Tuis » Algemeen » Koeitjies & kalfies » torrek , net vir jou!
| torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110450] |
Ma, 05 Junie 2006 03:02  |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Spaar my die blanke meerderwaardigheidsteorie. Soos ek vantevore vir ander
wat beter kan spel as jy gesê het: Ek het handevol swart kollegas wat jou
baie vinnig ore sal aansit.
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1149457829.706998.171910@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.. .
http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/
Black Invention Myths
Perhaps you've heard the claims: Were it not for the genius and energy
of African-American inventors, we might find ourselves in a world
without traffic lights, peanut butter, blood banks, light bulb
filaments, and a vast number of other things we now take for granted
but could hardly imagine life without.
Such beliefs usually originate in books or articles about black
history. Since many of the authors have little interest in the history
of technology outside of advertising black contributions to it, their
stories tend to be fraught with misunderstandings, wishful thinking, or
fanciful embellishments with no historical basis. The lack of
historical perspective leads to extravagant overestimations of
originality and importance: sometimes a slightly modified version of a
pre-existing piece of technology is mistaken for the first invention of
its type; sometimes a patent or innovation with little or no lasting
value is portrayed as a major advance, even if there's no real evidence
it was ever used.
Unfortunately, some of the errors and exaggerations have acquired an
illusion of credibility by repetition in mainstream outlets, especially
during Black History Month (see examples for the traffic light and
ironing board). When myths go unchallenged for too long, they begin to
eclipse the truth. Thus I decided to put some records straight.
Although this page does not cover every dubious invention claim
floating around out there, it should at least serve as a warning never
to take any such claim for granted.
Each item below is listed with its supposed black originator beneath it
along with the year it was supposedly invented, followed by something
about the real origin of the invention or at least an earlier instance
of it.
BibliographyEmail
Traffic Signal
Invented by Garrett A. Morgan in 1923? No!
The first known traffic signal appeared in London in 1868 near the
Houses of Parliament. Designed by JP Knight, it featured two semaphore
arms and two gas lamps. The earliest electric traffic lights include
Lester Wire's two-color version set up in Salt Lake City circa 1912,
James Hoge's system (US patent #1,251,666) installed in Cleveland by
the American Traffic Signal Company in 1914, and William Potts' 4-way
red-yellow-green lights introduced in Detroit beginning in 1920. New
York City traffic towers began flashing three-color signals also in
1920.
Garrett Morgan's cross-shaped, crank-operated semaphore was not among
the first half-hundred patented traffic signals, nor was it "automatic"
as is sometimes claimed, nor did it play any part in the evolution of
the modern traffic light. For details see Inventing History: Garrett
Morgan and the Traffic Signal.
Gas Mask
Garrett Morgan in 1914? No!
The invention of the gas mask predates Morgan's breathing device by
several decades. Early versions were constructed by the Scottish
chemist John Stenhouse in 1854 and the physicist John Tyndall in the
1870s, among many other inventors prior to World War I. See The
Invention of the Gas Mask.
Peanut Butter
George Washington Carver (who began his peanut research in 1903)? No!
Peanuts, which are native to the New World tropics, were mashed into
paste by Aztecs hundreds of years ago. Evidence of modern peanut butter
comes from US patent #306727 issued to Marcellus Gilmore Edson of
Montreal, Quebec in 1884, for a process of milling roasted peanuts
between heated surfaces until the peanuts reached "a fluid or
semi-fluid state." As the product cooled, it set into what Edson
described as "a consistency like that of butter, lard, or ointment." In
1890, George A. Bayle Jr., owner of a food business in St. Louis,
manufactured peanut butter and sold it out of barrels. J.H. Kellogg, of
cereal fame, secured US patent #580787 in 1897 for his "Process of
Preparing Nutmeal," which produced a "pasty adhesive substance" that
Kellogg called "nut-butter."
George Washington Carver
"Discovered" hundreds of new and important uses for the peanut?
Fathered the peanut industry? Revolutionized southern US agriculture?
No!
Research by Barry Mackintosh, who served as bureau historian for the
National Park Service (which manages the G.W. Carver National
Monument), demonstrated the following:
Most of Carver's peanut and sweet potato creations were either
unoriginal, impractical, or of uncertain effectiveness. No product born
in his laboratory was widely adopted.
The boom years for Southern peanut production came prior to, and not as
a result of, Carver's promotion of the crop.
Carver's work to improve regional farming practices was not of
pioneering scientific importance and had little demonstrable impact.
To see how Carver gained "a popular reputation far transcending the
significance of his accomplishments," read Mackintosh's excellent
article George Washington Carver: The Making of a Myth.
Automatic Lubricator, "Real McCoy"
Elijah McCoy revolutionized industry in 1872 by inventing the first
device to automatically oil machinery? No! The phrase "Real McCoy"
arose to distinguish Elijah's inventions from cheap imitations? No!
The oil cup, which automatically delivers a steady trickle of lubricant
to machine parts while the machine is running, predates McCoy's career;
a description of one appears in the May 6, 1848 issue of Scientific
American. The automatic "displacement lubricator" for steam engines was
developed in 1860 by John Ramsbottom of England, and notably improved
in 1862 by James Roscoe of the same country. The "hydrostatic"
lubricator originated no later than 1871.
Variants of the phrase Real McCoy appear in Scottish literature dating
back to at least 1856 - well before Elijah McCoy could have been
involved.
Detailed evidence: The not-so-real McCoy
Also see The Fake McCoy and Did Somebody Say McTrash?
Blood Bank
Dr. Charles Drew in 1940? No!
During World War I, Dr. Oswald H. Robertson of the US army preserved
blood in a citrate-glucose solution and stored it in cooled containers
for later transfusion. This was the first use of "banked" blood. By the
mid-1930s the Russians had set up a national network of facilities for
the collection, typing, and storage of blood. Bernard Fantus,
influenced by the Russian program, established the first hospital blood
bank in the United States at Chicago's Cook County Hospital in 1937. It
was Fantus who coined the term "blood bank." See highlights of
transfusion history from the American Association of Blood Banks.
Blood Plasma
Did Charles Drew "discover" (in about 1940) that plasma could be
separated and stored apart from the rest of the blood, thereby
revolutionizing transfusion medicine? No!
The possibility of using blood plasma for transfusion purposes was
known at least since 1918, when English physician Gordon R. Ward
suggested it in a medical journal. In the mid-1930s, John Elliott
advanced the idea, emphasizing plasma's advantages in shelf life and
donor-recipient compatibility, and in 1939 he and two colleagues
reported having used stored plasma in 191 transfusions. (See historical
notes on plasma use.) Charles Drew was not responsible for any
breakthrough scientific or medical discovery; his main career
achievement lay in supervising or co-supervising major programs for the
collection and shipment of blood and plasma.
More: Charles Drew Mythology
Washington DC city plan
Benjamin Banneker? No!
Pierre-Charles L'Enfant created the layout of Washington DC. Banneker
assisted Andrew Ellicott in the survey of the federal territory, but
played no direct role in the actual planning of the city. The story of
Banneker reconstructing the city design from memory after L'Enfant ran
away with the plans (with the implication that the project would have
failed if not for Banneker) has been debunked by historians.
Filament for Light Bulb
Lewis Latimer invented the carbon filament in 1881 or 1882? No!
English chemist/physicist Joseph Swan experimented with a
carbon-filament incandescent light all the way back in 1860, and by
1878 had developed a better design which he patented in Britain. On the
other side of the Atlantic, Thomas Edison developed a successful
carbon-filament bulb, receiving a patent for it (#223898) in January
1880, before Lewis Latimer did any work in electric lighting. From 1880
onward, countless patents were issued for innovations in filament
design and manufacture (Edison had over 50 of them). Neither of
Latimer's two filament-related patents in 1881 and 1882 were among the
most important innovations, nor did they make the light bulb last
longer, nor is there reason to believe they were adopted outside Hiram
Maxim's company where Latimer worked at the time. (He was not hired by
Edison's company until 1884, primarily as a draftsman and an expert
witness in patent litigations).
Latimer also did not come up with the first screw socket for the light
bulb or the first book on electric lighting.
Heart Surgery (first successful)
Dr. Daniel Hale Williams in 1893? No!
Dr. Williams repaired a wound not in the heart muscle itself, but in
the sac surrounding it, the pericardium. This operation was not the
first of its type: Henry Dalton of St. Louis performed a nearly
identical operation two years earlier, with the patient fully
recovering. Decades before that, the Spaniard Francisco Romero carried
out the first successful pericardial surgery of any type, incising the
pericardium to drain fluid compressing the heart.
Surgery on the actual human heart muscle, and not just the pericardium,
was first successfully accomplished by Ludwig Rehn of Germany when he
repaired a wounded right ventricle in 1896. More than 50 years later
came surgery on the open heart, pioneered by John Lewis, C. Walton
Lillehei (often called the "father of open heart surgery") and John
Gibbon (who invented the heart-lung machine).
What medical historians say...
"Third Rail"
Granville Woods in 1901? No!
Werner von Siemens pioneered the use of an electrified third rail as a
means for powering railway vehicles when he demonstrated an
experimental electric train at the 1879 Berlin Industrial Exhibition.
In the US, English-born Leo Daft used a third-rail system to electrify
the Baltimore & Hampden lines in 1885. The first electrically powered
subway trains, which debuted in London in the autumn of 1890, likewise
drew power from a third rail. Details...
Railway Telegraph
Granville Woods prevented railway accidents and saved countless lives
by inventing the train telegraph (patented in 1887), which allowed
communication to and from moving trains? No!
The earliest patents for train telegraphs go back to at least 1873.
Lucius Phelps was the first inventor in the field to attract widespread
notice, and the telegrams he exchanged on the New York, New Haven &
Hartford railroad in January 1885 were hailed in the Feb. 21, 1885
issue of Scientific American as "perhaps the first ever sent to and
from a moving train." Phelps remained at the forefront in developing
the technology and by the end of 1887 already held 14 US patents on his
system. He joined a team led by Thomas Edison, who had been working on
his "grasshopper telegraph" for trains, and together they constructed
on the Lehigh Valley Railroad one of the only induction telegraph
systems ever put to commercial use. Although this telegraph was a
technical success, it fulfilled no public need, and the market for
on-board train telegraphy never took off. There is no evidence that any
commercial railway telegraph based on Granville Woods's patents was
ever built. About the patent interference case
Refrigerated Truck
Frederick Jones (with Joseph Numero) in 1938? No! Did Jones change
America's eating habits by making possible the long-distance shipment
of perishable foods? No!
Refrigerated ships and railcars had been moving perishables across
oceans and continents even before Jones was born (see refrigerated
transport timeline). Trucks with mechanically refrigerated cargo spaces
appeared on the roads at least as early as the late 1920s (see the
proof). Further development of truck refrigeration was more a process
of gradual evolution than radical change.
Air Brake / Automatic Air Brake
Granville Woods in 1904? No!
In 1869, a 22-year-old George Westinghouse received US patent #88929
for a brake device operated by compressed air, and in the same year
organized the Westinghouse Air Brake Company. Many of the 361 patents
he accumulated during his career were for air brake variations and
improvements, including his first "automatic" version in 1872 (US
#124404).
Air Conditioner
Frederick Jones in 1949? No!
Dr. Willis Carrier built the first machine to control both the
temperature and humidity of indoor air. He received the first of many
patents in 1906 (US patent #808897, for the "Apparatus for Treating
Air"). In 1911 he published the formulae that became the scientific
basis for air conditioning design, and four years later formed the
Carrier Engineering Corporation to develop and manufacture AC systems.
Airship
J.F. Pickering in 1900? No!
French engineer Henri Giffard successfully flew a powered navigable
airship in 1852. The La France airship built by Charles Renard and
Arthur Krebs in 1884 featured an electric motor and improved steering
capabilities. In 1900 Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin's first rigid-framed
dirigible took to the air. Of the hundreds of inventors granted patents
for early airship designs and modifications, few succeeded in building
or flying their craft. There doesn't appear to be any record of a
"Pickering Airship" ever getting off the ground.
US Aviation Patent Database, 1799-1909
Automatic Railroad Car Coupler
Andrew Beard invented the "Jenny [sic] coupler" in 1897? No!
The Janney coupler is named for US Civil War veteran Eli H. Janney, who
in 1873 invented a device (US patent #138405) which automatically
linked together two railroad cars upon their being brought into
contact. Also known as the "knuckle coupler," Janney's invention
superseded the dangerous link-and-pin coupler and became the basis for
standard coupler design through the remainder of the millennium. Andrew
Beard's modified knuckle coupler was just one of approximately eight
thousand coupler variations patented by 1900. See a history of the
automatic coupler and also The Janney Coupler.
Automatic Transmission/Gearshift
Richard Spikes in 1932? No!
The first automatic-transmission automobile to enter the market was
designed by the Sturtevant brothers of Massachusetts in 1904. US Patent
#766551 was the first of several patents on their gearshift mechanism.
Automatic transmission technology continued to develop, spawning
hundreds of patents and numerous experimental units; but because of
cost, reliability issues and an initial lack of demand, several decades
passed before vehicles with automatic transmission became common on the
roads.
Bicycle Frame
Isaac R. Johnson in 1899? No!
Comte Mede de Sivrac and Karl von Sauerbronn built primitive versions
of the bicycle in 1791 and 1816 respectively. The frame of John
Starley's 1885 "safety bicycle" resembled that of a modern bicycle.
Cellular Phone
Henry T. Sampson in 1971? No!
On July 6, 1971, Sampson and co-inventor George Miley received a patent
on a "gamma electric cell" that converted a gamma ray input into an
electrical output (Among the first to do that was Bernhard Gross, US
patent #3122640, 1964). What, you ask, does gamma radiation have to do
with cellular communications technology? The answer: nothing. Some
multiculturalist pseudo-historian must have seen the words "electric"
and "cell" and thought "cell phone."
The father of the cell phone is Martin Cooper who first demonstrated
the technology in 1973.
Clock or Watch (First in America)
Benjamin Banneker built the first American timepiece in 1753? No!
Abel Cottey, a Quaker clockmaker from Philadelphia, built a clock that
is dated 1709 (source: Six Quaker Clockmakers, by Edward C. Chandlee;
Philadelphia, The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1943). Banneker
biographer Silvio Bedini further refutes the myth:
Several watch and clockmakers were already established in the colony
[Maryland] prior to the time that Banneker made the clock. In Annapolis
alone there were at least four such craftsmen prior to 1750. Among
these may be mentioned John Batterson, a watchmaker who moved to
Annapolis in 1723; James Newberry, a watch and clockmaker who
advertised in the Maryland Gazette on July 20, 1748; John Powell, a
watch and clockmaker believed to have been indentured and to have been
working in 1745; and Powell's master, William Roberts.
Silvio Bedini, The Life of Benjamin Banneker (Baltimore: Maryland
Historical Society, 1999)
Clothes Dryer
George T. Sampson in 1892? No!
The "clothes-drier" described in Sampson's patent was actually a rack
for holding clothes near a stove, and was intended as an "improvement"
on similar contraptions:
My invention relates to improvements in clothes-driers.... The object
of my invention is to suspend clothing in close relation to a stove by
means of frames so constructed that they can be readily placed in
proper position and put aside when not required for use.
US patent #476416, 1892
Nineteen years earlier, there were already over 300 US patents for such
"clothes-driers" (Subject-Matter Index of Patents...1790 to 1873).
A Frenchman named Pochon in 1799 built the first known tumble dryer -
a crank-driven, rotating metal drum pierced with ventilation holes and
held over heat. Electric tumble dryers appeared in the first half of
the 20th century.
Dustpan
Lloyd P. Ray in 1897? No!
While the ultimate origin of the dustpan is lost in the mists (dusts?)
of time, at least we know that US patent #20811 for "Dust-pan" was
granted to T.E. McNeill in 1858. That was the first of about 164 US
dustpan patents predating Lloyd Ray's. See the dustpan patent list.
Egg Beater
Willie Johnson in 1884? No!
The hand-cranked egg beater with two intermeshed, counter-rotating
whisks was invented by Turner Williams of Providence, Rhode Island in
1870 (US Patent #103811). It was an improvement on earlier rotary egg
beaters that had only one whisk.
Electric Trolley
Did Granville Woods invent the electric trolley car, the overhead wire
that powers it, or the "troller" wheel that makes contact with the
trolley wire, in 1888? No!
Dr. Werner von Siemens demonstrated his electric trolleybus, the
Elektromote, near Berlin on April 29, 1882. The vehicle's two electric
motors collected power through contact wheels rolling atop a pair of
overhead wires. The earliest patentee of an electric trolley in the
United States appears to be Eugene Cowles (#252193 in 1881), followed
by Dr. Joseph R. Finney (#268476 in 1882) who operated an experimental
trolley car near Pittsburgh, PA in the summer of 1882. In early 1885,
John C. Henry established in Kansas City, MO, the first overhead-wire
electric transit system to enter regular service in the United States.
Belgian-born Charles van Depoele, who earned 240+ patents in electric
railway technology and other fields, set up trolley lines in several
North American cities by 1887. In February 1888, a trolley system
designed by Frank Sprague began operating in Richmond, Virginia.
Sprague's system became the lasting prototype for electric street
railways in the US.
Elevator
Alexander Miles in 1887? No!
Was Miles the first to patent a self-closing shaft door? No!
Steam-powered hoisting devices were used in England by 1800. Elisha
Graves Otis' 1853 "safety elevator" prevented the car from falling if
the cable broke, and thus paved the way for the first commercial
passenger elevator, installed in New York City's Haughwout Department
Store in 1857. The first electric elevator appeared in Mannheim,
Germany in 1880, built by the German firm of Siemens and Halske. A
self-closing shaft door was invented by J.W. Meaker in 1874
("Improvement in Self-closing Hatchways," US Patent No. 147,853). See
Elevator Timeline
Fastest Computer/Computation
Was Philip Emeagwali responsible for the world's fastest computer or
computation in 1989? Did he win the "Nobel Prize of computing"? Is he a
"father of the Internet"? No!
The fastest performance of a computer application in 1989 was 6 billion
floating point operations per second (6 Gflops), achieved by a team
from Mobil and Thinking Machines Corp. on a 64,000-processor
"Connection Machine" invented by Danny Hillis. That was almost double
the 3.1 Gflops of Emeagwali's computation. Computing's Nobel Prize
equivalent is the Turing Award, which Emeagwali has never won. More...
