CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Re: My Heroes Fom Childhood to Present Day
Oops
Oops
Last edited:
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Re: My Heroes Fom Childhood to Present Day
Thank you for the feedback.
I'm posting this with my iPhone on what I thought was a slow connection.
I literally had no idea.
Thank you for the feedback.
I'm posting this with my iPhone on what I thought was a slow connection.
I literally had no idea.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I took the huge beast apart. I thought, broken up, it would work better. Can you just trash any and all, and make it go away?
FoTi
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
"Eight Below" It's 2 hours long.
It's worth getting the video or DVD from the local library, if they have it, and finding a friend who has a TV to watch it on, if you don't have one.
By the way....did you get robbed again after you came back from Ohio?
"Eight Below" It's 2 hours long.
It's worth getting the video or DVD from the local library, if they have it, and finding a friend who has a TV to watch it on, if you don't have one.
By the way....did you get robbed again after you came back from Ohio?
RogerB
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
On the Russian-Jewish thing . . .
For those interested, it would be enlightening to wiki "pogrom," here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire
and see that the "Russian Pogrom" actually occurred only in a series of towns in the Ukraine and in what's now called Moldavia . . . and such is certainly not OK, but to accuse "Russia" of it is the equivalent of saying what went on in Mississippi 100 years ago went on all over America.
In one incident, for those who want to posit the "government" or the Czar condoned it you'll be able to read two facts:
In one incident 2 Jews were killed but the Russian troops shot and killed 19 rioters engaging in the pogrom to put it down.
And why do mobs riot and kill and plunder? . . . For the same reason certain groups rioted and killed and plundered in the Detroit "race" riots (there have been several, take your pick from 1863 to 1967).
This stupid shit of cultural/racial strife and assault is nothing new: it's the craziness of planet Earth. Don't blame it on "Russia" or infer it only ever happened to the "Jews." We've all been there-done that.
As to the Czar's stance in all this? Read wiki on his "The Manifesto on the Improvement of the State Order" of October, 1905, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Manifesto
To be noted, wiki and other sources cite that the pogroms followed or were "caused" as a result of the assassination of Czar Alexander II, in 1881, in which a Jew was said to have been among the plotters.
You will read in the book I cited earlier how the Czarina to Alexander III "the Peace-Maker" accused her husband (who inherited the throne) of being too lenient with the assassins and plotters . . .
As to the accomplishments of the Jewish folks and their love of learning . . . of course that is fact. That is not at issue here . . . what is at issue is the accusations against "Russia."
R
On the Russian-Jewish thing . . .
For those interested, it would be enlightening to wiki "pogrom," here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire
and see that the "Russian Pogrom" actually occurred only in a series of towns in the Ukraine and in what's now called Moldavia . . . and such is certainly not OK, but to accuse "Russia" of it is the equivalent of saying what went on in Mississippi 100 years ago went on all over America.
In one incident, for those who want to posit the "government" or the Czar condoned it you'll be able to read two facts:
In one incident 2 Jews were killed but the Russian troops shot and killed 19 rioters engaging in the pogrom to put it down.
And why do mobs riot and kill and plunder? . . . For the same reason certain groups rioted and killed and plundered in the Detroit "race" riots (there have been several, take your pick from 1863 to 1967).
This stupid shit of cultural/racial strife and assault is nothing new: it's the craziness of planet Earth. Don't blame it on "Russia" or infer it only ever happened to the "Jews." We've all been there-done that.
As to the Czar's stance in all this? Read wiki on his "The Manifesto on the Improvement of the State Order" of October, 1905, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Manifesto
To be noted, wiki and other sources cite that the pogroms followed or were "caused" as a result of the assassination of Czar Alexander II, in 1881, in which a Jew was said to have been among the plotters.
You will read in the book I cited earlier how the Czarina to Alexander III "the Peace-Maker" accused her husband (who inherited the throne) of being too lenient with the assassins and plotters . . .
As to the accomplishments of the Jewish folks and their love of learning . . . of course that is fact. That is not at issue here . . . what is at issue is the accusations against "Russia."
R
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Re: Clearing Up Some Political Issues
It appears you have twisted what I said.
The quote of mine above was a response to your statement above that.
I even quoted yours in my post.
Yet what youcriticized me for criticizing was something entirely different.
I'm curious why did you try and give the impression that I was talking about Eastern Europe?
It was clear in my post what I was criticizing. You've distorted that in your post.
This is an example of what I meant when I spoke of obviously distorting the facts.
And you did the same thing you occuse me of when you wrote this (it is from the first post of yours I quoted)
"My point was that the Progressives are more pompous, more pedantic,more prone to promote falsehoods and do whatever it takes to see that their viewpoint prevails.... and when they do these things, they are proud of it and feel they have done their duty. Behind this is the concept that they are the elite and enlightened ones and they alone can see the truth and that all viewpoints are destructive."
Sorry, but that is a personal attack, and not a factual one, but a personal smear of character. By the way, how do you know what we progressives think and feel?
Don't twist our words and then say this is what they are thinking.
This is nonsense.
If you want to have a discussion then fine, but don't stab people in the back with smears to their character while you talk friendly to their face.
It appears you have twisted what I said.
The quote of mine above was a response to your statement above that.
I even quoted yours in my post.
Yet what youcriticized me for criticizing was something entirely different.
I'm curious why did you try and give the impression that I was talking about Eastern Europe?
It was clear in my post what I was criticizing. You've distorted that in your post.
This is an example of what I meant when I spoke of obviously distorting the facts.
