posted on July 18, 2000 05:41:54 PM new
Actually, Marwin, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928 when he was 47 years old....
Folks, what I find interesting in this thread are the statements I have seen stating that Marwin is "stirring the pot," or intimating that he is a troll. He/she is merely stating interesting tidbits of information (though often getting specifics wrong, as above) that he/she finds interesting. How is that being a troll or stirring the pot? That's like saying that someone who posts that Fords are the best cars ever made is a troll because the rest of have our own opinions on which make is the best.
posted on July 18, 2000 05:54:46 PM new
bunnicula, check again. Shadowcat suggested that Marwin "delights in stirring up the proverbial hornet's nest," a great improvement on that horribly overused and completely uninspired "pot" metaphor. She also used "peckish," which puts her in my good books.
Marwin reminds me of that fellow who liked ice cream. What was his name--Rumford? Rutherford? I opine, you opine, we all opine for--tell us your favorite flavor, bunnicula!
posted on July 18, 2000 06:14:02 PM newPareau: I was also referring to posts likening him to jerry12, an infamous AW troll...
As to your request, the literal answer is that I have a tie between two favorite flavors: Maui Brownie Madness and Pralines 'n Cream. It used to be Graham Cracker and/or Licorice, but Baskin Robbins, damn their eyes, discontinued those flavors when I was in high school
In the other sense, my aswer is that I enjoy history, especially the odd,strange or out-of-the-way corners of it. Actually that is only at the top of the list of the many things that are my "favorites." The second is dog breeds.
posted on July 18, 2000 07:09:01 PM new
marwin, true, Benjamin Franklin did have some scuffles with the Indians...but it was also he in later years who served as negotiator with many a tribe such as the Iriquois and the Delaware Indians. Interesting how he could spend so much time civilly negotiating treaties accepted by them if his actions were completely negative his entire life. I guess your entire life has been flawless. (Yeah right, lol)
And if you are so anti-Franklin, then you'd better turn off your pc, unplug the fridge, and sit in the dark, little boy, because without electricity your life would not be as comfy as it is. And you'd better hope you never need the fire department or a pair of eyeglasses either because these are also Benjamin Franklin's, and came into existence from Franklin's at-the-time over 40 mind.
Well, you all know my views on spanking a child, but perhaps marwin needs one, lol
Oh, and btw, do you think your views on how useless anyone over 40 is will remain the same when you yourself are over 40? Or are you resigned to being useless right now?
posted on July 18, 2000 07:15:16 PM new
Marwin. Those things you mentioned are commendable, however they occured in other cultures without millions of people butchered simply because they did not agree with the leader, ie Stalin or Mao.
I want to give me an honest answer without rhetoric. How many people did Stalin have put to death? Do you know the answer?
The rev is praying if needed.
[ edited by pastorleon on Jul 18, 2000 07:18 PM ]
posted on July 18, 2000 07:20:49 PM new
Okay, bunnicula, you can slide this time....
AND I CAN'T BELIEVE I MISSED GRAHAM CRACKER ice cream. I've never even heard of it before.
I know you like history. Couple notes on two other threads, while I'm writing to you: I agree with your read on its origins (from what I know), but thought you'd be interested in knowing that "Hayfoot" and "Strawfoot" appear in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist. And I really enjoyed the Tom O'Bedlam poem, which I'd not heard before.
posted on July 18, 2000 07:22:56 PM new
kiheicat: LOL! In case I didn't make it clear, I think very well of BF. Context matters, at least to some degree. He is justly celebrated. The little stone in his window was just for the benefit of those who tend to idealize...
posted on July 18, 2000 07:46:26 PM new
Yeah, but most of 'em were over 30, right, Marwin? So Stalin actually IMPROVED things with all that genocide, huh.
posted on July 18, 2000 07:51:07 PM new
pastorleon: Maybe I need to add this:
A man rises to power and commits mass murders.
In most countries you could not kill 10 or 20 million people, or whatever the number is, because they don't even have a population large enough.
In the case of Stalin, the country was big enough to make it possible.
Regardless of country size, men have risen to power everywhere, who have commited mass murders.
So, these murders are not Russian specific or political system specific.
The people who participated in the Russian Revolution certainly did not have in mind to put in office someone who would then proceed to kill millions. It certainly was not the idea.
So, there is an important difference as to why there was a Revolution in the first place, what ALL of the consequences of it were, and what this particular tyrant did.
To the best of my knowledge, Lenin, who was first in office, was not a mass murderer.
I am not aware that those who came after Stalin were either or if they were, it was certainly nothing of that magnitude.
It seems that many like to concentrate on the atrocities commited after the Russian Revolution, and by contrast, we don't even have a number as to how many kids were dying of cold and hunger every year in Russia during let's say the 25 years before the Revolution?
It's the same situation with China. The moment that they had their Revolution, we were up in arms.
Well, were where we before they had it?
From everything I have read about pre-Revolution Russia and pre-Revolution China, I'll stand by my statement that these Revolutions have resulted in an improvement over the previous conditions.
posted on July 18, 2000 07:59:23 PM new
Russia was producing great artists, writers, and even scientists before the Revolution. True, the peasant class had nothing to do with any of that good stuff and were severely oppressed.
So along came the Revolution and degraded the nobility to the level of the Russian peasants. Fine, maybe they deserved that, but nothing changed; new masters, same system; one of oppression. Only the few, the Party members profited on the collective misery of the rest.
Maybe Russia did produce some nuclear physicists from what was the former peasant class and taught most to read, but the poverty, hunger and oppression -- both physical and intellectual (the secret police, gulags and murders, such as Stalin's mass starvation of the entire Ukraine) remained and in many cases exceeded the Czar's in sheer brutality.
