Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: OmerV on June 05, 2019, 09:34:08 am
-
...until Donald declares the criticism of his presidency from the Washington Post, CNN, and the New York Times a national security threat. Funny, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/australian-broadcasting-corporation-federal-police-raid-afghan-files/?utm_term=.a46f469214a2
And the 1% club known as “Fox News” would celebrate!
Anything is possible in these times. ::)
-
And the 1% club known as “Fox News” would celebrate!
It's actually the 40% club representing Trump's base of supporters.
-
Documents such as those mentioned in the article should be kept off site in a secret location and encrypted so that a raid of headquarters would be unsuccessful.
-
Documents such as those mentioned in the article should be kept off site in a secret location and encrypted so that a raid of headquarters would be unsuccessful.
In The Philippines or Venezuela your suggestion makes sense but in Australia?
Still, a prescient idea perhaps.
-
In The Philippines or Venezuela your suggestion makes sense but in Australia?
Still, a prescient idea perhaps.
In any country. Freedom of the press is a pretty fleeting thing these days. IMO, too much stuff gets classified anyway. The late US Senator, Daniel Moynihan, wrote a short and wonderful book that argued the same thing.
-
...until Donald declares the criticism of his presidency from the Washington Post, CNN, and the New York Times a national security threat. Funny, right?...
Funny how you use Australia to stick it to Trump.
However:
“If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama.”
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/06/08/seizing-journalists-records-an-outrage-that-obama-normalized-for-trump/?utm_term=.1ccd824911ae
-
Funny how you use Australia to stick it to Trump.
However:
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/06/08/seizing-journalists-records-an-outrage-that-obama-normalized-for-trump/?utm_term=.1ccd824911ae
You’re correct Slobodan. I had forgotten the Obama administration’s fervency to go after leakers. That doesn’t excuse the Australians, but yes, the new article of the Australian action was convenient.
My post was kinda tongue-in-cheek, stemming from Donald’s public call to damage another private sector commercial enterprise, this time for criticism. What is he, 15yrs. old?
Correct me here, but when did any other sitting US president, many who had contentious workings with the press, ever try to have the public boycott a company because of negative viewpoints?
Was Donald joking, tongue-in-cheek like? Could be but I doubt ATT executives laughed. Or maybe they did. ::)
-
...when did any other sitting US president...
I think that we might universally agree that Trump is indeed not like any other sitting president. He was elected on that premise (to be different), though. For better or worse.
-
I think that we might universally agree that Trump is indeed not like any other sitting president. He was elected on that premise (to be different), though. For better or worse.
So your educated guess; what did you get - better or worse?
-
Better overall.
-
So your educated guess; what did you get - better or worse?
Better, Rob. I wouldn't want to have to be around the guy, and I wish he'd spend less time shooting off his mouth, but on policy and actions he's been golden. He's produced the kind of economy Obama swore was behind us forever. The Democrats are in an absolutely insane panic, which is a hoot to watch, and at this point he's a shoo-in for 2020. There's still a year and a half for things to change, but the Dems are gonna have to change their approach if they want to avert an historic Republican landslide.
-
Better, Rob. I wouldn't want to have to be around the guy, and I wish he'd spend less time shooting off his mouth, but on policy and actions he's been golden. He's produced the kind of economy Obama swore was behind us forever. The Democrats are in an absolutely insane panic, which is a hoot to watch, and at this point he's a shoo-in for 2020. There's still a year and a half for things to change, but the Dems are gonna have to change their approach if they want to avert an historic Republican landslide.
And of course the good economic results of the current administration:
1. Have nothing to do with the excellent situation Obama left during the previous 8 years (https://fee.org/articles/the-obama-economy-vs-the-trump-economy/)?
2. Are not related to a very clear increase of international tensions following the trade positions taken by Trump (too many thousands of articles all over the world to pick one)?
3. Are not related to a policy focused on protectionism that is 100% opposed to the free trade and openness once valued by Republicans (https://theweek.com/articles/785361/how-trump-changing-republican-party-values)?
4. Are not further worsening the deep issues with education of poorer classes related to the increasing income inequality (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/income-inequality-continues-to-grow-in-the-united-states.html)?
5. Are not causing an important increase of the debt of the US (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/trump-us-national-debt/index.html)?
6. Are not causing a major increase of distrust against the US all over the world which hurts the champions of the US economy starting with FB (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boj9eD0Wug8)?
That sounds totally great... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Better, Rob. I wouldn't want to have to be around the guy, and I wish he'd spend less time shooting off his mouth, but on policy and actions he's been golden. He's produced the kind of economy Obama swore was behind us forever. The Democrats are in an absolutely insane panic, which is a hoot to watch, and at this point he's a shoo-in for 2020. There's still a year and a half for things to change, but the Dems are gonna have to change their approach if they want to avert an historic Republican landslide.
How's that deficit reduction workin' out over there?
-
And of course the good economic results of the current administration:
1. Have nothing to do with the excellent situation Obama left during the previous 8 years (https://fee.org/articles/the-obama-economy-vs-the-trump-economy/)?
2. Are not related to a very clear increase of international tensions following the trade positions taken by Trump (too many thousands of articles all over the world to pick one)?
3. Are not related to a policy focused on protectionism that is 100% opposed to the free trade and openness once valued by Republicans (https://theweek.com/articles/785361/how-trump-changing-republican-party-values)?
4. Are not further worsening the deep issues with education of poorer classes related to the increasing income inequality (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/income-inequality-continues-to-grow-in-the-united-states.html)?
5. Are not causing an important increase of the debt of the US (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/trump-us-national-debt/index.html)?
6. Are not causing a major increase of distrust against the US all over the world which hurts the champions of the US economy starting with FB (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boj9eD0Wug8)?
That sounds totally great... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
1. What excellent situation? Obama gave businesses higher taxes, higher regulations, constantly berated business owners, created an overall negative atmosphere towards businesses in general (you cant just say your pro-business and be pro-business), forced some companies to take government loans even if they did not need them. Obama left us with a mess.
2 & 3. Now in general and I believe in free fair trade, so the tensions being created by Trump I am not very found of, especially with EU. However, in certain instances, he is right. China is not a nice player on the world stage. They manipulate their currency, steal IP, prop up Chinese businesses so as to create monopolies with very low prices (like with the rare earth elements), constantly say they are only a developing country to use as an excuse even though they are not. Not to mention, they have huge human rights violations with muslims and Tibetans, have no free press or speech, are creating a system of ranking citizens based on social stances that will directly help/hinder citizens ability to get jobs, and would stage a military take over of Taiwan if we ever left the China sea, plus many more. For years, our presidents have stood by and said China will eventually grow up and start acting nice after being on the world stage, which has been constantly proven wrong. We are at a time for action, not talk. What Trump is doing with China is right; even Schumer is giving Trump support on this. (Meanwhile, Biden is going around telling the rust belt how much of a friend China is to us; talk about delusional.) Inosfar as other countries, well fair trade is not as fair as some people think. Last I checked, there is a 25% tariff on USA cars in the EU, but we dont have any tariffs on the EU cars. Not so fair, but I would rather see negotiations to fix things like this.
4. Just because a country is well educated does not mean the citizens will be better off. Look at Cuba. Anyway, a trade can net someone a lifetime of earnings much higher then a job gotten from a college education. Welding for example pays pretty well, and does not take a rocket scientist's education to perform. My cousin is not smart by any sense of the word, but makes a pretty good salary as an HVAC tech.
5. It would be great to see the debt go down, and I would love to see republicans act on this. It disappoints me they are not. However, I would also like to see the Dems, who claim to follow Keynesian economics, actually follow Keynesian economics, which states in addition to having deficits during a recession we should have surpluses during expansions. Every Dem seems to conveniently forget the second part of Keynes' theory.
6. Facebook? Really? So the Trump policies are causing distrust with Facebook? Not the fact that FB has been caught several times selling users' sensitive information to advertisers (even though they say they don't), much of which has been purposely mined from the FB apps spying on what users does while not on the FB app. There is even strong evidence that the FB listens to users when they are talking near their phones; I've had ads shown to me for things I only talked about, never searched for. But it is the Trump policies causing distrust of FB.
-
Hi Joe,
On #6 I undertaken your point, but mine makes sense to. At Harari thinks it does... because it’s in fact his view of things.
I really recommend taking 90 mins to watch this interview. The Trump part is pretty minor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
When a butterfly flaps its wings in Australia... a shitstorm against Trump is created all over the world.
-
When a butterfly flaps its wings in Australia... a shitstorm against Trump is created all over the world.
You could declare a LuLa security threat and shut it down. ::)
-
4. Just because a country is well educated does not mean the citizens will be better off. Look at Cuba.
This again. I don't suppose Cuba's economy has suffered at all from being besieged by a superpower a hop, skip and a jump away, has it?
-
This again. I don't suppose Cuba's economy has suffered at all from being besieged by a superpower a hop, skip and a jump away, has it?
Yes. Without the ugly Uncle Sam's blockade, Cuba would be a shining example of socialism's advantages.
-
This again. I don't suppose Cuba's economy has suffered at all from being besieged by a superpower a hop, skip and a jump away, has it?
Jeremy, since your age is N/A you're obviously too young to remember what Cuba was like before the Castros.
-
Documents such as those mentioned in the article should be kept off site in a secret location and encrypted so that a raid of headquarters would be unsuccessful.
Yes, you have a point. Yet, by the very act of making such an investigation, the police are signalling that if there is smoke there is usually quite a lot of fire down below.
I'm in two minds about whistle-blowing: if it endangers spies (ours) or covert operations that some bleeding hearts may find politically objectionable but are essential for our greater good, then I have my doubts about lifting up the lid. I have no sympathy for wikileaks, for example. However, where things such as corruption in government, local or national are concerned, go for it! Those using public office for personal gain - beyond salary, obviously - need to be confronted and dealt the penalties they deserve. In essence, they are screwing us all.
Rob
-
This again. I don't suppose Cuba's economy has suffered at all from being besieged by a superpower a hop, skip and a jump away, has it?
Besieged, as in "surrounded by armed forces aiming to capture it or force surrender."
Although JFK did attempt a take over at the beginning of his term (one that failed misserably due directing to him), I don't remember Cuba ever being besieged. Even the JFK's attempt was a far cry from the country being surrounded.
Insofar as the embargo, the USA makes up only about 20% of the world's market. That leave a whooping 80% for Cuba to sell to. In addition, getting Cuban products in the country has always been fairly easy. Cuban cigars have been shipped here for decades now and they almost always get through customs.
Anyway, the point, which you clearly missed, was that just because a population is well educated does not mean they will be better off.
-
Besieged, as in "surrounded by armed forces aiming to capture it or force surrender."
Although JFK did attempt a take over at the beginning of his term (one that failed misserably due directing to him), I don't remember Cuba ever being besieged. Even the JFK's attempt was a far cry from the country being surrounded.