And you did the same thing you occuse me of when you wrote this (it is from the first post of yours I quoted)
"My point was that the Progressives are more pompous, more pedantic,more prone to promote falsehoods and do whatever it takes to see that their viewpoint prevails.... and when they do these things, they are proud of it and feel they have done their duty. Behind this is the concept that they are the elite and enlightened ones and they alone can see the truth and that all viewpoints are destructive."
Sorry, but that is a personal attack, and not a factual one, but a personal smear of character. By the way, how do you know what we progressives think and feel?
Don't twist our words and then say this is what they are thinking.
This is nonsense.
If you want to have a discussion then fine, but don't stab people in the back with smears to their character while you talk friendly to their face.
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Clearing Up Some Political Issues
Ouch! Yes... We've had enough of the Hubbard management style.
Ouch! Yes... We've had enough of the Hubbard management style.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
What you wrote about Russia and the Jews in this post and earlier posts extracted from your book conflicts with the historical record.
There were hundreds of pogroms and thousands of Jews were killed.
While the pogroms were never initiated by the government, tactical assistance was given.
The last two Tsars were vocally anti-Semitic.
Nicholas II had expelled many Jews from Russia and had called the pogroms acts of patriotism.
By the end of the 19th century there were over 1,400 statues, regulations and rules restricting Jews. They were Russia's version of the untouchables.
The Jews were the only ethnic group forbidden to own land or to enter the civil service, or to serve as officers in the army.
There were strict quotas on how many Jews could attend high schools and even fewer in universities.
Apart from a few exceptions, they were only permitted to live in fifteen provinces in western Ukraine, Poland. Bessarabia, and a few in Lithuania and these were known as "The Pale of Settlements."
Saying that this is the only place in Russia where the pogroms took place is misleading because this is the only place where Jewish communities were allowed to exist.
This is why just stating incidental facts is a poor and misleading way to write about history because it excludes the context.
And some of the places were not towns. Kishinev, which was the provincial capital (in what is now called Moldova) had a population of 120,000 in 1903.
Odessa in the Crimea was much larger. Both these cities had deadly pogroms.
Contrary to what you said, Jews did join the army although they were not allowed to become officers.
To get an idea of the character and depths of anti-Semitism you should read about the Beiliss Affair (1911-1913).
And last but not least, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was a forgery by the tsarist police and first published in 1902.
A copy was found among the last effects of Nicholas II after his murder in July 1918.
The Emancipation of the serfs was not the enlighten act as you seem to imply.
The landed gentry were greatly in debt by 1860 with mortgages to private banks.
The freeing of the serfs was a way for them to get out debt.
Under the terms of the Emancipation the serfs were forced to pay for the land through a mortgage arrangement with the state.
The landed gentry received cash payment for their land from the government and the newly freed peasants were stuck with a mortgage owed to the state.
Some properties were sold to the peasants as high as seven times the actual value.
The Emancipation salvaged the private banks and the upper classes in Russia by soaking the peasants, just as the financial bailout in America had.
Even though the peasants were emancipated in 1861 the landed gentry retained all the dominant rights over them, including public floggings of minor misdemeanors, and peasants could be arrested for failing to remove their hat and bow before a member of the landed gentry.
These rules stayed in effect until the 1905 revolution.
The peasant writer Sergei Semenov describes how his fellow peasants saw it as "a return to the days of serfdom, when the master squire had lorded over the village."
Between 1890 and 1905, local noblewomen were even arrest for teaching peasant children how to read and write.
The industrial growth of Russia is true, but this does not give the total picture.
The conditions in 1892, more than 20 years after the serfs were freed were horrid.
Semenov wrote:
“With every day the need and misery of the peasants grew. The scenes of starvation were deeply distressing, and it was all the more disturbing to see that amidst all this suffering and death there were sprawling huge estates, beautiful well-furnished manors, and that the grand old life of the squires, with its jolly hunts and balls, its banquets and its concerts, carried on as usual”
As far as the "Manifesto on the Improvement of State Order" of 1905, this was published to quell the rioting during the 1905 Russian Revolution.
A duma was created but it had no force of law and the Tsar held veto power.
After a few sessions the Tsar appointed the members himself and eventually he disbanded the Duma altogether.
The schools you speak of were mostly created and operated by the Zemstvo Union, not the Tsar.
But still there were improvements in some areas.
Between 1860 and 1914 the number of university students in Russia grew from 5,000 to 69,000 (45 percent of them women).
And what you wrote about the banking is too laughable to even bothering to discuss.
Here are my sources:
"A People's Tragedy" by Orlando Feges. 1997
“Zemstvo Organizations and Their Role Within the Adminstrative Structure” by K. E. MacKenzie in T. Emmons and W Vucinich “The Zemstvo.”
“Europe Transformed 1878-1918” by Norman Stone. 1983
“To, chego bol’she ne bidet.” By A. V. Tyrkova-Williams (roughly—“that which will never be again.”)
“The Systemization of the Russian Government” by G. Yaney 1973
“The Land Captains: A Note on Their Social Composition, 1889-1913.” By D. J. Macey 1989.
“Twenty-five years in the Village” By S. T. Semenov. 1915
“Memoirs of a Russian Governor.” By S. D. Urussov. 1908
“Urban Growth and Anti-Semitism in Russian Moldavia’ by E. H. Judge in L. H. Judge and J. Y. Simms’ “Modernization and Revolution: Dilemmas of Progress in Late Imperial Russia.” 1992
“God’s Playground: A History of Poland.” Norman Davies. 1981
“Jewish Policies and Right-Wing Politics in Imperial Russia” by H. Rogger. 1986 Also by Rogger: “Russian Ministers and the Jewish Questions, 1881-1917” 1975 and “Russia in the Age of Modernization and Revolution, 1881-1917.”
