't know how well this idea would sit with the people of Ireland, or France, or Germany or the many other democratic republics. So again I think the definitions are too narrow and parochial. In any case, for Collin to suggest that Kerry's use of the word 'democracy' rather than 'republic' has some kind of sinister Marxist implications is plain nonsense. Are you suggesting that Kerry is a Marxist?... Kerry said many things during the campaign that I thought were socialist in principle. Perhaps that is what Collin meant. Batter is made from flour, eggs and water. Pasta is made from flour, eggs and water. But they're different things. Kerry and Bush no doubt shared plenty of ideas with each other, and with socialists and with the Monster Raving Loony Party. But they're all different parties. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/26/05, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Okay, I know I shouldn't, but I'll wade in on this discussion (I've been resisting so far...). What one has to remember, is that the Red Scare in the 50's and 60's was a fear of Russia and it's satellite states (The Soviet Block, the Iron Curtain, whatever you want to call it). I guess one could throw the People's Republic of China in there, but realistically, they weren't a threat. Soviet Russia called itself Communist. It called itself Marxist and Marxist-Leninist. It was none of those things. There was a Marxist or Communist revolution there in 1917, but it didn't take long before it stalled. I don't remember much about Marxism, but I seem to recall that it's only workable if it's a world-wide phenomenon. Once Lenin died and Trotsky was ousted by Stalin, the counter-revolution was complete. With Trotsky out of the picture, Stalin turned inward, and decided to build Russia's economy rather than export the revolution. Russia was a centralist state-capitalist dictatorship. It remained so until dismantled in the late 1980's. The cold war had little to do with political ideologies, it had to do with military domination and spheres of influence and keeping the military-industrial machine in high-gear after WWII. What better way than to continue with an arms race? The US also knew that the Russian economy wasn't nearly as strong as it seemed, and that by engaging in an arms race it would bankrupt Russia. But, after years and years of equating Marxism and Communism with the Russian system, and after years of being told it was evil, many in the West have come to loathe the words, without really knowing much about the political philosophy. Old habits die hard. I disagree with Paul WRT to the Red Scare being over in the US. We've seen some of it here in this discussion. Words like Marxist and Socialist and even Liberal are currently used as epithets in the current political climate on the US. Anyway, I'm not espousing any views here (or trying not to), but rather provide a brief history lesson WRT Jostein's question. Hope I haven't trampled on anyone's feathers. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/26/05, Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obfuscating the discussion by talking about free beer only avoids the issue. snip Maybe that's why some of us are talking about free beer... LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Bob W wrote: These definitions seem rather narrow to me, and are perhaps more specific to the situation in the USA than to the rest of the world. 'Republic' seems to have several definitions, of which the most common is 'not a monarchy'. Certainly the definition you have given does not sit well with some other states that are/were undoubtedly republics. Also, the site you've quoted, as well as Collin's email, seem to suggest that a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive. I don't know how well this idea would sit with the people of Ireland, or France, or Germany or the many other democratic republics. So again I think the definitions are too narrow and parochial. republic 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government democracy 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections I find the distinction be almost meaningless... esoteric may be the right word. Obviously if one goes strictly by definition 1 a (1) of republic, a republic does not have to be a democracy. If one goes by definition 1 b (1) of republic their essentially the same. In practice, if elected officials do just about whatever they want once in office, irregardless of the will of the majority of people, it's hard to see how it's a true democracy. An, allowed by the people, plutocracy is what we have here, since one must attain a significant degree of wealth to get noticed, get on a ballot, etc. Both major political parties are whorses of a different color, but they're both horses. It's one of the reasons why no noticeable improvement occurs. Tom C.
RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Batter is made from flour, eggs and water. Pasta is made from flour, eggs and water. But they're different things. Kerry and Bush no doubt shared plenty of ideas with each other, and with socialists and with the Monster Raving Loony Party. But they're all different parties. There are no eggs in pasta. It used to be food of the poor. Made of just flour and water. Leon
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
- Original Message - From: Juan Buhler Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. This begs a link: http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/v17_02_03.html That would be funny if it wasn't so obviously some sort of half assed propoganda. Who authored that little bit of crap. William Robb
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
- Original Message - From: Tom Reese Subject: RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Bob W wrote: ...Is the USA not a democracy? Not by the strict definition of democracy. It is a system of government where the majority of the people make the rules for everyone. Were it only so. William Robb
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. I think he's as entitled to express his opinions on those subjects as anyone else, as long as he's being polite about it, which he was. If you want to get technical, this is a photography mailing list, with Pentax cameras being the supposed topic. Where does an extended discussion about religion, philosophy or politics fit into it? This isn't just a few offhand posts anymore, it's about a quarter of what I just downloaded. William Robb
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
No. There don't have to be eggs in pasta, but the nicest pasta (IMO) certainly includes eggs. John On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:49:54 +0100, Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Batter is made from flour, eggs and water. Pasta is made from flour, eggs and water. But they're different things. Kerry and Bush no doubt shared plenty of ideas with each other, and with socialists and with the Monster Raving Loony Party. But they're all different parties. There are no eggs in pasta. It used to be food of the poor. Made of just flour and water. Leon -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Both major political parties are whorses of a different color, but they're both horses. It's one of the reasons why no noticeable improvement occurs. Please clarify, are they whores or ruminants? William Robb
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
On 4/26/05, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. There don't have to be eggs in pasta, but the nicest pasta (IMO) certainly includes eggs. John, This is a photography list. Take your food-talk elsewhere, please. It's only going to start another flame-war... g cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
Give Mr. Robb the grand prize and a big pat on the back for finding the secret clue! Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:00:37 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: RE: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. Both major political parties are whorses of a different color, but they're both horses. It's one of the reasons why no noticeable improvement occurs. Please clarify, are they whores or ruminants? William Robb
Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya.
The ruling party of the USSR certainly considered themselves communists. Whether they lived up to the ideals of communism is another thing. The arms race wasn't a plot. No one was pleased when the Soviets learned to make nuclear weapons. The growth of the US economy following the war was far more a result of consumer demand than military expenditures. Communism was quite the rage in the US during the thirties. Most weren't afraid of it before the war. But when the Soviets became aggressive about spreading their sphere of influence after the war, Americans became apprehensive. How can you say Stalin didn't try to export the revolution? I think that a lot of Eastern Europeans would strongly disagree. And the Soviets certainly considered China and North Korea within their sphere of influence. Whether communism was a genuine threat to western democracies may never be known, but it's easy to understand why it was frightening fifty years ago. Paul On Apr 26, 2005, at 6:40 PM, frank theriault wrote: On 4/26/05, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: American Marxist phobia is actually more a thing of the fifties and sixties. It's really quite dead. However, there are little pockets of folks with rather extreme views who keep it alive in bits and pieces, here and there. That's probably true of any system of beliefs anywhere in the world. Sadly, yes. I'd even opt for leaving out the probably. :-( What puzzles me in this particular case is just the anachronistic nature of the phobia... :-) Okay, I know I shouldn't, but I'll wade in on this discussion (I've been resisting so far...). What one has to remember, is that the Red Scare in the 50's and 60's was a fear of Russia and it's satellite states (The Soviet Block, the Iron Curtain, whatever you want to call it). I guess one could throw the People's Republic of China in there, but realistically, they weren't a threat. Soviet Russia called itself Communist. It called itself Marxist and Marxist-Leninist. It was none of those things. There was a Marxist or Communist revolution there in 1917, but it didn't take long before it stalled. I don't remember much about Marxism, but I seem to recall that it's only workable if it's a world-wide phenomenon. Once Lenin died and Trotsky was ousted by Stalin, the counter-revolution was complete. With Trotsky out of the picture, Stalin turned inward, and decided to build Russia's economy rather than export the revolution. Russia was a centralist state-capitalist dictatorship. It remained so until dismantled in the late 1980's. The cold war had little to do with political ideologies, it had to do with military domination and spheres of influence and keeping the military-industrial machine in high-gear after WWII. What better way than to continue with an arms race? The US also knew that the Russian economy wasn't nearly as strong as it seemed, and that by engaging in an arms race it would bankrupt Russia. But, after years and years of equating Marxism and Communism with the Russian system, and after years of being told it was evil, many in the West have come to loathe the words, without really knowing much about the political philosophy. Old habits die hard. I disagree with Paul WRT to the Red Scare being over in the US. We've seen some of it here in this discussion. Words like Marxist and Socialist and even Liberal are currently used as epithets in the current political climate on the US. Anyway, I'm not espousing any views here (or trying not to), but rather provide a brief history lesson WRT Jostein's question. Hope I haven't trampled on anyone's feathers. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
