Shop Tips in Latest FWW

"Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And you have to like what he has done with Habitat for Humanity. Beats the
> heck out of what most retired Presidents do with their time.

Here here.

Brian.

Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> In article <[email protected]>, "George" <george@least>
> wrote:
>
> > So how long does it take for you to give up your principles?
>
> I asked this in all seriousness - I'm a youngster at 42 and some of the
> reasoning behind these types of long term international relationships
> are confusing.
>
> Can you shed light on what appears to me to be a great contradiction?
> Are our intentions to force the Cuban people to reject Communism? If
> we're so against Communism why do we so extensively trade with China -
> why are US companies moving manufacturing of all types to China?

Exactly. Our "principles" are often determined by our economic
self-interests and expediency. Witness our changing stances towards
countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Cuba is a tough one. We were fine with dictators like Machado and
Batista; in fact, we propped them up as long as we were able to get
cheap sugar from Cuba. And we had no problems as long as Cuba was a
playground for the rich/famous/mob.

But Castro got in and started taking land back from the American
companies (I believe that at the time of the Cuban revolution it was
estimated that American interests owned ~75% of the arable farmland in
Cuba). He also changed Cuba's reliance on sugar and actually had
farmers start growing *food*.

He wasn't even aligned with the commies when he first came to
power, but we effectively pushed him in that direction by our policies
towards Cuba.

So here we have a small island nation just a few miles away that
refused to buckle under when confronted by the world's superpower.
Add to that the fact that it is un-repentantly communist, traded with
the Soviet Union until its demise, sent troops to Angola (even though
there's some question now about how Cuba's role was depicted by
Kissinger/Reagan), etc., and generally thumbed its nose at the U.S.

Ironically, since Cuba is no threat to us, and in this
day-and-time, no real economic benefit comes from normalization, we
can probably afford to maintain our stance in the name of "principles"
or "anti-communism". (Compare and contrast that to China.)

Also, I have to believe that the Cuban-American community has quite
a bit of influence on our relations with Cuba. They present a vocal,
united front, and are (for the most part) a well-educated and powerful
voting block.

Personally, I think we should drop the whole charade and
re-establish relations with Cuba. (Of course I have selfish motives;
I'd like to visit the land where my father was born.) But I think
there's too much history and desire to save face on both sides for
anything to happen in the short term.


Chuck Vance

"George" <george@least> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> You'd be appalled if you did visit, unless you're a classic car fan.

What is so appalling about Cuba? Is it worse than poor areas
anywhere else? Has the natural beauty of the island been destroyed?
Has the culture disappeared? (These are serious questions, not
flame-bait.)

I understand from your posts that you are no fan of socialism, but
did you find Cuba to be any different than you would expect for an
island state with limited resources that has effectively been left to
fend for itself? (Actually, worse than that, it's been embargoed by
its closest neighbor.)

> The book I recommended, _ One Hell of a Gamble_ has some good information
> on the courting of Fidel. In there, with the data from archives to support
> it, it's said that if Fidel had not come around, Che and the other communist
> moles would have taken him out.

Thanks for the pointer. Sounds worth checking out.

Back to your original premise:

> So how long does it take for you to give up your principles?

How do you reconcile those "principles" with our actions towards
China? And do you agree or disagree that our posture regarding Cuba
is probably due in a large part to the fact that they aren't a threat,
and at the same time, don't offer enough economic incentive for us to
normalize relations? In other words, we get to play the anti-commie
card without having to take a hit by losing potential markets/goods or
angering someone who is powerful enough to cause us problems.


Chuck Vance

"George" <george@least> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> The contrast, in the same view, between the state of the state, if you will,
> and the state of the people is what gets me. The state looks to be doing
> well for itself, even though there are state plates on '49 Kaisers. The
> people, excepting high officials, are uniformly threadbare, shifty-eyed and
> tired-looking. The "culture" is the only one allowed. For example, where
> the statues of the virgin once stood in little grottos, now stand busts of
> Jose Marti. The "natural" beauty of the island is variable, beaches for
> foreigners are well-maintained, the rest shift for themselves. Inland, it's
> food which is important, but sugar which is produced.

OK, contrast that to when Cuba was under Batista: They produced
nothing but sugar, the beaches were maintained for tourists or not at
all, and the people who weren't high-ranking officials were poor.
Land was also owned mostly by foreign interests.

So things were better then?

> Cuba has not been left to "fend for itself." It has had immense support
> from the Soviets,

The key word being "had".

> As to principles, the conditions for ending the embargo are well known, it
> has been modified as well. Reciprocity is what's missing.

Reciprocity towards the country that used them for years and then
turned their backs on them when they kicked out a brutal dictator.

You still haven't responded to the idea that the major difference
between China and Cuba is that Cuba is no threat and offers very
little in the way of economic incentive for normalization. Why are we
able to overlook China's abysmal human rights record?


Chuck Vance (who's trying to think of a way to get this thread
to be about woodworking :-)

"George" <george@least> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Sorry, you're not interested, I guess. What was -Batista- is compared as
> if it were relevant to what is. Then you try to have the argument from the
> other side, that what was -Soviet treasure- is not germane. I see you're
> convinced, and not thinking.

Look, I'm not the one who's throwing out the same old tired party
line about Cuba. I'm trying to look at it rationally, and see what
purpose our continued sanctions serve. Also, I'm trying to evaluate
it versus our policies towards other communist nations.

> Bottom line, the embargo was an answer to nationalization and confiscation,
> threats and an attempt to export "revolution." You don't try to embrace
> people who spit on you.

Read a little more about the history of Cuba and how the U.S. used
it before Castro. It was little more than a playground for the rich
and a source of cheap sugar for the U.S. The U.S. showed with its
actions before and since that it could care less about the welfare of
the Cuban people. What we were interested in was propping up
dictators who served our own interests, no matter what happened to the
country in the process.

And you expect the Cuban people to just "relax and enjoy it"?

> You sound like the press, merciless to those who favor us, forgiving of our
> enemies. I can only say that if you hate the US so badly that you champion
> her enemies, like former president Carter ....

Actually, I love my *country* so much that I don't blindly accept
every policy that comes from our *goverment*. (Note the distinction
between the two highlighted words.) And I am willing to come out and
express my views when I do disagree with a policy. Funny how a
democracy works like that, eh?


Chuck Vance

> That remark should not be taken as a derogatory slam on the moron in
> the Whitehouse, his morally flexible predecessor, the moron's father,
> or the much revered actor who played president for eight years.
>
> hex

Omigawd! That ought to bring 'em out, guns and out-of-context factoids
blazing.
mahalo,
jo4hn

In article <[email protected]>, Hylourgos wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, Navy. He is the only President to have graduated from the U.S. Naval
>> > Academy. He's a degreed engineer (nuclear), and served at least one tour
>> > of duty on board a nuclear sub.
>
> I looked into this some years ago and remember there being a good deal
> of exaggeration involved, or at least the Carter camp allowing his
> education to be exaggerated. He may have some sort of an engineering

To change the topic - which living president or ex-president would you
like for a neighbor? I'll take Carter...