“Troubled Waters: The Origins of the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia.” By I. M. Aronson 1990.
“Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History” by J. Klier and D. Lambrozza 1992
“The diaries of Theodor Herzel”
The “Pervaia vseobshchaia perripis” (First Total Census)
“Students, Professors and the State in Tsarist Russia” by S. Kassow 1969.
“Letters of Leo Tolstoy to his wife, 1862-1910” by Leo Tolstoy.
You may want to stay away from Wikipedia when it comes to history. It is very distorted and incomplete.
Again, just giving facts omits context and thereby alters the reality.
The Anabaptist Jacques
What you wrote about Russia and the Jews in this post and earlier posts extracted from your book conflicts with the historical record.
There were hundreds of pogroms and thousands of Jews were killed.
While the pogroms were never initiated by the government, tactical assistance was given.
The last two Tsars were vocally anti-Semitic.
Nicholas II had expelled many Jews from Russia and had called the pogroms acts of patriotism.
By the end of the 19th century there were over 1,400 statues, regulations and rules restricting Jews. They were Russia's version of the untouchables.
The Jews were the only ethnic group forbidden to own land or to enter the civil service, or to serve as officers in the army.
There were strict quotas on how many Jews could attend high schools and even fewer in universities.
Apart from a few exceptions, they were only permitted to live in fifteen provinces in western Ukraine, Poland. Bessarabia, and a few in Lithuania and these were known as "The Pale of Settlements."
Saying that this is the only place in Russia where the pogroms took place is misleading because this is the only place where Jewish communities were allowed to exist.
This is why just stating incidental facts is a poor and misleading way to write about history because it excludes the context.
And some of the places were not towns. Kishinev, which was the provincial capital (in what is now called Moldova) had a population of 120,000 in 1903.
Odessa in the Crimea was much larger. Both these cities had deadly pogroms.
Contrary to what you said, Jews did join the army although they were not allowed to become officers.
To get an idea of the character and depths of anti-Semitism you should read about the Beiliss Affair (1911-1913).
And last but not least, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was a forgery by the tsarist police and first published in 1902.
A copy was found among the last effects of Nicholas II after his murder in July 1918.
The Emancipation of the serfs was not the enlighten act as you seem to imply.
The landed gentry were greatly in debt by 1860 with mortgages to private banks.
The freeing of the serfs was a way for them to get out debt.
Under the terms of the Emancipation the serfs were forced to pay for the land through a mortgage arrangement with the state.
The landed gentry received cash payment for their land from the government and the newly freed peasants were stuck with a mortgage owed to the state.
Some properties were sold to the peasants as high as seven times the actual value.
The Emancipation salvaged the private banks and the upper classes in Russia by soaking the peasants, just as the financial bailout in America had.
Even though the peasants were emancipated in 1861 the landed gentry retained all the dominant rights over them, including public floggings of minor misdemeanors, and peasants could be arrested for failing to remove their hat and bow before a member of the landed gentry.
These rules stayed in effect until the 1905 revolution.
The peasant writer Sergei Semenov describes how his fellow peasants saw it as "a return to the days of serfdom, when the master squire had lorded over the village."
Between 1890 and 1905, local noblewomen were even arrest for teaching peasant children how to read and write.
The industrial growth of Russia is true, but this does not give the total picture.
The conditions in 1892, more than 20 years after the serfs were freed were horrid.
Semenov wrote:
“With every day the need and misery of the peasants grew. The scenes of starvation were deeply distressing, and it was all the more disturbing to see that amidst all this suffering and death there were sprawling huge estates, beautiful well-furnished manors, and that the grand old life of the squires, with its jolly hunts and balls, its banquets and its concerts, carried on as usual”
As far as the "Manifesto on the Improvement of State Order" of 1905, this was published to quell the rioting during the 1905 Russian Revolution.
A duma was created but it had no force of law and the Tsar held veto power.
After a few sessions the Tsar appointed the members himself and eventually he disbanded the Duma altogether.
The schools you speak of were mostly created and operated by the Zemstvo Union, not the Tsar.
But still there were improvements in some areas.
Between 1860 and 1914 the number of university students in Russia grew from 5,000 to 69,000 (45 percent of them women).
And what you wrote about the banking is too laughable to even bothering to discuss.
Here are my sources:
"A People's Tragedy" by Orlando Feges. 1997
“Zemstvo Organizations and Their Role Within the Adminstrative Structure” by K. E. MacKenzie in T. Emmons and W Vucinich “The Zemstvo.”
“Europe Transformed 1878-1918” by Norman Stone. 1983
“To, chego bol’she ne bidet.” By A. V. Tyrkova-Williams (roughly—“that which will never be again.”)
“The Systemization of the Russian Government” by G. Yaney 1973
“The Land Captains: A Note on Their Social Composition, 1889-1913.” By D. J. Macey 1989.
“Twenty-five years in the Village” By S. T. Semenov. 1915
“Memoirs of a Russian Governor.” By S. D. Urussov. 1908
“Urban Growth and Anti-Semitism in Russian Moldavia’ by E. H. Judge in L. H. Judge and J. Y. Simms’ “Modernization and Revolution: Dilemmas of Progress in Late Imperial Russia.” 1992
“God’s Playground: A History of Poland.” Norman Davies. 1981
“Jewish Policies and Right-Wing Politics in Imperial Russia” by H. Rogger. 1986 Also by Rogger: “Russian Ministers and the Jewish Questions, 1881-1917” 1975 and “Russia in the Age of Modernization and Revolution, 1881-1917.”
