Korean Job Discussion Forums

[On the other hand]

[Gopher]

I would accept "slave owner and hypocrite," which seems to be what many if not most professional historians use to describe him. (I know of no examples of any specific brutality Jefferson himself engaged in, authorized, or condoned, reference his own slaves, for example. You refer to "his administering harsh punishments" -- so perhaps you know something I do not.) Moreover, his critics, like me (I would have supported the Federalists over the Democrat-Republicans at that time), also describe him as a bit self-righteous and flaky, especially where he went after the Barbary States so viciously for "enslaving" American crews in the Med. Dangerously idealistic and too radical. If he truly despised slavery as he said he did when treating Algiers, et al., he probably had bigger fish to fry (and I believe his own daughter gave him a very hard time over this issue in their own correspondence.)

Also, I do not agree with your child-porn analogy.

My distinction may not be entirely clear or even viable, as you suggest. But I think there is one there nonetheless. The American slave system came to include racist assumptions (legally and otherwise) by the end of the seventeenth century. All Americans involved in it, to one degree or another, accepted and perpetuated these assumptions, Jefferson included. But the problem with a concept like "racist" is that, since the 1960s, it has changed (rhetorically, legally, and otherwise; indeed, many abuse the word and use it indiscriminately when arguing with those who disagree with them), and when we call Jefferson "a racist" from the twenty-first century's point-of-view, we may be mischaracterizing his beliefs and views as he experienced them in the eighteenth century. And if we are talking about Jefferson's beliefs and views, I think we ought to be sensitive to this problem.

[djsmnc]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

I have a book, �Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different� by Gordon S. Wood (Bancroft Prize winner for �The Creation of the American Republic� and Pulitzer winner for �The Radicalism of the American Revolution� and who some regard as �the premier historian of the American Revolutionary Era�.) It�s a series of essays about 7 of the Founders, intended to summarize for general readers the views of each of the men covered in the essays. Here is what he says about Jefferson and slavery.

(p 95-96)

Who could not find the contrast between Jefferson�s great declarations of liberty and equality and his lifelong ownership of slaves glaringly embarrassing? Jefferson undoubtedly hated slavery and believed that the self-evident truths he had set forth in 1776 ought eventually to doom the institution in the United States. Early in his career he tried unsuccessfully to facilitate the manumission of slaves in Virginia, and in the 1780s he worked hard to have slavery abolished in the new western territories. But unlike Washington, he himself was never able to free all his slaves. More than that, as recent historians have emphasized, he bought, bred, and flogged his slaves and hunted down fugitives in much the same way has fellow Virginia planters did�all the while declaring that American slavery was not as bad as that of the ancient Romans.

Some recent historians have even claimed that Jefferson�s attitudes and actions toward blacks are so repugnant at present that identifying the Sage of Monticello with antislavery actually discredits the reform movement. Jefferson could never really imagine freed blacks living in a white man�s America, and throughout his life he insisted that the emancipation of the slaves had to be accompanied by their expulsion from the country. He wanted all blacks sent to the West Indies, or Africa, or anywhere out of the United States. In the end, it has been said, Jefferson loaded such conditions on the abolition of slavery that the antislavery movement could scarcely get off the ground. In response to the pleas of younger men that he speak out against slavery he offered only excuses for delay.

His remedy of expulsion was based on racial fear and antipathy. While he had no apprehensions about mingling the blood of the white man with that of the Indian, he never ceased expressing his �great aversion� to miscegenation between blacks and whites�Although Jefferson believed that the Indians were uncivilized, he always admired them and made all sorts of environmental explanations for their differences from whites. Yet he was never able to do the same for the African American. Instead he continually suspected that the black man was inherently inferior to the white in both body and mind.


***

I'm going to split the difference between OTOH and Gopher.

I do see reason for saying Jefferson hated slavery itself and that would explain (in part) his Barbary States policy. (I think his policy would have been much the same even had Americans not been held as slaves. Piracy alone is enough to explain why he sent the fleet to the shores of Tripoli, but the slavery issue must have added an edge to the urgency.) I think Jefferson was a deeply conflicted man, born into a slave-owning society and personally benefiting from slavery, philosophically opposed to the institution but unable to imagine any other system of labor. I've never run across anything that says he used methods any harsher than other slave owners.

But I also see his aversion to blacks and his efforts to send them out of the country as evidence of a certain level of racism because it goes beyond what some other slave-owners thought and did. However, I don't think it went as far as modern KKK-type thinking. I've always believed that if that Dutch ship that first brought blacks to Jamestown in 1619 had brought instead a shipload of Frenchmen or Spaniards to sell, the end result may well have been the same.

[Gopher]

[bacasper]

[bacasper]

[igotthisguitar]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[bacasper]

[Ya-ta Boy]

And they are....? (The ones with the power to 'allow'.)

[igotthisguitar]

ELRON - VOXEO:
The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies the Iowa Caucus
By Christopher Bollyn
31 December 2007

http://www.bollyn.com/index/?id=10371

The Iowa caucus is only a few days away and the nation's attention will be directed to the results, which signify the beginning of the U.S. presidential race. But does anyone watch who tallies the results of the Iowa caucus?

The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don't expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American "democratic" election process.

VOXEO
In the summer of 2004, I first learned that a foreign and out-of-state company using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology tallied the Iowa caucus results.

