>>What is this obsession with Jesse Jackson? Do you see >>anyone harping on Newt Gingrich's bombast and insincerity >>and divisiveness?
Nothing particularly... It just seemed like a good example to go with at the time. If I started using every example I could think of, my ramblings would be even more confusing!
If for example you had a strong feeling about some aspect of GWB's plan that featured John Ashcroft, to keep coming back to him wouldn't read as obsessional (to me anyway) but it would be a shorthand for whatever you feel has the potential to go bad in relation to the events you observe.
>>Noam Chomsky has long and uninterrupted experience with >>federal harrassment.
I'm dissapointed to hear that. Regardless of where he's coming from, he's a *very* good political analyst and thinker. I read his book `Deferring Democracy` a few years back - and after our exchanges I'll read it ASAP. Maybe there is hope for me after all ;-)
>>Again, the maze-like nature of your sentences leaves >>their meaning a bit unclear, though ultimately I sort of >>get the drift.
Thanks for gunning through them and thanks for responding. As you've probably gathered, I spin off on tangents that are more `conversational`. If we discussed this face to face, it would make sense. You have the chance to say "Huh" or "What the hell are you trying to say" (!)
>>You're suggesting that if Linda Chavez was a proponent of >>social services and health-care that possibly the >>confirmation committees would have left her alone
I was trying to suggest that keeping Linda Chavez would have been good for the Hispanic community. Instead of ghettoising minorities, like some leaders try to do, her emphasis seemed to be a drive to get everyone into the same game and *anyone* could have achieved their goals.
Maybe it's a big dream, but that seems more beneficial than allowing people to drift back to the victim/slave mentality until they have everything handed out to them by the government because they are of a certain racial background.
Perhaps certain people concluded that if minorities could potentially be mobilized over the next 4 years by Chavez, they can kiss parts of their electoral base goodbye. If the Democrats spent 8 years talking about `affirmative action`, and in the first term there would be `the beginning of real equity` - why would/should blacks and hispanics keep voting Democrat when they have had real oppurtunites from one of their own who happens to be Republican?
Where Al Gore spent some of his time in black churches over the election, with his "3 fifths of a human" line and GWB still won. He didn't (contradicting some of the left) put in an entire cabinet of KKK members/sympathizers, he neither put in a cabinet of the loony right. Instead, he assembled a cabinet that "looked like America".
There's much talk about how popular Pres. Clinton was amongst the black community, but surely GWB could well deliver the representation and equity that Clinton/Gore talked about. If there's one party who seem to patronize minorities and seem to be ok with the fact that they are ghettoised - and the other party assembles a cabinet that is inclusive of all America, where could the tide of support turn to by 2004 if the second party actually delivers the full promise of that pledge?
>>The coffee and the book sounds good, but, huh?
As you might know, Harlingen is in the Rio Grande Valley, TX - and the groundstaff at the airport (both white and hispanic) get carried away with the `manana mentality` that is popular round there.
In other words it was a poor attempt, using humour, to imply that it takes a hell of a time to get your cases back from the carousel. The reason being is their thinking seems to be in the same time zone of most of the east side of Moscow. (There's no racist assertion to be read there, just fact, I passed through the airport 5 times since August so I know) Forget about it...
Well, I've said all I can without us going round the same track, so thank you for `conversing` with me in this way. I've got a feeling it probably won't be the last time - but we both have lives and other people we could (and probably should) be talking to.
If you like to read books about reformed Irish terrorists, I highly commend Sean O'Callaghan's book `The Informer`. During the 70`s and 80`s he was one of the biggest players in the IRA - but then he turned `supergrass` (that's Irish slang for `informer`) He was convicted of a string of crimes in 1990, was sentanced to 539 years but was released by royal perogative 6 years later. There seems to be an overly romantic view of the IRA in parts of America, so this fills out the other 99% of the things Ted Kennedy and NORAID will never admit to.
Musically, I'm getting into the Texas thang and listening to Steve Earle's `Transcendental Blues`...well worth hearing.
Have a pleasant tomorrow,
Richard Smith
PS - Thanks for clearing up the German question too, just imagine how ironic it would be if it panned out that we're now related by marriage - BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID! All of a sudden the spectre of a yearly audit and a goodly whack of federal harrasment now seem like a soft option in comparison =o)
...Peace
(could well be) a final conclusion
R
richard
(view)
>>What is this obsession with Jesse Jackson? Do you see >>anyone harping on Newt Gingrich's bombast and insincerity >>and divisiveness?