Insofar as the embargo, the USA makes up only about 20% of the world's market. That leave a whopping 80% for Cuba to sell to. In addition, getting Cuban products in the country has always been fairly easy. Cuban cigars have been shipped here for decades now and they almost always get through customs.
Anyway, the point, which you clearly missed, was that just because a population is well educated does not mean they will be better off.
Your last paragraph is applicable everywhere. I had a pretty good education and it was career choices that counted far more than did education. Elect for self-employment, especially in the arts, and you should have a big bank account before you even think of it. You might get lucky, you might not, and yeah, I still have huge faith in luck playing many a decisive hand on one's behalf, both for good as for bad.
Is it difficult to understand that a giant next door, one who treats you with political loathing, can only expect the same in return? Kennedy did the only thing he could have done with his blockade of those missile ships. Had he done nothing, the USSR would have been right in there with no chance of ever being moved away. Look at Crimea...
It's another aspect of Trump's poor foreign policy: he sticks his undiplomatic nose into British politics whilst a guest of the state and the Queen in London, telling the world which replacement candidate for May he favours, and that we should get out of Europe as quickly as possible! Apart from the diplomatic no no, he fails to grasp that the weaker we leave Europe the easier it is for a resurgent Russia to expand further west. Leaving Europe certainly does weaken it, as all of those countries readily tell anyone who listens. In return, Britain too, is the weaker for it. What a man! What with all the stuff about Russian interference in his election, his wanting to open an easier expansion route westwards for that power into Europe, you gotta wonder where his loyalty lies.
(By the same token, when Corbyn can't make himself come out and say that Brexit is a bad deal, period, despite his party saying pretty much that by the way it voted in recent hot events, you are forced into wondering just how much of the Russian stooge we might have here.)
In a world which is up to its nostrils in poop, nobody needs an idiot standing up making unnecessary waves.
-
Your last paragraph is applicable everywhere. I had a pretty good education and it was career choices that counted far more than did education. Elect for self-employment, especially in the arts, and you should have a big bank account before you even think of it. You might get lucky, you might not, and yeah, I still have huge faith in luck playing many a decisive hand on one's behalf, both for good as for bad.
Is it difficult to understand that a giant next door, one who treats you with political loathing, can only expect the same in return? Kennedy did the only thing he could have done with his blockade of those missile ships. Had he done nothing, the USSR would have been right in there with no chance of ever being moved away. Look at Crimea...
It's another aspect of Trump's poor foreign policy: he sticks his undiplomatic nose into British politics whilst a guest of the state and the Queen in London, telling the world which replacement candidate for May he favours, and that we should get out of Europe as quickly as possible! Apart from the diplomatic no no, he fails to grasp that the weaker we leave Europe the easier it is for a resurgent Russia to expand further west. Leaving Europe certainly does weaken it, as all of those countries readily tell anyone who listens. In return, Britain too, is the weaker for it. What a man! What with all the stuff about Russian interference in his election, his wanting to open an easier expansion route westwards for that power into Europe, you gotta wonder where his loyalty lies.
(By the same token, when Corbyn can't make himself come out and say that Brexit is a bad deal, period, despite his party saying pretty much that by the way it voted in recent hot events, you are forced into wondering just how much of the Russian stooge we might have here.)
In a world which is up to its nostrils in poop, nobody needs an idiot standing up making unnecessary waves.
Rob, you and I are talking about two different events here. I agree with what JFK did with the Cuban missile crisis.
I, however, was talking about the failed invasion of Cuba with the attempt to over throw Castro that took place at the beginning of JFK's term, which was an abject failure on his part.
-
Rob, you and I are talking about two different events here. I agree with what JFK did with the Cuban missile crisis.
I, however, was talking about the failed invasion of Cuba with the attempt to over throw Castro that took place at the beginning of JFK's term, which was an abject failure on his part.
Oh, then we are in tune, which is a rare event for me.
:-)
-
Jeremy, since your age is N/A you're obviously too young to remember what Cuba was like before the Castros.
Obviously it was heaven on earth. Which is how a popular revolution was able to succeed, right?
-
Rob, you and I are talking about two different events here. I agree with what JFK did with the Cuban missile crisis.
I, however, was talking about the failed invasion of Cuba with the attempt to over throw Castro that took place at the beginning of JFK's term, which was an abject failure on his part.
Failure in that the invasion was repelled? Self-evidently. The military goal was not achieved. What greater goal would have been served by its success is another issue.
-
Failure in that the invasion was repelled? Self-evidently. The military goal was not achieved. What greater goal would have been served by its success is another issue.
Well of course it was repelled, but not because Castro was so good or some military genius. (That was evident from how Castro took over Cuba in the first place. Remember, Castro and his very very small force did not get rid of Batista. Batista choose to leave because he knew the USA would no longer support him militarily, and the unrest of the people, which was a separate occurrence from Castro's "invasion," albeit at the same time, was getting precarious. When he left, this created a power vacuum that Castro was lucky enough to be close enough to fill, and since the Batista's military and police were so demoralized at this point, they provide no resistance. Also, remember Castro was not the Cuban people's first and most beloved choose, that was Camilo Cienfuegos (or at least to those in and around Havana), whom Castro had executed at sea so as to take control. Camilo Cienfuegos was also a capitalist, which put him at odds with Raul Castro, and did not want to implement socialism. However I digress.)
JFK blundered the whole thing is three ways. First, he delayed the invasion. Actually he initially cancelled it, but then reimplemented it, which for all intents and purposes was delaying it. This gave more time to Castro's spy network (something Castro was actually very good at) to detecting an invasion was imminent. Second, JFK changed the invasion point to one that was much less strategic and did so without enough time to train the Cubans involved in the invasion on the new point nor relay this information to those in Cuba who would assist. Last, the invasion was scheduled for 1 PM Cuban time, and the USA was going to supply air support. However, air support was coming from Central America and no one in Kennedy's war department took into account the time difference. So air support showed up at 1 PM their time, which was 3 PM Cuban time.
What great goal would have been achieved? Well we cant say for sure the Cubans would be better off if Castro was overthrown that day, although I feel that would have been the case. But we can say the missile crisis would never have happened. Also, since JFK ran on his military service and implied he would be a good wartime commander and chief, this blunder caused him to look for an opportunity to save face. That opportunity came in Vietnam; JFK actually used his failure in Cuba to politically justify sending troops to Vietnam for fear that if he did not have some military success he would not be reelected. This has been documented.
-
Obviously it was heaven on earth. Which is how a popular revolution was able to succeed, right?
It was a long way from heaven on earth, but it was a hell of a lot better than it was post-Castro.
-
It was a long way from heaven on earth, but it was a hell of a lot better than it was post-Castro.
That would probably depend on where in each society you fit, no?
-
That would probably depend on where in each society you fit, no?
Absolutely. If you're an inside member of the dictatorship you've got it made until the next revolution. But if you're a poor sod out on the farm or inside the city, you're screwed.
-
Absolutely. If you're an inside member of the dictatorship you've got it made until the next revolution. But if you're a poor sod out on the farm or inside the city, you're screwed.
Whereas the poor sods in Batista time had a life of luxury. Got it.
-
Whereas the poor sods in Batista time had a life of luxury. Got it.
No. But they had a better life than they have now. Yes, Batista was a crooked politician. What else is new. How about your politicians over there in N/A? Are they saints?
-
A tale of two cities:
-
got the point, but at least use the commercial district from 1950 for Sing'. bit misleading.
-
got the point, but at least use the commercial district from 1950 for Sing'. bit misleading.
Feel free to contribute.
Even from my last visit in 2001, downtown Singapore has changed dramatically (for the better).
-
Whereas the poor sods in Batista time had a life of luxury. Got it.
Although Batista, in his 2nd rein, was illegitimate, Cuba at the time was recovering from its great mistake of investing nearly its entire economy into sugar in the early 1900s. During the 50s, Cuba was transferring to a modern economy, doing very well at it, and it's "working" workers were the 8th best paid in the world.
In the hemisphere at the time, it was (per capita, that includes everyone) the 5th highest paid, 3rd longest life expectancy, 2nd in rate of car ownership. They had a better literacy rate then any other island nation, and a thriving middle class on par with the USA. The cosmopolitain areas, especially Havana, were better off then most other cosmopolitain areas in Europe. Havana was a glittering modern city during the 50s.
Cuba was considerably more well off then what we are lead to believe by the Castros.
Now, unfortunately, racism was a bigger issue in Cuba then in the USA, and those who were black had it real bad. This constituted much of the poor and a civil rights movement had not started yet. Additionally, those living in the rural sugar plantation country were also very bad off, especially if their main source of income was harvesting sugar (which only took place 4 months a year). Being so rural, it was also difficult, just logistically, to get proper medical support to them. Also, Cuba had no public education system, which added to the problem. However, just like during the early part of the 1900s in the USA, there were many institutions that provided help to the poor. Many private hospitals gave medical help to the poor. Things were getting better and progressing, just like had in our country.
Castro ruined all this. He was able to cut inequality though by making everyone equally as poor.
-
A tale of two cities:
So, that indicates that people in city 1 are happy people, content with spending quality time amongst family and friends, as opposed to city 2 where enough is very apparently never enough, lots of unhappy folks there unsustainably burning their way through deplete-able resources, until mental break down.
Fortunately they have very good healthcare services in city 2. State-funded no less...
-
So, that indicates that people in city 1 are happy people...
Feel free to move to Havana, in pursuit of happiness.
-
Feel free to move to Havana, in pursuit of happiness.
Addicted to luxuries?
Hope you have enough cash stashed somewhere safe. For your retirement. You don't expect any social favors from your government, or do you?
-
This is one of my favorite shots I took in Havana. If you looked at the high res image, you follow one of those cracks at the roof all the way down to the foundation. Under no circumstances, what so ever, should people be living in this building, but here they are. And Havana is covered with buildings like this with people living in them.
A building, or wall, collapses every 3 or 4 month in Havana currently. As a matter of fact, there is an area of Havana that you are recommended on not visiting since there is a high chance of you being killed from a fall brick or stone. If you walk through there, it is suggested you walk in the middle of street. People live actually live there.
Admittedly makes for great pictures.
-
Feel free to contribute.
Even from my last visit in 2001, downtown Singapore has changed dramatically (for the better).
here is an elevated view
http://www.photo-heritage.com/planned-books/cloudscape/
-
...lHope you have enough cash stashed somewhere safe. For your retirement. You don't expect any social favors from your government, or do you?
Actually, I don’t, except what I earned and paid into (known as Social Security in the US).
-
Actually, I don’t, except what I earned and paid into (known as Social Security in the US).
And do your payments actually cover the total cost of your retirement? Or do the next working generation payments have to be included one way or another? Do you actually know how long you'll need retirement? Did you know that something like 80% of a person's healthcare costs is required in the final stages of his/her life?
-
... Under no circumstances, what so ever, should people be living in this building, but here they are. And Havana is covered with buildings like this with people living in them.