Fire Escape
Joseph Winters in 1878? No!
Winters' "fire escape" was a wagon-mounted ladder. The first such
contraption patented in the US was the work of William P. Withey, 1840
(US patent #1599). The fire escape with a "lazy-tongs" type ladder,
more similar to Winters' patent, was pioneered by Hüttman and Kornelio
in 1849 (US patent #6155). One of the first fire escapes of any type
was invented in 18th-century England:
In 1784, Daniel Maseres, of England, invented a machine called a fire
escape, which, being fastened to the window, would enable anyone to
descend to the street without injury.
Benjamin Butterworth, Growth of Industrial Art, 1888
By 1888 the US had granted 1,099 patents on fire escapes of "many
forms, and of every possible material" (Butterworth).
Fire Extinguisher
Thomas J. Martin in 1872? No!
In 1813, British army captain George Manby created the first known
portable fire extinguisher: a two-foot-tall copper cylinder that held 3
gallons of water and used compressed air as a propellant. One of the
earliest extinguishers to use a chemical extinguishing agent, and not
just water, was invented in 1849 by the Englishman William Henry
Phillips, who patented his "fire annihilator" in England and the United
States (US patent #7,269).
Food Additives, Meat Curing
Lloyd Hall "is responsible for the meat curing products, seasonings,
emulsions, bakery products, antioxidants, protein hydrolysates, and
many other products that keep our food fresh and flavorable"? No! Hall
"revolutionized the meatpacking industry"? No!
Hall introduced no major class of additive, certainly not meat curing
salts (which are ancient), protein hydrolysates (popularized by Julius
Maggi as flavor enhancers in 1886), emulsifiers and antioxidants
(lecithin, for example, was used in both roles before Lloyd Hall had
any patents in food processing). The so-called revolutionary meat
curing product marketed by Hall's employer was invented primarily by
Karl Max Seifert?; the number of Seifert's patent was printed right
on the containers. Hall's main contribution to this product was to
reduce its tendency to cake during storage. Details: Lloyd Hall myth.
Fountain Pen
W.B. Purvis in 1890? No!
The first reference to what seems to be a fountain pen appears in an
Arabic text from 969 AD; details of the instrument are not known. A
French "Bion" pen, dated 1702, represents the oldest fountain pen that
still survives. Later models included John Scheffer's 1819 pen,
possibly the first to be mass-produced; John Jacob Parker's
"self-filling" pen of 1832; and the famous Lewis Waterman pen of 1884
(US Patents #293545, #307735). Early History of the Fountain Pen
Golf Tee
Dr. George Grant in 1899? No!
A small rubber platform invented by Scotsmen William Bloxsom and Arthur
Douglas was the world's first patented golf tee (British patent #12941
of 1889). The first known tee to penetrate the ground, in contrast to
earlier tees that sat on the surface, was the peg-like "Perfectum"
patented in 1892 by Percy Ellis of England. American dentist William
Lowell introduced the most common form of tee used today, the simple
wooden peg with a flared top. Details...
Hairbrush
Lyda Newman in 1898? No!
An early US patent for a recognizably modern hairbrush went to Hugh
Rock in 1854 (US Design Patent no. D645), though surely there were
hairbrushes long before there was a US Patent Office.
The claim that Lyda Newman's brush was the first with "synthetic
bristles" is false: her patent mentions nothing about synthetic
bristles and is concerned only with a new way of making the handle
detachable from the head. Besides, a hairbrush that included "elastic
wire teeth" in combination with natural bristles had already been
patented by Samuel Firey in 1870 (US, #106680). Nylon bristles weren't
possible until the invention of nylon in 1935.
Halogen Lamp
Frederick Mosby? No
The original patent for the tungsten halogen lamp (US #2,883,571; April
21, 1959) is recorded to Elmer G. Fridrich and Emmett H. Wiley of
General Electric. The two had built a working prototype as early as
1953. Fred Mosby was part of the GE team charged with developing the
prototype lamp into a marketable product, but was not responsible for
the original halogen lamp or the concept behind it.
Hand Stamp
William Purvis in 1883? No!
The earliest known postal handstamp was brought into use by Henry
Bishop, Postmaster General of Great Britain, in the year 1661. The
stamp imprinted the mail with a bisected circle containing the month
and the date. See "Bishop marks"
Heating Furnace
Alice Parker in 1919? No!
In the hypocaust heating systems built by the ancient Romans, hot air
from a furnace circulated under the floor and up through channels
inside the walls, thereby distributing heat evenly around the building.
One of the most famous heating systems in recent centuries was the iron
furnace stove known as the "Franklin stove," named after its purported
originator Benjamin Franklin around 1745 AD. The US had issued over
4000 patents for heating stoves and furnaces by 1888 (Benjamin
Butterworth, Growth of Industrial Art, 1888).
Horseshoe
Oscar E. Brown in 1892? No!
Some sources on the web, if not ignorant enough to say Brown invented
the first horseshoe ever, will at least try to credit him for the first
double or compound horseshoe made of two layers: one permanently
secured to the hoof, and one auxiliary layer that can be removed and
replaced when it wears out. However, in the US there were already 39
earlier patents for horseshoes using that same concept. The first of
these was issued to J.B. Kendall of Boston in 1861, patent #33709.
Ice Cream
Augustus Jackson in 1832? No!
Flavored ices resembling sherbet were known in China in ancient times.
In Europe, sherbet-like concoctions evolved into ice cream by the 16th
century, and around 1670 or so, the Café Procope in Paris offered
creamy frozen dairy desserts to the public. The first written record of
ice cream in the New World comes from a letter dated 1700, attesting
that Maryland Governor William Bladen served the treat to his guests.
In 1777, the New York Gazette advertised the sale of ice cream by
confectioner Philip Lenzi. History of Ice Cream
Ironing Board
Sarah Boone in 1892? No!
Of the several hundred US patents on ironing boards granted prior to
Sarah Boone's, the first three went to William Vandenburg in 1858
(patents #19390, #19883, #20231). The first American female patentee of
an ironing board is probably Sarah Mort of Dayton, Ohio, who received
patent #57170 in 1866. In 1869, Henry Soggs of Columbus, Pennsylvania
earned US patent #90966 for an ironing board resembling the modern
type, with folding legs, adjustable height, and a cover. Another nice
example of a modern-looking board was designed by J.H. Mallory in 1871,
patent #120296. Details...
Laser Cataract Surgery
Patricia Bath "transformed eye surgery" by inventing the first laser
device to treat cataracts in 1986? No!
Use of lasers to treat cataracts in the eye began to develop in the mid
1970s. M.M. Krasnov of Russia reported the first such procedure in
1975. One of the earliest US patents for laser cataract removal
(#3,982,541) was issued to Francis L'Esperance in 1976. In later years,
a number of experimenters worked independently on laser devices for
removing cataracts, including Daniel Eichenbaum, whose work became the
basis of the Paradigm PhotonT device; and Jack Dodick, whose Dodick
Laser PhotoLysis System eventually became the first laser unit to win
FDA approval for cataract removal in the United States. Still, the
majority of cataract surgeries continue to be performed using
ultrasound devices, not lasers. Details...
Lawn Mower
John Burr in 1899? No!
English engineer Edwin Budding invented the first reel-type lawn mower
(with blades arranged in a cylindrical pattern) and had it patented in
England in 1830. In 1868 the United States issued patent #73807 to
Amariah M. Hills of Connecticut, who went on to establish the
Archimedean Lawn Mower Co. in 1871. By 1888, the US Patent Office had
granted 138 patents for lawn mowers (Butterworth, Growth of Industrial
Art). Doubtlessly there were even more by the time Burr got his patent
in 1899.
Some website authors want Burr to have invented the first "rotary
blade" mower, with a centrally mounted spinning blade. But his patent
#624749 shows yet another twist on the old reel mower, differing in
only a few details with Budding's original.
Lawn Sprinkler
J. H. Smith in 1897? Elijah McCoy? No!
The first US patent with the title "lawn sprinkler" was issued to J.
Lessler of Buffalo, New York in 1871 (#121949). Early examples of
water-propelled, rotating lawn sprinklers were patented by J. Oswald in
1890 (#425340) and J. S. Woolsey in 1891 (#457099) among a gazillion
others.
Smith's patent shows just another rotating sprinkler, and McCoy's 1899
patent was for a turtle-shaped sprinkler.
Mailbox (letter drop box)
P. Downing invented the street letter drop box in 1891? No!
George Becket invented the private mailbox in 1892? No!
The US Postal Service says that "Street boxes for mail collection began
to appear in large [US] cities by 1858." They appeared in Europe even
earlier, according to historian Laurin Zilliacus:
Mail boxes as we understand them first appeared on the streets of
Belgian towns in 1848. In Paris they came two years later, while the
English received their 'pillar boxes' in 1855.
Laurin Zilliacus, Mail for the World, p. 178 (New York, J. Day Co.,
1953)
> From the same book (p.178), "Private mail boxes were invented in the
United States in about 1860."
Eventually, letter drop boxes came equipped with inner lids to prevent
miscreants from rummaging through the mail pile. The first of many US
patents for such a purpose was granted in 1860 to John North of
Middletown, Connecticut (US Pat. #27466).
Mop
Thomas W. Stewart in 1893? No!
Mops go back a long, long way before 1893. Just how long, is hard to
determine. Restricting our view to the modern era, we find that the
United States issued its first mop patent (#241) in 1837 to Jacob Howe,
called "Construction of Mop-Heads and the Mode of Securing them upon
Handles." One of the first patented mops with a built-in wringer was
the one H. & J. Morton invented in 1859 (US #24049).
The mop specified in Stewart's patent #499402 has a lever-operated
clamp for "holding the mop rags"; the lever is not a wringing mechanism
as erroneously reported on certain websites. Other inventors had
already patented mops with lever-operated clamps, one of the first
being Greenleaf Stackpole in 1869 (US Pat. #89803).
Paper Punch (hand-held)
Charles Brooks in 1893? No!
Was it the first with a hinged receptacle to catch the clippings? No!
The first numbered US patent for a hand-held hole punch was #636,
issued to Solyman Merrick in 1838. Robert James Kellett earned the
first two US patents for a chad-catching hole punch, in 1867 (patent
#65090) and 1868 (#79232).
Pencil Sharpener
John Lee Love in 1897? No!
Bernard Lassimone of Limoges, France invented one of the earliest
sharpeners, receiving French patent number 2444 in 1828. An apparent
ancestor of the 20th-century hand-cranked sharpener was patented by G.
F. Ballou in 1896 (US #556709) and marketed by the A.B. Dick Company as
the "Planetary Pencil Pointer." As the user held the pencil stationary
and turned the crank, twin milling cutters revolved around the tip of
the pencil and shaved it into a point.
Love's patent #594114 shows a variation on a different kind of
sharpener, in which one would crank the pencil itself around in a
stirring motion. An earlier device of a similar type was devised in
1888 by G.H. Courson (patent #388533), and sold under the name
"President Pencil Sharpener."
Here are several other examples of 19th century sharpeners:
Early Mechanical Pencil Sharpeners
Mechanical Pencil Sharpener Gallery ~ 1884-1899
Permanent Wave Machine (for perming hair)
Marjorie Joyner in 1928? No!
That would be German hairdresser Karl Ludwig Nessler (aka Charles
Nestlé) no later than 1906.
Postmarking and Canceling Machine
William Barry in 1897? No!
Try Pearson Hill of England, in 1857. Hill's machine marked the postage
stamp with vertical lines and postmark date. By 1892, US post offices
were using several brands of machines, including one that could cancel,
postmark, count and stack more than 20,000 pieces of mail per hour
(Marshall Cushing, Story of Our Post Office, Boston: A. M. Thayer &
co., 1892, pp.189-191).
Printing Press
W.A. Lavalette invented "the advanced printing press" in 1878? No!
Movable-type printing first appeared in East Asia. In Europe, around
1455, Johann Gutenberg adapted the screw press used in other trades
such as winemaking and combined it with type-metal alloy characters and
oil-based printing ink. Major advances after Gutenberg include the
cylinder printing press (c. 1811) by Frederick Koenig and Andreas
Bauer, the rotary press (1846) by Richard M. Hoe, and the web press
(1865) by William Bullock. Major advances do not include Lavalette's
patent, which was only one of 3,268 printing patents granted in the US
by the year 1888 (Butterworth, Growth of Industrial Art). Improvements
After Gutenberg
Propeller for Ship
George Tolivar or Benjamin Montgomery? No!
John Stevens constructed a boat with twin steam-powered propellers in
1804 in the first known application of a screw propeller for marine
propulsion. Other important pioneers in the early 1800s included Sir
Francis Pettit Smith of England, and Swedish-born ship designer John
Ericsson (US patent #588) who later designed the USS Monitor.
Refrigerator
Thomas Elkins in 1879? John Stanard in 1891? No!
Oliver Evans proposed a mechanical refrigerator based on a
vapor-compression cycle in 1805 and Jacob Perkins had a working machine
built in 1834. Dr. John Gorrie created an air-cycle refrigeration
system in about 1844, which he installed in a Florida hospital. In the
1850s Alexander Twining in the USA and James Harrison in Australia used
mechanical refrigeration to produce ice on a commercial scale. Around
the same time, the Carré brothers of France led the development of
absorption refrigeration systems. A more detailed timeline
Stanard's patent describes not a refrigeration machine, but an
old-fashioned icebox - an insulated cabinet into which ice is placed
to cool the interior. As such, it was a "refrigerator" only in the old
sense of the term, which included non-mechanical coolers. Elkins
created a similarly low-tech cooler, acknowledging in his patent
#221222 that "I am aware that chilling substances inclosed within a
porous box or jar by wetting its outer surface is an old and well-known
process."
Rotary Engine
Andrew Beard in 1892? No!
The Subject Matter Index of Patents Issued from the United States
Patent Office from 1790 to 1873 Inclusive lists 394 "Rotary Engine"
patents from 1810-1873. The Wankel engine, a rotary combustion engine
with a four-stroke cycle, dates from 1954. History of the Rotary Engine
from 1588 Onward
Screw Socket for Light Bulb
Lewis Latimer? No!
The earliest evidence for a light bulb screw base design is a drawing
in a Thomas Edison notebook dated Sept. 11, 1880. It is not the work of
Latimer, though:
Edison's long-time associates, Edward H. Johnson and John Ott, were
principally responsible for designing fixtures in the fall of 1880.
Their work resulted in the screw socket and base very much like those
widely used today.
R. Friedel and P. Israel, Edison's Electric Light: Biography of an
Invention, (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1986).
The 1880 sketch of the screw socket is reproduced in the book cited
above.
Smallpox Vaccine
Onesimus the slave in 1721? No! Onesimus knew of variolation, an early
inoculation technique practiced in several areas of the world before
the discovery of vaccination.
English physician Edward Jenner developed the smallpox vaccine in 1796
after finding that the relatively innocuous cowpox virus built immunity
against the deadly smallpox. This discovery led to the eventual
eradication of endemic smallpox throughout the world. Vaccination
differs from the primitive inoculation method known as variolation,
which involved the deliberate planting of live smallpox into a healthy
person in hopes of inducing a mild form of the disease that would
provide immunity from further infection. Variolation not only was risky
to the patient but, more importantly, failed to prevent smallpox from
spreading. Known in Asia by 1000 AD, the practice reached the West via
more than one channel.
Smokestack for Locomotives
L. Bell in 1871? No!
Even the first steam locomotives, such as the one built by Richard
Trevithick in 1804, were equipped with smokestacks. Later smokestacks
featured wire netting to prevent hazardous sparks from escaping. Page
115 of John H. White Jr.'s American Locomotives: An Engineering
History, 1830-1880 (1997 edition) displays a composite picture showing
57 different types of spark-arresting smokestacks devised before 1860.
Steam Boiler Furnace
Granville Woods in 1884? No!
The steam engine boiler is of course as old as the steam engine itself.
The Subject Matter Index of Patents Issued from the United States
Patent Office from 1790 to 1873 Inclusive lists several hundred
variations and improvements to the steam boiler, including the
revolutionary water-tube boiler patented in 1867 by American inventors
George Herman Babcock and Stephen Wilcox.
Street Sweeper
Charles Brooks in 1896? No!
Brooks' patent was for a modified version of a common type of street
sweeper cart that had long been known, with a rotary brush that swept
refuse onto an elevator belt and into a trash bin. In the United
States, street sweepers started being patented in the 1840s, and by
1900 the Patent Office had issued about 300 patents for such machines.
Details...
Supercharger for Automobiles
Joseph Gammel/Gamell in 1976? No!
In 1885, Gottlieb Daimler received a German patent for supercharging an
internal combustion engine. Louis Renault patented a centrifugal
supercharger in France in 1902. An early supercharged racecar was built
by Lee Chadwick of Pottstown, Pennsylvania in 1908 and reportedly
reached a speed of 100 miles per hour. History of Supercharging
Toilet
T. Elkins in 1897? No!
The Minoans of Crete are said to have invented a flush toilet thousands
of years ago; however, there is probably no direct ancestral
relationship between it and the modern one that evolved primarily in
England starting in the late 16th century, when Sir John Harrington
devised a flushing device for his godmother Queen Elizabeth. In 1775
Alexander Cummings patented a toilet in which some water remained after
each flush, thereby suppressing odors from below. The "water closet"
continued to evolve, and in 1885, Thomas Twyford provided us with a
single-piece ceramic toilet similar to the one we know today. Who
Invented the Toilet?
Toilet for Railroad Cars
Lewis Latimer in 1874? No!
William E. Marsh Jr. of New Jersey took out US patent #95597 for
"Improvement in Water-closets for Railroad Cars" five years prior to
Latimer's 1874 patent with the same title. Marsh's patent specification
suggests that railroad-car water closets, i.e., toilets, were already
in use:
In the closets or privies of railroad cars, the cold and wind,
especially while the train is in motion, are very disagreeable... My
invention is to remove these objectionable features....
W. Marsh, US patent #95597, 1869
Tricycle
M.A. Cherry in 1886? No!
In Germany in the year 1680 or thereabouts, paraplegic watchmaker
Stephan Farffler built his own tricycle at 22 years of age. He designed
it to be pedaled with the hands, for obvious reasons. History of the
tricycle
Turn Signals
Richard Spikes in 1913? No! Did the 1913 Pierce Arrow feature Spikes'
turn signals? No!
