Elian and American Idoicy (OT Daria Style Rant)

Alright,

Who the hell are these Miami Cubans,

Am I missing somthing here, most of these people arn't even US Citizens and American politicans of every stripe are lining up to blow them,

Now I am no Castro fan but what the f--k is going on here?

The father was the legal guardian, mother is dead, what is the dispute, the international precident is unchallenged and clear. Everyone from Stalin to Reagen could accept that idea.

and who the f--k decided a family of convicted felons is a good enviroment for a child. Sure Juan is a communist, but atleast he has a real job in Cuba! Why doesn't Americas most promenent drag queen (Janet Reno)go in and take the kid. Hell ship the Miami Cubans to Haiti, Maybe they will apprecaite how good they had it in Cuba by comparison.

If Elian were Hatian, NO ONE WOULD CARE, He would have been sent back with or without parents on the other end! Haiti is probably only surpassed by Sierra Leone for the title of Hell on earth and the US deported almost 8000 Hatian refugees last year!

A Flordia news paper did background checks on the Miami family, basically we have unemployed losers and convicted felons. And where the hell did these protestors come from DON'T THESE PEOPLE HAVE JOBS OR LIVES?

And when are you guys going to get over Waco? And why are all these Rightwing zealots worshipping this David Koresh guy, HE WAS A KNOWN PEDOPHILE, this is the type of guy you would expect conversitives would want hanged!, Again am I missing somthing, If you start a war with the BATF is all forgiven in the eyes of Newt Gingrich?

And what the hell is wrong with Al Gore, Is this guy dead? was he ever living?, well he had to be living at some point to invent the internet!

And how easy is it to become a Govonor? From Govonor Engler in Michigan who is just, well an idiot to the Shrubs in Texas and Flordia,

Lets look at Texas shall we, lots of crime, lots of executions, lots of polution, lots of imbreeding, And what the hell is Compasionate Conservitism? HE HAS ORDERED ALMOST 130 PEOPLE EXECUTED, Many obviously innocent. that isn't compassionate, by Canadian and European standards that is genocide! If Bush went to Europe as a private Citizen without gubornial immunity he would find himself in the HAUGE!. and the man is a retard. I mean he is the govonor of Texas, you would think he would know who the president of Mexico is, He made international news when he demonstrated to the CBC and BBC he belived the prime minister of Canada was a plate of fries. Sky News, (UK Fox News) gave him a grade 8 Texas Social studies quiz, He got 2 questions right, this man wants to lead the free world? Does this guy have anything going from him other than the american bloodlust for vengince and his fathers legacy?

Then you have the delightful Jesus Freaks, Who gave these lunatics so much power? the way things are going it wont be president bush or gore it will be Ayatholla Falwell.

And Charlton Heston, This asshole is currently touring Canada whining about Canadian gun control, he has been drawing crouds of about 20, and 200 hecklers. Today there was a stabbing in an Ottawa school, some loser knifed 4 students because they made fun of his hair and acne they all survived. If Heston had his way he could have bought an M-16 from a mail order catalouge. Canadian teenaged pshycos are no less deranged than their American counterparts, they are simply don't have access to automatic weapons!

And what is in the Pentagons water supply, and who brought starwars back from the dead, I mean this is one of the 20th centruies really bad ideas, both from the standpoint that it is f--king expensive and doomed to failure. It is bad enough the want to squander US tax dollars on an insane corportate welfare scheme for the US defence industry when 40 million Americans are without basic healthcare and millions more have unadaquatre healthcare. But they want to drag Canada and the UK into this bizzare legomaniac plan. The earths atmosphere is huge, you want to 2 objects the size of school buses to colide in the stratorsphere, that is like trying to hit a tennis ball with a tennis ball 6 courts apart! The laws of physics say "yes it can be done" the laws of logical reasoning say "Steralize all Reagen era defence planners" The idea was lame in 1984, it hasn't improved with age. and trash those bloody Osprey hybrids THE USMC DOES NOT WANT THEM now killed 19 Marines just because the republican congress wants to save long redundant defence jobs in their districts, Reagen tried to kill it, Bush tried to kill it, Clinton tried to kill it, now it has killed 19 people. Fathers, Sons, Husbands ect.just to win votes.

And then you have the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Bill, I am at a loss, what is with the name? I have read the law it just makes it almost impossible to get into Federal court for a Habius Corpus hearing, which in the polically charged "Tough on crime" state politics was the only place where convicted inmates could receive fair hearing on appeal. If there was a law that would make it legal to shoot people who stutter and politicans called it the "Effective Communications Act" people would probably support it!

Thanks for letting me blow off steam,

The Contentious Objector

I agree! Let's send Elian back to an Island where he will have no rights nor freedom, where he will be closely supervised by "experts," and where he will never escape from, unless, of course, he applies for a visa (which would require quite a long waiting period) or swims over here.

Boy, you really do care about other people. I am so happy you care so much for the Father. I mean, who cares about Elian when the Father is there to decide the future direction of his life. We know for a fact that fathers always have the best interests of their children in mind, even fathers who don't pay child support.

Sheesh, it's so obvious you are right.

By the way, anyone can apply for asylum, but the INS ignored Elian's request because he was "too young" though nowhere in the law does it say that age matters.

Apparently you only like protests when its a bunch of people dressed up as turtles, smoking weed, feeling sorry for themselves, and listening to the Doors.

Maybe you should gain a little perspective and understand that these people have experienced Communism where you are nothing but a property of the state.

They don't want Elian to experience that.

Grachman, The

Grachman Olajuwon of AOL

So you are against basic human rights Mr TDH Olajuwan. Why am I not surprised.

You think it's wrong that a father should have custody of his own child? This is an extraordinarily simple case. A father had joint custody of his son. The mother drowned. Ergo, father now has custody, or would have if the child had not been turned into a performing dog by a bunch of rabid Cuban exiles who are clearly not fit to have custody of any child, let alone someone else's. These ingrates should be told to comply with the law of the land, and international law, and universal human rights, or be thrown in jail.

(And I know for a fact that many ordinary Cuban Americans think the same way. But they are scared to speak out in case the Rabid Cuban Americans throw bricks through their windows, or worse.)

-Shez.

Hate to extend this thread further, but it's my understanding that Castro's planning on making Elian effectively a ward of the Cuban state when he returns. So his reunion with his father is only temporary. His father really has no say in the matter; he has family back in Cuba who would be at risk if he defied Castro.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

Is this a UL or what? I've not heard it in a single news report, only on Usenet, where it is endlessly repeated without attribution. Why would the boy be made a ward of court when the Cuban courts had already awarded joint custody to his father at the time of the divorce?

Castro has obviously been making a lot of political capital out of this sad case, which is reprehensible and has probably hindered rather than helped the situation, but in this the Miami Cuban exiles must take joint blame as it's their behaviour which has enabled Castro to use the case to demonise America - the US government itself having behaved impeccably throughout. One good sign though is that today a BBC report today quotes Castro as saying that Elian's homecoming "would be a private affair and there would be no triumphalism".

This whole case has made for an interesting study in mass hysteria, what with Castro holding massed rallies, and some people in the US even portraying Elian as Christ. Weird.

-Shez.

Shez said:

"From what you heard". From who? The tooth fairy? Here's a report with an attributable source: "What awaits Elian in Cuba?" http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_709000/709278.stm

Slavery? This is what the above report says of the place where he lives:
---
   ...the people of Cardenas say they are determined to ensure the child has
as ordinary a life as possible.
   Elian's father - a member of Cuba's Communist Party - lives in a wealthier
than average neighbourhood in Cardenas, and says the boy has never wanted for
anything. He has his own bedroom, and his father, who works in the tourism
industry, is paid in dollars.
   US author Mark Cramer, who has visited Cardenas and written two books on
Cuba, says that in many ways the town is an ideal place to bring up a child.
   "Contrary to Miami, in Cardenas there are no drugs in the schools and guns
are not accessible to citizens," he told BBC News Online.
   With horse-drawn carts and bicycles being the main kinds of transport, the
air is clean and the streets are safe, he said.
   "I stayed with a family whose little daughter was ill, and witnessed how
readily available was her free medical care," he added.
---

I don't know what Castro will actually do when this child goes home, and admittedly the mass hysteria isn't a good sign. But the only news report I've heard on the subject quotes Castro as saying he will be left to live in peace, whereas I've seen no news reports at all which claim it's planned to take the child away from his father. Yet if there was any hint of this I'm sure the media would have jumped on the story with relish. As it is, not even the anti-Castro relatives are saying such things in their news conferences. Don't you find that a little odd?

And indeed they didn't stop them, and the feds did pick him up, and no-one got hurt. How else do you imagine it could have been carried out? The relatives had weeks to comply with the court order peacefully but failed to do so. And when there are barricades and hundreds of angry protesters outside you can hardly send your neighbourhood bobby round to politely knock on the door to ask for the boy. Any such attempt would have led to the policeman being lynched by the mob, and who knows what would have happened to the child in the accompanying mayhem? Police operations of this sort *always* go in with overwhelming force, because to do otherwise is to invite disaster.

-Shez.

On 24 Apr 2000 05:43:48 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Rumor or has it been announced?

It's hardly slavery.

Yep. The relatives are 100% to blame for that. They lied and violated the law. Personally, I think they should be charged with kidnapping for refusing to give the boy up.

And you trust the American Government because? Kyle

In article ,

[Snip!] (Ok Shez wrote this bit but I snipped his headder sorry :) ).

Especially considdering that you have a presedent that lied under oath, or that is my understanding anyway. What people always seemed to miss out on was that it was this that he should have been being impeeched for not the fact that he did or did not sleep with Ms Lewinsky(sp?).

Phill....who not being a US citizen doesn't really have a right to comment.

Oh believe me, perjury (and transparent disregard for the law and the very concept of telling the truth under oath) was very much the issue for most people. Unfortuately the focus got shifted away from that pretty quickly, it seems...

On another note: Can this thread just DIE already!?? Or am I the only American who woke up on Saturday, thought "Oh, the INS is shipping the kid back to Cuba with his dad... sounds logical... what else is on?"

I mean, sheesh -- there have got to be better things to worry about. Or at least care about.