A building, or wall, collapses every 3 or 4 month in Havana currently. As a matter of fact, there is an area of Havana that you are recommended on not visiting since there is a high chance of you being killed from a fall brick or stone. If you walk through there, it is suggested you walk in the middle of street. People live actually live there...
Damn, Joe, you provoked me, it is your fault ;)
-
So, that indicates that people in city 1 are happy people, content with spending quality time amongst family and friends...
-
In late sixties, I visited Dresden in East Germany and was shocked by all the ruins and collapsed buildings. Destroyed during the war, and being restored at a very slow pace under communism.
5 years ago, I visited Cuba for the first time and was shocked again witnessing ruins and collapsed buildings. This time not from the war, but again due to communism.
Interestingly, when you talk to Cubans, there are some people there for whom Castro remains a hero.
-
In late sixties, I visited Dresden in East Germany and was shocked by all the ruins and collapsed buildings. Destroyed during the war, and being restored at a very slow pace under communism.
5 years ago, I visited Cuba for the first time and was shocked again witnessing ruins and collapsed buildings. This time not from the war, but again due to communism.
Interestingly, when you talk to Cubans, there are some people there for whom Castro remains a hero.
I am sure for some of them, he must remain a hero or off to prison they go.
-
I am sure for some of them, he must remain a hero or off to prison they go.
Yes, that is one reason. You never know who is listening and can report you if you say something remotely unfavorable to the Revolution and the Great Leader. In my country, in the late '40s, people would end up in a labor camp for smirking at a cartoon.
However, there are those who genuinely think he (Castro) is a hero. I remember how much my late father, and the majority of the country, at least the older generation, adored Slobodan Milošević.
-
Yes, that is one reason. You never know who is listening and can report you if you say something remotely unfavorable to the Revolution and the Great Leader. In my country, in the late '40s, people would end up in a labor camp for smirking at a cartoon.
However, there are those who genuinely think he (Castro) is a hero. I remember how much my late father, and the majority of the country, at least the older generation, adored Slobodan Milošević.
Yes, that's what I meant. Mainly the older generation who grew up before Castro came to power and they are also more susceptible to the ongoing communist propaganda.
-
No. But they had a better life than they have now.
You saying it's so don't make it so.
-
You saying it's so don't make it so.
You wouldn't know, Jeremy. You're just a kid, only N/A old. I was around when life in Cuba was very different from what it is now.
-
Well we cant say for sure the Cubans would be better off if Castro was overthrown that day,
Hallelujah
Also, since JFK ran on his military service and implied he would be a good wartime commander and chief, this blunder caused him to look for an opportunity to save face. That opportunity came in Vietnam; JFK actually used his failure in Cuba to politically justify sending troops to Vietnam for fear that if he did not have some military success he would not be reelected. This has been documented.
So, the Vietnam disaster was (in part) a consequence of US interference in Cuba.
-
Castro ruined all this. He was able to cut inequality though by making everyone equally as poor.
We'll never know though, will we, because he was not able to work on building Cuba in an environment free from external aggression. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - the US claims that Cuba is poor, and they do their damndest to make it even poorer.
-
Hallelujah
So, the Vietnam disaster was (in part) a consequence of US interference in Cuba.
Not directly. Vietnam was, as I thought I made pretty damn clear, a way JFK felt would be good to save face from his blunders in Cuba. JFK ran on his ability to be a good military leader and as someone that would stand up to communism. The failed attempt at invading Cuba proved he was not who he said he was.
So, party due to his fear of becoming un-electable for a 2nd term, he decided to engage the communists in Vietnam (amongst other reasons of course). Like I wrote earlier, this has been well documented by historians and was even mentioned in Ken Burn's documentary of the Vietnam War. Although I forget the exact quote, JFK said to his cabinet right before commiting troops to Vietnam that you can only fail so many times before you loose the support of the American people. The failure he was referencing was Cuba and all of his cabinet members understood this.
-
We'll never know though, will we, because he was not able to work on building Cuba in an environment free from external aggression. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - the US claims that Cuba is poor, and they do their damndest to make it even poorer.
We know the horrible effects of communism by looking at the fact that every single communist state has failed miserably. Considering this, it is pretty logical to conclude that in fact Castro ruined it.
Also, notice that post of mine did not talk about any future potential of Cube, merely what Cuba had already achieved up until Castro took power. All of that went away after Castro took power, so yes, we can say he actually ruined that progress.
Whether or not he robbed Cuba of it's future potential is another debate and one that ultimately can not be settled. But insofar as destroying what was already accomplished, we can say, for sure, Castro ruined it.
-
The problem with these debates is that they tend to overlook the reasons why revolutions happen in the first place.
It's a pretty good indicator that one is hatching when you get one part (large) of a populaion living in shanty shacks and primitive farms and the other, small rich bit running casinos in hand with American gangsters and driving around in land yachts.
Don't last forever, I'm afraid, and the only constant is that the poor remain poor regardless, and the politicians and their toadies rule and gather whatever is left gatherable when the guns go silent and the blood dries.
-
... It's a pretty good indicator that one is hatching when you get one part (large) of a populaion living in shanty shacks and primitive farms and the other, small rich bit running casinos in hand with American gangsters and driving around in land yachts...
So, the solution, of course, is to drive away land yachts so that the whole population can continue to live in shanty shacks.
-
Speaking of Castro and yachts:
"Grandson of Fidel Castro shares his life of luxury aboard yachts and more on Instagram"
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article223928565.html
Vacations on the Maya Riviera. A visit to the Basilica of the Sacred Family in Barcelona. A BMW. Expensive meals and a tour aboard a yacht. Those are some of the photos shared by Tony Castro, grandson of the late Fidel Castro, on his private Instagram account...
... “Just like the son of Che (Guevara), whose company rents luxury motorcycles to tourists...”
---In Cuba, where the official average salary is barely over $30 per month, bread is rationed and coffee has 50 percent lentils to make it last longer, taking vacations abroad is a luxury...
... Castro family members rarely show up in public, except for Antonio Castro and now his son Tony.
In 2015, Antonio was photographed in the Greek resort island of Mykonos and aboard a luxury yacht in Bodrun, Turkey, where he also reportedly rented five suites in one of the most expensive hotels, according to media reports...
-
In late sixties, I visited Dresden in East Germany and was shocked by all the ruins and collapsed buildings. Destroyed during the war, and being restored at a very slow pace under communism.
5 years ago, I visited Cuba for the first time and was shocked again witnessing ruins and collapsed buildings. This time not from the war, but again due to communism.
Citing a city bombed to rubble by British and American air forces as a problem caused by communism seems a bit desperate.
-
Citing a city bombed to rubble by British and American air forces as a problem caused by communism seems a bit desperate.
Oh, for God's sake, the bombing was in 1945. 40 years to do something about it. Or you can compare West Berlin and East Berlin.
-
Hallelujah
So, the Vietnam disaster was (in part) a consequence of US interference in Cuba.
Nope.
Vietnam, for the US, started with our "helping" the French. That goes back to Eisenhower/Nixon at least. Kennedy was persuaded to increase our "advising" , and then Johnson...well,,, finally down to Nixon to bail out.
-
Citing a city bombed to rubble by British and American air forces as a problem caused by communism seems a bit desperate.
His point was that the Russians kept punishing the Germans in territory they controlled after the war - minimal rebuilding, support beyond peasant life.
and in Cuba - similar result.
-
Have any of you lovers of socialism actually ever been in a socialist country?
-
Oh, for God's sake, the bombing was in 1945. 40 years to do something about it. Or you can compare West Berlin and East Berlin.
40 years?
London still had bombsites in the sixties.
I think I’d want to know a lot more of all the economic and political factors before judging the pace of reconstruction and reaching simplistic conclusions.
His point was that the Russians kept punishing the Germans in territory they controlled after the war - minimal rebuilding, support beyond peasant life.
and in Cuba - similar result.
Actually that’s your point and isn’t expressed in Les’s post. But if you were right, would that say something about communism or the Russian post-war mentality (with 20-30 million casualties and its economy and infrastructure devastated)?
I responded because it seemed unfortunate to use the example of a beautiful city whose controversial destruction in firestorm bombing by Britain and America with the loss of tens of thousands of lives seems to me a much bigger tragedy than its subsequent slow reconstruction.
-
LesPalenik on Today at 11:10:53 am
In late sixties, I visited Dresden in East Germany and was shocked by all the ruins and collapsed buildings. Destroyed during the war, and being restored at a very slow pace under communism.
5 years ago, I visited Cuba for the first time and was shocked again witnessing ruins and collapsed buildings. This time not from the war, but again due to communism.
Quote by imagetone
>>> Citing a city bombed to rubble by British and American air forces as a problem caused by communism seems a bit desperate.
What is desperate and incomprehensible that some idealists are still painting communists as saints. As Slobodan commented, it might be quite illuminating for the lovers of communism to make a trip to Cuba, and some impoverished parts of Eastern Europe which are still trying to recover from all the damage caused by USSR and their lackeys.
What I said, was that when I visited East Germany 20 years after the war, the communists still were not able to remove the rubble and repair the buildings. Actually, the main reconstruction didn't start until the early nineties and the re-unification of Germany. Not financed by a communist party or Russia, but by the parties and companies from the former West Germany.
In Cuba, the dilapidation of the buildings was not caused by war, just by neglect, poor planning and shoddy maintenance (coincidentally also by communists).
Interestingly, on my recent visit to central Europe, I stopped in a medium-sized town in southern Slovakia, where on the main square the KSS party (Communist party of Slovakia) was recruiting new members. These were primarily men in their sixties and seventies who must have been members and beneficiaries of the said party before the Velvet revolution in 1989. They didn't seem to be very effective in their recruitment efforts, but the best thing was that they were being assisted by a young DJ, who was playing in that square good American hits from the sixties and seventies, which were pretty much forbidden during the communist era. It was unnerving, yet memorable to observe them in action, but of course, those decadent capitalist tunes were the main attraction.
-
What is desperate and incomprehensible that some idealists are still painting communists as saints. As Slobodan commented, it might be quite illuminating for the lovers of communism to make a trip to Cuba, and some impoverished parts of Eastern Europe which are still trying to recover from all the damage caused by USSR and their lackeys.
What I said, was that when I visited East Germany 20 years after the war, the communists still were not able to remove the rubble and repair the buildings. Actually, the main reconstruction didn't start until the early nineties and the re-unification of Germany. Not financed by a communist party or Russia, but by the parties and companies from the former West Germany.
In Cuba, the dilapidation of the buildings was not caused by war, just by neglect, poor planning and shoddy maintenance (coincidentally also by communists).
Interestingly, on my recent visit to central Europe, I stopped in a medium-sized town in southern Slovakia, where on the main square the KSS party (Communist party of Slovakia) was recruiting new members. These were primarily men in their sixties and seventies who must have been members and beneficiaries of the said party before the Velvet revolution in 1989. They didn't seem to be very effective in their recruitment efforts, but the best thing was that they were being assisted by a young DJ, who was playing in that square good American hits from the sixties and seventies, which were pretty much forbidden during the communist era. It was unnerving, yet memorable to observe them in action, but of course, those decadent capitalist tunes were the main attraction.
