From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #334 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, December 11 2001 Volume 05 : Number 334 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point (oops, correction) [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@] Re: his point [aj@locicero.org (A.J. LoCicero)] Re: his point [Vicki Cain ] Re: his point (oops, correction) ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: his point ["A.J. LoCicero" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Dec 2001 00:16:09 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point OK, let me preface this post by politely asking you not to call me "dear" or "sweetheart." Thank you. I know that you think that it's the United States' job (and that of the rest of the world) to give charity handouts to third-world countries and struggling peoples. That's your opinion. And I think, for a lack of better words, that it sucks. There is only one person here that is naive, and I dare say that it is you. Sure third world countries need to trade, but other countries also need to protect their interests. To ask those civilized countries to give up their interests and those of their citizens for someone else's benefit is incredibly naive. >Third world countries have two choices: starve or comply with >subsistence. Why do you believe that economic coercion is any more >equitable than military coercion? Likewise, you could say that countries like the United States who, out of the goodness of their hearts, offer aid to struggling countries have two options: provide aid to countries while assuring that their interests remain secure, or provide blind aid with no assurance of retribution. What happens when all these countries default on their payments? Bye bye economy. That burden then lies in the hands of the American taxpayer. Why would you believe that the United States should put its own citizens in economic risk to benefit others? That's ridiculous. >Basically you're saying that the rest of the world can do what ever it >wants, but if it doesn't do what we tell them then they can starve. No, if they don't want to do what we tell them, then they can fend for themselves, just like we did many years ago. >My >forefathers told your forefathers that the colonies could do whatever >they want, but if they didn't do what they were told they'd get shot. > >Equal morality. Different means. How is threatening with murder and threatening with not giving aid of equal morality? Last time I checked, human beings have the undeniable right to not be murdered, but don't have the undeniable right to economic aid. Sure, now you'll say that we're murdering them by not giving them economic aid. But that's like saying that if I walk out on the street and get shot, it was YOUR personal fault for not having supplied me with a bullet-proof vest since. >We the west are the new empire, America leads it and America has >become what it was set up to oppose; the antithesis of itself. And it >doesn't even know it. > >Amazing. What's amazing is that you don't seem to comprehend the difference between British coercion and American reasonable outreach. If Ghana decides not to accept IMF policies, American troops are not going to march into the country and make it part of an empire. >Congratulations. Touche. >Most of the countries had a boost on the injection of western capital >and the building of mass sweatshops to build western consumer goods. >After that the currencies of those countries quickly collapsed -- >mostly because the money brought in by the sweatshops quickly vanished >when the western companies moved the sweatshops rapidly onto to any >other third world countries that they could find with cheaper labour. >So since western intervention, for example, the economies of Thailand, >South Korea, the Phillipines and Indonesia have gone straight down the >pan, leaving those countries economically in a worse state than when >they started. And with a huge debt burden to western banks which they >can't even finance the interest payments of, never mind repay. So if countries won't benefit from the IMF, then they won't deal with it. Crisis averted. I have no particular attachment to the IMF, so I could care less. Thanks for solving that problem. >So not only are your morals colonial, but your economics are rather >suspect too Eric, sweetheart. You have yet to show any proficiency in the field of economics. >No, its not our responsibility. Its our duty. Mine. Yours. It's a shame that you feel the need to impose your morals on others. It's ridiculous for you to tell me that I *have* to give money to this cause or that cause. I do donate to charitable causes out of the kindness of my heart, but I also have limited finances. I choose charitable organizations that I feel are worthy of receiving whatever I can set aside for them. >And just to clear up another couple of points: I do think it funny >that you describe my stating facts about last year's US election as >taking a potshot. If the statement of facts implies a potshot, what >does that tell you about your electoral system. It tells me that foreigners ignorant to American election policy (and, for that matter, ignorant American citizens) see it as an easy way to insult my country because they don't understand it. My grandparents, aggravated with the election results, tried to use the same argument as you, but after I explained to them why it was necessary, they understood completely. I am 100% proud of the presidential electoral system in my country. >Also the verb to `out': I meant it in the sense of, for example, >`outing a transvestite' or similar, so you can calm down a bit about >that and not tell me to `watch it'. Apologies if my alternative >sexuality lingo confuses you. You should hang out with more gay >people, do some bench presses, slip into a dress perhaps, pretend >you're a girl occasionally, loosen up a bit -- do you good. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by this, but the fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no idea who my friends are, or, for that matter, what my sexual orientation is. I still humbly recommend that you "watch it." >I passed your message on to my student from Ghana and his reply was >`Fucking typical. Well you can tell him that he's an arrogant ignorant >arsehole from me.' How impolite, but in such a nice accent. He's entitled to his opinions. I know a Serbian who hates the US for what they did to his country. Disgruntled Iranians. Bitter Israelis. You name it. Of course people will be mad when they are at the crap end of the stick. I would be, too. And, as you stated, the United States is the "totem" of the West -- dare I say, the civilized world -- so they are the natural scapegoats. >So, finally, you want things specific to the US foreign policy? How >about this, from those happy people you'll probably try and label as >communists and revolutionaries at ? Why do I need to label them, when they say it all themselves on their webpage? "We are a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age. Our aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the 21st century." These are people who do not want us to think for ourselves, who don't want us to be able to make our own personal economic decisions. If they're not going to treat me like an adult, then I'd be very wary of even giving them the time of day. >In the past fifty years there have been two direct foreign attacks on >US soil: Pearl Harbour (death toll 2400) and the WTC (death toll >3-4000). So perhaps what you are saying is that the American military has done an excellent job *preventing* attacks on their citizens over the years by preventive defensive operations. Sorry for the delays in my responses; I've been (and continue to be) very busy. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 2001 00:41:49 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) wrote in <3af38f41.0112080834.781c5d9@posting.google.com>: >And so I would assume that at least one or two of the people on this >group share those convictions to a certain extent. So, if I were you, >until you find out otherwise, I'd assume you're talking to people who >are somewhat left wing and a teensy bit liberal. Even AJ. I think you'd be surprised how many people (even in this newsgroup) share my feelings on these issues but are afraid to speak up because they know that they are the minority here. I would furthermore guess that even amongst the liberals, a good portion of them are far from the extreme views of communists. >And every time I've seen Fruvous I've heard them express opinions that >are somewhat left wing and a teensy bit liberal, and the one who >usually does that is none other than Jian. So next time you go to see >him, don't be surprised, eh? Who said I was surprised? Do you think I haven't heard The Gulf War Song, Big Fish, The Greatest Man in America, Stuck in the 90's, and to a lesser extent, the Ballad of Cedric Fruvous? >Why not? Because most of it oversteps what I feel is the responsibility of the government. >Don't tell me, after all this, that you actually do find it >inequitable? Gosh, wouldn't that have been a waste of all our time? There is a not-so-fine line between inequitable and unnecessary. >> I don't have a better way of stopping the next al-Qaida, do you? > >Yep. > [snip long-winded commentary on how "poverty and inquity causes hate"] >And if that leader is a Saudi millionaire and trained by the CIA, so >much the more dangerous. So Osama bin Laden--a millionaire (billionaire?)--hates the United States because of... poverty? Something tells me that that is not why he committed these heinous crimes. >So you deal with the poverty and you deal with the inequity. You pay >the person who makes the disk drive in your computer more than 87c per >hour, for starters. OK, so let's follow your line of reasoning for a moment, and raise the wages for the worker who makes my disk drive. On a macroeconomic scale, an increase in the price of inputs would decrease profitability and cause an inward shift in the supply curve. This causes prices to rise and quantity demanded to decrease. Now, workers at that factory will be laid off while less money is flowing into the economy. Has this really dealt with the "inequity"? >Then you stop selling arms to dictators or anyone with bad human >rights records. And you only support `freedom fighters' if they have >demonstrable commitments to implementing democracies if they win out. > >Then you organise your domestic policies around the possibly that you >may be prey to terror attacks, so people can't walk onto planes armed, >like they can't here. And you reinforce the glass in your public >buildings, like NY did in the weeks after the WTC. Like London did 20 >years ago. Finally, something we can agree on. >> Do you think that Sept. 11 would not have happened >> if we hadn't conducting this foreign policy or that one? > >Yes. Yes. And yes again. I respectfully disagree. I think you need to look more critically at the