Nothing particularly... It just seemed like a good example to go with at the time. If I started using every example I could think of, my ramblings would be even more confusing!
If for example you had a strong feeling about some aspect of GWB's plan that featured John Ashcroft, to keep coming back to him wouldn't read as obsessional (to me anyway) but it would be a shorthand for whatever you feel has the potential to go bad in relation to the events you observe.
>>Noam Chomsky has long and uninterrupted experience with >>federal harrassment.
I'm dissapointed to hear that. Regardless of where he's coming from, he's a *very* good political analyst and thinker. I read his book `Deferring Democracy` a few years back - and after our exchanges I'll read it ASAP. Maybe there is hope for me after all ;-)
>>Again, the maze-like nature of your sentences leaves >>their meaning a bit unclear, though ultimately I sort of >>get the drift.
Thanks for gunning through them and thanks for responding. As you've probably gathered, I spin off on tangents that are more `conversational`. If we discussed this face to face, it would make sense. You have the chance to say "Huh" or "What the hell are you trying to say" (!)
>>You're suggesting that if Linda Chavez was a proponent of >>social services and health-care that possibly the >>confirmation committees would have left her alone
I was trying to suggest that keeping Linda Chavez would have been good for the Hispanic community. Instead of ghettoising minorities, like some leaders try to do, her emphasis seemed to be a drive to get everyone into the same game and *anyone* could have achieved their goals.
Maybe it's a big dream, but that seems more beneficial than allowing people to drift back to the victim/slave mentality until they have everything handed out to them by the government because they are of a certain racial background.
Perhaps certain people concluded that if minorities could potentially be mobilized over the next 4 years by Chavez, they can kiss parts of their electoral base goodbye. If the Democrats spent 8 years talking about `affirmative action`, and in the first term there would be `the beginning of real equity` - why would/should blacks and hispanics keep voting Democrat when they have had real oppurtunites from one of their own who happens to be Republican?
Where Al Gore spent some of his time in black churches over the election, with his "3 fifths of a human" line and GWB still won. He didn't (contradicting some of the left) put in an entire cabinet of KKK members/sympathizers, he neither put in a cabinet of the loony right. Instead, he assembled a cabinet that "looked like America".
There's much talk about how popular Pres. Clinton was amongst the black community, but surely GWB could well deliver the representation and equity that Clinton/Gore talked about. If there's one party who seem to patronize minorities and seem to be ok with the fact that they are ghettoised - and the other party assembles a cabinet that is inclusive of all America, where could the tide of support turn to by 2004 if the second party actually delivers the full promise of that pledge?
>>The coffee and the book sounds good, but, huh?
As you might know, Harlingen is in the Rio Grande Valley, TX - and the groundstaff at the airport (both white and hispanic) get carried away with the `manana mentality` that is popular round there.
In other words it was a poor attempt, using humour, to imply that it takes a hell of a time to get your cases back from the carousel. The reason being is their thinking seems to be in the same time zone of most of the east side of Moscow. (There's no racist assertion to be read there, just fact, I passed through the airport 5 times since August so I know) Forget about it...
Well, I've said all I can without us going round the same track, so thank you for `conversing` with me in this way. I've got a feeling it probably won't be the last time - but we both have lives and other people we could (and probably should) be talking to.
If you like to read books about reformed Irish terrorists, I highly commend Sean O'Callaghan's book `The Informer`. During the 70`s and 80`s he was one of the biggest players in the IRA - but then he turned `supergrass` (that's Irish slang for `informer`) He was convicted of a string of crimes in 1990, was sentanced to 539 years but was released by royal perogative 6 years later. There seems to be an overly romantic view of the IRA in parts of America, so this fills out the other 99% of the things Ted Kennedy and NORAID will never admit to.
Musically, I'm getting into the Texas thang and listening to Steve Earle's `Transcendental Blues`...well worth hearing.