I don't think I've read any of that here!
What I do read is the suggstion that, one system or the other, the poor pretty much always remain poor and the rich inevitably get richer.
Social mobility is perhaps the most difficult step for mankind, far more difficult than any one made on the Moon, which just took dedicated cash. I have never met one, afaik, but even a major lottery winner will probably not achieve it: he may buy some expensive toys and property, but his background will forever exclude him from the next upwards echelon of society. You simply can't buy class, which comes with old money. That bold, old money may not stop one being a shit, but still a classy shit, proving all shits are not equal, as all gastroenterologists will confirm.
Ah, the music! It powered flower power and the student revolts, making zillionaires out of the writers and labels.
Rob
-
The problem with these debates is that they tend to overlook the reasons why revolutions happen in the first place.
Bingo.
-
Have any of you lovers of socialism actually ever been in a socialist country?
Yep. A country with roads and schools and hospitals. All typical socialist stuff.
Any of you lovers of no government actually lived in a country with no government?
-
simplistic conclusions.
Without simplistic conclusions the folks around here would have no conclusions at all - be grateful !!
-
What is desperate and incomprehensible that some idealists are still painting communists as saints. As Slobodan commented, it might be quite illuminating for the lovers of communism to make a trip to Cuba,
You seem to be quite confused. Nobody is painting anybody as a saint. Some people are painting others as devils, but that is par for the course. The only difference in the current thread is that the devils wear fatigue caps and not hijabs. As for trips to Cuba - what makes you think that people have not been there?
-
As with many journeys today, some travellers are open-eyed and trying to learn about the country by moving around and talking to locals, while many others are quite content to stay just in their five-star hotel with its own beach and restaurant. Especially in Cuba.
-
As with many journeys today, some travellers are open-eyed and trying to learn about the country by moving around and talking to locals, while many others are quite content to stay just in their five-star hotel with its own beach and restaurant. Especially in Cuba.
And your point is? Some travellers travel to a communist country, see dilapidated buildings, and conclude that dilapidation is an inevitable result of a political system. Are their conclusions more valid than those of the beach-dwellers?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CHiUN8XTWs
;-)
Rob
-
And your point is? Some travellers travel to a communist country, see dilapidated buildings, and conclude that dilapidation is an inevitable result of a political system. Are their conclusions more valid than those of the beach-dwellers?
Many of the beach bums never see the dilapidated buildings. After their hard work on the beach and in the bar they can't or won't walk on the streets. And Cuban officials like it that way.
And that's end of this discussion for me. I have to start working on another article - unrelated to socialism or communism.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CHiUN8XTWs
;-)
Rob
That's my kind of memorable link.
-
Many of the beach bums never see the dilapidated buildings. After their hard work on the beach and in the bar they can't or won't walk on the streets. And Cuban officials like it that way.
FWIW the people I've spoken to who have been on beach holidays to Cuba have been disappointed. Those who went more off the beaten track had a great time. What Cuban officials like, I have no idea, and I suspect neither do you.
-
FWIW the people I've spoken to who have been on beach holidays to Cuba have been disappointed. Those who went more off the beaten track had a great time. What Cuban officials like, I have no idea, and I suspect neither do you.
No, from experience of holiday people, the officials are probably happy to have them off-street as much as possible; side-stepping pavement pizza in the mornings is no fun, not a patch on the smell of napalm, but it would be a fib to pretend I'm au fait with the latter.
:-)
-
FWIW the people I've spoken to who have been on beach holidays to Cuba have been disappointed. Those who went more off the beaten track had a great time. What Cuban officials like, I have no idea, and I suspect neither do you.
OK, one last comment. The British and European travellers may be indeed different from the typical tourists in Cuba.
From my personal observations, majority of Cuban visitors come from Canada and Russia. Not only recently, but for many years. And many of those repeat customers go there just for the beach, and all-inclusive meals and drinks. Some for the women. They like these activities and the Cuban government obliges.
The flight from Toronto to Havana or Varadero takes only 3 hours and the vacation packages are relatively inexpensive, especially for Canadians. As a matter of fact, you can book a one week vacation in Cuba for less than in Canadian Rockies or on the East Coast.
Personally, I liked Cuban beaches and the clean ocean, and also wandering the streets in Havana and in the small towns. The food is OK, beer and mojitos too, but abstain from the locally made wine.
To promote the tourism, Cuban government built quite a few international airports in the vicinity of the major tourists centers to supply the resorts with a steady stream of visitors. Here is a list of Cuban international airports:
Havana airport (code: HAV)
Varadero airport (code: VRA)
Holguin airport (code: HOG)
Santa Clara airport (code: SNU)
Cayo Coco airport (code: CCC)
Cayo Largo airport (code: CYO)
Camaguey airport (code: CMW)
Cienfuegos airport (code: CFG)
Santiago de Cuba airport (code: SCU)
Manzanillo de Cuba airport (code: MZO)
Just in Varadero, there are over 70 hotels and resorts, plus many small private casa particulares.
-
The problem with these debates is that they tend to overlook the reasons why revolutions happen in the first place...
Because a bunch of crazy people got violent.
-
Yep. A country with roads and schools and hospitals. All typical socialist stuff...
Which one? That must have been a country I, or anyone else, never heard of. Imagine, a country with roads and schools and hospitals. Who would have thought of that!?
-
... Some travellers travel to a communist country, see dilapidated buildings, and conclude that dilapidation is an inevitable result of a political system...
And your conclusion would be...? American imperialism?
-
Because a bunch of crazy people got violent.
But why?
-
But why?
You missed the “crazy” part? And I mean batshit crazy, like AOC currently.
-
You missed the “crazy” part? And I mean batshit crazy.
Better not let Alan hear you describe George Washington that way - he'll have a seizure!
-
Which one? That must have been a country I, or anyone else, never heard of. Imagine, a country with roads and schools and hospitals. Who would have thought of that!?
Dunno, mate. Just trying to answer your question.
-
Yep. A country with roads and schools and hospitals. All typical socialist stuff.
Any of you lovers of no government actually lived in a country with no government?
If you're referring to Cuba, sure people can read. The problem is if you read something the government doesn;t want you to read, the government breaks your arm. Well, at least you get sent to a hospital where said government sets your broken arm for free. Is that the kind of schools and medical care you are referring too?
-
If you're referring to Cuba,
No I wasn't. You maybe missed the question that I was responding to, and hence the point I was making.
-
Which one? That must have been a country I, or anyone else, never heard of. Imagine, a country with roads and schools and hospitals. Who would have thought of that!?
Who would have thought of that? Lots of people, I imagine. Who would have paid for that off their own bat? Different answer ...
-
No I wasn't. You maybe missed the question that I was responding to, and hence the point I was making.
Well, in America, all the socialist and communist admirers always refer to how great Cuba's medicine and schools are. They use to say the same things about the Soviet Union. Of course they don't mention that you're not free to read what you want. What good is being educated if you can only read government propaganda?
-
Well, in America, all the socialist and communist admirers always refer to how great Cuba's medicine and schools are. They use to say the same things about the Soviet Union. Of course they don't mention that you're not free to read what you want. What good is being educated if you can only read government propaganda?
Or Fox news.
-
Well, in America, all the socialist and communist admirers always refer to how great Cuba's medicine and schools are. They use to say the same things about the Soviet Union. Of course they don't mention that you're not free to read what you want. What good is being educated if you can only read government propaganda?
Might be better than comics.
-
Well, in America, all the socialist and communist admirers always refer to how great Cuba's medicine and schools are. They use to say the same things about the Soviet Union. Of course they don't mention that you're not free to read what you want. What good is being educated if you can only read government propaganda?
Have any of you lovers of socialism actually ever been in a socialist country?
I think many of us would not like to live in a country that has no freedom of speech nor a democratic vote. A Socialist system, a Capitalistic system or any other.
Most of the countries in Europe or even the US are a combination of capitalism and socialism.
The socialistic part is funded with tax. People that earn more pay relatively more tax, Because they can afford that, without compromizing their wealth of living.
Because of that the income difference after tax is lowered.
A lot of problems cannot be solved through capitalism alone since there is no direct profit to gain out of many necessary work.
Take firemen (- take failing banks!)- take policemen- take road constructors- they all are paid by tax- in a socialist manner - by the government.
Maybe the Netherlands, where i live, can be called some more socialistic than the USA, but the basis is not that much different.
We pay more tax and get in return better healthcare, roads without holes, etc than countries that pay less tax.
Apart from that it is the quality of the government that counts. Here we have a culture to discuss with all related parties to solve our common problems.
This often result in a compromise that everybody can live with, but is not ideal for any of them. This something special in the Netherlands and has good and bad sides. In this manner we just solved the pension system for the coming years after nine years of discussing with many parties.
Just want to say that Socialism is also a part of how the US is governed as is Capitalism and that is a necessary part.
-
Might be better than comics.
Not only better than comics, but in such regimes the suppressed press and speech freedom are instrumental for creation of many good underground jokes.
-
A lot of problems cannot be solved through capitalism alone
Just want to say that Socialism is also a part of how the US is governed
Oh man - now you've done it! I can hear Alan's keyboard from here!!
-
... The socialistic part is funded with tax...
Gee, when you redefine common terms, you can prove anything.
Any and every society from the dawn of the mankind had taxes. Didn't make them socialist.
-
I think many of us would not like to live in a country that has no freedom of speech nor a democratic vote. A Socialist system, a Capitalistic system or any other.
Most of the countries in Europe or even the US are a combination of capitalism and socialism.
The socialistic part is funded with tax. People that earn more pay relatively more tax, Because they can afford that, without compromizing their wealth of living.
Because of that the income difference after tax is lowered.
A lot of problems cannot be solved through capitalism alone since there is no direct profit to gain out of many necessary work.
Take firemen (- take failing banks!)- take policemen- take road constructors- they all are paid by tax- in a socialist manner - by the government.
Maybe the Netherlands, where i live, can be called some more socialistic than the USA, but the basis is not that much different.
We pay more tax and get in return better healthcare, roads without holes, etc than countries that pay less tax.
Apart from that it is the quality of the government that counts. Here we have a culture to discuss with all related parties to solve our common problems.
This often result in a compromise that everybody can live with, but is not ideal for any of them. This something special in the Netherlands and has good and bad sides. In this manner we just solved the pension system for the coming years after nine years of discussing with many parties.
Just want to say that Socialism is also a part of how the US is governed as is Capitalism and that is a necessary part.
Apparently, British roads are full of nids-de-poule - still. The biggest culture shock in the car was going off the excellent French motorway system onto the British one after docking in Dover and finding my way back into the system. Ye gods, what a lesson in relativity!
We pay high taxes - it always felt - and get crap, whereas the French do it privately and get something that's a pleasure, and only costs you as you use the system. Before anyone feels tempted to turn that into a comparison with the health argument, don't bother: it doesn't mesh.