“Troubled Waters: The Origins of the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia.” By I. M. Aronson 1990.
“Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History” by J. Klier and D. Lambrozza 1992
“The diaries of Theodor Herzel”
The “Pervaia vseobshchaia perripis” (First Total Census)
“Students, Professors and the State in Tsarist Russia” by S. Kassow 1969.
“Letters of Leo Tolstoy to his wife, 1862-1910” by Leo Tolstoy.
You may want to stay away from Wikipedia when it comes to history. It is very distorted and incomplete.
Again, just giving facts omits context and thereby alters the reality.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Re: Clearing Up Some Political Issues
Ah, Lakey can't help it, it is the way he operates with everybody.
Ah, Lakey can't help it, it is the way he operates with everybody.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: Clearing Up Some Political Issues
You were not specific about what it was in my posts that you felt was I was distorting. I attempted to figure it out and what I came up with was that our main area of disagreement was our politics. You switched from Libertarian and Conservative to Socialist and pro Marxist while I switched from Liberal to Conservative.
I had no idea you were criticizing my claim that Progressives were pompous, pedantic and more prone to promote falsehoods because they feel they are enlightened and elite and look down on those who do not agree with them. I've asserted that claim repeatedly recently and no one has challenged it so I never suspected that was the critical point of disagreement between us.
Now that I know, all I can say is that the above claim of mine is just my opinion. I see it as a trait of the Progressives as a group. As far as individual Progressives such as yourself, some may not exhibit this group trait. My Son is a Progressive and yet he does not have this trait and in that respect you are similar to him.
Since I misconstrued what it was in my post that you found objectionable, I ended up defending the wrong topic and went after your positive attitude on Marxism.
You are right that I do not know what individual Progressives are thinking. Its just a theory which I have developed after listening to Progressives in depth for the last 12 or 15 years. Hubbard had the same view. Everyone had to toe his party line or they were labled a supressive person and kicked out of his group. Evangelical Christians exhibit this same trait as do militant Islamists.
I saw it as group trait for C of S Scientologists, evangelical Christians, militant Muslims and after years of observing the far left Progressives, I added them into this group as well. When Mark Baker wrote one of his recent posts, he was saying that in a complex society such as ours the rights of private individuals had to be balanced with other areas of responsibility over which we and our governments are required to exert stewardship.
That sentence hit me like a bolt from the blue. It seemed true and it provided a theory of why certain groups come to believe that they are the elite and enlightened ones with the only correct point of view and that they are thus entitled to do whatever it takes to assure that their point of view prevails.
I saw that each of the different groups which believes this simply differs on their priorities when carrying out the balancing of responsibilities which MAB referred to.
The Conservatives do not qualify as such a groug though they come pretty close. They believe in Judeo Christian priniciples, the U.S. Constitution and the philosophy of self reliance. With them, however, there is a line they draw as to how far they are willing to go to ensure that their philosophy prevails.
I hope this clears it up for you TAJ, I meant no personal disrespect against you. I did come up with some group traits for the groups you are aligned with but not every member of those groups has those traits. Also, all these things are just my opinions and they definitely are not provable and are in no way scientific.
Lakey
You were not specific about what it was in my posts that you felt was I was distorting. I attempted to figure it out and what I came up with was that our main area of disagreement was our politics. You switched from Libertarian and Conservative to Socialist and pro Marxist while I switched from Liberal to Conservative.
I had no idea you were criticizing my claim that Progressives were pompous, pedantic and more prone to promote falsehoods because they feel they are enlightened and elite and look down on those who do not agree with them. I've asserted that claim repeatedly recently and no one has challenged it so I never suspected that was the critical point of disagreement between us.
Now that I know, all I can say is that the above claim of mine is just my opinion. I see it as a trait of the Progressives as a group. As far as individual Progressives such as yourself, some may not exhibit this group trait. My Son is a Progressive and yet he does not have this trait and in that respect you are similar to him.
Since I misconstrued what it was in my post that you found objectionable, I ended up defending the wrong topic and went after your positive attitude on Marxism.
You are right that I do not know what individual Progressives are thinking. Its just a theory which I have developed after listening to Progressives in depth for the last 12 or 15 years. Hubbard had the same view. Everyone had to toe his party line or they were labled a supressive person and kicked out of his group. Evangelical Christians exhibit this same trait as do militant Islamists.
I saw it as group trait for C of S Scientologists, evangelical Christians, militant Muslims and after years of observing the far left Progressives, I added them into this group as well. When Mark Baker wrote one of his recent posts, he was saying that in a complex society such as ours the rights of private individuals had to be balanced with other areas of responsibility over which we and our governments are required to exert stewardship.
That sentence hit me like a bolt from the blue. It seemed true and it provided a theory of why certain groups come to believe that they are the elite and enlightened ones with the only correct point of view and that they are thus entitled to do whatever it takes to assure that their point of view prevails.
I saw that each of the different groups which believes this simply differs on their priorities when carrying out the balancing of responsibilities which MAB referred to.
The Conservatives do not qualify as such a groug though they come pretty close. They believe in Judeo Christian priniciples, the U.S. Constitution and the philosophy of self reliance. With them, however, there is a line they draw as to how far they are willing to go to ensure that their philosophy prevails.