Electric turn signal lights were devised as early as 1907 (U.S. Patent
912,831), but were not widely offered by major automobile manufacturers
until the late 1930s, when GM developed its own version and made it
standard on Buicks. The Pierce Arrow Museum in Buffalo, NY denies that
directional signals were offered on 1913 Pierce Arrows.
Typewriter
L.S. Burridge & N.R. Marshman in 1885? No!
Henry Mill, an English engineer, was the first person to patent the
basic idea of the typewriter in 1714. The first working typewriter
known to have actually been built was the work of Pellegrino Turri of
Italy in 1808. Americans C. L. Sholes and C. Glidden patented the
familiar QWERTY keyboard in 1868 and brought it to market in 1873. In
1878 change-case keys were added that enabled the typing of both
capital and small letters. Typewriter History
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110454 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110453] |
Ma, 05 Junie 2006 11:05  |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ps, noem vir my net een uitvinding wat uit Sub Sahara Afrika uitkom ,
van uit die " native " populasie ASB.
( Controled fire , does not count )
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110457 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110454] |
Di, 06 Junie 2006 02:18 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ek sê weer: Spaar my die blanke meerderwaardigheidsteorie. Die toetse bewys
niks! - want daar is te veel faktore wat nie gestandardiseer kan word nie.
En die feit dat daar geen belangrike uivinding uit Afrika gekom het nie,
bewys eweneens niks. Die omstandighede in Afrika is radikaal verskillend
van dié in Europa.
En voor ek vergeet, ek vantevore op hier ng vir ander van jou soort gesê:
'n Paar wittes het die uitvindings gemaak - baie van hulle heeltemal per
ongeluk! - en nou maak alle wittes asof hulle die uitvinders is.
Maar al sou blankes ook groter, sterker en slimmer as swartes wees, gee dit
hulle nie die reg om swartes se grond af te vat en oor hulle te regeer nie.
Dit is gewoon kolonialisme en imperialisme - diefstal!
Annette het jou gesê jy is nie tot 'n standpunt van jou eie in staat nie.
Nou kruip jy agter ander mense se panties weg.
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1149505526.414534.210310@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> Ps, noem vir my net een uitvinding wat uit Sub Sahara Afrika uitkom ,
> van uit die " native " populasie ASB.
> ( Controled fire , does not count )
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110458 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110450] |
Di, 06 Junie 2006 02:23 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ek sê weer: Spaar my die blanke meerderwaardigheidsteorie. Die toetse bewys
niks! - want daar is te veel faktore wat nie gestandardiseer kan word nie.
En die feit dat daar geen belangrike uivinding uit Afrika gekom het nie,
bewys eweneens niks. Die omstandighede in Afrika is radikaal verskillend
van dié in Europa.
En voor ek vergeet, ek vantevore op hier ng vir ander van jou soort gesê:
'n Paar wittes het die uitvindings gemaak - baie van hulle heeltemal per
ongeluk! - en nou maak alle wittes asof hulle die uitvinders is.
Maar al sou blankes ook groter, sterker en slimmer as swartes wees, gee dit
hulle nie die reg om swartes se grond af te vat en oor hulle te regeer nie.
Dit is gewoon kolonialisme en imperialisme - diefstal!
Annette het jou gesê jy is nie tot 'n standpunt van jou eie in staat nie.
Nou kruip jy agter ander mense se panties weg.
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1149505526.414534.210310@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> Ps, noem vir my net een uitvinding wat uit Sub Sahara Afrika uitkom ,
> van uit die " native " populasie ASB.
> ( Controled fire , does not count )
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110459 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110457] |
Di, 06 Junie 2006 05:22 |
Otterkop
Boodskappe: 378
Geregistreer: Maart 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"jou soort" , klink rassisties , haatdraend vir my, wat sal jy blank op
blank rassisme noem ?
"Torreke" skryf in boodskap news:e62npk$c1k$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Ek sê weer: Spaar my die blanke meerderwaardigheidsteorie. Die toetse
> bewys niks! - want daar is te veel faktore wat nie gestandardiseer kan
> word nie.
>
> En die feit dat daar geen belangrike uivinding uit Afrika gekom het nie,
> bewys eweneens niks. Die omstandighede in Afrika is radikaal verskillend
> van dié in Europa.
>
> En voor ek vergeet, ek vantevore op hier ng vir ander van jou soort gesê:
> 'n Paar wittes het die uitvindings gemaak - baie van hulle heeltemal per
> ongeluk! - en nou maak alle wittes asof hulle die uitvinders is.
>
> Maar al sou blankes ook groter, sterker en slimmer as swartes wees, gee
> dit hulle nie die reg om swartes se grond af te vat en oor hulle te regeer
> nie. Dit is gewoon kolonialisme en imperialisme - diefstal!
>
> Annette het jou gesê jy is nie tot 'n standpunt van jou eie in staat nie.
> Nou kruip jy agter ander mense se panties weg.
>
>
> "fire_" wrote in message
> news:1149505526.414534.210310@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com.. .
>> Ps, noem vir my net een uitvinding wat uit Sub Sahara Afrika uitkom ,
>> van uit die " native " populasie ASB.
>> ( Controled fire , does not count )
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110460 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110458] |
Di, 06 Junie 2006 05:23 |
Otterkop
Boodskappe: 378
Geregistreer: Maart 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
kry beheer oor daai child in jou , hy beheer jou
"Torreke" skryf in boodskap news:e62o2g$cgq$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Ek sê weer: Spaar my die blanke meerderwaardigheidsteorie. Die toetse
> bewys
> niks! - want daar is te veel faktore wat nie gestandardiseer kan word nie.
>
> En die feit dat daar geen belangrike uivinding uit Afrika gekom het nie,
> bewys eweneens niks. Die omstandighede in Afrika is radikaal verskillend
> van dié in Europa.
>
> En voor ek vergeet, ek vantevore op hier ng vir ander van jou soort gesê:
> 'n Paar wittes het die uitvindings gemaak - baie van hulle heeltemal per
> ongeluk! - en nou maak alle wittes asof hulle die uitvinders is.
>
> Maar al sou blankes ook groter, sterker en slimmer as swartes wees, gee
> dit
> hulle nie die reg om swartes se grond af te vat en oor hulle te regeer
> nie.
> Dit is gewoon kolonialisme en imperialisme - diefstal!
>
> Annette het jou gesê jy is nie tot 'n standpunt van jou eie in staat nie.
> Nou kruip jy agter ander mense se panties weg.
>
>
> "fire_" wrote in message
> news:1149505526.414534.210310@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com.. .
>> Ps, noem vir my net een uitvinding wat uit Sub Sahara Afrika uitkom ,
>> van uit die " native " populasie ASB.
>> ( Controled fire , does not count )
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110463 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110460] |
Di, 06 Junie 2006 06:46 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Otterkop, jy't nou soos 'n kefferbrakkie geword wat aan die hakskene byt.
Jy vat nie die argument aan nie, maar die persoon. Jy kom ook nie van voor
af nie, maar van agter af.
Maar wat kan mens nou anders verwag van iemand wat nie verder kan sien as
iemand anders se velkleur nie - wat nie die vermoë ontwikkel het om mense op
iets anders te beoordeel as wat voor oë is nie.
"Otterkop" skryf in boodskap news:2cudncQD4rbdjBjZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@is.co.za...
> kry beheer oor daai child in jou , hy beheer jou
>
>
>
> "Torreke" wrote in message
> news:e62o2g$cgq$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Ek sê weer: Spaar my die blanke meerderwaardigheidsteorie. Die toetse
>> bewys
>> niks! - want daar is te veel faktore wat nie gestandardiseer kan word
>> nie.
>> En die feit dat daar geen belangrike uivinding uit Afrika gekom het nie,
>> bewys eweneens niks. Die omstandighede in Afrika is radikaal verskillend
>> van dié in Europa.
>> En voor ek vergeet, ek vantevore op hier ng vir ander van jou soort gesê:
>> 'n Paar wittes het die uitvindings gemaak - baie van hulle heeltemal per
>> ongeluk! - en nou maak alle wittes asof hulle die uitvinders is.
>> Maar al sou blankes ook groter, sterker en slimmer as swartes wees, gee
>> dit
>> hulle nie die reg om swartes se grond af te vat en oor hulle te regeer
>> nie.
>> Dit is gewoon kolonialisme en imperialisme - diefstal!
>> Annette het jou gesê jy is nie tot 'n standpunt van jou eie in staat nie.
>> Nou kruip jy agter ander mense se panties weg.
>> "fire_" wrote in message
>> news:1149505526.414534.210310@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com.. .
>
>>> Ps, noem vir my net een uitvinding wat uit Sub Sahara Afrika uitkom ,
>>> van uit die " native " populasie ASB.
>>> ( Controled fire , does not count )
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110464 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110459] |
Di, 06 Junie 2006 06:55 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"jou soort" is nie haatdraend of rassisties nie.
Dit verwys gewoon na mense
- wat nie die vermoë het om mense op enige ander standaard te beoordeel as
hulle fisiese voorkoms nie
- wat dink dit is reg om ander se grond te steel deur dit met geweld af te
vat en wat daarna "onreg" skreeu as daardie mense terugkom en aanspraak maak
op wat hulle s'n is
- wat vertrapping skreeu, terwyl die mense wat eerste deur hulle vertrap is,
bereid is om hulle misdaad te vergewe en hulle geboortegrond met die vroeëre
vertrappers te deel.
Torreke
"Otterkop" skryf in boodskap news:q-mdnSjL5-2PjBjZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@is.co.za...
> "jou soort" , klink rassisties , haatdraend vir my, wat sal jy blank op
> blank rassisme noem ?
>
>
>
>
>
> "Torreke" wrote in message
> news:e62npk$c1k$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Ek sê weer: Spaar my die blanke meerderwaardigheidsteorie. Die toetse
>> bewys niks! - want daar is te veel faktore wat nie gestandardiseer kan
>> word nie.
>> En die feit dat daar geen belangrike uivinding uit Afrika gekom het nie,
>> bewys eweneens niks. Die omstandighede in Afrika is radikaal verskillend
>> van dié in Europa.
>> En voor ek vergeet, ek vantevore op hier ng vir ander van jou soort gesê:
>> 'n Paar wittes het die uitvindings gemaak - baie van hulle heeltemal per
>> ongeluk! - en nou maak alle wittes asof hulle die uitvinders is.
>> Maar al sou blankes ook groter, sterker en slimmer as swartes wees, gee
>> dit hulle nie die reg om swartes se grond af te vat en oor hulle te
>> regeer nie. Dit is gewoon kolonialisme en imperialisme - diefstal!
>> Annette het jou gesê jy is nie tot 'n standpunt van jou eie in staat nie.
>> Nou kruip jy agter ander mense se panties weg.
>> "fire_" wrote in message
>> news:1149505526.414534.210310@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com.. .
>
>>> Ps, noem vir my net een uitvinding wat uit Sub Sahara Afrika uitkom ,
>>> van uit die " native " populasie ASB.
>>> ( Controled fire , does not count )
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110470 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110450] |
Di, 06 Junie 2006 13:26 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Jy soek my agter die deur waar jy staan.
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1149591431.542427.157470@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com.. .
> Tipical --- just wararwarawarw arwrarwrarwrarwr
> ..........................
>
>
> No sense what so ever jus more waffling
>
> Torrek , is that what your live is based on ?
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110473 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110470] |
Di, 06 Junie 2006 15:10 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Jy haal net stories aan , hoor- se goed, PC goed , geen fiete nie , net
BS
As jy die so n biekie naforsing begin doen sal die klappe dalk van jou
oe afval
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110477 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110473] |
Di, 06 Junie 2006 17:49 |
Liewe Lulu
Boodskappe: 37
Geregistreer: September 2000
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
Dit leik mei jeit op di firkeerde plek naforsin gedun. Hille het jou ni dar
leer spel ni.
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1149606645.050883.236770@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> Jy haal net stories aan , hoor- se goed, PC goed , geen fiete nie , net
> BS
>
> As jy die so n biekie naforsing begin doen sal die klappe dalk van jou
> oe afval
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110481 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110473] |
Wo, 07 Junie 2006 07:52 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ek het jou aan die begin gesê dat jy nie die vermoë het om in 'n
intellegente gesprek betrokke te raak nie. Ek stel voor dat jy bietjie jou
eie poste hier weer lees. Jy het nie een enkele argument met 'n
teen-argument weerlê nie, want JY HET NIE DIE VERMOË NIE!
Jy doen presies wat almal doen wie se argument bloot op emosie (en geen
verstand nie) berus - jy ignoreer eenvoudig die argumente en / of feite en
hou soos 'n drie-jarige kind krampagtig vas aan wat jy het. Want jou hele
lewe sal in duie stort as jy dit moet prysgee. Jy het nie die vermoë om
jouself in 'n samelewing te handhaaf waar jou Boerevolk nie die septer swaai
nie.
Nou luister, ou Kolevraat, jy bluf niemand nie - nie eens jouself nie. Weet
jy wat is die ergste wat met enige mens kan gebeur? As hy vir homself begin
lieg! As hy homself wysmaak hy is slim en het die waarheid beet, maar
eintlik weet hy goed dat hy die kat aan die stert beet het... Ander mense
wys ook vir hom sy dwaasheid uit, maar hy bly vasklou aan sy verrotte
boomwortels!
Ek dink jy het genoeg verstand om te weet wat gebeur met iemand wat aan
verrotte boomwortels vashou terwyl die rivier van die geskiedenis in volle
vloed is...
Baai-baai, al die koletjies, sjit, sjit, sjit en hulle is nie meer rooi nie,
maar swart - weggevat see toe.
As jy eendag uitgevind het hoe om 'n intellegent gesprek te voer, mag ek
dalk besluit om weer met jou te gesels (selfs al kan jy steeds nie spel nie)
Torreke
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1149606645.050883.236770@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> Jy haal net stories aan , hoor- se goed, PC goed , geen fiete nie , net
> BS
>
> As jy die so n biekie naforsing begin doen sal die klappe dalk van jou
> oe afval
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110484 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110481] |
Wo, 07 Junie 2006 10:42 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Weer het jy net emosie , geen fiete nie , net BS .
Waar is jou naforsing , Stats , ext.
Al wat jy doe is skree oor die internet , sonder enige "back up "
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110487 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110481] |
Wo, 07 Junie 2006 11:50 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Torreke skryf
> As jy eendag uitgevind het hoe om 'n intellegent gesprek te voer, mag ek
> dalk besluit om weer met jou te gesels (selfs al kan jy steeds nie spel nie)
Torreke, Torreke, Torekke, wie in glashuise
woon.....
Tant Hessie, van die intelligente van Helsdingens
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110494 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110487] |
Do, 08 Junie 2006 06:55 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Die teregwysing word ter harte geneem, veral komende van jou. Ek het te ver
gegaan.
Nogtans dink ek dit was nodig, en Bybels-verantwoord, dat iemand vir hom
onomwonde uitwys hoe hy gesprek voer.
Ek wys jou net op twee voorbeelde. 'n Nalees van al die poste sal bewys dat
dit regdeur die patroon was.
- Kolevraat plaas 'n verwysing na 'n bladsy met 'n studie deur Wits gedoen
oor IK wat dan sou aantoon dat blankes gemiddeld 'n hoër intellegensie sou
hê as swartes. Ek antwoord dat die studie niks bewys nie aangesien daar te
veel faktore is wat nie gestandardiseer kan word nie. Iemand met net die
mees basies kennis van die sielkunde en sielkundige toetsing sou presies
geweet het wat ek bedoel. Otterkop het! - maar hy antwoord deur my persoon
aan te val. En toe ek hom daarop wys dat hy die persoon en nie die argument
aanvat nie, val Kolevraat net verder my persoon aan met "Tipical --- just
wararwarawarw arwrarwrarwrarwr..... No sense what so ever jus more
waffling". Nie een van die 2 beantwoord die agrument nie, maar konsentreer
hulle aanval op die persoon. Otterkop het darem die ordentlikheid om in te
sien as hy verkeerd is en stil te bly, maar nie Kolevraat nie.
- Kolevraat maak die stelling dat die land leeg was. Hy bied geen greintjie
bewys daarvoor aan nie, want hy kan nie. Wanneer ek hom herinner aan al die
grensoorloë tussen Xhosas en Blankes, oorloë tussen die Trekkers en
Matebeles, die Slag van Bloedrivier en hom vra of dit dan teen winde gevoer
is, antwoord hy dat dit nie op "vyte" nie maar "hoorse" (sy spelling) berus.
Ek het genoeg in my lewe my tyd en asem gemors met mense wat op dié manier
gesprek voer!
Die Spreuke sê: "Antwoord 'n dwaas nie na sy sotheid nie, sodat jy nie word
soos hy nie" m.a.w. moenie met so iemand probeer redeneer nie, want dan
verval jy tot sy vlak.
En in die volgende vers: "Antwoord 'n dwaas na sy sotheid, sodat hy nie wys
word in sy eie oë nie" m.a.w. wys sy dwaasheid vir hom uit sodat hy nie
homself bluf met die idee dat hy slim is nie.
Rassiste is per definisie mense wat hulle aanval op ander mense se persoon
rig. Hulle het nie die vermoë om verder as iemand anders se voorkoms,
afkoms, fisiese omstandighede, prestasies, ens. te kyk nie.
"Hessie" wrote in message
news:1149681057.623358.133150@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> Torreke skryf
>
>> As jy eendag uitgevind het hoe om 'n intellegent gesprek te voer, mag ek
>> dalk besluit om weer met jou te gesels (selfs al kan jy steeds nie spel
>> nie)
>
>
> Torreke, Torreke, Torekke, wie in glashuise
> woon.....
>
> Tant Hessie, van die intelligente van Helsdingens
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110502 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110494] |
Do, 08 Junie 2006 15:38 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Torreke skryf
> Die teregwysing word ter harte geneem, veral komende van jou. Ek het te ver
> gegaan.
'n hoër intellegensie
Jong, jy het my misverstaan. Ek het nie jou argumente
aangeval nie, maar jou spelling van "intelligent" ( wat
jy nou weer op herhaling verkeerd spel.) Dit, terwyl
jy in dieselfde sin vir die ander ou van slegte spelling
beskuldig. Toe sê ek maar sommer, so tong in die
kies, dat mense wat in glashuise woon nie klippe
moet gooi nie. Ek preek natuurlik ook vir myself.