That said, French motorway systems seem to follow the example of the wheel: everything radiates mainly from Paris, and if you want to go west to east, or the other way too, obviously, you have a problem unless just in the south, going from Med to Atlantic, but you still head generally upwards toward Bordeaux via Toulouse; that north/south bias is pretty general. I wonder if it's based on people trying to quit the sticks? ;-) I thought that had been cured... Oh, wait, those yellow waistcoats were incensed by that, and fuel prices, and diesel bans and on and on; there must be an answer - what, watts?
-
Oh man - now you've done it! I can hear Alan's keyboard from here!!
That's because he can no longer find the oil for it: the snakes all went south and vanished back into the swamps.
;-)
-
Gee, when you redefine common terms, you can prove anything.
Any and every society from the dawn of the mankind had taxes. Didn't make them socialist.
So what does, in your view?
-
according to the last 80 or so years of republican spouting after the 1920's - medicare, medicaid, social security, ACA, ADA, etc. Basically anything that aids the more impoverished or disadvantaged members of society. If you can't pull yourself and family up by your abilities, luck,and connections, then you stay where your are in society. If it takes government support to help, then that support must smack of "socialism" or worse "communism". It is an easy label to tar anything progressive in this society and maintain the status quo.
-
Life can be a tough mother:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A_1zZ8Xx64
;-)
-
One of the easiest to understand examples of how well socialism works is the history of the Plymouth Colony.
-
FWIW the people I've spoken to who have been on beach holidays to Cuba have been disappointed. Those who went more off the beaten track had a great time. What Cuban officials like, I have no idea, and I suspect neither do you.
My god, a statement you and I actually agree with! I had a great time getting lost in Havana, and not just because I like cigars and rum.
-
And your point is? Some travellers travel to a communist country, see dilapidated buildings, and conclude that dilapidation is an inevitable result of a political system. Are their conclusions more valid than those of the beach-dwellers?
The dilapidated buildings of Havana are a direct result of having in wall rain gutters (ascetically pleasing I'll admit) that are never cleaned or maintained. So they rust, crack and start letting water into the baring walls, which eventually causes the building to collapse. I ran into an architect when I was in Havana, and this is the actual reason why so many of Havana's buildings are falling apart.
Now, who is to blame for this, well the property owners of course for not keeping up with maintenance. Who are the property owners of those buildings, the communist government. So, in fact, the communist government is directly to blame for the dilapidated buildings of Havana.
Personally I feel that it is impossible for the same entity to both inspect/regulate and then maintain their property. If you allow either private enterprise or the government to do both, in either case you end up with people cutting corners and pretty poor results. You need a single entity, separate from the owners, to do the inspections and then require the owners to do the maintenance. Unfortunately, by definition, in a communist country the government acts as both the inspectors and owners who do the repairs. This is impossible to avoid in this type of governance, and part of the reason why things go awry in communism.
-
The dilapidated buildings of Havana are a direct result of having in wall rain gutters (ascetically pleasing I'll admit) that are never cleaned or maintained. So they rust, crack and start letting water into the baring walls, which eventually causes the building to collapse. I ran into an architect when I was in Havana, and this is the actual reason why so many of Havana's buildings are falling apart.
Now, who is to blame for this, well the property owners of course for not keeping up with maintenance. Who are the property owners of those buildings, the communist government. So, in fact, the communist government is directly to blame for the dilapidated buildings of Havana.
Personally I feel that it is impossible for the same entity to both inspect/regulate and then maintain their property. If you allow either private enterprise or the government to do both, in either case you end up with people cutting corners and pretty poor results. You need a single entity, separate from the owners, to do the inspections and then require the owners to do the maintenance. Unfortunately, by definition, in a communist country the government acts as both the inspectors and owners who do the repairs. This is impossible to avoid in this type of governance, and part of the reason why things go awry in communism.
I worked for a few years for a NYC governmental agency. It was at the end of my career that had always been in the private sphere. (Well, except when served in the USAF). In any case, while in the government, I realized that if we changed one of our procedures, we could save a lot of (taxpayer) money. So I went to my immediate boss and told him I have this plan. And he interrupted me, looked me straight in the eyes, and asked, "What do you care what it costs?"
That's why we need to keep government out of business.
-
I worked for a few years for a NYC governmental agency. It was at the end of my career that had always been in the private sphere. (Well, except when served in the USAF). In any case, while in the government, I realized that if we changed one of our procedures, we could save a lot of (taxpayer) money. So I went to my immediate boss and told him I have this plan. And he interrupted me, looked me straight in the eyes, and asked, "What do you care what it costs?"
That's why we need to keep government out of business.
Best and most illustrative post in this thread.
-
Best and most illustrative post in this thread.
No, it's why you need better vetting of those you promote to officers, either in the armed forces as per Alan's example, or in public office.
Also, it's crazy for anyone to state that the same entity can't both own, regulate and maintain and keep in good condition. Every person who owns their own home (house, as distinct from apartment which involves communities and communal regulations) has to do exactly that. In all cases, the quality of that state comes down to the money available to the owner to spend on mantaining the property. Poor lands have limited resources. Period.
Slum landlords; how do they get away with it? Do they salt away the money, or can they not collect it in the first place? There are no absolutes in these matters.
Rob
-
No, it's why you need better vetting of those you promote to officers, either in the armed forces as per Alan's example, or in public office.
...
Rob
Unfortunately, Rob, government and governmental employees learn not to care about money except to keep things within their budgets. Government also encourages huge goofing off. Half the people around me did nothing or maybe worked three days a week out of five. They'd "disappear around 1pm in the afternoon saying they were going to a job site when they really went home. No one cared other than to keep their job. Yes, there were many who worked very hard and did a great job. But the environment creates sloveness and lack of caring. Lack of profit motive in government raises cost to do things. Also, many in government never worked in private industry. They have no concept of profit and think spending is the answer to everything. They're more concerned about getting votes than saving tax money. "Why should they care what it costs?"
-
Unfortunately, Rob, government and governmental employees learn not to care about money except to keep things within their budgets. Government also encourages huge goofing off. Half the people around me did nothing or maybe worked three days a week out of five. They'd "disappear around 1pm in the afternoon saying they were going to a job site when they really went home. No one cared other than to keep their job. Yes, there were many who worked very hard and did a great job. But the environment creates sloveness and lack of caring. Lack of profit motive in government raises cost to do things. Also, many in government never worked in private industry. They have no concept of profit and think spending is the answer to everything. They're more concerned about getting votes than saving tax money. "Why should they care what it costs?"
Although a little different than the point you are making, but this reminds me of a somewhat disconcerting theory I recently heard of, Price's Law. It essentially states that within any group, half the work is done by the square root of the group size. So if you have a company of 9, 3 of those people do half the work. If you have a company of 100, only 10 do half the work, and so on. So, "as your company grows, incompetence grows exponentially and competence grows linearly." Being that government is just so large, maybe this is another reason why government is so incompetent.
It is also the case that most supervisors really don't know who the top performers (but they know who they are), which sows discontent and often leads to top performers leaving. Of course in a business when a few top performers leave, the company starts to go into a death spiral and if competence does not return, the business goes under. In government though, the result is often much different; they get more funding.
-
I worked for a few years for a NYC governmental agency. It was at the end of my career that had always been in the private sphere. (Well, except when served in the USAF). In any case, while in the government, I realized that if we changed one of our procedures, we could save a lot of (taxpayer) money. So I went to my immediate boss and told him I have this plan. And he interrupted me, looked me straight in the eyes, and asked, "What do you care what it costs?"
That's why we need to keep government out of business.
You have a point, Alan. Not knowing the possible side effects of the medicines we take would make life easier, I suppose.
-
Although a little different than the point you are making, but this reminds me of a somewhat disconcerting theory I recently heard of, Price's Law. It essentially states that within any group, half the work is done by the square root of the group size. So if you have a company of 9, 3 of those people do half the work. If you have a company of 100, only 10 do half the work, and so on. So, "as your company grows, incompetence grows exponentially and competence grows linearly." Being that government is just so large, maybe this is another reason why government is so incompetent.
It is also the case that most supervisors really don't know who the top performers (but they know who they are), which sows discontent and often leads to top performers leaving. Of course in a business when a few top performers leave, the company starts to go into a death spiral and if competence does not return, the business goes under. In government though, the result is often much different; they get more funding.
Price Law sounds about right. Thanks for mentioning it. In a good private business however, the deadbeats finally lose their jobs. If not, the business dies and the better companies get their customers. That's a good thing in an economy. It weeds out marginal business. It produces better products at cheaper costs for the public to consume. With government, the agency goes on forever and even grows. And the workers rarely lose their jobs. Useless agencies that should be cut to a quarter their size or eliminated altogether.
-
Unfortunately, Rob, government and governmental employees learn not to care about money except to keep things within their budgets. Government also encourages huge goofing off. Half the people around me did nothing or maybe worked three days a week out of five. They'd "disappear around 1pm in the afternoon saying they were going to a job site when they really went home. No one cared other than to keep their job. Yes, there were many who worked very hard and did a great job. But the environment creates sloveness and lack of caring. Lack of profit motive in government raises cost to do things. Also, many in government never worked in private industry. They have no concept of profit and think spending is the answer to everything. They're more concerned about getting votes than saving tax money. "Why should they care what it costs?"
Oh yeah, I have to agree with what you say, having been given anecdotal, first-hand accounts (from family) of empire-building within local government, of pretending to require more staff than the department has work for such to do; seniority and responsibility-based salary payments come onto play. It's a bit sick, but in the end, doesn't excuse the fact that there are few checks and balances, only externally applied budgets which, if not used to the full during a given year, get cut the next time round. It's the system that creates the abuses. My relative got the hell out and went on to make his fortune ploughing his own field of related work. Partly, not just professional competence here, but loads of street smarts, something I never owned to any noticeable degree, cocooned in the faith that knowing your job was all it took. Innocence.
The relevance of working in private industry is real, and even more do I believe that everybody can but benefit from the experience of self-employment, especially the experience of failure within it. That drives away any residual imaginings about life owing us a living. Which said, a caring society does much - or could - to help folks make it through the night.
-
Price Law sounds about right. Thanks for mentioning it. In a good private business however, the deadbeats finally lose their jobs. If not, the business dies and the better companies get their customers. That's a good thing in an economy. It weeds out marginal business. It produces better products at cheaper costs for the public to consume. With government, the agency goes on forever and even grows. And the workers rarely lose their jobs. Useless agencies that should be cut to a quarter their size or eliminated altogether.
Marginal businesses. Why do you want to destroy them? They feed a family or go under; many just soldier on and keep Mum & Dad self-employed; why not leave them alone to keep on truckin' doing their thing? To do otherwise sounds terribly authoritarian and non- as well as anti-constitutional to me: a withdrawal of part of their rights, probably enshrined somewhere deeply in the small print of your olde Constitution... if you can let them own bazookas (the Dads, too) then is a tiny business too radical a step?
