I just noticed all news channels on the boob tube are showing endless repetitions of what the US alleges are the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons. We all know how easy it is to make realistic fake pictures now that everything is digital, so I was thinking what a cool hack it would be to Photoshop some similar pictures of the Bush daughters, and post them on the Internet for everyone to enjoy. Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder the legitimate leader of another sovereign nation and his entire family, an "artist's rendering" of Shrub reaping what he sows would surely be an excellent political statement. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder the legitimate leader of another sovereign nation and his entire family, an "artist's rendering" of Shrub reaping what he sows would surely be an excellent political statement. I am not sure these two were murdered as saddam's sons (although obviously
Eric Cordian wrote: they were, and were no doubt given priority over equally worthy targets) but as authority figures in the former government. That they were also (if they could be captured) bloody useful hostages against actions by their father probably didn't go without notice either. However, if strafeing an occupied house with helecopter gunships, rocket launchers and heavy machine guns after a cursory "surrender or die" is ignored, based on military intel (which as the WMD fiasco shows is worthless if the PR spin department are demanding raw access to unfiltered intel and filtering, not on reliability but on closeness of match to the desired outcome) is to be the new standard, I suspect a suicide bombing of the white house (killing all the staff and the shrub) would now be "ok" provided they shouted 'surrender or die' first, yes?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Dave Howe wrote:
However, if strafeing an occupied house with helecopter gunships, rocket launchers and heavy machine guns after a cursory "surrender or die" is ignored, based on military intel (which as the WMD fiasco shows is worthless if the PR spin department are demanding raw access to unfiltered intel and filtering, not on reliability but on closeness of match to the desired outcome) is to be the new standard, I suspect a suicide bombing of the white house (killing all the staff and the shrub) would now be "ok" provided they shouted 'surrender or die' first, yes?
Hell, this has been the norm for a very long time. The rest of the world knows this as an American No-Knock Drug Warrant. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Every living thing dies alone." Donnie Darko
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 05:52 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Dave Howe wrote:
However, if strafeing an occupied house with helecopter gunships, rocket launchers and heavy machine guns after a cursory "surrender or die" is ignored, based on military intel (which as the WMD fiasco shows is worthless if the PR spin department are demanding raw access to unfiltered intel and filtering, not on reliability but on closeness of match to the desired outcome) is to be the new standard, I suspect a suicide bombing of the white house (killing all the staff and the shrub) would now be "ok" provided they shouted 'surrender or die' first, yes?
Hell, this has been the norm for a very long time. The rest of the world knows this as an American No-Knock Drug Warrant.
Fucking idiot. Did you notice you have once again copied two nodes of the CP list? This is not the first time. Idiot. Someone ought to necklace you. --Tim May
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Tim May wrote:
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:55:27 -0700 From: Tim May <timcmay@got.net> To: J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> Cc: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com, "Email List: Cypherpunks" <cypherpunks@lne.com> Subject: Re: Dead Body Theatre
<snip>
Fucking idiot. Did you notice you have once again copied two nodes of the CP list? This is not the first time. Idiot.
Hrm. I note that you have sent this to two nodes as well. Doctor, heal thyself.
Someone ought to necklace you.
Aw, don't I rate a full "Needs Killing" anymore?
--Tim May
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Every living thing dies alone." Donnie Darko
On Saturday, July 26, 2003, at 07:54 AM, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Tim May wrote:
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:55:27 -0700 From: Tim May <timcmay@got.net> To: J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> Cc: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com, "Email List: Cypherpunks" <cypherpunks@lne.com> Subject: Re: Dead Body Theatre
<snip>
Fucking idiot. Did you notice you have once again copied two nodes of the CP list? This is not the first time. Idiot.
Hrm. I note that you have sent this to two nodes as well. Doctor, heal thyself.