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> So you don't see any problem with a former president visiting Cuba,
> praising their socialized health system and criticizing the sitting
> administration of his own county while a guest of a country ruled by a
> communist dictator?
>

It's interesting that "communist dictator" is bad and nothing
good done by same is good
while "democratic dictator" is good and nothing bad done
by same is bad?
Compare and contrast Castro with Pinochet, the Death
Squads of Nicaragua's "conservatives" with the "socialist/
reformer" Mary Knoll nuns they murdered.
What if the reunification and free elections that
Viet Nam was suppose to have in '54 had occured and
Ho Chi Mihn (sp?) had been democratically elected
as he surely would have been.

Any health system is better than no health system.
Having the highest literacy rate in Latin America
is a good thing.

And doesn't a good citizen of this country have the
right and maybe the obligation, to speak out against
things he or she believes is/are wrong with our
government?

Our government never understands/understood that
in most countries, nationalism was the goal and
colonialism, be it obvious or not, was to be escaped
from. Communism/socialism/fascism/religious
fundamentalism all were/are a means to an end.
Look beyond the symptom and try to discover the
cause.

And President Carter left office with about the
same net worth as he had when he entered the
White House. With the exception of Harry Truman,
can you name another president in the last 50 years
who did? Recall that President Reagan (sp?) took
a 2 million dollar speaking engagement in Japan
shortly after leaving office? You think he got
that kind of pay(off) because Japanese industrialists
really, really, really like the man and felt he
could teach them something?

Carter is a good man who has tried to make the
world a better place. Politics is seldom the place
to go if you want to make things better.

If you get down to the basics of all the major
religions "Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you." and "Try and leave the place
a little better, or at least no worse, than you
found it." are at their core. It's what "politicians"
have added that get us in trouble most of the
time.

Mr. Carter - thanks for setting a good example
of what a good man should be like.

charlie b

J. Clarke wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Just to add on: Fine Woodworking ran an article on Carter in the mid to
>>>later '80's. He's been building furniture since his military (Navy?) and
>>>newlywed days in the 1950's.
>>>
>> Yes, Navy. He is the only President to have graduated from the U.S. Naval
>> Academy. He's a degreed engineer (nuclear), and served at least one tour
>> of duty on board a nuclear sub.
>
> And I always found it amusing that people who did not know that ranked on
> him for pronouncing it "nucular".
>
So does my wife. It IS an accepted pronunciation according to my
dictionary. I believe our current president pronounces it the same way.

>> He was the fifth _consecutive_ President with Navy service.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
>> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>


--

Gerald Ross, Cochran, GA
To reply add the numerals "13" before the "at"
...........................................
People will die this year that never
died before.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Hogwash.

I've been in Cuba, you don't want it, trust me. THEY don't want it.

So what we need are good economic embargos, like the ones Kerry says he'll
impose on those trading partners who don't pay union wages, and follow our
environmental and labor laws?

How ill-informed can you be?

As for Carter, if he were on the other side of the aisle he'd be just
another "narrow-minded fundamentalist - horrors - CHRISTIAN."

"Dan Cullimore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Charlie--couldn't have said it better, thanks.
>

So how long does it take for you to give up your principles? Is it a fixed
number of years, or drinks?

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why is that we are still embargoing and sanctioning Cuba? It hasn't
> worked for 50 years, do we really expect tightening controls to have
> much effect?
>

I see you have none. Jimmy's boycott didn't stop the Olympics, either, and
he's still lionized in this thread.

As long as people persist in committing murder, in spite of our best efforts
to stop them, do you think it's time to legalize it, along with drugs?

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George wrote:
>
> > So how long does it take for you to give up your principles? Is it a
> > fixed number of years, or drinks?
>
> Exactly how long does it take for you to figure out that whatever you're
> doing is not working? Is it a fixed number of years or a fixed number of
> drinks?
>
> If the objective is to be self-righteous then by all means continue the
> embargo. If the objective is to get rid of Communism in Cuba then try
> something else.
>

You'd be appalled if you did visit, unless you're a classic car fan.

The book I recommended, _ One Hell of a Gamble_ has some good information
on the courting of Fidel. In there, with the data from archives to support
it, it's said that if Fidel had not come around, Che and the other communist
moles would have taken him out.

"Conan The Librarian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "George" <george@least>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So how long does it take for you to give up your principles?
> >

> Personally, I think we should drop the whole charade and
> re-establish relations with Cuba. (Of course I have selfish motives;
> I'd like to visit the land where my father was born.) But I think
> there's too much history and desire to save face on both sides for
> anything to happen in the short term.
>
>
> Chuck Vance

The contrast, in the same view, between the state of the state, if you will,
and the state of the people is what gets me. The state looks to be doing
well for itself, even though there are state plates on '49 Kaisers. The
people, excepting high officials, are uniformly threadbare, shifty-eyed and
tired-looking. The "culture" is the only one allowed. For example, where
the statues of the virgin once stood in little grottos, now stand busts of
Jose Marti. The "natural" beauty of the island is variable, beaches for
foreigners are well-maintained, the rest shift for themselves. Inland, it's
food which is important, but sugar which is produced.

Cuba has not been left to "fend for itself." It has had immense support
from the Soviets, trade with some capitalist countries, and a modest tourist
industry. What it has done is shoot itself in the foot with a non
convertible currency, a policy of no foreign ownership, and militant
Communism. Even the French would find it hard to justify selling there,
much less building.

As to principles, the conditions for ending the embargo are well known, it
has been modified as well. Reciprocity is what's missing.

"Conan The Librarian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > You'd be appalled if you did visit, unless you're a classic car fan.
>
> What is so appalling about Cuba? Is it worse than poor areas
> anywhere else? Has the natural beauty of the island been destroyed?
> Has the culture disappeared? (These are serious questions, not
> flame-bait.)
>
> I understand from your posts that you are no fan of socialism, but
> did you find Cuba to be any different than you would expect for an
> island state with limited resources that has effectively been left to
> fend for itself? (Actually, worse than that, it's been embargoed by
> its closest neighbor.)

Sorry, you're not interested, I guess. What was -Batista- is compared as
if it were relevant to what is. Then you try to have the argument from the
other side, that what was -Soviet treasure- is not germane. I see you're
convinced, and not thinking.

Bottom line, the embargo was an answer to nationalization and confiscation,
threats and an attempt to export "revolution." You don't try to embrace
people who spit on you.