reasons why this attack was carried out -- perhaps examine some of Osama bin Laden's own statements. Here's one I dug up from after the Sept. 11 attacks (from AP translation): "We hope that these brothers (Muslim casualties in Pakistan) are among the first martyrs in Islam's battle in this era against the new Christian-Jewish crusade led by the big crusader Bush under the flag of the Cross; this battle is considered one of Islam's battles... it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God." >> In the meantime, I think that it is a good strategy and policy to >> eliminate current threats against our country and citizens. > >The IRA have been bombing the city I live in for thirty years. They >bombed it three times this summer. I can't count the number of bomb >scares that have shut down Oxford Street while I've been trying to do >my shopping. > >The IRA predominantly gets its funding from the US. Can I launch >cruise missiles at `Irish' theme pubs in Boston and Chicago then? I don't think that the IRA poses a threat to the United States, so you can therefore take my statement to mean that I don't necessarily support the US giving arms to the IRA. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 2001 01:34:47 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point (oops, correction) Hate to respond to my own post, but I realized I slipped up. lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in : >I don't think that the IRA poses a threat to the United States, so you >can therefore take my statement to mean that I don't necessarily support >the US giving arms to the IRA. I meant that I don't think that the non-IRA Irish pose a threat to the US, and therefore agree that it is unnecessary for the United States to supply the IRA with weapons. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 2001 07:31:34 -0800 From: aj@locicero.org (A.J. LoCicero) Subject: Re: his point fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) wrote in message news:<9b12aec3.0112072119.27449054@posting.google.com>... > What gave you the strange impression that we lived under a democracy? > Last time I checked the US was a republic. We elect representatives > and those representatives vote for us in our stead. Beyond that, we > do not really directly elect our president, the electoral college > could have, and very might well have elected Gore or Mickey Mouse > (although many states now have laws which require electors to vote for > the choice of the majority of the vote of the state they're supposed > to represent). Perhaps you might want to review the electoral system > in the US. Unless you want to start calling our republic, the > "American Democracy". Bill, you are splitting hairs. It is perfectly correct to call the US a democracy. From Merriam-Webster: 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections B describes the U.S. government, so your point is totally irrelevant. Sorry. :) > > I have a clue for you, most of the arab world looks to the US as the > great Satan. Why, because they hate our hypocrisy and our devotion to > the almighty dollar. Something, that being a libertarian you should > be able to understand. They hate us because we pretend to promote > democracy (our hypocrisy) but instead fund evil military rulers (like > Saddam Hussein), fanatics in Afghanistan, corrupt regimes in Saudi > Arabia, etc, and of course, being less than equitable in the > Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Oh yes, and they hate our freedoms. They hate us for all kinds of reasons. Some of them reasonable and some of them totally irrational. A lot of them hate us because it is fashionable. No matter what we do to our foreign policy, some people in the world are going to hate us. Yes we should look for ways to be better world citizens, which will hopefully reduce that number, but some (like Bin Laden) will always hate us unless we were to change in ways that I would object to and which frankly are never going to happen. Because of this fact, we need to be able to defend ourselves. People can hate us all that they want, but when they start trying to kill us en mass, we have to say to hell with their interests and look out for OURS. > Lets not forget our support of a military dictator in Pakistan, > something we should be proud of too. Let's put that in perspective though. General Musharaf is hardly the worst of dictators. From what I understand he is relatively moderate. Pakistan is not a paragon of freedom, but neither is it Iraq. FWIW, the Musharaf regime is publicly committed to returning the government to civilian rule, and has a timetable for doing so. Given that, it is reasonable to support them at least as long as they stick to their plans. A.J. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:53:50 -0500 From: Vicki Cain Subject: Re: his point Dang, this is one heck of a childish and snotty argument about "grown up" topics, and I'm enjoying it immensely!! :-) Since I happen to agree with each of you on different things, I did just want to add a couple thoughts. See below: at Eric wrote: > OK, let me preface this post by politely asking you not to call me "dear" or > "sweetheart." Thank you. Excellent point. Condescension--although catty and fun to do--really does backfire when you're trying to be taken seriously. Instead of looking intelligent and superior, you just end up looking, well, stupid. > > >Basically you're saying that the rest of the world can do what ever it > >wants, but if it doesn't do what we tell them then they can starve. > > No, if they don't want to do what we tell them, then they can fend for > themselves, just like we did many years ago. For the most part I can understand your argument here, but some countries simply do not have the natural resources that the United States does. They are also run by corrupt governments who have absolutely no concern for their citizens well-being. In fact, poverty and disease are used as tools to keep the masses in their place. The governments intentionally start riots and revolutions to further their own political agendas and greed. Sure, we can say that the people need to stand up for themselves, but quite honestly, after decades of oppression and corrupt rule, it's merely a way of life. It's also hard to focus on planning a revolution when your kids haven't eaten for two days. Immediate concerns take precedence. As an example, a friend of mine has lived in Kenya for the past 10 years. He tells me how the "democratic" elections there are blatantly bought and paid for. It's simply the way it's done. As a result, he recommended visitors to not come visit from March next year until after the elections due to the riots and crime that is prevalent in the months leading up to the election. I expressed my concern for his safety, and he replied, "I just don't go into Nairobi then." He also told me that he had been car-jacked last October. I was concerned, but he simply shrugged it off, saying, "That's bound to happen to someone like me who drives around 4 or 5 nights a week after dark." What's even more surprising is that Kenya is a relatively stable and democratic third world country. How could we even begin to tell people in Columbia or Rwanda that they just need to fend for themselves when they face the very real threat of being murdered on a daily basis? If we have the means to provide it, don't they deserve any kind of help or protection from us? > > >We the west are the new empire, America leads it and America has > >become what it was set up to oppose; the antithesis of itself. And it > >doesn't even know it. > > > >Amazing. > > What's amazing is that you don't seem to comprehend the difference between > British coercion and American reasonable outreach. If Ghana decides not to > accept IMF policies, American troops are not going to march into the country > and make it part of an empire. What the heck is *this* all about? Britian vs America? Criminy, I think we already have enough battles going on these days to start turning on each other. > s > >And just to clear up another couple of points: I do think it funny > >that you describe my stating facts about last year's US election as > >taking a potshot. If the statement of facts implies a potshot, what > >does that tell you about your electoral system. > > It tells me that foreigners ignorant to American election policy (and, for > that matter, ignorant American citizens) see it as an easy way to insult my > country because they don't understand it. My grandparents, aggravated with > the election results, tried to use the same argument as you, but after I > explained to them why it was necessary, they understood completely. > > I am 100% proud of the presidential electoral system in my country. You know, even though I think the system could use some overhauling (maybe eliminating the electoral college altogether), I basically have to agree here. How many other countries could have had the election that we just did, and yet still see a peaceful transition of power? I can't think of many. There would have been assassinations and revolutions. I think we can be proud of the fact that for the most part, Americans do respect the laws regarding their governmental policies. Although it ain't a perfect set-up, I think one of the main reasons that our government is as strong as it is, is the fact that it was set up to be a continual work in progress. It evolves as we do. (Oh yeah, that checks and balances thing was a good idea, too.) > > >I passed your message on to my student from Ghana and his reply was > >`Fucking typical. Well you can tell him that he's an arrogant ignorant > >arsehole from me.' How impolite, but in such a nice accent. > > He's entitled to his opinions. I know a Serbian who hates the US for what > they did to his country. Disgruntled Iranians. Bitter Israelis. You name > it. Of course people will be mad when they are at the crap end of the > stick. I would be, too. And, as you stated, the United States is the > "totem" of the West -- dare I say, the civilized world -- so they are the > natural scapegoats. I just thought the name-calling was a bit out of line. > > >So, finally, you want things specific to the US foreign policy? How > >about this, from those happy people you'll probably try and label as > >communists and revolutionaries at ? > > Why do I need to label them, when they say it all themselves on their > webpage? "We are a global network of artists, activists, writers, > pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the > new social activist movement of the information age. Our aim is to topple > existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in > the 21st century." I don't have time to check this link out right now, but I probably will later. For now I just wanted to make a comment about alternative press--it's merely an additional form of information, and should be given no more or less weight than any other font of information. It is no more correct or incorrect than the nightly network news. It's simply a different