 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
page 1
page2
page3
page4
page5
page6
page7
page8
page9
page10
page11
page12
page13
page14
page15
page16
page17
page18
page19
page20
page21
page22
page23
page24
page25
page26
page27
page28
page29
page30
page31
page32
page33
page34
page35
page36
page37
page38
page39
page40
page41
page42
page43
page44
page45
page46
page 47
page48
page49
page50
page51
page52
page53
page54
page55
page56
page57
page58
page 59
page59
page 60
page61
page62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page66
page67
page 68
page 69
page 70
Page 71
page 72
pare 73
page 74
page 75
page76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page92
page93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page98
|
|
| QUOTATIONS 1453-1488 |
| ||||||
| 1453. When the Public Service Unions demand in their contract negotiations the job security for their members what they are, in essence, asking for is to have the sanctuary of Socialism in the Capitalism's Jungle. And the glaring unfairness of this demand for preferential treatment is obvious to every working man and woman. For everybody wants to have job security which ultimately means full employment. But, realistically, it is only possible under Socialism, together with some restrictions on personal liberties and acceptance of the lower standard of living, produced by lower productivity inherent in Socialism (men don't work as hard when fear of unemployment is removed). But if that's what the majority wants that's what it has to work for through political means. And then everybody will work under the same conditions. However, as the things stands now, the majority of voters, including the members of public service unions, in Canada, for example, do not vote even for NDP, that watered down, pale apparition of Socialistic ideology. Thus, when those same members want to be exempt from Capitalist world, the world they do nothing to change politically, they can hardly blame the rest of us for thinking that this is unfair. 1454. Some, while using a System, criticize it. Others praise the system which work to their advantage. Are the second more consistent than the first? Perhaps they are simply blind to the system's imperfections or its negative aspects. If that is true, is this blindness intentional or natural? It is difficult to accuse someone we don't know personally in insincerity and pretense. As for the critics, are they hypocrites as well as the ungrateful dogs biting the hand that feeds them? Once again, it is hard to pronounce judgement on any particular individual without knowing him or her well. Also, for the critic of the System it is not always possible, even if he wants to be consistent, to separate himself wholly, or even partially from the system he is part of: the choice of something else, more compatible with his philosophy of life most of the times is not available. 1455. I don't know why I never thought about it before, during all these years watching seemingly omnipresent moves about Italian Mafia in America. But one day while reading the credits of Sopranos, this latest entry into the "mafia" genre, with most of the actors having Italian sounding surnames, it occurred to me that Hollywood obsession with Italian Mafia has at least one beneficial effect on Italian-American community - it provided the steady employment for a lot of Italian-American actors, who would otherwise had to choose the different occupations to make a living. 1456. I'm beginning to suspect that Hollywood is just a front for the gun manufacturing industry. For whenever I watch American movie, at the end of it I have to resist a strong urge to run at once to the nearest store selling guns and to buy one to protect myself from the immediate, clear and present dangers of American life. 1457. The true Muslims don't kill - Islam is a religion of peace. The true Christians don't kill - Christianity is a religion of peace. The true Jews don't kill - Judaism is a religion of peace. The true Buddhists don't kill - Buddhism is a religion of peace. The true Hindus don't ... etc., etc., etc. 1458. Memory is the place where the dead go on living. 1459. One who is afraid of sounding silly would never say anything wise. 1460. To play a second fiddle is often required more skills than to be a first violin. 1461. A woman you are dating is so accommodating But taking off bride's veil she'll fight you tooth and nails. 1462. After reaching a certain age (and in different times, in different cultures and, to some extent, for different women this age is different) a woman does not necessarily wants you - she just wants "a man in her life"- preferably one willing to play a role of a "husband". But if she is a kind and decent person, she will eventually forgive you that. 1463. I've been watching a TV commercial promoting a new perfume. The text said: "Do not try to understand!" The first though that came to my mind was: "The copy writer must have been a former clergyman". 1464. I used to be said that behind every great man stands a woman. The time has come to update this old wise saying. The new version should sound something like: Behind every great man stands a woman, and then another woman, and than one more, and so on and so forth. And something else: each new one is younger than the previous. 1465 The rhetorical questions are often more important than the straightforward ones because they highlight the obvious and self-evident which for one reason or another is being studiously avoided by all concerned. 