-
Oh yeah, I have to agree with what you say, having been given anecdotal, first-hand accounts (from family) of empire-building within local government, of pretending to require more staff than the department has work for such to do; seniority and responsibility-based salary payments come onto play. It's a bit sick, but in the end, doesn't excuse the fact that there are few checks and balances, only externally applied budgets which, if not used to the full during a given year, get cut the next time round. It's the system that creates the abuses. My relative got the hell out and went on to make his fortune ploughing his own field of related work. Partly, not just professional competence here, but loads of street smarts, something I never owned to any noticeable degree, cocooned in the faith that knowing your job was all it took. Innocence.
The relevance of working in private industry is real, and even more do I believe that everybody can but benefit from the experience of self-employment, especially the experience of failure within it. That drives away any residual imaginings about life owing us a living. Which said, a caring society does much - or could - to help folks make it through the night.
Well, after twenty years of always making payroll, my business came to an end anyway. I didn't have the kind of street smarts either or personality to expand. Like you said, there's more to making it work beside job knowledge. But you really learn a lot. It gets the juices going. Also, $250K in legal costs to defend myself in a Federal Court patent and intellectual property case did not help either. (I lost at trial but didn't have money left to appeal.) But I learned a lot about the legal system. At one point, I had a dispute with my own lawyer. He told the judge I wasn't paying him fast enough and wanted to be dismissed from the case. So we we met in the judge's chambers for a powwow. The judge, a former lawyer of course, took my lawyer's position. I complained it wasn't "fair". So the judge looked me right in the eyes saying, "Well, Mr. Klein, you know the American jurisprudence system isn't always fair." I was stunned to be told this directly by the judge. Can you imagine that? Knocked the wind out of my sails. Lesson learned.
Regarding those who need help, I'm all for that. But we don;t have the money any longer. And I guess things are not "fair" in life for everyone. Stuff happens. But somehow we muddle through.
-
Marginal businesses. Why do you want to destroy them? They feed a family or go under; many just soldier on and keep Mum & Dad self-employed; why not leave them alone to keep on truckin' doing their thing? To do otherwise sounds terribly authoritarian and non- as well as anti-constitutional to me: a withdrawal of part of their rights, probably enshrined somewhere deeply in the small print of your olde Constitution... if you can let them own bazookas (the Dads, too) then is a tiny business too radical a step?
The government doesn;t put them out of business. Other private businesses do that by providing a better product. If a photographer can;t sell his photos because others are selling better ones, should the government subsidize him? That's not in our Constitution although the government has subsidized companies for political reasons. (The car companies in 2009. Energy companies like Solyndra who went out of business anyway for over 5 years to the tune or $39 billion a year. Oil companies with the oil depletion tax allowance.)
-
... Half the people around me did nothing or maybe worked three days a week out of five. They'd "disappear around 1pm in the afternoon saying they were going to a job site when they really went home...
No way, Alan, you are just peddling fake news! Surely someone would notice their absence!?
“Spanish civil servant who had €50,000 salary but failed to do a day's work for ten years banned from post”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/10/ban-spanish-civil-servant-paid-50000-year-despite-not-turning/
-
Well, after twenty years of always making payroll, my business came to an end anyway. I didn't have the kind of street smarts either or personality to expand. Like you said, there's more to making it work beside job knowledge. But you really learn a lot. It gets the juices going. Also, $250K in legal costs to defend myself in a Federal Court patent and intellectual property case did not help either. (I lost at trial but didn't have money left to appeal.) But I learned a lot about the legal system. At one point, I had a dispute with my own lawyer. He told the judge I wasn't paying him fast enough and wanted to be dismissed from the case. So we we met in the judge's chambers for a powwow. The judge, a former lawyer of course, took my lawyer's position. I complained it wasn't "fair". So the judge looked me right in the eyes saying, "Well, Mr. Klein, you know the American jurisprudence system isn't always fair." I was stunned to be told this directly by the judge. Can you imagine that? Knocked the wind out of my sails. Lesson learned.
Regarding those who need help, I'm all for that. But we don;t have the money any longer. And I guess things are not "fair" in life for everyone. Stuff happens. But somehow we muddle through.
Lawyers and going to court: I learned the hard way. I did a week's shoot for a tour operator company, my second for that firm, and during the course of the shoot in Spain the operator's location manager, who was there with me all the time, asked if I could extend the shoot a further week. i asked that he check it out with HQ, and he got back telling me it was okay.
So, I worked that additional week, and job done, sent in my invoice to the advertising agency. You know what's coming: the agency denied all knowledge of that additional week and so I got in touch with a lawyer across the road from my studio at the time.
One thing led to another, and the tour operator decided to claim against me for work that was never on the list I had to cover. I realised I couldn't afford to fight the company, and went to see them. We agreed to call off our respective dogs. The upshot was that the extra week for which the tour operator had asked me to work was never paid, the money the agency paid me for the original week was lost, as was he as a client, in paying the lawyer's fee for writing a couple of letters. And you know what the mother told me at the end of it all? It was my fault for not knowing the difference between the principal contractor (the ad agency) and the tour company, who were not my clients, but those of the ad agency. You'd have imagined the guy could have told me that the day I walked into his office.
As they sometimes say on tv: I rest my case. And yeah, live and learn.
:-)
-
The government doesn;t put them out of business. Other private businesses do that by providing a better product. If a photographer can;t sell his photos because others are selling better ones, should the government subsidize him? That's not in our Constitution although the government has subsidized companies for political reasons. (The car companies in 2009. Energy companies like Solyndra who went out of business anyway for over 5 years to the tune or $39 billion a year. Oil companies with the oil depletion tax allowance.)
Nevertheless, those that survive are still marginal, so why do you believe they should die, by governmental hand or not, or by big business?
If they can struggle on and keep their independence, good for them!
-
Marginal businesses. Why do you want to destroy them?..l
Rob, “Price’s Law” is a law just like Godwin Law is. Which means it isn’t. Just a rule of thumb. Not a legal document.
Or Parkinson’s Law: "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
-
No way, Alan, you are just peddling fake news! Surely someone would notice their absence!?
“Spanish civil servant who had €50,000 salary but failed to do a day's work for ten years banned from post”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/10/ban-spanish-civil-servant-paid-50000-year-despite-not-turning/
Well, my immediate supervisor was one of those who use to do that. :)
-
No way, Alan, you are just peddling fake news! Surely someone would notice their absence!?
“Spanish civil servant who had €50,000 salary but failed to do a day's work for ten years banned from post”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/10/ban-spanish-civil-servant-paid-50000-year-despite-not-turning/
I never got those chances! Damn!
-
Rob, “Price’s Law” is a law just like Godwin Law is. Which means it isn’t. Just a rule of thumb. Not a legal document.
Or Parkinson’s Law: "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
Okay, so before someone on this forum takes what I said and misconstrues it, Slobo's explination above is how I look at Price's Law. This is why I used the word theory when bringing it up, and also said "maybe this is another reason..."
Just nipping the tail in the bud here.
-
Lawyers and going to court: I learned the hard way. I did a week's shoot for a tour operator company, my second for that firm, and during the course of the shoot in Spain the operator's location manager, who was there with me all the time, asked if I could extend the shoot a further week. i asked that he check it out with HQ, and he got back telling me it was okay.
So, I worked that additional week, and job done, sent in my invoice to the advertising agency. You know what's coming: the agency denied all knowledge of that additional week and so I got in touch with a lawyer across the road from my studio at the time.
One thing led to another, and the tour operator decided to claim against me for work that was never on the list I had to cover. I realised I couldn't afford to fight the company, and went to see them. We agreed to call off our respective dogs. The upshot was that the extra week for which the tour operator had asked me to work was never paid, the money the agency paid me for the original week was lost, as was he as a client, in paying the lawyer's fee for writing a couple of letters. And you know what the mother told me at the end of it all? It was my fault for not knowing the difference between the principal contractor (the ad agency) and the tour company, who were not my clients, but those of the ad agency. You'd have imagined the guy could have told me that the day I walked into his office.
As they sometimes say on tv: I rest my case. And yeah, live and learn.
:-)
Your story reminds me of the famous 1930's malaprop by Sam Goldwyn the Hollywood producer of Metro Goldwyn Mayer MGM fame. "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on."
-
No, it's why you need better vetting of those you promote to officers, either in the armed forces as per Alan's example, or in public office.
Problem is, Rob, how do you get better vetting?
I became an Air Force officer – a second lieutenant -- in 1952. At that point most of the people I worked for were officers who’d been through WW II, which I’d narrowly missed. They’d been promoted because they could get the job done under difficult and deadly conditions. They knew what they were doing and they were able to do it. There was almost none of the crap Alan talked about.
But as time went on and the old heads retired or died the military became more and more politicized. One of the results was the emphasis on “body counts” in Vietnam, a concept that would be funny if it weren’t so despicable. I managed to get promoted because I could do stuff that needed doing, and could come up with solutions to some of the problems we faced. Finally, in 1972 the general I worked for pinned on my eagles and I became a full colonel. By the time I came back from my second Southeast Asian command the military was rushing to become politically correct. Women were being brought into the military in positions they weren’t capable of filling and were weakening our combat capability, but it was the politically correct thing to do, and our politicians figured we’d never again have to fight the kind of war we fought in WW II, so what the hell difference did it make? I wrote about that in http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/womeninarmedforces.html.
Finally, as Director of Combat Operations in a SAGE center, part of a system that never sould have been built, I decided to retire as soon as I reached my maximum retirement pay point, and three years later did exactly that. I probably could have gone for my star, but it no longer was something that interested me.
The only thing that’ll lead to “better vetting” is an existential threat of some kind. In the meantime, politics will reign supreme.
-
Russ, VietNam was lost at home not on the battlefield as I'm sure you'll agree. We fought with one hand tied behind our backs. You measure success not with "body counts" but with land conquered. We never went into North Vietnam with troops. The military had to plead with Washington to allow them to at least bomb up there. And then President Johnson would have to approve the bomb sites. Johnson was an idiot and a liar who got us into Vietnam unnecessarily. Kennedy was no better. At least Eisenhower knew not to save France's backside in the 1950's at Dien Bien Phu. And the American press treasonously helped turn Americans against the war. So Congress stopped providing funding to the South and the North took over. What a waste and shame. Fortunately I didn't have to serve there as I was stationed in Japan, Hawaii and the States in the mid-60's. It must have been tough for you to have lost friends and then turning out how it did. Now we're trading with VietNam. History is weird.
-
Maybe not too weird, Alan. We’re trading with Japan and Germany too.
The thing that pissed me off most was when Johnson wouldn’t let us hit the NVA AA missile sites until they were operational. So we had to wait until they were ready to go and then send in F-84F Wild Weasel flights to get the NVA to expend their missiles on aircraft that had at least a chance to evade them. I was given an “opportunity” to come back on flying status if I’d fly Wild Weasel. Didn’t even have to think about the answer to that one.