Have a pleasant tomorrow,
Richard Smith
PS - Thanks for clearing up the German question too, just imagine how ironic it would be if it panned out that we're now related by marriage - BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID! All of a sudden the spectre of a yearly audit and a goodly whack of federal harrasment now seem like a soft option in comparison =o)
...Peace
Nothing particularly... It just seemed like a good example to go with at the time. If I started using every example I could think of, my ramblings would be even more confusing!
If for example you had a strong feeling about some aspect of GWB's plan that featured John Ashcroft, to keep coming back to him wouldn't read as obsessional (to me anyway) but it would be a shorthand for whatever you feel has the potential to go bad in relation to the events you observe.
>>Noam Chomsky has long and uninterrupted experience with >>federal harrassment.
I'm dissapointed to hear that. Regardless of where he's coming from, he's a *very* good political analyst and thinker. I read his book `Deferring Democracy` a few years back - and after our exchanges I'll read it ASAP. Maybe there is hope for me after all ;-)
>>Again, the maze-like nature of your sentences leaves >>their meaning a bit unclear, though ultimately I sort of >>get the drift.
Thanks for gunning through them and thanks for responding. As you've probably gathered, I spin off on tangents that are more `conversational`. If we discussed this face to face, it would make sense. You have the chance to say "Huh" or "What the hell are you trying to say" (!)
>>You're suggesting that if Linda Chavez was a proponent of >>social services and health-care that possibly the >>confirmation committees would have left her alone
I was trying to suggest that keeping Linda Chavez would have been good for the Hispanic community. Instead of ghettoising minorities, like some leaders try to do, her emphasis seemed to be a drive to get everyone into the same game and *anyone* could have achieved their goals.
Maybe it's a big dream, but that seems more beneficial than allowing people to drift back to the victim/slave mentality until they have everything handed out to them by the government because they are of a certain racial background.
Perhaps certain people concluded that if minorities could potentially be mobilized over the next 4 years by Chavez, they can kiss parts of their electoral base goodbye. If the Democrats spent 8 years talking about `affirmative action`, and in the first term there would be `the beginning of real equity` - why would/should blacks and hispanics keep voting Democrat when they have had real oppurtunites from one of their own who happens to be Republican?
Where Al Gore spent some of his time in black churches over the election, with his "3 fifths of a human" line and GWB still won. He didn't (contradicting some of the left) put in an entire cabinet of KKK members/sympathizers, he neither put in a cabinet of the loony right. Instead, he assembled a cabinet that "looked like America".
There's much talk about how popular Pres. Clinton was amongst the black community, but surely GWB could well deliver the representation and equity that Clinton/Gore talked about. If there's one party who seem to patronize minorities and seem to be ok with the fact that they are ghettoised - and the other party assembles a cabinet that is inclusive of all America, where could the tide of support turn to by 2004 if the second party actually delivers the full promise of that pledge?
>>The coffee and the book sounds good, but, huh?
As you might know, Harlingen is in the Rio Grande Valley, TX - and the groundstaff at the airport (both white and hispanic) get carried away with the `manana mentality` that is popular round there.
In other words it was a poor attempt, using humour, to imply that it takes a hell of a time to get your cases back from the carousel. The reason being is their thinking seems to be in the same time zone of most of the east side of Moscow. (There's no racist assertion to be read there, just fact, I passed through the airport 5 times since August so I know) Forget about it...
Well, I've said all I can without us going round the same track, so thank you for `conversing` with me in this way. I've got a feeling it probably won't be the last time - but we both have lives and other people we could (and probably should) be talking to.
If you like to read books about reformed Irish terrorists, I highly commend Sean O'Callaghan's book `The Informer`. During the 70`s and 80`s he was one of the biggest players in the IRA - but then he turned `supergrass` (that's Irish slang for `informer`) He was convicted of a string of crimes in 1990, was sentanced to 539 years but was released by royal perogative 6 years later. There seems to be an overly romantic view of the IRA in parts of America, so this fills out the other 99% of the things Ted Kennedy and NORAID will never admit to.
Musically, I'm getting into the Texas thang and listening to Steve Earle's `Transcendental Blues`...well worth hearing.
Have a pleasant tomorrow,
Richard Smith
PS - Thanks for clearing up the German question too, just imagine how ironic it would be if it panned out that we're now related by marriage - BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID! All of a sudden the spectre of a yearly audit and a goodly whack of federal harrasment now seem like a soft option in comparison =o)
...Peace
