fat weapons
David C. N. Swanson
Sept. 11, 2000) is, if anything, restrained in its rejection of the myth
of a weak U.S. military. Easterbrook does do a good job of pointing out
that the military would have even more money if it didn't waste so much
- an idea familiar to many conservatives in the area of education -
where, however, there isn't much waste. How often have we heard "Money
can't fix our schools," despite the fact that schools are as underfunded
as the Pentagon is drowning in fat?
But there are two serious problems with Easterbrook's article. First,
he doesn't say what funding the Pentagon should have. Should it
continue to be funded at a rate of three times all its supposed enemies
combined, or should a more reasonable allocation be made? Surely
Easterbrook has set forth enough facts to justify more than just
opposing an even worse waste of money than the current level. He does
not even delve into the question of how much smaller non-U.S. military
spending might be were it not for the level of U.S. spending and the
United States' refusal to sign test-ban treaties, space-weapon-ban
treaties, or disarmament agreements.
Second, the common assertion that the U.S. military is weak is not meant
literally, and is not new. All it means is that its speaker wants more
moolah to go to the Pentagon. This form of American politi-speak is
also seen in the assertion - made every election cycle - that the latest
candidate is "questioning the idea that candidates must keep their
religious views to themselves." Outside of Ralph Nader, no candidate
for U.S. president that I know of has ever kept his religion or lack
thereof to himself. Certainly none who has failed to flaunt theism has
been elected. The so-called "questioning" is an allegorical way of
saying "We want to elect someone religious." Similarly, the claim that
the military is weak - which is made before every national election -
does not mean the military is weak in comparison to any other military.
It just means that we want to misspend more money on it.
David Swanson
http://www.cstone.net/~dcswan
paschal
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, David C. N. Swanson wrote:
[a lot of stuff]...
I believe in "fat weapons", and lots of them!
The main - and most legitimate - purpose of the US military,
is to defend and protect the United States of America, its borders,
its sovereignty, its citizens abroad, and its Constitution, against
foreign aggressors. Its second most important and legitimate purpose, is
to defend and protect our ideological allies - so that the great
principles of the Founding Fathers can continue to live in the world, for
all human beans who hold These Truths To Be Self Evident.
G'Nite!
-P.
Missile Defense, Now!
Sayan Bhattacharyya
> The main - and most legitimate - purpose of the US military,
> is to defend and protect the United States of America, its borders,
> its sovereignty, its citizens abroad, and its Constitution, against
> foreign aggressors. Its second most important and legitimate purpose, is
> to defend and protect our ideological allies - so that the great
> principles of the Founding Fathers can continue to live in the world,
Ideological allies? Like -- Pinochet, Marcos and Suharto? (All three
of whom the US supported politically and militarily).
Nations, like men, are known by the company they keep.
paschal
Gee, Sayan; I don't know about all those guys.
I do know about our Philosophy, and our Principles.
The Red Chinese do not share our principles; neither does Castro.
As dumb as I am, I know those things.
-P.
Paul Ilechko
paschal wrote:
> As dumb as I am, I know those things.
And you sure are dumb.
Say it loud, she's dumb and she's proud.
Tim Dodd
potentially destabilize the global balance of power and trigger another arms
race. Besides the obvious problems of technical feasibility and cost
effectiveness add the following to my list of objections about a NMB:
1. It can *never* be tested under anything approaching the operational
conditions it would face in a real attack.
2. NMB advocates talk about "rogue states" acquiring missile technology to
strike the US, but they have yet to mention a realistic *political* scenario
under which even the most demented dictator would launch a missile attack
that would mean certain annihilation.
3. It would be far easier (and less traceable) to sneak a nuclear device
into San Francisco harbor than to spend billions to develop ICBMs. Even if
it works, NMB closes the window and leaves the doors open.
George W.'s recent promise to build a missile defense to shield the entire
US and our allies is nothing short of irresponsible. It shows that either
Bush is totally ignorant of the cost and feasiblity of a missile defense on
such a scale, or is just lying because he thinks it will help him get
elected.
ObBook: Frances FitzGeralds's _Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star
Wars, and the End of the Cold War_.
tim
"paschal" <pas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.00091...@rac5.wam.umd.edu...
Stephen Hayes
Sayan Bhattacharyya wrote in a message to All:
SB> From: bhat...@engin.umich.edu (Sayan Bhattacharyya)
SB> paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> The main - and most legitimate - purpose of the US military,
> is to defend and protect the United States of America, its borders,
> its sovereignty, its citizens abroad, and its Constitution, against
> foreign aggressors. Its second most important and legitimate purpose, is
> to defend and protect our ideological allies - so that the great
> principles of the Founding Fathers can continue to live in the world,
SB>
SB> Ideological allies? Like -- Pinochet, Marcos and Suharto? (All
SB> three of whom the US supported politically and militarily).