I hope this clears it up for you TAJ, I meant no personal disrespect against you. I did come up with some group traits for the groups you are aligned with but not every member of those groups has those traits. Also, all these things are just my opinions and they definitely are not provable and are in no way scientific.
Lakey
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Re: Clearing Up Some Political Issues
Fair enough.
I do get what youare saying about the general attitudes of people within a certain view.
But I would cauthion you on saying "they think." It takes away some credibility and opens one up to charges of prejudice when thye use that phrase.
I can't say that you are wrong about some progressives thinking they know better and want to enforce their beliefs on others "for their own good."
But some in the family values crowd also display that atitude.
And as far as the U.S. Constitution, both conservatives and liberals value the Consitution, it is that they interpret it differently.
That's why the Founding Fathers put a seperate judicial branch with lifetime appointments.
I used the word liberals because to me the term progressives is used nowadays because of the bad connotations with the word liberal.
I also think that the terms liberal and consservative has lost their traditional meaning.
Conservatives used to believe in change but only when it works in conjuction with the values of society. And they viewed the arbiters of society as the institutions. So the change was gradual and steady.
Liberals used to believe that basic principles and rights trumped institutions. So their changes were usually sudden and dramatic.
But nowadays the terms refer only to particular positions about particular topics.
Conservatives have become almost reactionaries (William F. Buckley would not stand a chance in today's conservative movement)
Liberals use government programs to secure the principles they seek, but once a program is establish the effort goes to expanding the institutions or government programs at the cost of the original principle. (The Department of Education and teachers' unions are example of what I mean. And Abortion too.)
So I believe this whole liberal-conservative issue approach is counter-productive to political dialogue.
Take abortion for example.
Now I am a socialist and religious and I feel that abortion is a violation of the principles of Tom Paine's Rights of Man and of the Declaration of Independence. besides my religious beliefs.
Aborting a life for convienience or expediency violates these political and religious principles
I don't believe as many conservative do that it should be illegal again, because that would prohibit the necessary social institutions from developing which could take care of the unwanted children.
Making it illegal makes it impossible to solve the social delemma of unwanted births.
This matter has to be resolved because I do belive it violates our most basic principles and as Lincoln said "A house divided cannot stand. It must become all of one thing or the other."
So if the abortion dilemma is not resolved this country will probably slide towards other violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and away from the justice of valuing a single human being.
Personally what I think it will take is a rise in the social consciousness of all Americans, so liberals will respect life over expediency and conservatives will establish those institutions which we lack now which can provide viable economic and social alternatives so the children won't be unwanted, or care for even if they are unwanted.
It is such a tough problem.
Sorry about the rant, but I guess this is as good a place as any to rant.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Fair enough.
I do get what youare saying about the general attitudes of people within a certain view.
But I would cauthion you on saying "they think." It takes away some credibility and opens one up to charges of prejudice when thye use that phrase.
I can't say that you are wrong about some progressives thinking they know better and want to enforce their beliefs on others "for their own good."
But some in the family values crowd also display that atitude.
And as far as the U.S. Constitution, both conservatives and liberals value the Consitution, it is that they interpret it differently.
That's why the Founding Fathers put a seperate judicial branch with lifetime appointments.
I used the word liberals because to me the term progressives is used nowadays because of the bad connotations with the word liberal.
I also think that the terms liberal and consservative has lost their traditional meaning.
Conservatives used to believe in change but only when it works in conjuction with the values of society. And they viewed the arbiters of society as the institutions. So the change was gradual and steady.
Liberals used to believe that basic principles and rights trumped institutions. So their changes were usually sudden and dramatic.
But nowadays the terms refer only to particular positions about particular topics.
Conservatives have become almost reactionaries (William F. Buckley would not stand a chance in today's conservative movement)
Liberals use government programs to secure the principles they seek, but once a program is establish the effort goes to expanding the institutions or government programs at the cost of the original principle. (The Department of Education and teachers' unions are example of what I mean. And Abortion too.)
So I believe this whole liberal-conservative issue approach is counter-productive to political dialogue.
Take abortion for example.
Now I am a socialist and religious and I feel that abortion is a violation of the principles of Tom Paine's Rights of Man and of the Declaration of Independence. besides my religious beliefs.
Aborting a life for convienience or expediency violates these political and religious principles
I don't believe as many conservative do that it should be illegal again, because that would prohibit the necessary social institutions from developing which could take care of the unwanted children.
Making it illegal makes it impossible to solve the social delemma of unwanted births.
This matter has to be resolved because I do belive it violates our most basic principles and as Lincoln said "A house divided cannot stand. It must become all of one thing or the other."
So if the abortion dilemma is not resolved this country will probably slide towards other violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and away from the justice of valuing a single human being.
Personally what I think it will take is a rise in the social consciousness of all Americans, so liberals will respect life over expediency and conservatives will establish those institutions which we lack now which can provide viable economic and social alternatives so the children won't be unwanted, or care for even if they are unwanted.
It is such a tough problem.
Sorry about the rant, but I guess this is as good a place as any to rant.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Re: Clearing Up Some Political Issues
Did that go past double-talk so fast it ended up at triple-talk?
Did that go past double-talk so fast it ended up at triple-talk?
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Re: Clearing Up Some Political Issues
Nor would Barry Goldwater.
Mark A. Baker
Nor would Barry Goldwater.
Mark A. Baker
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Woman with Sharks
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=WK2LpUoqX6A&vq=medium[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=WK2LpUoqX6A&vq=medium[/video]
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
This thread has gotten far funnier than it may have intended to become & sort of broken up & disjointed.