Idiot, I left the cc: list as you had it, to show what you had done. As now. --Tim May
May be the information provided by the informant was wrong and it ended up that a 14 year kid along with 3 iraqi adults got killed and in order to prevent further outrage among iraqi's,the white house decided on playing its cards to its advantage.They didn't confirm their DNA test as yet-funny. Regards Sarath. --- Dave Howe <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder the legitimate leader of another sovereign nation and his entire family, an "artist's rendering" of Shrub reaping what he sows would surely be an excellent political statement. I am not sure these two were murdered as saddam's sons (although obviously
Eric Cordian wrote: they were, and were no doubt given priority over equally worthy targets) but as authority figures in the former government. That they were also (if they could be captured) bloody useful hostages against actions by their father probably didn't go without notice either. However, if strafeing an occupied house with helecopter gunships, rocket launchers and heavy machine guns after a cursory "surrender or die" is ignored, based on military intel (which as the WMD fiasco shows is worthless if the PR spin department are demanding raw access to unfiltered intel and filtering, not on reliability but on closeness of match to the desired outcome) is to be the new standard, I suspect a suicide bombing of the white house (killing all the staff and the shrub) would now be "ok" provided they shouted 'surrender or die' first, yes?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Sarad writes:
May be the information provided by the informant was wrong and it ended up that a 14 year kid along with 3 iraqi adults got killed and in order to prevent further outrage among iraqi's,the white house decided on playing its cards to its advantage.They didn't confirm their DNA test as yet-funny.
If it turns out that Shrub killed two ordinary Iraqis, claimed they were Saddam's sons, and then had army morticians make them up to resemble Saddam's sons, he will be laughed out of office. I've always said that you have to talk to people in the language they understand, and that the only language the American people understand is dead Americans. Indeed, Bush makes a mockery of the UN, and launches a war of aggression against Iraq, based on a Weapons of Mass Destruction soap opera conducted in the media, and the American people approve. American soldiers set up check points, and fire at families in cars trying to flee to safer areas, blowing the heads off babies, and the American people approve. Bush slaughters thousands of Iraqis on his way to Baghdad, who are only trying to defend their country again outside invaders, and the American people approve. The Iraqis resist by killing a couple Americans a day for a few weeks, and Bush's approval rating drops 2 points a day. Almost half the American public say going to Iraq wasn't worth the cost. Americans are finally being talked to in the language they understand. If the Iraqis kill 5 American soldiers a day for 2 months, it will cost Bush the election. If they manage a mass hosing, comparable to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia, Bush will be impeached. If they should manage to kill a few tens of thousands of American soldiers out of the 147,000 currently serving in Iraq, mobs of angry American parents will attack and burn the White House to the ground, and feed Shrub and his entire family feet first into a compost shredder. Again, it's just a matter of talking to people in the only language they understand. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
I wouldn't like to see american soldiers killed either.How ever I talked to an american citizen a few days before the second iraq war and he supported the war saying that-"If one is an american,where do you think all the money,power and previlage for american people will come from?" That sounds very logical. I retaliated saying that the previlages,power will come with the death of thousands of iraqi men,women and children. He wouldn't budge any way. Sarath. --- Eric Cordian <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote:
Sarad writes:
May be the information provided by the informant was wrong and it ended up that a 14 year kid along with 3 iraqi adults got killed and in order to prevent further outrage among iraqi's,the white house decided on playing its cards to its advantage.They didn't confirm their DNA test as yet-funny.
If it turns out that Shrub killed two ordinary Iraqis, claimed they were Saddam's sons, and then had army morticians make them up to resemble Saddam's sons, he will be laughed out of office.
I've always said that you have to talk to people in the language they understand, and that the only language the American people understand is dead Americans.
Indeed, Bush makes a mockery of the UN, and launches a war of aggression against Iraq, based on a Weapons of Mass Destruction soap opera conducted in the media, and the American people approve.
American soldiers set up check points, and fire at families in cars trying to flee to safer areas, blowing the heads off babies, and the American people approve.
Bush slaughters thousands of Iraqis on his way to Baghdad, who are only trying to defend their country again outside invaders, and the American people approve.
The Iraqis resist by killing a couple Americans a day for a few weeks, and Bush's approval rating drops 2 points a day. Almost half the American public say going to Iraq wasn't worth the cost.
Americans are finally being talked to in the language they understand.
If the Iraqis kill 5 American soldiers a day for 2 months, it will cost Bush the election. If they manage a mass hosing, comparable to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia, Bush will be impeached. If they should manage to kill a few tens of thousands of American soldiers out of the 147,000 currently serving in Iraq, mobs of angry American parents will attack and burn the White House to the ground, and feed Shrub and his entire family feet first into a compost shredder.
