Text 4514, 86 rader
Skriven 2007-06-17 20:43:10 av JOHNJWILSON
     Kommentar till en text av FRANK SCHEIDT
Ärende: Musings.....
====================
-> -> ALAN HESS said to ROSS SAUER...
-> -> AH>Wealth has its privileges.  That's not new.  *adh*
-> -> 
-> -> No, it isn't anything new.

And it's not an idea to be scorned.

A man reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?
(Browning)

Nor is it the only thing to be admired.

A panoply of Of Other Things...


Self interest becomes selfishness begats uncaring begats unknowing beget
the 'poot we will always have with us...

It the non respect- for the poor --

Lazy, whining, government rip-offs, food stamp cheats..et cetera...
Taking criminal abuse of those socialistic 'entitlements'!

Power and Grered are of greatinterest to me...

What exactly does 'the common good MEAN?

Should that weaken the good of ambition, success in competiion rewarded by
wealth? The satisfaction of winning, the thrill of combat...


The admonition to "Get over it!" :-)

Wealth, surprising to some, can be eschewed. As an ambition
in itself.

In a London museum I visited, there was an eighteeth-century
very upper middle class household...showing to have the comforts we take
for granted,
Home and kooking hear, air consitioning, messenger service, cleaning,
electricity...TOAST :-)...
To live as we do as a matter od course would require 17 full-time
servents...

Whendo we become rich enough? Ever. Brave New World?

I've had mor'n one boss (and at times one wife :-) --
express amazement at the realization that I didn't work for money...I felt
thst if
my pursuit of my craft alone resulted in progress, money would automaticlly
come. I have (and have always had) enough.

Hell, that's because I get to define that :-)

Am I just satisfied or smug? Prob'ly both.


-> -> 
-> -> But it should *END* here in the US, where "all men (and women) are 
-> -> created equal."

And diverge immediately after that creation...

  
-> 
-> After all, how can you charge a man with a "crime" when he was found
"not
-> guilty"...

The Scots manage to do that..,

If I recall correctly, there the jury can return
Guilty, Not guilty or Not proved...


  I realize different levels of evidence are required in both
-> trials but it *still* makes no sense:  If OJ *did* the killing he should
be
-> in *prison* -- and the civil trial found him guilty!

Hey man, don't squeeze The Juice! :-)

He feels that the real killers play a lot of golf...

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)