slant that is also skewed by the people who created it. I think anyone who blindly accepts information on any side of any argument without hearing and understanding the opposite side is uninformed. The extreme leftists are just as narrow-minded as they accuse the extreme rightists to be, and vice versa--they're just on opposite sides of the issue. Them's my thoughts and I'm stickin' to 'em. > > >In the past fifty years there have been two direct foreign attacks on > >US soil: Pearl Harbour (death toll 2400) and the WTC (death toll > >3-4000). Actually, there were three (four if you want to count the 1998 bombing in Nairobi since technically the embassy *is* US soil, it's just located in Kenya--but I won't split hairs). The WTC was also previously bombed in 1993. > > Sorry for the delays in my responses; I've been (and continue to be) very > busy. Ditto. Which is why I haven't responded sooner or even posted in the past couple of years. I just wanted everyone to know that at least one person doesn't agree with the majority of the posts in the past couple of weeks. Although I'm glad Richard is posting! You've cracked me up more than once over the years. It's good to hear from you again. Back to my lurking. I'll post more if I get time. Cookie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:54:18 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: his point (oops, correction) at Eric wrote: > > Hate to respond to my own post, but I realized I slipped up. > > lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in > : > >I don't think that the IRA poses a threat to the United States, so you > >can therefore take my statement to mean that I don't necessarily support > >the US giving arms to the IRA. > > I meant that I don't think that the non-IRA Irish pose a threat to the US, > and therefore agree that it is unnecessary for the United States to supply > the IRA with weapons. You are missing his point Eric. The IRA is a terrorist organization. Nobody disputes that. Many many Irish-Americans give money to the IRA (mostly because they don't know a damn thing about the situation in Northern Ireland). US citizens are funding terrorism in the UK. That is his point. Of course his conclusion is silly. The US government does not support the IRA, rather it is closely allied to the British government. In this case what the British government should do is put more pressure on the US to cut off the money being funneled to the IRA. In the current climate I would think that would be rather easier than it has ever been before. A.J. P.S. Although it perhaps should be mentioned that one could argue that Americans' support for the IRA may have helped put the US into the position that it has held of being an honest broker between the IRA, the Ulster Unionists and the British Crown. - -- "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport."--G.W. Bush, Arlington VA, Oct. 2, 2001. Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:44:34 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: his point at Eric wrote: > There is only one person here that is naive, and I dare say that it is you. > Sure third world countries need to trade, but other countries also need to > protect their interests. To ask those civilized countries to give up their > interests and those of their citizens for someone else's benefit is > incredibly naive. Ok, Eric, in general that is true, but there have to be limits. I mean it would certainly be in the interest of the US if the rest of the world would just become slaves to us and provide us with goods and services for nothing more than substandard housing and a bit of food. This worked very well in the southern US for 200 years, but we all agree it was wrong and needed to be stopped (via the bloodiest war in US history by the way). You and I more or less agree on the necessary response to Sept. 11th, but I have to say that Richard is correct when he says that it is ultimately not in our best interest (as slavery was not) to continue exploiting 3rd world countries in a colonial fashion. We DO need to fix that. I just don't think that it is a panacea for our terrorist problem. > Likewise, you could say that countries like the United States who, out of > the goodness of their hearts, offer aid to struggling countries have two > options: provide aid to countries while assuring that their interests remain > secure, or provide blind aid with no assurance of retribution. You are confusing trade and aid here. They are separate concepts. > What happens > when all these countries default on their payments? Bye bye economy. That > burden then lies in the hands of the American taxpayer. Why would you > believe that the United States should put its own citizens in economic risk > to benefit others? That's ridiculous. Of course it is, but it is also ridiculous to make other countries take loans that they desperately need only under conditions that will ensure that they will NOT be able to pay them back. That is what Richard is saying. It is like the way credit card companies ensnare people in this country. Get them in your debt and keep them there. That is the means of control and enrichment these days. Philosophically, everyone has free will and things shouldn't work that way, but in practice they do. It is just like communism looks great on paper. So does capitalism, but it has a big dark side. THAT is something we DO have to address. > >Basically you're saying that the rest of the world can do what ever it > >wants, but if it doesn't do