You sound like the press, merciless to those who favor us, forgiving of our
enemies. I can only say that if you hate the US so badly that you champion
her enemies, like former president Carter ....

"Conan The Librarian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> OK, contrast that to when Cuba was under Batista: They produced
> nothing but sugar, the beaches were maintained for tourists or not at
> all, and the people who weren't high-ranking officials were poor.
> Land was also owned mostly by foreign interests.
>
> So things were better then?
>
> > Cuba has not been left to "fend for itself." It has had immense support
> > from the Soviets,
>
> The key word being "had".
>
> > As to principles, the conditions for ending the embargo are well known,
it
> > has been modified as well. Reciprocity is what's missing.
>
> Reciprocity towards the country that used them for years and then
> turned their backs on them when they kicked out a brutal dictator.
>

"Conan The Librarian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Look, I'm not the one who's throwing out the same old tired party
> line about Cuba.

Yes you are, just a different "party."

> Read a little more about the history of Cuba and how the U.S. used
> it before Castro.

I checked downstairs in the box, and the university said I had read enough
History and written of it well enough to please them.
I suppose you know about 1898, though, of course, it has nothing to with why
the embargo - the original question.

>
> Actually, I love my *country* so much that I don't blindly accept
> every policy that comes from our *goverment*. (Note the distinction
> between the two highlighted words.) And I am willing to come out and
> express my views when I do disagree with a policy. Funny how a
> democracy works like that, eh?
>

You may disagree with the policy all you want, but the points you were
trying to score - as opposed to getting an answer as to why the embargo -
show a too common tendency to blame the US for everything wrong with the
world. If we "supported" one dictator, we should support the next? Even
if he's the vocal and sworn enemy of the country you love? Sorry, save
your breath for another cause. As long as Castro's there, he'll use the
embargo (hell, if he knew it would work so well against his enemy, he'd have
created one if it didn't exist) to influence folks like you into thinking
he's anything but what he really is - pleased to isolate his nation from a
world where people can dissent, lest they pick up the habit. He's already
seen what glasnost' brings.

You know, of course, that those living there don't have the privilege of
dissent, which, BTW, is one of the reasons, getting back to topic before you
slide away again, for the embargo.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> > Yes, Navy. He is the only President to have graduated from the U.S. Naval
> > Academy. He's a degreed engineer (nuclear), and served at least one tour
> > of duty on board a nuclear sub.

I looked into this some years ago and remember there being a good deal
of exaggeration involved, or at least the Carter camp allowing his
education to be exaggerated. He may have some sort of an engineering
degree from the Naval Academy (not exactly MIT, but fine...). I have
yet to see a credible source indicate what the actual degree was in.
USNA does not have a program in nuclear engineering.

As for Carter's experiance in nuclear engineering, his own Library
site (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/jec/jcnavy.phtml)
puts it rather subtly:

"From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval
Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.
"assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants
for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under
instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power
plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the
enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS
Seawolf (SSM 575)."

That phrase "under instruction," without mentioning any completion of
instruction, leaves enough doubt in my mind that he ever became a
genuine bona fide nuclear engineer, or anything close to it.

The USNA site mentions that "he later did graduate work in nuclear
*physics* at Union College" [emphasis mine], which I find uncredible
or at least an exaggeration. UC has no nuclear physics program, nor
mentions Carter anywhere in such capacity in its site as you might
expect, although he may well have taken a course that included nuclear
physics as a component. Hardly something worth touting.

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but I find these exaggerations
unattractive. If anyone knows of a reputable source that gives more
detail about President Carter's education, I'd be happy to look it
over.

...And (Gerald) I don't care what dumbass editor of a lame descriptive
dictionary lists it, "nucular" is worthy only of babies, dislexics,
and those who don't care about language. Misdemeanor, not a felony,
but still a crime.

My 2¢
H
..who still cringes when "impact" is used as a transitive verb,
probably a losing battle....

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

<snip>

> I think you're going out of your way to be critical here.

My criticism is on the propagandizing of his education without filling
in some needed information, but your caveats below make me suspend
judgment, however sceptical I may remain.

<snip lots of good information on nascent nuclear physics>

> The Navy doesn't issue engineering degrees.

If you're making a distinction between "The Navy" and "The US Naval
Academy" then you may well be correct. My point was about the USNA,
and they claim to offer engineering degrees.

> Anybody who Rickover turns
> loose with a nuclear plant knows his stuff though.
>
> > The USNA site mentions that "he later did graduate work in nuclear
> > *physics* at Union College" [emphasis mine], which I find uncredible
> > or at least an exaggeration. UC has no nuclear physics program, nor
> > mentions Carter anywhere in such capacity in its site as you might
> > expect, although he may well have taken a course that included nuclear
> > physics as a component. Hardly something worth touting.
>
> You have a misconception concerning "nuclear physics". First, there is no
> academic discipline by that name.

Perhaps the misconception is mine. But at Chicago if you study
experimental physics one of your possible fields is nuclear physics
(http://physics.uchicago.edu/x_applied.html ), UNH has what they call
a "Nuclear Physics Group", Tex A&M has nuclear engineering—those are
just the ones I've heard of, there might be others, and I would be
very surprised if several leading foreign universities did not have
similar programs. Perhaps I'm not sure what you mean by "discipline":
are you saying that there are no university programs wherein an
advanced student would study nuclear physics as the predominant course
of study? Or that there is no degree entitled nuclear physics? Or
something else?

You clearly have a better grasp of this than I, but given what these
schools advertise, I'm not sure what you mean. By "program" above, I
meant a course of study, not necessarily a degree.

Are you aware of Union College's program? Did it ever have anyone
noteworthy teaching nuclear physics? Did they ever offer anything more
than *part* of *a* course that included content on nuclear physics?
That was my point. They may have for all I know, but I find that with
all the exaggeration common in politics it's more likely that Carter's
supposed "graduate work in nuclear physics at Union College" [the USNA
quote] is a bit hokey.

<snip observation on early nuclear scientists>

<snip more on the nature of coursework in nuclear physics>

> Whether he got a degree from Union I have no idea,

I've found no source that make such a claim—only that he did "graduate
work in nuclear physics at Union College". Now, given what you
yourself have asserted about the nature of such study, don't you find
it disingenuous for *anyone* to claim "graduate work in nuclear
physics at..."? Doesn't that statement contradict what you're saying?

> but if he
> was doing graduate study and passing the courses again he's no ignoramus
> and if he took courses in reactor theory (GAHHHHH--calculating
> neutron-diffusion by _hand_--I'm impressed--it's bad enough with a
> mainframe but there were precious few computers of _any_ kind then) and the
> physics of atomic nuclei, that's all that any nuclear engineer gets that's
> different from what any other kind of engineer gets.