Again, it's just a matter of talking to people in the only language they understand.
-- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
On Saturday, July 26, 2003, at 01:10 AM, Sarad AV wrote:
I wouldn't like to see american soldiers killed either.How ever I talked to an american citizen a few days before the second iraq war and he supported the war saying that-"If one is an american,where do you think all the money,power and previlage for american people will come from?"
That sounds very logical.
I retaliated saying that the previlages,power will come with the death of thousands of iraqi men,women and children.
He wouldn't budge any way.
This is a silly, naive view of things. First, the concept of "privilege" is one of those lefty, cockeyed notions the liberals use to vaguely imply that success in life is due to "privilege." Second, though I strongly disagree with the Second Iraq War, nothing that happens there has anything substantive to do with economic success and "money, power" for anyone I know. Our "money, power" comes from work, investments, high tech, etc. I have no idea if you are really the Third World mutant you usually come off as being, but you really need to get out more. --Tim May
Tim May wrote:
This is a silly, naive view of things. First, the concept of "privilege" is one of those lefty, cockeyed notions the liberals use to vaguely imply that success in life is due to "privilege."
Much as conservatives refer to everyone who can see through their propaganda better than Joe Sixpack as "The Elite." Variations include "The Hollywood Elite", "The University Elite", etc. Conservatives fear anyone with a longer memory and better critical thinking skills than your average dumbass American hayseed, programmed in the Guv'ment School, with his 9th grade reading and his 4th grade math.
Second, though I strongly disagree with the Second Iraq War, nothing that happens there has anything substantive to do with economic success and "money, power" for anyone I know. Our "money, power" comes from work, investments, high tech, etc.
It comes from work. Back when I was but a tiny Thaumaturge, home ownership was within the reach of virtually everyone in AmeriKKKa. An entire household full of people could be supported on the income of a single adult working virtually any full time job. Leasure time and recreation were abundant. The Sheeple were happy sheep. Fast forward to today, where a barely comfortable living requires every adult member of a household to work somewhere over full time at some sort of skilled occupation, one paycheck away from the street. It's the time-honored algorithm for optimizing the speed of an assembly line. You speed up the line until the error rate becomes unacceptable, and then back off by epsilon. If the workers are wheezing, with their tongues hanging dangerously close to the gears, who cares. There are hungry people standing in line to replace anyone who can't take it. Apply this algorithm to macroeconomic variables, during a loud propaganda campaign promoting "productivity," and you have essentially what was done to the US economy starting with the ascension of the Conservatives to power in 1980. The US spent the Soviet Union into bankrupcy, and rebuilt a military force that can threaten any nation in the world, not because of Manifest Destiny, but by working its citizens harder than any other decent nation was willing to do. Citizens too dumb to understand that economic control of a population is not morally superior to control at the point of a gun. And through the miracle of Fractional Reserve Banking, while the Proles toiled, a small privileged segment of the population became fabulously wealthy during the same period, for doing, as Anne Robinson would say, "Absolutely Nothing." -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
-- On 26 Jul 2003 at 10:44, Eric Cordian wrote:
It comes from work. Back when I was but a tiny Thaumaturge, home ownership was within the reach of virtually everyone in AmeriKKKa. An entire household full of people could be supported on the income of a single adult working virtually any full time job. Leasure time and recreation were abundant. The Sheeple were happy sheep.
Fast forward to today, where a barely comfortable living requires every adult member of a household to work somewhere over full time at some sort of skilled occupation, one paycheck away from the street.
