I recently published some drawings of Daria and Trent that I refer to as "erotic", a word that I use to distinguish from "porn". Unfortunately the discussion has turned to sexual fantasies and toon porn. Even though I emphasized it several times already I want to repeat again that my pictures don't have sexual content.
The Trent picture is a Mystik Spiral album cover, showing a naked Trent, crucified on a guitar standing in a sea of flames. The title of the album is "He Died For Our Songs".
The Daria picture shows Daria being painted by Jane. Daria is posing nude on Jane's bed, resting against a heap of pillows (the "resting venus" theme very common in old paintings).
That's it. That's all. Nothing more. No orgies. No sex. Not even kissing. Where I live I could hand out copies of those pictures in Kindergartens. It's definitely safe to look at those pictures. It won't ruin your perception of Daria or Trent forever. I love the show. I wouldn't throw dirt on it. Not like some fan fiction writers.
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
You know the interesting thing about 'nude' art is that no matter how we try to not associate nude images with porn, smut etc., there will always be elements that cross over the boundaries. And this is because nudity and the way it has historically been presented (Resting Venus) is political, just as porn is political. What i mean by this is that the underlying themes usually revolve around issues of power in relation to preconceived notions of gender . If you take the history of the female nude in art, on the surface it could be perceived as a study in the female form, a rejoicing in the curvy sinews of women's flesh. Apparently harmless adoration/study by an artist, usually male. However if you look at what images such as Resting Venus and its ilk are implying you will see a whole gamut of cultural preconceptions regarding gender. For instance you will notice that the classic nude is usually reclining, in a position of submission, offering up her body to the hungry gaze of the artist and audience. The face of the woman will either be coyly looking sideways at the viewer or will be covering or averting the eyes, again another submissive use of body language. This metaphorically and figuratively separates the body from the mind, in effect objectifying the female body. It is a product, a thing to be examined, critiqued, desired and consumed. Look at the use of the female body in advertising for example, here the connection between body and commodity is most apparent. These very same notions are most prevalent and more gratuitously obvious in porn.
Now im not saying that all porn and nude art operate out of the above or indeed same ideology, but in terms of the 'classical reclining nude' and the hidden context within it, it bears thinking about.
As for the political and sexual context of crucifying Trent.. nuh, im not going there. ;)
The idea is to make the female subtly attractive; this is the sort of posture she would be in if she was (modestly) offering sex. If it's done less subtly, it's out and out porn.
Oh ... another advantage to the reclining nude ... it's an easy pose for the model to do. Consider the difficulty of trying to maintain an active pose for an hour or so.
I think artists should use what works, and not worry too much about being "politically correct".
It's an obvious (and pretentious) claim to martyrdom. Perfect Trent, though I agree that he would be embarassed by Jane's attention to, um, detail :)
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
What is the idea of "works" in an artistic sense though? You can't as easily say "it works" as you can say "this lightbulb works" (a fairly easy test, a lighntbulb works if it is- GASP- giving off light)
But what is "works" in a painting? I don't see an artist painting a naked woman for the sake of painting a naked woman. If he were looking sheerly for realistic portrayal of the human body, she should be standing, as in an anatomy textbook. Otherwise, she's posing, and the painting says something about something (anything? no, something... woo hoo! almost ontopicness!).
So "what works" isn't simply "this is a position the model can sit in and I can paint a picture of her for the hell of it" it's "what I want this picture to say." You have a right to say something that isn't "politically correct", whatever the hell that means in this context, but there are reasons for putting people in various poses. A girl standing straight, head up to the sky would say something different than a girl lying peacefully, and portrays the female differently. Portraying her as shy (covering her face) would say something different than portraying her with a fixed glance.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Yes, you're right. A pose does say something about the artist's intent, and the character. I think the reason MSB chose essentially peaceful poses for Daria was to accentuate her quieter, dreamier side ... we normally see her as sarcastic and active, and the contrast is powerful.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
A pose or a particular approach to a subject not only says something about the artists intent but it also says something about the cultural climate in which the picture/painting/photo etc. was made. The unconscious message in ' the reclining nude' is one of objectifying the female body, of dumbing down the raw spark of intellect and smoothing over the realness of a thinking, feeling human being into an air brushed and fine lined arrangement of willing flesh. It as a fantasy, but one that doesn't say a hell of a lot of good things about women.
Daria, bless her black heart, is a character that right from the start was constructed to challenge certain roles and generalizations held by society. The reason why Daria sans reclining nude might be so appealing to look at is that it places her in the role of submissive object, a role that does contrast with her characterization in the cartoon. Done as a self aware parody (as in the credits of the show, where the characters each have there turn at playing with roles) this could be quite funny.
All im saying is that its good to be aware of the underlying cultural/political message in an image. I'm not advocating political correctness at all, people can do what ever the fuck they feel like , just be aware of what your saying in terms of the response you will receive.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:19:35 +1030, "<Affinity>" wrote:
Only through extrapolation into how that cultural climate would affect the artists motivations and views.
It sounds more like oversimplification than anything else, which is generally what fantasies are. Out of curiosity, are the fantasies women indulge in any better?
With Daria, I can't really picture a 'submissive object' type of pose. Everything approaching such inherently implies, to me, a sort of mockery of that ideal. Much of that comes from the context provided by who Daria is, though; and thus, would be lost to someone who had no knowledge of the character.
I've found that it's just as easy to be overly concerned about such matters as it is to be unaware of them, and that both tend to have negative results. Unawareness, in this case, risks perpetuating negative stereotypes; but it's opposite risks producing something too cautious, too dead to be of any value.
no. they just result in English teachers showing shit like First Knight- possibly the worst movie ever- to a class so she can lust after Richard Gere and Up Close and Personal- possibly the worst movie ever too- to a Journalism class to lust after Robert Redford.
God I hated her. And both of those movies which have no way to justify their existence but rather are the downfall of all that is good and the rising of all that is bad. I hate them.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Aw, c'mon. Just because it totally rips up the Arthur legend, and turns the Morte D'Arthur into a bad rip-off of the Battle of Britain, and ... hmm ... well, the babe who plays Guineveire's hot ...
What was Up Close and Personal about, and why did it suck so bad?
I'm not entirely clear about your opinion of this teacher or these movies. Are you trying to hint that they were not entirely excellent? ;-)
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
It's just a pathetic formula movie of a curmudgeon (though not too curmudgeonly, hell, he's Robert Redford) falling for whatever lead ditz played this news anchor (he was an old TV journalist in charge) and they fall in love and he dies. Just because they had the girl's friend die at the beginning so you'd like her (which should verge on self-parody, but doesn't) and the whole "let's have the romantic male die at the end" thing- this was around Titanic- the girls get off on that somehow, and so that was just randomly stuck at the end to give it an ending...
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
"Hi! I'm Ditzi! My friend died recently! Don't you like me?" <big brilliant grin>
"Alas, my love. I am dying now. Remember, I love you ...urk!" <dies>
Like that?
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Daria presumably has a soft, and even submissive side. Most human beings do. She doesn't dare to display it, however.
Being strong and dominant all the time is a real pain. I suspect that Daria wishes sometimes that she could just completely relax and trust the other people around her. Unfortunately (?) for her, she is well aware why she can't.
Note that the major turn-off for Daria regarding Trent in JA was her realization that Trent truly is irresponsible. This means that in a relationship between them she would have to be "the responsible one", desperately trying to save Trent from the consequences of his own mistakes. This prospect is unappealing to her (remember her first fantasy in "Lane Miserables"?)
I rather suspect Daria wishes she knew and was loved by someone who would sometimes be responsible for her, rather than the other way around. Who would let her relax and be passive and submissive, occasionally, when the rigors of being active and dominant got to be too much for her. Who would let her take, as it were, a vacation.
Exactly. I think that MSB's pictures were the best Daria fan art I've ever seen.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 08 Jan 2000 16:01:08 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Wow. I'm flattered and deeply moved (provided you have seen a lot a of fan art). That's too much praise, really . How am I supposed to live up to the expectations that statement creates. MSB
On 08 Jan 2000 16:01:08 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
This is true.
Yup. That's why I have trouble picturing her doing it - I've never really seen it (well, if you don't count her Trent-inspired blushing; and even that seems gone now.)
Heh. Wasn't that pretty much the point of her conversation with Jodie in "Gifted"?
Yup. But then, that leaves a whole bunch of other questions - like, would Trent even want someone to save him? (And going beyond that, wouldn't it be better for him if nobody did?)
Probably; if for nothing else but the fear of turning into her mother.
I believe she has on a few occasions, actually. There are the things she has let Jane talk her into (Road Worrier, Arts N' Crass, That Was Then, to name a few) although Daria trusts Jane and knows Jane wouldn't try to hurt her. Then she let Trent talk her into a piercing, but that was because of The Crush. However, Daria was a bit submissive to Ted about the idea to drop clubs from the yearbook, she was submissive to "Cool" Aunt Amy's ideas about attitude and looks, since Amy didn't take crap from anyone, so became a role model (it definitely wasn't just because Amy was an adult). She also was somewhat willing to let Quinn take the lead in things and give advice (Lane Miserables, Speedtrapped) when she felt out of her league. There are probably some other minor examples, but one of the main themes (and really, what is the show about?) is that Daria is Human (gasp) and has to deal with life and all its ups and downs, including the other humanoids populating the mudball she lives on. She does follow at times, but mostly to learn, and doesn't suffer fools gladly.
am I the only one here who doesn't see Daria as some sort of paranoid? I mean she likes respect for, say, Kevin and Brittany, but there's no one she thinks is out to poison her. trust? The people she doesn't tell her "inner feelings" to are those that it would simply go right over her head. that's hardly a metter of trust.
god, I hope not. Do you really want so much for Daria to give up control of her life, even at times, to ANYONE, no matter how trustworthy? The "rigors of being active and dominant"? Now just because Daria is far from submissive doesn't mean she tries to be "dominant", she doesn't try to control anyone. My God, I should hope she knoows better than that.
and I should hope none of you are relaxed with the idea of letting someone else control you....
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
On 09 Jan 2000 14:26:10 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
Directly or indirectly? I doubt that she thinks anyone is out to kill her, but I don't think she'd put manslaughter past most of the people.
Her lack of trust isn't the paranoid "they're all out to get me" variety; it's the kind that tells sensible people not to let the three year old drive their car.
And has often been confirmed. As in "Daria!", where Kevin nearly got himself, Daria, Jane, and Brittany killed by stranding them on the roof.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I don't see her as "paranoid". I see her as distrustful, which is different. I think a lot of her distrust for others is a perfectly rational reaction to their observed hypocrisy.
I never said she thought that anyone was actively trying to hurt her. I do think that she believes that quite a lot of people would accidentally hurt her, simply by behaving randomly or even in misguided attempts to help her.
She rarely confides in Jodie, though, and Jodie would understand most of Daria's "inner feelings". The only people we regularly see her confiding in are Jane and (occasionally) her family.
It's called "relaxing". You should try it sometime. She does try it sometimes, with Jane.
She frequently winds up having to be responsible and wise for the people around her, because they behave irresponsibly and foolishly. She pretends not to care about others, as a defense against their possible claims, but in practice she often winds up getting them out of their own messes.
She is thus "dominant" by default ... when the shit hits the fan, Daria is usually the one who stays calm and makes the correct decision. It's precisely because she isn't "domineering" that I think she wishes that she didn't have to always be the strong one.
I don't mean "let someone else run her by remote control". I mean "trust in someone else's decisionmaking powers". And yes, it's relaxing to be able to trust someone else, though you should never give up occasionally checking to make sure that they are worthy of your trust.
Daria doesn't want to be a sheep, but I think she wishes that she didn't always have to be a shepherd.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Ok fine, but would Daria want that side of her represented in such a way. Or would she attempt to define her own notion of what her passive and submissive side represents?
What I have previously been discussing is in no way an attempt to invalidate MSB's work, so please don't take it as such. Im interested in the questions and the conversation, im not saying that's bad or that's good. ok.
Posed nude on a couch? Definitely not ... Daria's way too prudish.
Of course, MSB's fan art doesn't have to represent direct reality (even fictional reality). It's a picture, not a photograph.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 09 Jan 2000 07:04:13 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Daria prudish? She didn't have any problems looking at Jane's nude drawings in "The Invitation". I think there is no evidence that she is prudish (except for her being American, of course :-). But maybe I've overlooked something. MSB
Yes. Note her reaction to learning exactly *where* the tattoo artist was willing to pierce women. Note her standing reaction to Brittany or for that matter to anyone's displayed sexual demonstrativeness.
Daria's not pathological about it, but she's definitely towards the prudish end of the spectrum. Especially when it comes to any open display of sexuality, which also conflicts with her sense of reserve.
Big difference between looking at a friend's nude drawings and posing for them.
In America, nudity is a bigger deal than it probably is in Germany.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Well, naturally she'd want to define her own notion; but would it be similar to what we're discussing or drastically different?
Quite possibly only those who created the character know, depending on how their creative processes work... it could be that they'd have to put her into a scenario that asks that question before anyone could truly tell.
We can extrapolate, of course; but then even that is limited by our own personal biases. (And, to briefly step into an extremist view, wouldn't that, too, offend her?)
Given that Daria's (a) American, and (b) kinda prudish, I don't think she'd actually feel comfortable having nudes of her, even tasteful ones, circulating around the Internet. Though she might see the funny side of it. I know Jane would.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Wouldn't do any good. Ask Daria hasn't been updated for weeks and weeks; I presume they aren't taking any more questions pending the upcoming redesign of the Daria page.
Speaking of which, I'll tell you this: if their redesign is executed with the same level of competence as the Daria Trivia Game and the current page, I'm going to travel to 1515 Broadway and get medieval on someone's ass. There's simply no excuse for the level of sheer incompetence on display at that page. A blind monkey with no hands, no feet, and no tail could do better. Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss could do better. Kevin "I'm the QB!" Thompson could do better. Beavis and Butt-Head... never mind.
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/
On 20 Jan 2000 21:46:31 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
I would guess she would be horrified by the idea. Jane _might_ find it amusing; but what would _you_ think if someone had nude pictures of _you_ on the 'net? Some people go berzerk.
And I think it's obvious what Daria's first concern would be. "Trent hasn't seen them, has he?!"
A good friend of mine, who snapped a couple once of me coming out of the shower, occasionally threatens to put them on the net :)
I'd be embarassed, but not as much as Daria would be. I'm male, 35, and extroverted. Those being the maor differences of relevance to this issue.
Heh ... good point.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Are you envisioning whole routers being burned out by the malevolent power of a naked me?
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I disagree. While she's out of the mainstream (and would be in any society which ever has been), she's a personality type that only flourishes in freedom. Most human cultures would respond to her by trying to crush her.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Cuba maybe, or other communist countries when they were still around. but be honest for God's sake: the rest of the world does not live in tyranny. Would England try to crush her? Or Germany? Australia? Not any more than the U.S., maybe less. America is terribly cruel to people it doesn't like, you know, we really aren't a utopia. One day we decide that we're going to hate communists, the next day we hate people who helped people trying to defeat communism. One day we're saying blacks are inferior and not fit to live in the same culture as whites; the next day our English departments teach us "white folks is crazy" and blacks are too good to live in the same culture as whites. We're hardly the most accepting country in the world. In fact, in what we call "the free world", America might be one of the worst.
And consider this: Daria, being a lovely perceptive human being, knows that there are places in the world that aren't America. And that they aren't only those places where people go around naked with stuff painted on their bodies and get in National Geographic. That, in and of itself, is enough to make her un-American.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
On 23 Jan 2000 19:25:43 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
Now now, while I agree with a bit of American bashing, I'll have to put my foot down at some point. That, I must say, is a very broad statement. Most Americans actually _don't_ think of people in other parts of the world as savages. In fact, most Americans don't think of other parts of the world at all. ;)
On 23 Jan 2000 19:25:43 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
Oh really? You seem to forget that Americans are all immigrants (yes, even the American Indians; though their immigration was before written history). At the very least a simple majority of the people I know have some sort of family/friends outside the US. A smaller fraction of that have their full blown family trees mapped out for several hundred years. My own mother is an American born Chinese; my father emigrated from Hungary when he was 13. One of my best friends was born in Argentina. Another can trace her family tree back to Norway and Ireland.
Do Americans think other people outside of the US are savages? Hardly. From what I've seen we tend to ignore the issues outside of the US. Stupid, yes, but no one country (or race or socio-economic class or person) has a copyright on idiocy. America has had a long history of isolationism, but that doesn't mean we believe the outside world is a bunch of savages so we won't interact with it (or something).
Part of this problem (IMO) is that we get a tremendous grounding in American history, but very little in world history. It scares the living fuck out of me when I try to talk with my littlest sister about the economic and social conditions that led to Mao's rise to power and I find out *she doesn't know who he is*. She never reads the paper, doesn't watch the news (which is usually pretty worthless anyway) or listen to NPR (the best place IMO to get news from an unbiased source here in America). What's the upshot of this? She doesn't know, or care about the outside world. Hell, she doesn't know what's going on outside of her hometown unless it's *major* (read enough to get the other highschoolers talking about it).
There is only one course in any non-American history at my high school, and it's not required. And why do I think Americans have no concept of the rest of the world? Well, take for example Deanna, who saw this picture of a young German boy in a sort of old traditional costume and assumed that was how they dressed in real life :) admittedly, she's a little slow, but the culture has a bit to do with that. also consider that we don't care about teaching foreign languages hardly at all.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
And there's increasing evidence that the Amerindians weren't the first humans to settle the New World. People perhaps related to the Ainu (a hairy Caucasianoid race whose last survivors dwell on the island of Hokkaido, Japan) probably came to the New World before 12,000 BCE.
Thanks to the Internet I have friends in Australia and England. Even before the Internet I had friends who were first generation immigrants to America.
Probably because we occupy the best part of North America, a huge area. We do pay attention to events in Canada and Mexico.
Yep.
Especially scary when you consider that "those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
The complacency of the peaceful, prosperous, and powerful.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Yes. In sheer size, Canada is larger than the USA, but much of Canada is tundra or glacial mountains. I certainly did not mean to imply that there is anything morally wrong with Canadian land :)
Mexico is both smaller than the US and less habitable. Much of the south is pestilential jungle, and the northern provinces are mostly desert. The part of the country around and to the west of Mexico City, and of course Baja California, are the "best" in terms of climate.
You have a right to be proud of Vimy Ridge. And for that matter Dieppe, disaster though it was.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
But it's surprisingly rich in natural resources and it really isn't that much a difference between climates in, say, Monterrey than there is in, say, San Antonio. I think the fact there's an abundance of natural resources *and* abject poverty is sad because if the politicians and ultra-wealthy in that country weren't so darn stingy and corrupt, the rest of the populace would be a lot better off (leading to less corruption in the military and police, leading to less human rights violations, leading to greater trust in the police amongst the populace, leading to a safer country, leading to more businesses wanting to do business in the country, leading to greater economic prosperity...you see where I'm going here).
I think the main problem is that you have a tradition of corruption going back to Spanish times, which has never really been broken. When reform was attempted, it was unfortunately in the 1920's, when Communism was seeen as the wave of the future. Fortunately for Mexico, the reformers did not go as far as Lenin or Stalin, but unfortunately the effect was to add a whole new layer of cynicism and corruption. And create a one-party state.
Mexico's also suffered a lot from the War on Drugs, which has had the effect of making the narco-traffickers incredibly rich compared to almost anyone else save the wealthiest bankers, landowners, and industrialists. As a result they have been able to thoroughly corrupt an already corrupt system.
What's needed is the liberation of the productive power of business, especially small business, which would create jobs for the masses. NAFTA's helped a lot in this regard (lots of businesses have sprung up on the expanded American trade), and the recent electoral losses of the PRI have also helped (it's no longer a purely one-party system), but there's a long way to go. In a nation where bribery is so institutionalized, there's only so much one can do by cutting *official* taxes ... often the unofficial ones are the real problem.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
It's not just a matter of Communist countries. Think Islamic countries. Think most Latin American or African countries. Think pretty much any place where women are still subordinate or the state doesn't bind itself to tolerate non-violent dissent.
Most of the world *does* live in tyranny by Western standards.
U.S.,
I'd agree with that. The modern West ... a class of countries including America, most of Europe, and most of the English-colonized lands ... would tolerate Daria. One could stretch the definition to include modern Eastern Europe and Japan. But the modern West is exceedingly tolerant by the standards of most times and places. I think my point still stands that "most human cultures would respond to her by trying to crush her".
Distance lends charm. You don't see the defects of other countries, even free countries, as easily as you see those of your own. Because you have to suffer our defects, but not anybody else's.
Gee, I hope so.
I know this too. Does that make me un-American?
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Okay, have time to only respond to one message here...