Ek geniet jou poste. Ook jou goeie beheer van
Afrikaans.
Ek waardeer ook die suiwere manier waarop
jy na die Suid-Afrikaanse situasie kyk. Veral, in
ag nemende, dat jy nou blou bloed Afrikaner is,
veral met twee voorvaders in die Ossewabrandwag.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110503 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110502] |
Do, 08 Junie 2006 18:22 |
Liewe Lulu
Boodskappe: 37
Geregistreer: September 2000
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
Dankie vir die kompliment. Ja, mens het soms 'n neiging om of iets
aanhoudend verkeerd te spel of mens se vingers wil dit almaardeur verkeerd
tik. In die dae toe daar nog 'n "Transvaal" was, het ek dit knaend as
"Tranvsaal" getik en "hospitaal" was knaend "hopsitaal". Baie menslik. MS
Word maak voorsiening daarvoor in hulle "autocorrect".
En "intelligent"? Ek wil my herinner dat ek 'n neiging het om dit verkeerd
te spel.
My pa en oupa het tot beter insigte oor die Ossewabrandwag gekom voor die
einde van die 2e Wêreldoorlog en voor die organisasie 'n natuurlike dood
gesterf het.
"Hessie" wrote in message
news:1149781093.476928.31550@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Torreke skryf
> Die teregwysing word ter harte geneem, veral komende van jou. Ek het te ver
> gegaan.
'n hoër intellegensie
Jong, jy het my misverstaan. Ek het nie jou argumente
aangeval nie, maar jou spelling van "intelligent" ( wat
jy nou weer op herhaling verkeerd spel.) Dit, terwyl
jy in dieselfde sin vir die ander ou van slegte spelling
beskuldig. Toe sê ek maar sommer, so tong in die
kies, dat mense wat in glashuise woon nie klippe
moet gooi nie. Ek preek natuurlik ook vir myself.
Ek geniet jou poste. Ook jou goeie beheer van
Afrikaans.
Ek waardeer ook die suiwere manier waarop
jy na die Suid-Afrikaanse situasie kyk. Veral, in
ag nemende, dat jy nou blou bloed Afrikaner is,
veral met twee voorvaders in die Ossewabrandwag.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110504 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110502] |
Do, 08 Junie 2006 18:28 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Hessie wrote:
> Torreke skryf
>
>> Die teregwysing word ter harte geneem, veral komende van jou. Ek het te ver
>> gegaan.
>
> 'n hoër intellegensie
>
> Jong, jy het my misverstaan. Ek het nie jou argumente
> aangeval nie, maar jou spelling van "intelligent" ( wat
> jy nou weer op herhaling verkeerd spel.) Dit, terwyl
> jy in dieselfde sin vir die ander ou van slegte spelling
> beskuldig. Toe sê ek maar sommer, so tong in die
> kies, dat mense wat in glashuise woon nie klippe
> moet gooi nie. Ek preek natuurlik ook vir myself.
> Ek geniet jou poste. Ook jou goeie beheer van
> Afrikaans.
> Ek waardeer ook die suiwere manier waarop
> jy na die Suid-Afrikaanse situasie kyk. Veral, in
> ag nemende, dat jy nou blou bloed Afrikaner is,
> veral met twee voorvaders in die Ossewabrandwag.
>
> Gloudina
Torrek is miskien n bloubloed Afrikaner, maar nie n Boer nie , hy het
lank van die waardes afgesien en is vasgevang in n droom wereld van PC.
Ek kry hom jammer , want hy het die " sling match " begin , ek het net
op sy trant aangehou.
Ek glo nie meer in PC nie , dis nou van die duiwel vir my , maar Torrek
sal dalk een dag dalk die lig sie.
Dis vir my interesnat dat hy die Ou siener respekteer , ek sou nou dink
dat hy meer oor hom sal uitwy in n negatiewe trant.
Het die siener nie die tyd in ons land voorspel nie ?
Het hy ook nie vvoorspel dat die Boere Volk ( nie die Afrikaner ) sy
vryhied sal kry nie?
Het die siener nie die K woord gebruik nie?
Het die siener nie onderskyd getref tussen ons Boerevolk en die
Kleulinge nie?
Het hy nie die Engelse as ons vinale vyhand voorspel nie?
Het hy nie mense soos torrek " joiners " genoem nie, wat saam met ons
vyhande werk vir ons uiteindelike ondegang ?
Het hy nie gese dat die mense soos torrek was Sappe is se skille van
hulle oe sal afval
nie an hulle die waarhied sal begin sie nie ?
Dis duidelik dat sy idee van transvormasie , afrikanisasie is. Dis
seker goed vir hom, maar nie vir my nie.( volgende wil hy seker Aids
orphans aanneem en rond parradeer in die Spur.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110510 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110504] |
Vr, 09 Junie 2006 05:30 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Dis duidelik dat jy jou meer op Siener as op die Bybel verlaat.
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1149791289.575142.239560@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com.. .
Hessie wrote:
> Torreke skryf
>
>> Die teregwysing word ter harte geneem, veral komende van jou. Ek het te
>> ver
>> gegaan.
>
> 'n hoër intellegensie
>
> Jong, jy het my misverstaan. Ek het nie jou argumente
> aangeval nie, maar jou spelling van "intelligent" ( wat
> jy nou weer op herhaling verkeerd spel.) Dit, terwyl
> jy in dieselfde sin vir die ander ou van slegte spelling
> beskuldig. Toe sê ek maar sommer, so tong in die
> kies, dat mense wat in glashuise woon nie klippe
> moet gooi nie. Ek preek natuurlik ook vir myself.
> Ek geniet jou poste. Ook jou goeie beheer van
> Afrikaans.
> Ek waardeer ook die suiwere manier waarop
> jy na die Suid-Afrikaanse situasie kyk. Veral, in
> ag nemende, dat jy nou blou bloed Afrikaner is,
> veral met twee voorvaders in die Ossewabrandwag.
>
> Gloudina
Torrek is miskien n bloubloed Afrikaner, maar nie n Boer nie , hy het
lank van die waardes afgesien en is vasgevang in n droom wereld van PC.
Ek kry hom jammer , want hy het die " sling match " begin , ek het net
op sy trant aangehou.
Ek glo nie meer in PC nie , dis nou van die duiwel vir my , maar Torrek
sal dalk een dag dalk die lig sie.
Dis vir my interesnat dat hy die Ou siener respekteer , ek sou nou dink
dat hy meer oor hom sal uitwy in n negatiewe trant.
Het die siener nie die tyd in ons land voorspel nie ?
Het hy ook nie vvoorspel dat die Boere Volk ( nie die Afrikaner ) sy
vryhied sal kry nie?
Het die siener nie die K woord gebruik nie?
Het die siener nie onderskyd getref tussen ons Boerevolk en die
Kleulinge nie?
Het hy nie die Engelse as ons vinale vyhand voorspel nie?
Het hy nie mense soos torrek " joiners " genoem nie, wat saam met ons
vyhande werk vir ons uiteindelike ondegang ?
Het hy nie gese dat die mense soos torrek was Sappe is se skille van
hulle oe sal afval
nie an hulle die waarhied sal begin sie nie ?
Dis duidelik dat sy idee van transvormasie , afrikanisasie is. Dis
seker goed vir hom, maar nie vir my nie.( volgende wil hy seker Aids
orphans aanneem en rond parradeer in die Spur.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110512 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110509] |
Vr, 09 Junie 2006 07:38 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
dan is dit maar net duidelik dat jy nie verstaan nie of weier om te
verstaan.
Dit help veel ons droom drome as hulle nie op goeie navorsing gebaseer
is nie.
As jy kyk na die navorsing sal jy sien dat IK, of nou wel "g" die
belanrikste vaktor is in die bepaling van n land , mense se voorspoed.
Dis net jammer dat in SA die gemiddlede IK in SA maak 72 is , in die
VSA is dit well 100 en in Britanje .
In die Vere ooste is die IK heelwat hoer , 107 in Japan en China.
Dit verduidlik hulle maklike opkoms in die nuwe wereld tenspyte van
goed soos kommunisme.
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110513 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110510] |
Vr, 09 Junie 2006 10:11 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Die nuwe brandweer in die nuwe SA
Brigade blamed for razed house
08/06/2006 22:38 - (SA)
Dad, two children die in blaze
Fire brigade board burns again
Two burnt in 'mystery' blaze
Eduan Roos, Beeld
Kempton Park - An East Rand man is considering legal action against
Ekurhuleni emergency services after the luxury home in which he and his
family had lived for 17 years was destroyed by fire.
Deon Soine, 41, a Nedbank sales manager, apparently stood watching
helplessly while his home in Glen Marais on the East Rand was razed to
the ground.
He claims they lost the house because the fire brigade arrived only an
hour after the call - and then apparently didn't know what to do.
Soine told Beeld: "It was a comedy of errors from the word go.
"My neighbour phoned me about midnight on Friday to tell me there was
smoke and flames coming from my lapa."
Soine said he immediately contacted the fire brigade and then got his
wife, Izette, 39, son Allen, 15, and daughter Izanne, 11, out of the
house.
He then tried to put out the flames with a hosepipe.
Less than 8km away
"Initially, I was quite successful in controlling the blaze.
"I was convinced that the damage could be contained - if the fire
brigade arrived within the next 15 minutes.
"The fire station is less than 8km from my house, but when I looked
around, my neighbours and other people were there, but no fire brigade.
I just knew I was in for a rough time."
Soine said two fire engines arrived about an hour later.
"They didn't know what to do and told me that they haven't been trained
in fire extinguishing techniques.
"There were five fire engines at my house later, but only one of the
hoses worked."
Soine said some of the other equipment also was not working and not one
of the 12 firemen at the house took the lead or knew what to do.
Told to get out his guns
"I started giving instructions and one of the people started giving
training to his colleagues on how to operate the single hose that was
working. All my things were going up in flames."
Soine said one of the officials told him to go with him into the
burning house to remove firearms from the safe.
"I was barefoot and I told him I wasn't getting enough oxygen, but he
said I should jump out of the window when I couldn't stand the heat any
more. We were unable to save anything."
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110518 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110512] |
So, 11 Junie 2006 18:17 |
Liewe Lulu
Boodskappe: 37
Geregistreer: September 2000
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
Ek vra jou weer: Weet jy wat die woorde "te veel faktore wat nie
gestandardiseer kan word nie" beteken?
In elk geval: Wat wil jou nou eintlik daarmee bereik as jy inderdaad sou kon
bewys dat wittes gemiddeld slimmer is as swartes?
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1149838710.626405.268990@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> dan is dit maar net duidelik dat jy nie verstaan nie of weier om te
> verstaan.
>
> Dit help veel ons droom drome as hulle nie op goeie navorsing gebaseer
> is nie.
> As jy kyk na die navorsing sal jy sien dat IK, of nou wel "g" die
> belanrikste vaktor is in die bepaling van n land , mense se voorspoed.
>
> Dis net jammer dat in SA die gemiddlede IK in SA maak 72 is , in die
> VSA is dit well 100 en in Britanje .
> In die Vere ooste is die IK heelwat hoer , 107 in Japan en China.
> Dit verduidlik hulle maklike opkoms in die nuwe wereld tenspyte van
> goed soos kommunisme.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110519 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110450] |
So, 11 Junie 2006 18:20 |
Liewe Lulu
Boodskappe: 37
Geregistreer: September 2000
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
Het jy al jou varkies op hok?
Ek maak die stelling dat Siener blykbaar vir jou meer beteken as die Bybel
en jy antwoord met stories oor die brandweer wat laat opdaag, ens.
Ek het jou vantevore gevra, ek vra jou weer: Is jy 'n Christen?
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1149848176.813420.286070@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.. .
> Club of shame ?
>
> Realpolitik can be ugly, but it is sad, and embarrassing, that just as
> the Council of Europe publishes its list of countries that have
> colluded in covert rendition operations, South Africa makes its pitch
> for inclusion in this club of shame.
>
> Pass the salt
>
> Icasa asleep at the switch. The country running out of electricity.
> Steel prices destroying the mining and manufacturing industries. The
> financial services industry paying billions in fines.
>
> Sustained growth, yet few jobs. Another multimillion-rand fine to be
> paid by SAA. Bank fees that have no relationship to costs.
>
> It's a great time to be an ideologue. Any amount of evidence can be
> garnered to show that the government cannot run the economy.
>
> This view, which originates pre-1994 in the notion that the African
> National Congress could not run a bath, let alone an economy,
> resurrects itself now with the idea that the state cannot even pass the
> salt, never mind keep Capetonians cosy this winter. If only electricity
> provision had been privatised an eon ago.
>
> But the interventionists have been vocal too. Left to itself the life
> industry, the alleged custodian of the nation's savings, would never
> have reformed itself.
>
> Its executives could have continued to bemoan the country's appalling
> savings rate, even while their actions were a major disincentive to
> save.
>
> Just one regulator, Vuyani Ngalwana, has changed all that. The industry
> has even seen an exodus of top executives who have cashed in their
> share stash and quit rather than run businesses that have to meet
> quaint new standards of transparency and disclosure.
>
> The banks are next. The Competition Commission will inquire into bank
> fees, a pretty R30-billion last year. Already there is new energy in
> banking, with better-priced options emerging from bottom drawers and
> campaigns to tell customers that, well, er, yes, you have been paying
> far too much for far too long.
>
> It can appear that business does pass the salt, but only after it has
> kept a disproportionate share for itself. In M&G Business this week we
> report on a survey of the Big Four. Customers could pay anywhere
> between R93 and R209 a month, a 124% difference for the same package of
> services. These are called bundled options. Banks have preferred to
> charge on a per transaction basis. The bundled options are between 48%
> and 86% cheaper. What savings will flow from the Competition Commission
> probe: R10-billion? R15-billion?
>
> Some see regulation in sinister terms. A Finance Week cover showed
> President Thabo Mbeki with Lenin looming large behind. The headline:
> "When state intervention becomes ominous ..."
>
> But then there is the unhappy fact that at least one regulator, Icasa,
> appears unable even to regulate itself, never mind its 800-pound
> gorilla, Telkom.
>
> Our own take is that first prize is real competition. Where there is
> unequal access to or distribution of the salt, bring in a regulator.
> Just make sure he keeps his shoes on and is not asleep at the switch.
>
>
>
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=273998&ar ea=/insight/insight__editorials/
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110523 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110519] |
Ma, 12 Junie 2006 08:47 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Shame torrek , kan jy dit nie hanteer nie.
Ja , ek lees die byble , hy is geskryf vir die christene in die middle
ooste , net so is die siener se werk vir ons geskryf.
Die siener was altemit n die christen , was hy nie ?
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110525 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110523] |
Ma, 12 Junie 2006 09:06 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1150102076.934332.42860@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Shame torrek , kan jy dit nie hanteer nie.
Wat nie hanteer nie? Dat jy jou bontetjie langs die pad verloor het?
Moenie my laat lag nie, man. Jou gebrek aan intelligensie en onvermoë om 'n
opgevoede gesprek te voer, raak my nie. As jy jou onnoselheid vir almal wil
uitstal om te sien, doen jy net jouself skade aan.
> Ja , ek lees die byble , hy is geskryf vir die christene in die middle
> ooste , net so is die siener se werk vir ons geskryf.
Sjoe!! Die Bybel vir Christene in die Midde-Ooste en die Siener vir ons!
Dis 'n nuwe een wat ek nog nie gehoor het nie. Wie se storie is dit?
Joune? Of watter sekte of dwaalleer waarvan ek nog nie gehoor het nie?
>
> Die siener was altemit n die christen , was hy nie ?
>
Ja, hy was! En ek dink hy sou nie saamgestem het met jou dat die Bybel vir
Midde-Oosterse Christene en sy gesigte vir ons nie. Trouens ek is oortuig
daarvan dat hy beledig sou gevoel het om te hoor dat sy gesigte teen die
Bybel afgespeel word.
Maar jy het nou my vraag beantwoord: Dis duidelik dat jy meer waarde aan
Siener heg as aan die Bybel. Ek sal jou sê waarom: Dis makliker om Siener
se gesigte so te verklaar dat dit sê wat jy graag wil hê dit moet sê as om
die Bybel so te verklaar. Jy wil nie in 'n gesprek oor die Bybel betrokke
raak nie, want jy weet jy gaan jou vasloop!
Wie dink jy bluf jy? Vir my? Ander mense op hierdie ng?
Jy belieg maa net jouself.
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110526 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110525] |
Ma, 12 Junie 2006 09:38 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Torreke wrote:
> "fire_" wrote in message
> news:1150102076.934332.42860@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Shame torrek , kan jy dit nie hanteer nie.
>
> Wat nie hanteer nie? Dat jy jou bontetjie langs die pad verloor het?
> Moenie my laat lag nie, man. Jou gebrek aan intelligensie en onvermoë om 'n
> opgevoede gesprek te voer, raak my nie. As jy jou onnoselheid vir almal wil
> uitstal om te sien, doen jy net jouself skade aan.
>
>> Ja , ek lees die byble , hy is geskryf vir die christene in die middle
>> ooste , net so is die siener se werk vir ons geskryf.
>
> Sjoe!! Die Bybel vir Christene in die Midde-Ooste en die Siener vir ons!
> Dis 'n nuwe een wat ek nog nie gehoor het nie. Wie se storie is dit?
> Joune? Of watter sekte of dwaalleer waarvan ek nog nie gehoor het nie?
>
>>
>> Die siener was altemit n die christen , was hy nie ?
>>
>
> Ja, hy was! En ek dink hy sou nie saamgestem het met jou dat die Bybel vir
> Midde-Oosterse Christene en sy gesigte vir ons nie. Trouens ek is oortuig
> daarvan dat hy beledig sou gevoel het om te hoor dat sy gesigte teen die
> Bybel afgespeel word.
>
> Maar jy het nou my vraag beantwoord: Dis duidelik dat jy meer waarde aan
> Siener heg as aan die Bybel. Ek sal jou sê waarom: Dis makliker om Siener
> se gesigte so te verklaar dat dit sê wat jy graag wil hê dit moet sê as om
> die Bybel so te verklaar. Jy wil nie in 'n gesprek oor die Bybel betrokke
> raak nie, want jy weet jy gaan jou vasloop!