Perhaps, although I'd wonder about the quality of different schools.
Is Union College a powerhouse of physicists? I'd love to know what
Carter's actual course of study was—on this your questions are my
questions and they're right on the mark. Until I see it I'll remain
sceptical.
>
<snip some very apt comments about this early period of nuclear
science—for which thank you, it puts it into better perspective for
me>

> So the whole notion of
> academic credentials related to the design, construction, and operation of
> nuclear reactors in that timeframe is pretty fuzzy.

Very well put. Carter's education could be the real deal.

> If he was one of
> Rickover's boys and he wants to call himself a nuclear engineer and
> Rickover doesn't object then I'm sure not going to--Rickover knew
> _everything_ Carter had done and one thing you did _not_ do was lie around
> Rickover.

Well, Rickover was no stranger to political strife (he got his
promotion at Congress' behest against the wishes of Navy
administration): are you sure he wouldn't wink at Carter's misleading
claims as long as they weren't outright lies and in the context of
political pufferupery?

> > Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but I find these exaggerations
> > unattractive. If anyone knows of a reputable source that gives more
> > detail about President Carter's education, I'd be happy to look it
> > over.
>
> I suspect that some of it comes under the heading of "I could tell you but
> then I'd have to kill you".

Yeah...but what I don't get is why he or his camp feels a need to do
the same kind of trumping now. The race if over. Maybe they're
thinking of legacy....
>
> > ...And (Gerald) I don't care what dumbass editor of a lame descriptive
> > dictionary lists it, "nucular" is worthy only of babies, dislexics,
> > and those who don't care about language. Misdemeanor, not a felony,
> > but still a crime.
>
> I say nu_cul_ar and you say nu_cle_ar, nucular, nuclear, let's call the
> whole thing off . . .
>
> Personally I suspect he was doing it to further his folksy peanut-farmer
> image and that doing so was a tactical error, one of many, but what do I
> know?

That's an even more interesting question...(whether he intentionally
promoted that personna with the pronunciation of nucular).
>
> > My 2¢
> > H
> > ..who still cringes when "impact" is used as a transitive verb,
> > probably a losing battle....
>
> A long lost battle. It's in the Oxford as a transitive verb, with first use
> in 1601.

I think you have not read the OED carefully on this one. Show me the
example from 1601: it does not have a direct object—that's an ugly
neologism that first comes into usage in the 20th Century. The OED's
earlier listings, which you apparently trusted in, are mostly
participial adjectives that have no direct objects. So, find me an
early quote with impact + direct object and I'll have to reconsult.
But last time I did, there was no salvation there for the ignoscentes
verborum.

Thanks for the physics history lesson, I had neglected to consider the
perspective you give on nascent nuclear physics.

H

I always had the highest personal regard for the man and his integrity
as a human being, in other words, acting on his words (as in his
involvement with Habitat for Humanity; not just ON a Board but
actually swingin' a hammer at a board!) and not just pronouncing them
from a podium.

Come to think of it, I wonder if he ever visits here? (clearing
throat) Um, Mr. President?

Brad
PS You wrote my newborn daughter a nice "welcom to the world" note in
1988 from the Carter Library; it's framed on her wall.....


"James \"Cubby\" Culbertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hiya,
> Just finished reading the latest FWW. I was reading the Shop Tips (or
> whatever they call it) and stopped
> on the one that suggested using an electric sander to sharpen/hone jointer
> knives in place. I thought to myself
> that you'd have to be pretty good at getting the angle correct and I'd
> probably screw that up. Then I noticed who
> sent it in: Jimmy Carter, Plains GA
>
> Without passing judgement on his days in office, I still thought it was kind
> of cool to see a former President offering
> up a woodworking tip to a national magazine and that FWW printed it as
> though it came from any of us.
>
> Cheers,
> cc

[email protected] (hex) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> And you have to like what he has done with Habitat for Humanity.
>> Beats the heck out of what most retired Presidents do with their
>> time.

> Whadya mean retired? Seems to beat what most recent *sitting*
> presidents do with their time.
>
> That remark should not be taken as a derogatory slam on the moron in
> the Whitehouse, his morally flexible predecessor, the moron's father,
> or the much revered actor who played president for eight years.

Well summarized. As Harry S Truman said, "I don't give 'em hell - I just
give 'em the truth, and they THINK it's hell."

"LRod" wrote in message

> "J. Clarke"wrote:

> >Different words, different roots. "Nuclear" has nothing to do with
clarity.

> Someday, when you reread the post to which you responded, you're going
> to bitchslap yourself silly for not getting the joke.

Probably not, now that Internet search engines have put the "smart" in smart
ass.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:49:41 -0600, "James \"Cubby\" Culbertson"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Without passing judgement on his days in office, I still thought it was kind
>of cool to see a former President offering
>up a woodworking tip to a national magazine and that FWW printed it as
>though it came from any of us.

He's had work featured in "Current Work". FWW didn't draw extra
attention to his work, and it certainly deserved to be there.

I agree with you, politics aside, he seems like a normal guy.

Barry

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 05:38:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Lee Gordon wrote:
>
>> <<I say nu_cul_ar and you say nu_cle_ar, nucular, nuclear, let's call the
>> whole thing off . . .>>
>>
>> Nuclear. Unclear. All depend on how you use the UN.
>
>Different words, different roots. "Nuclear" has nothing to do with clarity.
>It's based in the French word "nucle", while "unclear" is based in the
>Latin word "claro". One would no more expect them to be pronounced the
>same than one would "Euler" and "Euclid".

Someday, when you reread the post to which you responded, you're going
to bitchslap yourself silly for not getting the joke.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> If I recall correctly, when President Carter left the White House, his staff
> loaded him down with woodworking tools! He seems to have put them to good
> use.
>
> And you have to like what he has done with Habitat for Humanity. Beats the
> heck out of what most retired Presidents do with their time.
>
>

Whadya mean retired? Seems to beat what most recent *sitting*
presidents do with their time.

That remark should not be taken as a derogatory slam on the moron in
the Whitehouse, his morally flexible predecessor, the moron's father,
or the much revered actor who played president for eight years.

hex
-30-

<<I say nu_cul_ar and you say nu_cle_ar, nucular, nuclear, let's call the
whole thing off . . .>>

Nuclear. Unclear. All depend on how you use the UN.