My ancestry is full Mexican. I've read up a lot on Mexican culture. I could tell you what a "bu�uelo" is, what "sopa de tortilla" is, what "cascaron" is, what "libertad" is. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to live in Mexico. There is a strong paramilitary presence, especially in the area near and inside the state of Chiapas, as well as other unstable places like Oaxaca and Guerrero. In the state of Quintana Roo, women are prohibited from taking part in the electoral process via a system of "traditions". The police system is highly corrupt, and it often only takes a bribe to get someone off of a crime. Very few if any Mexican citizens trust the police; therefore very few crimes are reported. Even fewer get solved, particularly if it's a crime that was perpetrated by members of the military. Women are regularly assaulted and rape is rampant. A full 3/4 of the population either have been involved in or know someone who was involved in a violent crime. If you think we abuse Native Americans here, they get off like bandits compared to their Mexican counterparts. People regularly disappear, especially if they're in any way involved with the drug culture or someone in the drug culture. Most of these people are never found, and those who are found have major signs of torture. False confessions to police are often extracted by torture and are admissable in court. The court system is run on a Napoleonic code of presenting documents and ruling in secrecy -- the defendant has to request a copy of the ruling instead of automatically receiving it. Journalists are controlled by the government through a system whereby the government controls a large portion of the media and often levies a hefty tax on independent news organizations. One journalist was killed in 1996 for an uncensored report on the Acteal massacre. Human rights organizations and non-majority party members (those in the PAN, for example) find their offices wiretapped and their lives threatened anonymously. Those who question the corruption of the police find themselves targets and at least one such person was found murdered very close to a police station. Tap water is undrinkable until one boils it for at least 20 minutes. One must peel and/or boil all vegetables and peel all fruits. One must be extremely vigilant for pickpocketers, some of whom turn out to be violent. Women and minorities are still viewed as second-class citizens. The government oftentimes attacks members of the Catholic Church, especially those who crusade for the indigenous and/or poverty-stricken. Evangelical non-Catholic Christians are persecuted. Non-official taxi services are deadly to use -- if one spots a taxi with uneven markings and/or a taxi with a partner in the passenger seat, especially those cruising around tourist areas and markets, one must NOT by any means get in -- those taxis regularly rob, abduct, and/or kill those who choose to use their services.
Boy am I glad my grandparents came up here. I AM SO GLAD. And the only way you're gonna get me to go to Mexico is if it's for a short while, either in a group of daytrippers going to a border town to browse or with relatives to my paternal grandfather's grave in Monterrey or my family's ancestral areas in Zacatecas and Nuevo Leon.
LI (sorry for the one-message deal...have to go to school tomorrow)
But your damn precious America is not an exception. I've seen too many people crushed by the "free" American culture to believe that. Just because you believe it's the fault of whoever refuses to kiss everyone's ass doesn't mean that America can get off on that. Tell that to the people hanged in Salem, a culture which some people (Gary Bauer) think is what our nation should aspire to. Tell that to the people who lost their jobs and reputations in the misguided hunt for Communists, or likewise to Elia Kazan, who had to be attacked at the very same ceremony he was being honored at for obeying his legal obligation in that search. Tell that to the Germans lynched in our hatred during World War One or the Japanese interned in World War Two.
You don't see the defects of your own because you're so tightly connected to the thought that it's a utopia for some reason. You see nothing BUT the defects of other countries. What were you taught in your history classes about Germany? Or likewise by the media? Germany's contribution to the world, they say, is the death of six million Jews. Not the foundations of modern philosophy in Kant and Nietzsche, religion in Luther, music in Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven, psychology in Wundt and Freud, literature in Goethe and Schiller....
America, on the other hand, we twist around and around to always make it look good. Why else do we shove World War One in a paragraph between the brave yet humorous hunting exploits of Teddy Roosevelt and the invention of the automobile by Henry Ford (yes, I know the automobile was in fact invented by a German, another common American myth)? Because it's embarassing. America fighting for its pride and a bunch of people dead as a result, as well as a century worth of other consequences. Vietnam is the same way. Instead we focus on Defeating the Evil Germans (see above) under Hitler, and ending slavery. that's it.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Over 300 years ago. Actually, that's one of the "earlier American cultures" which wouldn't be very tolerant of someone like Daria. I'm minded of Anne Hutchinson ...
These are sad, and recent. But they are trivialities compared to what happens, or has happened, elsewhere, or in earlier times. You're talking blacklists, in a century characterized more often by mass murders.
Both great injustices. At least we've apologized to the Japanese-Americans.
No, I don't think we're a utopia. I do think that life is pretty good here, compared to life in most times and places.
Kant
I know about all these things. I knew about them before I ever met you. You're preaching to the wrong person here.
America didn't start World War One. We were the *last* major combatant to enter that war.
In that it was a war, and people got killed, yes ...
Well, these were accomplishments ... even though not *all* the Germans were evil.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
And the one who had no reason whatsoever to enter it, and whose president was too narrowminded in making a "League of Nations" which would make a name for himself that he allowed England and France to impose the very restrictions on Germany that completely ruined their economy to an extent we have never seen, demoralized and demonized them, and basically we caused World War Two right there at Versailles, and a damn good point could be made for Vietnam, too.
In that we randomly sent people across the world to kill and be killed without so much as a strategy!
The Germans as a race remain far more accomplished than the Americans.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
On 25 Jan 2000 17:46:42 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
LOL! A soveriegn nation doesn't *need* a reason to enter a war. Until and unless a real *working* world government complete with its own budget and military force develops, nations can do whatever the hell they want to as long as they've got the military and economic might to do so. If a nation feels that its interests are threatened in any way, they can (and if they've got the aformentioned capabilities will) get involved.
Hrm. So it was his responsibility to keep England and France reigned in? Excuse me?
Sigh. Yes, the civilian leadership completely screwed that particular war...er...police action. No argument. The general public had enough of that however and pulled the troops out.
I think I just realized something here...it isn't *Daria* who's "Unamerican". It's you.
The US isn't perfect; far from it. But I'd have to say our record at the least isn't any worse than any nation (especially with its size economically and importance in world politics) and is arguably better than most.
As for accomplishment...well, can you demonstrate to me how the Germans have accomplished more within the same period of time? (I'm not going to claim that the Americans have done more than any other nation because I lack sufficient information to be able to do so unequivicably. Plus there's the whole "relative value" thing going on.).
A world government is absolutely the WORST idea that has ever been advanced. At present, if one finds oneself at odds with a despotic government with no opportunity to reform it, fearing for one's life, a person can flee to another nation someplace else in the world. From that safe haven a person can either organize against said despotic nation or simply choose to make a new life for himself. A world government destroys that refuge. If a person finds himself at odds with a despotic world goverment administration where in the world can he go to hide? Such a government would have unlimited power to destroy any person it chooses and no other power on Earth would have any ability to intervene. Government is the most despicable evil ever created by mankind. We have to try to keep this evil reigned in rather than allow it to spread over the entire planet.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:12:25 -0500, "R. K. Henry" wrote:
I think that there really is no reason to institute a world government. Such a government would be more likely to stoop to the lowest common denominator after a time than to actually be just. Then there's the many cultures and opinions on exactly what constitutes "justice." Somebody is boudn to get shafted.
I think that the existance of numerous soverign, armed entities in the present arena (whether it be a small island nation, like England, or the whole of the globe) is a pre-requisite to the preservation of liberty, and the continuance of progress. When you have several soverign entities, if one decides it wants to opress the whole of the present political arena (like King James in England, or the USSR in the 20th century world), there exist others who can oppose it (like equally well armed militiamen in that particular time period in England, or a nation with nuclear capabilities in the 20th century world).
I believe the only reason one ever has to increase the scope of organization is to resist attacks by another who has already risen to that level. It was just after WWI that England finally disarmed it's people (for fear of a Communist uprising), since only a professional army could defend it from the continent, now that the water was no longer a dependable barrier. That time has come in the US, as well. I think the only thing that could justify a world government would be a true space alien threat (thus bringing the political arena to an even higher level). Then it would be necessary to do this. Otherwise, the only way a world government could be just is if humanity were perfect. With no competition, anything is likely to drop to it's worst.
I would say that Government is a necesity. It is necessary for two things: to protect people from other lands that would kill them and take their stuff, and to protect them from people within their own country that would kill them and/or take their stuff. Of late, I am on a quest for "new ideas" in political theory. The best I have seen dates way back to 17th century England: the idea that government exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's people, and must be constructed in such a way that it is in it's best interests to do just that, and little more.
One *big* reason ... weapons of mass destruction. Which, in another century of development, will have reached the point of enabling us to literally scour the planet of all human life.
(the point that some people imagine nuclear weapons have already reached, because they overestimate their effects).
The best form of world government would be a fairly loose federation. The problem is that most of the people advocating world government right now are born busy-bodies, and would like to see a nanny state.
A good argument for colonizing the planets over the next century, if we need one.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 27 Jan 2000 00:57:48 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
I was about to ask...
If nukes can't do it, then it's going to take another 'miracle breakthrough' to find something that will. Much of the scientific community considers fusion the top of the power-chain; without that 'miracle,' they won't be looking for anything bigger.
(Course, if you're talking numbers, you should have said that instead of 'effects.')
Well ... the *least* reason, anyway. The Germans probably couldn't avoid sinking US shipping, given that we were sending ships into the war zone. They didn't have to attempt sabotage on US soil, or to raise Mexico against us, though. These were serious mistakes.
Britain and France had something to do with that too, as you had just mentioned.
We had a strategy in World War One. It worked, too. In Vietnam we also had a strategy ... a bad one.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Well Germany was pretty near defeat by the time we entered in WW1... in Vietnam is where I said we sent people over there to kill and be killed and afterwards realized our lack of plan for these boys...
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Yeah, and one other thing we forgot...the North Vietnamese had been fighting off imperialism for centuries and had been one of a few places around the world without foreign influence (i.e. it wasn't colonized or settled or anything like that). So when the U.S. came rolling in expecting a short little invasion and getaway, it suddenly became clear to them that this would be much more complicated that previously thought. Seems like "those little men out there" were much stronger than previously anticipated.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:18:51 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
Well, there (as always) were complications in the matter. For one, the North Vietnamese moved their troops freely through Cambodia - the US limited its troops to deployments at or below the DMZ. Secondly, it wasn't just the US Army and Marines versus the Viet Cong (who were largely destroyed during their disastrous Tet Offensive); it was them versus the NVA - frontline combat troops. Fighting a defensive battle isn't the best way to win a war when home front support isn't assured. We used air power extensively, but bombing precision is fairly poor when you don't have targets. US troops in fact never lost any major battle...except the one at home where the war effort was botched by excessive executive control and lack of morale. Something else to consider as well; and this may well sound quite heartless...but...the scale of the fighting wasn't on the order of WW 1 or 2; at worst the US casualties rivaled those lost that same year to car accidents, and that was only for one or two years during the entire conflict.
Even with the US pulling out entirely, it's still possible that the South Vietnamese could have held on were they better equipped. I don't have my books handy, but IIRC they were limited to something like 2 grenades and half a dozen magazines of ammunition, recycling bandages and the like by the time Saigon fell...
That isn't what we did. I think you're confusing the Northern bombing campaign (which was more precise than any ever done before) with the bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail (in Cambodia) and carpet bombing of suspected NVA positions in the South.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 28 Jan 2000 20:57:40 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
You want to know the truth? If we actually had done that it might have had the affect desired. Genocide is *one* way of getting rid of an opponent...please note I am *not* advocating its use however :P
One who enjoys his genocide in games...where it belongs.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 18:29:12 -0000, "Paul gate" wrote:
Yup :) Been playing that game for around 3 years now and run the Starlink #Stars! channel. Stars! has sadly been a part of just about every day of the last 3 years of my life...lol...you ever done any PBEM/IRC play?
I have been meaning to give this a go for about 18 months + The descriptions i read of multiplayer email games make it sound like an incredible experience..ie the ability to indulge in diplomacy that can be just as diverse, subtle, two faced, decietfull, or misguided, as real diplomacy make it a very "human" game indeed..with such real life issues as "if i lie, and am found out, my reputation will be mud" becoming central to your political decisions,and the fact that the game can go on for weeks or months with any level of communication between the players, that is wanted and all the flexibility that this allows in diplomacy / relationship between participants must make the experience, as real as a game can get.
One thing has put me off however...frankly i`m intimidated by just how clever some of the people who play this game are :-) ..i have read some descriptions of games that give insights into the rational behind strategies and have found it quite unnerving! Quite how these people come up with these winning strategies, on the fly that to a casual observer look for all the world like sure bets for losing, and have the presence of mind to use them in stuations that seem utterly hopeless, to actualy win, is beyond me. The fact that this is possible and actualy happens is a testament to the games ability to mimic the unpredictability of real life strategic and diplomatic situations and that you, the decisions you make and the insight you can bring to your game are utterly central to your success or failure, no matter what unfortunate stew you find yourself in.
I have spent weeks and weeks playing this game against the ai, over the last two years or so, and would like to play multiplayer..but i have to temper this desire, with the full knowledge that if i do play against humans i`m most likely going to be embarrasingly annihilated, in the first 100 or so years :-)
Could you tell me about your Starlink #Stars! channel?...url?
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:53:40 -0000, "Paul gate" wrote:
<snip summary of PBEM play>
Pretty damned accurate. And yeah, it's a total blast, and likely to suck far more hours out of your life than you intend :)
<more snippage>
If you're worried about getting stomped, join a beginner or intermediate game (judging by the fact that either a) you read the rgcs newsgroup or b) visit the websites you can probably jump straight to intermediate). If you can consistently beat the Robotoid AI on expert difficulty you'll certainly be ready...remember, experience isn't gained instantly. And if you do decide to join a PBEM, try to make sure your first one is no more than a medium; you usually end up learning a ton of stuff during that first game that you'll want to try out...and huge games can take forever (or at least it'll seem that way).
The Stars! newsgroup is rec.games.computer.stars, and if you just want to chat, we're on Starlink (not StarlinkIRC) - Denver.co.us.starlink.org port 6667 on the channel #Stars! (with the exclamation point). You'll need to download an IRC client; we use mIRC http://www.mirc.com (we've got scripts to help us automate turns - we play "blitz style" games that are over in 2 to 6 hours there). After you check us out there, come check out the Daria channel on Dalnet - #daria+ - and you should be able to find a usable Dalnet server in the server list (there's a *ton* of those guys - it's a huge network). A good time for #daria+ is 6:00 or so in the evening, US time (when the place is usually hopping), though there's usually one or two lurkers at other various times during the day. Oh, and 3 modified megahal AI's there too :)
I'm not sure what the exact definition of genocide is (I think it's probably more about intent than numbers), but according to Encarta 15% of the Vietnamese population were killed (2 million). That's quite a lot.
genocide (n.) - "the systematic extermination of a cultural or racial group"
Genocide would mean that we sent troops in, located as many farms and hamlets and towns and cities as possible, and put them all to the sword. Surrounded them, burned them down and shot anyone who tried to escape while systematically destroying all military forces arrayed against us. Or nuked the countryside till it glowed, then went over it with a fine toothed comb to make sure no one survived. *That* would be genocide (successful genocide anyway, if you want to call that sort of destruction a success).
Civilians killed by our bombing? This number sounds way too high. Are you sure that's not dead on both sides of the war, including those murdered by the Communists after their victory and those who died fleeing them?
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I just glanced at the Encarta article again and it says "The Vietnam War had left more than 15 per cent of the Vietnamese population killed or wounded" so in fact I misread it when I thought it said 15% killed. In fact 15% killed would have been more like 10 million I think.
You talk about how many people the communists killed after they gained control of the whole country as if two wrongs make a right. If the outside world hadn't got involved the thing would have ended at least a decade earlier, and if France hadn't decided to try and re-annexe Vietnam in the first place there wouldn't have been a war at all. Was it really such a crime for the Vietnamese to want to govern their own country? The French were hardly benevolent rulers, and the regime they created in the South was no bastion of freedom and democracy: it was an authoritarian military regime intolerant of dissent.
If people have Encarta, I suggest looking up VIETNAM -> History and reading the article from "French Intervention" onwards.
Ok ... that's the war *as a whole*, not just American actions. I also strongly suspect that you are talking about both the First and the Second Indochina Wars.
No ... I talk about it to show what sort of bastards the Communist leaders are, and to demonstrate that our fears of massacre following a Communist victory were not empty ones.
And this would have prevented the Communist massacres, in that ... ?
The Vietnamese *did* govern their own country after 1954. Only it was two countries, between 1954 and 1975. You're assuming that the Northern regime was "legitimate" and the Southern regime "illegitimate"; one could as easily argue the opposite, or both, or neither.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I don't know what killings occurred but suspect they have more to do with human nature than communism. It's an unfortunate fact that any time a regime is overthrown by force, a period of bloodletting tends to follow, eg. after the French Revolution the aristocracy were beheaded. Most recently, after the Serbian police & army were driven from Kosovo, the previously oppressed Albanian Kosovans started settling scores with the Serbs who had previously enjoyed a position of power and privilege in the province. Were it not for the presence of UN peacekeeping troops, tens of thousands of Serbs would undoubtedly now be dead for the crime of being on the side of the previous regime; and as it is I think hundreds have died. But the Albanians aren't behaving this way because they're communists -- it's the Serbs who are from the communist (or ex-communist) side. No they're doing it because that, unfortunately, is what people tend to do after decades of being on the down-trodden side.
The only exception that springs to mind in recent times is Rwanda, where the Tutsis gritted their teeth and decided not to exact vengeance on the Hutus who had killed a million of them, and instead have opted to follow proper judicial procedures.
The regime in the South was created by the French after they re- invaded Vietnam, and seems to have continued in the same vein. I would call it illegitimate because to end the fighting a treaty was signed that nationwide elections would be held, but the South reneged on the treaty and declared itself a separate republic. This seems to be the point when the USA entered the picture.
Yes there would have been Vietnamese people taking part in the regime, just as there is always a part of a country's population who will side with an occupying power or oppressive regime, and as the French ultimately pulled out leaving those Vietnamese in charge, the conflict did essentially became a civil war. But the transition of power in Vietnam from colonial administration to home rule would surely have been more orderly and with fewer deaths if the French hadn't come back, as those who had benefited from French rule would have had to fade into the background, whereas the support they received from France and then the USA perpetuated and magnified the problem. They were encouraged to stick their necks out, and ultimately got their heads chopped off.
If a foreign superpower had totally devastated *your* country by dropping millions of tons of bombs and chemical weapons on it, not to mention sending in half a million troops, and there were fellow countrymen at whose behest you felt this had all been done, wouldn't you feel just a little bit peeved at them when you finally got your hands on them?
But what exactly is the effect desired? I mean really, I'm not pro-Communist, but I think having them dead is a little worse than having them Communist.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Who is the "they" and the "them"? The North Vietnamese, or the South Vietnamese, or both? We were trying to keep North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam; it wasn't necessary to kill all the North Vietnamese to do this, and killing South Vietnamese was downright counterproductive!
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 30 Jan 2000 12:07:58 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Heh. Every story I've seen on the Vietnam conflict seems to claim that the Americans lost because they never could figure out the answer to that question...
That is incorrect, maybe you're thinking of Korea, I'm not sure. But Vietnam was a French colony. The Vietnam war was basically a war of independence. During WWII, the colonial French co-operated with the Japanese, whilst the Viet Cong were on our side, resisting them - in fact the Viet Cong under Ho Chi Min were trained and armed by America. After the war they declared their independence from France, in fact they had the US Declaration of Independence wired over to them and used that as their text, and American observers attended.
Unfortunately the French had other plans and forced their way back in. Sadly America decided to side with France and support the illegal French regime that was created in South Vietnam. It was a tragic and needless war, because America was basically fighting on the wrong side. The Vietnamese had originally looked to the USA for aid and friendship but because they were led by communists the US decided to fight them instead.
Maybe this history isn't taught in America. I know when I was a kid and the war was going on, I thought the Viet Cong were the bad guys, and that the Americans were brave heroes defending some beleagered democracy. It wasn't until 25 years after the war was over that I learned the truth, when there was a whole season of films and documentaries in the UK to commemorate the anniversary of their finally winning their war of independence.
When they first declared their independence after WWII, the Vietnamese asked America for agriculture teachers and farm machinery to rebuild their country. Instead America sent soldiers and millions of tons of bombs to devastate it.
Both Vietnamese governments were "the bad guys". We, and the ordinary people, were the only "good guys" in the war.
Did the documentaries mention that the victorious North Vietnamese proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese?
Sorry Shez, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I find the idea of "commemorating" or "celebrating" the North Vietnamese victory hideously disgusting.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Everyone was "pretty near defeat", though. Germany knocked Russia out of the war in 1917; in 1918 they launched their last big offensive, the "Kaiserschlacht" ("Kaiser's Battle"). Our forces first saw action at the tail end of that fight; while we didn't turn the tide on our own, we definitely contributed to the German failure at the Second Battle of the Marne. We certainly contributed greatly to the drive on Alsace-Lorraine. Without our entry, the war might well have dragged on into 1919, and a German victory would not have been inconceivable.
(Remember, the French Army had nearly mutinied in 1917!)
We *did* have a plan ... a rather BAD plan. Basically, we went on the strategic offensive, mostly only in South Vietnam, thus preventing the NVA from taking the cities; in the meantime we did a limited bombing of the North. LBJ's theory was that the North would feel enough pain to cease her attack on the South.
The problem is that a fanatical totalitarian society can absorb a lot of "pain", and that the North had the power to inflict "pain" on us too by attritioning our troops, which could not possibly hold the long line of South Vietnam's western frontier (because the NVA had already invaded Laos and Cambodia, and had bases in those countries). The NVA could thus force attrition upon us at will. Even though a lot more of them died than us, we were less committed to the war.
Possible winning strategies for us *might* have been:
An invasion of North Vietnam, or
2) A defense on a line running through Cambodia and/or Laos, thus severing the Ho Chi Minh Trail, or
Unlmited bombing of North Vietnam.