>
> Wie dink jy bluf jy? Vir my? Ander mense op hierdie ng?
>
> Jy belieg maa net jouself.
daar gaan jy weer aan soos n bul sonder n kop
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110531 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110528] |
Ma, 12 Junie 2006 12:59 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Torreke wrote:
> "fire_" > daar gaan jy weer aan soos n bul sonder n kop
>
> Is dit nou een van Siener se gesigte?
Jy moet die huiswerk wat ek jou gegee het lees , miskien sal jy n
biekie meer verstaan
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110534 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110531] |
Ma, 12 Junie 2006 17:31 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165
Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"fire_" wrote in message
news:1150117149.863914.232600@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> Torreke wrote:
>> "fire_" >> daar gaan jy weer aan soos n bul sonder n kop
>> Is dit nou een van Siener se gesigte?
>
> Jy moet die huiswerk wat ek jou gegee het lees , miskien sal jy n
> biekie meer verstaan
>
As jy my onderwyser was, sou ek nie eens my spelling deurgekom het nie.
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110536 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110534] |
Ma, 12 Junie 2006 23:26 |
Jim Again
Boodskappe: 246
Geregistreer: Januarie 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Aaaag, liberale torra
Jy is mos sóóóó vrek lief vir jou
bobbejaan-naastes, of hoe ?
Herkou gerus weer hieraan :
ONDERSKEID TUSSEN MENS EN SUB-MENS :
Kom ons doen dan hiermee 'n ontleding van hierdie onder-
werp waar ons oa die terme "minderheid" en "meerderheid"
korrek gebruik sonder dat ons die terme "relatief" en "rele-
vansie" buite rekening laat.
Reëls van ontleding en klassifikasie :
A) Waar hier van 'n ras of (sub)spesie gepraat word, dan
is dit spesifiek slegs van toepassing op die suiwer vorm
van so 'n ras of (sub)spesie, en nie van toepassing op
basters of tussen-groepe met gemengde (Wit) bloed nie.
B) Alles hieronder genoem slegs van toepassing op 90+%
van die relevante ras of (sub)spesie, dws toegepas op die
meerderheid van daardie bepaalde ras of (sub)spesie.
C) Statistieke van (optredes / gedrag van) die minderheid
(10% en minder) van so 'n ras of (sub)spesie kan dus lo-
gies nie as verteenwoordigend beskou word nie, en kan
dus nie (as getuienis) in aanmerking geneem word om
daardie ras of (sub)spesie akkuraat te omskryf nie.
1) Die eienskappe van 'n "Mens" as volg :
1.1) Die mees gesofistikeerde, mees ontwikkelde, mees
beskaafde, mees skeppende, mees intelligentste en die
mees innoverende ras of (sub)spesie wat op die aarde
voorkom.
1.2) Hierdie bogenoemde eienskappe kan verder ontleed
word, ingedeel en gedefiniëer word in terme van die vol-
gende relevante afdelings of onderwerpe :
a) Wetenskap en Wiskunde, (insl analitiese vermoëns
en tegniese vaardighede)
b) Aardrykskunde en Sterrekunde
c) Kommunikasie en Letterkunde
d) Vervoer
e) Argitektuur
f) Mynbou
g) Landbou
h) Kuns en Musiek
i) Kultuur
j) Etiese kodes en Morele waardes
k) Medisyne en Higiëne
1.3) "Innoverend" beteken ook dat dit hier slegs van
toepassing is op die ras of (sub)spesie wat op sy eie
(en nie deur 'n ander ras geleer is nie) spesifieke uit-
vindings mbt bogenoemde velde (1.2 a tot k) eerste
gedoen het.
1.4) "Skeppend" beteken ook dat dit hier slegs van toe-
passing is op die ras of (sub)spesie wat die meeste skep-
pings (ontwerpe / uitvindings) in die bogenoemde velde
(1.2 a tot k) voortgebring het.
1.5) "Ontwikkelde" beteken ook dat dit hier slegs van
toepassing is op die ras of (sub)spesie wat die hoogste
sporte in die bogenoemde velde (1.2 a tot k) bereik het.
1.6) "Beskaafde" beteken ook dat dit hier slegs van
toepassing is op die ras of (sub)spesie wat die hoogste
ontwikkeld was en is, in velde h tot k.
1.7) 'n Ras wat dus voldoen aan al hierdie bogenoemde
vereistes en wat sodoende hierdie gesamentlike uitvin-
dings, skeppings en ontwikkelings aan die res van die
wêreld oorgedra het, sodat al die ander rasse vandag
hierdie ontwikkelings en voordele mag benut en geniet.
2) Die eienskappe van 'n "Sub-Mens" as volg :
2.1) Relatief ongesofistikeerd, onderontwikkeld, onbe-
skaaf, primitief, selfs barbaars, min tot nie-skeppend,
onintelligent, en min tot geen innovasie vir/by 'n ras of
(sub)spesie wat op die aarde voorkom.
2.2) Hierdie bogenoemde eienskappe kan verder ontleed
word, ingedeel en gedefiniëer word in terme van die vol-
gende relevante afdelings of onderwerpe, soos gevind
in 1.2 a tot k :
'n Ras wat min tot geen innovasie, skeppendheid of
tegniese vaardigheid getoon het, (en steeds toon) in
hierdie velde nie, en daarom geensins enige noemens-
waardige ontwikkeling in hierdie velde voortgebring het
nie.
2.3) 'n Ras wat van die begin af as onbeskaaf, primitief
en barbaars beskou is, spesifiek agv die lae vlak van
ontwikkeling in velde h tot k.
'n Paar voorbeelde van wat NIE deur hulle ontdek,
uitgevind of ontwerp is nie :
- Algebra, elektrisiteit, gloeilamp, chemie en polimere.
- Die seismograaf, die teleskoop, en die telefoon.
- Geskrewe taal, papier, pen, die drukpers en geld.
- Die wiel, paaie, skepe, spoorweë en vliegtuie.
- Fondasies, bakstene en sement.
- Minerale in die grond, ontginning en metallurgie.
- Akkerbou, veeboerdery, opgaardamme en die boorgat.
- Olieverf, beeldhouwerk, die klavier en bladmusiek.
- Katoen, klere, kouse, skoene, knope, en ritsluiters.
- Toneel, film, fotografie, die rekenaar en die laser.
- Wette, orde, howe, polisie en die gevangenis.
- Seep, baddens, lopende water en sanitasie.
- Eerstehulp, medisyne en hospitale.
2.4) 'n Ras wat bogenoemde ontwikkelings 'ge-erf' het of
tans probeer 'bestudeer', baas raak, na-aap of kopiëer, en
dit dan meestal op 'n arrogante en barbaarse wyse as sy
'eie skeppings' eien. 'n Ras wat nou nog nie weet wat die
woorde "Higiëne" en "Sanitasie" beteken nie.
2.5) Insluitend 'n ras wat nie lank terug kaalvoet oor die
vlaktes in velletjies rondgeloop het, nie eers geweet het
wat 'n skoen, skoenriem of 'n knoopsgat is nie, wat net
mekaar uitgemoor en beroof het, hulle eie babas by kran-
se afgegooi het, in grashutte gewoon het, en vandag ar-
rogant "claim" dat hulle die Piramides gebou het, en 'n
groot, slim koning met die naam "Tshwane" gehad het
wat in paleise met lopende water gewoon het. Ha !
'n Ras met die gemiddelde IK van 75, wat nie Wiskunde,
Chemie, Fisika en Tegniese Vakke kan baasraak nie,
wat in Skole, Technikons en Universiteite "oorgehelp"
moet word, om sodoende te kan "presteer". Lees ge-
rus die boek "The Bell Curve" as waardige getuienis.
'n Ras wat 'n Matrieksertifikaat, 'n Bestuurderslisensie,
'n Vliënierslisensie en 'n Universiteitsgraad koop.
'n Ras wat geen variasie in anatomie toon, soos vers-
killende haartipe, haarkleur en oogkleur nie.
'n Ras wat as hy skrik, nie sy adrenalien direk binne sy
ingewande in die bloedstroom afskei nie, maar sy adren-
alien wel agter in sy mond afskei, om dit daarna outoma-
ties te sluk, om sodoende die nodige reaksie te verkry.
Hierdie tipe adrenale afskeiding kom ook by bokke voor.
'n Ras met geen kroontjie bo-op sy skedel nie, wie se
beenmurg nie by Blankes oorgeplant kan word nie.
'n Ras wat karkasse, verrotte vleis en verrote kos kan
vreet sonder dat dit hom iets aandoen.
'n Ras van wie se lede die meerderheid in Blanke (westerse)
lande se tronke uitmaak. Lande soos Amerika en Engeland.
'n Ras wat oor die algemeen van "vowlence" hou, en as hul-
le "strike" en optogte hou, dan gooi hulle die nie-stakendes
van treine af, of hulle strooi hulle vullis in die strate rond en
brand bande om só hulle dierlike standpunt te stel. Daarna
ontken hulle gewoonlik dat hulle dit gedoen het.
En wanneer hierdie ras in beheer van 'n land is, dan is
daardie "gavament" gewoonlik korrup, of hulle land word
op 'onverklaarbare' wyse geseën met oorlog en hongers-
nood en misdaad, waarin hulle steeds aanteel soos rotte,
sodat hulle op die einde van die dag "Aid" moet ontvang,
waarna hulle steeds oral met daardie alombekende "bak-
handjie" rondstaan.
Hulle ondersteun graag Kommunisme waar hulle 'n tipe
"democracy" ontwerp waar die gepeupel aanhou stem
totdat die "regte party" wen, sodat hulle vir die volgen-
de paar dekades kan regeer. Die kwaliteit van 'n só 'n
tipe "Democracy" word maklik gemeet aan die gemiddel-
de intelligensie (en beskaafdheid) van die kieserskorps.
Ja, vandag glo hierdie einste barbaarse ras nog steeds
aan die tokkelossie, die voorvadergeeste, die toordokter,
muti en muti-moord, dat hy iemand mag doodmaak vir R10
of vir sy horlosie, in 'n bord pap op die grafte van sy fami-
lielede ; dat baba-verkragting en knoffel HIV bekamp ; hy
glo in "Black Power", en dat Afrika die "cradle of human-
kind" was, terwyl hy arrogant volhou dat hy 'n "baie
beskaafde ras" is.
Maak dan maar gerus nou "julle eie mind op" oor watter
ras as "Mens" bekend sal staan, en ook watter ras as
"sub-mens" gedefiniëer kan word.
Groete
Jim, die bybelse rassis
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110551 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110534] |
Wo, 14 Junie 2006 10:55 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Torreke wrote:
> "fire_" wrote in message
> news:1150117149.863914.232600@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.. .
>>
>> Torreke wrote:
>>> "fire_" >>> daar gaan jy weer aan soos n bul sonder n kop
>
>>> Is dit nou een van Siener se gesigte?
>>
>> Jy moet die huiswerk wat ek jou gegee het lees , miskien sal jy n
>> biekie meer verstaan
>>
>
> As jy my onderwyser was, sou ek nie eens my spelling deurgekom het nie.
MOST ORDINARY PEOPLE do not fit very neatly into any political category
and may hold to a mix of views that include what would usually be seen
as both Leftist and Rightist ideas. Among professional politicians and
academics, however, there is generally a clearer polarization. So what
is it that makes any given view "Rightist" or "Leftist"? In
contemporary North American terms, what is it that makes one an
archetypical "liberal" or an archetypical "conservative"? What is a
Leftist or a Rightist position on any issue?
The division obviously is real and the demise of the great icon of
Leftism -- the Soviet Union -- seems to have had little impact on its
intensity. Leftists may no longer have Communism to point to as a
possible alternative system but they remain Leftists all the same. The
banner cause of Leftists since Karl Marx -- State ownership of the
means of production or "socialism" no longer seems reasonable to all
but a handful of diehards but Leftists are still Leftists and Rightists
are still Rightists and never, it seems, the twain shall meet.
The great rubric of "conservative" long fastened on Rightists seems
equally moribund. "Conservative" is generally amplified as meaning
"opposed to change" or "favoring the status quo" but from the
Reagan/Thatcher years onward, Rightists have been the great advocates
and practitioners of social and political change. Rightists have been
almost revolutionary in tearing down the proud edifices of the Left --
with privatization, deregulation, welfare cutbacks, tax reductions etc.
Judging by the politics of the last 20 years, Rightists love change!
Certainly, they have clearly and energetically changed what was once
the status quo.
So what is going on? What is Leftism/liberalism and why are people
Leftist/liberal? What, if anything, do people have in common who
describe themselves (and are described by others) as "Leftists",
"socialists", "social democrats", "Communists" and (in North America)
"liberals"?
My answer may seem at first paradoxical but it is that attitude to the
status quo defines Leftists rather than Rightists. It is not Rightists
who are in favour of the status quo. They are in fact indifferent to it
and may equally favour it or oppose it according to circumstances. It
is Leftists, on the other hand, who are always against the status quo,
no matter what. Whatever else the Leftist may be, the bedrock of
Leftism is a strong desire or even a need for political change, often
extreme change. This does not, of course, mean that Leftists will
favour all sorts of change equally. What sort of change the Leftist
favours will depend on the needs that drive his/her desire for change.
The Rightist, by contrast, generally has no need either for change or
its converse. If anything, Rightists favour progress -- both material
and social. So most Rightists are conservatives (cautious) not because
of their attitude to change per se. On some occasions they may even
agree with the particular policy outcomes that the Leftist claims to
desire. They resist change, then, mainly when it appears incautious --
and they are cautious (skeptical of the net benefits of particular
policies) generally because of their realism about the limitations
(selfishness, folly, shortsightedness, aggressiveness etc.) of many of
their fellow humans (Ray, 1972b, 1974 & 1981). So it is only vis a vis
Leftists that the Right can on some occasions and in some eras appear
conservative (cautious about proposals for social change).
Wanting to change the existing system is however the umbrella under
which all Leftists at all times meet. Even at the height of British
socialism, for instance, British Leftists still wanted more socialism.
That permanent and corrosive dissatisfaction with the world they live
in is alone what makes people Leftists. That is all they have in
common. They are extremely fractious and even murderous towards
one-another otherwise (e.g. Stalin versus Trotsky). It is in describing
his fellow revolutionaries (Kautsky and others) that Lenin himself
spoke swingeingly of "the full depth of their stupidity, pedantry,
baseness and betrayal of working-class interests" (Lenin, 1952). He
could hardly have spoken more contemptuously of the Tsar.
Racism
One thing that Leftists will not allow themselves to be seen as is
racist. Leftists can grudgingly be Nationalists -- Gough Whitlam, the
great hero of the Australian Left, certainly was an unashamed
nationalist, as were those great champions of the Argentinean
"descamisados", Juan and Eva Peron, and as is the Communist Kim dynasty
in North Korea with their catastrophic doctrine of "juche" (national
self-reliance) -- but Leftists cannot admit any significance for race.
If they do, they are immediately relabeled as Rightist. Being racist is
enough in the Left lexicon to make you Rightist regardless of anything
else you might believe or advocate. They even managed to ignore the
huge example of Hitler's extreme socialism (income leveling, worker
advocacy, heavy government control of industry and everything else) and
call him Rightist. He was a Nationalist (that can be allowed) but he
was a racist (not allowed). So people like Adolf Hitler and Pim Fortuyn
(the homosexual Dutch political leader assassinated by a Green activist
in May, 2002) are Rightist only by arbitrary definition. What they
advocated was generally Leftist (The full name of Hitler's political
party -- generally abbreviated as "Nazi" -- says it all: The National
Socialist German Worker's Party). So Left-wing racism does not exist
only because it is defined out of existence.
As Australian anthropologist Ron Brunton points out, the late Pim
Fortuyn advocated gay marriage, gender equality, liberalized drug laws
and criticized a religion which he saw as intolerant and homophobic --
which sounds an awful lot like the Leftists of his era -- but because
he also wanted to stop further immigration into his already densely
populated country he became, "Hey presto!", a "Right-wing extremist"!
Brunton also points out that there is much in the rhetoric of prominent
French anti-immigrant politician Jean-Marie Le Pen which would get him
described as a Leftist were it not for his racial views.
It might be argued that, whatever their motivations, Leftists do some
good by their vocal condemnation of "racism" -- and that may well be
so. But group loyalty is -- as Brown (1986) concluded from his summary
of the mass of research on the question -- a "ineradicable, universal
human attribute" so the risk is that Leftists can characterize as
racist almost anyone who is honest about his feelings of group identity
-- however harmless and non-malevolent those feelings may be. In other
words, Leftists too often carry their condemnation of racism to a
ridiculous and unfair degree. They do so because it is in fact just a
ploy for them -- a ploy to obtain kudos. The reality that we all like
our own kind best is simply of no interest to them.
Leftist Racism
There are exceptions to every rule, however, and there is one form of
racism that Leftists do allow themselves. A great Leftist cause for the
last 30 or more years has been "affirmative action" -- which normally
translates into deliberate discrimination against whites -- which is as
blatantly racist as any policy could be. The policy is normally
justified as needed in order to restore "balance" and reverse the
discrimination of the past but if that were the motive such a policy
would also be used to restore political balance in the social science
and humanities schools of Western-world universities -- given the huge
preponderance of Leftists teaching in such schools and the virtual
barring of Rightists there (Kramer, 1999; Horowitz, 1999; Redding,
2001; Sommer, 2002). Needless to say, no affirmative action policy
leading to the preferential hiring of conservatives exists in any major
Western university. Clearly, then, affirmative action is a claim of
righteousness and moral superiority for Leftists, nothing more. A
Leftist will happily be racist if it enables him to make that claim.
Another perhaps amusing exception for the poor old Leftist is that one
of the many hatreds he is allowed is almost racist: He is allowed to be
anti-American. It might be objected that anti-Americanism is not racist
because Americans are not a race but the essential point surely is that
prejudice and hatred is prejudice and hatred, however the target group
is defined. And the events of September 11, 2001 surely show that
hatred of America (whether by Leftists or others) can be as malign,
mindless and dangerous as any other form of prejudice.