And as a final note, maybe it's latent patriotism - but I'd REALLY like it if all the stones were thrown within the glass houses of the posters for awhile (CO - you know who you are, you rabid little poster you...). Yes, the US isn't perfect. Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki possibly weren't needed [debatable, though]. Yes, we don't have guaranteed health care - though ERs _have_ to take care of people coming in regardless of insurance status... it can just be a pain in the butt afterwards. Yes, Cuba may have great health care. Yes, I'm sure Europe has even better. But yes, there are LOONIES around the globe. No, the US does not have a monopoly on crime. And yes, Communist governments have killed millions at least [*cough* Stalin *cough*]. Oh, and the minimum wage in the US is over $5 or so now -- not the $3 someone else thinks.

Happy post-Easter everyone -- in whatever nation you inhabit.

Can someone start a nice Daria thread now? :)

Don

In article ,

But alas they didn't do what was nesacery, give him the boot :) Hell at least Nixon had the good grace to resign :)

Indeed, I had thought of saying something to this effect myself.

Well I'll quite happily admit, that the UK, the systeh isn't perfect any more than it is in the US, Cuba or the dark side of the moon for that matter :) But then again I've never said it is.

<Rant> No they where not, I don't buy this line about they saved the lives of people figting in the war by ending it without having to invade Japan. What about all those who have died since as a result of radiation related illnesses, some of them people who where not even born in 1945..... Lets face it IMHO, the US just wanted revenge for Peal Harbour, oh and also to see if this bomb killed as well as they thought it would..bloody big field test if you ask me. </Rant>

Which is why if you ever visit the US, you should *ALWAYS* take out health insurance beforehand, just in case.

Yeah there are deinatley loonies everywhere, well there are in the UK at least :)

That's as maybe but the point I tried to make a couple of posts ago was that the killing was not inhearant in Communisim, any more than any system, lets face it Stalin's govenment would probably still have killed those people, had it been capitalist,.

Ok.

And to you also :)

<GRIN> Yeah combining the request for Pics *cough*MSB*cough* and the descussion of 406, perhaps we are going to see the perticular position requested by said poster :) </GRIN>

Phill.

:)

Ok, I don't really want to defend this per se -- since as I said above they possibly weren't needed... but -- Nagasaki I'm going to grant you straight off. If we'd just waited another day or so Japan would've surrendered anyway (they were trying to hash out terms to present to us after Hiroshima, as I recall). On the other hand, I _do_ give some credence to the Invasion (theory? rationalization?) - the literal worship of the Emperor as a _god_ and the military control of that government for years had lead to a fanatical desire to die to defend the sacred ground of the Home Islands. So, three things:

1) If nothing else, we would've probably ended up having to shoot down a LOT more people making the landings. (Hiroshima was, as I recall 45,000+ immediate fatalities?)

2) In the months afterward, terroristic attacks would've kept adding to the total as fanatics tend to do...

3) Laying aside 1 & 2 -- there's the fact that Truman was already starting to worry about Stalin (not as much as Patton wanted him to, but...). Hiroshima wasn't really about finding out how well we could kill people (I think they knew it would do that) as about showing the world what we could do. And yes, that makes it worse -- except you have to grant a bit of slack due to the lack of general knowledge of radioactive effects. Witness the later tests where they sent US troops into zones immediately after atomic bursts to see what would happen. [Not to mention the fun of starting a relatively unshielded pile in the middle of Chicago in the first place]. Looking back we can say they were stupid and they were wrong - but we have to remember they didn't know what we do know about the effects.

Whew... Once again, let me reiterate that I'm not saying it was right, a good idea, or something anyone should do for kicks. Just that there were reasons that aren't arguably completely bad.

And which is why I'm really looking forward to graduating soon so I have some insurance worth talking about. :)

Agreed. Stalin was a totalitarian, pure and simple. The USSR was never truly communist, anyway. (The US isn't truly democratic either... Representative democracy I think is the technical term...)

Aiii.. run away! More picture requests!!! :)

Ok, here's something more fun... <Deena Decker voice> I'm feeling verklempt... Talk amongst yourselves... I'll give you a topic... Jane's comments in Partner's Complaint that Daria took to reflect on their current problems may have actually been about Jane and _Tom_ on a subconcious level... Discuss.. </Deena Decker voice>

:)

Don

In article ,

[Snip!]

Sounds about the right figure, may be a little high, though I do remeber that the Hiroshima bomb had more prompt casualties than Nagasaki, dispite the fact that it should have been the other way round, but that was down to the bomb at Nagasaki not quite hitting where it should, guess it is kinda difficult to aim acuratly from 30,000feet :)

Assuming that the allies had ahd to invade, and that Japan had not surrendered anyways, there was a movment amonst the people who actually made the bomb to demonstrate it (to representitives of the Japanese and I suppose other govenments) before it's use as a weapon, on seing this the Japanese govenment may have decided "we don't want this thing going off over one of our cities", but it was decided that nuclear materials where too scarce to "waste" on a demonstration.

Yeah but any invention has to be tested in the field :)

Than again we where not as ignorant as it is often made out that we where, ok, yeah the Fermi Pile was pretty stupid in retrospect, and of course the govenment would never admit that they knew this, when they sent the troops into the region imediatly after, again all in the name of "progress". Cirtainly by the time the troop tests where caried out 50's I believe they would have had knoledge gained from the two wartime bombs.

Oh I realise there where reasons, I personally disagree with the "ended the war with less suffering" etc argument. I also realise that if the Japaneese had developed it's own bomb first they would have most probably used it, likewise the Germans, thankfully Hitler seemed more interested in the rockets (V1/V2) than bombs.

Humm never thought I'd be having this descussion on a.t.d either... Now where can I get 18.5 Kg of Pu-239 from :) :) :)

You can't get health insurance till you graduate ? what happens if you are injured or fall ill before then ?

No and historically Stalin should perhaps have never come to power, I belive Lenin himself said something to that effect when he was still alive, but those that opposed him (Stalin), where um....removed.

No, no more requests, and I think all those that where interested have seen them now anyways :) Dammit if only I had my mother's artistic skill, alas all my creative energy goes into coding :)

Humm, possible I suppose, but then the convesation in Anit-Social climbers would make less sense. Actually the first half of season 4 has been far mor interesting to me as it has explored some of the strains that can be put on a close friendship, rather than consentrating (ok this is largely in the perceptions of the fans), on the Daria-Trent thing. Ok, I know Daria will have a relationship, but I suspect very strongly that it will not be with Trent.....hell I suppose even Ted's back in the picture having re-appeared. After all he and Daria did go on a sort of date, in all but formality. And he'd be much batter for her than "the cards got mixed up maam" Robert.

Phill.

...But won't this blow all of the "Ted and Stacy" fanfics out of the water? The writers couldn't! It's just too cruel! ;7

-IdentityCrisis

Well it would also blow all the Trent-Daria ones out of the water as well which would more than make up for it....hey we could also write some Trent-Stacy fics :) BTW am I the only one who actually liked Ted's character, that is the general perception I get :)

Phill.

On 27 Apr 2000 01:33:32 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Well, you and I, it seems, are the only two who liked Ted. I thought he was hilarious. And the voice was perfect! But I know folks can (and will) differ about this. Of course, it would've been even more fun to see Ted's naivete juxtaposed even more against Daria's cynicism. Hey, who wants some gum? ;-)

rich.

Jane: You're a twisted little cruller, ain't'cha?

Actually, I alway thought that Trent and Tiffany would be an interesting match-up. Not because I think that their personalities are compatible, but because they're probably the only two people in Lawndale who could keep up (or, rather, *down*) with each other in a conversation. ;7

Eh, he was okay for a one-shot.

-IdentityCrisis

Wooo! Trent-Stacyness! You know it makes sense :) Sigh, no one understands, no-one understands.... I saw Kids the other day. Excellent film. Why is it meant to be shocking? 90% of it isn't remotely shocking. Ladeda.

Sorry it took a while to get back to this -- combination of work and wanting to think on it... not that I'm liking to spout any wisdom or anything for that... :)

Especially from a B29 -- even with the Nordstrom sights... and most especially when you want to be _very_ sure you're out of the area before it goes off.

Anyway, going back over this point again [since I'm not sure I made it clear], setting aside American casualties I'm pretty sure the Japanese military alone probably would have suffered casualties in that range resisting a landing. And if they _had_ brought in civilians with spears or whatnot as frontline fodder it would've been worse. [Remember that some of the larger US Civil War battles easily had casualties in that range on one side... often much more.]

Hmm... didn't remember that. I'll have to go reading this weeked if I can get this project working. If so, that would've been much better for the Japanese, all right -- and I'd bet just as effective. I'll also conjecture that unless the 'demonstration' was going to be on a Pacific island or something that security concerns also played a part in the decision. They weren't keen on anyone outside the program knowing the bombs even vaguely existed before Hiroshima made it kind of obvious, after all..

*shudder* That makes me flash forward to the first H-bomb test. I still can't believe they fired that one off when they thought the theory indicated a (low, but still possible) chance of firing off the entire freakin' atmosphere in a chain reaction....

I'm not sure, though I can't say I'm certain either. They knew about some of the short term effects but I think they thought once the really active isotopes broke down they were ok... not thinking of the long term (frequent government problem there...).

Well, I don't know how Japan really could have easily. They didn't have the materials easily (without getting them from Germany), and unless it was fairly early in the war they lacked the pilots, planes, ships, and fuel to really get a bomb anywhere near a decent U.S. target. Their best bet (assuming they could get it small enough -- which I'm not sure of...) would be to lure American forces onto an island where they'd already set up the device -- or possibly modify a sub to sail it into a carrier task force/invasion fleet. The second option would've cost us a decent chunk of battleships, cruisers, destroyers and most of the Pacific escort carriers if they timed it right and got the arm of the 7th Fleet that was supporting MacArthur in the South/Central Pacific. It would've taken _unbelievable_ luck for them to get a fast carrier strike force completely... they sailed too spread out. Getting it to Pearl or San Francisco given the problem they would've had with refueling would've been about as likely as a missile making it there at the time.

Germany on the other hand.. oh yeah -- England would probably still be glowing. France, too if they developed it after D-Day and scrounged enough fissile material. Which raises an interesting question -- if Germany got the bomb _before_ DDay -- would he waste it on England (possibly nailing the invasion force by luck) or use it on the Eastern front? Tactically, he would've been best off (from my pov) using it to break the Red Army (by creating a pocket in the front to lure a massive strike that would then be vaporized...) and forcing Stalin to terms. That would give Germany the time to rebuild the Luftwaffe and transfer the bulk of the Army back to the West in time to handle Normandy (or force the allies off Italy and the Mediterranean bases) -- leaving more time to build more bombs... _then_ London would be a lovely blue at night I'd bet.