Just ask some people who actually lived under Soviet rule. I have, and they all seem to paint a picture closer to what I've spelled out than what you have spelled out. All the Revolution did was replace one criminal government run by thugs with another. Atrocities were perpetrated by the Soviet gov't from the very first minute. Lenin was no saint.
Sputnik doesn't equal "local improvement" or even civilization if it comes at the cost of 40 or 50 million lives. Or 1 million. Imagine, when we reach numbers like 50 million, 45 million doesn't even seem different than 50 million. These were people.
One death is a tragedy; a million deaths, a statistic. - J. Stalin
James.
posted on July 18, 2000 08:11:19 PM new
jamesoblivion: Why are we so critical of Revolutions after they happen but seemingly just stand by before they do?
posted on July 18, 2000 08:12:37 PM new
Hallelujah and pass the ammunition.
Or the butterbeans, whichever is closer.
Merwin: (Gently now) Hon, no one is critisizing the concept of revolution, America's seemed to turn out all right. What we take exception to is your insistence that the death of mega millions can be deemed social improvement. Maybe nobody was starving anymore because they were already dead.
[ edited by yorequest on Jul 18, 2000 08:18 PM ]
posted on July 18, 2000 08:24:23 PM new
Oh dear, I've read two threads and now I'm confused. This thread: the Russian Revolution, which led to its industrialization and placed control of the farms in the hand of the government, was a good thing and led to a great improvement in the quality of life. "Dear Family": economic evolution in the U.S., which led to its industrialization and placed control of the farms in the hand of agribusiness, was a bad thing and has killed the family as a social unit.
This kind of thing was always happening at school. You're not a teacher, Marwin, by any chance?
- Pareau
posted on July 18, 2000 08:25:14 PM new
I'm not sure what the quote is, but Jefferson (who knew a thing or two about Revolution) said something about how all popular Revolutions against oppressive governments are justified since a government's only justification for existance is by mandate of the people which it must serve.
If the Revolution then goes on to subjugate the people further, then no, it didn't serve any good and isn't justifiable.
Shooting the Czar and his family may have been greatly poetic and inspired a great Rolling Stones song but it still didn't improve the plight of most Russians. While transforming illiterate peasants into literate ones may be a noble cause, at the cost of personal liberty (yeah, I know the Russians didn't "lose" any freedom because they never had much in the first place) it's not worth it.
Under Soviet rule tens of millions died, many continued to go hungry, many continued to be uneducated, many continued to be persecuted for all manner of reasons. What good does a University degree do for a peasant when he will still get paid less than a grocery bagger in the United States? Was the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire"? Absolutely. At least the Russians I have spoken to think so.
posted on July 18, 2000 08:36:48 PM new
I'm not as familiar with it, but I do know that most Chinese people are still basically uneducated and are slaves more or less.
In college, I had a teacher who was a young guy, about 26 and he came to the US from China when he was 12. He said that he never knew that Mao killed 40 million Chinese people until he came to the US. That's the amount of thought control they have over the people there. It's an oppressive, criminal government. What good is there in that?
James.
posted on July 18, 2000 09:02:11 PM new
jamesoblivion: My view of these events, meaning the Revolutions, is quite different.
In both instances, it seems to me that something had to happen, because the conditions were so miserable in every respect.
Every book I have read on Russia and China before their revolutions, describes levels of poverty, misery, and constant abuse, which make you sick just from reading them.
Once the Revolutions took place and new social and economic orders established themselves firmly, new flaws appeared and the shortcomings of the new systems became evident.
So, I guess, how one looks at them depends on whether one compares them to something better, such as the US or Western Europe, or whether one compares them to their own past.
It is my reading of history and I believe of the majority of historians that basically Russia and China "needed" these revolutions, to jump start themselves away from their old feudal systems and to do a lot of catching up.
From where they are now, they can evolve and pretty much go anywhere. It becomes a matter of contemporary politics.
posted on July 18, 2000 09:11:23 PM new
I see your point. From a historical perspective, the Czar "had" to go. Russia "had" to industrialize etc. Historical anlaysis isn't emotional.
But I question, at least in China's case, whether the majority are not still living under similar conditions that their great-grandparents did, even if China produces our (American) children's toys in their slave camps.
In other words -- China now has technology. But how has that helped the Chinese?
James.
posted on July 18, 2000 09:21:01 PM new
Thanks for the link. Very interesting! Just wanted to say though, I'm uncomfortable with changing a man into a concept. I see that there is an opinion that Stalin was basically the pain that accompanies labor. Stalin was a man who murdered 50 million.
posted on July 18, 2000 09:22:08 PM new
Also, I'm not a moral relativist, so that's why I feel fine calling it slavery even if most of them don't even know they are enslaved.
posted on July 18, 2000 11:09:44 PM newjamesoblivion: a literacy rate of 82% and compulsory education of 9 years (equivalent of 9th grade) hardly equals a population that is "basically uneducated." And that, of course, does not include those that go on to higher education. Actually, given their written language, based on pictographs & numbering in the *thousands,* I call that more impressive then *our* 97% "literacy" rate that turns out students that have great difficulty reading books that aren't 80% pictorial.
Regardless of what they *became* the Chinese & Russian Revolutions did bring about great social improvements for the lower classes. I would say the improvement was more pronounced in China, where the classes were incredibly rigid with little chance of a person improving their position. And women especially gained more freedom, as one of the things the Communists put a stop to was foot-binding.
posted on July 19, 2000 05:40:06 AM new
Commrades, our great leader Mao, the all caring visionary and humanitarian has proclaimed the evil practice of foot binding is hereby terminated. To be replaced with if you have more than one baby, or read the wrong book, you die!!!! Have a nice day.
I have had it wrong all these years, this guy needs to be on Mt. Rushmore. Or at least on the cover of Cosmopolitian.