SB> Nations, like men, are known by the company they keep.
Not to mention Mobutu.
ObBook: The poisonwood Bible
Keep well
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail: meth...@bigfoot.com
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.fmlynet.org
David J. Loftus
And neither did any of the guys whose names Sayan quoted to you -- all
great and longtime allies of the U.S.
David Loftus
Don Teeter
: paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote
The Founding Principles tend not to flourish if left by themselves, when
in the presence of oppressive socialism. The LONG TERM goal of ensuring
self-determination to every human can never be met if we insist on
supporting only those who meet our litmus test. So long as they provide
stability, an opportunity for American capital, and oppose entrenched
Communism, we have to hold our nose and accept them as allies.
Eventually, over the long term, their fiefdoms will give way to the right
kind of stability. Witness Chile post-Pinochet. Be patient. The
revolution begun in 1776 will not be over for another couple centuries at
least, and we must go slowly or it will all be for naught.
d.r.t.
Paul Ilechko
Don Teeter wrote:
> The Founding Principles tend not to flourish if left by themselves, when
> in the presence of oppressive socialism. The LONG TERM goal of ensuring
> self-determination to every human can never be met if we insist on
> supporting only those who meet our litmus test.
I thought the goal was self-determination to those who can afford it.
An interesting quote from Anatole France's Penguin Island (1908) :
The Penguin democracy did not itself govern. It obeyed a financial
oligarchy which formed opinion by means of the newspapers, and held in
its hands the representatives, the ministers, and the president. It
controlled the finances of the republic, and directed the foreign
affairs of the country as if it were possessed of sovereign power.
David J. Fiander
>
> An interesting quote from Anatole France's Penguin Island (1908) :
>
> The Penguin democracy did not itself govern. It obeyed a financial
> oligarchy which formed opinion by means of the newspapers, and held in
> its hands the representatives, the ministers, and the president. It
> controlled the finances of the republic, and directed the foreign
> affairs of the country as if it were possessed of sovereign power.
Interesting. This aspect of Alca's society is neglected by the
peripatetic travelers Manguel and Guadalupi in their Dictionary.
They do, however, note that France was the second visitor to the
island, the first visit being chronicled by Defoe 175 years
earlier in his "New voyage round the world, by a course never
sailed before. etc."
- David
--
David J. Fiander | We know for certain only when we know little.
Librarian | With knowlege, doubt increases
| - Goethe
Don Teeter
: Don Teeter wrote:
:
:
: > The Founding Principles tend not to flourish if left by themselves, when
: > in the presence of oppressive socialism. The LONG TERM goal of ensuring
: > self-determination to every human can never be met if we insist on
: > supporting only those who meet our litmus test.
: I thought the goal was self-determination to those who can afford it.
: An interesting quote from Anatole France's Penguin Island (1908) :
: The Penguin democracy did not itself govern. It obeyed a financial
: oligarchy which formed opinion by means of the newspapers, and held in
: its hands the representatives, the ministers, and the president. It
: controlled the finances of the republic, and directed the foreign
: affairs of the country as if it were possessed of sovereign power.
I'm not familiar with the above but it sounds like a bad joke to me.
The word "financial" doesn't mean non-socialist or non-suppressive.
The goal is self-determination for everyone. Some societies of course do
not recognize this as a worthy goal, and they cannot be forced to. But I
think given enough centuries of American influence, humanity as a whole
will eventually find a way to live in peace and mutual respect. Note
that this requires Americans learn to do so too, and we have a long ways
to go as well, but I do believe we're farther along that road then most
and in the best position to light the way.
Sayan Bhattacharyya
sac6...@saclink2.csus.edu (Don Teeter) wrote:
>The Founding Principles tend not to flourish if left by themselves, when
>in the presence of oppressive socialism. The LONG TERM goal of ensuring
>self-determination to every human can never be met if we insist on
>supporting only those who meet our litmus test.
>So long as they provide
>stability, an opportunity for American capital, and oppose entrenched
>Communism, we have to hold our nose and accept them as allies.
I hope that you're being tongue-in-cheek here. If not, let me point
out to you that the sentiment expressed is disturbingly close to the
"end justifies the means" argument by which many otherwise upstanding
leftists nevertheless held their nose and went along with Stalin: their
argument being that....
>So long as they provide
>stability, an opportunity for American capital, and oppose entrenched
>Communism, we have to hold our nose and accept them as allies.