We attempted none of these wholeheartedly, though Fish Hook was a partial implementation of "2" and Linebacker II a partial implementation of "3". As a result, we lost morale first and pulled out as part of a treaty; the North then violated the treaty and conquered South Vietnam.
Bad planning is still "planning" :)
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Actually what stopped World War I was not our intervention or anyone else's, but the intervention of the FLU. The 1918 Pandemic decimated forces on both sides of the war. If it weren't for the Pandemic, WWI may have gone on until the last man fell.
WWI was perhaps the most brutal of all wars. Certainly WWII had some horrendous battles. But WWI was far worse, because Napoleonic tactics were used with modern weapons, causing unnecessary slaughter.
Leading to my summary of how the century began: with the realization that empires and machine guns don't go real well together. Comparitively, we ended rather well.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Especially when you consider that when I was a kid we were all expecting the century to end with the realizations that empires and nuclear ICBM's don't go real well together :)
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
no, that was the realization that NOTHING and ICBMs go together. That was a fight between a democracy and a communist dictatorship. The point is WW1 was fought between monarchs, many of whom were related to each other :) I found that amusing, fighting a war against your cousin, like, I'm going to drive my troops into Kentwood and annex Anna's mobile home.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Really? All the major members of the Western Alliance were democracies; all the major members of the Eastern Alliance were dictatorships. The exceptions being that we had China on our side (from around 1976 through 1989) and a bunch of minor authoritarian allies (in the Third World); they had *one* democratic semi-ally (India). Furthermore, our minor allies tended to be authoritarian; they and their minor allies tended to be totalitarian dictatorships. Do you really think that this lineup was coincidental?
You could argue that communist states tend to be dictatorships, and totalitarian ones at that; capitalist states tend to be democracies, or at worst authoritarian dictatorships. But I'm not sure that's an argument you intended to be making.
I don't get what you mean.
Romanticization of war. During the Long Peace of the 19th century, marred only by short and limited wars, the Great Powers forgot how horrible war really is. Their populations, from the aristocratic and financial elites right down to the ordinary farmers and workers, saw war as a grand and glorious adventure which would give life meaning. They wanted it ... and they got what they wanted, God help them.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 30 Jan 2000 12:01:16 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Nope. Just incidental.
There were exceptions to the democracy vs. authoritarian aspect, even if for us it was just on the 'minor allies' aspect. Were there any exceptions to the capitalist vs communist split?
(I mean, aside from the fact that none of them were truly communists according to the marxist definition... communism is more like anarchism with a conscience. Which may be why it failed; we can't get past the paradox most see in that.)
It's... too much of a surface argument. And a given. I'd prefer to talk about *why* that happens
Every nation wanted a market open to their style of business.
Personally, I doubt that the Great Powers ever really understood that in the first place.
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 02:28:28 -0700, Glenn Olson wrote:
Well, there are really "two kinds" of Communism. Or not really, just that there is the kind that Karl Marx talked about, and the kind that actually existed.
Karl Marx expected the opression of the "Burgouis" (sp?) to become so heavy that the "Proletariat" would go into a general uprising to take control of the means of production, and would switch from the inequitable distribution of capitalist nations to one where each produced according to his ability, recieved according to his need.
I don't think (though I probably should read the Communist Manifesto before I make such speculations) that he was particularly expecting the resulting communist government to be a dictatorship. Certainly during the uprising there would be need for leadership, but it was just going to be a general uprising.
What Karl Marx forgot is that most people, without some sort of incentive, will do nothing. They'll work around whatever rules are in place. They don't care about anything, don't understand that unless each does his part, and does it well, nobody gets anything. They'll complain about the lack of consumer goods, all the while making a weight quota for chandeliers by making these obscenely heavy chandeliers, rather than producing quality goods. :p
The few that do understand are typically intellectuals. As Nikita Kruschev once said in private (retold by his son), "This American farmer cares more about our harvest than our own people" referring to the fact that when he (a farmer from Iowa who took his invitation seriously) went to tell the collective workers the proper way to farm (they were planting without using *any* of the fertilizer they were given, because it was too much work), they were highly resistant. They didn't care about the results of their labor, since it had no direct relation to them. All they cared abuot was getting the work done so they coud go home.
And Stalin was hardly a communist, from this point of view. He was a typical dicator, risen on the waves of popular discontent, much like Caeser, Hitler, and others.
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 21:19:16 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
(Snip)
If I really had to guess what variety of leadership he would have envisioned, I suppose I'd go with some form of meritocracy. Going off "from each according to ability..."
Of course, in the end result that ability was judged by machiavellian standards.
(Snip)
I've heard it said that Lenin wanted Trotsky to succeed him, not Stalin.
Stalin just had a better grasp of shotgun politics...
I read an interesting autobiographical novel, *Stalin*, recently. It argues that Stalin murdered Lenin. I suppose this is possible ... Stalin certainly had no scruples against killing his fellow Old Bolsheviks!
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I know. The kind that Karl Marx talked about is impossible. The result of attempting to achieve it is either social democracy (which is to say, a less efficient capitalism) or totalitarian dictatorship.
Competent, goodwilled people tend to flee communism like the plague. The competent people who stay, and attempt to run things, are those who are not goodwilled.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I think one problem is that communism doesn't scale well beyond communes. The communist ideal is for communities such as the Israeli kibbutz's: the people own the means of production and benefit from the profits of their labour. This seems to work well enough on a village level, but beyond that it runs into difficulties.
In the case of all the communist governments that have existed, they came into being by revolutions which replaced authoritarian regimes, which immediately causes the "Animal Farm" problem. In order to seize power, the communist leaders typically needed to be charismatic or ruthless leaders of a strong military force, hardly a recipe for the introduction of democracy, especially when they've never had one before.
But in countries such as France where there are communists who've come up through a democratic system, the complexion of communism is quite different. Some French towns have communist mayors, but you don't hear of Stalinist purges or labour camps: they behave like any other political party would in a democracy.
Either way, the point is none of the countries at the end of the century were really empires, I used "democracy" and "dictatorship" because that's the method of leadership, and therefore parallels empire better than capitalism and communism...
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Good point, the West always supports capitalist countries, but it doesn't always support democracies. In some cases it supports capitalist dictatorships in preference to democracies. In the media and politics, the distinction between capitalism and democracy seems to have been deliberately blurred. When the West intervenes on behalf of some far away capitalist country we are usually invited to believe they are doing it to defend freedom and democracy, when in fact this is often not the case. (The Gulf War being a good example.)
Yes, in the post-war era, we've given up our empires and colonies, but retained control over many countries by supporting indigenous regimes that are friendly to us and keep a tight grip on their populations, often being dictatorships. Now though governments and indeed democracy are in danger of being replaced by The Market, which is controlled by big corporations. Even the head of IKEA was on TV today admitting that he sees them as taking over things that are traditionally the responsibility of governments - environmental policies, social values, etc.
In fact during the WTO conference last year, the director of the Washington Center for International & Strategic Research commented: "In the final analysis, what really matters is how effectively the surrender of governments to the global markets is carried out".
OTOH, the East almost never supported democracies. India is the only one they supported that I can think of.
Well ... we did defend Kuwaiti national self-determination. Kuwait wasn't a democracy, of course, but rather a monarchy. OTOH, Iraq was even *less* of a democracy.
I truly don't see this happening. The "market" is a collection of trading institutions; it has no force at its command and cannot replace "government" functions.
I think he's being perhaps a tad megalomaniac. Governments enforce environmental policies, whether by direct banning or by some market-based mechanism such as pollution taxes. "Social values" are not created solely either by markets or by the govenments, but rather by means of a continual cultural discourse which takes many forms. As for the "etc.", I don't see private institutions taking over lawmaking or law enforcement, the judiciary, and especially not the military. Which are the basic functions of government, after all.
Yes, but what does he *mean* by that? It sounds more like he means "economic realities". How would "the market" be able to govern anything? Think about it.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I didn't expect WWIII to be a happy event. I kind of hoped to survive it, but I wouldn't have bet on it.
Yes. Especially in the early stages, World War One was fought over very little of consequence. The mismatch between the triviality of the causes and the gruesome casualty lists demoralized Europe for generations.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
actually Russia had a bit of a revolution that was a problem for them. admittedly, the losses against Germany were part of the CAUSE of the revolution.
I'm not entirely convinced that would have been a bad thing, at least compared to the outcome that did happen which led directly to WW2.
I'm not entirely sure what good winning a war by burning half the entire country down would really do for anyone.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
I think that without the strain of a world war, Russia might well have evolved into a parliamentary monarchy. This would have been a lot better for Russia and for the rest of Europe, even though you would have wound up named something else due to Alice Rosenbaum staying in St. Petersberg.
Very true. The Second Reich doesn't look so bad compared to the Third one.
North Vietnam was the *enemy* country. *South* Vietnam was our ally. The strategy we *actually* chose involved using the strategic bombers in the Southern countryside. They would have been better employed against the enemy homeland, while the fighter-bombers we used against the North could have delivered precise air support on the battlefield. That would have been using our aircraft for what they were designed to do, instead of the other way round.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 24 Jan 2000 16:27:19 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
The think about any discussion involving America is that everybody's points are probably right, in one place or another. America is a very large nation, consisting of many different states, many different local cultures taken from many different places, changed by many different circumstances. Many different religeons are practiced, none of which are state endorsed. Many different views, philosophies, lifestyles, geographies, all of these things are America.
A case could easily be made that that Americans are the most racist people in the world. An equally strong case could be made that Americans are the most tolerant. Americans are the most heartless, leaving the poor to the dogs. Americans are also the most compassionate, donating money to the poor. Americans are the most war-mongering, leading most of the worlds wars in this century. Americans are the most pacifistic and isolationist, trying to keep itself out of war. America is everything; it just depends what part you put under the microscope.
One the one hand, I strongly disagree with Dagney, for the same reason as Jordan. I am not any of these things, neither are most of the people I know. However, I am quite aware that my social circle is somewhat limited, and that if I just walk a few miles (into either Southwest Fresno (crime) or Clovis (racism and religeous intolerance, if not neo-fascism) I'll find all the things Dagney talks about.
If you happen to be in the wrong place and are "different", you'll be perseucted by your peers. If you are sufficiently different, you'll be persecuted by the authorities. If you are in the right place, you'll find dozens of friends, each one a unique individual. I just so happened to find that right place. I have met many who have not.
As to how to avoid that situation, I have heard that in Chicago it is said that, "If you don't like the weather, wait a while." I would like to submit the corrolery, "If you don't like the people you live around, MOVE!" Yes, that's the sort of thing that results in the decay of a neighborhood, but it's also the thing that makes America unique.
Most of the western countries have various ways of dealing with various problems. Many can live in most of the western countries quite well. For those who don't fit in, come to America. You're bound to find *someplace* you fit in. Might I recommend Fresno's Tower District?
In my opinion, America as a whole really can't be defined. It just is.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:27:31 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
Those cases could not be made easily. "Most" anything (whether most evil or most good) is just another example of nationalistic pride.
It can be said that Americans are racist; and that they're tolerant. But more racist can be found, as can more tolerant (For example, the Great Canadian Folly known as 'multiculturalism.') As with almost everything else.
I'll admit it's 'everything' in that context; just rarely most, or least.
(Snip)
Difference is in the eye of the beholder. To those in the 'wrong place,' your friends in the 'right place' are "Them," not individuals. And usually it works the other way as well. (Just look at the rivalry between the goths and the hardcore-punks on the net... two subcultures stereotyped as anticonformist, calling each other sheep...)
(Snip)
I don't fit in America. Too much nationalism. (Which is one of the places I'll give credit to you guys for being among 'the most' at...)
On 24 Jan 2000 16:27:19 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
(Snip)
I'm actually operating on the opposite... seeing the faults in other countries and ignoring those of my own. (BTW, I'm not "American," unless you add a North in front.)
It's called Nationalism.
And, IMO, the true point of so-called Social Studies is to foster and support that.
I know what the Canadian curriculumn on that was - to highlight our victories and showcase the defeats of others. Vimy Ridge, an otherwise trivial victory in the first world war, is given important mention in our textbooks - particularly noting the other nations that failed to take it...
(Snip)
Ford is actually credited with the invention of mass assembly. (Well, at least in Canada...)
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:40:53 +1000, boolean wrote:
That's what *I* was taught in school, FWIW. The whole "Ford invented the automobile" thing is, I think, one of those fallicies that, after being repeated enough times, becomes mistaken for fact (like the whole "Columbus discovered America" thing; sure, it's true, if you consider that it's CENTRAL America he found <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/
He took the mass production invented by Eli Whitney and moved the *products* instead of the *people*. That was his crucial industrial development.
He also designed a cheap yet reliable automobile. And got funding to produce it, and competently marketed it.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
He neither invented the automobile nor the assembly line. He took the existing processes of assembly line and automobile to make the first mass produced automobile. The automobile was invented by A GERMAN.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
And the assembly line was developed by an American, Eli Whitney, who was able to do so because of techniques used in the American firearms manufacturing industry, namely interchangeable parts. As Jordan said, what Ford did was create a reliable automobile which was affordable to the average worker, and marketed it successfully. A few decades later, a certain Chancellor of Germany, a great admirer of Henry Ford, by the way, would commission a Dr. Porsche to do the same thing in Germany. The result? "That's not a car, it's a time machine." (Thought I forgot about the TDRs, didn't you?)
On 25 Jan 2000 17:50:01 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
You know Dagney, I would say that with all this hootin' and hollerin' about "nationalism," you would remember the maxim, "One who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones." By the classical defination of a "nation", the United States of America isn't a Nation. The word that describes it best is "State." Many of the European political entities are described as "nation-states" because they qualify for both terms.
A state consists of territory, a population, resources and a government. A *nation* is a homogenous cultural group. And in America, there are many "nations." And I agree, there is one particular nation, the "quintessional American", which dominates policy and practices of the government.
I myself don't have a very well defined nation. By blood, I can be considered Ango, German, Irish, or maybe even Cherokee (a little bit of that in there). By philosophy, I really don't have much of a "nation."
You, however, seem to be very "nationalistic" in that you have such support for the German "nation." Unless, of corse, you are merely using them as an example, in which case you should pobably step back a bit; your arguments are getting a bit emotional.
If you argue against nationalism in general, I stand with you. If, however, you merely purport an alternate nationalism, I have no place in this argument, and shall step out.
only because I know everyone disregards everything I say because I'm too young. Why did I ever trust anyone online with my age? There are so many people who would actually respect me if I were older. Not just those who disagree with me. Those who are kind but suddenly condescending when they find my age are just as bad.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
I disagree. I respect you Dagny. I'm quite impressed with you and even if I might rarely disagree with your conclusions I never find them ill-considered or poorly researched. I suspect your arguments might be more effective if you could cite specific reasons for your conclusions even though not everyone is going to be able to follow them.
Great. Playing the "age" card, are we? Did anyone mention an "age" issue? I didn't think so. If someone younger than you were to mention something I would agree with in this argument, I'd applaud them. But it'd be because of what they SAID. Same goes for the people whom I've been applauding who are older than both you and me.
Sheesh. This issue has nothing at all to do with age. It's about how vehemently anti-American you are. And I think you should definitely get shipped off to some place where you can realize how good you have it. Prolly someplace like Colombia. Yeah. It has pretty scenery...lots of foliage...it's a modern economy...considered post-industrial as far as I know...but very corrupt, very dangerous, and if you manage to survive the first year you're there (18,000 killings a year and Americans marked as prime targets for terrorists will do that) you can scramble for an Internet cafe and post something about realizing how the U.S. is quite nice.
(oh yeah, and all these posts you've been doing...in most other countries, they'd have been intercepted and you'd have been expelled from the country by the government if the government didn't choose to execute you)
LI
(and one other thing...I'm not against you, I'm against what you're stating...I can differentiate between the two)
As with your comment that, "Thanks, I'm glad I'm regarded as the resident psychopath for daring to have opinions that don't match everyone else's, and thinking they're a little more important than kissing everyone's ass?," I would suggest a little caution using the term "everyone." I for one do not "regard you as a psychopath" because I don't agree with you, am not resenting your opinions because it's not "kissing my ass," and do not disregard everything you say because you're young (I don't even know your age-or race or gender for that matter-I'm going strictly on what you write). I may not agree with everything you say, but as you and others have said here, everyone has a right to an opinion, even if it's contrary to yours. Personally, I was enjoying the discussion and thought you and everyone else involved had some good points (and I'm not being one of those condescending people, since I don't know your age :).
In my case, au contraire. You have very good points to make. The way that you make them, and some apparent gaps in your knowledge, would, if you were in your twenties, tend to make me think of you less highly than I do. But since I know your age, I find it easier accept those things that in an older person would be harder to accept.
are
I hope you don't find it condescending of me to say that my expectations of a person's maturity vary with their age.
On 26 Jan 2000 00:13:43 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
<snip irrelevence>
I have no idea how young (or old) you are. For all I know you're 60. But based on inference I can guess you're at or below the college age (probably below due to excessive angst. Every teenager's entitled to a little of it). And I'm not disregarding what you're saying; I merely believe you to be incorrect :) This being Usenet, I have the ability to post my counterarguments, and you likewise. I dunno, personally I *like* the occasional debate. Makes ya think, and usually you end up learning something from it.
Besides, this is the 'net. We have no way of knowing what you say is true about you except from the text that's typed. This can tell us plenty about the knowledge, sophistication, location (unless you post through a proxy), beliefs, and to some degree, maturity of your online persona. It tells us absolutely nothing about what you look like, your sex (you could be a male, female, both, or neither. So could I :), your age, background etc. Hell, a rocket scientist could be a troll like a 13 year old kid with a self-esteem problem and no one would know. The upshot of this is that the only thing we can tell about you is what you choose to communicate, both intentionally (what you write about) and potentially unintentionally (how you write it - I so potentially since if you want to you can modify your writing style substantially).
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 26 Jan 2000 00:13:43 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
Have I? And the other message you recieved today doesn't count.
Because it's honest.
So you assume.
If I didn't already know your age (and I tend to forget numbers as quickly as I learn) I would still know that you are a senior in high school, at the oldest. The vehemence with which you hold your opinions, and the sorts and styles of arguments you use to support them, are a dead giveaway. The degree of emotion you put in your posts are too.
This is basically what I said, Dagny. I think he was the first to move anything the size of an auto along an assembly line, though. I know that he neither invented the automobile or *mass production*.
Do you know how automobiles were built before Ford? They were assembled one at a time; parts were standardized but the automobile sat there while various workers installed them one at a time.
Benz? Daimler?
Well, sort of. They pioneered the internal combustion engine automobile. But various kinds of trackless mobile steam engines existed before them.
The earliest was devised in the late 17th (!!!) century; it's the inspiration for Belle's father's axe-chopping machine in the recent Disney version of *Beauty and the Beast*. It could travel at a bone-breaking 5 mph, and had wholly inadequate steering; it ran into the corner of a building on its first test drive, thus having the first known auto accident :)
No fooling.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
She'd have to wear a school uniform here, but she'd be free of the "jock" culture that glorifies football players, and she wouldn't have people psychologically profiling her to decide if she was a potential nutter in need of forcible re-education. And although I doubt she'd be allowed to wear a hat in class, armed guards wouldn't be used to enforce the rule.
but she'd be in 6th form/college, so not at her age, i shouldn't imagine, unless she went to a really posh school. you know, at rob's school they have to wear smart clothes to school in the sixth form. hahahahaha. ;-)
i'm not sure, i think some of my teachers would count as armed guards...
Oh, but it's oh-so-much worse. The culture that highers football coaches and as an afterthought has them "teaching" social studies classes (read: showing videos that students sleep through, but he doesn't care). And they build schools as almost an afterthought to sports complexes, with cafeterias without enough seats, already not enough classrooms after three years... and so on...
But do you have a "public school liaison" policeman to enforce a school with no crime in the first place? And they're not even putting him to good use, making sure that people don't run over any unpopular person daring to try to drive in the parking lot at the same time as the cheerleaders (that is, after school gets out...)
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
England is free even by the standards of the rest of the Western world. Just as we are. I also think Daria would be ok in most of Western Europe. By "most human cultures" I was thinking more of the Third World, the pre-modern world, Communist countries, the world of the past (even earlier American cultures) etc. Which, difficult to believe as it is from our current peace, prosperity, and freedom, is the bulk of human cultures throughout history.
We are living in an exceptional Golden Age, right here and now. Enjoy it.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
What? The golden age where sex offenders rule the most powerful nation in the world and no one cares? The golden age where the only ideals are throwing footballs or having big tits, depending on your sex? The golden age where parents who abandon or kill their children get people making excuses for them, but one minor going on a killing spree brings the assumption that all teens are violent and evil? Where the world has decided that knowing anything in philosophy, literature, etc. is worthless and education should focus on how to fix your car? Is that the golden age you're talking about? Because I sure as hell don't buy it.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
1. Clinton is not a "sex offender." I don't want to argue the man's politics, or defend his morals, but your terminology is indefensible. He had consensual sex with an adult woman. The crime of which he was accused was lying about the relationship under oath. Yes, he has been accused of worse crimes (sexual harrassment and rape), and if you want to believe the accusations, go ahead, but they were exhaustively investigated and found to have no meaningful evidentiary basis, which in my book makes them malicious gossip.