Lee
--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On 25 Jun 2004 20:55:09 -0700, [email protected] (Hylourgos) wrote:
>
>>..who still cringes when "impact" is used as a transitive verb,
>>probably a losing battle....
>
>You probably love "task" in the same capacity, then. How about "what's
>your take on...?"
>
>The latest one that's been sweeping the media is the word grow as a
>verb. Not that it has been used before; e.g. I'm going to grow corn
>this summer. But that's the only context I've ever heard it used as a
>verb. Now we're hearing about how to grow your business, or the book
>I'm currently reading in all to frequent trips to the bathroom, "The
>Dogs Who Grew Me." (actually, the lady author is a good writer; I just
>have serious problems with that use of the word "grow").
>
Those usages strike me as a bit odd, but do not grate nearly so hard upon my
ear as "gift", "parent", and "author" used as verbs.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Slick Willy = helping himself after leaving office
Jimmy Carter = helping others after leaving office. And I don't even
like to talk politics. Mark L.

Jim wrote:

> If I recall correctly, when President Carter left the White House, his staff
> loaded him down with woodworking tools! He seems to have put them to good
> use.
>
> And you have to like what he has done with Habitat for Humanity. Beats the
> heck out of what most retired Presidents do with their time.
>
> Jim Ray, President
> McFeely's Square Drive Screws
> www.mcfeelys.com
>
> "James "Cubby" Culbertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Hiya,
>>Just finished reading the latest FWW. I was reading the Shop Tips (or
>>whatever they call it) and stopped
>>on the one that suggested using an electric sander to sharpen/hone jointer
>>knives in place. I thought to myself
>>that you'd have to be pretty good at getting the angle correct and I'd
>>probably screw that up. Then I noticed who
>>sent it in: Jimmy Carter, Plains GA
>>
>>Without passing judgement on his days in office, I still thought it was
>
> kind
>
>>of cool to see a former President offering
>>up a woodworking tip to a national magazine and that FWW printed it as
>>though it came from any of us.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>cc
>>
>>
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jim wrote:
>> If I recall correctly, when President Carter left the White House,
>> his staff loaded him down with woodworking tools! He seems to have
>> put them to good use.
>>
>> And you have to like what he has done with Habitat for Humanity.
>> Beats the heck out of what most retired Presidents do with their time.
>
>Someone told me the houses President Carter built in Florida did not get
>blown down by hurricane Andrew. Why? They actually followed the codes.
>Does anyone know if this is true?

Dunno, but I believe it easily, and anyone with an engineer in the family will
understand why. :-)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

One of the recent issues had tools made by readers and one of his clamps was
shown. I had to laugh as I read the description when it said something about
the maker being a retired president, hahahaha. From the looks of it, he
seems to be pretty good.

Bernie

"James "Cubby" Culbertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hiya,
> Just finished reading the latest FWW. I was reading the Shop Tips (or
> whatever they call it) and stopped
> on the one that suggested using an electric sander to sharpen/hone jointer
> knives in place. I thought to myself
> that you'd have to be pretty good at getting the angle correct and I'd
> probably screw that up. Then I noticed who
> sent it in: Jimmy Carter, Plains GA
>
> Without passing judgement on his days in office, I still thought it was
kind
> of cool to see a former President offering
> up a woodworking tip to a national magazine and that FWW printed it as
> though it came from any of us.
>
> Cheers,
> cc
>
>

Richard Cline wrote:

> I agree that he was, and is, a very decent man. He was humble yet
> extremely well informed on all issues. He has done many worthwhile
> things since leaving office. Unfortunately, he was a very poor
> president.

I'm another lifelong republican and agree with your comments.

However, I often wonder about the leaders and the times they are in. I
wonder if anyone else (FDR, JFK, GW, TJ, JA, ..) could have done any better.
I was in high school at the time and usually had my head up my *** so my
recollections may not jibe with history... ;-)

-- Mark

> Slick Willy = helping himself after leaving office

IIRC Slick Willy and Bob Dole raised over $100 million for scholarships to
the children of the 9/11 casualties.

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
>As long as people persist in committing murder, in spite of our best efforts
>to stop them, do you think it's time to legalize it, along with drugs?

The two are not comparable.

A person smoking marijuana in the privacy of his own living room is not
demonstrably causing harm to any individual other than himself, or to society
at large. There is therefore no basis for the government to prohibit his doing
so.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[email protected] (brad) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I always had the highest personal regard for the man and his integrity
> as a human being, in other words, acting on his words (as in his
> involvement with Habitat for Humanity; not just ON a Board but
> actually swingin' a hammer at a board!) and not just pronouncing them
> from a podium.
>
> Come to think of it, I wonder if he ever visits here? (clearing
> throat) Um, Mr. President?
>
> Brad
>
Someone (FDR?) once said one could not be the Pres. of the U.S. and
follow the Ten Commandments. If anything, I suspect the Carter
presidency may be proof positive of that statement (apocryphal as it
may be). I have never been convinced that he was in fact a poor
president. I believe he told the truth and very few people wanted to
hear it, and that in practice he discovered the compromising and
difficult choices open to him. How he must have struggled to
reconcile his faith and the realpolitics of the world. I am not a
religious man, but I have the utmost respect and admiration for his
example.

Mister Carter, if you're here--thank you; I wish you were on the
ticket now! I could even live with philandering willie, but this bald
faced liar...oh, there I go again...

Dan

charlie b <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> > So you don't see any problem with a former president visiting Cuba,
> > praising their socialized health system and criticizing the sitting
> > administration of his own county while a guest of a country ruled by a
> > communist dictator?
> >
>
> It's interesting that "communist dictator" is bad and nothing
> good done by same is good
> while "democratic dictator" is good and nothing bad done
> by same is bad?
> Compare and contrast Castro with Pinochet, the Death
> Squads of Nicaragua's "conservatives" with the "socialist/
> reformer" Mary Knoll nuns they murdered.
> What if the reunification and free elections that
> Viet Nam was suppose to have in '54 had occured and
> Ho Chi Mihn (sp?) had been democratically elected
> as he surely would have been.
>
> Any health system is better than no health system.
> Having the highest literacy rate in Latin America
> is a good thing.
>
> And doesn't a good citizen of this country have the
> right and maybe the obligation, to speak out against
> things he or she believes is/are wrong with our
> government?
>
> Our government never understands/understood that
> in most countries, nationalism was the goal and
> colonialism, be it obvious or not, was to be escaped
> from. Communism/socialism/fascism/religious
> fundamentalism all were/are a means to an end.
> Look beyond the symptom and try to discover the
> cause.
>
> And President Carter left office with about the
> same net worth as he had when he entered the
> White House. With the exception of Harry Truman,
> can you name another president in the last 50 years
> who did? Recall that President Reagan (sp?) took
> a 2 million dollar speaking engagement in Japan
> shortly after leaving office? You think he got
> that kind of pay(off) because Japanese industrialists
> really, really, really like the man and felt he
> could teach them something?
>
> Carter is a good man who has tried to make the
> world a better place. Politics is seldom the place
> to go if you want to make things better.
>
> If you get down to the basics of all the major
> religions "Do unto others as you would have
> them do unto you." and "Try and leave the place
> a little better, or at least no worse, than you
> found it." are at their core. It's what "politicians"
> have added that get us in trouble most of the
> time.
>
> Mr. Carter - thanks for setting a good example
> of what a good man should be like.
>
> charlie b

Charlie--couldn't have said it better, thanks.