what we tell them then they can starve. > > No, if they don't want to do what we tell them, then they can fend for > themselves, just like we did many years ago. There was no IMF 200 years ago. (And BTW, most of those countries were self-sufficient 200 years ago. It wasn't until the west came in and colonized that the economic problems began) > >My > >forefathers told your forefathers that the colonies could do whatever > >they want, but if they didn't do what they were told they'd get shot. > > > >Equal morality. Different means. > > How is threatening with murder and threatening with not giving aid of equal > morality? Last time I checked, human beings have the undeniable right to > not be murdered, but don't have the undeniable right to economic aid. I wouldn't call it equal morality. I'm not that into economic determinism, however the real point that Richard should have made is that England was pulling the same kind of colonial economics on us back then, as we are pulling on Ghana today. Our founding fathers specifically cite a number of economic injustices as the reasons for their rebellion. They claim that they tried to have their grievances heard "through channels" and that they were rebuffed, leaving them with no choice but to sever the colonial relationship. (They did not, however, resort to terrorist tactics so far as I know. They only wanted to be left alone) > Sure, now you'll say that we're murdering them by not giving them economic > aid. But that's like saying that if I walk out on the street and get shot, > it was YOUR personal fault for not having supplied me with a bullet-proof > vest since. No, he's saying that we are enslaving them with economic entrapment. Completely different beast. Where this discussion breaks down is that Richard seems to suggest that this deplorable state of affairs in some way justifies or at least explains Sept. 11th. That is where he and I part ways. > What's amazing is that you don't seem to comprehend the difference between > British coercion and American reasonable outreach. If Ghana decides not to > accept IMF policies, American troops are not going to march into the country > and make it part of an empire. No, they are not, but you've put spin on the discussion and you don't even realize it. It isn't "British coercion" and "American reasonable outreach". In 1776 the king didn't see himself as being coercive. From his perspective he was putting down a rebellion against his lawful government. He was protecting the interests (both economic and social) of his loyal subjects. He was, in short looking out for the interests of his country. That was his job. We didn't see it like that, but the British view is no less accurate. It is all spin. In the same way Western economic policies (again we are talking trade, not aid here) can seem at once reasonable from our perspective and totally onerous from theirs. The trick is to see things from both sides and try to come up with more win-win situations. If George III hadn't been suffering from mental illness at the time, perhaps more dialog would have been possible and the colonists grievances could have been addressed without resorting to revolution. That is what we need to look for today. > So if countries won't benefit from the IMF, then they won't deal with it. > Crisis averted. I have no particular attachment to the IMF, so I could care > less. Thanks for solving that problem. Again, great in theory, but global economics is not that simple. > It's a shame that you feel the need to impose your morals on others. It's > ridiculous for you to tell me that I *have* to give money to this cause or > that cause. I do donate to charitable causes out of the kindness of my > heart, but I also have limited finances. I choose charitable organizations > that I feel are worthy of receiving whatever I can set aside for them. He means The West more than you personally. I'm sure Richard is happy for you to give money to whomever you want to (except the IRA). But his point is that the developed countries have a responsibility to the emerging ones. As a Libertarian, you probably won't agree with that, so I'd say the two of you are at an impasse there. > >And just to clear up another couple of points: I do think it funny > >that you describe my stating facts about last year's US election as > >taking a potshot. If the statement of facts implies a potshot, what > >does that tell you about your electoral system. > > It tells me that foreigners ignorant to American election policy (and, for > that matter, ignorant American citizens) see it as an easy way to insult my > country because they don't understand it. My grandparents, aggravated with > the election results, tried to use the same argument as you, but after I > explained to them why it was necessary, they understood completely. Necessary??? It was a botched election! The whole fucking state should have revoted. It was a travesty against democracy. Not to mention that there is NO good argument that I've ever heard that can excuse the dinosaur that is the electoral college. Don't get me started. Grrrr. > I am 100% proud of the presidential electoral system in my country. I'm not. I'm about 50% proud of that, maybe 80% proud of congressional elections etc. I'm 100% proud of the town meeting some of the New England states. A.J. - -- "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport."--G.W. Bush, Arlington VA, Oct. 2, 2001. Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #334 ********************************************