1466. One of the main arguments against the just redistribution of wealth within any particular society is the claim that it is not "zero sum game", that "the pie" should and could be increased almost indefinitely and thus provide for those in need without taking anything from those who had plenty. The problem with this argument is that as "the pie" does increase those who already had more than enough still want the lion share of this enlarged pie, leaving the have-nots as always with the crumbs. Nevertheless, at least as far as the World is concerned, there seems to be a general consensus at present that the rich countries have to share their abundance with the poor. But how, in practical terms, such redistribution of global wealth could be achieved when in the Western industrial nations, which collectively possess the bulk of it, the unions, both public and private, are constantly asking for more and more money, when every Western government is always tottering on the brink of deficit and none seems to have enough money to satisfy the numerous and ever increasing demands of its own citizenry? To try to answer this question we have to turn to the problem of "globalization". Now, those who are against it claim that it increases the influence of multinational corporations at the expense of national governments and thus remove the power from citizens of these nations. But we just saw that these very citizens are the obstacle to fair redistribution of global wealth, acting like a global middle class which doesn't want "to pay more taxes"to help the lower one. So, perhaps the much maligned multinational corporations can do a better job, provided the ways could be found to compel them to do so. They are already are instrumental in the global redistribution of work (which, by the way, is more important for the working poor that the miserly handouts known as welfare benefits) and clearly can and must do more, much more. 1467. As brains become more important than hands as the main means of production in the so-called "developed countries", and as the human intellect replaces other forms of energy as the main fuel of the engine of progress, the question of intellectual property rights are discussed more and more often by the legal profession. But the term "property" in those discussions is always meant, implicitly or explicitly, as something from which income can be derived. Yet, there are examples of creativity, especially of the intellectual and artistic types, which are not financially remunerative, sometimes intrinsically and sometimes subjectively as an explicit intent of a creator. As for "intrinsically un-remunerative" it is well known fact for many an artist that being creative often means doing something people are not willing to pay for. Regarding the "explicit intent of a creator" let's take a concrete example. Suppose a writer put his writings on Internet intending it to be free to all readers. Suppose also that some enterprising individual finds this free writings on Internet and publishes them commercially. The writer would, understandably, be displeased because his beliefs that the products of intellectual creativity should be free has been subverted by some greedy entrepreneur. The second possibility is that someone would copy his writings and post them on Internet under the copyist's name. In this case the original writer would, probably, truly outraged for he has been deprived of the pride of authorship. So, what about this hypothetical writer? He clearly didn't suffer any financial losses, and yet his work has been stolen. What kind of protection does the Law afford him? 1468. The delivery rooms of the world must be the last frontier of the advertising industry. To position the logos of the major multinationals like Coca Cola and McDonald on the walls of the delivery room so that they will be the first images the emerging from mother's womb infant see and thus be imprinted on his or her brain, would be the ultimate achievement of modern advertising technic. 1469. The more I read the Old Testament, from Exodus and on, the more I feel sorry for those hapless and wretched Israelites. They never seems do anything right. First, it is hankering for the "flesh pots of Egypt", next wanting to dance around golden calf, then something else, equally despicable in the eyes of watchful and ever displeased God. And it goes on and on for almost thousand pages. One begins to wonder why this omniscient God had chosen such a pathetic bunch of incurable sinners. Couldn't he find somebody else more deserving his attention? Or, as bed as the Israelites were, is it possible that the rest were even worse? One begins to feel sorry for God as well. Really, such a thankless job, such a slim pickings. 1470. Children justify parents' lives by inheriting their wealth. Otherwise what would be the point of accumulating it, considering the inevitability of death. 1471. There is no human activity, no matter how insignificant, mean or downright disgusting it is, that will not arouse (for as long as it involves more than one person) someone ambitions to be in charge of it. 1472. My mother used to say, "From the cradle to the grave one stays the same". What she meant by this was that despite many obvious changes one undergoes through the course of life one's essential personality remains unchanged and all the visible alterations of appearance, habits, attitudes, convictions, etc. are but "synonyms", the different expressions of the same essence. Consequently, the ending of life may be defined as running out of "synonyms". 1473. The God of the Old Testament is a misanthropic and sadistic mass-murderer, the God of the New Testament is a quintessential self-hating Jew, vicious and paranoid. The Jews had really a great choice. 