This is the usual Marxist shit that living standards fell as a result of the industrial revolution, and have been falling ever since. If it is getting harder to own a home, why is the proportion of people who own their own homes growing steadily, and been growing steadily (with some brief, minor, and infrequent dips) for as long as anyone has been keeping records? Why are the homes steadily getting bigger, while the number of inhabitants in the home get steadily smaller? You guys have been making up this data ever since Marx rewrote Gladstone's budget speech, to have Gladstone declare that "this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power ... is an augmentation entirely confined to classes of property." When in fact Gladstone said the direct opposite, and proved it with statistics, proved that the poor had experienced, as a result of the industrial revolution "this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power" This is the same moron marxism as expressed in the word "sweatshop": To a naive and ignorant socialist it seems that if each man selfishly pursues his own desire, the result will necessarily be chaos and hardship, that one person's plan will naturally harm those that are not part of it, hence such phrases and concepts as "sweatshop" which presuppose that one man producing a plan to create value and another man providing equipment to implement that plan, has somehow magically made the workers in a poor country worse off, that saving, investment and entrepeneurship is unproductive, that investment, particularly investment by rich people creating the means of production in poor countries, is a plot to swindle the poor, a scam, a transfer from poor to rich. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG NdQWI/wu/9VPiym9XbWFtjv+wm6k/HuBfDWmTCCN 4JgUdAd3YDdMyR471c4vZhsCG9wrbZADfgt+10DeZ
On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 11:20 AM, James A. Donald wrote:
This is the same moron marxism as expressed in the word "sweatshop": To a naive and ignorant socialist it seems that if each man selfishly pursues his own desire, the result will necessarily be chaos and hardship, that one person's plan will naturally harm those that are not part of it, hence such phrases and concepts as "sweatshop" which presuppose that one man producing a plan to create value and another man providing equipment to implement that plan, has somehow magically made the workers in a poor country worse off, that saving, investment and entrepeneurship is unproductive, that investment, particularly investment by rich people creating the means of production in poor countries, is a plot to swindle the poor, a scam, a transfer from poor to rich. \
The move to "boycott stores selling sweatshop products" is gathering steam, so to speak. Stores like The Gap, Old Navy, Target, etc. are making plans to stop buying from so-called sweatshops. Of course, when this happens all those employed in these "sweatshops" in Bangladesh, Malaysia, etc. will be unemployed. What, do people think shutting down the garment factories means the workers will get jobs at Intel and Microsoft? Or that somehow their wages will be increased to economically-unsupported levels for their country/ Duh. I'll chortle as yuppies and GenXers may more for inferior clothing while millions in Bangladesh and Malaysia starve to death over this "save the poor people!" scam. As for the standard of living issue, I _do_ think the standard of living has declined over the past 40 years, aside from some availability of high tech products and medical care. Most of my employed friends are working half again as many hours as my father worked, are spending twice as much time sitting in traffic, and are living in smaller houses than my parents and my family lived in. And they are paying several times the tax burden. If the wife works, which was rare in the 1950s and into the early 60s, and they have children, then they may be paying a further substantial hit on childcare and nannies. I would not want interference to stop free transaction in jobs, but it's disingenuous to ignore the fact that many today are working two jobs, or very, very long hours, to maintain a house that is generally smaller than in years past. (Yeah, there are are a lot of McMansions. But many engineers in their 30s are still living in crappy apartments. And working 50-hour weeks, at minimum, with hours per day spent sitting in traffic. And on call with cellphones and laptops. And taking work home. And checking their e-mail every night and weekend. And paying 50% or more of what they make in federal income taxes, state income taxes, passed-on property taxes, sales taxes, energy taxes, highway taxes, and Socialist Security taxes. And what they earn in investments, after paying taxes on income, is taxed a second time, even if the alleged investment gains are mostly due to monetary devaluation.) You often let your intense hatred of Marxism blind you to the very horrific situation we now face. --Tim May
walk into a government hopsital in a third world and in the U.S-you will see the difference. I am not talking of any one individual getting wealthy. As for previlages even-basic aminities like food,water,medicine,health care are all previalges though they may not appear to be in a wealthy nation. Sarath. --- Tim May <timcmay@got.net> wrote:
On Saturday, July 26, 2003, at 01:10 AM, Sarad AV wrote:
I wouldn't like to see american soldiers killed either.How ever I talked to an american citizen a few days before the second iraq war and he supported the war saying that-"If one is an american,where do you think all the money,power and previlage for american people will come from?"
That sounds very logical.
I retaliated saying that the previlages,power will come with the death of thousands of iraqi men,women and children.
He wouldn't budge any way.
This is a silly, naive view of things. First, the concept of "privilege" is one of those lefty, cockeyed notions the liberals use to vaguely imply that success in life is due to "privilege."