Hopefully the OP will soon take on the task of organizing it into various new, but cohesive, threads. That would be beneficial of putting the valuable information together in order and getting the junk & clutter just left here in this messy thread.
Yeah, take a little time but who better to do it than the man that knows it best !
This thread has gotten far funnier than it may have intended to become & sort of broken up & disjointed.
Hopefully the OP will soon take on the task of organizing it into various new, but cohesive, threads. That would be beneficial of putting the valuable information together in order and getting the junk & clutter just left here in this messy thread.
Yeah, take a little time but who better to do it than the man that knows it best !
RogerB
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Yes, I think TAJ is correct . . . .
Context is important . . . .
We have been talking of events of 100-150 years ago and in the case of "that Pale," well it was created in 1771 (from memory).
Society all throughout that period was rough of all other than the "ruling class." What's new?
I cited that Czar Nich acted to handle and correct injustices among his people in 1905 . . . TAJ makes it appear with his "information" that it was "only to handle some riots." One should note when he came to power, and what he really was addressing at the time. (that's for those who might bother to, for themselves, study the actualities of time and comparative government of affairs around the world.) The Czar could have resorted to the norm of the day . . . noted below . . . but he wrote a manifesto making law the freedom of all his subjects to practice their beliefs and do as they choose.
Folks don't like to recall that in 1920's the British government ordered troops with bayonets drawn against the Irish "rioters."
They don't like to recall that in 1932 President Hoover ordered the army to clear out WW1 veterans camped out in DC protesting and demanding their promised payments of pension and/or bonuses.
Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the Cavalry. Cavalry and infantry bayonet charged against the veterans . . . a number were killed.
So it is just more of the "make Russia wrong and evil" rhetoric that the socialist-bent "historians" that took over the west's propaganda, that became too easily available in our universities, that paint the picture . . . out of context . . . that sing the song you are quoting, TAJ.
There is more to the world than the socialist song you are singing.
I cite wiki as it is easy for folks to access . . . and even so, I think it is skewed by "liberal"/"socialist" or even bent by those who have other agendas.
You cite lots of stuff . . . . even, well, what was it you were carrying on about about the banks? I simply cited the stats that showed the nation's increasing prosperity . . . you are on about some other non-sequitur thing you have from a long ago post I put up about the difference between Russia's then banking system and that of the West's. Of course, you then earlier attempted to belittle the source I quoted as only being "opinion" . . . when in fact the man lived what he was citing and he quoted and cited experts with hands on detail . . . even correspondence.
You unfortunately are venting your agenda and have before refused
to read and take into account the info I've offered.
Methinks you are practicing the limited and one-sided view that polarizes discussions like this.
The Russia we are discussing, and its rulers cum government, were not perfect . . . we don't even have that now . . . but the facts of events and their time of occurrence are what they are . . . and appreciation of them should be in the context of the progress of our societies and civilization on Earth . . .
Russia actually, in the context of the times we are referring to and its vastness of geographic expanse, did rather well in terms of advancing social justice.
Heavenly perfect? Hell, no.
But not the despotic evil the lefty socialists whose agenda it was to take over the rest of the world . . . . and let's not forget that those who fomented the Russian Revolution then sought to pull the same stunt around the rest of of world and subjugate it with their stealth propaganda.
And the facts are that the propaganda front of this take-over of the rest of the world was cleverly threaded throughout our western literature and learning establishments . . . such as the books you cite.
I prefer to read my history in the context of the times that the history lived and to understand it in that context. Not as revisionist "should be," or as what ought to have been by today's standards and possibilities.
Rog
Yes, I think TAJ is correct . . . .
Context is important . . . .
We have been talking of events of 100-150 years ago and in the case of "that Pale," well it was created in 1771 (from memory).
Society all throughout that period was rough of all other than the "ruling class." What's new?
I cited that Czar Nich acted to handle and correct injustices among his people in 1905 . . . TAJ makes it appear with his "information" that it was "only to handle some riots." One should note when he came to power, and what he really was addressing at the time. (that's for those who might bother to, for themselves, study the actualities of time and comparative government of affairs around the world.) The Czar could have resorted to the norm of the day . . . noted below . . . but he wrote a manifesto making law the freedom of all his subjects to practice their beliefs and do as they choose.
Folks don't like to recall that in 1920's the British government ordered troops with bayonets drawn against the Irish "rioters."
They don't like to recall that in 1932 President Hoover ordered the army to clear out WW1 veterans camped out in DC protesting and demanding their promised payments of pension and/or bonuses.
Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the Cavalry. Cavalry and infantry bayonet charged against the veterans . . . a number were killed.
So it is just more of the "make Russia wrong and evil" rhetoric that the socialist-bent "historians" that took over the west's propaganda, that became too easily available in our universities, that paint the picture . . . out of context . . . that sing the song you are quoting, TAJ.
There is more to the world than the socialist song you are singing.
I cite wiki as it is easy for folks to access . . . and even so, I think it is skewed by "liberal"/"socialist" or even bent by those who have other agendas.
You cite lots of stuff . . . . even, well, what was it you were carrying on about about the banks? I simply cited the stats that showed the nation's increasing prosperity . . . you are on about some other non-sequitur thing you have from a long ago post I put up about the difference between Russia's then banking system and that of the West's. Of course, you then earlier attempted to belittle the source I quoted as only being "opinion" . . . when in fact the man lived what he was citing and he quoted and cited experts with hands on detail . . . even correspondence.