Oh, just on another note -- Hitler was also bomb-happy, though I don't know why he didn't really push his atomic program more. 90% of the reason Germany didn't mow down the Allies with the Me-262 when we invaded is because he'd screwed up the production schedule so much insisting the thing be redesigned and produced as a high speed light bomber instead of a fighter. Tactically, you could call that being ahead of his time by 40 years given the fact that jets of that type today are almost exclusively fighter/bombers... but at the time, 2 550-lb iron bombs per hideously expensive fighter (with short range) wasn't going to save Germany nearly as much as having a _lot_ of those hideously fast & expensive fighters ripping through the 8th Air Force and the RAF anti-industrial raids...

*heh* You could always set up a slow breeder and start with U238... just have to be _really_ patient...

Students usually are on their parents' insurance. I'm not being kind of old for that, and married. My wife has insurance through her job but it doesn't cover diddly... I could get extra insurance but it would cost about 25% of my paycheck... So mainly I'm looking forward to a real job with a real paycheck. :)

And in answer to your question -- um, I'd better not. We manage somehow basically.

*heh* Lenin would know... they weren't that different when they were after power.

God, I hope it's not Ted. I _really_ dislike him, though I can't say why... (Maybe I see to much of my geeky highschool self in him, to be fair... I wasn't _that_ bad, but...). I'm rooting for Tom myself.

As far as the first half of S4 goes, all the parts that dealt with Daria/Jane were good. I enjoyed the Daria/Jake even more. If I have to watch another Kevin/Brittany centered episode that doesn't involve a cross over involving Spike or Dru from BTVS I'll scream though... :)

Then they can find out Upchuck is an incubus-in-training and take him out for kicks.

Man... I'd pay a lot for a massive WB crossover where Spike wastes the characters on Charmed, Dawson's Creek and the rest...

Whew... this turned out a little long. :)

Don

In article ,

No probs, I undestand wordk all too well :)

[Snip to keep length down !]

Hehehehe :)

True enough, though those casualties would have only been the ones caused at the time...none through after efects, like fallout, and leaving the ground radioactive....I believe that they would have had to replace most of the topsoil at the two sites...cirtanly the soil at ground zero in new mexico, where the first test (Trinity) was carried out, is to this day still quite radio-active :)

True, they had to fob off the people of new mexico by saying an arms dump exploded on the morning of 16/07/45....rather hard to explain why the sky has been lit up a couple of hours before sunrise :) Well I suppose they could have arranged for a Japanese diplomat/representitive to come to the US on the condidtion that they did not go back until peace was declared and that any info passed back was translated and agreed on by the US personell....

Yes I believe that there where also similar concernes with the A Bomb as well, that it could ignite the atmosphere. Lets face it if they had there would be no one around to complain :)

That is of course possible, then again the British govenment(s) have always claimed that the fact that ther is a nuke reprocessing plant in cumbria (Windscale a.k.a Sellafield) has nothing to do with the high incedneces of cancer/lukemia and the like in it's reigon.

I agree that technically thy prolly wouldn't have had a hope, but what I was getting at was assuming that they had a delivery mechanisim (bomb from a plane, missile or whatever), they would have probably thought nothing of using it against the US had the situation beeen reversed....

Probably, and history has told us that Hitler didn't actually want to fight the western europeans, it was the east he was after, but he was sorta forced to fight us when we (England & France) started shooting at him :) Then again we are talking about the same person that would possibly have won had he finished the britain off first, and then turned on the east. This would have helped two fold...firstly, it would have been harder for the US to re-take europe, once it didn't have the UK, to use as a staging post, and also it would have meant the attack on the USSR, would have come later and he wouldn't have had such a problem with the Russian winter....which ultimatly lead to defeat in the east.

I believe that he thought there was more distructive potential in the rockets...also I think he scientists where somewhat sceptical about their ability to succeed.

True, but as I said above, Hitler wasn't the best tactition(sp) in the world, and half the time would not seem to listen to his generals, who after all should know better :) the Me-262, was that the German's Jet fighter, I know they had them in active service before we (the allies) did. They also had a rocket plane as well that was fast, but had a couple of disadvantages, firstly that it could only stay in the air for about 15 minutes, and secondly that it used to catch up with it's own bulletts if the pilot wasn't carefull :)

Heheheh Actually U-235 would be 'easier' to work with and get a yield, though you do need more of it :)

Ah that makes sense :) and yeah 25% is a big lump of your wages so yeah :)

Heheheh :)

True I suppose, don't really know enough to comment :)

Humm I and one other (one of the Martins I think) seem to be the only ones that *DO* like Ted....then again I also quite like Upchuck's character as well, so as far as most people are concerned I'm a lost case :)

Tom would make things interesting....but probably not that plesant.

Yeah the first half os S4 has been quite good actually, some better eps than this time last year...(and no I *DON'T* mean "Depth Takes A Holiday"). Yeah Kev/Britt have been rather exposed.

<Butthead> WOW that would be cool, Brittany's thingies being exposed. </Butthead>

Hey he's not that bad :) and hopefuly he'll grow out of it.

WB ?

No prob at all.

Phill.

Oh, just to correct myself those are _Norden_ sights, dangnabbit... Stupid overactive marketing in this country. :)

On another off note -- picked up Jane's WWII Fighters last night to go with my upgrade in joystick (first one with an actual rudder).. nice flight model, but _loads_ of historical info on the CD as well. Anyone who's a military history buff should consider taking a look...

Yup... isn't it awful when weapons of mass destruction don't clean up after themselves? :P

Which makes biowarfare much scarier, imo. All the possibility of denuding the population of a country with none of the mess of a neutron strike. <shudder>

[another snip to keep this puppy down to size]

True enough. The A-bomb really couldn't have even under the wildest theory (at the Hiroshima equivalent). The question with the fusion devices was if they'd strip the water in the air into free oxygen and hydrogen and fuse the resulting hydrogen (or just fuse the hydrogen in the air -- just not much of that). Fortunately for us, it just doesn't work that way.

Ah... so the UK has it's own Savannah River, hmm? [FYI - that's a 40+ year old tritium processing plant in South Carolina near the Georgia border on the.... you guessed it - Savannah River. :) There's been leakage into the groundwater (actually a surrounding marshland, from what I recall) for at least 20 years, though they're supposed to be cleaning it up. During the Cold War, though -- it _never_ leaked... no, really... honest.]

Yeah... but hashing out how they could deliver it is fun. :) Ok, so I need help... *heh*

It helped... I'm not sure what would have happened if Moscow had fallen, though - most of the industry had been moved back to the other side of the Urals by then. If Stalin had wanted to fight on (and that was certainly what he said) he could have. Russia just had a _lot_ more men to throw at the Germans.

Makes you wonder... if Russia got pushed into the Urals, would we (for self preservation) have put Overlord on hold and shifted the ground forces across into Siberia to shore them up and push back? By '43 we certainly had the Japanese bottled up as far as the Navy - it was mainly island hopping.. Or would it have been better to go ahead to force Hitler to fight on two fronts since only if Russia _completely_ collapsed could he shift forces back to the West? Argh... where's Harry Turtledove when you need him? :)

Sounds about right...

Yeah... at the least they would've never gotten into a two-front war.

And yeah, the 262 was the swept wing dual-jet fighter. The rocket plance was the He-186(7?) if I remember right... There was also the Arado (Me -- but can't remember the number) an actual jet medium bomber but it hardly got used...

I know the US never got a jet into front line service (something about borrowing all the tech from you guys in the first place will do that..), but did the Gloster Meteor make it? All I can remember taking on the 262 right now were P51s (painful, usually) and the RAF Mosquito - which was almost as fast...

Yeah -- but you'd have a better chance of finding 238 without getting lots of men in black suits asking you questions.

[snip]

Only if he and Jane don't come to an understanding first. If I'm reading signals right (and that's certainly not neccessarily true), I think those two might drift apart on their own, with Jane just taking it to her art and being ambivalent about the whole thing. Kind of a "better off as friends" thing. Which would leave it open for a relationship with Daria without Jane being too upset. Best case scenario, obviously.

<Beavis> muh...heh..heheh...hehehe...you said thingies </Beavis>

Very true -- that's just the best reason I can think of for a crossover. :) If he ever does grow out of it, he'd probably be ok. God help him though if he goes to some preppy college and ends up in a frat with a bunch of likeminded morons to encourage him (and a series of *cough* ladyfriends after his father's goldcards...)

Warner Brothers network. They're the TV network responsible for Dawson's Creek, Charmed, Popular, um... Roswell, and most of the other teen-soap-wannabe crap over here. Their saving grace is also showing Buffy [though I understand Fox actually produces the show].

Don

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

The *highest* estimate I've ever seen of fatalities resulting from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (including postwar increases in deaths from cancer) was around 300 thousand. More than that would have died (on both sides and including civilians) in the initial Operation Olympic landings (especially if you add in the likely effects of Operation Starvation). So, even if Japan had surrendered as soon as we got a single foothold in the Home Islands, it would have been worse than the use of the two A-Bombs, in terms of human lives lost.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

Kyle said:

Maybe I was tricked by a rumor, cause I've looked for more on this and can't find it :P

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

In article ,

This is one of the things I'm tired of hearing. People here in America assume that the way our country operates is the only way its citizen can be happy. I wouldn't want to live in Cuba, but who are any of us to try to impose our values on the entire world. We should at least try to understand that some people might rather live there.

That could have been avoided if the family abided by their own agreement (personally, I don't think they should have ever been given that child - one of the few mistakes INS made in this case)

I would applaud the decision to take him (it probably should have been done earlier, in fact). The psychological damage that seemed to be incurred by Elian in that house is at least as bad as anything that could happen to him in Cuba, IMO.

Here's another one I don't understand - this should have never been about Castro, but about thye right of a fit parent to his son.

If they don't send him back, it would send a terrible precedent.

Mike Quinn [email]

Michael J. Quinn said:

I'm well aware that some people can be happy without freedom. Problem is: Elian's already had a taste of it here. Sending him back now is very cruel.