(contd from above) ... "so long as Stalin provides stability, and
opportunity for Soviet socialism, and oppose entrenched Capitalism,
we have to hold our nose and accept him as allies".
So, I hope you see where this line of reasoning takes you, and why it is
ethically unacceptable.
Paul Ilechko
Don Teeter wrote:
> But I
> think given enough centuries of American influence, humanity as a whole
> will eventually find a way to live in peace and mutual respect. Note
> that this requires Americans learn to do so too, and we have a long ways
> to go as well, but I do believe we're farther along that road then most
> and in the best position to light the way.
<snarf> Yes, I think the Democrats and Republicans have shown a
tremendous record of mutual respect, and of course America has no
religious intolerance whatsoever, and the churches here would not dream
of meddling in civil affairs </snarf>
David C. N. Swanson
there for most I'd-vote-for-Nader-if-only-everybody-else-would Gore
supporters.
David
ted samsel
Good on yer, Paul. You've come around.
--
TBSa...@infi.net
http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel/
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow (1914-1999)
THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
Don Teeter
: sac6...@saclink2.csus.edu (Don Teeter) wrote:
: >So long as they provide
: >stability, an opportunity for American capital, and oppose entrenched
: >Communism, we have to hold our nose and accept them as allies.
: I hope that you're being tongue-in-cheek here. If not, let me point
: out to you that the sentiment expressed is disturbingly close to the
: "end justifies the means" argument by which many otherwise upstanding
: leftists nevertheless held their nose and went along with Stalin: their
: argument being that....
: (contd from above) ... "so long as Stalin provides stability, and
: opportunity for Soviet socialism, and oppose entrenched Capitalism,
: we have to hold our nose and accept him as allies".
: So, I hope you see where this line of reasoning takes you, and why it is
: ethically unacceptable.
Not long after I posted the above I realized I had gone off the path a
bit. You're absolutely right. I thought I was being realistic but all I
was doing was justifying the immoral convenience of supporting evil men
who happen to be anti-communist. This is not ethically acceptable. I
have to try to be less reactive while posting to usenet -- especially
since everyone else is always so reasonable. :)
d.r.t.
Don Teeter
: Don Teeter wrote:
: > But I
: > think given enough centuries of American influence, humanity as a whole
: > will eventually find a way to live in peace and mutual respect. Note
: > that this requires Americans learn to do so too, and we have a long ways
: > to go as well, but I do believe we're farther along that road then most
: > and in the best position to light the way.
: <snarf> Yes, I think the Democrats and Republicans have shown a
: tremendous record of mutual respect, and of course America has no
: religious intolerance whatsoever, and the churches here would not dream
: of meddling in civil affairs </snarf>
As I said, we have a long ways to go. And of course political and
religious institutions will always work against it. But despite our
criticisms of the American way, which can be quite significant being as
we're very familiar with its faults and tend to be complacent about its
benefits, this is still the society that has done the best job yet of
providing both freedom and prosperity to a huge and diverse population.
Encode and enforce a few key liberty-based concepts and everyone can do
as well.
Don Teeter
: Don Teeter wrote:
: > ...
: > I
: > think given enough centuries of American influence, humanity as a whole
: > will eventually find a way to live in peace and mutual respect.
: Man, I had coffee in my mouth. Have some consideration.
: > Note
: > that this requires Americans learn to do so too, and we have a long ways
: > to go as well, but I do believe we're farther along that road then most
: > and in the best position to light the way.
: I'll say hand humanity over to Sweden or Holland, their records are better.
Not for me they aren't. Since I've been to neither country I can't
pretend to be qualified to answer in detail. But if they follow the
modern European model in terms of business opportunity or personal
freedom, you can have 'em. The fact they lack huge contrasts between
rich and poor is not by itself a great recommendation. I prefer a
country where everyone is free, over one where no one is hungry.
Paul Ilechko
Don Teeter wrote:
>
> ... despite our
> criticisms of the American way, which can be quite significant being as
> we're very familiar with its faults and tend to be complacent about its
> benefits, this is still the society that has done the best job yet of
> providing both freedom and prosperity to a huge and diverse population.
> Encode and enforce a few key liberty-based concepts and everyone can do
> as well.
The fact that you keep repeating this doesn't make it true, and you've
made no points in favor of your arguments other than repetition of the
fact that it is self-evident. Unfortunately, that proves nothing. You
apparently believe that the freedom to exploit your fellow men and thus
to amass a huge personal fortune is more important than the rights of
said fellow men to have some level of guaranteed standard of living.