The system used to tally the 2004 Iowa caucus results was provided by a company called Voxeo, which was apparently based in Orlando, Florida. (Yellow flag goes up in the mind of those familiar with Orlando and electronic vote fraud history. See Bollyn article on Yang below.)

The calls from the nearly 2,000 caucus centers in Iowa went to a Voxeo call center in Atlanta, Georgia.

On January 31, 2005, I wrote to Michelle Bauer, Iowa's Secretary of State with some questions about the use of Voxeo, a foreign company located in Florida, to tally the results of the Iowa caucus:

Subject: How was the Iowa Caucus Tallied?

Dear Sirs,

When I visited the headquarters of the Democratic Party in Des Moines last summer, I learned that the tally of the Iowa caucus had been "out-sourced" to a company in Atlanta, Georgia.

What this means is that the tallying of the Iowa caucus results was done over the telephone, using the touch-tone buttons, to enter the results from each caucus location �

I am interested in how this was done, and why. Why did the Democratic Party allow the crucial tally of the caucus results to be done by a company in Atlanta? Don't they trust their own math skills?

Can any of you provide any information about this matter?

Kind regards,
Christopher Bollyn

A person named Mike Milligan wrote back on behalf of Secretary of State Bauer:

Mike Milligan <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Christopher:

The Secretary of State forwarded me the email you sent to then on Monday, January 31, 2004 [sic] regarding the Iowa Caucuses.

Unfortunately you either received some incorrect information in your travels or are confused. The Iowa Democratic Party completed all of the caucus night tabulations in Iowa, in the Des Moines/Polk County Convention Center, which was the Caucus night HQ. In fact, our tech staff wrote the software that tabulated the results.

To answer your second to last question, we feel we have a comfortable grasp of mathematics.

Sincerely,

MWM

Mike Milligan, Executive Director
Iowa Democratic Party
(515) 244-7292 ex. 676

I wrote this note back to Mr. Milligan:

Dear Mr. Milligan,
I am responding to you about how the caucus results for the Iowa Democratic Party were tallied on the night of the nation's first caucus. After checking my sources, I can assure you that it is correct that an out-of-state telephone/computer system tallied the Iowa precinct results.

The system used was provided by Voxeo Corporation based in Orlando, Florida. The calls went from Iowa to a call center in Atlanta, Georgia.

See: http://www.voxeo.com/

This information was first provided to me last August by John McCormally, Communications Director for the Iowa Democratic Party in Des Moines, Iowa.

Today I called Voxeo (800) 305-5771 in Orlando and although I didn't go into detail, the receptionist confirmed that Voxeo had conducted the telephone tally of the Iowa Democratic Caucus results.

How is it that you don't know that?

McCormally told me that chairmen were selected in all 1,993 precincts and these chairmen called in on touch-tone phones and after giving their PIN number, were able to enter the results from their precinct using the touch-tone number pad.

I'm not going to go into great detail at this point, but this procedure of using an out-of-state computer company to tally the precinct results for the Iowa Democratic Caucus lacks the transparency and openness that one might expect in this exercise in grass-roots poll.

Clearly, if someone wanted to adjust the results, it would be the easiest thing to do to do it through this computer system in Orlando, Florida. The Democrats in Iowa would never be aware of it, regardless of their math skills, unless the paper results were carefully audited in an open and honest manner.

Christopher Bollyn

THE ISRAELIS & VOXEO
Now, who really is Voxeo, and why are the Iowa caucus results tallied by them? I don't know if the 2008 Iowa results will be tallied in the same way, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Voxeo is headed by Jonathan Taylor, who is the company's President and CEO. This is what his Voxeo webpage says about him:

Jonathan combined his experience in both business operations and technology innovation to found Voxeo in 1999. Under his guidance, Voxeo has seen triple-digit revenue growth for four consecutive years and has been profitable since January, 2004. Prior to Voxeo, Jonathan founded and helped bring three additional software and infrastructure service companies to profitability.

From 1995 to 1997, Jonathan was the founder and President of InterResearch and Development Group (IRdg), Inc. IRdg created and licensed iPost - the first internet powered OEM unified messaging solution - to leading telecommunications providers including Ericsson, Motorola and Unisys. IRdg was acquired by Elron Electronic Industries (Nasdq: ELRN) subsidiary MediaGate in 1997.

There you have it. Jonathan Taylor's company, which he founded, was taken over by Elron Electronic Industries, the Israeli defense high tech company:

In its early days, Elron focused on defense, particularly electronics and avionics, as well as the emerging medical and technology sectors. In 1966, Elron founded Elbit, which combined the expertise of the Ministry of Defense-Research Institute in special computer design with Elron's experience in electronic product design, manufacture and management.

Source: http://www.elron.net/default.asp?PageID=203

This is important information that Americans need to know and which they will not find in the Zionist-controlled media in the United States. It needs to be understood that the entire election process in the United States is a fraud. More than that, it is a fraud that is being perpetrated by the Israeli defense establishment on the na�ve and gullible American public.

The sine qua non of an honest and transparent election process is the open counting of the votes by the voters themselves in each polling station in front of the open eyes of other citizens and members of the media. Any compromise in this most fundamental and essential process which acts to remove the citizenry from the vote-counting process simply cannot be accepted.

This is what Americans MUST get back to, in every polling station in the nation: paper ballots that are hand counted in front of the public.

[agentX]