Castro seems to think it's ok to impose *his* values on the whole island. And in terms of values like freedom from interference in one's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" ... well, that gets back to the philosophy of "natural right".

The father isn't getting that kid, you know. Castro is. Elian's going to be living in a state-owned house, and his father is going to be living somewhere else.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 24 Apr 2000 18:11:00 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

He sure didn't seem upset to be back with his father. Cuba does not have a "lack of freedom" as you call it, it has a different kind of freedom. The standard of living is barely below what it is in the US, and only then because of our own embargoes.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of uprising to oust Castro. Except of course by our own government.

I'll believe it when I see it. No offense intended, but you are the only source I have on this.

Kyle

Kyle said:

Kyle, that's kind of like saying that 1980's Ethiopia had a "different kind of nutrition." Cubans are not free to speak, politically organize, or travel. Homosexuality is illegal and punishable by long prison sentences. Many people have been *shot ESCAPING.*

Do you notice that countries like America worry about people illegally getting in, while countries like Cuba worry about people illegally getting *out*. What does that tell you about how people are "voting with their feet?"

(1) - Why do you trust Castro's statistics? Remember, Communist countries have had a long history of faking their own economic statistics, starting with Lenin's Soviet Union in the 1920's and continuing at least to include North Korea in the early 1990's.

(2) - Our embargoes only prevent Cuba from trading with *us*. We're not blockading Cuba, after all.

(3) - The fact that, a few years ago, the island was facing *starvation* implies that Cuba is not as wealthy as you imagine.

What do you think would happen to someone who tried to organize a protest movement? Do you think he'd be treated well by the regime?

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 25 Apr 2000 00:26:08 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

But most of them live quite happy lives. That's the point of government.

It's a psychological thing. You aren't allowed to leave, so a small percentage of people try it. You'd get the same effect if you closed America's borders. A lot of people who wouldn't dream of it otherwise would try to escape.

I don't trust Castro's statistics (any further than I trust my own), this is my own observation. Alan Greenspan will tell you the American economy is booming, but I suspect a recession is looming.

And through the Grace of God, we happen to be a very key portion of the world economy. If we treated them like every country, they'd be in fine shape. The whole reason they are having any problems at all is so we can make an example out of them that roughly translates to "ugh...communism bad!...ugh...capitalism good...ugh".

Embargo-related.

About as well as an uprising would be treated in America. And we don't have any. Kyle

Indeed, but you are the only big economy nearby. You are also the largest economy in the world. It is a lot cheaper and more logical for Cubans to ship products to Americans than to, say, Europe.

Did you send aid, then? See above.

See below.

Obviously not. But if they had elections, he might win, unless the US rigged it, like they did in Italy in 1950... I'm not one of those who say Cuba is a paradise on Earth, and Kyle's talk of people escaping to America just because borders have been put up is pretty obviously untrue, in the most part. It's a country that turned communist, and thus probably was very poor beforehand, and, since communism isn't any sort of miracle cure, is quite probably still very poor. I don't doubt they make up statistics and only show tourists the more prosperous bits. But you don't see the US boycotting China, a far more repressive regime, with nearly as much vehemence.

Lots of good points Greg. There are lots of possible business interests in China, that's a big reason.

Though because it is still communist and only has a few markets, I doubt its going to be very successful.

Also, with Cuba there has been stuff in the past such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, plus the Cubans here opposed to Castro.

China is far more reppressive.

Grachman, The

On 27 Apr 2000 04:50:45 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

Capitalism at it's finest.

Setting up communism to fail just so we can claim moral superiority, same as we are doing in Cuba.

Yeah. Illegal invasions tend to put a damper on international relations.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Greg Pallis said:

Sure, but they *could* ship products to Europe. Or Canada. Or Mexico. That is, if their idiotic economic system enabled them to produce anything competitively, aside from sex.

I'm sorry ... we're obliged to? I wasn't aware that the rest of the world had become American wards.

Who, Castro? Sure he *might* win. But *why isn't he willing to take the risk?*

Cuba used to be one of the richest countries in the Carribean (which of course isn't saying much). It's now one of the poorest countries in the Carribean. Under Castro it's declined certainly in relative terms, and possibly in absolute ones.

I personally think we should lift the boycott.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 30 Apr 2000 15:20:45 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Yes, but if then the fact that they aren't as good economically as they could be can't be directly attributed to their economic system. There are unusual outside forces at work. If America couldn't ship stuff out anymore, we'd be a lot poorer. Would that make capitalism bad?

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Kyle said:

Cuba can't ship stuff out anymore? Why not? We have *embargoed* them, not *blockaded* them. They can export to or import from every country in the world, *except* America.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 01 May 2000 15:12:51 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Different scale, same result. America has every right to not trade with Cuba on principles, but it invalidates Cuba's economy as a proof for or against communism.

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Kyle said:

world,

Well, no. It's a totally different situation. We're not forcing Cuba, or anyone else, to do anything. We're simply refusing to trade with Cuba *ourselves*.

Why? They are still free to trade with *everyone else*.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 03 May 2000 06:33:12 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

And creating an artificially difficult marketplace.

Because the situation causing them to be poor, the lack of a convenient trading partner, is not directly related to communism. If Cuba were capitalist and America refused to trade with it, it'd still be poor. Would that make capitalism bad?

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Kyle said:

Why can't they find ANOTHER "convenient trading partner?"

I disagree. If Cuba were capitalist its productive efficiency would be *much* higher, and it could easily compete on the world market.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

what, just pick up their island and move across the ocean, you mean?

what makes you think that?

[email] (Bright Happy Colorful Pony of Love) wrote in :

:) Or find a convienient warp tunnel from Havana to Europe ?

No he's right because the so f*****g great US would then trade with it. because of course the US *IS* the greatest nation on earth, and of course if you don't follow their ideolagies then you are obviously the spawn of satan.

Phill, who makes no apologies for the fact that I've heard just about enough on this group of how f*****g great the USA is.

On Tue, 9 May 2000 12:37:17 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Surprising. I think there's too much sentiment on this group that reflect a totally opposite view.

For chrissakes guys, let's not degenerate into name-calling. Quite frankly, I'm sick of the "my country is better than yours" statements. Very similar to the "my dad can beat up your dad" argument. It's just.. well.. pointless. Which is all very different from basic sharing of ideas and discussion.

I'd never thought I'd say this.. but I actually miss the old religion threads concerning the existence of God and such, compared to the recent ones.

But I'm weird that way.

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

[email] (Nicole Lee) wrote in :

Well *I* never called anyone names, if I where going to get that personal, I'd take it to email.

I agree which was in part my point, if you see my other followup, I said everywhere has problems which it does.

No we don't wanna go there not again.....humm funny how groups seem to have recouring themes like the ...are xxx satanic threads that come up regually on the music newsgroups. (for xxx, substitute the name of your favorate metal band...the one I'm perticually thinking of here is Rush....some wit jokingly postulated the theory on a.m.r about 5 years ago that it stood for "Rule Under Satan's Hand" and now and again you get newbies asking if this is really true)....

We all are I think :)

Phill.

Phill wrote:

I'd suggest looking behind the dumpster at the Good Times Chinese Restaurant, but I don't don't think they allow capitalist franchises like that in Havana. And thus we see the *true* evils of communism. Oh. Wait. No.

Peace Kevin

On Tue, 9 May 2000 12:37:17 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

"Sarcasm. It's a great way to deal. But, you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?"

Sorry, couldn't resist an Amy quote. :-)

And I make no apologies for the fact that I've heard just about enough on this group of how f***ed up the USA is. Therefore, can we agree that we've all f***ing heard just about enough of both f***ing sides of this f***ing issue? <grin>

Martin
(send all e-mail to "[email]")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
      Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria!
  http://www.lawndale.net  -OR-  http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/

In article ,

NP, I like Amy so that's ok :) Glad someone recognised it for what it was supposed to be.

I've never said that it was, ok like the rest of the would UK included it has it's pros and cons, it just seems that some mebers of this group seem to think that the US is the best and evryone else should "bow down and kiss my (their) butt" (that is also a quote, Daria related, anyone know from where), and it just kinda gets to me from time to time.

Phill.

On Tue, 09 May 2000 14:47:48 -0400, Martin J. Pollard wrote:

F*** that!  :)

Damon Orca on #Stars!

In article ,

Wow, an on topic sentence, an endangered species lately on this group:P

F*** yeah!!!!!

LOL!

A.J.

Alli said:

Well, they have to ship their exports in freighters anyway ... Cuba being an island. While the longer the trip the higher the shipping costs, there are significant loading/unloading costs that make the distance that goods are carried not usually the critical factor over a range of a few thousand miles or so.

*much*

Both economic theory (which holds that communism stifles incentives and signals which in capitalism maximize productivity) and real world history (in which time and time again communism has been accompanied by economic failure). What makes you think otherwise?

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 08 May 2000 01:16:41 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Second time I've seen this from you.  Your economic models are fantasy
worlds where there are infinite resources and everything's availible
to everyone.  Is Cuba supposed to just create some country to trade
goods with?  America is consciously acting in a way contrary to
everyone's best economic interests in order to prove a point about
communism.    Because of that, Cuba is an island country with poor
natural resources and no trading partners with a need for what they
sell in the area.    It's quite obvious that if Cuba could trade with
America, it's economy would be on fairly stable ground.

That wouldn't make it any less poor. Then instead of Castro and a bunch of poor Cubans, you'd have a small group of really rich Cuban businessman, and a bunch of poor Cubans.

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Kyle said:

And you'll see it again and again as long as we're on this topic. It's a legitimate question, since the US is *not* the Sole Market For All Humanity.

No, they aren't. In this case I am making the (accurate) point that Cuba could export to countries other than America, if she could produce anything cheaply enough for her to export at a profit. The fact is that she can't (under Communims); she was sustained during the Cold War by direct Soviet subsidies and by renting out her army as mercenaries. With the end of the Cold War these monies are no longer available.

??? - You actually don't think that any countries other than America would be interested in buying sugar or tobacco?

Other captitalist countries seem to be able to create large middle classes ... why couldn't Cuba?

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

have you no knowledge of basic geography?

it's probably quite expensive to transport goods all the way across the atlantic.

Alli said:

I'm well aware that America is the *closest* big market to Cuba, if that's what you mean.