Mark & Juanita--"the cost of freedom is constant vigilence" does not
warn agaist the powerless. It warns us about the monied, landed,
corporate, military, powerful elites who do whatever it takes to
maintain their advantage, including lie about their motives. I am
afraid our current pres. is a sad example (BTW, this is not a partisan
affliction by any means). As far as "praising" and "criticising"
while the guest of a communist dictator: 1) Carter was once again
only 'telling the truth' some of us don't want to hear; 2) Castro need
not have become such a pain in our arse had U.S. policy been more
favorable (and, as Charlie points out, the history of Viet Nam is but
another classic example of the U.S. fumbling the diplomatic/policy
ball early (1940s-50s) and paying the price later--both Mao and Minh
really loved the U.S. at one time, and hoped we'd see the justice of
their causes); 3) It doesn't take a "nuclear engineer" to see how far
down that same road we've bumbled in the middle east. We keep proving
H. G. Wells correct: "Those who learn nothing from history are doomed
to repeat it."

If our founders had sided with the rich and powerful of their day,
we'd still be a British colony.


Dan

Jim wrote:
> If I recall correctly, when President Carter left the White House,
> his staff loaded him down with woodworking tools! He seems to have
> put them to good use.
>
> And you have to like what he has done with Habitat for Humanity.
> Beats the heck out of what most retired Presidents do with their time.

Someone told me the houses President Carter built in Florida did not get
blown down by hurricane Andrew. Why? They actually followed the codes.
Does anyone know if this is true?

BTW 20 +/- years ago I was construction labor. One remodeling job we took
out a concrete block wall. The code said that every "x" feet you had to
fill in the concrete blocks with concrete all the way to the foundation.
The wall looked good from the top but when we took it out we discovered
whoever put the wall in jammed cement sacks in the holes and there was only
about 3" of concrete at the top of the wall to fool the inspector. That
wall never fell down, but it never had a hurricane pushing against it
either. Therefore I think the President Carter story could be true.

If I ever build a house, the parts I don't do personally I will be watching
and filming.... ;-)

-- Mark

If I recall correctly, when President Carter left the White House, his staff
loaded him down with woodworking tools! He seems to have put them to good
use.

And you have to like what he has done with Habitat for Humanity. Beats the
heck out of what most retired Presidents do with their time.

Jim Ray, President
McFeely's Square Drive Screws
www.mcfeelys.com

"James "Cubby" Culbertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hiya,
> Just finished reading the latest FWW. I was reading the Shop Tips (or
> whatever they call it) and stopped
> on the one that suggested using an electric sander to sharpen/hone jointer
> knives in place. I thought to myself
> that you'd have to be pretty good at getting the angle correct and I'd
> probably screw that up. Then I noticed who
> sent it in: Jimmy Carter, Plains GA
>
> Without passing judgement on his days in office, I still thought it was
kind
> of cool to see a former President offering
> up a woodworking tip to a national magazine and that FWW printed it as
> though it came from any of us.
>
> Cheers,
> cc
>
>

B a r r y wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:49:41 -0600, "James \"Cubby\" Culbertson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Without passing judgement on his days in office, I still thought it was
>>kind of cool to see a former President offering
>>up a woodworking tip to a national magazine and that FWW printed it as
>>though it came from any of us.
>
> He's had work featured in "Current Work". FWW didn't draw extra
> attention to his work, and it certainly deserved to be there.
>
> I agree with you, politics aside, he seems like a normal guy.

Probably the most decent man to ever inhabit the White House (and I say that
as a lifelong Republican). It says volumes about our society, most of it
bad, that being a decent man is a liability in that job.

> Barry

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Just to add on: Fine Woodworking ran an article on Carter in the mid to
>>later '80's. He's been building furniture since his military (Navy?) and
>>newlywed days in the 1950's.
>>
> Yes, Navy. He is the only President to have graduated from the U.S. Naval
> Academy. He's a degreed engineer (nuclear), and served at least one tour
> of duty on board a nuclear sub.

And I always found it amusing that people who did not know that ranked on
him for pronouncing it "nucular".

> He was the fifth _consecutive_ President with Navy service.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hylourgos wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, Navy. He is the only President to have graduated from the U.S.
>> > Naval Academy. He's a degreed engineer (nuclear), and served at least
>> > one tour of duty on board a nuclear sub.
>
> I looked into this some years ago and remember there being a good deal
> of exaggeration involved, or at least the Carter camp allowing his
> education to be exaggerated. He may have some sort of an engineering
> degree from the Naval Academy (not exactly MIT, but fine...). I have
> yet to see a credible source indicate what the actual degree was in.
> USNA does not have a program in nuclear engineering.

I think you're going out of your way to be critical here. I find it odd to
be in the position of defending Jimmy Carter, but . . .

In 1946, when Jimmy Carter graduated from the Naval Academy, there _was_ no
such thing as "nuclear engineering" as an academic discipline. What you
learned you learned on the job from mentors. Remember, the first
demonstration of a controlled chain reaction took place in December, 1942,
less than 4 years before Carter graduated, and the whole field was on a
"need to know" basis--most of the US didn't even know that there was such a
thing as nuclear energy outside of science fiction until the sky lit up
over most of the Southwest on July 16, 1945, less than a year before.

> As for Carter's experiance in nuclear engineering, his own Library
> site (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/jec/jcnavy.phtml)
> puts it rather subtly:
>
> "From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval
> Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.
> "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants
> for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under
> instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power
> plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the
> enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS
> Seawolf (SSM 575)."
>
> That phrase "under instruction," without mentioning any completion of
> instruction, leaves enough doubt in my mind that he ever became a
> genuine bona fide nuclear engineer, or anything close to it.

The Navy doesn't issue engineering degrees. Anybody who Rickover turns
loose with a nuclear plant knows his stuff though.

> The USNA site mentions that "he later did graduate work in nuclear
> *physics* at Union College" [emphasis mine], which I find uncredible
> or at least an exaggeration. UC has no nuclear physics program, nor
> mentions Carter anywhere in such capacity in its site as you might
> expect, although he may well have taken a course that included nuclear
> physics as a component. Hardly something worth touting.