The reason behind Leftist anti-Americanism is that America sits at the
pinnacle of the existing world power structure and a desire to tear
down existing power structures -- for whatever reason -- is
indisputably at the core of what Leftism is about. Americans are
offensively un-equal. And even Americans can be anti-American. Many US
liberals are routinely critical of almost everything about their
country -- a country in which untold millions of people from around the
world would love to settle, given half a chance. Some American liberals
even seem to see American society as rotten to the core, which, in a
generally patriotic world, is fairly surprising. It is however
explicable as envy and frustration at the vast influence that American
society and the American common culture undoubtedly wield over both
individual Americans and the world at large. The American way of life
and thinking must be a frustrating behemoth indeed for those who would
wish to change it.
Leftist Doctrine
Even a Leftist realizes that it is pretty vacant simply to be against
the status quo. He has to have something a bit more substantial to say
than that in order to get any attention at all. But his best attempt at
finding something substantial to say is still pretty pathetic. What he
says is: "All men are equal" and "The government should fix it". The
proverbial Blind Frederick could see that all men are not equal and
anybody who thinks that governments are good at doing things can only
be pitied. Nonetheless, "Equality" is the Leftist's claimed ideal and
government action is the way he proposes to bring it about.
So given his slender intellectual and rhetorical resources, the Leftist
has to make up for their emptiness by advocating them both blindly and
vigorously. If all men are equal, then all races must be equal too,
mustn't they? So the Leftist cannot allow any form of race awareness
unless he gives up one of the two slender straws that he clutches at in
order to give himself something to say.
Why do Leftists rely so heavily on their two particular vacuous
slogans? It is because they are not really interested in solving any
problems at all. They are only interested in stirring up change. Really
solving social and economic problems in our complex society requires
thought, detailed enquiry, in-depth understanding of the problem,
creative thinking and patience -- and the typical Leftist is simply not
interested in all that. All he or she wants is change. "Get the
government to pass a law" is the Leftist's simplistic "solution."
"Government" as a Solution
One hardly needs to give examples of government inability to solve
problems but, if an example is needed, the way Argentina's Juan Peron
proposed to deal with rising prices is at least amusing: He threatened
to shoot any shopkeeper who put his prices up. Needless to say this was
a good way of getting shopkeepers to shut their doors and turn
Argentina into one big black market -- thus driving prices up -- but it
was not a solution to anything. Risible though Peron's ideas may have
been, however, the reliance on coercion by Communist regimes was not
dissimilar and was equally counterproductive and impoverishing.
Coercion of any sort or degree -- whether by governments or anybody
else -- is generally a poor and ineffective way of doing things.
Furthermore, governments everywhere remove large slices of the
workforce out of productive activity and into paper-shuffling so are
principally successful at impoverishing their communities but Leftists
in some way manage not to care about that despite their vocal claim to
be concerned about poverty. If they really were concerned about
poverty, they would want to reduce the number of things government did!
That they do not shows the hollowness of their "concern".
The now worldwide trend towards privatization and deregulation,
however, shows that even governments themselves eventually have to
admit that their cures are often worse than the disease. When
governments as diverse as the "Communists" of China and the Hindu
nationalists of India have now embraced deregulation and privatization
(with great success), the continuing Left/liberal infatuation with
government exposes them as the dinosaurs in the world of ideas.
Not that old ideas need be wrong: The seminal conservative political
philosopher, Edmund Burke (1907), was a great advocate of limited power
for government and saw in the 18th century that government attempts at
"compulsory equalizations," would lead to "equal want, equal
wretchedness, equal beggary" -- and 20th century Socialist and
Communist governments amply validated that prophecy.
Equality?
And "all men are equal" (to the extent to which it is seriously meant
rather than being merely a rhetorical ploy) is perhaps even more vacant
an idea than the idea of relying on government -- since almost our
entire social arrangements are predicated on all men (and women) not
being equal: We don't regard criminals and honest people as the same,
men and women as the same, sane people and mentally ill people as the
same, kind people and unkind people as the same, attractive and
unattractive people as the same, clever and dumb people as the same,
athletic and unathletic people as the same, scientists and roadworkers
as the same etc., etc. And there is no doubt that tall men and busty
women have an easier time with the opposite sex. There is fierce
discrimination rather than equality in the mating game. So why are
Leftists so enamoured of their absurd "equality" idea? Because if the
Leftist is right and all men (and women) are really equal then
everything in our society is wrong and in need of change. It is a way
for the Leftist to say (paradoxically) to others: "You are all wrong
and I am better and wiser and kinder than you".
That the "all men are equal" maxim appears to have arisen out of
Christian idealism and that a form of it is enshrined in the American
Declaration of Independence does not make it any less risible today. A
common attempt to make it less risible for the non-religious is to add
"before the law" to it. But that too is thoroughly counterfactual. Our
treatment before the law is very unequal and seems destined to remain
so. Most of us cannot afford the law at all. Clearly both the very rich
and the very poor (who get legal aid in most advanced countries) are
very much at an advantage before the law. This is not to deny that
equality before the law is a worthy ideal: In a democracy it is
obviously important for governments to be seen to be as fair and as
impartial as possible in dealing with all their citizens -- but the
imperative for that does not have to come from a quasi-religious myth.
Leftists seem very often to be irreligious if not anti-religious
(except insofar as Leftism itself is some sort of secular religion) so
will often reject the notion that all men are "created" equal and will
-- when pressed -- sometimes justify their endless and characteristic
advocacy of equality by saying that what they really mean by their
doctrine is that all men are of "equal value" or some such. But of
equal value to whom? And how do we know? Short of resorting to religion
again to answer such questions, the slogan then quickly reduces to a
recommendation that all individuals be treated equally -- and that is
something that no human or animal society has ever done or seems likely
to do, so the doctrine remains a pious absurdity.
And the competing conservative doctrine that each person should be
treated "fairly" -- i.e. according to his or her "desserts," however
determined -- seems to remain anathema to most Leftists, at least in
theory (in part, perhaps, because it requires more complex judgments
and so is less suitable for propaganda purposes). Conservatives also
normally see it as fair that all children be given "equal opportunity"
by the educational system but that quite large ideal is usually still
not nearly enough to satisfy Leftists.
The New Left
Largely because its intellectual resources were so slender, Leftist
advocacy as we once knew it in the Western world clearly suffered a
body blow from the collapse of its great "alternative" and alleged
exemplar of equality -- The Soviet Union -- so most Leftists have had
to find new directions for agitation in recent years. Criticizing our
unequal capitalist society has become much less plausible now that
capitalism seems to be the only show in town.
There have therefore arisen various new foci for Leftist discontent.
One of these is the "political correctness" movement -- which is an
attempt to move the focus of agitation away from economic reform
towards social reform. This movement functions in two major ways: It
attempts to change the way we think about less fortunate groups in the
world by altering the words we use to describe them, and, in good Nazi
book-burning fashion, it also attempts simply to suppress knowledge and
debate. For example, it suppresses mention of any proposition that
offers explanations of why some groups are less fortunate and are
likely to remain so regardless of any amount of Leftist agitation --
the claim that blacks have an inherited lower average IQ than whites,
for instance. For a quite recent and striking example of such a
suppression effort, witness the recent pulping of Brand's (1996) very
scholarly book on IQ by his own publisher (Wiley of the US) when the
political unpalatability (to Leftists) of his inheritance data became
obvious. There is obviously no way that Leftists/liberals believe in
such "bourgeois" ideals as freedom of speech. Ray (1972a) also pointed
out long ago how not even the most overwhelming evidence on any
question is ever deemed sufficient if it contradicts Leftist
preconceptions.
How heavily the Leftist obsession with equality (and their consequent
procrustean unwillingness to handle the complexities of the real world)
influences the PC movement can perhaps be seen most clearly in the
actions of a British welfare agency who banned a job advertisement
because it discriminated against unfriendly people! A company placed
the advertisement looking for a "friendly person" for a
catering-related job but the local Job Centre rejected it because they
said it "may discriminate against certain applicants". (See the Bolton
Evening News of June 7, 2002.)
Censorship is however obviously not a dramatic enough pursuit for many
Leftists so they have turned to such unlikely targets as globalization
and the World Trade Organization as foci for their ire. The sole aim of
the WTO is to increase co-operation and interdependence between nations
and thus reduce barriers to the free movement of goods and people
between nations, so one might naively have thought that the advocates
of "all men are equal" would approve of it. That modern-day Western
Leftists oppose the WTO and other summit organizations with broadly
similar aims (such as the Davos World Economic Forum) is, then, an
index of how desperate they have become for something to protest about
in the post-Soviet world.
Globalization as a general concept too is a rather surprising target
for the Left -- given that the United Nations was once a great icon and
hope of Western Leftists and given that Leftists once prided themselves
on being internationalists: "Workers of the world unite", the Comintern
(Communist International) and the "international brigades" of Leftist
volunteers who fought Generalissimo Franco in the Spain of the 1930s,
for instance. Globalization has of course been doing its work of
spreading prosperity throughout the world for well over a century (at
least since Britain's repeal of the corn laws) but only recently do
Leftists seem to have discovered its "evils". Prince Albert, 19th
century humanitarian and consort of Britain's Queen Victoria, was one
of the most prominent early advocates of globalization -- precisely
because of its effects in reducing poverty. So the Leftist opponents of
globalization would appear to have been missing the big game for a long
time!
Opposition to globalization is however too readily identified as a
lunatic fringe activity to satisfy everyone on the Left so other things
needing change have had to be found. And, in fact, even reactionary
change has been embraced. "Reactionary" was once almost a swear-word to
the Left but, if a reactionary is someone who wants to put social and
economic change into reverse gear and return the world to some sort of
idealized and simpler past, the major reactionary movement in the
Western world today is undoubtedly the "Green" movement. One sometimes
gets the impression that only the entire elimination of the human race
would satisfy the Greens in their desire to return the world to a
pristine state. Certainly no concession to their aims ever seems enough
to satisfy them.
The wish for nature conservation and reclamation has a long and
honourable past -- including among its advocates most English-language
poets from at least the 18th century onwards (Who can forget William
Blake's "dark Satanic mills"?). And no one has ever set aside a greater
area for nature conservation than US Republican President Theodore
Roosevelt did -- and that was roughly a century ago. And while there
are still some environmental causes that represent undramatic, largely
uncontroversial and sensible improvements to our quality of life and
the prospects for our future (e.g. control of farmland degradation),
many others are quite fanciful, extreme and ill-founded (as the
statistician Lomborg, 2001, has shown at length). Modern-day "Greenies"
go well beyond mere nature conservation in what they seek and are very
strong and relentless advocates of change to practically all of our
existing arrangements and systems. And that suits change-hungry and
drama-hungry Leftists down to the ground. So therefore many "Reds" have
in recent times become "Greens" and Red-Green alliances spring up with
some frequency
The fact that nature conservation and reclamation has never previously
in its long past attracted much Leftist attention does suggest that
their recent interest in it lies not in the cause itself but rather in
the drama and disruption that modern day Greenies create in pursuit of
their goals. Many Green advocacy groups -- such as Greenpeace --
provide opportunity for drama and self-advertisement aplenty.
The Making of a Leftist
Before considering what it is that causes a person to be a Leftist it
should be well noted that a person who votes for a Leftist party may
not necessarily himself be much of a Leftist. He may vote for the
Leftist party simply because the Leftists appear to offer him
personally a better deal. The Leftist's enthusiasm for equality, for
instance, tends to create the impression that the Leftists will manage
to give poorer or working class people a bigger slice of the national
cake -- and poorer people must obviously find that at least initially
appealing. Lipset (1959) pointed out long ago, however, that poorer or
working class people may in fact be generally and even strongly
conservative despite their (self-interested) vote for a Leftist
political party. This tendency towards conservatism among working class
people has been noted at least since the time of British Prime Minister
Disraeli in the 19th century (McKenzie & Silver, 1968) and is so
prevalent that it forms a vital electoral support for conservative
political parties. How? Because something like a quarter of working
class people are in fact so conservative (accepting of inequality etc.)
that they resist the blandishments of the Left and vote conservative --
against what would initially seem to be their class self-interest
(McKenzie & Silver, 1968; Ray, 1972c). So the primary concern of the
present paper is with "real" Leftists -- people who subscribe to and
promote a Leftist ideology rather than those who merely vote Leftist.
So why does an ideological Leftist oppose the existing social, economic
and political order? Why are they so keen on advocating change, no
matter how irrational or counter-productive it might be? There can in
fact be many reasons why and for many Leftists more than one of the
reasons listed below will apply.
The simplest reason may simply be that one is born into a Leftist
outlook. Being born into a Northern English or Scottish working-class
environment, for instance, almost guarantees that one will favour a
Leftist stance on many issues. Union activity and Leftist advocacy
generally has been so strong for so long there that it has radicalized
in many ways what might otherwise be a fairly conservative population
and caused Leftist views to become simply traditional there. One might
say that the explanation for Leftism there is a "sociological" one.
Another example of such a "sociological" cause for Leftism would be the
way in which US college students are radicalized by the predominantly
liberal academic environment of US humanities and social science
schools. To be liberal in such an environment is almost a survival need
(Sommers, 2002). And schoolteachers too, often seem to be Leftist. Many
of those who lecture and control others in their working hours would
seem to want to carry on doing so after work as well.
The focus in the present paper, however, is more on "psychological"
causes. What makes someone "voluntarily" a Leftist? What makes someone
a Leftist who does not come from a predominantly Leftist environment?
What makes a Leftist that comes from inside the Leftist himself rather
than coming from an accident of birth or social position?
Psychological Leftism
It is submitted here that the major psychological reason why Leftists
so zealously criticize the existing order and advocate change is in
order to feed a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting --
and ultimately for power, the greatest ego boost of all. They need
public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel
wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man. They
fancy for themselves the heroic role of David versus Goliath. They need
to show that they are in the small club of the virtuous and the wise so
that they can nobly instruct and order about their less wise and less
virtuous fellow-citizens. Their need is a pressing need for attention,
for self-advertisement and self-promotion -- generally in the absence
of any real claims in that direction. They are intrinsically
unimportant people who need to feel important and who are aggrieved at
their lack of recognition and power. One is tempted to hypothesize
that, when they were children, their mothers didn't look when they
said, "Mummy, look at me".
This means that the "warm inner glow" that they obtain from their
advocacy and agitation is greatly prized. So it is no wonder that
anything which threatens to disturb it -- such as mere facts -- is
determinedly ignored. This view of Leftism as a club of the righteous
that must never be disturbed or threatened is explored in detail by
Warby (2002). See also Ridley (2002) for a brief account of the way
Lomborg's findings were greeted primarily by abuse rather than by any
serious attempt at refutation.
And, of course, people who themselves desperately want power, attention
and praise envy with a passion those who already have that.
Businessmen, "the establishment", rich people, upper class people,
powerful politicians and anybody who helps perpetuate the existing
order in any way are seen by the Leftist as obstacles to him having
what he wants. They are all seen as automatically "unworthy" compared
to his own great virtues and claims on what they already have. "Why
should they have...?" is the Leftist's implicit cry -- and those who
share that cry have an understanding of one-another that no rational
argument could achieve and that no outsider can ever share.
Envy is a very common thing and most of us have probably at some time
envied someone but, for someone with the Leftist's strong ego needs,
envy becomes a hatred and a consuming force that easily accounts for
the ferocious brutality of Communist movements and the economically
destructive policies (such as punitively high taxation, price controls
and over-regulation generally) employed by Leftists in resolutely
democratic societies. So the economic destruction and general
impoverishment typically brought about by Leftists is not as irrational
as it at first seems. The Leftist actually wants that. Making others
poorer is usually an infinitely higher priority for him than doing
anybody any good. One suspects that most individual Leftists realize
that no revolution or social transformation is ever going to put them
personally into a position of wealth or power so the destruction of the
wealth and power and satisfaction of those who already have it must be
the main thing they hope to get out of supporting Leftist politics. For
a fuller account of the enormously destructive nature of envy see
Schoeck (1969).
Whether or not someone is important, rich, successful, famous etc., is
however of course very much a matter of individual perception. If many
of the world's most famous sports stars were introduced to me, for
instance, I might well in all innocence proceed to ask them; "And what
do you do for a living?" And while Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is my
personal hero, there are many, even in academe, who would never have
heard of the Mahatma. This "relativity" of importance, prestige etc.
would seem to explain why many active Leftists are in fact college or
university professors. College or university professor is a generally
high status occupation that provides an above-average income so might,
on the face of it, be seen as already providing considerable
recognition and praise. But if status is precisely why certain people
have gone to the considerable trouble generally required to enter that
occupation, it could well be that the ego need of that person is so big
that even more recognition is then craved. A college professorship may
be prestigious but still be seen as providing far too little power,
public exposure and opportunity for self-display. "Seeing I am so
smart, I should be running the whole show", is an obvious line of
thought for such people. Just some power and fame is still not enough
power and fame for them.
The need for self-display does however in most people tend to decline
as they mature -- which is part of the reason why graduates tend to be
less radical than students and why older people tend to be much more
conservative than young people (Ray, 1985). To misquote Lenin (1952)
only slightly, much of Leftism would appear to be "an infantile
disorder".
And nothing above, of course, is meant to suggest that pressing ego
needs, self-righteousness etc are confined to Leftists. It is merely
meant to say that Leftism is the principal political expression of such
needs. Such needs can also be met by religion etc. and it must be noted
that Communism was often described as a religion by its critics. Why
people choose politics rather than some other means of meeting their
ego needs would have to be the subject of a whole new enquiry but it
seems possible that the potentially very broad exposure that politics
provides to an individual might attract the people with the very
highest ego needs. This high level of ego need among Leftists would
also explain the generally much greater political activism of the
political Left compared to the rather somnolent political Right.
It would also explain why Leftists so often have a "spare me the
details" or "Don't worry about the facts" orientation. For most
Leftists, it is the activism itself rather than what is advocated that
is the main point of the exercise. As long as the cause advocated is
both generally praiseworthy and disruptive to implement, that will
suffice. The insincerity of the Leftist is of course an abiding theme
in the many writings of Ayn Rand (e.g. Rand, 1957) -- who sees the
hunger for power as the real motivation behind everything that the
Leftist does.
Other Causes of Leftism
Other reasons for Leftism, often combined with or related to the prime
one given above, would appear to be:
Some Leftists just think themselves clever for being able to criticize.
Some are genuinely outraged by things that they do not understand and
so want to change those things willy nilly.