2. A couple dozen minors have gone on killing sprees in the last couple years or so, not just one. This seems to me to be a fairly legitimate cause for social concern. Yes, some people have said some pretty stupid things in the course of trying to come to terms with the tragedies, and some perfectly innocent kids have been inexcusably harrassed, but these problems, while real, pale to insignificance beside the indisputable fact of the various killings themselves. Nor have I noticed any particular upswing in defense of child abuse or abandonment (except in Miami).
3. Yes, we live in a overly materialistic society, yes our materialistic society tends to support business education and technology when it bothers to think about higher education at all. I have not, however, noticed any sort of systematic purge of the liberal arts from our institutions of higher learning.
Oh, and as for the disproportionate credibility given those with gridiron skills and spectacular mammalian apparati ... this is not a particularly new development in the high school social milieu, sad to say. It gets (somewhat) better out in the real world.
Look, I can tell you're young, so you have a right to vent a certain amount of undifferentiated angst. You probably actually do have some trenchant points to make about the state of American culture at the dawn of the 21st century. Let me just respectfully suggest that you might have more luck getting your points across if you try supporting them with at least one or two examples that have some sort of identifiable relationship to observable reality.
LOOK, you have the right to believe everything you want and hate me (people tend to), but to say that my statements are based only on my age is totally insutling, you cannot "respectfully suggest" that this is the only reason any more than you could respectfully tell an African American that the only reason that he disagrees with you is because of his race. It's downright prejudicial, discriminatory, and hateful, and shows a lack of ability to think of anyone as an individual.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Ignorance in the young is both understandable and correctable. Ignorance in the fully-grown adult is probably a chronic condition. Since you seem mostly concerned with matters that relate to the young, I prefer to assume that that's the reason for your extremely slippery grasp of historical fact.
But if you prefer to be regarded as simply an ignoramus, that's fine too.
On 26 Jan 2000 00:07:45 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
However, it's also true. It isn't comparable to race. Race is simply a collection of qualities stemming from where their ancestors happened to be born. Age is a quantity; the number of years on this planet, which has a direct bearing on exactly how much of the world one has seen. Although many young people have seen more than many other older people (due to the fact that some people just put more effort into it), you're not debating with a bunch of avarage schmo's.
I remember being as cynical as you. It was only three or four years ago. I thought much the same as you do. Since then, I've seen more things, been more places, met more people, read more books, magazines, newpapers, and I'm also no longer torn apart by emotional issues as I was as a teen. I have come to realize that the world is a great deal more complex than I had believed. Nothing is ever as good, or as bad, as it seems.
We don't hate you. Or at least, I don't hate you. Indeed, I admire you, Dagney, because unlike most people, you actually give a damn about things beyond your immediate view. This country needs more people like you.
But the reason people take umbrage at your arguments is that you make these blanket statements without offering much to support them. You make the assumption that the conditions in your little fish tank are the same as the rest of the ocean. High school sucks. Nobody doubts that; there are only a few rare exceptions (such as my own alma mater, a place where Academic Decathalon got more attention than football), and even at those places, one can find plenty of things wrong with it.
You will come to realize in the next few years that high school is a very small place. You're probably already realizing that, at this college you attend.
It is valid for comparing oneself to oneself of several years ago, but between people, not a figure of great significance, as we all start at a different level, go at different rates, and have different types of experience. You should be be smarter at 40 than YOU were at 20, but that doesn't mean that if you're 40 you're smarter than another person at 20.
And I too will have different views in a few years, I should hope, or I've really failed as a person, but that doesn't mean the ones I have now are wrong, but only a different perspective. One has a tendency to look back at previous opinions and say "those are wrong, these are right" but there's no way to really support that just because they are later, they are better.
And some things I already HAVE maintained the same ideas on for very long. I still agree that explaining to my teacher in seventh grade why Cleopatra could not be black was a good choice, not a childish one, and I still think she's a total idiot, just to give one example.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
A couple dozen out of how many million? And if you had the slightest idea what has been done in an overdone response, that would give you cause for concern. but I suppose you wouldn't believe me anyway, me being too young to have her own opinions and all.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Good god, we're talking about goddam MASSACRES here. How many does it TAKE to constitute an alarming trend.
And I know all about the absurd authoritarian overreactions to some of the recent tragedies ... what Jon Katz has dubbed "geek profiling." It's ignorant and shameful, but it's hardly a national tragedy.
try expelling, harassing, taking away privacy, and taking away free speech. if you think the loss of constitutional rights is less important than the deaths of a few dozen people, you better look at what exactly America does have that makes it safer than some of the other cultures that have been mentioned. Yes, America is, all in all, a pretty damn nice place to live, my real contempt is for the people who would like to throw away what has made it a "world leader", which is not because we're a superior race or even have shown more innovation in this century, but the intelligence and sacrifice of the people who gave us this government in the first place, the people everyone wants to abandon when they say "well, what's the constitution when you're dealing with murder/rape/insert issue here." That's the alarming trend, and there's nowhere you see it more than in schools, and these events are the reasons they give.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Expulsions? EXPULSIONS? Oooh, Expulsions! Geeze, you're right, that's SOO MUCH worse than having youre head blown off by some Freshman who got stood up for the Spring Fling.
As for free speach and privacy ... boy, do I have some rough news for you. Minor chidren in the US do not, I'm afriad, enjoy either as a right. You can be a small-minded bloody idiot by searching lockers and restricting speech, but you can't violate a right that doesn't exist.
You ask how many people have been killed by school shootings, and I answer a couple dozen. It's still a rare problem, thank god, but it's extreme nature makes it worth special consideration.
Now, how many *serious* incidents of "geek profiling" have occured because of the shootings. I'm not talking about some clueless vice principle making a half-assed rule ... half assed rules, like the poor, are with us always. I'm talking about arbitrary, targeted persecution of individuals, that would never have happened without the shootings and their media coverage ... some poor little jerk getting suspended or hauled off by the cops for wearing a black trench coat to school. Hard to say. A few hundred, certainly. Let's be charitable and call it a thousand or so, nation wide. Of those incidents, how many lives have really been ruined? One or two? Any? Most of the time the parents pick up the kid, buy him a new coat, promise the VP that he's not making bombs in his room and send him back to class on Monday, a bit shell shocked and probably that much more cynical and alienated, but hardly disenfranchised for life.
In short, we're talking small potatoes here. Teeny, tiny, liliputian little potatoes. There are neighborhoods in the inner city where there are more serious violations of real constitutional rights every week than there have been "geek profiling" incidents nationwide in the last year. Neighborhoods? Hell, buildings.
Doesn't mean the problem's not real. Doesn't mean people shouldn't be educated about it. And I'm NOT saying ... let's be crystal clear on this ... that the seriousness of the school shootings makes the geek profiling incidents OK. It doesn't. I'm merely objecting to your quantitative assertion that geek profiling is a far worse problem nationally than random shootings. It's not. Not even close. The very idea is both absurd and extremely offensive.
OK, bottom line. School shootings. BIG problem. Not as big as AIDS or Crack Cocaine, thank god, but still big. Geek profiling. LITTLE problem. Big enough to need to be dealt with, but that's about all that can be said about it.
is
leader",
innovation
gave us
when
nowhere
give.
As I pointed out above, there are PLENTY of places where you see it more than in schools. Start with interstate highways.
The problem of the trade-off between rights and security is nothing new, and it sure as hell didn't start in Littleton. It's the dark side of our way of life, an inevitable reaction to everything that makes our system work. It's as inevitable as gravity. All we can do is deal with the problem as best we can whenever it appears. The whole geek profiling thing is, from a historical or national perspective, a pretty tame and acute flare-up of this particular rash.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:27:41 -0600, "Chris McCubbin" wrote:
At least 20 schools have adopted the Mosaic program.
As they're being assisted by the FBI, I'd say it's a "serious" attempt.
(Snip)
If you hadn't said otherwise, we'd be wondering.
Little problem. Shocking, yes. Painful to those involved, yes. But on a relative scale to the rest of either of our nations, it's a drop in the bucket.
We're just all so shocked that our violent kids are getting 'adult' in their expressions of violence.
Big over-reaction.
(snip)
History has a tendency to precede the larger flare ups with small, tame ones.
I'm waiting for Fallwell and Phelp's reactions to this, myself.
While the Mosaic program is problematic on several levels, in the short term at least it's more likely to contain the kind of gratuitous persecution we're talking about than to perpetuate it ... at least, assuming the programmers have any sort of clue what they're talking about, which they seem to do. It will replace arbitrary, emotional and irrational judgements with an evaluation that's at least objective and based on some solid evidence.
In the long term, of course, we have to ask ourselves if this kind of scrutiny we should be demanding our schools make of our kids. I don't think it is.
I've been on USEnet awhile. I know how people love to project their own prejudices on the opinions of others.
If the same number of kids had been killed by right-wing militias in the same amount of time, I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion?
Yes. This is why it's a big problem. Just 10 years ago, kids almost never reacted this way to stress (they just tried to kill themselves). Now they are. What if the trend continues to accelerate?
this
I'd counter that small flare-ups happen at a consistant rate regardless of the proximity of bigger problems. Of course, like any small irritation, if not tended to they can putrify.
It will be, "See, we told you so." Nothing makes a conservative happier than correctly predicting a major tragedy.
Chris McCubbin wrote in message news:86prca$ce4$[email]...
term
think
[...]
In case any fellow Europeans are feeling superior as we watch this discussion unfold, let's remember this isn't a solely American problem. France has seen parents and students taking part in school sit-ins (and strikes?) to press their government for action on violence in schools, and Claude All�gre has just announced the measures his department plan in response. The measures include 7,000 new staff; profiling does not seem to be part of the package.
If anyone's interested, they can read more at URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_620000/620840.stm
The fundamental problem I see with the whole "Mosaic" business is that basically it involves looking for "violent non-conformists" rather than simply "violent people". This increases the pressure on non-conformists, many of whom are "violent" in self-defense; they are not willing to tamely submit to beatings by violent conformists who wish to punish them for their non-conformity.
Non-conformists already suffer from the problem that if a fight does break out, no matter who started it they are likely to be blamed (they have less friends to back up their story). If you add to this an *official policy* of persecuting them, it makes matters even worse.
The whole issue of initiation of force is being ignored. This is because if they really investigated it, they might find out that some of their precious "future leaders" and football stars have no compunction against starting fights with smaller, weaker, less popular kids.
"It doesn't matter who started it" is the lie of adult authorities who, if anyone laid a hand on them, would have no compunction against fighting back against or prosecuting their assailants. They are safe from bullying themselves (unless the school is *totally* out of control).
*I* was a "violent non-conformist". I was small and smart; rather than conform to avoid bullying I learned to summon a berserker rage, making me a dangerous target to attack. I suspect other people have similar stories.
Increasing the pressure on "violent non-conformists" while ignoring the issue of "violent conformists" is a VERY bad idea. It is quite likely to make the aforementioned non-conformists think that their position is hopeless ("not only do I get beat up but I get blamed for the fight and suspended, while my attackers aren't punished").
Some will commit suicide. Some will simply give up (crushing the spirit of "non-conformists" is NOT a good thing for a society's cultural future. And some will say "F**k it. If I'm doomed anyway, at least I should take some of the bastards down with me."
That's how you get a Columbine.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 28 Jan 2000 06:24:58 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
I agree with thiw wholeheartedly. There were several times in junior high that I considered reacting to some of the crap I had to take. I never did, because I figured a suspension on my record would be a bad thing. (This was before "zero tolerance.")
I don't agree. While it would be nice to be able to punish the initator, it is sometimes difficult to find the initiator. And some times, the initiator of violence was not the initiator of conflict. I used to know some annoying little pricks that would sit there and *bug the hell* out of people larger than them, in an effort to get them in trouble. I can hardly blame the larger person for snapping. (It took me at least two years to finally learn that when my little brother started up, to immediately go to mom and tell her to tell him to stop. My previous method had been to hit him, then he would run to mom crying, and *I* would take the blame.)
You've already said that the non-conformist has a disadvantage in determining fault, since they have fewer friends to back up their story. Also, the football star or the "golden boy" who also turns out to be a bully is likely to get off easier than the non-conformist, since the authorities know the former, and the later is at best a nonentity, at worst, one of those "demonic" AD&D players or what not.
I think a blanket policy of punishment of violence equally for both participants is the only way to ensure that the minority (us) get's treated the same as the majority (them). But I also tend to think we shouldn't be so hard on people who get involved in unarmed fights. One thing some don't understand is that sometimes all that's needed to resolve a growing tension is a good rumble. (My personal bully and I usually actually got along well the day after we'd had a physical fight, though it never lasted.) Weapons, of corse, cannot be tolerated.
I tended to be better at bandying words; confrontations rarely ended in combat. I really don't have the psychological capacity to cause another harm. I do, however have a remarkable tolerance for pain, and an ability to avoid injury many lack. So I couldn't hurt them (still can't punch anyone, not to any effect, at any rate), they couldn't hurt me, so physically attacking me was a pointless effort. Nothing happens.
This is precisely why both participants must be punished, simply because it's in human nature to go easy on the conformist one, unless you're lucky enough to have an administrator who is also a non-conformist; a rarity.
It already happenes.
I agree wholeheartedly. And I suspect that Dagney is growing up in just such a culture.
well I don't know if Dagney is but I am :) Grandville is much like Columbine: suburban, upper middle class, huge, with a major emphasis on sports. and the entire administration seems to hate me, and, of course, love the football players, cheerleaders, etc. (and let them get away with stuff)
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
I do understand this ... but in that case you punish *both* involved.
So *that's* where baby activists come from! :)
I know what you mean, but when left unchecked by authority minor scuffles can escalate. Cutting a little slack is one thing; allowing riots to start is another.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
And that's if it's implmented *intelligently*. The possibilities for abuse in the hands of paranoid or intolerant school officials; the possibilities for overreaction by the kids leading to punishment which in turn leads to more hostility; and the ammunition handed to intolerant kids to persecute non-conformists ("even the school knows you're nuts!") are obvious.
The sense of "I'm doomed anyway, might as well take some of *them* down with me."
I'll amplify: this is as if right-wing militias had killed a few dozen children over the last several years, and the schools responded by perseucting anyone showing signs fo being a Republican or listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Thanks to the separation of church and state, that's the one thing they can't do.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote in message news:[email]...
children
anyone
The nature of the response is immaterial. If right-wing militias had gunned down several dozen kids in multiple incidents across the country over the space of little more than a year, would you want some serious attention to be paid to what's happening, or would you say, "There have only been a few massacres, most schools are safe ... no point in making a big deal of it."
can't
The Constitution does not govern behavioral science. If there's a statistically-verifiable link between religious belief and violent crime (and there is, but it usually goes the other way from the example cited above) then of course it can be included in the program.
Just what on earth do you guys think this program is, anyway? From what I read, it takes proven behavioral principles of criminal profiling, and applies them to juvenile crime. If it actually does follow valid scientific principles, it will do more to clear "weird" kids who have been ignorantly placed under suspicion than it will to further alienate him. Of course, we don't know yet how the thing actually works, but the theory seems to be sound.
And, of course, as I keep saying, it's very problematic on a number of other levels, even if the scientiic theory is sound.
And by saying this, you open the Pandora's Box of Racial Profiling. It is scientifically valid, it works, and it's a despicable practice, for the reason that it alienates a specific sub-community which already feels alienated enough. It very likely is a policy that ensures it's own utility. These arguments apply both to juvinile profiling and racial profiling.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:16:56 -0600, "Chris McCubbin" wrote:
Considering that part of what we're discussing is the response itself, I disagree.
I would say the latter. I would most likely be forced to follow up with "No I'm not saying we should sweep it under the rug. There is something between making a big deal about it and ignoring it completely."
An attempt to distill criminal profiling - which is most often used to track a person down from signs that person left - down to 'danger sign' generalizations. IMO, there's a big difference between the two.
very few things in our schools function on scientific prinicipal. they function on public opinion (this is government after all), paranoia, PR, hiring lots of administrators, making rules to give administrators something to do, and MOST IMPORTANTLY winning lots of sports games (which does clear athletes automatically of their crimes, one of the main reasons behind the shooting at Columbine was a great deal of unprosecuted violence in the form of fistfights etc that was perpetrated b y athletes)
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
On 28 Jan 2000 12:34:02 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Some believe that the FBI's assistance in setting it up will eliminate abuse; both because of their professionalism, and the fact that they have access to scientific character-profiling techniques that can reduce wrongful persecution to near non-existant levels.
That all requires that the FBI's reputatoin for professionalism is accurate (please ignore their critics, they're all just conspiracy nuts...) *and* assumes that they will be administering the program post implementation (or that the program is relatively inflexible.)
Having just checked out http://www.com-prod.com/~siesta/mosaic.htm (which is a reposting of the information provided by the developers) I'm finding some... interesting answers in the FAQ.
For example: "Can the system brand a student as dangerous?
Most often, MOSAIC-2000 will help establish that a student does not pose an elevated risk of violence."
To me, that implys more concern with allaying fears than answering the question.
As for the implementation... taken from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/991011/profile.htm
"The Dighton-Rehoboth school district in southeastern Massachusetts plans to watch for such indicators as isolation, slipping grades, and unusual garb. "
Perhaps the program itself is unbiased and tamperproof to prevent abuses. Personally, I think anyone with kids in the schools this is being tested in should take a close look at how it works...
That depends on how close the schools are to the state...
Very true. Once you start eroding freedom, a lot more than "a few dozen people" can wind up dead. And since free peoples are rare, freedom once lost is difficult to regain.
I would say that our system of limiting government makes it more possible to display innovation. A lot of American innovators were immigrants, who came here precisely because they lacked opportunity or suffered active oppresion in their own lands.
Yes. And who designed it very carefully, with a lot of attention paid to where previous republics went wrong.
Very alarming. Because when the precedent has been set to ignore part of the Constitution for one reason, that reason may be used to ignore another part of it. Or that part may be ignored for another reason. Violation of the Constitution spreads, until both the letter and the spirit are routinely ignored.
The real reason is that students are powerless. Because the school is *in loco parentis*, it can get away with things that organizations could not get away with dealing with adults. But the students are the adults of the future.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 25 Jan 2000 17:39:34 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
Oh bite me. Adultery between two willing adults is *not* a sex offense. What was an offense was the fact that we had to hear a blow by blow of it blared by the damned media.
The golden age in the US where unemployment is at record lows, the environmental situation, if not getting better as fast as I'd like, is nonetheless improving dramatically from the 60's and 70's (in the US and Europe by and large at least. China and other nations attempting to bootstrap themselves up unfortunately don't have as good a record yet...but in a few years...). The standard of living is much higher than it was 50 years ago. Computers have been increasing in speed and complexity at an incredible rate; cheap childrens toys now are fitted with microcontrollers and low power radio transmitters. Crime has been steadily falling as well. Gene therapy and genetic manipulation will be along shortly for good or ill, and nanotech will be along in a decade or two (the ramifications of those two should be substantial in terms of quality of life, length of life, and material possessions. They'll also have a number of privacy and ethical concerns but that goes with the territory).
The world where the media exists to sell the story. That much unfortunately hasn't changed substantially. Looking at the statistics, violent crime in schools is at record lows, but anomolies such as the Columbine incident will always show up to buck the trend.
I personally haven't seen *that*. We were at least decently grounded in literature (and got a touch of philosphy) in my highschool; I can't speak for yours obviously. College you can do any damned thing you want of course - assuming you can pay for it :)
Yup, that's the "Golden Age" we're talking about. A time when war and conflict is at a comparative low, a time of economic prosperity, and when research is discovering valuable data on a day by day basis at an ever increasing rate.
You don't buy it? I'm sorry then; I'll just sit back and enjoy the fruits of all that labor while you don't.
Most people don't care because things are good for them, personally. This is short-sighted, but it's also human nature. Clinton is scum, of course ... but we won't have to deal with him after January 2001, regardless of who wins the election.
Well ... having footballs would be too easy; throwing big tits would just be weird. :)
Shallowness is hardly a recent invention, or a trait unique to Americans.
Parents have been abusing children for a *long* time ... it isn't something that started recently. Teenagers have been misunderstood for a *long* time ... this isn't anything new either.
??? - Is this a Michigan thing? Or are you talking about trade schools?
Yep. You've just discussed some of its dark side. All ages have their dark sides. Ours is no exception.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I doubt its uniquely a Michigan thing, although we are more car-oriented than, say, New York... it's the general idea that all that is useful to actually be taught (in the rare moments they get the idea maybe SOMETHING should be taught in out schools) is that we should focus on What Can Get You a Job, and not What Can Make You an Informed and Educated Person- that is to say, English and Social Studies are right out.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
I actually think that it would be better if we had more different kinds of schooling. There are people who do not want and will not benefit from the liberal arts portion of a high school curriculum; they would be happier in trade schools, and those who do want and benefit from liberal arts would probably be happier without the forced company of the ones who resent it.
And if I'm being elitist, I don't care :)
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Maybe Mankind hasn't gotten mature enough yet to be truly free, for very long. Poul Anderson made that argument in a lot of his science fiction.