1474. The best thing that could be said about God is that he doesn't exist. For if he does he has a lot to answer for. 1475. Everyone has to go (and the sooner the better) through the insanity of unrequited love, the experience similar to some kind of infectious disease, like scarlet fever or missals, hopefully to acquire immunity for the rest of his life. 1476. As I grow older, there are more and more things about which I care less and less. 1477. "Banality of Evil" - the famous subtitle of the somewhat less famous book "Eichmann in Jerusalem" by Hanna Arendt has not only undergone the usual trivialization by widespread, indiscriminate and almost always out of place usage. It is also gave life to the dangerously misleading notion that more often than not all evil and all evil doers are banal. For to make such an erroneous assumption is simply to choose an easy way out instead of confronting the evil nature of man. Some of the perpetrators of Holocaust were probably banal and Hanna Arendt advances very convincing arguments that Adolf Eichmann -the dull and obedient "tiny cog" in the huge bureaucratic Nazi machine designed for total extermination of Jews - was one of them. But Hitler was certainly not "banal", and neither was Ivan the terrible - the notoriously sadistic and blood thirsty guard in Treblinka. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of Germans and their European collaborators who willingly took active part in Final Solution were far from "banal". On the contrary, like the majority of evil doers, they were passionately devoted to and derived the sadistic pleasure from their crimes. And the unpleasant truth is that they are the rule and "Eichmann" is an exception. The evil is not banal. It is the ultimate horror of human existence. The obvious fact that many men under certain circumstances are capable and ever eager to do it doesn't make it "banal", it makes it terrifying 1478. None of us can completely avoid being harmed by the others. For these are the conditions of human existence. The difference lies in the way we respond to it. Some wouldn't do unto others what has been done to them: "You shall not oppress the strangers; you know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt"(Ex..23:9) The others, on the contrary, will go on inflicting the same pain which has been inflicted on them, and than some more. And that's what separates, essentially, the good people from the bad ones. 1479. The Kingdom of Hell is like a small difference which when sown upon the ground of prejudice grows up and becomes the huge tree of hate so that the birds of pray can make nests in its shade to bring their kill to devour there. 1480. Though "covering all the bases" can give the impression of objectivity, it is not mentioning something in passing but emphasizing, stressing and reiterating it again and again that reveals the true purpose of a message and the true conviction of the messenger. 1481. The authors of the Old Testament thought they are writing the powerful indictment of Man. Instead, they have built iron clad, open and shut case against God. 1482. An advice I would give to a young and ambitious writer is to write something good about the Jews. Even a single good jew among the many characters they create would suffice. For it is not a secret that the Jews are influential in the publishing business as in the other fields of intellectual endeavors. And they are so hungry for anything positive to be said or written about one of their own and it happens so pitifully seldom, that they appreciate and remember both the favorable sentiments and their author for a long, long time. 1483. Because I am a Jew I'm rather skeptical about the benefits of economic migration, i.e. moving from one's country of origin to another to improve one's economic prospects. If Jewish historical experience has demonstrated anything it is this: no amount of economic prosperity that the Jews had enjoyed in this or that land. through the centuries of their migration could ever compensate for humiliation and mistreatment they had always suffered at the hands of the people in the host country. And this is universal and unavoidable fate of any immigrant even on our supposedly enlightened age. 1484. The Jews are "cowards" and live in fear in the same way the sane men are fearful of the insane ones. And considering how the Jews have been treated for millennia, who can blame them for such an unflattering view of humanity based on their often justified suspicion that they have nothing good to expect from the rest of mankind. 1485. There is on the face of every old Jew a stamp of bitterness, an expression of disappointment with the world that betrayed him again and again and could never be trusted. 1486. Paradoxically, most people would sooner accept the intelligence of the one who uses it to manipulate and rule rather than to enlighten them.. In the hierarchy of human emotions jealousy is stronger than fear, and self-respect is more important than freedom. 1487. The threat to freedom of speech is invariably assumed to be coming from powers that be. But there is another source of danger to freedom of expression which is neither acknowledged nor even perceived, though often experienced by individuals: the threat of the less intelligent and violent against the more intelligent and gentle. The knowledgeable and intelligent person has to be very careful not to demonstrate it in a company of the ignorant and dull-witted. The anger of the dumb aroused by someone else's intelligence and knowledge, the feeling of inferiority engendered by this often leads to violence. And this potential violence has the stifling effect of freedom of speech. 1488. After reading several books of the same writer, and then several books of the other one, and so on, and so forth I ‘ve come to conclusion, perhaps an erroneous one, that every writer , no matter how many books he has written is essentially re-writing one and the same book in the way a painter keeps painting the same face in his many different paintings. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00682 |