Some are genuinely grieved by the unhappy experiences of others and
want to fix that ASAP without being wise enough to seek for means of
fixing it that are not self-defeating.
Some, particularly the young, are idealists who find the imperfect
state of the real world unsatisfying.
Some are cynical opportunists who see opportunity for themselves in
change.
Some are simply hiding their real hatred of their fellow man in a cloak
of good intentions. They want to hurt their fellow man but need to
change the system (a "revolution") to get the opportunity of doing so.
Some Leftists know that they themselves are weird so preach change
towards greater tolerance for all weirdness out of sheer self-interest.
The Leftist may still be young and unaware of most of life's
complexities so that the drastically simple "solutions" and mantras
proffered by the Left simply seem reasonable.
The more "revolutionary" and Trotskyite Left often use the word "smash"
in their slogans (e.g. smash racism, smash capitalism, smash various
political leaders) so it seems probable that some Leftists simply lust
to smash things. They seek a socially acceptable excuse for their
barely suppressed destructive urges. They presumably are the ones who
are responsible for the violence and destruction that often accompanies
Leftist street and campus demonstrations. Violent change is what they
are interested in. Presumably, in another time and place, many of them
would have joined Hitler's Brownshirts.
Another reason that seems worth considering comes from biological
theory. If there can be sociological and psychological explanations for
Leftism, why not biological ones too? Martin & Jardine (1986) and
Eaves, Heath, Martin, Meyer & Corey (1999) have reported strong genetic
heritability for political orientation so the possibility of a
biological explanation must be taken seriously. A possible biological
or evolutionary explanation would be that Leftism is a remnant of the
primitive hunter-gatherer in us. A liking for change might have been
highly adaptive among hunter-gatherers because it caused them to wander
around the landscape more and thus exposed them to a greater diversity
of food-sources. Some support for this is the strong tradition, still
occasionally observable today, for Australian Aborigines to want to "go
walkabout" (leave their current environment) from time to time.
Australian Aborigines were, of course, a purely hunter-gatherer people
before the coming of the white man. Against this view, however, one
must put the fact that hunter-gatherer societies in general seem to be
characterized more by changelessness than anything else. In
hunter-gatherer tribes the same things are done in the same way for
generation after generation. It could be however that a changeless
environment usually prevents significant change in practices regardless
of any desire for change. The corollary of this explanation, of course,
is that a conservative orientation has been selected for by the
requirements of civilization: People who are psychologically settled
are needed to make civilization work.
A final possibility is that the appeal of Leftism rests solely on its
stress on equality. The French Leftist Todd (1985) has put forward
anthropological evidence to suggest that Leftism has strong appeal only
in countries where child-rearing practices stress equality of treatment
between siblings. Thus Russia showed easy acceptance of Communism
because Russian parents normally go to great length to treat all their
children equally -- particularly by dividing up inheritances (property)
equally. Whereas Britain has only ever had a tiny Communist party
because of the traditional English practice of primogeniture -- where
the eldest son gets almost all of the inherited property. English
child-rearing practices have never had a devotion to treating siblings
equally so the English do not usually expect or hope for equality of
property distribution in later life. So your attraction to the dream of
equality may reflect a childhood where parents imposed a rule of
equality. Because of your childhood experiences, equality seems
emotionally "right", regardless of its practicality. Note however, that
the work by Martin & Jardine (1986) and Eaves, Heath, Martin, Meyer &
Corey (1999) showing that Leftism is to a very considerable extent
genetically transmitted rather than learnt militates against this as a
general explanation for Leftism. Explanations of Leftism in terms of
personality variables -- such as strong ego-need -- do not encounter
this objection as the strong genetic transmission of personality
characteristics has often been demonstrated (e.g. Lake, Eaves, Maes,
Heath & Martin, 2000).
Neo-Liberalism: The Past Revived
What North Americans now call "liberal" is a long way from what was
called "liberal" in the 19th century and earlier. Liberal ideas were
once those ideas that sought to elevate individual rights above the
claims of State and community power and hark back at least as far as
the writings of Adam Smith (1776). The writings of J.S. Mill (1859)
are, however, most quoted as a comprehensive development of such ideas.
Classical liberal ideas had considerable influence in the 19th century
-- particularly via Britain and the British Liberal party -- but were
very much eclipsed in the early 20th century (as was the British
Liberal party) by the rise to prominence of Statist ideas --
particularly Marxist, Fabian and Fascist ideas. Late in the 20th
century, however, under the influence of writings by Hayek (1944), Ayn
Rand (1977) and many others, these ideas were powerfully revived and
extended -- when they came to be known among the cognoscenti as
"neo-liberalism" or "Libertarianism". They are perhaps best known to
the world at large, however, as "Reaganomics" or "Thatcherism" -- from
their most prominent and successful political proponents.
Surprisingly, however, modern-day North American "liberals" and their
ilk generally seem to view neo-liberalism as anathema. And in fact
Neo-liberalism has found its home entirely on the political Right in
recent times. Why? The explanations of Leftist motivation given above
would appear to be very helpful in explaining why.
Why "liberals" Hate Neo-liberalism
But the reason why is not initially obvious. Neo-Liberalism of course
is very pro-change, particularly in the economic sphere, and aims
principally to break down, wherever possible, government-imposed
restrictions on what people can do. Its application has led to all
sorts of economic reorganization, some of which has been very
disruptive to the employment (and hence the lives) of many people.
Globalization is just one of its manifestations. So how in heaven's
name did such a revolutionary doctrine find its home on the Right
rather than among the normally pro-change Leftists?
The answer becomes obvious if we posit that Leftists really have no
concern at all about what they are advocating, that they do not really
care about human advancement at all, that their "concern" for the poor
etc. is a sham. What they really want they want now -- and that is
power, simple causes that will win them praise and drama in which they
can star as the good guys. That really is about all. And neo-liberalism
meets none of those needs. The policies advocated by Neo-liberals do
demonstrably lead to slow but steady human economic advancement and do
increase prosperity for all to levels once undreamt of in human
history. But such policies also diffuse power, are far from simple and
are very undramatic. It is hard work just to understand neo-liberalism
and there are no immediate rewards inbuilt. One could, for instance,
try going onto the streets and demonstrating in favour of "comparative
advantage" (one of the essential ideas underpinning advocacy of free
trade) but that would almost certainly lead to total incomprehension
rather than win kudos.
So neo-liberalism suffers from the huge handicap that it is a highly
intellectual body of ideas that requires considerable study and
knowledge of economics -- something that Leftists normally seem to
avoid like the plague -- in order to understand it fully. It originated
with an economist (Smith), it could even be seen as the practical
application of modern economics and some of its most prominent
proponents have won Nobel prizes for economics (Friedman, Hayek etc.).
It is certainly much harder to explain and communicate to laymen than
are such simple ideas as "all men are equal" or "get the government to
pass a law". And the heroes and villains of neo-liberalism do not suit
the Leftist either. The neo-liberal hero (the business entrepreneur)
normally has to work long and hard to achieve his status. Storming the
Winter Palace (as the Bolsheviks did in October, 1917) or vandalizing
Seattle (as the anti-globalization protestors did in December, 1999)
are heaps quicker, simpler and easier. And the neo-liberal villain is
government! The solitary proposal that Leftists have for solving social
ills is snatched away from under them! No wonder Leftists do not like
neo-liberalism!
On a more fundamental level, Leftist hostility to neo-liberalism
revolves around the fact that governments and their instrumentalities
are far and away the most effective means of obtaining and exercising
power over large numbers of people. They exist for that purpose. So
Leftists -- with their yearning for power and the ego-boost it provides
-- will always advocate anything that promises to extend State power --
in the hope that they can influence or participate in the exercise of
it. Communist governments, of course, represent an extreme in the
exercise of State power and, for this reason, some US "liberals" were
once wont to speak indulgently of Communists as being simply "liberals
in a hurry". So Leftists are perfectly accurate in seeing neo-liberals
-- with their advocacy of reduced and limited State power -- as their
deadly and hated enemies.
Conservatives and Neo-liberalism
This did of course mean that neo-liberalism was for a long time largely
deprived of a home in politics. Its proposals for globalization had
some continuing effect (e.g. through GATT -- the predecesor of the WTO)
but, generally, without the energy of Leftists to push it, it
languished for most of the 20th century as a purely academic theory.
And it was asking a lot for the cautious Right with no intrinsic
interest in change to take it up.
But neo-liberalism is in essence perfectly practical (tax cuts,
deregulation, privatization etc.) and Rightists have always been
interested in practical proposals for human advancement and betterment.
To mention just two particularly striking historical examples: Few
people could be more Rightist than Prince Otto von Bismarck, Prussia's
"Iron Chancellor" of the late 19th century and the man who unified
Germany under the Prussian crown by way of successful wars on Austria
and France, yet the same man also gave Germany an extensive welfare
system (workers compensation, old-age pensions etc.) that exceeded in
generosity anything else of its kind in the world of those days.
And what do we make of a war-glorifying, big game hunting,
Bible-bashing ex-cowboy who got on his horse and personally led the war
to take over the remnants of the Spanish Empire for the USA in the late
19th century and who was the scourge of pacifists in World War I?
Someone who was the undoubted darling of Republican Party supporters
for many years and twice became Republican President of the United
States? A man who put his trust in battleships and whose strong
advocacy of war as a necessary purification of the national spirit was
soon to be emulated by Messrs. B. Mussolini and A. Hitler? Right-wing
enough? Yet Theodore ("Bull Moose") Roosevelt also initiated and got
through Congress extensive and ground-breaking consumer protection and
worker protection measures and got progressively tougher and tougher on
big business throughout his life. Protecting and promoting the welfare
of ordinary people is a venerable tradition on the Right, for all the
shrillness of Leftist claims to the contrary.
And the traditionally gloomy conservative view of the powers of
government -- summed up so succinctly by Edmund Burke (1907) over two
centuries ago as: "It is in the power of government to prevent much
evil; it can do very little positive good" -- fits in well with the
neo-liberal view that market forces are usually far superior to
government activism in producing generally beneficial outcomes.
Furthermore, the practical failure of Leftist economic ideas was well
evident to all who would see in the final decades of the 20th century,
so that awareness, combined with the rising levels of public education,
meant that some limited forms of economic rationality could be made to
have popular appeal and get through the processes of democratic
politics to implementation. So some Rightists did eventually have
enough vision to embrace and promote "neo-liberal" ideas and turned
some neo-liberal ideas into reality -- a reality that soon spread
throughout the world.
And that is also why roughly the same set of ideas is also sometimes
called (rather confusingly) "neo-conservatism" -- though the term
"Neo-conservative" is also in the US sometimes used to describe a group
of mainly New York intellectuals (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz
etc.) who started out as idealistic "liberals" but who were honest
enough to allow themselves eventually to be at least partly overwhelmed
("mugged" in their terms) by reality. The experience that comes with
age gradually forces reality onto many of the more idealistic Leftists
but the New York Neo-conservatives documented in great detail that
process as it happened to them. Their principal journals are Commentary
and The Public Interest. Their original focus was primarily anti-Soviet
rather than neo-liberal.
Leftists in Power
Although it seems most unlikely that it will ever happen again, there
were many occasions in the 20th century when the most extreme form of
Leftism -- Communism -- did gain great power in certain countries. Does
that experience tell us anything about Leftism?
This paper started out with an endeavour fairly characteristic of
modern Anglo-American analytical philosophy (Hospers, 1967): An
endeavour to analyse and make coherent the way terms like "Leftist,"
"Liberal," "Socialist," "Communist" etc are commonly used. Once an
underlying focus for such terms had been "discovered", the psychology
underlying that focus was considered. The analysis was however
principally of what Leftism/liberalism is in the economically advanced
countries of the contemporary Western world -- where Leftists have only
ever had partial success in implementing their programmes. So what
happens when Leftists get fully into power? Does the same analysis
apply?
For a start, it should be obvious that the personality and goals of the
Leftist do not change just because he gets into power. He is still the
same person. And that this is true is certainly very clear in the case
of Lenin -- who is surely the example par excellence of a Leftist who
very clearly did get into power. In his post-revolutionary philippic
against his more idealistic revolutionary comrades, Lenin (1952) makes
very clear that "absolute centralization and the strictest discipline
of the proletariat" are still in his view essential features of the new
regime. He speaks very much like the authoritarian dictator that he was
but is nonetheless being perfectly consistent with the universal
Leftist wish for strong government power and control over the
population. So Leftists in power certainly do not cause the State to
"wither away" -- as Marx foresaw in "The Communist Manifesto".
After 1917 change did continue for a few years in Russia while the
Communists consolidated their power (e.g. by "liquidating" the Kulaks),
but after that Russia settled into a tyranny where State-directed
industrialization was the only form of change allowed. After the
completion of the revolution, change in Russian society was in fact
repressed ferociously. Certainly, no challenges to Russia's new power
structure were allowed. Stalin murdered millions without a qualm to
ensure that.
But that very State dominance of Russian life did of course eventually
cause advanced social and economic sclerosis and stagnation in Russia
and its satellites -- leading ultimately to the complete collapse of
the Soviet system via Gorbachev's "perestroika" (reconstruction).
"Perestroika" implies change so change was in fact the poison that
finally destroyed Lenin's legacy. So does that mean that the Soviets
were not Leftists? If hunger for change is the defining feature of
Leftism, then surely the Bolsheviks ceased to be Leftists in 1917!
Surely Lenin and his comrades became conservatives at that point!
Ludicrous though that proposition sounds at first sight, it is
precisely the common usage today. Defenders of the old Soviet order and
those who wish to return to it in post-Gorbachev Russia are usually
referred to in the press as "conservatives". Clearly, the press has
adopted the simple (though very unsatisfactory) dichotomy of being for
and against change as the definition of Leftism and Conservatism. This
does however create the very large problem that precisely the same
political policies that are seen in one country (Russia) as being
conservative are seen in other countries (e.g. the USA) as wildly
Leftist.
Since change is in fact obviously somehow involved in the Left/Right
dichotomy and since the aims and practice of the Bolsheviks were
perfectly concordant with basic Leftist desires everywhere, this
dilemma is not easy to solve. In previous papers (See Leftism.txt and
Rightcon.txt on my website), I have leant towards the solution of
dismissing the role of change altogether and saying that either
Leftists or Rightists will oppose or support change depending on
whether they are in power or not. I proposed that it is simply the love
or suspicion of State power that defines the Leftist or Rightist. And,
as a statement about the psychology of Leftists and Rightists, I still
adhere to that view. I think it is evident that most Leftists have a
strong basic need for power and dominance and that that flows very
simply into the policies that they advocate.
I also think, however, that a definition of any collectivity should
rely primarily on what the collectivity does rather than on a theory
about how the group is motivated. One has to define the group before
one can study it. And a definition of the Western world's Left (but
only the Left) in terms of attitude to change both makes sense of
common usage and is readily amenable to psychological explanation.
Regrettably, however, it seems clear that one cannot define Leftists as
being the change-hungry ones of ALL the world and all times. It is a
definition that is fully applicable only to the advanced countries of
the present Western world.
If a definition of limited applicability is unattractive, however, we
can also grasp the other horn of the dilemma and say that Leftists who
attain power cease to be Leftists! This jars a little but does make
sense psychologically: Once the Leftist's hunger for power and
dominance is satisfied, he no longer seeks change and in fact actively
opposes it. He becomes a conservative (opponent of change) in a way
that a Rightist generally is not. There can be no doubt that Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were Rightists but they actively worked to
reduce the power, influence and control of the governments that they
led. The contrast is very clear. Not everyone is as power-mad as the
Leftist. And that hunger for power makes the Leftist in power the most
ferocious conservative (opponent of change) of all.
But there is an exception to every rule and the exception in this case
is a most instructive one: Mao Tse Tung. Mao's "cultural revolution"
was a very strange phenomenon unparalleled in other Communist regimes.
And it appeared to do nobody any good -- including Mao himself. It was
a vast but entirely destructive upheaval. But it is just what one would
expect of someone in love with change. In the case of Mao, we saw a
survival into the post-revolutionary era of the old pre-revolutionary
longings. He was so in love with change that he had his revolution all
over again. Mao was so thoroughly in charge of China, that he could
indulge his natural inclinations without endangering his power and what
those inclinations were is precisely what we see in Western Leftists to
this day: a love of change, preferably revolutionary change. So we can
see that power comes first in a Leftist's scale of values but the
longing for change per se is always there too.
This conclusion drawn from the grand sweep of history has some
counterpart on a much more humble scale in findings from survey
research in the western world. Ray (1984) found from a large random
sample survey of Australians conducted in the Cold War era that
Leftists were sensation-seekers even when the sensations concerned were
the sensations provided by consumerism. Rather contrary to their usual
image, Leftists were found to be materialists who enjoyed buying
mass-marketed "quality" consumer goods even more than Rightists did.
Their love of new sensations was so great that they even sought out
those provided by their ostensible "enemy" -- consumer capitalism.
Clearly, like Mao, their love of novelty was so deep-seated that it
overcame other considerations.
Conclusions
I have not made any systematic attempt here to analyze conservatism or
the political Right. The focus has been entirely on the political Left
(in world terms) or "liberalism" (in North American terms). I have
concluded that the one thing all Leftists have in common (until they
get into complete power) is a desire for change in society -- and that
for most Leftists advocating change serves mainly to meet the Leftist's
strong ego-needs -- the need for attention, praise and, ultimately
power. Leftists are not therefore really much interested in the reality
of what they advocate -- so normally they greatly oversimplify any
political issues that they debate -- often to the point of ignoring
many of the facts of the matter.
REFERENCES
Brand, C. (1996) The g Factor. Chichester: Wiley. Also available on the
web at: http://www.douance.org/qi/brandtgf.htm
Brown, R. (1986) Social psychology. (2nd. Ed.) N.Y.: Free Press
Burke, E. (1907) Thoughts and details on scarcity. In: The Works of the
Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Volume VI. London: Oxford University
Press.
Eaves, L.J., Martin, N.G., Meyer, J.M. & Corey, L.A. (1999) Biological
and cultural inheritance of stature and attitudes. In: Cloninger, C.R.,
Personality and psychopathology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric
Press.
Hayek, F.A. (1944) The road to serfdom. London: Routledge
Horowitz, D. (1999) Calibrating the culture wars. Salon. May 24th.