You unfortunately are venting your agenda and have before refused
to read and take into account the info I've offered.
Methinks you are practicing the limited and one-sided view that polarizes discussions like this.
The Russia we are discussing, and its rulers cum government, were not perfect . . . we don't even have that now . . . but the facts of events and their time of occurrence are what they are . . . and appreciation of them should be in the context of the progress of our societies and civilization on Earth . . .
Russia actually, in the context of the times we are referring to and its vastness of geographic expanse, did rather well in terms of advancing social justice.
Heavenly perfect? Hell, no.
But not the despotic evil the lefty socialists whose agenda it was to take over the rest of the world . . . . and let's not forget that those who fomented the Russian Revolution then sought to pull the same stunt around the rest of of world and subjugate it with their stealth propaganda.
And the facts are that the propaganda front of this take-over of the rest of the world was cleverly threaded throughout our western literature and learning establishments . . . such as the books you cite.
I prefer to read my history in the context of the times that the history lived and to understand it in that context. Not as revisionist "should be," or as what ought to have been by today's standards and possibilities.
Rog
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Nope, you're dodging the facts again. Socialist views have nothing to do with it.
Nicholas II re-enforced the autocratic rule.
Why did the riots break-out in 1905?
Because he ordered the massacre of demonstrators on Bloody Sunday.
The Manifesto was signed as a way of stopping the Revolution of 1905.
The revolution was not a few riots as you said I implied. It is called the Rusian Revolution because there was a revolution, not just a few riots.
Nicholas II stubbornly refused to give in.
Finally, the military and the nobility rested all their hopes on Count Witte.
On 9 October 1915 Witte was given an audience with Nicholas. He told Nicholas that they were on the verge of a cataclysmic revolution which would “sweep away a thousand years of history.”
He told the Tsar he had one of two choices: either to appoint a military dictator or introduce major reforms.
Witte outlined the reforms in a Manifesto which he brought with him.
It granted civil liberties, a constitutional order, cabinet government, and a legislative Duma elected on a democratic franchise.
Most of the Tsar’s military advisors agreed with Witte, telling the Tsar that the loyalty of the armed services was in doubt and if they were used to put the Revolution there might fall apart all together (which is what happened in 1917)
Tepov, the Governor of St. Petersburg who had the most influence at the court, also agreed with Witte.
Despite all this Nicholas refused and asked his uncle, Grand Duke Nikolai, to assume the role of dictator.
But The Grand duke took out a revolver and threatened to shoot himself then and there if the Tsar refused to sign Witte’s Manifesto.
On 19 October the Tsar wrote to his mother “My dear Mama, you can’t imagine ehat I went through before that moment. …From all over Russia they cried for it, they begged for it, and around me many—very many—held the same view…. There was no other way out than to cross oneself and give what everyone was asking for.”
“The image of Nicholas as an ‘enlightened Tsar’ who ‘introduced democracy to Russia’ could not be further from the truth, although it is one that apologist for the tsarist regime as well as peddlers of nostalgia in post-Soviet Russia would have us accept.” (Feges 191)
To counter the reforms, two government officials, A. I. Dubrovin and V. M. Purishkevich formed the Union of the Russian People.
Acting on the Tsar’s instructions the Ministry of the Interior financed its newspaper and secretly channeled arms to it.
The Union formed a paramilitary group called the Black Hundreds.
The target of their worst violence was the Jews.
In just the first two weeks there were 690 documented pogroms—with over 3,000 reported murders—during the two weeks that followed the October Manifesto.
The worst pogrom took place in Odessa where 800 Jews were murdered, 5,000 wounded and more than 100,000 made homeless.
On October 27, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II wrote to his mother about the pogroms saying that that the people are angry once more “…because nine-tenths of the trouble-makers are Jews, the people’s whole anger turned against them.”
Why don’t you just admit you don’t know what you are talking about?
Your tactic of trying to discredit any historical record that proves you mistaken as socialist and liberal propaganda quite frankly makes you sound like a modern right-wing version of Trotsky.
I did not attempt to discredit you by charging you with political bias. I didn’t do that, I relied on historical evidence.
There is an old maxim in law, “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law. But if neither the facts or the law is on your side, pound the table.”
You’re just pounding the table.
My sources for this are:
“Letters of Tsar Nicholas and the Empress Marie”
“Memoirs of Count Witte”
“The Crisis of Russian Autocracy: Nicholas II and the 1905 Revolution.” By A. Verner 1990
“A People’s Tragedy” by Orlando Feges. 1997
The Anabaptist Jacques
Yes, I think TAJ is correct . . . .
Context is important . . . .
We have been talking of events of 100-150 years ago and in the case of "that Pale," well it was created in 1771 (from memory).
Society all throughout that period was rough of all other than the "ruling class." What's new?
I cited that Czar Nich acted to handle and correct injustices among his people in 1905 . . . TAJ makes it appear with his "information" that it was "only to handle some riots." One should note when he came to power, and what he really was addressing at the time. (that's for those who might bother to, for themselves, study the actualities of time and comparative government of affairs around the world.) The Czar could have resorted to the norm of the day . . . noted below . . . but he wrote a manifesto making law the freedom of all his subjects to practice their beliefs and do as they choose.
Folks don't like to recall that in 1920's the British government ordered troops with bayonets drawn against the Irish "rioters."
They don't like to recall that in 1932 President Hoover ordered the army to clear out WW1 veterans camped out in DC protesting and demanding their promised payments of pension and/or bonuses.
Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the Cavalry. Cavalry and infantry bayonet charged against the veterans . . . a number were killed.
So it is just more of the "make Russia wrong and evil" rhetoric that the socialist-bent "historians" that took over the west's propaganda, that became too easily available in our universities, that paint the picture . . . out of context . . . that sing the song you are quoting, TAJ.
There is more to the world than the socialist song you are singing.
I cite wiki as it is easy for folks to access . . . and even so, I think it is skewed by "liberal"/"socialist" or even bent by those who have other agendas.
You cite lots of stuff . . . . even, well, what was it you were carrying on about about the banks? I simply cited the stats that showed the nation's increasing prosperity . . . you are on about some other non-sequitur thing you have from a long ago post I put up about the difference between Russia's then banking system and that of the West's. Of course, you then earlier attempted to belittle the source I quoted as only being "opinion" . . . when in fact the man lived what he was citing and he quoted and cited experts with hands on detail . . . even correspondence.
You unfortunately are venting your agenda and have before refused
to read and take into account the info I've offered.
Methinks you are practicing the limited and one-sided view that polarizes discussions like this.
The Russia we are discussing, and its rulers cum government, were not perfect . . . we don't even have that now . . . but the facts of events and their time of occurrence are what they are . . . and appreciation of them should be in the context of the progress of our societies and civilization on Earth . . .
Russia actually, in the context of the times we are referring to and its vastness of geographic expanse, did rather well in terms of advancing social justice.
Heavenly perfect? Hell, no.
But not the despotic evil the lefty socialists whose agenda it was to take over the rest of the world . . . . and let's not forget that those who fomented the Russian Revolution then sought to pull the same stunt around the rest of of world and subjugate it with their stealth propaganda.
And the facts are that the propaganda front of this take-over of the rest of the world was cleverly threaded throughout our western literature and learning establishments . . . such as the books you cite.
I prefer to read my history in the context of the times that the history lived and to understand it in that context. Not as revisionist "should be," or as what ought to have been by today's standards and possibilities.
Rog
Nope, you're dodging the facts again. Socialist views have nothing to do with it.
Nicholas II re-enforced the autocratic rule.
Why did the riots break-out in 1905?
Because he ordered the massacre of demonstrators on Bloody Sunday.
The Manifesto was signed as a way of stopping the Revolution of 1905.
The revolution was not a few riots as you said I implied. It is called the Rusian Revolution because there was a revolution, not just a few riots.
Nicholas II stubbornly refused to give in.
Finally, the military and the nobility rested all their hopes on Count Witte.
On 9 October 1915 Witte was given an audience with Nicholas. He told Nicholas that they were on the verge of a cataclysmic revolution which would “sweep away a thousand years of history.”
He told the Tsar he had one of two choices: either to appoint a military dictator or introduce major reforms.
Witte outlined the reforms in a Manifesto which he brought with him.
It granted civil liberties, a constitutional order, cabinet government, and a legislative Duma elected on a democratic franchise.
Most of the Tsar’s military advisors agreed with Witte, telling the Tsar that the loyalty of the armed services was in doubt and if they were used to put the Revolution there might fall apart all together (which is what happened in 1917)
Tepov, the Governor of St. Petersburg who had the most influence at the court, also agreed with Witte.
Despite all this Nicholas refused and asked his uncle, Grand Duke Nikolai, to assume the role of dictator.
But The Grand duke took out a revolver and threatened to shoot himself then and there if the Tsar refused to sign Witte’s Manifesto.
On 19 October the Tsar wrote to his mother “My dear Mama, you can’t imagine ehat I went through before that moment. …From all over Russia they cried for it, they begged for it, and around me many—very many—held the same view…. There was no other way out than to cross oneself and give what everyone was asking for.”
“The image of Nicholas as an ‘enlightened Tsar’ who ‘introduced democracy to Russia’ could not be further from the truth, although it is one that apologist for the tsarist regime as well as peddlers of nostalgia in post-Soviet Russia would have us accept.” (Feges 191)
To counter the reforms, two government officials, A. I. Dubrovin and V. M. Purishkevich formed the Union of the Russian People.
Acting on the Tsar’s instructions the Ministry of the Interior financed its newspaper and secretly channeled arms to it.
The Union formed a paramilitary group called the Black Hundreds.
The target of their worst violence was the Jews.
In just the first two weeks there were 690 documented pogroms—with over 3,000 reported murders—during the two weeks that followed the October Manifesto.
The worst pogrom took place in Odessa where 800 Jews were murdered, 5,000 wounded and more than 100,000 made homeless.
On October 27, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II wrote to his mother about the pogroms saying that that the people are angry once more “…because nine-tenths of the trouble-makers are Jews, the people’s whole anger turned against them.”
Why don’t you just admit you don’t know what you are talking about?
Your tactic of trying to discredit any historical record that proves you mistaken as socialist and liberal propaganda quite frankly makes you sound like a modern right-wing version of Trotsky.
I did not attempt to discredit you by charging you with political bias. I didn’t do that, I relied on historical evidence.
There is an old maxim in law, “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law. But if neither the facts or the law is on your side, pound the table.”
You’re just pounding the table.
My sources for this are:
“Letters of Tsar Nicholas and the Empress Marie”
“Memoirs of Count Witte”
“The Crisis of Russian Autocracy: Nicholas II and the 1905 Revolution.” By A. Verner 1990
“A People’s Tragedy” by Orlando Feges. 1997
The Anabaptist Jacques
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
deleted. I made too many spelling errors.
deleted. I made too many spelling errors.
- Status