Which says quite a bit about you, and not much about anything else.
Sayan Bhattacharyya
"... New liberalism speaks about opportunities as "free" and "equal"
whereas if for some reason you are not capable of staying ahead, you will
sink.What has disappeared is the sense citizens need to have of
entitlement -- the right, guaranteed by the state, to health, education,
shelter, and democratic freedoms. If all those become the prey of the
globalised market, the future is deeply insecure for the large majority of
people, despite the reassuring (but profoundly misleading) rhetoric of care
and kindness spun out by the media managers and public relations experts who
rule over public discourse.
"The question now is how long neo-liberalism will last. For if the global
system starts to break down, if more and more people suffer the consequences
of a dearth of social services, if more and more powerlessness characterises
the political system, then crises will begin to emerge. At that point,
alternatives will be a necessity, even if for the time being we are being
told "you never had it so good!" How much social suffering is tolerable
before the need for change actually causes change? This is the major
political question of our time."
-- from "Problems of Neoliberalism" by
Edward Said,
Professor of Comparative Literature
Colombia University.
appeared in this week's Al-Ahram newspaper
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2000/498/op2.htm#top
Don Teeter
I'm always willing to admit to being no final authority; in fact, that's
part of the point. To leave these decisions to those who Know Everything
about it is to empower elitist theorists. Most of us know what we need
to do; I manage my rental property, for example, just fine without rent
control, and my tenants are happy. Yet those who like yourself decry my
supposed freedom to exploit my fellow man would have all rental business
decisions constrained by "compassionate" laws and ultimately made
untenable to small family owners. Rental property would end up in the
hands of big companies that can shift the losses around, or big
governments (not much difference). The univeral experience is that this
is to the detriment of the tenant.
I owe you much better responses than these but I apologize for not
having the time. My faith is in freedom; people should do with it what
they will. I do know that every time you guarantee someone's "right" to
food or housing or medical care, the overall system may seem more
efficient, but that masks the greater cost of loss of flexibility and
more importantly, the loss of creative input from all those people who
don't try as hard because they don't have to.
If this sounds metaphysical well, so does biological evolution to those
who don't get it. You can't create a plan for the best results. You can
only create the environment, and get out of the way. With regards to
human endeavor, the less intrusion, the better, so that you only work to
prevent violence, coercion, and other unnatural pressures on market
forces. Note, to my knowledge, capitalism as an ideal has not been
practiced much as yet. No, I haven't read Ayn Rand.
d.r.t.
Don Teeter
: Hell, my mistake -- I bought into that peace thing you mentioned. Now, we're
: talking business. All yours.
: s.
Actually, "all business" and "that peace thing" are natural allies. No
one ever made money except in the short term off the instability of war.
Note that businesses don't use guns to meet their goals. Governments and
social movements do. Oh sure, businesses go along with the gun-bearers
often enough if it seems to be good for business. That's called adapting
to the environment. But violence isn't built into the system of doing
business. It's only built into the system of enforcing laws. (Which is
why law as a rule should concern itself mostly with preventing violence.)
d.r.t.
Don Teeter
: What has disappeared is the sense citizens need to have of
: entitlement -- the right, guaranteed by the state, to health, education,
: shelter, and democratic freedoms. If all those become the prey of the
: globalised market, the future is deeply insecure for the large majority of
: people
This is the same great and dangerous lie that led to the deaths of
millions in the last century. The instant you "entitle" someone, you are
placing upon me the requirement to support that entitlement. And down we
go again on some dark yet familiar road.
: "The question now is how long neo-liberalism will last. For if the global
: system starts to break down, if more and more people suffer the consequences
: of a dearth of social services, if more and more powerlessness characterises
: the political system, then crises will begin to emerge.
To me this describes the consequences of failing to fully implement the
social system of entitlement. Why have such a system at all if its
breakdown spells such doom?
: At that point,
: alternatives will be a necessity, even if for the time being we are being
: told "you never had it so good!" How much social suffering is tolerable
: before the need for change actually causes change? This is the major
: political question of our time."
Only to those who would justify taking control. It seems the more
dependent we get on social support systems the more danger we are in.
Interesting.
:
: -- from "Problems of Neoliberalism" by
: Edward Said,
: Professor of Comparative Literature
: Colombia University.
I'm naturally suspicious of the qualifications of liberal arts professors
to understand free-market economics or this "neo-liberalism". Now, if he
was a dentist and had set up his own office somewhere, say in some suburb
where there's lots of competition and he actually helps people ...
d.r.t.
p.s. - I know I'll never convince you folks. But I always learn from
your feedback. Thx.