-
https://www.historynet.com/vietnams-wild-weasels.htm
-
Problem is, Rob, how do you get better vetting?
I became an Air Force officer – a second lieutenant -- in 1952. At that point most of the people I worked for were officers who’d been through WW II, which I’d narrowly missed. They’d been promoted because they could get the job done under difficult and deadly conditions. They knew what they were doing and they were able to do it. There was almost none of the crap Alan talked about.
But as time went on and the old heads retired or died the military became more and more politicized. One of the results was the emphasis on “body counts” in Vietnam, a concept that would be funny if it weren’t so despicable. I managed to get promoted because I could do stuff that needed doing, and could come up with solutions to some of the problems we faced. Finally, in 1972 the general I worked for pinned on my eagles and I became a full colonel. By the time I came back from my second Southeast Asian command the military was rushing to become politically correct. Women were being brought into the military in positions they weren’t capable of filling and were weakening our combat capability, but it was the politically correct thing to do, and our politicians figured we’d never again have to fight the kind of war we fought in WW II, so what the hell difference did it make? I wrote about that in http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/womeninarmedforces.html.
Finally, as Director of Combat Operations in a SAGE center, part of a system that never sould have been built, I decided to retire as soon as I reached my maximum retirement pay point, and three years later did exactly that. I probably could have gone for my star, but it no longer was something that interested me.
The only thing that’ll lead to “better vetting” is an existential threat of some kind. In the meantime, politics will reign supreme.
That's a very illuminating essay, Russ; wasn't there any way of making it more publicly read - maybe in the press - or could that impact your own position in retirement? Maybe waves are not always the best remedy.
Political correctness regarding gender issues is so blindingly stupid that I can't really grasp how people don't see right through it; surely, daily human experience shows us that the gulf between the genders is massive, and that we should all be the happier for it? It's what makes the world go round.
I'm reminded of a current issue in the British media about demonstrations outside a school where kids around five years of age are being taught about LGBT (?) issues. Are they going nuts? Kids of that age should be being taught something relevant to their capabilities, not a pack of doctrinarian nonsense that goes way over their level and, possibly, creates premature interest in sex before they have the slightest idea what it is. Currently, a socialist MP is being rebuked by his party for standing, correctly in my view, on the side of the protestors who don't want that stuff filling their kids' minds. That the protestors visible on tv appeared to be mostly Moslem doesn't help the public image, but I believe them to be right on this issue. And I'm no socialst! But hey, neither am I a Tory any longer. They both make me sick at their hypocrisy.
Personally, I believe that school is never the place for sex lessons; nobody ever gave me such lessons, but I always seemed to know what I needed to know at the time I needed that knowledge. Which seemed to be the norm with everyone else I knew. Neither did I meet any girl who didn't know how to get pregnant. Furthermore, what a helluva position in which to put a teacher in today's society, where classroom control hangs by a thread. Anyway, I heard one spokesperson on behalf of the "system" say that they didn't discuss sex, per se, in which case, what the hell could they possibly discuss with those babies that's relevant? Tell them that two dads or two mums is the way to go? Really? What a dangerous incentive to play games they should not even think about. If they think about it as adults, that's a whole other deal, and the hell with it, their problem, not a schoolteacher's.
Political correctness: the wilful messing with, and attempted engineering of life as it has worked perfectly well for centuries.
-
I'm reminded of a current issue in the British media about demonstrations outside a school where kids around five years of age are being taught about LGBT (?) issues. Are they going nuts? Kids of that age should be being taught something relevant to their capabilities, not a pack of doctrinarian nonsense that goes way over their level and, possibly, creates premature interest in sex before they have the slightest idea what it is.
If you actually look into it, they aren't being taught about "LGBT issues' at all. But perhaps they should be in the light of the vicious attack on a couple on a London bus by a group of teenagers.
-
If you actually look into it, they aren't being taught about "LGBT issues' at all. But perhaps they should be in the light of the vicious attack on a couple on a London bus by a group of teenagers.
Saw that about the attacked lesbian couple; quite how teaching (or not) babes about sex would have prevented it is hard to fathom. Everybody knows about those things, but it does not imply that knowing means agreeing with, and violent people need no excuse to be violent, just opportunity. At any age, I would have felt embarrassed, looked away or consulted my watch. I am not one of the violent, however much it makes me unhappy to see things like that in public. I am just as unhappy seeing heteros all over one another in public; don't even like to see it on-screen. There's no need in telling a story; literal is not required, one need simply suggest. Anything more is just to sell. In life, why not wait to do what you have to do in that respect in private?
Regarding the school: the LGBT issue is what Sky News declared it to be about. I am not about to make a trip to investigate for myself, so if Sky is lying, what's the truth, and how do you know?
Rob
-
Nope.
Vietnam, for the US, started with our "helping" the French. That goes back to Eisenhower/Nixon at least. Kennedy was persuaded to increase our "advising" , and then Johnson...well,,, finally down to Nixon to bail out.
Okay, finally looked it up.
In the first few months of the JFK administration he botched the CIA sponsored invasion of Cuba (previously mentioned), he was out maneuvered by Khrushchev in Vienna, the Berlin wall was built and JFK was not able to do anything about it, and he did nothing to prevent the communists from taking over Laos. For all of these, he was being in heavily criticized as being immature and incapable of doing anything about the world wide communist threat (which was taken very seriously during the cold war) even though he campaigned heavily on being able to do so.
His exact quote before sending troops to Vietnam, "there are just so many concessions we can make in one year and survive politically." I was wrong about who he said this to, not his whole cabinet but an aid. All of the failures listed above made JFK felt he had to act and increase our presence in Vietnam in order to be electable for a 2nd term.
Also, publicly JFK was only increasing our advising, but secretly JFK was sending special forces and denying it to the press. By his assassination, JFK had sent over 11,000 special forces into Vietnam that were fighting with the ARVN, not just advising.
JFK was also the one who authorized the use of napalm and defoliants (agent orange).
-
Saw that about the attacked lesbian couple; quite how teaching (or not) babes about sex would have prevented it is hard to fathom.
If people knew from an early age that different sexualities (is that a word?) are no big deal, then there would be no reason to pick on these two.
Everybody knows about those things, but it does not imply that knowing means agreeing with, At any age, I would have felt embarrassed, looked away
Looked away from what, exactly?
however much it makes me unhappy to see things like that in public
Things like what?
Regarding the school: the LGBT issue is what Sky News declared it to be about. I am not about to make a trip to investigate for myself, so if Sky is lying, what's the truth, and how do you know?
The school was basically saying, families are generally like this, but other types exist, for more information ask your parents. Some local activists stirred up trouble, handed out material they claimed falsely was a copy of the school books. Some of the activists are Muslims. Some of the parents supporting the school are Muslims.
-
We never went into North Vietnam with troops.
What a shame. After all, going into Iraq with troops was such a resounding success.
-
1. If people knew from an early age that different sexualities (is that a word?) are no big deal, then there would be no reason to pick on these two.
2. Looked away from what, exactly?
3. Things like what?
4. The school was basically saying, families are generally like this, but other types exist, for more information ask your parents. Some local activists stirred up trouble, handed out material they claimed falsely was a copy of the school books. Some of the activists are Muslims. Some of the parents supporting the school are Muslims.
1. I do not agree with your supposition and conclusion.
2. and 3. are part of the same thing: lesbians making out in public: "Everybody knows about those things, but it does not imply that knowing means agreeing with, and violent people need no excuse to be violent, just opportunity."
I extended it: "I am just as unhappy seeing heteros all over one another in public... In life, why not wait to do what you have to do in that respect in private?"
4. Not the way I heard it; anyway, how does asking parents help in the supposedly ideal, morals-free, brave new world of anything goes that some quarters are trying so hard to promote? Those protestors are parents; will you disenfranchise them from their opinion because it disagrees with yours - or at least the one you defend? They hate what's going down and I agree with them. Does it make them mistaken and wrong if they don't go along with the societal decay that is creeping into everything wearing, the while, the mask of political correctness and freedom? Tails shoud not wag dogs.
Rob
-
1. I do not agree with your supposition and conclusion.
2. and 3. are part of the same thing: lesbians making out in public: "Everybody knows about those things, but it does not imply that knowing means agreeing with, and violent people need no excuse to be violent, just opportunity."
I extended it: "I am just as unhappy seeing heteros all over one another in public... In life, why not wait to do what you have to do in that respect in private?"
4. Not the way I heard it; anyway, how does asking parents help in the supposedly ideal, morals-free, brave new world of anything goes that some quarters are trying so hard to promote? Those protestors are parents; will you disenfranchise them from their opinion because it disagrees with yours - or at least the one you defend? They hate what's going down and I agree with them. Does it make them mistaken and wrong if they don't go along with the societal decay that is creeping into everything wearing, the while, the mask of political correctness and freedom? Tails shoud not wag dogs.
Rob
2. No lesbians were "making out" in public.
4. The protesters are largely NOT parents. They are people stirred up by false reports of what is happening in the school. I thought (hoped?) that we had got beyond the idea that homosexuality represents "moral decay" - you seem to be endorsing Anne Widdecombe's view that science will find a "cure" for being gay.
-
2. No lesbians were "making out" in public.
4. The protesters are largely NOT parents. They are people stirred up by false reports of what is happening in the school. I thought (hoped?) that we had got beyond the idea that homosexuality represents "moral decay" - you seem to be endorsing Anne Widdecombe's view that science will find a "cure" for being gay.
2. Apparently, they were kissing; sitting quietly minding their own business would not have attracted interest and provoked the attack.
4. I suggest no "cure" for it. I see it as a state of mind and preference, in exactly the same way as serial rapists, paedophiles, even those attracted to bestiality feel their urges. All, as with the natural male/female human condition are sex-based urges. Last time I noticed there were but two types of genetalia which I believe tells us something about the intended natural order. Departure from that, I can see as nothing else but, regardless of fashion and political correctness cant. If you want to make one abnormal category of sex drive okay, then why not the rest of them on that list? Are there then, or are there not degrees of sexual divergence one must accept and turn into social norms?
All that personal opinion aside, I refer you back to my post where I wrote: "In life, why not wait to do what you have to do in that respect in private?" which referred to all male/female, male/male, female/female combinations of sexual activity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iEFfA4TmI
A better way to do what you wanna do.
;-)
-
If you want to make one abnormal category of sex drive okay, then why not the rest of them on that list?
Because an animal, a child or a rape victim can not give their consent.
Are there then, or are there not degrees of sexual divergence one must accept and turn into social norms?
Consenting adults should be free to do what they like with each others' bodies.
-
Because an animal, a child or a rape victim can not give their consent.
Consenting adults should be free to do what they like with each others' bodies.
Consenting adults usually do, including, at times, a little touch of cannibalism. Hence my appeal to reason within the music: do it in the kitchen do it in the hall, but please do it behind closed doors.
:-)
-
What a shame. After all, going into Iraq with troops was such a resounding success.
