Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
UNFAIR!!!!Wally is a peasant--of course he would know--all the rest of us are descended from nobles. How could webe expected to recognize a device designed for physical labour? Ugh!WillyD
I would suggest that things have changed. Cost, entrance requirements and student desires are allfactors that enter into the equation. The cost is so high that Junior Colleges are swamped with applicationsand the student can opt to live at home--ugh!Parents are paymasters, co-signers and advisors in many cases. None of my nephews or neices had their colleges picked by their parents--very 20th Century.
The purpose of taxes in kind or money or labour or anything else is to defray the cost of government services. The fact that wealth is distributed is incidental. If I guard the walls of Sumer, I cannot farm andam supported by the ruler with distribution of grain, beer and other dainties. Taxes were not dreamed upby some cabal to sheer the sheep for no reason at all--that came later. Again I make the point--each government whether a despotism or a democracy decides how taxes will be spent. As an individual you have very little to say as to how much you pay, where or on what the extracted money should be spent.You do have to right to petition the government and elect your legislature as well as your President although that may be small comfort in most cases.
My Greek tutor explained that many stories, poems, epics and other literary works have been lost over the years. I recall at some point he referred to eight–but I do not recall which–epics I think.Of the Epics we have the Iliad and the Odyssey essentially because so many copies of them were made. His opinion was that we got the best. There are many pieces scattered about or referred to in other works, but the possibility of more being found is remote unless they come from Egypt. Moslems, Christians andother peoples, ignorant of Greek excellence, failed to preserve these. For example--of all the Greek tragedies written, we have less than half extant and many of these are fragmented--e.g. Iphigenia at Aulishas lots of holes that were filled in by later scholars based on educated guesses.Have any of you heard of a modern interpretation ofparts 1-4 and 16-19 of the Iliad called WAR MUSIC?The author is Christopher Louge and it was published in 1997. One either loves it or hates it. I belongto the first cohort.Here is an example of the work:I shall take is best she--Briseis from himMoreHer confiscation shows, once and for all,My absolute superiority,Not just to you retiring boy, but anyoneStupid enough to challenge me In word or deedAchilles' faceis like a chalkpit fringed with roaring wheat.His brain says :"kill him--let the Greeks sail home."His thigh steels flex.And thenMuch like a match struck in full sunlightWe lose him in the prussic glareTeenage Athena, called the Daughter Prince--who burstHowling and huge out of God's head--shedsFrom her hard wide-apart eyes as she entersAnd stops time.Stirring stuff--lots of anachronisms that seem to make it really interesting.WillyD
NO–just the standard one–toleration is the pale stepsister of love. It means I put up with your presenceand there may be conditions. The Ottomans must be compared to their European contemporaries--why kill people of another religion--tax them, fleece them, utilize their skills. It was not a Moslem, who cast thebronze guns for the Turks when they took Constantinople in 1453--it was a Hungarian Christian if I recall correctly.Europeans only became tolerant much later than 1453! Even today a Catholic cannot sit on the throne of Great Britain.
Insert QuoteI read something recently where the next generation will be measured in how quickly they can learn something, master it, then unlearn it and proceed to the next topic. The argument for this was focused primarily on technology -- that technology changes so quickly that those who will excel and be successful will be those who can pick up and master new concepts quickly, and then just as quickly abandon them to take on the next "latest thing". While I can see applicability in certain technological fields, I can't see this being a universal indicator of success.I also remember reading an article recently about the economic "recovery" that referenced the "April Jobs Report". The point that struck me was that roughly 29% of Americans age 22 and over have a college degree. Of course, the article went on to point out that unemployment for college graduates was much, much less than for those without a college degree, and also highlighted that the more formal education you have, the more you get paid (duh?!).Here's some food for thought though. My son is getting ready to enter his last year of high school. A year and a half ago, after being very frustrated with his high school experience (and we live in one of the top school districts in the state), we started looking in to private schools. He elected to enroll in a military style prep school that 1) doesn't allow iPods, cell phones, CD players, video games, or unfetter Internet access, - or girls, for that matter, and 2) teaches by total immersion -- that is, for five hours a day, for seven weeks, they study one subject. That would be Biology for seven weeks, take the exam. Then Algebra II / Trig for seven weeks, take the exam. U.S. History for seven weeks, take the exam. Retention for these kids is phenominal, and test scores are significantly better than the public schools. Class sizes are small (approximately 10 students per instructor) and study time is monitored. Some argue that students in this program lose time management skills, but that's where the military side of the school steps in -- room and personnel inspections, close order drill, parades, marching to chow, etc. Of course, there is chapel too. Guidance counselors begin with "when you go to college..." instead of the standard public school line "what are you thinking about after graduation?"...I am horrified at this post. Vulture 6 wrote it some time ago and it reminds me of some description of Hitler Youth schools, or perhaps a Jesuit prep school. He allows no time for intellectual exploration, for introspection, for lying under a tree with your head in a girl's lap thinking about what to do with your life,or the sheer joy of freedom both intellectual and physical. Perhaps some students need the harsh corset of the drill instructor--I did--but not all of us are needful. As a citizen of this wonderful country I believe it is important to obey the rules except when they should be broken. George Washington would agree with me. You only get one shot at being a boy. I wonder if Vulture 6 used it?
Scout:The author is correct. Unlike Christians the Turks did not force their religion on anyone in the Ottoman Empire. You could remain exactly what you wished provided that you paid a certain tax. Each religious group in the Empire had an official head through which the government administrated for that particular group of believers. The incentives they offered Christians in the Balkans was to be relieved of the taxes and to enjoy the fruits of being a Moslem--perhaps the multiple wives were an inducement. There wasa practice put in place to get young recruits for the Turkish Jannisaries. From time to time bureaucratsfrom Istanbul would travel in the Balkans and get young men for the army. They would be taken to Istanbul, schooled and trained to be soldiers and forcibly converted to Islam. In an age where Europeannations would kill you for being of the opposite faith--the Moslems were known for their toleration. Theyhad a system where Armenians and Jews prospered. Later things got ugly. The best book I can pointto on this is Black Lamb, Gray Falcon by Rebecca West who covers this in exhausting detail. I have beenstudying this fascinating subject for many years and know of what I speak. Check it out--you will be astonished.
I do believe that you are correct. However–consider this. A person arrives at the border of an Empireand asks to see the Emperor. The Homeland Security guard might be nonplussed as would the personasking the question. What answer would you give the person?Is America a de facto Empire?
Taxes are evil? I find this unacceptable and prefer the word a necessary and reasonable cost thatis part of living in a society that requires government at all levels to provide services. Is a fee for crossing a bridge an evil? Of course not. Our taxes are all in place passed by our legislatures--otherwise it would be extortion which it is not. Taxes are spent on what the government you elected elects not on those things that you personally have chosen as being worthy of receiving your donation. Where on earth do you get these ideas from? If you want to legislate==get elected. If not, pay what the law demands or suffer the consequences--the choice is yours.
Try this definition: A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.Now in a de jure sense would I be correct in saying that Great Britain was never an Empire until Victoria became Empress of India. She was always called Queen Victoria at home. It seems reasonable to me that the be an Empire you needed an Emperor--like Japan, Germany, Austria-Hungry, France (under Napoleon), or even Brazil under Don Pedro. Is this argument acceptable or I am playing word games with de facto and de jure--what say you?