Not as expensive as you think, since the invention of container ships. Given efficient production (so that the Cubans could afford to charge a competitive price and still make a profit) it wouldn't be that much of a barrier. The real barrier is that the sugar and tobacco plantations are managed very poorly, under Communism.

Back before Communism, Cuba used to be a net exporter of food *and* sugar *and* tobacco *and* cigars. Not just to America, either, but to Europe and to other Latin American countries. The oceans were just as wide then, and freighter technology *less* advanced.

The conclusion's pretty obvious. Personally, I wish that we *would* drop the trade embargo, just to rob apologists for Communist economics of one of their last arguments.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

closest by far.

you still have to buy fuel for the ships, maintain them in usable condition, etc.

and they were exporting to america *as well as* other countries.

Alli said:

Yes, but the cost per ton-mile is incredibly small. Shipping is the *cheapest* way of transporting *anything*, and has been since the invention of boats. And every generation it's been getting cheaper. One reason we live in such a "global" economy today is that shipping is such a small additional cost that given *any* comparative advantage it's profitable to import or export.

If the Cubans were able to produce sugar and tobacco efficiently, they could sell it to Europe. Or South America. Or, for that matter, Asia.

They sold to *all* these places back in the 1950's, when shipping technology was *less* advanced. What is different now?

Well, yes. But my question is: why can't they make a profit now exporting to the other countries? There's plenty of global demand for both sugar and tobacco; indeed with the current anti-smoking hysteria, America probably isn't a very good market for cigarettes any more, compared to Europe.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

because america won't let any other countries do that?

Alli said:

Wrong. What we are doing is refusing to let *companies* which trade with Cuba come to trade with America. All that enterprising individuals wishing to take advantage of the Cuban export or import trade need to do is:

(1) - Not be in or go to America, and

(2) - Not trade with America.

If they do these two things, we can't touch `em. It's not like the US Navy is *blockading* Cuba, Alli.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

which is rather restrictive don't you think?

Alli said:

Absolutely, and I don't think we should do it. Nevertheless, we do have the *right* to do it ... it's our right as a sovereign state to set the conditions under which we are willing to trade with others.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

yes, but that's not the point.

Alli said:

Well, my point is that:

• We have the right to do it, but

• We shouldn't do it.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

the post has expired on my news server, and you didn't leave enough in for me to be able to detect the context (this may have been intentional), so i don't know what you're on about.

Alli said:

Oh, the whole silly Cuban embargo the US has imposed since c. 1960.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

Why is it silly, and does it have anything to do with Cuba's horrible human rights record.

Grachman, The "it would simply add insult to injury were the fruit of my loins to turn into a psycho killer"- Jennifer

It's silly because the Cold War's over and now all it does is create friction between America and her allies, and give socialists excuses for Cuban economic failure.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 14 May 2000 10:31:05 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Both options of which is almost impossible if a country wishes to be even remotely successful in its economy. Let's face it, the US is an economic giant. To not trade with it might not make a nation incredibly poor, but it will definitely limit the nation's possibilities in the world market.

To put it another way, if a country was to choose whether to trade with Cuba or with the US, it'd be the US hands down.

Yes, but it's almost as bad. Not in such a direct manner, but definitely in an indirect manner.

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

Nicole Lee said:

Right, but we don't enforce that choice upon *countries.* Only *companies.* See?

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 14 May 2000 12:58:48 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Same difference. Even companies would choose to trade with the US over Cuba.

I'm not sure if the US fits the bill of a monopoly country, but it certainly comes incredibly close to being one.

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

In article ,

<AMY> Yeah even if Jordan does decide to play with words to try and change the meaning, or tell us off for using the wrong words. </AMY>

Phill.

(anyone that doesn't catch the <AMY>..</AMY> meaning, really shouldn't be on here :) ).

On 14 May 2000 12:58:48 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

In modern capitalist democracies, there's not much of a difference.

[email] (Glenn Olson) wrote in :

Yeah :) Hey since counties are allowed to raise armies, and considdering the baove statement, consdiier this...... The Micro$oft army....though thinking about it if they ever did go to war it would be a pushover to beat them even for a small tinpot state with two soldiers and 6 bullets each. I mean an army that has it's own weapons stop at random, or blow up fo no clearly explained reason :)

Phill....alll in humor.

In article ,

So it all boils down to this, if you want to trade with the US, you can't trade with Cuba right ? And you'll agree that the US is one of the bigest (if not the bigest) places that you would wish to trade with right ? So they effectivley have a sort of monopoly ? So by doing this you are seriously disadvantaging *ANY* company trading with cuba ? Why is it when Microsoft do things like this (the per processor licences, where an OEM would have to pay an MS licence for every PC sold, irrespective of what OS was supplied with it, therefore putting an OEM at a disadvantage if they supply with a non-MS OS), they get taken to court, and eventually agree to settle out of court for a rather large sum. Yet the US govenment get away with it, so much for the land of the free....free unless you are communist that is.

Maybe not with warships, but effectivley economically yes they are.

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

If "you" (an individual or corporation) want to trade with the US, you can't trade with Cuba. A *nation* may let some of its companies trade with Cuba without preventing the others from trading with America.

Yes.

No, and the word you're looking for here is "monopsony", and we don't have that either.

However, we are not preventing the formation of companies intended for the purpose of trading with Cuba ... provided that these companies do not also trade with America.

Because anti-trust law only applies to companies doing business within the United States of America. It does not apply to the United States of America as a whole.

No, a "blockade" is when you forcibly prevent *others* from trading with the target. What we are doing is an "embargo."

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

In article ,

I never said that it was nations, did I ?

Good we can agree on something :)

I stand corrected oh great one.

No but with the situation as it stands would anyone do such a thing ?

And this is a good thing ? Can you say hipocrocy ?

You're playing with words, the point is that the effect is the same. And another way in whch the US is trying to force it's will on the rest of the world, and they said the the USSR was the Evil Empire.

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

The difference between someone refusing to trade with you themselves on the one hand, and actively stopping everyone else from trading with you, on the other hand, is not a mere semantic difference. In fact, it's the difference between "peace" and "war". A blockade is an act of war ... an embargo isn't.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Err and they are not doing this ? maybe technically not, but they are so disadvantaging companies that do, that they are making it not worth the effort.

BUT THE EFFECT IS THE SAME !!!, that is the point, stop trying to evade it.

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

The effect is *not* the same, especially where third parties are concerned. If you, Phill, set up a Cuba Trading Company, you couldn't trade with or visit America, but your ships would not be sunk or stopped on the high seas. That's a rather *big* difference, no?

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

In article ,

BUT The overall effect *IS* the same the US gets it's way and people on the whole don't trade with Cuba, and then uses this "logic" to justify it's rather bullying tactics.

Phill.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

I think his point is that the effect on Cuba is the same not that the effects on any ships are the same

[email] (Paul Gate) wrote in :

That indeed was my point.

Phill.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

what

Given

competitive

real

to

the

their

The conclusion is not entirely obvious, you all but admited it yourself, in the above. That you dismiss entirely the base possibility that at least some large portion of cuba`s woes are in some way due to America`s peculiar and inconsistent policy, is i feel derived in a circular and incomplete manner from your above conclusion.

It seems the leaders of America are not as confident as you, that communism must neccessarily fail completely, if left on its own. Indeed America seems so concerned that it might not, that it is willing to shove its freinds around, in its attempt to prove that it must.

Reasons for this lack of confidence may well be founded on some fact: For instance the former USSR`S economy failed entirely..*after* it spent 20+ years challenging the USA, for the title of, the most deadly nation on earth. The challenge was real enough, I remember television discusions during the eighties that talked of the real possibility of europe being lost to a conventional battle, This kind of power does not just *appear* by doing nothing "rightish", whatsoever

Paul Gate said:

Actually, I'm sure *some* portion is. But it doesn't explain why the Cubans can't make money exporting their produce to places *other* than America.

I think we're being stupid. I actually think we should lift the embargo on Cuba, then watch Castro fall.

Um ... I think that what the Russian Communists did right was they took over the Russian Empire, which was big and had a lot of resources. They then proceded to run it into the ground.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...

Cubans

America is making trade with cuba difficult for anyone Quite how they justify this, when this is precisely the *sort* of bullying activity they critisise cuban society for, is beyond me

communism

seems

I agree..all this inconsistency is blurring the situation But the situation is indeed blurred..

20+

lost

over

You are getting over excited, the Czarist regime was not a model of incredible resource managment, either. It was a brutal oppresive monarchy. to say that this "land of milk and honey", was then *run into the ground* by what followed, and that russia funded its era of schools, housing, second largest military force in the world and at least notional universal employment from the proceeds of the Czarist regime, is imo absurd

Russia was virtualy destroyed, by the nazi invasion. That they pulled an eventual victory from this situation, and then went on to engage in a space programme, and become one of the most powerfull nations in the history of earth is an objective testament that bad managment wasn`t the *only* thing happening in the USSR Imo the fact that it failed in the end, should be enough. It is silly to add to this, and claim that the USSR never acheived a single thing, because that is quite demonstrably false ( remember the moon race.. no i don`t either, but it did happen) It this very "hysteria", that i find purplexing, the need to paint totalitarian state communism as utterly_incapable_of_anything, while the mere assertion that it does not work as well as alternatives available would be quite sufficient.

Paul Gate said:

I am? Show me where this statement displays "over excitement?"

I never said that it was. I said that it was "big and had a lot of resources."

It was economically very inefficient compared to the contemporary West (c. 1900). It was only "a model of incredible resource management" compared to Leninist or Stalinist Russia.

Which was succeeded by a vastly more brutal and oppressive totalitarian dictatorship.

Not only the land, but around 30 million Russians, who wound up being put in the ground in the most literal of senses by the first two Communist "Tsars". Incidentally, *you* introduced the idea of it being a "land of milk and honey" ... it was nothing of the kind, and I never said that it was.

I never said that. What I said was that late Czarist Russia was already industralizing.

Which was partially the fault of their own diplomacy. Guess who they were siding with from September 1939 through June 1941?

I never said that it was. You are trying to ascribe straw-man arguments to me.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

Jordan S. Bassior of AOL http://www.aol.com writes:

So if they had declared Hitler an enemy at the outset, Germany wouldn't have bothered invading them? Perhaps you can explain why this would be so, rather than hastening a German invasion.