You have a misconception concerning "nuclear physics". First, there is no
academic discipline by that name. Second, Enrico Fermi, J. Robert
Oppenheimer, and the others who made the aforementioned flash in the
Southwest, built the first reactors, separated the first weapons-grade
uranium, bred the first plutonium, etc did not have degrees in "nuclear
physics" or in "nuclear engineering" or in "nuclear" anything else. If you
check the MIT, Caltech, and University of Chicago (the place where Enric
Fermi built the first nuclear reactor) you will find that none of them
offer a degree in "nuclear physics". It was and still is just "physics",
with coursework concentrated on the physics of atomic nuclei rather than,
say, optics. Whether he got a degree from Union I have no idea, but if he
was doing graduate study and passing the courses again he's no ignoramus
and if he took courses in reactor theory (GAHHHHH--calculating
neutron-diffusion by _hand_--I'm impressed--it's bad enough with a
mainframe but there were precious few computers of _any_ kind then) and the
physics of atomic nuclei, that's all that any nuclear engineer gets that's
different from what any other kind of engineer gets.

Further, at the time there was no real distinction between physics and
engineering when it came to nuclear power--in the 1946-1953 timeframe
nuclear energy was still very much cutting edge physics--the people who
designed and operated reactors were by training physicists even though what
they were doing was engineering. Further, no school had the facilities to
teach reactor operations--the first college to have a working nuclear
reactor on campus other than Chicago (which built _one_, unshielded, ran it
long enough to get the data they needed--now _that_ is _scary_--and tore it
down--it most assuredly wasn't usable for teaching operations) was North
Carolina State College, and theirs went into operation in 1953, the same
year that Carter left the Navy. On the other hand, the Navy _did_ have a
reactor running in 1953 and people who worked on that program can be
expected to have more real expertise than anyone coming out of a university
program (other than the ones who worked with Fermi at Chicago) of the same
era. Complicating the whole issue, a great deal of the Navy nuclear power
program was and still is highly classified. So the whole notion of
academic credentials related to the design, construction, and operation of
nuclear reactors in that timeframe is pretty fuzzy. If he was one of
Rickover's boys and he wants to call himself a nuclear engineer and
Rickover doesn't object then I'm sure not going to--Rickover knew
_everything_ Carter had done and one thing you did _not_ do was lie around
Rickover.


> Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but I find these exaggerations
> unattractive. If anyone knows of a reputable source that gives more
> detail about President Carter's education, I'd be happy to look it
> over.

I suspect that some of it comes under the heading of "I could tell you but
then I'd have to kill you".

> ...And (Gerald) I don't care what dumbass editor of a lame descriptive
> dictionary lists it, "nucular" is worthy only of babies, dislexics,
> and those who don't care about language. Misdemeanor, not a felony,
> but still a crime.

I say nu_cul_ar and you say nu_cle_ar, nucular, nuclear, let's call the
whole thing off . . .

Personally I suspect he was doing it to further his folksy peanut-farmer
image and that doing so was a tactical error, one of many, but what do I
know?

> My 2¢
> H
> ..who still cringes when "impact" is used as a transitive verb,
> probably a losing battle....

A long lost battle. It's in the Oxford as a transitive verb, with first use
in 1601.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Ed Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> To change the topic - which living president or ex-president would you
>> like for a neighbor? I'll take Carter...
>
> Yeah, he is probably the best to share stores over a glass of iced tea
> with, but Bubba would bring home the babes to lounge around the pool.

Someone I know summed up Clinton as follows:

"His niche in life is as the social director of a college fraternity."

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lee Gordon wrote:

> <<I say nu_cul_ar and you say nu_cle_ar, nucular, nuclear, let's call the
> whole thing off . . .>>
>
> Nuclear. Unclear. All depend on how you use the UN.

Different words, different roots. "Nuclear" has nothing to do with clarity.
It's based in the French word "nucle", while "unclear" is based in the
Latin word "claro". One would no more expect them to be pronounced the
same than one would "Euler" and "Euclid".
>
> Lee

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

George wrote:

> So how long does it take for you to give up your principles? Is it a
> fixed number of years, or drinks?

Exactly how long does it take for you to figure out that whatever you're
doing is not working? Is it a fixed number of years or a fixed number of
drinks?

If the objective is to be self-righteous then by all means continue the
embargo. If the objective is to get rid of Communism in Cuba then try
something else.

> "Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Why is that we are still embargoing and sanctioning Cuba? It hasn't
>> worked for 50 years, do we really expect tightening controls to have
>> much effect?
>>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

George wrote:

> You may disagree with the policy all you want, but the points you were
> trying to score - as opposed to getting an answer as to why the embargo -
> show a too common tendency to blame the US for everything wrong with the
> world.

Ah, so now pointing out seeming inconsistencies regarding a specific
policy equates to blaming the U.S. for everything wrong with the world?

> If we "supported" one dictator, we should support the next? Even
> if he's the vocal and sworn enemy of the country you love? Sorry, save
> your breath for another cause. As long as Castro's there, he'll use the
> embargo (hell, if he knew it would work so well against his enemy, he'd have
> created one if it didn't exist) to influence folks like you into thinking
> he's anything but what he really is - pleased to isolate his nation from a
> world where people can dissent, lest they pick up the habit. He's already
> seen what glasnost' brings.

You say that the embargo has worked against the U.S., Castro would
even go so far as to create one himself, it helps to keep the Cuban
people under his thumb, yet you think those are reasons for keeping the
sanctions in place?

Fascinating.

> You know, of course, that those living there don't have the privilege of
> dissent, which, BTW, is one of the reasons, getting back to topic before you
> slide away again, for the embargo.

Yes, the Cuban people don't have the right to dissent, and neither
do the Chinese. Yet we have re-evaluated our stance towards China. You
previously stated that our "principles" prevent us from re-considering
our embargo against Cuba, but those same principles don't seem to apply
with China. Why is that?

As for me "sliding away" from the issue of the embargo, you may have
missed the part that you snipped where I said:

> I'm trying to look at it rationally, and see what
> purpose our continued sanctions serve. Also, I'm trying to evaluate
> it versus our policies towards other communist nations.


Chuck Vance

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:49:41 -0600, "James \"Cubby\" Culbertson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I still thought it was kind of cool to see a former President offering
>up a woodworking tip to a national magazine and that FWW printed it as
>though it came from any of us.

That was exactly my feeling.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

I agree that he was, and is, a very decent man. He was humble yet
extremely well informed on all issues. He has done many worthwhile
things since leaving office. Unfortunately, he was a very poor
president.

