<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Chinese language associations of wealth<br>
are mostly centered around gold, silver, jade,<br>
cowrie shells (ancient medium of exchange)<br>
rather than the accumulation of livestock.<br>
<br>
Characters incorporating the cow ideograph<br>
mostly have to do with some biological, pastoral,<br>
physical, or temperament characteristic of bovines,<br>
such as strength of an ox, stubborn as an ox, etc.<br>
<br>
The pig and dog and sheep ideographs mostly reflect <br>
similar notions when used as part of a character.<br>
<br>
Some are understandable although not readily arrived at,<br>
such as sheep 羊 plus big 大 == 美 beautiful.<br>
<br>
I have pointed out some humourous interpretations of <br>
Chinese characters like 木樨地 Muxidi (Camelia gardens, a place in Beijing)<br>
as having the pictorial meaning of "cows urinating in the woods", at<br>
which I am accused of intentionally desecrating the language for
irreverent <br>
purposes. Actually it's an unfortunate consequence of crowding in the
character<br>
that the ideograph for "pointy-ness" looks like that of "water". <br>
Not my fault.<br>
<br>
Historically the Chinese have tended against slavery<br>
for the past 2000 years. Slavery was illegal in many<br>
old Chinese dynasties and discouraged in others, <br>
but there were persons made into slaves and persons<br>
castrated and made into slaves for punishment in <br>
several of the Chinese dynasties. There was illegal<br>
slave trading in remote parts of China during some <br>
dynasties that forbade it.<br>
<br>
The Chinese language mostly evolved pictorially but<br>
there are quite a few Chinese words that use a character<br>
to give the sound, and some of those have no intrinsic<br>
pictographic meaning other than to represent a commonly used <br>
sound.<br>
<br>
Mind you that my Chinese is not all that hot.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07/29/13 20:19, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:7038AAB6-DD44-424A-8035-28D84A075155@newsfromneptune.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Cf. Latin pecus/pecunia. Does Chinese do something similar?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ciao*, Carl </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>________________</div>
<div>* From the Venetian word for 'slave,' as in 'yr. obdt. servt.'</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:15 PM, E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森 <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ewj@pigsqq.org">ewj@pigsqq.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
cattle<br>
1175–1225; Middle English <i>catel</i> < Old North French:
(personal) property < Medieval Latin <i>capitāle</i> wealth; see <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capital">capital</a><sup>1</sup><br>
<br>
<div class="luna-Ent"><br>
chat·tel<br>
1. Law. a movable article of personal property.<br>
2. any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and
other things annexed to land.<br>
3. a slave.<br>
<br>
Origin:<br>
1175–1225; Middle English chatel < Old French. See cattle<br>
<br>
Synonyms<br>
1. See property.<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07/29/13 9:47, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:51F5C9A8.4070401@pigsqq.org" type="cite">Amerikans,
just
like most subservient people throughout history, <br>
want to be ruled by a king. <br>
<br>
It could be argued that the willingness to be ruled by a king <br>
is genetic, and has a natural selection advantage for the subservient. <br>
<br>
Cattle-like, they are willing to trod the same paths from the <br>
shade to the water hole to the barn over and over and over <br>
again, invariantly. Habituation is in ROM chips if you are <br>
cattle. <br>
<br>
Cattle-like people are allowed to eat, and mate, and give <br>
birth to more cattle-like offspring. They ascribe to the <br>
herd mentality. Those who are disobedient to the herd <br>
mentality are treated poorly and are not likely to be <br>
allowed to reproduce but will be culled. <br>
<br>
The constitution apparently was written to provide clear barriers <br>
to the king-like power in the executive. Successive <br>
executive administrations invest more and more kingly authority <br>
in the office. Of course the "friends" of the executive support <br>
the increase in authority and those who speak against the accretion <br>
of power often do so out of partisan jealously rather than out <br>
of a genuine concern for the consequences. <br>
<br>
Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the cattle keep their heads down. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07/29/13 9:21, C. G. Estabrook wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">ProPublica | By Cora Currier <br>
Posted: 07/26/2013 12:35 pm EDT | Updated: 07/26/2013 10:09 pm EDT <br>
<br>
In a major national security speech this spring, President Obama said
again and again that the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban,
and their associated forces.” <br>
<br>
So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret. <br>
<br>
At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense
Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates. <br>
<br>
The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t
allowed to share it. Kathleen Long, a spokeswoman for Levin, would say
only that the department’s “answer included the information requested.”
<br>
<br>
A Pentagon spokesman told ProPublica that revealing such a list could
cause “serious damage to national security.” <br>
<br>
“Because elements that might be considered ‘associated forces’ can
build credibility by being listed as such by the United States, we have
classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. “We
cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent
extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks.” <br>
<br>
It’s not an abstract question: U.S. drone strikes and other actions
frequently target “associated forces,” as has been the case with dozens
of strikes against an Al Qaeda offshoot in Yemen. <br>
<br>
During the May hearing, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, said he was “not
sure there is a list per se.” Describing terrorist groups as “murky”
and “shifting,” he said, “it would be difficult for the Congress to get
involved in trying to track the designation of which are the affiliate
forces” of Al Qaeda. <br>
<br>
Sheehan said that by the Pentagon’s standard, “sympathy is not enough….
it has to be an organized group and that group has to be in
co-belligerent status with Al Qaeda operating against the United
States.” <br>
<br>
The White House tied Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and “elements”
of Al Shabaab in Somalia to Al Qaeda in a recent report to Congress on
military actions. But the report also included a classified annex. <br>
<br>
Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law who served as a legal
counsel during the Bush administration and has written on this question
at length, told ProPublica that the Pentagon’s reasoning for keeping
the affiliates secret seems weak. “If the organizations are ‘inflated’
enough to be targeted with military force, why cannot they be mentioned
publicly?” Goldsmith said. He added that there is “a countervailing
very important interest in the public knowing who the government is
fighting against in its name." <br>
<br>
The law underpinning the U.S. war against Al Qaeda is known as the
Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, and it was passed one
week after the 9/11 attacks. It doesn’t actually include the words
“associated forces,” though courts and Congress have endorsed the
phrase. <br>
<br>
As we explained earlier this year, the emergence of new or more
loosely-aligned terrorist groups has legal scholars wondering how
effectively the U.S. will be able to “shoehorn” them into the AUMF.
During the May hearing, many lawmakers expressed concern about the
Pentagon’s capacious reading of the law. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,
described it as a “carte blanche.” <br>
<br>
Obama, in his May speech, said he looked forward “to engaging Congress
and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal,
the AUMF’s mandate.” But he didn’t give a timeframe. On Wednesday, Rep.
Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced an amendment that would sunset the
law at the end of 2014, to coincide with the U.S. withdrawal from
Afghanistan. It was voted down the same day, 185 to 236. <br>
<br>
The AUMF isn’t the only thing the government relies on to take military
action. In speeches and interviews Obama administration officials also
bring up the president’s constitutional power to defend the country,
even without congressional authorization. <br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/pentagon-war-classified_n_3659353.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/pentagon-war-classified_n_3659353.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular</a>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Peace-discuss mailing list <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>