-Shez.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the sentence above. The invasion was not the fault of their diplomacy (though if they'd helped Hitler _more_ it may have prevented one) -- the 'virtual destruction' during the invasion _was_, ie - if Stalin hadn't been so sure Hitler was his chum, the Red Army and Air Force wouldn't have been sitting on their hands on direct orders when the intelligence kept coming in that the Germans were about to strike.

Now if you are a big believer in blitzkreig you can argue that the Red Army in that situation (farther from it's bases of supply, better weather for the Germans, not as desparate whatnot) would've still gotten clobbered. I'm not sure either way, honestly.

Don

Don Morris writes:

I suspect it would have. It's been estimated that the Russians lost a million men defending Stalingrad, a place where the Germans couldn't use the advantage of their armour and blitzkrieg tactics. Out on the open plains the Germans constantly had the upper hand until the bottomless pit of Stalingrad (plus the weather and stretched supply lines of course) finally sapped their resources and willpower and enabled the Russians to turn the tables.

The Russians were very badly equipped, there are even stories of soldiers having to attack with unloaded weapons as there were simply not enough bullets to go round! In such a situation it's amazing that they beat the Germans at all, and notable that AFAIK they were the only country actually invaded by the Germans who didn't get defeated by them.

Britain suffered enormous destruction even though it wasn't actually invaded, it must have been a lot worse for Russia.

-Shez.

Shez said:

No ... if they had threatened to join the Allies at the outset, Hitler *might not have invaded POLAND* (which as you may recall, was in Our Time Line cooperatively invaded by Germany *and* Russia, acting under the Nazi-Soviet Pact). If Hitler had done so anyway, the Germans would have had a much tougher fight on their hands (the Wehrmacht of 1939 was not the Wehrmacht of 1941) and *on TWO fronts.* (France was still very much in the war then). Germany would have been fighting *alone*, with no Italy, Romania, Hungary, or Bulgaria on her side, against *four* Allied Powers (including Poland).

Germany *still* might have been able to do a lot of damage (I think Poland would have fallen anyway), but she woudn't have gotten as far as she did in OTL.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 08 May 2000 13:51:32 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Are you an american? I thought that was a heretical statement in the USA...

Glenn Olson said:

Yes, I am, and no it isn't! :)

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

Jordan S. Bassior of AOL http://www.aol.com writes:

Probably because the USA has tried to take to court companies from other countries that have traded with Cuba. I don't recall the mechanism by which the US was trying to violate our sovereignty, but I know there were a number of complaints a couple of year ago that this was what was going on, that they were trying to force UK and European companies to comply with US law. It's like, according to the WTO, Europe must buy it's bananas from plantations owned by US multinationals in Central America rather than from the smaller producers in the West Indies that they have chosen to buy their bananas from. I think this is why there are so many people against the WTO - both in the US as well as in Europe and the Third World - it seems to be a trojan horse through which multinationals are able to override individual countries' sovereignty.

-Shez.

On 08 May 2000 01:16:41 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Pure ideological spew, as relevant as my claims that capitalism fosters wage-slavery.

Glenn Olson said:

Most economists believe that capitalism is more economically efficient than communism, and the track records of *other* communist countries compared to capitalist ones seem to bear their point of view out. What reason do you have for thinking otherwise?

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote in message news:[email]...

be *much*

than

compared to

you have

For one thing, most economists now prefer terms like "free market" and "command economy" over such words as "capitalist" and "communist." You cannot have an economy without capital and there are "capitalist" organizations, like corporations, which are very much like little communes. You need to describe exactly what you're talking about with communism: one guy or a group of guys telling everyone else what to do--command economy.

In a command economy one problem you run into is the diseconomies of scale. As organizations get bigger they get harder to manage. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. In large corporations they deal with this by delegating responsibility, subdividing the operation, or sometimes just spinning off parts of the corporation into two smaller corporations. So what do you do when the economic unit is an entire nation? How can Fidel possibly manage to keep up with everthing that's going on in Cuba when there are college-trained professional business managers who can't single-handedly manage an organization a fraction of the size?

Business managers have to dedicate themselves to one thing: making the stockholders some money. Of course in business the only way to do this successfully is to dedicate themselves to serving the customers but they have to keep their eyes on the prize: happy customers, happy stockholders, hopefully happy workers--everybody's happy. A command economy has a different agenda--the communist ideology. While a business manager might make decisions based on whether it will make the company profitable, a command economy dictator has to make decisions based on whether it furthers the ideology of communism and Marxism--or whatever other ideology that holds sway in that country. The problem is: focusing on profitability and productivity creates wealth--for everyone--but focusing only on ideology serves only ideology. Ideology doesn't put food on the table. That doesn't mean you can't be an effective business manager and still have ideals, many do, but you still have to take care of business.

Fidel has one big advantage: Unlike most business managers, he can blame all his failures on the U.S. instead of accepting the real reason and anyone who disagrees with with that assessment can be...ahem...dealt with.

R. K. Henry said:

I know ... I'm simply using the more common terminology.

Which is one big reason why we should lift the embargo, and take away his last excuse for failure.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 10 May 2000 07:00:12 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

The fact that no communist nation has truly had a chance to make any relevant track record.

Faced with a hostile developed world, while simultaneously trying to rebuild their infrastructural, agricultural and defensive positions, their failure was inevitable; and the only part communism played in that, was in fostering the hostility.

Capitalism worked, because it was embraced by nations that were already powerful.

Glenn Olson said:

Actually, capitalism started out in a "hostile" FEUDAL world, and capitalist nations, most notably Holland and England, demonstrated the superiority of the capitalist organizing principle. Communism, OTOH, seems to be an abject failure given *any* non-communist nations present ... which leads one to doubt that it would succeed in a totally communist world.

We can't perform the experiment, anyway. Given that communism is usually accompanied by impoverishment, starvation, and mass murder, it would be monstrous to turn the whole world communist just to see if communism works any better under such conditions.

(there's good theoretical reason, as Ludwig von Mises and other neo-classicists have pointed out, to presume that it doesn't; that in fact it was only the existence of the capitalist world as a market and measure of relative values that enabled communism to last as long as it did).

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 13 May 2000 13:48:04 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

I take it you believe Dickens was completely full of shit?

Else you must also admit that capitalism was initially acompanied by impoverishment and starvation at the least; whether it included mass murder is debatable.

Change is not easy; and the change that converted Russia into the Soviet Union was one of the biggest changes seen in ages.

Of course, the same excuse can be used to explain why they're not doing much better post-communism either...

Glenn Olson said:

No, of course not. But in the times Dickens was writing of (the early 19th century) people were starving because the economy was too poor to feed everyone. In Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, they were starving *because the government sent troops in to take their food.*

There's a BIG difference.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote in message news:[email]...

My understanding is that it was because industrialisation and changes in scale in agriculture had created staggering disparities in wealth. My reading of Dickens is that (among other things) he was exposing this reality: there was enough to go round, if equitably shared, but the poor were starving while the rich indulged themselves.

Plus �a change...?

Martin.

Martin Sylvester said:

You understand incorrectly, then (*). "Staggering disparities in wealth" (and starvation amongst the poor) had existed in England from at least the Roman Conquest on. *Some* of the suffering of the rural poor in 18th-19th century England was created by the Enclosure Acts, but that, of course, wasn't Dickens' focus.

(*) And so did Dickens, generally speaking.

That was what Dickens was trying to say ... and he was wrong.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 03 May 2000 06:33:12 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Yes, but are you not a member of a nation that claims to have nearly as much economic clout as the rest of the world combined?

Actually, you tried to kill that one too - by crafting a law that allowed for lawsuits to be filed against any foreign company that traded with Cuba.

On 1 May 2000 23:07:09 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote:

Good point. I'm surprised I hadn't thought of that. China should serve as just such a proof... that is, if they weren't hybridizing with capitalism. (Personally, I think, economically speaking, we're all moving toward a middle from opposite directions.)

On 24 Apr 2000 21:13:08 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

Finally, someone said it. If Castro were the monster so many want to think he is, I'd think there'd have been some sort of general uprising a long time ago. And yes, there are those who got shafted by Castro, and fled the country, but I think there is a reason for this.

I genuinely believe that the majority of Cuba's people are better off under Castro than they were under his predecessor, Batista. Batista ran a banana republic, where there was a one vote : one dollar ratio, with the government fully bought and paid for by US business interests. I think those zealots in Miami are the people who were originally profiting from this, because they were the wealthy of that island. And unlike the wealthy in the US, they didn't have a popular government with the spine to say, "enough is enough" when exploitation of the poor got out of control.

In the US, our form of government enabled us to deal with the social problems of industrialization in a relatively nonviolent manner. In Cuba, I think that Karl Marx was right.

That is horrible reasoning. Castro makes sure to put down any uprising or dissidents. There is a huge waiting line for visas to come to the US. People who get here often apply for asylum or just plain defect (baseball players.) And there is an uprising- but only where there is freedom to have an uprising- in Miami.

That is sad. You have people criticizing a dictatorship that takes away people's rights, and you say they're just a bunch of self- interested rich people?

Karl Marx was not right. People don't like living in Cuba, and people love it when they leave, that's why they vote Republican (they are more anti-communist than Democrats, though Democrats are anti-communist as well) The same holds for others who escape communism (Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese) they tend ot vote Republican.

You don't hear anything because Castro suppresses his people.

Grachman, The

On 27 Apr 2000 04:26:09 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

According to you:

There are no uprisings in Cuba because Castro puts them down violently. There are no uprisings in the USA because everybody loves it.

The last time someone tried an uprising against the US government, it was one of the bloodiest wars in our history. The War for Southern Independence. (yeah, that was intentional, and snipy).

Yep. Rights are less important than their happiness. And if the people are mostly happy, it's a good government.

You know what's great reading for this discussion? "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt Vonnegut. You could use a little Bokononism in your viewpoint. (that wasn't really an important point, just a thought that popped into my head, and a friendly suggestion to read a great novel).

Hmm. People who don't like Cuba leave, therefore the poeple that are still there don't like it either. Logical fallacy of the higest degree.

Prove it.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

In article , [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Explain how? He seems to have been held captive to me.

Again, is it really the responsibility of this country to be the moral keeper of the world, we have a hard time on our own. I'm not saying that Cuba is paradise or that it's even a *good* place to live. It's just not our business to interfere with families in other places because we don't agree with their political philosophy.

How can you know that, unless you are Castro (and I don't think that's true). We have no way of knowing besides some news reports that are no more verifiable than any other rumor.