Second, though I strongly disagree with the Second Iraq War, nothing that happens there has anything substantive to do with economic success and "money, power" for anyone I know. Our "money, power" comes from work, investments, high tech, etc.
I have no idea if you are really the Third World mutant you usually come off as being, but you really need to get out more.
--Tim May
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
walk into a government hopsital in a third world and in the U.S-you will see the difference. I am not talking of any one individual getting wealthy. As for previlages even-basic aminities like food,water,medicine,health care are all previalges though they may not appear to be in a wealthy nation.
Yup, it is mighty hard to explain with words. You have to see with your own eyes how 3 billion people live to comprehend "dirt poor". Unfortunatly, the wealthy prefer not to see. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Actually...the *wealthy* (implied other 2 billion folk because even the poorest whiny american I have seen is a king in Kosovo) do see, they just don't care. -Peter Mike Rosing wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
walk into a government hopsital in a third world and in the U.S-you will see the difference. I am not talking of any one individual getting wealthy. As for previlages even-basic aminities like food,water,medicine,health care are all previalges though they may not appear to be in a wealthy nation.
Yup, it is mighty hard to explain with words. You have to see with your own eyes how 3 billion people live to comprehend "dirt poor". Unfortunatly, the wealthy prefer not to see.
Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Thoenen, Peter CIV Sprint wrote:
Actually...the *wealthy* (implied other 2 billion folk because even the poorest whiny american I have seen is a king in Kosovo) do see, they just don't care.
I agree. Even India has a few with wealth far beyond the imagination of most Americans, and many with the same living standard as Americans. They certainly see it. Sarad, care to give us a short political description of how India views its poorest population and how they want to eliminate their suffering? What fraction of India's population is "dirt poor"? Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
hi, Roughly India has 30 million middle class people.An income of 1000 US dollar per month is considered as middle class. Thats one reason of strong foreign market in india.I guess 30 million may be bigger than the population of some countries. According to reports the number of dirt poor people are another 25 million,that is those who are below the povertly line,that means less than an income of 10 US dollars per month. This is what the report and statistics keep saying but any daily wager gets a minimum 3 US dollars per day,however poor he may be. That accounts to 90 US dollar per month.Thats the poorest you can find in india for a *working* person. So its open to interpret what dirt poor really is. That is still too less,considering the present cost of living in india. Open drains,diseases,insanitory conditions are still visible in india-though its comming down very slowly. Go to a govt. hospital,the sanitation and facilities are poor,escpecially in villages. A large portion of the indian community depend on farming and its upto the 'rain gods' that they yield a good harvest. To eliminate poverty the govt. employs 5 year plans. here is a detailed list of the plans http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html The govt. provides rations to all its citizens-that is to buy basic essentials like rice,wheat,kerosene etc... at a much lower prices that commercially available. Schooling is pretty affordable to the poor in government schools and there are enough govt schools and provide free mid day meals for children.How ever the state of govt schools are sad. This year there were over 500 cases of food posioning among children in one of the 27 states of india all because of unhygenic food supplied.I am not aware of the condition in other states.The govt. schools in many areas have thatched roofs and some are even very near collapsing.Some schools occupy just 1/10th of an acre of land and some even less. The quality of education is also pretty poor.Most schools only teach in the local lingo and finding english speaking people in many regions are hard.Many of the students emerging from govt. schools eventually joins the labour class. In india the average number of students that pass tenth grade is only 50 percent of the students appearing 10th grade. As for politics,2 of the states in india are ruled by the communist party of india.The case of labour class is slighly better here but now a days corruption is at the peak,that the ruling party and opposition party joins hands to fill up their pockets. More over elections in india are won over simple majority and there are over one thousand registered parties in india.The oppoition against the ruling part is usually high. Rich people constitute around 3 to 5 percent of the population. Rich people tend to grow very rich because India is one country you can be 70 to 80 percent sure that any person you approach will accept a bribe be it sales tax,income tax or any kind of tax. Tax evasion is very common among the rich.If you would like to reduce your electricity bill for industries just bribe them and they will reverse the electricity meter for you. If a few barrels of illicit liquor gets caught,you can bribe them to replace it with water.You can get away with a lot of things and make a lot of money-if you are rich. Atleast there is'nt much stigma in viewing the poor.they are more or les treated as equal and well respected.Others aren't really bothered of poor ppl. These are just a few basic issues.the conditions in US are much better than here. One part is better in india-privacy rights and liberty are much better compared to US and even if you do small crimes you can get away with it. I can spit on the road,i can stand on the road and block the traffic till i just get shoved off the road side.There is no way I get arrested.I can do a lot of things and not get arrested. If u get arrested-for minor crimes,you can bribe the cop and you are freed.I never have a swat team that breaks down my doors.The streets are guns and snipers free.I have no surveillence cameras watching me. Regards Sarath. --- Mike Rosing <eresrch@eskimo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Thoenen, Peter CIV Sprint wrote:
Actually...the *wealthy* (implied other 2 billion folk because even the poorest whiny american I have seen is a king in Kosovo) do see, they just don't care.