Hospers, J. (1967) An introduction to philosophical analysis. (2nd.
ed.) London: Routledge
Kramer, H. (1999) The Twilight of the Intellectuals: Politics and
Culture in the Era of the Cold War. N.Y.: Ivan R. Dee.
Lake, I.E., Eaves, L.J., Maes, H.H.M., Heath, A.C. & Martin, N.G.
(2000) Further evidence against the environmental transmission of
individual differences in neuroticism from a collaborative study of
45,850 twins and relatives on two continents. Behavior Genetics 30 (3),
223-233.
Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In:
Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House.
Lipset, S.M. (1959
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110552 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110551] |
Wo, 14 Junie 2006 17:24 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Haai . dit klink net soos die security gaurd strike :
http://www.greytown.co.za/bambathastment.htm
The Bhambatha Rebellion
The B(h)ambatha Rebellion is regarded by many as the beginning of The
Struggle against Apartheid which culminated 88 years later almost to
the day with the first Democratic Elections in South Africa on 27 April
1994.
Here follow a few "personal" accounts of the Bambatha Rebellion, 1906.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
In October 1968, one Mishak Mthilane consulted Attorneys Nel & Stevens
in Greytown. Their Interpreter, Gilbert Maphanga took this statement
from him about his participation in the Bambatha Rebellion in 1906.
MISHACK MTHALANE states:
During April 1906, Bambata came back from Zululand. He collected young
men and instructed them to catch his uncles Magwababa and Funizwe.
Magwababa was caught at night, Funizwe ran away. The following day I
armed myself with others and went to a fort called Mdayi near Mpanza
where we found Magwababa in captivity with others. Magwababa's wives
went and reported to a European farmer (Voyizana) Mr Phillip Botha that
Bambata had taken Magwababa to kill him. Mr Phillip Botha went and
reported to the Magistrate here in Greytown. The following day European
Constables went to Mpanza on horseback being accompanied by the
Magistrate (Dhlovunga) to see what had happened to Magwababa. They
passed Mpanza and went to Mpofana (Keate's Drift) where there was a
Police camp. They remained there the whole day. We were guarding their
return. At about dusk the spies saw them coming back. The Magistrate
came up to where we were hiding. Shots were fired at them and they ran
away. As the Police Constables were coming up at dusk we hid in the
bank of the road at Nhlenyana.
They were in separate groups. The first group passed. Then the second
group was passing one of us threw an assegai in the third group and
said "Usuthu". We rose and fought. We fought the Police who ran away
and we went back to our fort. We slaughtered cattle and broke into the
bar of the hotel, took liquor and drank it. In the morning we went to a
farm of a European "Mkhovu" where we took a horse which was ridden by
Bambata. We went towards the Tugela River. Bambata sent a message to
Chief Silwane Mchunu that he must arm an Impi because he, Bambata, had
started a war with the Europeans. He also sent a message to Chief
Nyoniyezwe Ngubane. We crossed the Tugela River and went to Nkandhla
where all the Chiefs and their Impis were to meet him. On the way we
caught another horse which was to be ridden by Chakijana Sithole the
Chief's main Induna. When we were crossing the Tugela river it was
about full. Chakijana fired a shot in the air and then we heard that
were going to Zululand. We arrived at the kraal of Induna Mangari
Ndlela who took us to Induna Sigananda Shezi in the Mome bush. He
slaughtered a beast for us. Sigananda collected his warriors. After a
month in the Mome bush periodically fighting with Bantu warriors
favouring the Europeans, one day we fought with soldiers from Eshowe
from morning till sunset. Many warriors died and many were injured in
this fight. Several Chiefs joined us. We moved from Mome bush to
Qhudeni where we found other Chiefs with Bambata and many warriors. A
man by the name of Elijah came to us and said the European soldiers had
gone and we all went back to the Mome bush, not knowing that this man
Elijah was sent by the European soldiers to lead us into a trap. We
entered at dusk. In the Mome bush I saw someone on top of the hill
lighting a match. Early in the morning the soldiers fired at us. Many
warriors died. I hid under a rock till midnight when I came out of the
bush and walked towards Qhudeni. On the way I met others and came back.
I was arrested and kept in custody for four months. I was sentenced to
two years imprisonment.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
The following synopsis of the BAMBATHA REBELLION was compiled by Mr.
L.J. Mare. He was a Clerk in the Kranskop Magistrate's office
during the late 1920's and early 1930's.
He spent his life in the Kranskop district.
The handwritten notes were found in the Magistrate's desk during
1976.
HISTORY OF BAMBATA REBELLION 1906.
The then Natal House of Assembly passed an Act levying a £ 1 Tax on
all Native Male members over the age of 18 years which was commonly
known as "Poll Tax".
The first trouble arose when the Magistrate of Kranskop, Mr. A W
Leslie, who later was promoted to Judge of the Native High court. Mr.
Leslie went out to collect tax at Silverstream as base for Tax
collecting for the Hlongwas and Cele Tribes under Chiefs Mtamu and
"Sobantu" respectively.
The Hlongwas were taken first. Trouble immediately started when they
were called up to pay. They told the Magistrate that they refuse to
pay this tax, and some even went so far as to strike the table before
the Magistrate with their sticks. The Magistrate coolly collected all
his papers and told the Indunas to bring all the men up to Kranskop to
him, who had shown impudence. The Indunas took them up to Kranskop to
the Court and the Magistrate gave a term of imprisonment and 25 lashes
with the Cat of nine tails.
Next was Bambata with his followers who adopted a threatening attitude
against a small party led by a Magistrate who had set out to
demonstrate with Bambata. Shots were fired and the small party were
forced to withdraw on Marshals Hotel on the main road in the Mpanza
Valley. At the hotel were 3 women, mesdames, Hunter, Marshal and
Borham and they together with the Magistrate's party made their way
as speedily as they could to the Police station at Keates Drift on the
Mooi River. The rebels did not follow them, but contented themselves
with ransacking the Hotel and helping themselves to liquor.
News spread to Greytown, and a force of Natal Police set out to bring
in the fugitives who had barricaded themselves in the Police station at
Keates Drift. They reached the Drift without having seen a sign of the
enemy. They then returned to Greytown with the women. They halted at
the looted Hotel. They continued to march after sunset with an advance
guard. They reached a spot in the Impanza Valley where the bush was
very intense on both sides of the road. Bambata's men hiding in the
dense bush rushed the advance guard shouting their war cry "Usutu".
It being dark the men fought themselves free with difficulty, and
linked themselves with the main body who were 150 yards in the rear.
Sergt. Brown, Sergt. Harrison and Troopers Aston and Greenwood were
killed, while 5 were wounded. They then picked up the wounded and
marched back to camps. Troops were then mobilised and were going to
bombard Mbata's location. The morning before the bombardment Bambata
escaped with his impi to Zululand by way of Doornhoek and Lootshoek in
the Kranskop district. Crossing the Tugela and up the Manyana streams.
The Kranskop reserves were then mobolised and followed two days after
by the same route as Bambata had taken. They passed the turn off he
had taken into the Nkandhla Bush, and went on to Kandhla Magistry.
The U.M.R. Greytown and some Kranskop reserves stationed at Ingwebevu
on the Tugela then marched into Zululand 240 strong skirting the Qudeni
mountain on Cattle raiding tour, going beyond Pukunyoni mountain.
Returning to camp were told to pich camp under the Pukunyoni.
On the morning of 28 May, 1906, a detachment of the U.M.R. under
Luit. Nuss were sent out to see if the way was clear to move on. They
came on a Zulu impi marching on the camp. They fired a few shots and
retired to the camp.
A square was quickly drawn or formed with the horses inside and about
1000 Natives levies (they were from Inadi reserve) who had joined the
cattle raiding party the day before. The first rush of the enemy came
from the North side where there was a big donga. They were shot back,
some fled from the East, were it was thick bush a few yards from the
square. They were shot back. Then they drove a troop of cattle on the
square on the North-Eastern corner, many Zulu being among the cattle
edging them on with their assegai's. The corner of the square had to
fall back to allow the cattle to pass. A lot of cattle were shot down,
and Zulu's were shot 5 yards from the line of fighters. With many
other sorties, they even finally withdrew from the donga's.
Rifles were fired from a hill "Very bushy" about 300 yards away on
the camp. One European was shot dead and several wounded, and some
Native levies were killed and many wounded. The dead and wounded were
then carried away with the contingent who retired on the Buffalo river,
and next day to camp at Ingwebevu.
A Col. Barker had come down from Johannesburg with 500 men and
together with the local troops they operated in Zululand near the
Nkandla where they trapped the main impi at the Mome Gorge, killed
Bambata and other chiefs which ended the activeness of Bambata and
insurgents in Zululand.
In the meantime Chiefs Meseni and Goluzembe had rebelled in the
Mapumulo area and the fighting was then moved to that area. Col.
Barker operated from Noodsberg towards the Umvoti River, Col. Leuchars
from Mapumulo towards Umvoti River. The first clash was with Col.
Barker and Meseni's men. They way laid him, but he killed 200 of the
enemy. The two Col. cleared the Umvoti River area and a clash took
place at the "Insamba" towards Tongaat. The enemy were there
routed and a few hundred killed. That ended the Bambata rebellion.
Arising from the rebellion the Zulu King Dinizulu was suspected of
having a hand in murdering loyal Chiefs in Zululand, several had been
shot through the door of their huts of an evening. Then the Magistrate
of Mhlabatini in Zululand "Mr. Stainbank" was shot in a drift
whilst watering his horse. Two hundred Police were then sent to arrest
Dinizulu near Nongoma. The tribe armed themselves to resist the
assist. All troops were immediately mobilized (4000) and sent to
Nongoma in about 48 hours 43 train loads of troops and their horses
left Durban for Zomkele the nearest train terminus from where they rode
to Nongoma.
The evening the second day the troops left for the Usustu kraal. The
next morning the kraal was surrounded when 200 men were detailed to
rush the kraal. They found Dinizulu's army there on the parade
ground but all unarmed. Dinizulu had stolen a march on them, he had
left the kraal with a donkey wagon for Nongoma where he surrendered to
the Authorities. He was taken to the Railhead and sent to Maritzburg.
His trial took place in Greytown and he was banished to Rustenburg in
the Transvaal where he died.
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110553 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110552] |
Do, 15 Junie 2006 14:21 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
nog kurpsie:
Telkom bosses 'summoned'
15/06/2006 14:51 PM
By: Adriaan Basson
Print story on
Email Story
Telkom slams price critics
Big yes for Telkom's BCX bid
Telkom price cuts 'misleading'
How DSL tariffs will affect you
Telkom eyeing Kenya licence
Huge ADSL price relief for SA
Johannesburg - Telkom's chairperson and chief executive officer have
been summoned to testify on the awarding of a R600m tender for the
manufacture of telephone cards.
Nomazizi Mtshotshisa, chairperson, and Papi Molotsane, chief executive,
are to appear before commissioner Arnold Subel on 10 July. Subel is
conducting an investigation into the affairs of a smart card supplier
in liquidation.
Subel summoned them last week as witnesses, along with Mandla Ngcobo,
Telkom's corporate head, and Thapelo Petje, previous head of
procurement at Telkom.
They are required to provide documents and answer questions regarding
the multi million rand tender that was awarded to Gijima Africa Smart
Technologies (GAST) in 2002.
Conduct investigation
Subel, a senior advocate, was appointed in 2002 by the Master of the
high court as commissioner to conduct an investigation under sections
417 and 418 of the Companies Act, into the affairs of Applied Card
Technologies (ACT), a company in liquidation.
The investigation is being conducted at the request of Dr John
Sterenborg, co-owner of ACT.
ACT was one of the three companies approached by Telkom in 2001 to
manufacture telephone cards until 2005 for the communications giant.
At the time, Gijima group's Robert Gumede was the black empowerment
partner of ACT and owned 26% of the company's shares.
The tender was eventually awarded to GAST, one of Gumede's other
companies. ACT was placed under provisional liquidation in November
2001.
Gumede acquired the remainder of the ACT shares in the interim and took
control of the company.
Tender "diverted"
During the Subel hearings a suspicion arose that the Telkom tender was
"diverted" away from ACT and that the R600m contract should have been
awarded to ACT.
To prove this, at Sterenborg's request Subel ordered Gumede to hand
over to the commission certain documents that GAST and Gijima Info
Technologies Africa (GITA) possessed.
Gumede refused and approached the Johannesburg High Court. His
application was turned down. On September 27 2005 the Supreme Court of
Appeal also ruled that Subel had the right to request the documents.
In a directive judgement, all five appeal judges ruled that a
commissioner's right to access to documents is stronger than a
company's right to privacy in such an investigation.
The judges found that there was more than enough reason for Subel to
suspect the tender should have gone to ACT.
Testify on tender
Now Subel has also summoned Mtshotshisa, Molotsane, Ngcobo en Petje to
testify on the tender being awarded to GAST. They must also hand over
to Subel all the documents pertaining to the tender.
Ngcobo was head of Telkom's legal services when the tender was awarded.
He was recently in the news when Sake-Beeld revealed that Telkom's
primary distribution contract was awarded last year to a company whose
main shareholder is a business partner of Ngcobo.
Gumede is currently deputy chairperson of the listed technology company
GijimaAST. GITA merged with AST in 2005 and Gumede acquired 30% of the
company's shares.
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110554 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110553] |
Do, 15 Junie 2006 17:27 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Kom ons sien nou , tavelgate, housinggate,tellgate,oilgate,armsgate,
zumagate..........
houveel meer nog?
Housing audit needed - DA
15/06/2006 16:50 PM
Print story on
Email Story
Housing hope for thousands
Landlords 'can help housing'
Huge housing fraud uncovered
Banks give R42bn for housing
'No going back on N2 Gateway'
Cape Town - The official opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) is to call
on Auditor-General Shauket Fakie to carry out a forensic audit of
housing departments in all the provinces and at national level.
Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) DA member Eddie Trent
said national and provincial housing officials were unable to account
for irregularities involving more than R300m in housing subsidies.
"The DA also believes that provincial housing departments should
account directly to their respective public accounts committees for the
irregularities highlighted by the Auditor General, and report on:
whether any investigations are occurring in relation to the matter; the
status of those investigations; and the steps taken to recoup losses."
Granted fraudulently
The Auditor-General's report, released in January this year, found that
as at March 2004, 53 426 subsidies worth R323m had been granted
irregularly or fraudulently.
He noted that Scopa had yesterday called on the housing department
director general to brief the committee on what steps were being put in
place to recoup lost funds and to reform the subsidy allocation
procedure.
Trent said: "The responses provided by both the provincial housing
departments and the national department of housing were woefully
inadequate.
"In particular, the fact that provincial housing officials were able to
override rejections of applications by the national housing department
has not been adequately explained, and must be attended to urgently.
"Unwillingness"
"It is unacceptable that some housing officials display a breathtaking
unwillingness to take responsibility for their sins of commission and
omission.
"More information needs to be provided on efforts to bring perpetrators
of fraudulent activities to justice and on adjustments to the
application process that will prevent this scale of fraud from
occurring in the housing subsidy programme in future," said Trent.
Trent argued that Housing Minister Lindiwe Sisulu should shoulder
political responsibility for what he described as a morass, and provide
clear direction on how she intended to rectify the situation.
"In this regard, the department of housing has been requested by Scopa
to provide a detailed progress report on the work of the ministerial
joint steering committee, which was set up in November last year to
deal with the issues raised by the Auditor-General and has only met
once since then."
|
|
|
|
| Re: torrek , net vir jou! [boodskap #110557 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #110554] |
Vr, 16 Junie 2006 08:22 |
Vuur
Boodskappe: 283
Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Water gate is die een ?
servicegates?
."R17bn owed 'in unpaid services'
15/06/2006 19:42 PM
Print story on
Email Story
Gauteng boosts Aids budget
Gautrain snaps bulk of budget
Gauteng set for robust growth
Gauteng 'for sale'
Johannesburg - Gauteng local governments are owed R17bn for unpaid
services, MEC Qedani Mahlangu said on Thursday.
Mahlangu said, while delivering her budget speech in Johannesburg, that
the debt, which was incurred due to unpaid services, was hampering
service delivery in the province.
She lashed out at public servants, councillors and businesses that
defaulted on payments.
Mahlangu said: "Defaulting councillors and government employees do not
belong in the public service. We all have to lead by example while we
advocate for people to pay for services.
"This is a cause for concern because the lack of payment is hampering
service delivery.
Name and shame
"Municipalities should enforce their credit control measures and name
and shame defaulters especially government departments, big businesses
and those masquerading as the poorest of the poor."
Mahlangu said municipal managers had been tasked to monitor the payment
levels of their employees in ensuring that public servants "lead by
example".
Also, she said her department was working and supporting municipalities
in developing strategies to deal with local government debt.
"A financial advisory committee has been set up to assist the
department in dealing with the financial challenges facing
municipalities.
"I trust that this intervention will help support municipalities to
comply with the Municipal Financial Management Act. This will help to
turn around municipal finances."
Upgrade local municipalities
With a 63% increase to her budget, Mahlangu said the R210m would be
used to upgrade the standard of local municipalities.
"We have allocated R50m to municipal support to enable them to deliver
basic services, improve infrastructure development and become
financially viable," she said.
Key priorities, according to Mahlangu, would be the upgrading of water
and sanitation in the province, restructuring of the electricity
distribution industry, and support for cross-border municipalities
which were part of Gauteng.
"We have committed ourselves to eradicate all the 12 332 identified
bucket systems by the end of June 2006 in order to give people the
dignity they deserve.
"The department will continue to work with the relevant stakeholders
and Gauteng municipalities in the restructuring of the Electricity
Distribution Industry (EDI). While progress has been made in
Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni, there is a need to speed up the process in
Pretoria."
Together with the department of housing, Mahlangu said R330m had been
set aside for the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) to upgrade "20
priority townships" in the province.
Root out bad elements
In dealing with corruption within local government departments,
Mahlangu said her department had partnered with the Special
Investigations Unit (SIU) to "root out bad elements".
"We have demonstrated our seriousness in dealing with acts of
corruption in municipalities such as Emfuleni and Kungwini where senior
staff members and councillors have either been fired, suspended or are
facing criminal charges," she said.
|
|
|
|
| Bladsye (2): [1 ] |
  |
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [  ]
Tyd nou: Vr Mei 10 07:35:51 MGT 2024
|
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
