In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"The moderator" wrote:

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:47:23 -0700 (PDT), Mycosimian
wrote:

There are people willing to do those jobs for those low wages because
it is a hell of a lot better than lying down on the cold, hard earth
and starving to death. I pretty sure that most of us here are lucky
enough to have other options. Anyone willing to work should be allowed
to go wherever there is work for them.

People might argue that we are losing jobs in this country by the
hundreds of thousands, but these are likely the same people who are
too lazy to pick their own vegetables, wash their own dishes, and
scrub their own toilets.

Companies like Dell Inc. which made many tax incentives in Texas and
the minute those incentives expired, instead of giving back they
shipped 8,000 jobs out to India, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, etc.
My husand who did get his five weeks vacation, seniority and the rest
were all cast aside like cattle to the slaughter house.

Deregulation is what is ruining this country and I hope under the new
administration we will cancel a lot of what the last administration
did to the country. After eight years this country is 13 trillion
dollars in debt, mostly to China. We better pray they don't make the
margin call, oh great gamblers of the last presidency.
Victoria

So far Obama is on track to quadruple the National Debt in four years.
If
you bought into the Obama hype as a fiscal conservative then you were
duped.
If you ignore the amount of money he has budgeted in his first 100 days
then
you are a fool.

It is not the deregulation that provides incentive for employers to go
off
shore. It is the tremendous regulation in this country. Foreign
competitors don't have to abide by very many regulations.

This must be opposite day.

You are so profoundly, egregiously wrong, but that wouldn't interfere
with you adding fecundity to a garden as compost.

From Reagan's "It's morning again in America.", to Gingrich's Contract
on America, to "suuuuue wiiii pig, pig, pig" from "The Worst President
Ever" standing next to the American, fiscal trough, deregulation is what
America's politicians have been paid to do and they have done it to our
detriment.

To bring up that particular mantra now, after being responsible for a
world wide financial collapse is like suggesting we put out a fire with
gasoline.

I don't like the President's approach on Shrub's vanity wars or his
response to our economic problems, otherwise he seems to be doing a fine
job.

But blaming the President, barely 100 days in office, for the last eight
years of chicanery and theft is contemptuous.

And to continue the subject line of a white-power racist, puts you
beneath contempt, but that is probably where your sympathies lie.


In other news:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...h-rebranding-e
ffort/

Well this tread got me looking about for various definitions of just
what Brand means. Is it just like with cattle or is more like an image
with no substance. My definition of style reflects that there is no
substance.

Anyhow in the process I found Ivan Illich again for which I am grateful.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw...%3Dstripbooks&
field-keywords=ivan+illich+in+conversation&sprefix=Ivan+ illich


A review from above URL

22 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Common Sense, April 10, 2005
By*
Panopticonman "panopticonman" (Brooklyn, NY USA) - See all my reviews
**
The New York Times has been of many minds about Ivan Illich, beginning
with its review of "Deschooling Society" in 1971. According to The
Times' December 4, 2002 obituary of Illich, the Times reviewer found the
book to be "'a mind-bending litany of abstraction' and a distraction
from schools' all too real problems." In that same year however, Anatole
Broyard found Illich's critiques "illuminating." But this was apparently
a burst of youthful enthusiasm, for twenty years later in 1989, Broyard
repented his earlier endorsement of Illich: in an article about
winnowing down his library he said he would "especially" discard Mr.
Illich's works.

It's not surprising Illich's project flummoxed the NYTimes. As
progressive advocates of the modern project, and now the last outpost of
bourgeoisie brownstone liberalism, the Times' promulgates a kind of
idealist pragmatic middle ground where technocrats can dispassionately
design and administer systems that will promote the Good and the
Beautiful. Illich, on the other hand, ultimately rejected the modern
project, whatever its political orientation, because he viewed it as
inherently corrupt. In his earlier writings in the early 70s, such as
TOOLS FOR CONVIVIALITY, he believed that it might be possible to stop,
rethink and humanize mankind's relationship with man and the earth. But
by the end of his life he saw that the modernist project could not be
arrested in its destructive disenchantment of the earth and humankind.

Bill who read TOOLS FOR CONVIVIALITY and believe the Chinese Ideal of
a strong family paramount. Helpful if a few hands like to garden ).

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

Not all who wander are lost.
- J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973)