Hers does so subtly. Most other cultures would totally close her off from all channels of advancement, or imprison or kill her.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I believe this too. I mean, if everyone went around doing EVERYTHING they wanted, there wouldn't be a society to speak of, nor a government. It would be a very fluid and volatile thing to behold, an anarchistic nightmare. You see it in Somalia and you see it in Colombia. The safest areas of Somalia are controlled by a military wishing to create some sort of government with rules and regulations, calling it "The Republic of Somaliland". In Colombia, 99% of all crimes go unpunished, and approxmiately 18,000 murders happened in 1998. Do you want to live in a society where 18,000 murders happen in one year? Didn't think so.
One of the prices one has to pay in order to live in a controlled and safe society is that one must give up a tiny bit of one's own self. Usually it's negligible or unneccesary, so unless one is extremely irrational one does not miss that. Besides, I'd rather live in a democracy that can take care of things on its own and help out other countries instead of live in a place that has to rely on foreign aid in order to keep on going (and most post-industrial countries have had to rely on foreign aid, namely either from the U.S. or Australia, to keep on going).
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah, definitely. I mean, even Jodie would've been killed in Afghanistan for having her own dreams and being "too independent" or something like that. Helen...forget it, she would've been a nonentity a long time ago. Quinn...perhaps, for desiring to enter into relationships with numerous males and for wanting to pick the males she entered into relationships with. Brittany...yeah, definitely, for revealing too much and for being "a woman of loose morals". Jane...six feet under for her unwillingness to conform. Ms. Li...deader than a doorknob for being too independent-minded and strong-willed. Every single female on the show would be dead for some sort of infraction against the Afghan code of conduct. Same goes for Iraq. In fact, in Iraq they'd have all been subjected to torture first, then killed. The Afghanistan militia would be a little nicer because they don't have an evil dictator ruling over them and giving them ulcers and all.
And Damon, good roundup. I think there's at least a few dozen other countries you've forgotten to list, but I realizse you were merely giving examples.
Of course the irony there is that those Afghan Islamic fundamentalists were trained and armed by the USA, who wanted to get the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. In fact many of the brutal regimes of the third world were basically put in power by the CIA et al, seemingly because dictatorships were considered to be more useful to the USA than democracies which might fall prey to the evil communist bogeyman.
I know all about how the CIA had originally trained these people to fight against the Soviet invasion in the Afghanistan area back in the late '70s and '80s, and I know that it's an unfortunate part of our nation's past that we would rather train guerilla forces to act against a Communist force than to try to act against them without using some strong-arm tactics that would possibly (and have) backfired on us. But at the same time, we helped immensely with the collapse of Communism in Russia...along with those select few others who helped in the effort. And if the guerilla forces would realize that they alone did not topple the "great power in the Soviet Union", they would also realize that their notion of toppling the "great power in the United States" is rather silly. And...everything else I'd wanted to say was covered by Jordan (thanks...LOL).
I don't think the collapse of communism in Russia was a good thing. Instead of a country ruled in an orderly manner by communists, they now have a country ruled by gangsters. It is an incredibly dangerous country now, and many people are much worse off than they were under the communists. No business can operate in the Russian cities without paying protection money to the mafia.
I think the trouble is that the governing of countries really is like Animal Farm. No matter what the intentions of a revolution, people end up getting pretty much the same sort of government that they had before. Russia has no tradition of freedom and democracy. When the communists deposed the Tsar, people were glad and thought they would be free, but instead they just got a new tyranny with the KGB replacing the Tsarist secret police and so on. Then when communism was replaced by capitalism, the same thing happened again, with the gangsters replacing the KGB. These things need to be done gradually. Democracies can take centuries to develop resilience, and oppressive though communism was, I think it would have been better to let it run out of steam of its own accord over the course of another couple of decades than to give it a push.
This is because we totally missed an extremely important opportunity. When the Soviet Bloc fell, we should have immediately stepped in with a Marshall Plan for the entire area. At the close of World War II, we went in and helped rebuild both West Germany and Japan. You know the result. We prevented the kind of resentment, economic collapse and desperation that drove Germany into the hands of the Nazis. Instead, we handled Russia much as the Allies handled Germany with the Treaty of Versailles. We ignored all of Russia's needs and left them to become "Democratic" on their own. Is it any wonder a group of strongmen, this time the Russian Mafia, went in to fill the power vacuum?
It would have cost us a pretty penny to rebuild post-Communist Russia, but considering where Russia is headed now -- Dictatorship of ex-KGB bigwig propped up by the Russian Mafia looking to rebuild its pride by rebuilding its military and rattling their nuclear sabres at the Bad Old West -- we are going to pay big time later with Cold War II.
Russia, with its weak democracy, organized crime, private armies, and demagogic strongmen, looks frighteningly like Wiemar Germany.
Clinton made matters worse, diplomatically, by rejecting the Russian offer of a strategic alliance in 1993-94.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Even the good ol' U.S.A. had problems with organized crime working hand-in-hand with (predominantly local) government. It happened around the beginning part of the 1900s as industrialization created a new, less agrarian society, and cities found themselves to be the new living quarters for then-record numbers of people I suspect the problems Russia is having today are more because of growing pains than anything else. Former President Yeltsin took major strides in giving Russian citizens more constitutionally protected freedoms, and it looks like his elected replacement, current President Putin, will continue to do so. What they REALLY need to watch out for, though, are the local government leaders, chief among them the mayor of Moscow, who still presents major limits to freedom for Muscovites.
It was for us. Reduces their ideological threat to zero.
It would have been for them too, if they'd handled the transition better.
Much of this is the legacy of Communism, though. For decades the Russians lied to the world, saying "business is a crime". The ironic revenge is that now they cannot do business, because their own security forces believed them all too well.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
They cannot do productive business because the country seems to be under virtualy no visible regulation whatsoever, and criminal enterprise is entirely swamping and making productive activity impossible. The same scenario can be seen wherever there is effectivly no regulation and nowhere new left to expand into, it has nothing to do with years of communist dogma, its a matter of human nature.
The problem isn't a lack of "regulation" of economic activity. The problem is a lack of "regulation" of naked violence. Businessmen are being shaken down and murdered by gangsters (the Russian mob, lacking the long-term wisdom of most organized crime, will cheerfully kill and eat its golden gooses, not even in some cases offering businessmen the option of payin protection).
The reason why the police and militia are not even trying to protect the businessmen is that for 70 years the Russian people were told that "businessmen" were merely a type of criminal. The result is that there is little sympathy for them when they are victimized by REAL criminals.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
There is effectively no regulation economic or otherwise..There is no access to effective publicly endorsed power, so people are making their own arrangements, and are enforcing their own rules. The situation in Russia is imo a good example of the "naturally emergent order" that some free market advocates keep insisting can solve all human problems in the most effective way. It is a good demonstration that an "unregulated economy" is not sufficient on its own, to bring fairness and order, or encourage productive activity, effectivly. That for a market economy to be a powerfull good, there needs to be universally accessible sources of power and regulation
In the scenario in which the mob find themselves, being the most feared organisation *is* the winning strategy..and will return higher dividends than say having the most intelligent investment strategy, or a more enlightened approach. The mob are also circumscribed by the environment that makes business impossible, if they tried to "smarten up" their approach, they would be muscled out by the next guy, down in the food chain. So long as there is no effective regulation or source of accessible public power to enforce that regulation, being a "bad ass" will give them higher returns, than being intelligent
So you would not expect this situation to develop in a place that had no effective regulation, but had not had the population exposed to decades of this specific communist dogma?
imo the reason the police and militia are not protecting the businesmen is that it is not in their interests.
Rusians accept the existence of the problem, and they seem to be aware that their society is failing for this specific reason, but their is no reliable framework of power, from which an attack on this kind of activity can be launched.
Exactly. And with no experience in self-government, these are *bad* rules.
problems
The problem in Russia isn't a lack of *economic* regulation, it's a lack of basic law enforcement. It's not that people are trading too much, it's that people are killing each other. I think you're confusing libertarianism with anarchism.
to be
It proves nothing about the need for *economic* regulation. It proves a lot about the need for *criminal* regulation.
say
approach.
Actually ... no. The Russian mob is consuming its own host. This is probably because the Russian mob's origins are KGB; it really doesn't understand the necessity for business and so it sees nothing wrong with destroying it in the process of plundering it.
Or they could form real alliances with business and stand together against the "next guy", offering REAL "protection". But the Russian mob's ideology of terrorism and hostility makes that impossible.
The insidious thing is that there is just enough government to impede the formation any real defensive organizations; not enough to really protect anyone. While true anarchy would eventually coalesce into warlordism, the Russian semi-anarchy is capable of lasting a lot longer, and thus doing a lot more damage to society.
By "no effective regulation", do you mean no economic regulation, or no law enforcement period. In the former case, I don't think there'd be much of a problem with gangsterism; in the second case I think you'd get a more benign form of gangsterism. The normal flaws with anarchy are excacerbated by the complete lack of any Russian tradition of self-rule, whether on the personal level or the societal.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Even England didn't go democratic in a day. They did an early experement in a republican form of government. What began as a good idea ended in military rule under Cromwell. After he... was no longer in power... don't know well enough whether he died of age, was deposed, or what... they restored the monarchy. Democracy then gradually developed, but what many don't realize is that this was the result of people in general participating in armed revolts (not revolutions) on a regular basis any time the government decided to tend it's own interests rather than those of it's people. Eventually, the people in power got the hint.
Yes. Well, we armed a number of resistance groups, one of which became the Taliban. It's not like we told them "Go forth, and oppress women."
It was more than a "bogeyman" ... it was very real, from 1945 to 1989. The Cold War was a real conflict, and some of the worst dictatorships the world has ever seen were on the Soviet side. We supported some right SOB's, but the Soviets supported worse monsters, by and large.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
If they'd been born in Afghanistan, the adults would have grown up in a more liberal society than the one existing today. The teenagers would have grown up either in fortified enclaves ruled by the Soviets, or in refugee camps in Pakistan. The men would all have fought, on one side or another, in the Afghan War of the 1980's.
Free spirits like Daria and Jane never would have emerged in such circumstances. They would have been crushed ... if not by being outright killed, then by a hundred subtle or overt acts of violence which would have cowed their spirits, long before reaching the age of 17 or 18. And if they hadn't been cowed, then they *would* have been killed.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I don't believe so. Because if they were the "products" of "their society" it would be implying that the United States has one particular type of society, which is untrue. We are a melange of people and the fact that all the female characters on "Daria" are stronger than would be expected in Afghanistan merely shows that that's how they are inside. Besides, I don't think you get people like Daria or Jane (or Helen, even) from distilling what a particular society's expectations are of a person.
Exactly. We are products of our society. Even if we hate our society (not that anyone would do that...), we're products of it (hate is a product), and in Daria's case she recognizes she lives in a society where people can get away with a lot, but rarely try-- we have freedom, but still are conformists, so she tries to stir stuff up because she can.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
And they would kill her for what? For not having bouncy hair? What has she done that any government would object to? I hate to tell you, even governments that hunt after "intellectuals" look at university proffessors and so on, not whatever high school student is considered a "brain" by football players.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
For open dissent. For failure to respect the authorities who came to interrogate or imprison her for such dissent. Keep in mind that in many countries, especially in the Third World, if you simply happen to get on the wrong side of the secret police you will "disappear".
This would tend to close off one obvious avenue for winning the sympathy of her jailers; not that it's one that Daria would take anyway.
Expressed contempt for the authorities. (almost every epsiode) Openly mocked ideas that are officially considered admirable. (ditto) Publicly read her own dissident fiction ("Cafe Disaffecto").
Directly sabotaged state-supported activities (the modelling episode). Refused to produce art in conformity with official demands (the bulimia picture). Associated with other known dissidents (the Lanes).
In Argentina, during the "Dirty War", dissident students (college, not HS, but then again Daria will be in college next year) were tortured to death and the bodies dumped into the sea. In Stalinist Russia, students were denounced by any busybody (Ms. Li, anyone) and sent to gulags where they died in frozen, starving misery. In Nazi Germany, Dachau was built to house people just like Daria.
In more than one African country, student dissent has been met by turning the troops loose on the campuses. Mass rapes, mutliations, and murders of whoever the troops happened to simply discover were common, with casualties in the thousands per incident.
You really do *not* have a good handle on what is happening outside the West, or what happened before the present. Sorry, but you're making it kind of obvious.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
This raises a question: it's very easy to speak out against authority in her situation. I don't know if she would if the stakes were higher, I think the fact that her ethics are fairly unsure (in that half the time she claims not to have any) might be enough for her to lie low pretty much all of the time... the only realistic scenario in which she would stand up for something is if one of her friends was already in great danger. I don't think she'd speak up to a REAL dictator the way she does to Ms. Li, for one thing, she knows her mother can tell Ms. Li off.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
I think it would depend on the importance of the issue. I do not think that Daria would throw her life away for a small cause. I do think she would make a stand when it counted, especially if she could figure a way to do it and get away with it.
I agree.
Yes. On the other hand, Dagny, I don't think that Daria could completely contain her sarcasm and disapproval; if she was forced to, it would harden and embitter her, warping her personality somewhat.
Also remember ... dictators are good at ferreting out dissent. She might not wind up arrested ... immediately ... for mouthing off at the wrong time. But she would wind up on a list of "known dissidents", to be routinely watched from time to time, and to be rounded up should there be a particular reason. *Any* reason. (Not necessarily one resulting from her further actions).
For example, Stalin purged numerous groups in the late 1930's, due to fears of upcoming war. Among these groups were the philatelists.
That's right. People were tortured, sent to slave labor camps, and a good percentage of them died ... simply because they *collected stamps*.
(Reason? Stamp collectors exchange correspondence with people living abroad, so it would make sense for a spy to pretend to be a stamp collector. As for all the innocent stamp collectors ... "you can't make a revolution without breaking eggs ...")
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
For openly disagreeing with the authorities? North Korea would, in a heartbeat. China would toss her in a slave labor camp; likewise Cuba. Many cultures would monitor and harass her. That's just current cultures.
If you're talking about historical ones, in the 20th century alone I can think of Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Nazi Germany. Fascist Italy would probably just beat up or imprison her. Pol Pot's Kampuchea would kill her for wearing glasses and reading books.
They are more barbaric some places than you can possibly imagine, unless you study a lot of the rather nastier parts of history.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message news:[email]...
you
If anyone wants to verify Jordan's statment for themselves, then the 1999 reports from Amnesty International can be found at http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/
As a strong victims' rights supporter I find it unfair that AI would choose to bash our nation's death penalty because it fails to recognize (a) that these are people who have exhausted numerous appeals and have been found guilty by a jury of their peers, (b) that even in Texas the average waiting between sentencing and execution is 10.9 years, enough time for acquittal to happen, (c) that quite a few people on death row get acquitted, (d) that most people who come from so-called "violent" backgrounds where abuse of one form or another happened *don't* commit the violent crimes that would land them in death row, if they do commit crimes at all, and that those who claim that as an excuse to avoid execution are just simply looking for an excuse to avoid paying the price for their unspeakable crimes, and (e) everyone who's anti-death penalty who states that these people are unfairly losing their lives fail to recognize that these people are the same people who foisted that unfairness onto innocent people and that that in itself proves these people's barbaricness. But that's another topic altogether. LOL.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 05:57:18 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
(Snip)
That's actually an argument used often by those who oppose the death sentence.
Aye. But their point is "if they're barbarians, what are we?" In their eyes, the death penalty is sinking to the level of the criminal; and if we do that, they argue, we lose the moral right to judge.
What, that the prosecution at times convicts the wrong individual? I believe this is due to an earlier lack of necessary technological advances in forensics. Quite a few people have gotten out due to advances in DNA technology. And in Texas at least there is a movement to look at witness testimony AND corroborate that with actual physical proof.
"If they're barbarians, what are we?" Just handing out justice. Some people simply do not deserve to live because their actions caused someone who was completely innocent to lose their lives. These people could not possibly contribute to society as they cannot be reformed. If they could, they would be able to prove their case in appeals court and have their sentence reversed to life behind bars or commuted to a shorter time in jail. A number of individuals here in Texas have been able to do that and they have successfully re-entered society. But these people that are executed, they could not possibly do such a thing. They are a threat to humanity and taxpayers should not have to pay to house these individuals for their entire lives.
Oh, and a couple other things...if you think I'm also being racist too, then I would like to say that my fellow Hispanics make up 40% of the executed in this state...that's equal to the amount of African-Americans and together the largest amount of people "put to sleep"...and observe...I'm pro-death penalty, pro-choice, and pro-assisted suicide if the assistance is provided by a licensed doctor...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 02:41:00 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
I question that, actually. I'm not convinced that we're handing out justice; rather, I think it's closer to vengeance.
Morally distasteful as it seems, I believe using convicts as slave-labor would be closer to justice.
There are no 'complete innocents,' but that's a different topic...
40 years is a long time; and what is true of someone today may not be so by then.
Of course, after 40 years one doesn't have much left to contribute.
Note, then, that the 'majority' race is the one least executed.
Note also that I don't believe supporting a system - such as the death penatly - is the same thing as supporting it's implementation. I can believe that capital punishment is being implemented in a racist fashion without believing that supporters of capital punishment are racists.
Now, that's a good idea. Give the rapist a taste of his (usually it's a HE, although I won't repute the existence of female rapists) own medicine. I am serious. Lock them up in an isolated room and let a violent prisoner volunteer rape the person at least once a week for a year or something.
Now that's a wide generalization. Many autistics work on a high level of intelligence and are perfectly capable of contributing to society, it's just that too many of us don't let them show us that due to our prejudices. Mental illness itself is not the same as someone who elects to rob someone else of their most precious commodity of their own free will. At least we know the mentally ill didn't have a choice in the matter.
So what happens to the violent prisoner used to make the rape is he, using the same principle, beaten up every week by rapists?.. or is he a rapist himself?, in which case he gets raped by other rapists every week...err it sounds slightly unworkable
you could have a circle of rapists... like three rapists and rapist A rapes rapist B and rapist B rapes rapist C and rapist C rapes rapist A.
Now, I don't think that would be particularly beneficial, but it's fun to say "rapes rapist" over and over again. I think just jailing combined with psychiatric treatment would be the best plan.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
As the "tool of justice," his actions would be condoned - and therefore not a crime.
Just like the guy who 'pulls the switch' (or whatever) at an execution. Or the guards, police officers and judges at prisons, who all work to 'abduct' and incarcerate the criminals, yet are not considered kidnappers.
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
they cannot communicate properly, and thus can't function in social situations. as i understand it their intelligence is almost entirely mathmatical, and we have calculators to do that. it's a bit of a strawman anyway.. there are other examples of people who do not contribute to society.
i don't really believe in free will, so nerr. ;-p
but regardless; would you argue that murderers are *not* mentally ill?
they will, generally, end up in group homes. some may be able to do repetitive labor, whereas my cousin's son probably will not... and autistic children also have a tendency to become violent.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
That would be one *interesting* judicial system ...
People with autism don't ususally attack other people, though. Still less do they murder them.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
yes. because if a rapist is raped, then we should be fair and have someone rape the person who committed the punishment rape, and then have that guy raped by someone else, and so on.
psychopaths may attack people... they can't help being psychopaths. do we kill them?
Frankly the pre-Christian Irish had a better solution. The women of the tribe would take the rapist out into the woods and carve him up alive, leaving his riven body to the wolves and to scavengers.
How much do you know about autism? People with autism tend to be violent, if not raised in proper circumstances almost definitely, mostly because they really have absolutely no concept that they are hurting someone when they do.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Honestly, I don't think she is. I mean, one of my best friends is diagnosed as autistic and he isn't more prone to violence than the next person. He just mainly tries hard to keep his mind active at various things and works at returning to school (his parents don't want him to go, which I suspect is out of embarrasment due to his condition). He's incredibly good at retaining numerical and statistical information and could make a good statistician, and he's perhaps the biggest Bananarama fan I've ever known (which, being that he's 17, is superincrediblycool). He's come after a teacher once and after his mom once, but I suspect it's out of sheer frustration, which I believe any one of us would do if we were in a similar circumstance, i.e. highly capable intellectually and emotionally but constantly treated like damaged goods. (btw -- his dad is the only supportive member of his family)
in all honesty diane if you can call him a "friend" he's probably not very autistic.
that is the reason any autistic has for violence, i should imagine.. they know something's not right but they don't know how to deal with it because they don't understand that other people are not just objects.
Exactly. My cousin's kid is exactly like that... he does whatever amuses him without understanding "right" or "wrong". Basically the only way to control them is to give them an extremely organized schedule that they can fit into by habit, which is what most qualified people do...
yeah, I'm wondering if this guy's autistic too. autism is a hell of a lot more than a social stigma, it is a major disorder and generally the autistic person does not develop normally emotionally (he may have connections to people he sees often, but that's about it) and certainly not intellectually.... they are generally not able to live independently, go to normal schools, or hold much of a job (they are trainable, so could be trained to push carts at the grocery store or something). There are PHYSICAL causes, not just the way society treats him, at the root.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:35:50 +0000, "endless, nameless" wrote:
Obviously definitions are in order so we can establish who's right and who's wrong...and probably everyone involved has at least part of the facts in their hand. Grabbed from http://autism-society.org/ and the most relevent parts of the FAQ posted.
=================================================
What is Autism? Autism is a complex developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of life. The result of a neurological disorder that affects the functioning of the brain, autism and its associated behaviors have been estimated to occur in as many as 1 in 500 individuals (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1997). Autism is four times more prevalent in boys than girls and knows no racial, ethnic, or social boundaries. Family income, lifestyle, and educational levels do not affect the chance of autism's occurrence.