I agree. Even India has a few with wealth far beyond the imagination of most Americans, and many with the same living standard as Americans. They certainly see it. Sarad, care to give us a short political description of how India views its poorest population and how they want to eliminate their suffering? What fraction of India's population is "dirt poor"?
Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
India has 30 million middle class people.An income of 1000 US dollar per month is considered as middle class. Thats one reason of strong foreign market in india.I guess 30 million may be bigger than the population of some countries.
According to reports the number of dirt poor people are another 25 million,that is those who are below the povertly line,that means less than an income of 10 US dollars per month.
Out of a population of 900 million (or so) that's definitly the wings of the bell curve. The "poverty line" in the US is twice the middle class income of India. That's pretty stunning.
This is what the report and statistics keep saying but any daily wager gets a minimum 3 US dollars per day,however poor he may be. That accounts to 90 US dollar per month.Thats the poorest you can find in india for a *working* person.
So its open to interpret what dirt poor really is.
In the US, anyone below $20,000/yr income is "poor". According to that, 90% of India is "dirt poor"!!
That is still too less,considering the present cost of living in india.
Yeah, no shit.
Open drains,diseases,insanitory conditions are still visible in india-though its comming down very slowly.
Go to a govt. hospital,the sanitation and facilities are poor,escpecially in villages.
A large portion of the indian community depend on farming and its upto the 'rain gods' that they yield a good harvest.
To eliminate poverty the govt. employs 5 year plans.
here is a detailed list of the plans
http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html
The govt. provides rations to all its citizens-that is to buy basic essentials like rice,wheat,kerosene etc... at a much lower prices that commercially available.
Is this kind of a bribe? Keep the majority happy on rations and steal the rest for a few?
Schooling is pretty affordable to the poor in government schools and there are enough govt schools and provide free mid day meals for children.How ever the state of govt schools are sad. This year there were over 500 cases of food posioning among children in one of the 27 states of india all because of unhygenic food supplied.I am not aware of the condition in other states.The govt. schools in many areas have thatched roofs and some are even very near collapsing.Some schools occupy just 1/10th of an acre of land and some even less. The quality of education is also pretty poor.Most schools only teach in the local lingo and finding english speaking people in many regions are hard.Many of the students emerging from govt. schools eventually joins the labour class. In india the average number of students that pass tenth grade is only 50 percent of the students appearing 10th grade.
Ouch. But at least it's an attempt.
As for politics,2 of the states in india are ruled by the communist party of india.The case of labour class is slighly better here but now a days corruption is at the peak,that the ruling party and opposition party joins hands to fill up their pockets. More over elections in india are won over simple majority and there are over one thousand registered parties in india.The oppoition against the ruling part is usually high.
Rich people constitute around 3 to 5 percent of the population. Rich people tend to grow very rich because India is one country you can be 70 to 80 percent sure that any person you approach will accept a bribe be it sales tax,income tax or any kind of tax.
Tax evasion is very common among the rich.If you would like to reduce your electricity bill for industries just bribe them and they will reverse the electricity meter for you.
If a few barrels of illicit liquor gets caught,you can bribe them to replace it with water.You can get away with a lot of things and make a lot of money-if you are rich.