I don't like Castro, either - but I also don't claim to know what he's going to do.

You, like the Miami relatives, are being blinded by hatred.

That would be a shame, but even Castro, as bad as he is, would be a better guardian that the people in Miami.

Mike Quinn [email]

be

somewhere

NO!, Another line from the Miami Cubans. That story is right up there with "Juan is a pedophile, Elain would be a sex slave" and "Juan is a officer in the Cuban Secret Police, he would kill Elian"

His entire family is being moved into a new beach home.

Get over it, the Cubans really aren't that bad. Cuba isn't the Soviet Union!

The Contentious Objector

On 24 Apr 2000 18:11:00 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

SAYS WHO?!

Would *someone* who is saying this *please* tell me where they heard it. I never did, and everything I have heard seems to be to the contrary.

All children in Cuba are legally wards of the state.

However, Juan Miguel is being turned into a hero in his own right by the Cuban propaganda machine. I don't see Castro breaking up a winning team like Juan and Elian. Plus keeping the family together allows him to point them out to the international community and say, "see how concerned I am about the integrity of Cuban families," while providing cover for the same anti-family exploitation he's always used to control the populace.

Wow. Someone's brain sopped up WAY too much propoganda from their ex-army 6th grade history teacher.

On 21 Apr 2000 18:42:13 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

Kyle

nor

will

The US doesn't seem to have a problem sending back Haitians, Guatemalans, Mexicans to situations far worse than those that exist in Cuba.

Why should the Cubans have special rights when they have it pretty good at home compared to the people who the US deports by the boatload

I have been to Cuba twice, and people live a hell of alot better than millions of American do. Can you imagine what it is like to live in a place where you have the right to see a doctor?

Elian does not know what "Asylum" is, he has been brainwashed by the felons he is living with. If you take the video seriously no doubt you also took the videos of Vietnam veterans seriously "I embrace socialism, Ho is a great leader of Men"

You know, I can't be a father, maybe I should kidnap one of your children and bring him here to Canada, I could argue he would have a better life in Canada, and that would be true, does that mean I should be allowed to raise your child and keep you away from him or her?

The Contentious Objector

On 21 Apr 2000 18:42:13 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

Question: who are you replying to? Some *quoting* would be nice.

I care about people who are sufficiently close to me that I can actually know the whole story, the real story. Some kit that the media is spinning like a top means nothing to me. I can't know the full story, therefore, I leave it in the hands of those who *are* close enough to the situation to make an educated decision. Here on the west coast, I am not close enough to do that.

"Contentious Objector" wrote in message news:aFSL4.76371$[email]... (snip)

I wouldn't call this a Daria-style rant.

It started out like a Daria style essay, as the afternoon with American exchange students progressed, it became more inchorent, but you have to agree Daria would hold alot of those positions!

I dunno, it seems to be pretty common for darianites to want to project their own views, beliefs, locations (;-) ) onto Daria herself... I don't know if we can necessarily say what Daria would think about this. They've kept a lot of her political views pretty ambiguous.

--J.

Jessica M.L. of ASOP (Association of

I think she would just *love* Sick Sad World's Elian Gonzales special.

HIS MOTHER SLEEPS WITH THE FISHES! HE'S HOLED UP WITH LAWLESS HOODLUMS! THE AMAZING ORDEALS A 5 YEAR OLD WILL UNDERGO TO ACQUIRE A POKEMON COLLECTION! --ONLY ON SICK SAD WORLD!

-Shez.

its good not everybody wants to send him to a place where he will be a property of the state and he won't have Freedom.

Little Elian.

Grachman, The

On 25 Apr 2000 06:56:36 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

It's bad not everybody wants to keep him with his rightful father. Doesn't "freedom" include no illegal seizure of property? Wouldn't be that much of a legal stretch to apply that to Father/son. Kyle

Elian isn't property.

Castro considers all Cuban citizens wards of the state.

Wouldn't be

That's fine about the law. But Elian would have a better life here.

A court will determine whether he goes back. An area of interest for the judge would be what Castro has in store for little Elian.

Grachman, The

On 26 Apr 2000 06:28:29 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

No he's not. But the right of a fit parent to raise his child is a universally accepted right.

A technical title only, the father still raises the boy. Perhaps he lives a better life as a "ward of the state" than without. And according to your own words, anything's ok if the boy lives a better life.

So you spout stuff about "freedoms" and "rights", then say it's ok to violate those freedoms and rights if the situation seems convenient? Kyle

Yes, but sometimes children are taken away from parents. For example, in abusive situations.

In my opinion, living in freedom and opportunity is more important. Intelligent people can disagree.

Technical little title? That means Castro can do whatever he wants to Elian.

It means that in Cuba, it is NOT a universally accepted right to raise your own child.

What?

I believe Elian should stay for freedom and rights, but a court may find otherwise because of the father, and it would not be necessarily wrong under the law for the court to do so.

Grachman, The

On 27 Apr 2000 05:25:00 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

Then you are supporting an invasion of Cuba?

Castro CAN do whatever he wants. And believe it or not, the US government could do whatever they want with an American's kids too. They'd find some excuse. But neither one does.

Violating one person's rights to give rights to another is not freedom in any sense of the word.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

From: herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle)

It's bad not everybody wants to keep him with his rightful father. Doesn't "freedom" include no illegal seizure of property?

Elian isn't property.

Castro considers all Cuban citizens wards of the state.

Wouldn't be that much of a legal stretch to apply that to Father/son. Kyle

That's fine about the law. But Elian would have a better life here.

A court will determine whether he goes back. An area of interest for the judge would be what Castro has in store for little Elian.

Now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You ramble and rant and rave about "freedoms", but then when cornered you starting talking about legal technicalities or living conditions.

Living conditions? They are clearly better over here. I have stated that clearly.

Under the law, courts may have no choice but to send Elian back with his father. I think he should stay here because of Freedom, and, yes, being away from his father would be a bad thing.

Under the law, courts may have no choice but to send him back to Cuba with his Father. I am concerned, though, that Castro will make him some sort of trophy and use him as propaganda.

Grachman, The

On 27 Apr 2000 05:21:31 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

1) Living conditions, in your opinion, shouldn't overrule natural rights, because those supercede everything according to you.

2) The only reason living conditions are better is that ridiculous embargo.

What freedom is there when natural rights like those of a fit father are violated? Answer: none.

Damn laws. There to protect our freedom, and they protect a Cubans freedom instead.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On 27 Apr 2000 05:21:31 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

Like his relatives in Miami?

No, like the hippies and Vietnam.

Grachman, The

Since ya'll insist on perpetuating the myth that Cuban citizens have "no freedom", i'm going to have be a relativist and point out that an anarchist would say Americans have no freedom, too. American law should not be the standard by which positive or negative freedom is measured.

He has plenty of freedom in Cuba. He won't be put in prison or anything. On top of that, he will be with his legal parent.

American law says the boy belongs in Cuba with his legal father. American law preserves these freedoms you hold so dear. Why are you clinging to it on one side and anally screwing it on the other?

On 25 Apr 2000 06:56:36 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

I like how you capitalize Freedom. Do you truely believe freedom is handed out by governments?

<retch> I also like how you attempt to use an emotional device in an intellectual group.

Personally, if I had a choice between Cuba and East LA, I'd take Cuba any day. If I had a choice between Cuba and Mexico, I'd choose the same. Actually, about any country south of the US topples when compared to Cuba, the only possible exception being Brazil, and I don't know enough to say that for sure.

I'd take Cuba over Russia. I'd take Cuba over the former Yugoslavia (aren't they capitalist now?). I'd take Cuba over a lot of places.

And besides, Cuba is the kind of island that, if it weren't owned by a communist government, most of it would be owned by a single corporation, or at least, the productive parts would. After all, Cotton (tm) is owned by a single company in America, why not sugar in Cuba?

No, governments take away Freedom.

LOL I thought I'd get that reaction. I see it all the time in political columns. It's pretty sick I agree.

Why? you could always move out of East LA, and protest the conditions, vote, run for office. Not in Cuba.

If I had a choice between Cuba and Mexico, I'd choose the

It's hard to verify that since it is not easy to no the truth about Cuba's economic coniditions.

And, once again, you have no rights, unlike the other countries, where you could actually speak out to effect change.

the only possible exception being Brazil, and I

Russia was decimated by communism, it will take more than capitalism to save it.

Yugoslavia also had its experience with totalitarianism, and now race wars are making it an unfriendly place.

Yea, you are paranoid. Actually, lots of parts would be owned by people who buy houses. But, unfortunately, you really can't own anything in a communist country.

After all,

Cotton is owned by a single company? Hey why are you complaining, cotton is cheap as hell. Just about everything is getting cheap as hell here in America. Computers under $1000. Cars down to $10000 (but they have to meet enviorenmental and safety standards, or they'd be cheaper, but dangerous)

Grachman, The

<snip>

So.....you agree you have no idea whether what you say is true or not because you have no idea what really happens there and what the conditions are?

Melissa

oh don't be silly. he'll be property of his dad.

what, will it be ok in 20 years when he's big elian, then?

Isn't anyone going to attack my other statements?

The Contentious Objector

Yikes.

Contentious Objector wrote:

Um, they kinda *are*, y'know...loads with legal employment, voting rights, everything.

??????

Now, I don't remember dates well, but she kinda already did. Granted, this could've been posted before she did, but...yeah, she did.

He didn't give birth to the Internet, no. But he introduced the father to the mother. As a young senator from Tennessee, he pushed to introduce the military-run Arpanet (I think that's what its name was) to a wider audience, i.e. the general American public. This was sometime in the mid '70s. He was, therefore, a key player in the evolution of the modern Internet.

Well, I could go into an argument about politics being run by money, but then again I think the chances are slim *you'd* be "govornor", bud. (btw -- it's "governor"...I learned that in third grade)

I don't pretend to know about Jeb Bush, but George W. is an overzealous, mucho conservative party player who is intelligent but who doesn't use that wisely.

(and now, ladies and gents, this is the part I shall get so very beyond pissed at)

Um, hate to disappoint, but that's the rest of the US as well. I'm not even going into the Florida crime problem. It's a wonder my friend Lisa (who works as a corrections officer in Florida) is still alive.

Yeah, and we're damn proud of it too. (shows "pro death penalty" pin)

Besides, I don't want to commit a crime that would lead to me being sentenced to death so I'm not worried.

