Ancestor worship, Bushido savagery, and tea

That is easy, all you have to do is ask. Anyone who want to talk to me privately my email is REMOVE_ALL snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com Just remove all caps from the above address (it should start with "x") and I al all yours.

Sasha.

Alex Chaihorsky6VE2d.20651$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com9/17/04

13: snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.com

Having visited Afghanistan, gotten to know the people somewhat, and having studied the history of Afghanistan, I came to the same conclusion at that time. Great minds think alike, you see. Now, predictions on the demise of the United States, anyone?

On the contrary. Here I like discussions about tea; although, I must admit that my feeble attempts not to bore others sometimes fail.

...And, according to current events, much like democracy in our two countries. Putin and Bush, hatched from the same egg, I sometimes think. Sorry, not to belabor this.

I'm drinking a 1988 Pu-erh which can be tempermental, but never disappoints. It's mint/camphor/light earth/touchingly sweet/gentle, but its complexity varies with my health and my mood. While not an extraordinary tea, it does present a good picture most likely of a fifteen year old.

Michael

If we won't find a way to get Likudniks out of the controlling the Congress, do you have ANY doubts? "One (wo)man - one term." for all elected officials on federal level without exception, if you ask me.

Look at it from a different prospective. This is a big moment of truth. We found a weak link in the western democratic model - which is normal for any model. Now the critical point - we must understand if it is the model that failed us or we failed the model. To do that we have to find what actually happened. And that is where we have done NOTHING. All explanations about militant Islam, "they hate us", etc. make zero sense and do not stand the test of historic and factual critique. So, we are not addressing the real problem. How can we find a real solution? Russia - same thing. But to be honest, Russian population are much less eager to believe the official story and many Russians do understand that the state has an interest in being attacked to wiggle out of democratic mode. The American public trusts the government to such extent that one wonders which country actually was built on the ideas of the eternal nature of tyranny of the government, US or Russia?

Sasha.

We've come close to doing that in New York City- and we have had a mess. The good thing about careeer politicians is they know how the system works. We now have a mayor who spent more than half his term learning how politics is done in NY, and he angered a lot of people in the process. Some jobs take a lot longer than one term to learn. I for one am glad that certain politicians keep getting elected, since that way they're able to actually help their constituencies and have influence. On the federal level, this becomes very important on some of the larger committes, like defense, health, and so on. Most American politicains are ill-travelled and know almost nothing outside of their states. Freshman year is usually just a learning experience for them- it can take a while before a senator or representative can actually come up with something useful. But then, I'm an American. In Russia it might be different.

Our difference is ideological. I see the government as evil neccesity, you see it as a source of protection and possible good. In that I follow the traditional American Framers argument, and you - traditional Russian one. I am a naturalized US citizen, BTW, living and paying taxes here for 18 years..

Sasha.

"Alex Chaihorsky" wrote in message news:qoG4d.18783$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

Actually, I'm not taking a Russian one, although it might sound like it. The Framers had various opinions on these things. Jefferson would have agreed with you. However, brilliant as Jefferson was, he was wrong on a lot of things. Slavery was one. Another was that Americans should all live in the country and have have direct democracy. I'm a Hamiltonian, however. the Hamiltonisn idea is really what led to us not just being thirteen states hugging the Atlantic. Hamiliton, Madison, and others saw something larger. Hamilton was the one who knew that banking would be important to the growth of the new country. He wanted NYC to be the financial center. He wanted a republic instead of a strict democracy, so the the mob wouldn't control the government and vote in an unknowledgable fashion. He realized that cities and states would eventually grow and become unwiedly if we avted like the only major decisions would be whether to open the local commonses to cows. In that way he was in agreement with Franklin, who understood that a foreign policy would be crucial. It's impossible to have complex foreign policy if you change your whole government every 2-6 years. If Adams and Franklin had agreed with that idea- if even Jefferson had given that idea more than lip service- none of them would have acted as ambassadors in France for as long as they did. They would have changed off and sent other people. One of the things that in my opinion, makes the "American Idea' what it is, is a sense of continuity. I've been living here for 42 years, ever since my behind was slapped in Queens General Hospital- which doesn't mean much since most Americans don't know American history. But I do know that if we had made up 5 Year Plans like they did in Russia, and changed over the people in charge every time, we wouldn't have been in very good shape. Instead we formed political parties, and leaned to throw people out of office now and then. The bad part is when you get guys like Strom Thurmond (Mr. Segregation to you) in office for nearly forever. The good part is when you get Ted Kennedy or FDR, or in some ways, Nixon (whose domestic policy sucked eggs, and whose foreign policy opened China).

To those who object to a little of political discussions here - sorry. However, I think politics should not be frowned upon at this forum if for no other reason than to keep the tradition of Boston Tea Party.

They did have various opinions, but the evil of the government and power's natural proclivity for tyranny was a common denominator.

And the result is that a clique controls the goverment in a trostkiate fashion.

I vehemently disagree. American administrations were never really interested in foreign policies and a frequient change without re-election craze will most probably create the situation when foreign policy would be just left to professionals, as it should. In any case, as we can see today, 4-8 period, does not garanteed foreign policy stability either, so your agrument does not work the way you presented it.

In current situation when there is almost an impossibility for a third political party to play any role but taking away votes of its ideological neighbour and promote the ideological adversary, the new grassroot ideas cannot penetrate the discourse, which in my opinion is the only healthy way to move through time. The sight of Republicans fighting for Nader to have a chance in Florida must have convinced even the comatose that something is wrong in this game. However it creates the ideal situation for well-organized and well-funded ideologically marginal or foreign interests to grab control of the helm and even, as we see today, occupy the bridge. Now it is the test for the seaworthiness of the crew to actually look at the compas and the charts rather than listen to the fairytales and decide if they really want to go where the bridge takes them I say that if the crew wants to live, the current skipper has no chance and will be thrown overboard with his officers. As a true believer in Americanism I am hopeful that this is what will happened.

When I was saying "One man - one term" what I meant was to strengthen the Congress. I believe that teh future of the republic depends on how independant and strong the Congress is. If you know other ways to promote strong, unbribed and independant-minded Congress, I will gladly forget about my recipy. But I think you will agree that today the Congress is at its all-times low. And that is where the real danger is.

Sasha.

P.S. I can almost smell the Twinnings in your breath. British, are we not? :)

That seems a thoroughly ridiculous and contradictory thing to say. If you're using the word `necessity' in anything resembling the `common sense' way, then governments are a necessity precisely because their existence generate beneficial outcomes. That's beneficial, as in bene, as in *good*.

To say it in more detail, necessity only has sense with respect to something, namely the thing which creates the necessity. For example, boiling water is a necessity for making hot tea (perhaps not *boiling* it).

When people use the word necessity but omit what it is with respect to, it is because that thing is taken to be a universal good that doesn't need to be said explicitly. If you're going to disagree with this use of necessity, you're going to have to explain how it can make sense without respect to a `thing', or you're going to have to explain how that unsaid thing can be other than a universal good.

Perhaps you do agree with this use of necessity, but have some bizarre notion about apparently perceived `intrinsic' evil somehow trumping good consequences.

Cheers,

- Joel

Joel snipped-for-privacy@cindy.panacea.null.org9/29/04

09: snipped-for-privacy@panacea.null.org [Multitudinous eructations of moral philosophy....]

Not to get mixed up in this clash of titans, and speaking of irrelevancy, by all means please take it elsewhere.

Sorry, you're quite right of course.

Cheers,

- Joel