Autism impacts the normal development of the brain in the areas of social interaction and communication skills. Children and adults with autism typically have difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication, social interactions, and leisure or play activities. The disorder makes it hard for them to communicate with others and relate to the outside world. In some cases, aggressive and/or self-injurious behavior may be present. Persons with autism may exhibit repeated body movements (hand flapping, rocking), unusual responses to people or attachments to objects and resistance to changes in routines. Individuals may also experience sensitivities in the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.
Over one half million people in the U.S. today have autism or some form of pervasive developmental disorder. Its prevalence rate makes autism one of the most common developmental disabilities. Yet most of the public, including many professionals in the medical, educational, and vocational fields, are still unaware of how autism affects people and how they can effectively work with individuals with autism.
Is There More Than One Type of Autism? Several related disorders are grouped under the broad heading "Pervasive Developmental Disorder" or PDD-a general category of disorders which are characterized by severe and pervasive impairment in several areas of development (American Psychiatric Association 1994). A standard reference is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), a diagnostic handbook now in its fourth edition. The DSM-IV lists criteria to be met for a specific diagnosis under the category of Pervasive Developmental Disorder. Diagnosis is made when a specified number of characteristics listed in the DSM-IV are present. Diagnostic evaluations are based on the presence of specific behaviors indicated by observation and through parent consultation, and should be made by an experienced, highly trained team. Thus, when professionals or parents are referring to different types of autism, often they are distinguishing autism from one of the other pervasive developmental disorders.
Individuals who fall under the Pervasive Developmental Disorder category in the DSM-IV exhibit commonalties in communication and social deficits, but differ in terms of severity. We have outlined some major points that help distinguish the differences between the specific diagnoses used:
Autistic Disorder impairments in social interaction, communication, and imaginative play prior to age 3 years. Stereotyped behaviors, interests and activities.
Asperger's Disorder characterized by impairments in social interactions and the presence of restricted interests and activities, with no clinically significant general delay in language, and testing in the range of average to above average intelligence.
Pervasive Developmental Disorder- Not Otherwise Specified (commonly referred to as atypical autism) a diagnosis of PDD-NOS may be made when a child does not meet the criteria for a specific diagnosis, but there is a severe and pervasive impairment in specified behaviors.
Rett's Disorder a progressive disorder which, to date, has occurred only in girls. Period of normal development and then loss of previously acquired skills, loss of purposeful use of the hands replaced with repetitive hand movements beginning at the age of 1-4 years.
Childhood Disintegrative Disorder characterized by normal development for at least the first 2 years, significant loss of previously acquired skills. (American Psychiatric Association 1994)
Autism is a spectrum disorder. In other words, the symptoms and characteristics of autism can present themselves in a wide variety of combinations, from mild to severe. Although autism is defined by a certain set of behaviors, children and adults can exhibit any combination of the behaviors in any degree of severity. Two children, both with the same diagnosis, can act very differently from one another and have varying skills.
Therefore, there is no standard "type" or "typical" person with autism. Parents may hear different terms used to describe children within this spectrum, such as: autistic-like, autistic tendencies, autism spectrum, high-functioning or low-functioning autism, more-abled or less-abled. More important to understand is, whatever the diagnosis, children can learn and function productively and show gains from appropriate education and treatment. The Autism Society of America provides information to serve the needs of all individuals within the spectrum.
Diagnostic categories have changed over the years as research progresses and as new editions of the DSM have been issued. For that reason, we will use the term "autism" to refer to the above disorders.
What are People with Autism Like? Children within the pervasive developmental disorder spectrum often appear relatively normal in their development until the age of 24-30 months, when parents may notice delays in language, play or social interaction. Any of the following delays, by themselves, would not result in a diagnosis of a pervasive developmental disorder. Autism is a combination of several developmental challenges.
The following areas are among those that may be affected by autism:
Communication: language develops slowly or not at all; uses words without attaching the usual meaning to them; communicates with gestures instead of words; short attention span;
Social Interaction: spends time alone rather than with others; shows little interest in making friends; less responsive to social cues such as eye contact or smiles;
Sensory Impairment: may have sensitivities in the areas of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste to a greater or lesser degree;
Play: lack of spontaneous or imaginative play; does not imitate others' actions; does not initiate pretend games;
Behaviors: may be overactive or very passive; throws tantrums for no apparent reason; perseverates (shows an obsessive interest in a single item, idea, activity or person); apparent lack of common sense; may show aggression to others or self; often has difficulty with changes in routine. Some individuals with autism may also have other disorders which affect the functioning of the brain such as: Epilepsy, Mental Retardation, Down Syndrome, or genetic disorders such as: Fragile X Syndrome, Landau-Kleffner Syndrome, William's Syndrome or Tourette's Syndrome. Many of those diagnosed with autism will test in the range of mental retardation. Approximately 25-30 percent may develop a seizure pattern at some period during life.
Every person with autism is an individual, and like all individuals, has a unique personality and combination of characteristics. There are great differences among people with autism. Some individuals mildly affected may exhibit only slight delays in language and greater challenges with social interactions. The person may have difficulty initiating and/or maintaining a conversation, or keeping a conversation going. Communication is often described as talking at others (for example, monologue on a favorite subject that continues despite attempts of others to interject comments). People with autism process and respond to information in unique ways. Educators and other service providers must consider the unique pattern of learning strengths and difficulties in the individual with autism when assessing learning and behavior to ensure effective intervention. Individuals with autism can learn when information about their unique styles of receiving and expressing information is addressed and implemented in their programs. The abilities of an individual with autism may fluctuate from day to day due to difficulties in concentration, processing, or anxiety. The child may show evidence of learning one day, but not the next. Changes in external stimuli and anxiety can affect learning. They may have average or above average verbal, memory or spatial skills but find it difficult to be imaginative or join in activities with others. Individuals with more severe challenges may require intensive support to manage the basic tasks and needs of living day to day.
Contrary to popular understanding, many children and adults with autism may make eye contact, show affection, smile and laugh, and demonstrate a variety of other emotions, although in varying degrees. Like other children, they respond to their environment in both positive and negative ways. Autism may affect their range of responses and make it more difficult to control how their bodies and minds react. Sometimes visual, motor, and/or processing problems make it difficult to maintain eye contact with others. Some individuals with autism use peripheral vision rather than looking directly at others. Sometimes the touch or closeness of others may be painful to a person with autism, resulting in withdrawal even from family members. Anxiety, fear and confusion may result from being unable to "make sense" of the world in a routine way. With appropriate treatment, some behaviors associated with autism may change or diminish over time. The communication and social deficits continue in some form throughout life, but difficulties in other areas may fade or change with age, education, or level of stress. Often, the person begins to use skills in natural situations and to participate in a broader range of interests and activities. Many individuals with autism enjoy their lives and contribute to their community in a meaningful way. People with autism can learn to compensate for and cope with their disability, often quite well.
While no one can predict the future, it is known that some adults with autism live and work independently in the community (drive a car, earn a college degree, get married); some may be fairly independent in the community and only need some support for daily pressures; while others depend on much support from family and professionals. Adults with autism can benefit from vocational training to provide them with the skills needed for obtaining jobs, in addition to social and recreational programs. Adults with autism may live in a variety of residential settings, ranging from an independent home or apartment to group homes, supervised apartment settings, living with other family members or more structured residential care. An increasing number of support groups for adults with autism are emerging around the country. Many self-advocates are forming networks to share information, support each other, and speak for themselves in the public arena. More frequently, people with autism are attending and/or speaking at conferences and workshops on autism. Individuals with autism are providing valuable insight into the challenges of this disability by publishing articles and books and appearing in television specials about themselves and their disabilities.
<...>
What are People with Autism Like? Children within the pervasive developmental disorder spectrum often appear relatively normal in their development until the age of 24-30 months, when parents may notice delays in language, play or social interaction. Any of the following delays, by themselves, would not result in a diagnosis of a pervasive developmental disorder. Autism is a combination of several developmental challenges.
The following areas are among those that may be affected by autism:
Communication: language develops slowly or not at all; uses words without attaching the usual meaning to them; communicates with gestures instead of words; short attention span;
Social Interaction: spends time alone rather than with others; shows little interest in making friends; less responsive to social cues such as eye contact or smiles;
Sensory Impairment: may have sensitivities in the areas of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste to a greater or lesser degree;
Play: lack of spontaneous or imaginative play; does not imitate others' actions; does not initiate pretend games;
Behaviors: may be overactive or very passive; throws tantrums for no apparent reason; perseverates (shows an obsessive interest in a single item, idea, activity or person); apparent lack of common sense; may show aggression to others or self; often has difficulty with changes in routine. Some individuals with autism may also have other disorders which affect the functioning of the brain such as: Epilepsy, Mental Retardation, Down Syndrome, or genetic disorders such as: Fragile X Syndrome, Landau-Kleffner Syndrome, William's Syndrome or Tourette's Syndrome. Many of those diagnosed with autism will test in the range of mental retardation. Approximately 25-30 percent may develop a seizure pattern at some period during life.
Every person with autism is an individual, and like all individuals, has a unique personality and combination of characteristics. There are great differences among people with autism. Some individuals mildly affected may exhibit only slight delays in language and greater challenges with social interactions. The person may have difficulty initiating and/or maintaining a conversation, or keeping a conversation going. Communication is often described as talking at others (for example, monologue on a favorite subject that continues despite attempts of others to interject comments). People with autism process and respond to information in unique ways. Educators and other service providers must consider the unique pattern of learning strengths and difficulties in the individual with autism when assessing learning and behavior to ensure effective intervention. Individuals with autism can learn when information about their unique styles of receiving and expressing information is addressed and implemented in their programs. The abilities of an individual with autism may fluctuate from day to day due to difficulties in concentration, processing, or anxiety. The child may show evidence of learning one day, but not the next. Changes in external stimuli and anxiety can affect learning. They may have average or above average verbal, memory or spatial skills but find it difficult to be imaginative or join in activities with others. Individuals with more severe challenges may require intensive support to manage the basic tasks and needs of living day to day.
Contrary to popular understanding, many children and adults with autism may make eye contact, show affection, smile and laugh, and demonstrate a variety of other emotions, although in varying degrees. Like other children, they respond to their environment in both positive and negative ways. Autism may affect their range of responses and make it more difficult to control how their bodies and minds react. Sometimes visual, motor, and/or processing problems make it difficult to maintain eye contact with others. Some individuals with autism use peripheral vision rather than looking directly at others. Sometimes the touch or closeness of others may be painful to a person with autism, resulting in withdrawal even from family members. Anxiety, fear and confusion may result from being unable to "make sense" of the world in a routine way. With appropriate treatment, some behaviors associated with autism may change or diminish over time. The communication and social deficits continue in some form throughout life, but difficulties in other areas may fade or change with age, education, or level of stress. Often, the person begins to use skills in natural situations and to participate in a broader range of interests and activities. Many individuals with autism enjoy their lives and contribute to their community in a meaningful way. People with autism can learn to compensate for and cope with their disability, often quite well.
While no one can predict the future, it is known that some adults with autism live and work independently in the community (drive a car, earn a college degree, get married); some may be fairly independent in the community and only need some support for daily pressures; while others depend on much support from family and professionals. Adults with autism can benefit from vocational training to provide them with the skills needed for obtaining jobs, in addition to social and recreational programs. Adults with autism may live in a variety of residential settings, ranging from an independent home or apartment to group homes, supervised apartment settings, living with other family members or more structured residential care. An increasing number of support groups for adults with autism are emerging around the country. Many self-advocates are forming networks to share information, support each other, and speak for themselves in the public arena. More frequently, people with autism are attending and/or speaking at conferences and workshops on autism. Individuals with autism are providing valuable insight into the challenges of this disability by publishing articles and books and appearing in television specials about themselves and their disabilities.
I dunno, I know he's a DIAGNOSED autistic, but hell, I was diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) when I was eight and that sure as hell doesn't hold up water these days. My guess is that he might be VERY slightly autistic, if at that. I know he does have a very keen observing eye (which enables him to really like nature shows and that video to "Honey to the Bee", among other things), he *is* more than passionate about Bananarama (especially his favorite, Siobahn Fahey), and he's got a keen musical ear, *and* there'll be some times when he *will* go on about some of his very vivid and colorful dreams (I wish I had that!! usually my sleep is dreamless), but even including those bits he seems really normal.
As for acting out, I dunno, I'd do much the same if I were treated like he was. The people he interacts with on a regular basis (save for his father) don't treat him as a human but instead as a needy little living thing they just need to keep alive. His father's the only one who takes the time to really reach out to him, and in fact the only time he's gone out in the past few months was to a hockey game and out to eat, with his dad. *shrugs* Maybe I'm too close to him and therefore am biased, but that's how I see things.
On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 05:00:06 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
I read somewhere (I can't remember where though) that *everyone* has dreams when they sleep - it doesn't matter if you can remember them or not. If you were deprived of dreams, you'd basically go bonkers. A study on sleep deprivation showed conclusively that when people are deprived from REM sleep (the dreaming phase), they will become psychotic in a matter of weeks.
Rest assured that dreams do visit you, Diane... even if you don't think they do :)
Cheers, Nicole Lee Nicole Lee Also known as LadyKender on IRC and ICQ.
The Darianite Revolution at http://members.xoom.com/nlsy/daria.htm Kendermore at http://members.xoom.com/nlsy/
"But I don't want to be in any 'inner circle cabal thing.'" -Hallucinating Elvis Lady to SpaceRanger on atd-
Daria Code: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313 BB- FCD +DT q fN
Yep. That's why people kept awake will hallucinate within three days. Their brains are trying to dream, and past a certain point awake vs.asleep ceases to be a concern to them.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
To continue this digression even more :), I believe you have to wake up during a dream to remember it. If you get little sleep or wake with an alarm or both, you're not as likely to remember dreams. To digress even further, while having vivid dreams is nice, I think lucid dreaming would be better. . . .
On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 15:39:29 GMT, Greg Harrison wrote:
(Snip)
Sleep deprivation is actually a common brainwashing technique... as the brain struggles to simulate a dreamlike state, one's touch with reality gets fuzzed, and one's skepticism rapidly disappears.
I discovered the secret to immortality once, in that half-asleep state. And promptly forgot it as soon as I shifted out...
I dunno. When I lucid dream, waking up feels a hell of a lot like dying. The real world seems so empty in comparison. For me, LD is almost addictive.
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Read my comments I made before. She stands up to people because she knows she can and get away with it- for one thing, Helen is powerful to tell Ms. Li off, she wouldn't tell off someone who offered a REAL threat... being as her ethics are shaky enough for her to claim them non existent half the time.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
I don't believe Daria's ethics are truly "shaky", though. I think that they are very strong, but that she is wise enough to know how far to push (as you said). I think she calls them shaky because she's an idealist and dislikes having to restrain herself even to the degree that she does. She can be pretty hard on herself.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 03:56:06 -0700, Glenn Olson wrote:
It depends on how you define "true freedom." If you define it as everybody being able to do absolutely anything they want, then it doesn't exist, unless you change the fundamental definition of what people "want" to do. Otherwise, there is bound to be a point at which what one person wants to do will infringe on another's freedom to do (or, perhaps not do) what they want to do. At this collision point, freedom breaks down.
Personally, I think the old English trio of fundamental rights (Life, Liberty, Property), tempered by a *little* compassion and a sense of justice, is pretty much as good as it gets.
I would argue it doesn't, or at least, not as a whole. Sure, you've got Ms. Li trying to keep *everyone* down, you've got Sandi snobbing at her (though not really doing anything, outside the world of fanfic), you've got Helen trying to broaden her horizons (though this hardly qualifies), and then you have... what? Kevin's idiotic comments? Jodies attempts to get her *involved* in something? Quinn? None of these things really qualify, IMO.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:27:33 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
I would argue the inverse; that individually it doesn't but when taken as a whole...
Individuals each trying to 'help' her, in their own way; to teach her *their* values. Taken as a whole, society trying to mash a square peg into whatever hole it finds.
At least in modern America, they are trying to * verbally persuade* her to fit in. In many other times and places, the "persuasion" would be conducted with a whip ... or a torch.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Name one country today that uses whips and torches to persuade people.
We use a threat of violence, although it's almost hidden. You're legally required to go to school. In school, the emphasis is on socialization. Socialization means not having any ideas of you're own. If you want to get through school, you must have no ideas of your own. If not, this is a legal offense. This is enforceable because they have the right to use violence. Do you understand?
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
ROTFL!!!!! You have a LOT to learn. Plenty of countries use whips, torches, or worse to "persuade" (read: torture) people.
Oh man, I needed that laugh. I seriously thought you knew that places like Iraq, Afghanistan, India, China, Russia, Colombia, Mexico, and others regularly use torture in at least one capacity. I seriously thought you knew about how many countries have egregrious human rights abuses counted up against them. Oh man, was I wrong. (howling with laughter)
Huh? I was allowed to be an individual at school. I know all my friends were allowed to be individuals at school. I mean, we weren't innately violent nor did we want to violate the dress code on non-uniform days or anything like that, but we did all express our uniqueness. And I thought that true friendship involved recognizing one's differences and realizing that there'll be times when you'll have to agree to disagree. AND you're only required to go to school until you're 16. If you want to drop out at that point, then fine, but be prepared to land yourself in one of those menial minimum wage jobs. Man, I thought Catholic school was supposed to be more limited vision-wise...I must've gone to one of those liberal ones or something. And I must've lived in a liberal public school district because the people who went to the public schools around me have said the same thing.
Me is muy confused. Are we living in the same country?
Today? For "whips" I'd mention Singapore, though "torches" are a bit out of fashion.
I was speaking figuratively, of course. What I meant was "forcible punishment". We do not imprison or execute people for expressing unpopular ideas. Nor is our culture so violent that we set upon or lynch most nonconoformists.
Most countries, even today, imprison or execute people for expressing unpopular ideas. Outside of the West, oppression of dissidents is routine. Right now, for example, the Chinese government is imprisoning the leaders of a religious sect, simply because they don't like the idea of having any organization not controlled by themselves.
Hate to tell ya this, but it's like this throughout most of the world ... save for those countries too poor to afford state-supported educational systems ... and those places have even WORSE problems than dull, conformist schools!
That's not true. At worst, you just have to get into the habit of either concealing or fighting hard for the unpopular ones.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
let's say, if you want to get through school with good grades and not be considered a threat to security, you have to have no ideas.
WE have worse problems (with our schools) than being "dull and conformist". The problem isn't only that they teach you to be conformist, the problem is that they don't teach you anything else. Among others...
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
I will admit that one major problem in American society today is the overbearing power of teacher's unions on public schools today, which make it very easy for someone to become a teacher via "education" in a virtually worthless "teacher's college", which would provide the only necessary requirement for hiring, a "teaching degree" that in reality is worth less than the paper it's printed on. This means that public schools today *are* filled with quite a few teachers who simply cannot teach the subjects they're assigned to. That would be a major problem, yes, but mainly in that it would provide those attending public school with less of an opportunity for advancement in the future and a possible dumbing-down of the country as a whole.
Good point to make. But I'm sure it's because of the human condition that this is happening, not because of any particular location influence.
The problem's even worse in the slums. Dagny encounters mildly ignorant coaches-cum-history teachers; my friend Irwin (who is a phys ed teacher who also teaches classes, but a really well-read and savvy guy nevertheless) tells me that a lot of the regular teachers in his South Bronx school can barely speak, read or write standard English.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
You had a world history teacher who had not even heard that Alexander the Great existed? Sheesh, but they've made Hollywood costume epics about him! He's hardly an obscure individual ...
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Well, it is because of the unions, as you said... I don't know, do the unions have as much power over education in other countries? I think it's pathetic that our governor even had to suggest summer school for fourth graders who can't read, the worse part is that there are fourth graders who can't read and they still won't get summer school.. because that would mean, like, work. there are a ton of teachers- not only in the elementary level- without any knowledge of their subject. Mrs. Veldkamp, on the basis of a social studies degree, is supposed to teach World Religion- a subject she knows nothing about and it seems Mike Douma is going to teach for her (he's a student in the class...) Others teaching world history haven't heard of Alexander the Great and think Cleopatra is black.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
On 27 Jan 2000 17:21:09 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
It's indoctrination into the corporate world. They're not so concerned that you have 'no ideas.' They just want you to learn to leave your ideas at home.
Just like any other 'good' corporation. They do have some validation for this; being a good employee has been the most important survival skill since the industrial revolution...
There are a couple of differences... unless you're a socialist (in which case you're not likely to agree with any business, in that they enjoy making money) you're able to choose your employer pretty much, especially in the kind of economy we have going now, whereas choice in terms of school is very limited (go to the public school, maybe homeschool or a religious school, but not very many have that option, or necessarily want it). Second of all, "leaving your opinions at home" is not as bad in a working atmosphere where you're there to do something (and occasionally a decision may involve your beliefs, but if you're in some sort of technical position it generally doesn't) as it is in a situation whose purpose is learning, where a disagreement over politics, religion, whatever differs from the teacher and curriculum, you're screwed. you abandon your ideas, or you fail. You say that one of the worst books of the century is wonderful and cite reasons why, you explain that business owners are all evil out to persecute the working class, and all men are pigs, clearly and with proof in 200 words or more.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
But every employer has their limitations and restrictions, right down to the most menial of tasks. They either require a uniform dress (which I rather like, cuts down a lot on prep time so you can sleep later) or a strict dress code, they discourage smokers from smoking anywhere except for a set place outside, they disallow you from using foul language, especially in a business where you have to deal with outside clients because they wish to "impress", etc., etc., etc. In fact there are very few career opportunities out there for people who don't want to follow rules, chief among them author and artist (although both will get you to poverty quickly).