Dick

>
> Probably the most decent man to ever inhabit the White House (and I say
> that
> as a lifelong Republican). It says volumes about our society, most of it
> bad, that being a decent man is a liability in that job.
>
> > Barry

On 27 Jun 2004 21:47:40 -0700, [email protected] (Dan Cullimore) wrote:

>[email protected] (brad) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> I always had the highest personal regard for the man and his integrity
>> as a human being, in other words, acting on his words (as in his
>> involvement with Habitat for Humanity; not just ON a Board but
>> actually swingin' a hammer at a board!) and not just pronouncing them
>> from a podium.
>>
>> Come to think of it, I wonder if he ever visits here? (clearing
>> throat) Um, Mr. President?
>>
>> Brad
>>
>Someone (FDR?) once said one could not be the Pres. of the U.S. and
>follow the Ten Commandments. If anything, I suspect the Carter
>presidency may be proof positive of that statement (apocryphal as it
>may be). I have never been convinced that he was in fact a poor
>president. I believe he told the truth and very few people wanted to
>hear it, and that in practice he discovered the compromising and
>difficult choices open to him. How he must have struggled to
>reconcile his faith and the realpolitics of the world. I am not a
>religious man, but I have the utmost respect and admiration for his
>example.
>
>Mister Carter, if you're here--thank you; I wish you were on the
>ticket now! I could even live with philandering willie, but this bald
>faced liar...oh, there I go again...
>

So you don't see any problem with a former president visiting Cuba,
praising their socialized health system and criticizing the sitting
administration of his own county while a guest of a country ruled by a
communist dictator?

>Dan

On 25 Jun 2004 20:55:09 -0700, [email protected] (Hylourgos) wrote:

>..who still cringes when "impact" is used as a transitive verb,
>probably a losing battle....

You probably love "task" in the same capacity, then. How about "what's
your take on...?"

The latest one that's been sweeping the media is the word grow as a
verb. Not that it has been used before; e.g. I'm going to grow corn
this summer. But that's the only context I've ever heard it used as a
verb. Now we're hearing about how to grow your business, or the book
I'm currently reading in all to frequent trips to the bathroom, "The
Dogs Who Grew Me." (actually, the lady author is a good writer; I just
have serious problems with that use of the word "grow").


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"Ed Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> To change the topic - which living president or ex-president would you
> like for a neighbor? I'll take Carter...

Yeah, he is probably the best to share stores over a glass of iced tea with,
but Bubba would bring home the babes to lounge around the pool.

In article <[email protected]>, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:

>Just to add on: Fine Woodworking ran an article on Carter in the mid to
>later '80's. He's been building furniture since his military (Navy?) and
>newlywed days in the 1950's.
>
Yes, Navy. He is the only President to have graduated from the U.S. Naval
Academy. He's a degreed engineer (nuclear), and served at least one tour of
duty on board a nuclear sub.

He was the fifth _consecutive_ President with Navy service.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:21:08 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So you don't see any problem with a former president visiting Cuba,
>> praising their socialized health system and criticizing the sitting
>> administration of his own county while a guest of a country ruled by a
>> communist dictator?
>
>Hi Mark. I've had a question that my locals can't seem to answer...
>
>Why is that we are still embargoing and sanctioning Cuba? It hasn't
>worked for 50 years, do we really expect tightening controls to have
>much effect?

50 years? Was I asleep? I distinctly remember Castro marching into
Havana around New Years Day, 1959. That's only 45 years (and ½, if
you're quibbling). I was living in South Florida at the time. It made
all the papers.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> So you don't see any problem with a former president visiting Cuba,
> praising their socialized health system and criticizing the sitting
> administration of his own county while a guest of a country ruled by a
> communist dictator?

Hi Mark. I've had a question that my locals can't seem to answer...

Why is that we are still embargoing and sanctioning Cuba? It hasn't
worked for 50 years, do we really expect tightening controls to have
much effect?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <george@least>
wrote:

> So how long does it take for you to give up your principles?

I asked this in all seriousness - I'm a youngster at 42 and some of the
reasoning behind these types of long term international relationships
are confusing.

Can you shed light on what appears to me to be a great contradiction?
Are our intentions to force the Cuban people to reject Communism? If
we're so against Communism why do we so extensively trade with China -
why are US companies moving manufacturing of all types to China?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <[email protected]>, "Jim" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> If I recall correctly, when President Carter left the White House, his staff
> loaded him down with woodworking tools! He seems to have put them to good
> use.
>
> And you have to like what he has done with Habitat for Humanity. Beats the
> heck out of what most retired Presidents do with their time.

Just to add on: Fine Woodworking ran an article on Carter in the mid to
later '80's. He's been building furniture since his military (Navy?) and
newlywed days in the 1950's.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <[email protected]>,
LRod <[email protected]> wrote:

> 50 years? Was I asleep? I distinctly remember Castro marching into
> Havana around New Years Day, 1959. That's only 45 years (and ½, if
> you're quibbling). I was living in South Florida at the time. It made
> all the papers.

45 is as long ago as 50 to me... both happened BIWB. :)

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:37:37 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Probably the most decent man to ever inhabit the White House (and I say that
>as a lifelong Republican). It says volumes about our society, most of it
>bad, that being a decent man is a liability in that job.

My wife and I were having this exact conversation when I showed her
the FWW tip.

I decent guy gets run over like road kill in politics.

Barry

"Brian" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And you have to like what he has done with Habitat for Humanity. Beats the
>> heck out of what most retired Presidents do with their time.
>
>Here here.
>
>Brian.
>
>

One must assume that you really meant 'hear! hear!', as in
I hear and agree, rather than come on over here, y'all.

scott

LOL!!!

LRod wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 05:38:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Lee Gordon wrote:
>>
>>
>>><<I say nu_cul_ar and you say nu_cle_ar, nucular, nuclear, let's call the
>>>whole thing off . . .>>
>>>
>>>Nuclear. Unclear. All depend on how you use the UN.
>>
>>Different words, different roots. "Nuclear" has nothing to do with clarity.
>>It's based in the French word "nucle", while "unclear" is based in the
>>Latin word "claro". One would no more expect them to be pronounced the
>>same than one would "Euler" and "Euclid".
>
>
> Someday, when you reread the post to which you responded, you're going
> to bitchslap yourself silly for not getting the joke.
>
>
> - -
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net

> Probably the most decent man to ever inhabit the White House (and I say that
> as a lifelong Republican). It says volumes about our society, most of it
> bad, that being a decent man is a liability in that job.
>
>
>>Barry
>
Agreed. Sigh. Much too honest to be a politician. Way too much
integrity and compassion. God bless him.
mahalo,
jo4hn

In article <[email protected]>, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Ed Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> To change the topic - which living president or ex-president would you
>> like for a neighbor? I'll take Carter...
>
>Yeah, he is probably the best to share stores over a glass of iced tea with,
>but Bubba would bring home the babes to lounge around the pool.
>
Maybe so, but his taste in women leaves a bit to be desired: Hillary, Monica,
Gennifer, Paula, Kathleen, and Juanita don't fit my idea of "babes". :-b
YMMV...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.