Atleast there is'nt much stigma in viewing the poor.they are more or les treated as equal and well respected.Others aren't really bothered of poor ppl.
the bribery is similar in the US, but there's definitly a lack of respect between classes.
These are just a few basic issues.the conditions in US are much better than here.
One part is better in india-privacy rights and liberty are much better compared to US and even if you do small crimes you can get away with it.
I can spit on the road,i can stand on the road and block the traffic till i just get shoved off the road side.There is no way I get arrested.I can do a lot of things and not get arrested.
If u get arrested-for minor crimes,you can bribe the cop and you are freed.I never have a swat team that breaks down my doors.The streets are guns and snipers free.I have no surveillence cameras watching me.
Part of it is because they don't have the resources, and part of it is because they don't need to control _people_ when they can just gain wealth instead. that may have something to do with mutual respect. I suspect there's a few 1000's of years of history that helps make things the way they are. Thank you for the description. I knew India had some problems, but now I've got an idea of the scope and scale. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
-- On 24 Jul 2003 at 9:16, Eric Cordian wrote:
Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder the legitimate leader of another sovereign nation and his entire family, an "artist's rendering" of Shrub reaping what he sows would surely be an excellent political statement.
You are a moron. If today warfare means wiping out the family of the enemy ruler man woman and child and showing their horribly mangled bodies on TV, this is a big improvement on the old deal where the rulers had a gentlemen's agreement that only the common folk would get hurt, and the defeated ruler would get a luxurious retirment on some faraway island. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG THNKT3gL3AwBfoRbW2WZnMNXz8Akom29NnINipEv 4MdS8qn6JSWbyiQCAy1KLdvD8QUhSGjYrcxLX8RNC
At 16:33 2003-07-25 -0700, you wrote:
-- On 24 Jul 2003 at 9:16, Eric Cordian wrote:
Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder the legitimate leader of another sovereign nation and his entire family, an "artist's rendering" of Shrub reaping what he sows would surely be an excellent political statement.
You are a moron.
If today warfare means wiping out the family of the enemy ruler man woman and child and showing their horribly mangled bodies on TV, this is a big improvement on the old deal where the rulers had a gentlemen's agreement that only the common folk would get hurt, and the defeated ruler would get a luxurious retirment on some faraway island.
Here, here! This change, if widely adopted, would go a long way toward reducing war casualties. Perhaps we may even become as smart as some Pacific Islanders whose wars were fought by surrogates, the logic being that the death of one man can serve as well as the death of many in determining the outcome of a disagreement between heads of tribes, states, etc. It could also reduce the risk of conflict since the heads of state would become the first and legit targets by the opposition. Perhaps the world may owe Dubbya and his ilk an unintentional debt of thanks. Beside better him then me. ;-) steve "War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933
Hmmm, supposedly Saddam had previously issued a duel to the death challenge to Dubbya, which he didn't take seriously... interesting thought... ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ <--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD. \|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
Here, here! This change, if widely adopted, would go a long way toward reducing war casualties. Perhaps we may even become as smart as some Pacific Islanders whose wars were fought by surrogates, the logic being that the death of one man can serve as well as the death of many in determining the outcome of a disagreement between heads of tribes, states, etc.
Steve Schear writes:
Here, here! This change, if widely adopted, would go a long way toward reducing war casualties. Perhaps we may even become as smart as some Pacific Islanders whose wars were fought by surrogates, the logic being that the death of one man can serve as well as the death of many in determining the outcome of a disagreement between heads of tribes, states, etc.