Actually, I found that my years in Catholic grade school were more restrictive than that. We had a uniform dress and a strict dress code for non-uniform days, we had severe penalties for not following those as well as for not following any of the other regulations in the Student Handbook, we couldn't openly question the Catholic faith lest we be ostracized by our religion teacher for "not being Catholic", we couldn't chew gum in class, we had to have parent-teacher conferences every time our report cards were issued, we were evaluated on class conduct regularly, we couldn't display many things on our binders and backpacks, people were regularly being thrown out, and our principal was notorious for having a yardstick for "disciplinary purposes". High school was a lot better in that our principal didn't encourage corporal punishment, we could openly question Catholic doctrine in class without being told "you're not a real Catholic", we could chew gum in class, and parent-teacher conferences were strictly an option. Oh yeah, and we could display a whole lot more on our binders and in our lockers.
I wasn't strictly talking about "following rules", since people who really think that obeying a dress code, not smoking inside, and not swearing are inappropriate rules in a work environment are a little weird... the point is you're not forced to work in an environment that goes against your main ethical principals, like Catholics and others against birth control aren't forced to work for Planned Parenthood :) whereas the school is pretty well required what school you go to (with a few exceptions) is determined, and the ideas you hold have to match the ideas you're teachers have (or you pretend: but remember what you pretend to be is what you are (Kurt Vonnegut)) or else you fail... a lot of papers require you to defend things you don't believe, speaking out in class could easily get you detention or more, you're required (herded) into pep assemblies where you're forced to go along with the idea that if you're female the only thing worthwhile is to be about 5' tall and no more than 100 pounds but with big breasts and bouncy hair and if you're male the only worthwhile thing is to throw balls at each other and, worse yet, you're taught to hate there. You're taught to hate everyone living in Jenison and East Kentwood, and taught that they are inferior, not even humanbeings.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Well, I would think she is more anti-idiot than anti-american, but what are you basing this statement on? I can't say I've seen or heard anything on the show that could be construed as anti-americanism, unless you count the Guy Falks day character in DTAH.
DJ
"An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys."
but it's worse than that. work hard, don't question the pastor, buy a new car every year, spend lots of money on clothes, support people who say being different is evil, volunteer for all the right causes until all your energy is taken away from you and you yell at the kids and are homocidal at Burger King employees for not respecting the fact that you only scheduled five minutes for lunch because you have to go between a PTA meeting and a Christian Ed meeting at church in order to make life better for your children that you don't realize are the ones you're yelling at in between times of abandoning them with someone.
of course that's not America at all. America is a bunch of spoiled younger brothers England didn't want because they're too good to do any work.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Ummmm...what about those of us who don't have a drop of English blood? What about the poor Irish who came over? The poor Italians? The poor Germans? The poor Mexicans? The poor Koreans and Chinese and Armenians and Greeks and Russians and Haitians and Cubans and Ecuadoreans and all the melange of poor immigrants who came to this country because in this country one actually has a chance of making it and people aren't so tied to a stupid class system as they are in the rest of the world.
Amen. Not to mention there was that little place called Ellis Island that came up...and millions of other immigrants too.
Oh yeah, and if you think I'm talking out of my butt, well although that's an interesting visual it's not the case. All I'd need to do is look at my own family to see how in three generations we've come from abject poverty to comfy middle class-dom. And it's all taken lots of hard work.
It was NOT MY POINT to disparage the immigrants, that's me too, the point was that Americans say their nation begun at Plymouth, because they like the idea of a "city on a hill" that their nation is morally superior, a fact you'll hear from CERTAIN PEOPLE still. Ever since elementary school we learn about the Pilgrims and the first American settlement in Massacheussets.
But the first permanent American settlement (besides, of course, the Native Americans, who are another issue...) was in Virginia, and those were a bunch of the younger sons of rich people who were too snobby to work and consequently didn't do to well. The fact they were in a swamp didn't help either. That's the point: that's the beginning of our nation, lazy people sitting around in swamps, but the over-revisionist Americans write them out as neatly as we write out everything else we don't like and start with the Nice, Hard Working Puritans Who Burn You as a Witch if you Display Any Signs of Differentness. Yeah, we're a superior culture.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Everybody in the US knows that Jamestown was the first permanent European settlement in North America. There's absolutely NO attempt to obscure this fact.
Yes, we've romanticised the Pilgrims, because of 1) the mythology that's grown up around the Thanksgiving holiday (which is an 19th century bright idea that caught on) and 2) because of the fairly powerful social symbol of the "pilgrims" coming to the US for religious freedom, and 3) because a lot of Pilgrim descendants ended up rich and snobby.
Of course, we've romanticized Jamestown as well, with the much-abused Pocahontas story (has Disney done a Plymouth Rock cartoon?), and the rest of the self-serving and entertainingly exaggerated memoirs of John Smith.
Both colonies have a legitimate place in history, both have attracted a fair amount of romantic BS (as all good history does). The Pilgrims arguably have attracted a good bit more attention than they strictly deserve in total objectivity, but to say that we've whitewashed Jamestown out of the history books in favor of Plymouth is just surreal.
Most school history books I've read even devote a few lines to those poor bastards at Roanoke, which would have been the first settlement in America if the whole pathetic crew hadn't got them selves dead more-or-less immediately after the boat went back home.
On 25 Jan 2000 17:35:08 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
I do agree that our elementary school education needs a little updating. I don't see why we still keep regurgitating revolutionary era propaganda.
Sounds like you just took your first college-level American history course. :) I remember that. I can't believe all the bullshit the public school system feeds us.
I think most school districts figure elementary-age children need to keep their innocence along with learning about things, and the whole "how America got settled by the whites" story is a simple one to relate. I do think the story is a half-truth, as well, but at the same time I recognize that these are elementary-age children. These children are supposed to still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, for crying out loud. It's a part of keeping them innocent. We have far too much time to be adults and children already grow up far too fast...just let them be and let them learn more about history as they gain in age.
Or Catholic school system. Of course, my grade and high schools had such a high emphasis on courses like history that I ended up learning about this stuff in 8th grade. I think we all agreed that was a rocky period in our nation's history, but every country has a rocky period or two or ten or however many. No nation out there is perfect. No nation out there was formed out of some sort of utopia, or has maintained a perfect record. But at least the U.S. is self-sufficient and is doggedly determined.
Oh yeah, and I'd like to see anyone who has issues with the U.S. go live somewhere else...and no, you may not select Canada or Australia, too much like the U.S., no, try Botswana. Or Nigeria. Or Iraq. Or Cambodia. Or Tunisia. Or Afghanistan. Or Colombia. Or Bosnia. Or Croatia. Or Peru. Or Cuba. Or Kyrgyzstan. Or Turkmenistan. Or France (home of many expatriate Algerian terrorists and bomb attacks). Or Algeria. Or Iran. Or Northern Ireland (wait, they're getting the hang of the "peace" concept...nevermind). Or Japan (home of a severely high cost of living and some pretty dangerous cults). Or Greece (home of two internationally recognized terrorist organizations plus many others that aren't internationally recognized, plus poorly lighted streets and many other things). Or China. Or Nicaragua. Or Mexico, even. Or any number of other countries out there. Hell, we have it GOOD here in the States. DAMN good. And it saddens me to think that people here don't realize that. *sigh* Ah well, I'll just keep on working my butt off, believing in the "American dream"...so if you're trying to place the signature of the person who's gonna sign your checks in the future, here's an early "hello" from me. And here are all the hundreds of thousands of others who are doing that same exact thing around the country saying an early "hello" just in case you happen to get one of them instead.
I've never understood how lying to children squares with the maintenance of innocence. It's always seemed to me that we basically exploit their innocence by pulling pranks on them, telling them tall tales such as Santa Claus simply because we can and it's fun. Telling fairy tales is probably harmless though. But I certainly can't see any virtue in telling them untruths about history though, if that is really happening in your schools it's a very dangerous and manipulative road to be going down. It's like, in Japan schools aren't allowed to teach about the atrocities that Japan committed during the war, and of course there are also those who deny the Holocaust happened ... perhaps they just think it's too uncomfortable a truth for children to know about. Well in that case why not just tell them when they're older rather than lie to them now?
I'm not aware of any recent terrorism in France, no more than in places like the USA anyhow. There was a bomb by a separatist movement in Spain a couple of weeks ago, that's the only such event I can think of in Western Europe recently.
I've not heard of any trouble in Greece either come to that, I'm not sure what terrorists are supposed to live there (anti-Turkey ones perhaps, the Turks occupied Greece for a long time). Greece is a very popular tourist destination, I'm sure tourists would desert it pretty quickly if it was a dangerous place to be. (Although come to think of it, people still go to Miami, which has a very bad name for violence, with several tourists murdered. I certainly wouldn't go there.) Street lighting meanwhile is over-rated. It means you can't see the stars for light pollution, which I think is rather sad.
I thought there was peace there now? Apart from some the odd volcano or flood that is.
I don't think that constitutes lying per se, it's just tradition. I mean, we might underestimate children's intelligence quite often, but at the same time how are we to know what boundaries to set in that area? Most children already grow up way too fast and I figure that if they stop believing in Santa Claus at least, they'll lose the innocence that allows them to see the meaning behind the belief in a benevolent figure who gives presents to people who do good. I guess maybe that's it, maybe ancient societies, like our present societies, wanted to reward children for doing good and thus encourage them to do so so they created this tale of a character who rewards good behavior throughout the year with a special delivery around the end of the year. *shrugs* It's just a thought.
Oh yeah, and I'm guessing we also don't tell children automatically about the bad parts of our nations' histories (it happens around the world, I know) because we want them to foster pride in the nation they live in and by letting them know about the positives early on and then later on in late adolescence revealing the negatives, they're more likely to accept the negatives as products of imperfections in humanity rather than simply, "oh my God, I'm living in a horrible nation". I mean, unless they live in a truly oppressive society they shouldn't feel that way, because even if a nation has egregrious human rights violations in its past (which every nation in the world has), it doesn't mean that nation's "evil" or "horrible", it simply mean that nation was formed by human beings and human beings are liable to mess up every once in awhile.
I'm sure France is safe now, but it does harbor terrorists from Algeria and it has had a history of terrorist attacks. I guess it's about even with the U.S. then, now. And...are you talking about the Basque movement? I believe I heard something about it. I can't remember what the group's exact name is but I know there are separatists in Spain who want to creat a Basque nation, and that group was also recognized as an international terrorist organization.
Well, there are two groups, Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November) a.k.a. Epanastatiki Organosi 17 Noemvri (which *is* anti-Turkey, but is also heavily anti-U.S.) and Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA) a.k.a. Epanastatikos Laikos Agonas, Revolutionary Popular Struggle, Popular Revolutionary Struggle, June 78, Organization of Revolutionary Internationalist Solidarity, Revolutionary Nuclei, Revolutionary Cells, Liberation Struggle, which according to the U.S. State Department is "strongly anti-US and seeks the removal of US military forces from Greece." And as for poorly-lit streets, this is Athens we're talking about, and I'm not just going by written reports from the government either, my friend Roula's told me this too. What this means is that one cannot see clearly when driving, which makes nighttime driving difficult and very dangerous, and also poorly-lit streets means there are more dark places for criminals to hide in, which means walking around at night is dangerous as well.
And as for Miami...well, it's not *that* dangerous (LOL)...it's about as dangerous as any other major U.S. city, which means you do still need to keep vigilant and keep away from the rough parts of town especially after dark, but at the same time you need not limit yourself to staying away. I wouldn't go there, though, because I don't like the idea of traveling from one hot and sunny part of the nation to another hot and sunny part of the nation. That's not what I call a vacation. :)
Oh yeah, I forgot...Nicaragua is one of the safe places to visit in South America now. Sorry, I was trying to remember places I'd seen have travel advisories posted and I now realize the travel advisory for Nicaragua was because of volcanic activity. I'm sorry. My mistake.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 06:16:55 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
Still, we don't have to tell untrue stories as if they were true. Sure the George Washington and the Cherry Tree thing is presented as a myth, but what about the Boston Masscre? It is presented (to school children) as a bunch of redcoats firing wantonly into a crowd of dissenters, when actually, it's a line of royal troops (who, admittedly, shouldn't have been there in the first place, but that's not their fault, it's Parliament's) who stood for a remarkably long, well disciplined time enduring insults, people throwing food, people throwing *large chuncks of ice* at them, most of which were shorebound sailers and others from the local taverns, until some idiot shouted "Fire!" and *one volley* was loosed.
They were prosecuted by a military prosecuter, and defended by one who is presented as a *great patriot*, Samual Adams. But you already knew all this.
Other examples include the "treachery" of the Tories, etc. etc.
Absoluely. It was no more a "massacre" than (say) Kent State, 1970.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
well, it's not as bad as when they said "Be a good girl and St Nicholas will bring you presents, but if you're bad, Schwarte Pete will drag you off to Spain... I guess the idea of a Moorish servant dragging bad kids off is a little outdated and non-PC.
Yes, fairy tales are good for teaching ideas and also just for having imagination....
That's the problem. The entire Pilgrim thing... sure, it may sound nice, but if we're teaching them stuff that's WRONG and we only have to try to correct it, but you can't if you've been so indoctrinated.
But we do have an idea of "preserving innocence" in many ways worse than in the past, although this is probably universal. When I was about eight or so I got mad that there was stuff people wouldn't explain to me and a lot of stuff I didn't know about and, for some reason, people regarded this as a good thing? I never regarded ignorance as a good thing, I remember a great deal of my childhood as containing more confusion than anything else, and that annoyed me... as a result I tried to learn my own things (like way too much about cats) and when I went online I looked up soo many things to keep up with the Marx Brothers Mailing List :) I guess Adler was right, it is a sort of "inferiority complex", trying to make up for your weakness in childhood.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
Initially, yes. The original setup was a corporate socialism, in which the colonists were supposed to labor on common fields for the good of the Virginia Company. This didn't work too well. After a few years they rediscovered capitalism ... plus the laziest settlers had either died or left on the supply ships. Things got better after that. For the colonists, anyway. Not for the Powhatan ...
Heh ... they picked a territory primarily for defensibility, but didn't choose a good farming area. The really weird thing about 17th century colonists was their ability to starve in the middle of plenty: they were very narrow-minded about "proper" food sources and had virtually no woodcraft (that's something Americans learned from the Amerindians). The land they repeatedly suffered famine in was one with ridiculously rich game, fruits, nuts, berries, and seafood; all they needed to do was walk a few miles out of the swamp. Surviving descriptions make modern hunters and fishermen salivate with desire.
And England began with wave after wave of nasty brutal invading barbarians, followed by feudal oppression and religious persecution. And Germany began with the same barbarians as in the case of England, and in the 17th century had a religious war that makes anything that every happened in England look like a polite debate. And France is, well, *French*. What's your point?
True. Of course, we don't kill witches anymore. Maybe we've evolved a tad?
Yes. We are.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
I think that Daria is about the hypocrisy and arrogance of *humanity in general*. I've seen nothing on the show that's anti-American. If you assume that sarcasm or social criticism is *necessarily* anti-American, that's kind of reaching.
She rejects the idea of being successful at all costs, particularly at the cost of her own ethics. She *does* work hard ... despite her protests she gets good grades ... and she is very likely to be successful at whatever her chosen path is. Which may or may not be a financially renumerative one.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 24 Jan 2000 22:41:00 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Absolutely. But the critics of your nation would claim that the USA is the paramount example of such. I share *some* of their views, but certainly not their fanaticism. (Nor their own hypocrisy, in assuming that 'their way' is inherently superior.)
It's a common belief outside North America, that americans don't understand sarcasm... And I think there've been a few scense in Daria that play into that belief.
We're operating under different definitions of 'work.' I go by an adaptation of the one Tom Sawyer discovered - if you enjoy it, it's not work. (What he found, is that if you convince people it's not work, they'll enjoy it.)
Daria does well in the fields she enjoys; which just happens to be the academic ones. I doubt she's earned anything above a C in physical education, judging from both my experiences of how they grade in that class and her own apathy towards it...
There's no reason to assume that the show's writers share the opinion of these critics, though.
*Daria* is written by Americans.
Most other *people* don't understand Daria's sarcasm. There has been not even a hint on the show that foreigners would understand her any better.
(1) "Work" should be judged by output, not effort.
(2) The evidence of the show so far is that Daria's output is superior.
The ones they mostly grade ya on. And the ones that Daria is likely to go into as a career ... writing-related.
I agree. So what? Daria is very unlikely to ever attempt a career in sports.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Wrong. Work means putting energy towards something. Daria, probably, does not work at school. She DOESN'T HAVE TO. If she stays half awake she's already absorbed ten times more than Kevin and Brittany. Do you really think this is a challenge? Therefore the old "work hard to succeed" means nothing to her.
THAT point is that she doesn't work hard at things she might be bad at. because she DOESN'T CARE.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
On 25 Jan 2000 17:30:19 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
I would disagree. At a school where the teachers give half a damn, it is possible to get C's and B's doing nothing, if you're smart enough. Show up, listen to the lectures, read a little, take the test, and it's smooth sailing from there. (Believe me, I know.) However, to get straight A's (and I think that, aside from PE, that's what she's getting) one has to actually do the homework.
But I would agree that she isn't exactly one to work hard, ethics or no ethics. I was rather disappointed by her attitude in "It Happened One Nut."
Hmm... I'd say Dagney is ahead in this one. However, I also think she's been making some rather large assumptions about America. The most vocal are not necessarily (and are, in fact, probably necessarily not) the most prevalent. Generalizations are all well and good, so long as you aknowledge them as such. I do hope you're not thinking of your American atd friends in this manner.
Personally, I think that, in the younger community, cynicism in many forms has been replacing nationalism. Unfortunately, that cynisim has the effect of reducing voter turnout, thus allowing the most politically active (the nationalists) to continue controlling the foreign policy of this country in ways that the country as a whole probably wouldn't initiate, but the problem is, nobody gives a damn, except a rare few.
What, that Daria would reject the idea of a meaningless McJob? Frankly I think her reaction to doing time at a minimum-wage job is completely rational.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 12:09:08 -0800, [email] (Michelle Klein-Hass) wrote:
And utterly arrogant and presumptuous. For someone who dislikes the "holier than thou" attitude, if she rejected it for the reasons you suggest, then she really displayed it there. "I'm too good to get a 'lowbrow' job." I prefer to think she simply figured she had better things to do with her time (like watch Sick Sad World?).
Someone who reads Dostoevsky and Mellville in her spare time can get A's in her classes without homework, or at least doing a half-ass job at the homework the hour before. pathetic to know, but absolutely true.
Some of them. I don't set portions of the population above others. When I speak as a whole, I speak as a whole, be they on atd or not. Of course, speaking as a whole means there are exceptions, but that's as likely anywhere else as here.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
You do realize that you're recapitulating the Labor Theory of Value, don't you?
She doesn't have to work very hard. Because she's smart, and hence works *smart* instead. That doesn't change the fact that if she did nothing but eat pizza and watch TV, she wouldn't be getting good grades.
Why *should* she care? And it's not just because "she might be bad" at them, it's because she considers them worthless. The evidence is that she is capable of expending effort towards goals which she values. She doensn't value sports, any more than you do.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 27 Jan 2000 17:28:59 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
'Corse, physics doesn't care if you enjoy putting energy toward something or now. Daria spends a great deal of time reading. She may not realize it, but she is putting energy toward it.
I used to deliver pizzas. Then I became a trucker for a time (but had too many minor trailer accidends). I enjoyed both jobs (then again, I enjoy life in general). That doesn't mean I didn't put energy into those jobs. Work doesn't have to suck. Neither does life.
On 25 Jan 2000 08:07:10 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
No. Of course, there's no reason to assume they don't either; particularly to the degree that I share them to. (IE. a mostly fun toy to take the wind out of the sails of some of the more arrogant members of your nation.)
There are exceptions to most rules.
True. There haven't been any foreigners on the show.
Says who? I'll agree that 'value' should be; but not work.
No. But she's also not going to make valedictorian. And isn't that part of the yuppie-suburbanite's dream?
I'm not real fond of the senselessly arrogant either. Of course, Daria is rather arrogant herself ... some of this is a realistic sense of self-worth, and some of this overconfidence, in my opinion.
The show is in many ways rather deliberately narrow in focus. It's sort of similar in tone to Jane Austen's writing; that too took place against the implied backdrop of a much wider world but focused very narrowly on a few families in a district.
Um ... anyone smart who wants his or her work to be appreciated?
Work is generally judged by the value produced. You're not compensated for effort, but rather for outcome.
It's part of Jodie's dream. Not everyone's.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Well, not the ones who don't agree with "yuppie-suburbanite", those that do generally have the ambition to be either prom queen or valedictorian... of females. males it's mostly football star.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
There have been a few here and there - e.g. apparently a couple of guys with weird accents were supposed to be English (Guy Fawkes, and the guy in the piercing shop).
Only if you're Spiro Agnew or someone like that. Daria's anti-establishment, to be sure. That's because the current U.S. establishment, governmental and educational, prizes conformity and surrender of individual initiative. But the current establishment isn't America, or one might argue, American.