Once again, that would be the rest of the US too. (and I wouldn't be looking at Texas nearly as much as I would be looking at Southern California)

(breathing in and out very slowly...ah, screw it)

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF THROWING OUT A FUCKING STEREOTYPE LIKE THAT????????? WHO THE FUCK GAVE YOU THE RIGHT???????? YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!!!!!

(*whew*)

I see I won't be protecting your ass if you should ever run into any other Texans who are more criminal-minded. Then again, I'd think you'd kinda deserve a little ass-kicking.

It's an oxymoron.

All of whom deserved it. They spent at least ten years or so on death row, going through appeal after appeal after appeal. Okay, so there was ONE person who didn't deserve to die (a mentally disabled man who was put to death in 1999), but that's still a pretty good track record, dontcha think?

Yeah fucking right.

Hell, I would be the first to say I hate George W. with a passion, but he did right in allowing all those executions to go forth.

Nonononononono. By your own narrow-minded view of the world, that's "genocide". This is just justice, plain and simple.

You are such a retarded idiot; it's "gubernatorial". Geez, I didn't know the insane asylum allowed its residents to post on newsgroups. And second, he would NOT be in any fucking Hague court because he hasn't committed a human rights violation. These people deserved to die because of their actions. Plain and fucking simple.

Um, takes one to know one...?

He does know, you stupid. He doesn't know who some world leaders are; fine. Do YOU happen to know the answers to those questions? Oh yeah, that's right, they don't have that at stupid school.

Look at where Texas is. Look at where Canada is. I don't even know who the prime minister is (at least I think I don't...is it Chetrien or something?). We're ethnocentric, not stupid. I bet I can run circles around you in a lot of academic endeavors.

I don't believe that. Show me, link wise, where you found that. If that were the case, the American news media would've been all over that.

Well, he's running for president, he's obviously power-hungry. I don't like the guy and think the country would be worse-off for electing him. But I don't think he's that horrific.

(sings) "What would people say if they find out I'm a Jesus Freak,What would people do if they find out it's true? I don't really care if they hear that I'm a Jesus Freak, There ain't no disguising the truth..." -- "Jesus Freak", dcTalk

(which, btw, is a song that RAWKS hardcore)

Falwell isn't a "Jesus Freak". He's an opportunistic bastard. Jesus Freaks include...

Archbishop Desmond Tutu Mother Teresa Pope John Paul II at *least* two people here on this newsgroup *ahem* *cough*

(and I'm not even going to begin with the rest of this...multiple spelling errors aside)

You are heartily NOT welcome.

LI

I'm sorry, but.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

THANK YOU for a great response and a great laugh, LI -- I didn't respond to that original post (mainly because I didn't think I could "govorn" (sic) myself into remaining civil), but I loved reading your responses. Learned something too, since I hadn't realized Gore (Jr.) was actually instrumental (or at least a player) in opening up ArpaNET to the public.

Don

death penalty" pin)

Afghanistan is also damn proud of it, so is Iran, Vietnam, China and Lybia the US keeps really good company when it comes to Human rights (sets noose on fire)

looking

California doesn't allow companies to dump toxic waste into the Pacific Ocean, have you seen the gulf of Mexico lately

row,

person

    Fucking Right, THe Texas justice system is almost as fair as a Kangaroo
Court in
    Sierra Leone. Most people have incompetent defense, corrupt prosecutors,
biased
    juries. People have been executed on Hearsay, THE TESTIMONY OF A
PSYCHIC,
    paid off witnesses, jail house informants. If the state of Texas is so
damn sure of it's self
    WHY DO THEY TRY SO FUCKING HARD TO BLOCK DNA TESTING!

did

Right thing morally or politically?

the

human

No that is where things get REALLY fun, you see by Chilean standards Pinochet hadn't done anything wrong, by Cambodian standards Pol Pot hadn't done anything wrong. If Pinochet wasn't on life support and practically dead he would be someone's bitch in a Spanish prison

By Texan standards Bush is a great guy, By the standards of the Civilized world he is a mass political murderer and would be looking at a very long stay in a fine European prison.

If Bush went for a visit to ITALY which abolished the death penalty over 100 years ago, He would never see the light of day again. The last politician who tried to bring back the death penalty in Italy in 1974 was dragged into the street and beaten to death by a angry mob. I can only imagine what an angry Italian mob would do to Bushie

I am sure it would be a FOX special, "When Italian Liberals Attack"

Or better yet, why don't you go on an Italian vacation and shout infront of a Catholic Church that you support the death penalty, Let me know if you are going to do it, I want to watch. I would try to return you're remains to you're family, don't worry about shipping you will probably fit in a FedEx Box

Contentious Objector

Oh, yeah -- Italy: Death Penalty free for over 100 years! Um, ignore that little period under Mussolini. Oh, yeah -- and Sicily? All hype. Puh-lease.

I _really_ wouldn't go trotting out Europe as a "holier-than-thou-ever-shalt- be" example.. We wouldn't even have to go back to WWII -- you want _real_ "political genocide" try 'ethnic cleansing'. BIG difference.

Perspective -- it's a GOOD thing.

Hmm... speaking _as_ a Catholic, can I request that the loonies who shoot abortion clinic doctors try this to see if he's right?

Don

Puh-lease.

Under Mussolini convicts were not executed,

So are history books!

I'd believe that -- if you're adding that people shot by secret police aren't technically convicts yet.

Ok, so cite one. Feel free.

On Tue, 02 May 2000 22:46:07 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:

Yes. And the trains ran on time, dammit.

Europe sucks.

Grachman, The

Ummm...you are intentionally sounding stupid right? Everything else you've had long opinions on so now I'm assuming you are just saying this to provoke people... and I am answering it. Bad, bad me.

Melissa

LOL

YES exactly.

How did you know what I was doing?

Grachman, The

On 02 May 2000 03:21:00 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

Of course it does.

Humanity sucks.

Sucking sucks.

-Shez.

[email] (Shez) wrote in :

no sucking rules if it's done by a cute chick :)

<butthead> That would be cool uhuhuhuhuh </butthead>

Phill.

On Fri, 5 May 2000 08:36:47 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Unless you're gay.

Glenn Olson wrote:

Unless, of course, you're *FEMALE* and gay. ;7

This is fun, in a strange, twisted way.

-IdentityCrisis

[email] wrote in :

Ok, ok revised code, guess I assumed that the person who said gay meant male and gay :)

PROCEDURE Sucks(Sexual    	: TSexualOrientation;
    	    	    Sex    	    	: TSex);

BEGIN;
  IF (Sex=Male) THEN
  BEGIN;
    IF (Sexual IN[Straight, Bi]) THEN
      WRITELN('Chicks who suck are cool !');
    IF (Sexual IN[Gay, Bi]) THEN
      WRITELN('Guys who suck are cool !');
  END
  ELSE {Sex=Female}
  BEGIN;
    IF (Sexual IN[Straight, Bi]) THEN
      WRITELN('Guys who suck are cool !');
    IF (Sexual IN[Gay, Bi]) THEN
      WRITELN('Chicks who suck are cool !');
  END;
END;

<GRIN> Happy now ??? </GRIN>

Phill.

On Tue, 9 May 2000 12:42:51 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

For the record, the entire concept of sucking has never impressed me, and I'm a heterosexual male. You need to add in a "and NOT Fearofbiting>0"

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyl�) wrote in :

See my comment to Martin S :)

Phill.

"Phill Harvey-Smith" wrote in message news:[email]...

He might be, but I'm not! What about people who consider the practice degrading, or have other personal or ethical objections to it? Not everyone who's sexually active is into that. <shrug>

Okay, I know, I'm celibate, so why should I get involved, yada, yada, yada...

8-)

Martin.

[email] (Martin Sylvester) wrote in :

ok,ok so put a giant IF (NotTurnedOnByIt OR HaveOtherObjections) on the call so that it don't get even called in for either of these two conditions :)

Yeah but that's by choice (though I suppose indirectly)....

Phill...tredding very litely and trying not to offend Father Martin.

Very Creative, I shared this the rest of my programming class, they all found it very ammusing (except for a Baptist who said we were all going to hell for Sodomy) However one girl found a problem with you're programme. It doesn't take into account guys going down on girls or lesbians on each other.

It's amazing what you can get away with in class when the computer teacher is functionally illiterate and couldn't turn on an iMac to save her life.

In article ,

Yeah they may well do....one of the reasons I wrote it, I rember my very first Pascal programming lecture, the lecturer talked about programming a computer to make tea, perhaps he'd have got more interest if he'd used this kinda example.

<Rush> He's not afraif of your judgement, He's heard of horrors worse than your hell He's a little bit afraid of dying But he's a lot more afraid of your lying And the things that he fears, Are a weapon to be used against him.... </Rush>

Sorry about that, I suppose he's entitled to think that if he wishes, personally I have no concept of hell. Then again I'm probably condemed by him anyway, because of the beliefs that I do hold.

Yes it does examine the logic more carefully, see below....

Hey throw it at the teacher see what he/she says.

{I think you'll find this is guys on girls}

{and this is girls on girls, if you accept Gay=person attracted to their} {own sex, }

Phill.

On Sat, 06 May 2000 19:28:36 -0500, [email] wrote:

That would be licking, I believe.

On Wed, 10 May 2000 20:58:47 -0600, Glenn Olson wrote:

Only amongst the commoners. The more skilled, however...

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

[email] (Glenn Olson) wrote in :

Ok then :-

PROCEDURE Sucking(SexualPreference : TSexualPreference);

BEGIN;
  IF (SexualPreference IN[ Gay, Bi]) THEN
    WRITELN('Guys who suck rule !');
  IF (SexualPreference IN[ sTRAIGHY, Bi]) THEN
    WRITELN('Chicks who suck rule !');
END;

Happy :)

Phill.

On Mon, 8 May 2000 08:53:05 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Nope. Doesn't account for bisexuals. ;P

[email] (Glenn Olson) wrote in :

Yes it does , Bi=Bisexual, who think as you can see from above code snippet that both chicks and guys that suck rule :)

Phill.

absolutely. ;)

On Tue, 9 May 2000 08:24:44 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Oops. Wasn't paying attention.

Okay, what about gender identity?

[email] (Glenn Olson) wrote in :

Done in revised code :)

Phill.