While the replacement of the US/Iraq war with Shrub and Saddam in a barbed wire steel cage on Pay Per View with Vince McMahon announcing is an appealing idea, I think it is a bit premature to leap to the conclusion that this is the road map the US is following. The logic behind sparing heads of state, even though they are technically in the military chain of command, has to do with their utility during post-war reconstruction, and not incurring the eternal hate of the conquered enemy's civilian population. That is why the US spared Emperor Hirohito when reorganizing Japan, for instance. The ability of the US to fight low-casuality war has transformed war into an art akin to corporate raiding. It permits the US to invade any country, destroy the military infrastructure at little or no cost in American lives, and leave the country's proles and natural resources undamaged to be exploited by their new Imperialist masters. If in the end it can be claimed that the people are better off than they were before, even if their previous misfortune was due entirely to US economic sanctions, then it can be declared that the war was "Justified." Of course, this just demonstrates that power is ultimately wielded by the people with the best weapons, even as those same people lull the rest of the world into thinking there is something called "international law," while they arm themselves to the teeth. Fortunately, there has never been a weapons system in the history of the world that ultimately didn't cost less to destroy than it did to manufacture. Force is always beaten by force plus brains, and I am sure the other nations of the world are looking at the US and madly seeking to construct a credible deterrent. The window of absolute US military superiority will last 2-3 years at best. "What the world really needs is a fifty dollar weapon that sinks aircraft carriers" isn't just a witty .sigfile quote. North Korea really has the right idea here. The US threatens sanctions, they respond - "Our nuclear missiles can hit any target in the US. Sanctions are an act of war." The US threatens a blockade, they respond - "Our nuclear missiles can hit any target in the US. Blockades are an act of war." This is really the correct method of dealing with the US, and nations like Iraq are stupid to keep capitulating in the expectation that it will postphone an already decided upon attack. The United Nations should know better than to be continuously baited into playing this game as well. The point is, of course, that this isn't some new kind of war where the Bush family fights the Hussein family to spare civilians on both sides. This is George W. Bush thinking his security is so impenetrable that he can send his soldiers to kill the opposition leader's family, and drag their bodies around in front of cameras, without having to worry in the slightest that he or his family will experience retaliation in kind. Of course, to paraphrase Doctor Who, the word "impenetrable" sounds far too much like the word "unsinkable." -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
At 06:33 PM 07/25/2003 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 16:33 2003-07-25 -0700, you wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 at 9:16, Eric Cordian wrote:
Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder the legitimate leader of another sovereign nation and his entire family, an "artist's rendering" of Shrub reaping what he sows would surely be an excellent political statement.
You are a moron.
If today warfare means wiping out the family of the enemy ruler man woman and child and showing their horribly mangled bodies on TV, this is a big improvement on the old deal where the rulers had a gentlemen's agreement that only the common folk would get hurt, and the defeated ruler would get a luxurious retirment on some faraway island.
Here, here!
Steve, did you mean "Hear, hear!"? Or were you calling for it to happen "here"? :-) Back when we had a First Amendment, that was probably legal, but since Bush inherited the presidency, it might not be...
Perhaps we may even become as smart as some Pacific Islanders whose wars were fought by surrogates, the logic being that the death of one man can serve as well as the death of many in determining the outcome of a disagreement between heads of tribes, states, etc.
European feudalism did that also, though Europeans were less likely to eat the bodies of the losers. Trial by Combat was tossed out of British law in ~1850, but hadn't been used for a long time before that, though dueling was still around in the early 1800s.
At 16:20 2003-07-28 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 06:33 PM 07/25/2003 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 16:33 2003-07-25 -0700, you wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 at 9:16, Eric Cordian wrote:
Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder the legitimate leader of another sovereign nation and his entire family, an "artist's rendering" of Shrub reaping what he sows would surely be an excellent political statement.
You are a moron.
If today warfare means wiping out the family of the enemy ruler man woman and child and showing their horribly mangled bodies on TV, this is a big improvement on the old deal where the rulers had a gentlemen's agreement that only the common folk would get hurt, and the defeated ruler would get a luxurious retirment on some faraway island.
Here, here!
Steve, did you mean "Hear, hear!"? Or were you calling for it to happen "here"? :-)
Whatever... ;-) Anarchy may not be a better form of government, but it's better than no government at all.
-- On 24 Jul 2003 at 9:16, Eric Cordian wrote:
Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder the legitimate leader of another sovereign nation and his entire family, an "artist's rendering" of Shrub reaping what he sows would surely be an excellent political statement.
Oh, how much I love these people who defend the right of the dictator to murder his own citizens. -- Mikko Sdreld Emperor Bonaparte: "Where does God fit into your system?" Pihrre Simon Laplace: "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis."
participants (12)
-
Bill Stewart -
Dave Howe -
Eric Cordian -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Mike Rosing -
Mikko Särelä -
Sarad AV -
Steve Schear -
Sunder -
Thoenen, Peter CIV Sprint -
Tim May