I said getting involved in Vietnam was a mistake. Or should I say President Johnson used a lie to escalate the war, (The Tonkin Bay incident)However, once you commit to war, you fight to win. You don;t fight with one hand tied behind your back. We stupidly limited offensive operations. Instead of allowing his commanders to decide how to fight a war, President Johnson refused to let them bomb in various areas, selected the targets, etc. It would be like in WWII, after all the Allied bombing of Germany, we never attacked by land. What's the point?
-
I said getting involved in Vietnam was a mistake. Or should I say President Johnson used a lie to escalate the war, (The Tonkin Bay incident)However, once you commit to war, you fight to win. You don;t fight with one hand tied behind your back. We stupidly limited offensive operations. Instead of allowing his commanders to decide how to fight a war, President Johnson refused to let them bomb in various areas, selected the targets, etc. It would be like in WWII, after all the Allied bombing of Germany, we never attacked by land. What's the point?
It goes further: as with recent Middle East interventions, how do you exit without leaving a greater mess than the one you created by being there? You can't occupy lands for ever, unless they are on your borders and you just annex 'em.
Rob
-
I said getting involved in Vietnam was a mistake. Or should I say President Johnson used a lie to escalate the war, (The Tonkin Bay incident)However, once you commit to war, you fight to win. You don;t fight with one hand tied behind your back. We stupidly limited offensive operations. Instead of allowing his commanders to decide how to fight a war, President Johnson refused to let them bomb in various areas, selected the targets, etc. It would be like in WWII, after all the Allied bombing of Germany, we never attacked by land. What's the point?
Except with Vietnam, as with Korea earlier, China and Russia were willing to send troops in to support. Only the Viet hatred of China kept them out. Russia supported instead, but the logistics were as bad as ours.
-
It goes further: as with recent Middle East interventions, how do you exit without leaving a greater mess than the one you created by being there? You can't occupy lands for ever, unless they are on your borders and you just annex 'em.
Rob
Well, we still have American troops in Japan and Germany 75 years after the end of WWII. Also South Korea (66 years). Hmmm.
As far as Iraq, there are still troops there too. As an aside, I think if you asked Iraqis of they're better off now then they were under Saddam, most would say they are, at least the Shia majority would.
But you make a good point. For years I couldn;t understand why in the old days, conquerors would kill all the men and destroy the countries they conquered. Then they occupied the country or what was left with military power. Well, it was the only way to avoid an insurgency. You couldn't leave them to fight another day. Since we don;t fight like that anymore (well ISIS did), we wind up having to occupy forever.
-
I see it as a state of mind and preference, in exactly the same way as serial rapists, paedophiles, even those attracted to bestiality feel their urges.
I think this signifies that rational discussion with you on this issue is not possible, so I will dip out here.
(If anyone is wondering about what we're talking about, it's this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/08/london-bus-attack-fifth-arrest-after-homophobic-assault )
-
As an aside, I think if you asked Iraqis of they're better off now then they were under Saddam, most would say they are, at least the Shia majority would.
Maybe - the ones still alive, anyway. Perhaps someone could ask them?
-
Thought you were "dipping out," Jeremy.
-
I think this signifies that rational discussion with you on this issue is not possible, so I will dip out here.
(If anyone is wondering about what we're talking about, it's this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/08/london-bus-attack-fifth-arrest-after-homophobic-assault )
As ever, one man's rational is another man's insanity
Happy dipping!
-
Thought you were "dipping out," Jeremy.
Yes - from discussion with Rob on the morality of homosexuality.
-
Maybe - the ones still alive, anyway. Perhaps someone could ask them?
Trump agrees with you. He thought we shouldn't get involved. Hillary did.
-
Trump agrees with you. He thought we shouldn't get involved. Hillary did.
A problem when dealing with a very different culture lies in making the assumption that the beliefs one holds are necessarily those of the common man in another. Democracy is one such western tenet that is, believe it or not, not a totally internationally shared one. In fact, there are cultures where the control of a dictator, religious one or of the common or garden political variety, is the only way of holding a place or society together. Some lands have no respect for political boundaries - if they even recognize them - but great respect for religious unity amongst them. Ignoring that has led to many mistakes already. Russia has made them as has the west. Afghanistan wore them out as no doubt will Syria, with or without the present power structure there.
Often, we meddle at our cost, as China may currently be doing in Africa.
-
A problem when dealing with a very different culture lies in making the assumption that the beliefs one holds are necessarily those of the common man in another. Democracy is one such western tenet that is, believe it or not, not a totally internationally shared one. In fact, there are cultures where the control of a dictator, religious one or of the common or garden political variety, is the only way of holding a place or society together. Some lands have no respect for political boundaries - if they even recognize them - but great respect for religious unity amongst them. Ignoring that has led to many mistakes already. Russia has made them as has the west. Afghanistan wore them out as no doubt will Syria, with or without the present power structure there.
Often, we meddle at our cost, as China may currently be doing in Africa.
Although it turned out wrong, the main reason we got into Iraq was to eliminate any weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had, not to turn it into a democracy. But your point is well taken. We often use 'democracy" as an excuse. On the other hand, that could be a leftover from the Cold War and the Communist Soviet Union. At that time, the world was in a battle for the minds of man, whether we would be freely Democratic or Communist. So "making the world safe for democracy" was the raison d'etre for much of the international political jockeying that went on with both sides. People in the West were afraid of losing their freedom like those in Eastern Europe had lost theirs.
-
and all of SE Asia as well.
-
Although it turned out wrong, the main reason we got into Iraq was to eliminate any weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had, not to turn it into a democracy. But your point is well taken. We often use 'democracy" as an excuse. On the other hand, that could be a leftover from the Cold War and the Communist Soviet Union. At that time, the world was in a battle for the minds of man, whether we would be freely Democratic or Communist. So "making the world safe for democracy" was the raison d'etre for much of the international political jockeying that went on with both sides. People in the West were afraid of losing their freedom like those in Eastern Europe had lost theirs.
nah. that was all about Iraqi oil and containing Iran.
WMD was all about providing an excuse.
-
nah. that was all about Iraqi oil and containing Iran.
WMD was all about providing an excuse.
Did we get that oil?
And how is defeating an enemy of Iran helping in “containing Iran”?
-
Well, we still have American troops in Japan and Germany 75 years after the end of WWII. Also South Korea (66 years). Hmmm.
As far as Iraq, there are still troops there too. As an aside, I think if you asked Iraqis of they're better off now then they were under Saddam, most would say they are, at least the Shia majority would.
But you make a good point. For years I couldn;t understand why in the old days, conquerors would kill all the men and destroy the countries they conquered. Then they occupied the country or what was left with military power. Well, it was the only way to avoid an insurgency. You couldn't leave them to fight another day. Since we don;t fight like that anymore (well ISIS did), we wind up having to occupy forever.
Occupying forces in Japan, Germany, and S. Korea? Really?!
C'mon, Alan. Not even Fox News would suggest that.
-
Occupying forces in Japan, Germany, and S. Korea? Really?!
C'mon, Alan. Not even Fox News would suggest that.
My point is that whatever the reason, we still have American troops in these countries.
On the other hand, there are some non-German Europeans who are happy that American troops are in Germany and that Germany did not have to re-arm at the end of WWII. They still fear that a rich and armed Germany might try conquest a third time. Of course, they figured out that a powerful economy and the EU is an easier way to do it.
Any Europeans out there who'd like to confirm or deny on that?
-
i would suggest the reasons are Russia and China.
-
i would suggest the reasons are Russia and China.
Why do American troops have to be in Europe, Japan and Korea? Let these countries provide the military muscle to defend themselves. What are they, girls, depending on American troops to fight for them? They're the ones who would be attacked and have more to lose. China and Russia aren't going to attack the USA. The Soviets are long gone. And China needs Walmart.
-
Why do American troops have to be in Europe, Japan and Korea? Let these countries provide the military muscle to defend themselves. What are they, girls, depending on American troops to fight for them? They're the ones who would be attacked and have more to lose. China and Russia aren't going to attack the USA. The Soviets are long gone. And China needs Walmart.
Well, the notion of a war with the kind of military might that even S. Korea has probably dissuades China and Russia.
N. Korea? Who knows? The leaders there are bananas.
But talk of military confrontations is a remnant of the past. China is expanding by being an economic powerhouse, including its toehold in Venezuela. The US nativist bubble that Donald is creating is opening doors for China and Russia. No nukes needed.
-
Well, the notion of a war with the kind of military might that even S. Korea has probably dissuades China and Russia.
N. Korea? Who knows? The leaders there are bananas.
But talk of military confrontations is a remnant of the past. China is expanding by being an economic powerhouse, including its toehold in Venezuela. The US nativist bubble that Donald is creating is opening doors for China and Russia. No nukes needed.
So why do American troops have to be there in these countries?
-
Let these countries provide the military muscle to defend themselves. What are they, girls...
You don't understand, Alan. Nowadays girls are supposed to be troops -- warriors.
-
Why do American troops have to be in Europe, Japan and Korea?
Mainly because it's damned good duty in all of these places, Alan. Makes the military more attractive, especially to guys who are young and horny.
-
Mainly because it's damned good duty in all of these places, Alan. Makes the military more attractive, especially to guys who are young and horny.
Oookay.
So why do American troops have to be there in these countries?
I guess we’re all bit touchy about others taking our stuff.
Still, with the likes of Iran and their funding of Hezbollah, the crazies in N. Korea, and the murderous Saudis, not to mention the military industries everywhere willing to sell anything to anyone(no background check needed,) having horny soldiers in far off places might not be such a bad idea.
-
You don't understand, Alan. Nowadays girls are supposed to be troops -- warriors.
No comment. I caused enough trouble. :)
-
Mainly because it's damned good duty in all of these places, Alan. Makes the military more attractive, especially to guys who are young and horny.
When I was 21 and young and stupid, I served in the USAF in Japan for two years. I volunteered for that country. Even had to extend my 4-year enlistment to go there. I bought my first 35mm camera, a Nikon F Photomic T while there. I'll neither deny or admit to your other points.
-
I'll neither deny or admit to your other points.
You don't need to, Alan. I've been there.
-
The real problem isn’t that women don’t have the physical strength to do the job in, say, an infantry platoon under fire, or on a ship hit by a torpedo, though that can be a problem that’s deadly, even catastrophic. And the problem isn’t that women aren’t warlike enough. Anybody who’s been married knows better than that. The problem, as I pointed out in “Women in the Armed Forces and Women in Combat (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/womeninarmedforces.html),” is that an effective combat unit depends on a kind of bonding between men no woman ever can be a part of; a simple statement that’s been demonstrated over and over again.
-
And the problem isn’t that women aren’t warlike enough. Anybody who’s been married knows better than that.
!!! ;D
-
... the problem isn’t that women aren’t warlike enough. Anybody who’s been married knows better than that...
And they can win a war without firing a single bullet ;)
-
And they can win a war without firing a single bullet ;)
It's what matrimonial beds were made for; hence: make love not war.
:-)