I don't think Daria would be particularly ashamed to be known as an American.
Yes indeed, and everything i expressed in my first post (classical reclining nude) can be seen to point to firmly held beliefs about gender in the society it was produced in at the time. You can look at society to look at the artist, or you can look at the artist to look at society. Sure you may argue that times have now changed in terms of gender roles, i would agree with you. However it is only when we understand what has informed our current set of ideologies (looking at how history has informed our society's values) that we can attempt to free ourselves from certain oppressive structures.And that doesn't mean drowning in puddle of politically correct rhetoric, pc is just as Orwellian as out right dictatorship. I just means being aware, and making informed choices. Of course this is my opinion, and i in no way advocate being a martyr for my cause.
Are they?You say oversimplification i say stylization.
Better in terms of what?Its not a question of what's better or what's worse or which gender is more historically oppressed (although we all know that one). Men have had to live with crappy gender roles as well, im not denying that.
Don't insult me by implying im not aware of Daria's character or that i don't in my own way identify with her character. MSB said that his intent was not one of parody but one of revealing her softer more 'feminine' side (vulnerability, insecurity and beauty). He has every right to explore what those things mean to him just as i have.
How do you figure that this is a negative result? Because no ones reached a smug consensus? Quite often its the process of discussion that has the imminent value not the outcome. Im overly concerned about everything, i like to think, i like to question, i like to ANALYSE.
and this has become a major problem in many communities, particularly online ones- anyone who disagrees is accused of "wanting to start an argument" and therefore being a flamer and a troll so what you end up with is that person scared off so they can all sit around occasionally spouting off ideas and everyone going "yeah! right on!" in various intervals and nothing getting discussed at all. Even if I found a group of people who think like me, that would get on my nerves.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
I think this is a problem everywhere not just in usenet. A while ago i went to a barbecue and started chatting with some people, the conversation drifted into 'deeper' areas of discussion, which i was pleased about because the weather is only so interesting. But then the conversation hit a brick wall, these people simply refused to have a conversation that went beyond surface stuff, in the end one of the guys ended up getting really pissed and asserted: 'this is the ways things are so there's no point in discussing it!'. I just thought ok, fine, lets revert back to the conversation about sport or start bitching about some one so you can feel safe and my eyes can glaze over.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 16:21:08 +1030, "<Affinity>" wrote:
Actually, I was arguing from the POV of the "Artiste" stereotype; that they are often seen as being at the fringes or even outside normal society (notice that all the artists in Daria fit that stereotype...) and thus less likely to be pandering to stereotypes and biases of the society they're in.
(Snip)
I would prefer not to be drawn into a semantics debate, which is all that my attempts to defend my use of "oversimplification" would really be.
The obvious - the oversimplifications or stylizations that could arguably be seen as pandering to stereotypes.
IMO, we only know which one is more blatantly oppressed, and that any attempt to make an absolutist determination would get too deluged in emotion to be worth the effort.
I think you mistook my idle curiosity as an attempt to make a point.
That wasn't my intention; I was thinking more along the lines of how someone 50 years from now would see it.
Pardon? I'm as offended by the accusation in that question as you would be if I accused you of advocating an Orwellian level of PC.
It was merely a general warning, not a specific conclusion about this discussion.
I like many things; arguing and sleeping among them (for example.) But there are times when neither is appropriate, and there are times when either can be pushed too far.
Thinking, questioning, analyzing - those are good things. Being concerned is also a good thing.
Overthinking, overanalyzing, being overly concerned - those are not good things.
So you are saying that by fitting the stereotype of the alienated 'Artiste' divorced from the pseudo realities of an uncaring, unjust and ultimately superficial society, living in the sparsely lit but remarkably cluttered cave of higher consciousness, combing his goatee with a mixture of linseed oil and candle wax, siphoning the well of human suffering with puckered lips and mouthing empathy to a cracked universe, facing the wall, he sits alone eschewed and intoxicated by the smell of his own creative juices, which pool and absorb into the thick black fibres of his beret like some sort of aesthetic osmosis, while the rest of society buy pay per view and cable, watching the shadows on the wall take on the shape of the shadows in his minds eye...
I love tangents, what was your point?
Fairynuff, i really cant be bothered expounding here either.
Perhaps i was making an idle point out of your curiosity.
Ok. (making mental note to polish up on mind reading abilities for next time we meet, virtually speaking)
Danger Will Robinson, this conversation is about to get convoluted...
As i am effected by three days of unrelenting and unremorseful heat (today 38C tomorrow 39), i find myself unable to ... it has been proven that heat does effect mental accuracy. I'm melting.....arghhhh... bubble... *pop*
Well it is hard not to take it as a specific conclusion about this discussion because after all it was directed at my earlier expressions within this discussion, was it not?
Certainly things can be pushed, but in terms of 'how far' there is no absolute yard stick to measure this outside of personal perception. Same goes for notions of 'appropriateness'.
I think you have become overly concerned about this.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:29:45 +1030, "<Affinity>" wrote:
(Snip)
That it's harder to look at society and see the artist than it is to look at the artist and see the society.
(Snip)
I can accept that, though I'm a little bothered (at myself) for not seeing that possibility.
Don't be afraid to say it - my presentation sucks, and I know it. I waver between using too many and too few words; the first obscures my point amongst reams of drivel while the second requires telepathy to figure out.
Oh goody, my favorite kind...
Heat? Don't torture me like that, it's bloody freezing here. 20 below. I can feel my veins icing up.
Not really directed at, but certainly inspired by. And I think I can see where one would draw a line from the general to the specific (the specific being this discussion.)
Course not. I don't believe in absolutes, after all...
Yes it is a subtle variation on the same theme. But what is the idea behind the idea?
Some how i don't think that the easiness of the pose really has much to do with the political position behind it.
I think artists should be aware of the preconceived notions behind their approach to art and what that is saying about their own ideas and societies in general. It not a matter of being PC till you vomit, its a matter of understanding the less tangible message behind popular images and symbols. Then making a decision on why you want to use them.
I don't know if its pretentious, but it certainly is another vastly popular symbol used in western culture (crucifixion).
On 07 Jan 2000 02:24:53 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Exactly. The whole story behind the picture is about self-consciousness and how it breaks Daria's sarcastic armor and makes her open up to her friend Jane who gives her comfort by showing her (with the painting) that there is no reason for her to be self-conscious. That's why the Daria in the picture is supposed to display vulnerability, insecurity and beauty (limited of course by the drawing style and my abilities). MSB
Not nessecelery. Some nudes are about shape, eg. look at ones by photographers like Man Ray or Edward Weston, which tend to be sensual rather than erotic. Weston often photographed nude women in the same way he photographed vegetables, for their curves and tonal values, and they are posed and lit accordingly. (Mind you, some of his photos of peppers are bordering on the erotic...)
Mind you, not all of Weston's nude work is non-erotic. I recall someone once said, on comparing his work with that of Wynn Bullock, that Bullock's photographs looked like he wanted to make love to his models, whereas Weston's looked like he already had!
I agree with you, artists constantly make aesthetic and conceptual decisions in their work It is impossible to remove the political context from a work of art as it is just as impossible to remove the society out of the artist. However it is important to be aware of what you are actually saying in relation to the artistic choices you have made.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:47:32 +1030, "<Affinity>" wrote:
[snip long part about displaying nude females in art]
Why not? I think this would be the more interesting part. 1000s of books have been written about naked females (and I guess the long part snipped above was mostly from books you read, too). I think the Trent picture is a lot more interesting and deserves discussion more than the Daria picture. MSB
p.s.: An interesting (maybe) side note: My original idea was to take the crucifixion as a symbol for Trent failing Daria and Jane in JA. I was inspired by the discussion on atd about Daria realizing that Trent was unreliable and the change in their relationship. I intended to have a Daria angel and a Daria devil symbolizing the angry and the understanding Daria at Trent's left and right side. Yes, it's silly but I like this recurring devil/angel theme in animated series. When I had the album cover idea I dumped the other one because I think the latter is better (yoohoo, a rhyme).
I have pictures of a devil Daria and a saint Daria on my Daria page... of course since I have no artistic ability these consist of a normal picture of Daria one with little horns and a tail added with the text "Non Serviam!" (mostly my Joycean affinity for Lucifer) and one with a halo saying "St. Daria". They're for an essay on Daria and religion... although with that symbolism (Lucifer/St. Stephen- I refer to "early Christians") it might as well be an essay on Daria and James Joyce. But that's just me.
Dagny
http://firefly.cc.st
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Daria code: Ap D+ T5 W1 Q+ Fn^Fr O+ OH m c MV- C5X F:113,201,305 BB+ FCJ -DT+ q+ fT^fD
You say that as if I have no capacity for critical thinking out side of the literature that i read. Art and cultural theory is something that i'm interested and have been studying for most of my, admittedly not that long, adult life, im almost 24 been studying it since i was 18. It's not just about the books you read or the lectures you attend, its how you asses and process the information you gather, learning to question everything.
Fair enough that's your opinion, religious iconography (and i assure you there have been 100's of 1000's of books written on this subject) does not interest me all that much.
I am in no way implying that your art work is silly, either in its ideas or its execution.Do not take my exploration of some of the issues surrounding the classical female nude as unconstructive criticism, i just wanted to point out some of the theories behind this sort of representation.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 15:01:50 +1030, "<Affinity>" wrote:
I'm sorry I have offended you. I do NOT doubt anyone here has a capacity for critical thinking on his/her own. It's just that what you said sounded so much like the stuff written in books about art (have you ever written one?) that I assumed you weren't using that capacity when you wrote the part. MSB
Well hey i have done allot of study in art theory (fart theory as it is commonly referred to in my house), and some of what i have read i tend to agree with. The ideas that come out of art theory as opposed to other areas of research like science, sit in the self aware and thus 'dangerous' position of not claiming to be absolutes. I can spout off some theories relating to art, but because what im saying is by the very nature of the topic always going to be subjective, i cannot claim authority. Unlike science, which has firmly placed itself at the top of an empirical hierarchy, art theory is constantly questioning the structure(s) that supports it self.
Yes im rambling and no i haven't written a book yet.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:47:32 +1030, "<Affinity>" wrote:
I think I want to add something here about why I chose the Resting Venus theme. If someone had paid close attention (which nobody has of course) to all the messages I posted relating to my picture (and I mean dating back a few months when I started) then he would know that my choice of the Resting Venus theme was arbitrary. I started working on the picture not because of sexual fantasies, my own desire or similar. I started it because someone (a couple months back) stated the equation (in other words, of course) erotic fan art = toon porn and I wanted to prove him wrong. For that reason I took my mom's book about the world's most famous paintings and picked an erotic one at random (Giorgione's Resting Venus) because I assume that few people will refer to that picture as porn and started working on making an imitation of that painting with Daria. I had already started on it when the thought about combining the theme with my unfinished fanfic "Body Poetry" (which interestingly was originally planned to NOT show Daria nude AT ALL except for a twisted version in the mirror to symbolize her own negative self-perception) occurred to me.
The point is that one should not overinterpret the choice of pose. I didn't think about the pose at all, just chose it because I imitated another picture and I'd not be surprised if that is/was the case for a lot of other current/old artists. You just pick this pose because others have done it. MSB
Ok to clear thing up on my part. I haven't over interpreted your use of the classic reclining pose, i have however interpreted what this pose has come to signify in relation to the history of its use. I just wanted to point out that when we borrow images and iconography from the past, there are always underlying themes that will be picked up on, there will always be a multiplicity of views and there will always be some political context as art is never removed from the society in which is it made. Its just in my own nature as an artist to question what other artists have put before me, how what they have produced is framed by the types of ideologies prevalent in that society. This is my approach, it may not be yours and that's just as valid.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:47:32 +1030, "<Affinity>" wrote:
(Snip)
Too subtle for me, then. I always assumed that the 'reclining' was more like lounging, meant to imply comfort. The facial expressions you mention, I'm more inclined to see as confident awareness of their sexuality.
Of course, this may just come from dealing with modern women as opposed to looking at it from the gender stereotypes of the ages most often associated with the 'classics.'
Sure reclining and coy expressions could mean all of the above, however put into the context of what i was discussing (classic reclining nude) my point of view differs.
As a so called 'modern woman', I still feel like i have to battle with the lineage of negative gender roles. Obviously things have changed, i would argue that a system based on repression and oppression now no longer has the space to fully function as it once did. However at the same time it still surprises me how deep stereotypical notions of gender run.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 15:48:49 +1030, "<Affinity>" wrote:
<shrug> I think that's yet another reason why I hesitate in attempting to analyze artwork. It will say different things to different people and especially to different ages. Who am I, to judge for others (as opposed to myself) based on my interpretation?
Well you know, everything is subjective, time is relative and some people actually enjoy eating tofu... Nihilism is rife , let us morn the death of meaning and be sure that the only thing to be sure of is that nothing is sure ... Just because there are a multiplicity of views and nothing is absolute, doesn't mean that you or i don't have a right to express our own particular set of ideas. Difference is good, and the sharing of differing ideas can help to promote greater understanding, or at the very least, confront closed mindedness.
"Money" isn't "force" ... you can't *make* someone do something because you are richer than him. All you can do is offer him things; if he turns down your deal, you are stuck unless you transform some of your wealth into "force" or "power" by (for example) hiring mercenaries to attack him. Corporations have a lot of wealth ("money"), but very little power ("force").
Governments, by contrast, specialize in the manifestation of power. Even a medium-sized government is more powerful than the greatest international corporation.Governments forbid other entities (such as corporations) from using "force" on the government's sovereign territory (if you try to hire mercenaries against your foes you will be arrested); they in turn reserve the right to use "force" for their own ends, including the collection of wealth (pay taxes or go to prison).
Forcibly.
I think it's mostly pretentious, silly, and rather naive.
If states declined, and corporations took their place, then corporations would *become* states. This means that they would use power instead of wealth to deal with one another, which in turn would tend to limit them to coherent, defensible territories.
(Right now, a corporation is safe having one branch in New York and another in Paris and another in Jakarta because governments enforce their rights to own all these far-flung properties. But if the corporations themselves were the governments, a corporation would have to defend these properties on its own; it could not call for the "cops" if another corporation seized its Jakarta factory. So a world in which states declined would at first be a much less cosmopolitan one).
The new corporate states would find that they had to buy the loyalty of their armed forces. Stock ownership would become meaningless (with no law, if the head of security seizes the physical assets, they're his now, the possession of pieces of paper are irrelevant). The most efficient way of buying loyalty is through displaying responsiblility for the governed; this way you get a loyal national base from which you raise your armies.
In 50-100 years, the corporate states would be nations much like the ones that exist today.
"The market" is not an entity, but rather the expression of the intersection of supply and demand. Unlike a government, it does not have coherent policies; it acts automatically. It can "persuade" only insofar as people are persuaded by reality; lacking armed forces or police, it cannot "coerce" it all.
If by "the market" you mean corporations, they can "persuade" only by offering deals. Greatly overmatched by armies and police forces which deny them the right to use force, it can "coerce" only under very special circumstances (100 years ago, outright corporate coercion was common in company towns, but the state stepped in worldwide over the next 50 years to avoid incidents like Homstead or Anaconda).
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 03 Feb 2000 17:17:12 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Ah, the lesson that so many seem to have forgotten... that money is a means, and not an end.
You are quite right in that. But tell me, what are the police and our military if not officially sanctioned mercenaries?
Oh, and there are other options than mercenaries and violence. Most of those options are made difficult via anti-monopoly laws, however.
This is true. But to me, at least, it's not as inconcievable as some make it out to be that those situations will change.
For now, the corporations believe it better to buy politicians than to run things themselves. The words of certain people, who you described as a tad megalomaniacal, seem to imply that won't always be the case.
Close... they would use their wealth for power instead of luxury.
I do mean corporations. And I'm not so sure that they'd necessarily be outmatched.
But then, I'm apparently far more paranoid than you...
I'm well aware that money's a "means", but the conversion of money to power (or vice versa) is not automatic. Indeed, most of politics involves surmounting the difficulties involved in such conversions.
That's exactly what they are. The state gains loyalty by protecting its citizens (with some pre-existing force); it uses this loyalty to induce them to fight for it, thus gaining force; it uses this force both to protect its citizens (completing the circle), and to tax (gaining the wealth to hire more force).
Essentially, a state is a corporation in the business of enforcement. As such, it is *much* more powerful, man for man or dollar for dollar, than any corporation in the business of commerce. While some very large corporations have larger security forces than some very small states, usually the situation is the reverse.
Non-coercive monopolies are not dangerous. The reason why is that the non-coercive monopolist obtains his position competitively, and must behave as if he had competition because he *does*, potentially (and this poential competition will become quite actual if he tries to charge higher prices than the market will bear).
The danger lies in coercive monopolies ... but these are generally created by states!
Corporations want to shelter *behind* states, they don't want to *be* states. Being states would mean that they would have to protect their citizens; if they didn't they would be overthrown or defeated by competitors better able to commad the loyalty of their citizens. The typical cyberpunk corporation, with its total lack of concern for the people under its control, would be about as effective as a Central American banana republic. Furthermore, without state force, they would be vulnerable to coups and revolutions (just like the banana republic).
The main reason I find most cyberpunk silly is that everyone acts like there *is* a state to appeal to: they continue to trade stocks, dispute ownership on the law, etc. In reality, given the environment postulated, you would control a corporation by having a lot of gunmen, not by holding pieces of paper.
How would they "run things themselves" given that states can command vast, loyal military and police forces, and corporations have to practically bankrupt themselves to hire small mercenary forces? In order to "run things themselves", the corporations first have to seize power from the governments, which does not seem likely. I could maybe see, here and there, a very big corporation seizing a very small state, but most very big corporations have better things to do than to try to run very small states (even ignoring the likely reaction from other states, who would probably simply intervene and kick the corporate mercenaries out).
I consider them "a tad megalomaniacal" because the chance of them being able to "take over" is pretty darn low. There were a bunch of similar corporate megalomaniacs, who in the 1930's (I think `33 or `34) approached Marine General Smedley Butler and asked him if he would like to lead a coup against FDR. Butler told them to go away and never bother him again with this stupid idea.
It doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.
Well, yes, but then they are being "states". Which begs the question of why they would be more competent states than the ones they displaced. The main problem with the cyberpunk scenario is that it does not explain how the corporations took over, or why the populations of the states they took over from let them do so.
It's not a matter of "paranoia". It's a matter of "correlation of forces".
A large state (say, the size of Germany) commands a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, more than the richest corporaton in the world. It controls an army of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and millions of reserves, militia, paramilitary, and police officers. It has *legitimacy*, which is to say that its citizens consider it right and proper to obey its laws and pay its taxes. It commands *loyalty*, which is to say that, if it is threatened, its citizens will willingly fight and die to preserve it.
Now, imagine a coalition of corporations trying to take over Germany. They might be able to match Germany's wealth (assuming that there are a dozen or so *very* big corporations. They could not hire armed forces equivalent in size to Germany's, though. And if they did, such a force would be an armed rabble, loyal only as long as it were paid, prone to surrender or rout, and well aware that no nation, anywhere, would honor their sacrifice.
The corporations could try to take over surreptitiously, by bribing politicians and making the laws. But the problem is that this would be detected, by the police and/or media, and would be unpopular. They would find that their candidates lost elections, that candidates could easily win elections on anti-corporate platforms, and that in the end the backlash would probably result in stricter regulation of their activities.
They could attempt a coup, using a mercenary force to seize Berlin (which I believe is the capital again). But, even if they were successful (which is very unlikely, because their attempt would probably be detected well in advance), they would find to their dismay that physical occupation of the capital meant nothing. The German armed forces would not obey them; the German people would not obey them, and in the end their mercenaries would be captured or killed.
What's worse, not only would Germany treat them as criminals, so would most other states (who have no desire to be overthrown, either). The organizers of the attempt would wind up dragged out of their cushy homes and offices and thrown into prison; or, if they fled in time, living as frightened exiles in some country without extradition laws, constantly afraid that they would be kidnapped and dragged back to justice.
To postulate a cyberpunk world, you first have to postulate a massive drop in popular loyalty to states. But most cyberpunk worlds give no reason for that, or inadequate reason, or worse still, rationales which would have the opposite effect. (i.e., ecological or economic crises, all of which tend to produce increases in popular loyalty to nations and in state power, rather than the other way around; note that the 1930's saw a tremendous surge in both Communist and Fascist sympathies, rather than a growth in corporate power).
Cyberpunk is based on a massive misreading of how politics actually works, and in my opinion also a good deal of ignorance regarding history.
I do like the technologies, though.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 04 Feb 2000 16:31:30 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
The 1930s was an economic crises that affected the corporations more than the states. States were popular, because they had the funds (or the credit) to continue offering services when businesses were going under.
Cyberpunk predicts the bankruptcy of the state, rather than of the corporations; spawned in a time when multimillion dollar deficits were standard operating procedure for governments.
Economic crises usually affect business more than government. Businesses are in trouble when they run at a loss; governments have the power to tax.
Well yes, but the problem with this is that states can print more money, raise taxes, and otherwise make up their deficits off the people and businesses within their borders. If governments were in serious danger of bankruptcy, they would bankrupt everyone else *first*. They have the guns.
That's the ultimate reason why governments always have the upper hand over corporation. They have the guns.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)