Bruce McGuffin
> > : I'll say hand humanity over to Sweden or Holland, their records are better.
When I visited Austria last month, an incensed Austrian claimed that
non-European immigrants are much safer in Austria than in Sweden.
Bruce McGuffin
obbook: english (sic) & Bowers, He Said -- She Said
Richard Harter
>
>
>Bruce McGuffin wrote:
>
>> smw <sm...@umich.edu> writes:
>>
>> > > : I'll say hand humanity over to Sweden or Holland, their records are better.
>>
>> When I visited Austria last month, an incensed Austrian claimed that
>> non-European immigrants are much safer in Austria than in Sweden.
>
>Well, that settles it, then.
The Norwegians are only half as murderous as the Swedes. Finns,
however, are really dangerous.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" - Iain Bowen
Tim Smith
>I'll say hand humanity over to Sweden or Holland, their records are better.
In this century, perhaps. Let's not go back to the 17th, please.
Why is it that the ones with all the money get to be the bad guys (the
English in the 19th, US in the late 20th, and probably the Chinese in
the mid 21st)?
ted samsel
Them what's got money, makes the rules. Capiche?
Tim Smith
>Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>> smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >I'll say hand humanity over to Sweden or Holland, their records are better.
>>
>> In this century, perhaps. Let's not go back to the 17th, please.
>>
>> Why is it that the ones with all the money get to be the bad guys (the
>> English in the 19th, US in the late 20th, and probably the Chinese in
>> the mid 21st)?
>
>Them what's got money, makes the rules. Capiche?
Then why do they have to violate them?
Raghu Seshadri
: >> Why is it that the ones with all the money get to be the bad guys (the
: >> English in the 19th, US in the late 20th, and probably the Chinese in
: >> the mid 21st)?
: >
: >Them what's got money, makes the rules. Capiche?
:
: Then why do they have to violate them?
They make the rules for others, not themselves.
They want others to follow the rules.
What is the point of being topdog if you have to
follow the same rules as the underdogs ?
RS
-Mammel,L.H.
Tim Smith <tss...@best.com> wrote:
>ted samsel <tbsa...@infi.net> wrote:
>>
>>Them what's got money, makes the rules. Capiche?
>
>Then why do they have to violate them?
I think Aesop covers this point pretty well in the
proverb of the Wolf and the Lamb - "I can't very
well argue with you, but I'm going to eat you anyway."
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Francis Muir
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
> Tim Smith (tss...@best.com) wrote:
> : >> Why is it that the ones with all the money get to be the bad guys (the
> : >> English in the 19th, US in the late 20th, and probably the Chinese in
> : >> the mid 21st)?
> : >
> : >Them what's got money, makes the rules. Capiche?
> :
> : Then why do they have to violate them?
>
> They make the rules for others, not themselves.
> They want others to follow the rules.
>
> What is the point of being topdog if you have to
> follow the same rules as the underdogs ?
A more likely argument is that top-dog nations if sufficiently secure in
their top-doggedness are more likely to be relaxed towards dissent, and
for some reason that only they understand, dissenters always claim the
high moral ground where naturally anyone around not so elevated is a bad
guy. As Mr. Bennet (roughly) had it: are we not here but to make sport
for our neighbours?
Tim Smith
>
>
>Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >I'll say hand humanity over to Sweden or Holland, their records are better.
>>
>> In this century, perhaps. Let's not go back to the 17th, please.
>
>Yeah, that's definitely the best one for the US.
The point being? Wasn't it that you wished to argue that the Swedes
and Dutch are in some way inherently morally superior to these other
nasty western nations.
Don't kid yourself. (And yes, I've lived in both of these countries,
and a few others to boot.)
ted samsel
>
> ted samsel <tbsa...@infi.net> wrote:
>
> >Tim Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'll say hand humanity over to Sweden or Holland, their records are better.
> >>
> >> In this century, perhaps. Let's not go back to the 17th, please.
> >>
> >> English in the 19th, US in the late 20th, and probably the Chinese in
> >> the mid 21st)?
> >
> >Them what's got money, makes the rules. Capiche?
>
> Then why do they have to violate them?
No, no, no. You must have more money than I do.
Don Teeter
: Yeah yeah yeah. You brought up 'peace,' I brought up Holland and Sweden. You
: claimed Holland and Sweden were bad for business. Nonetheless, they, unlike the
: US, haven't started any wars in a very long time (you're welcome to the
: distinction between 'starting' and 'declaring'). Hence, your thesis goes where it
: belongs.
That they haven't started any wars (notwithstanding they've been in no
position to start any in a very long time) is immaterial. Plenty of
times a country's martial ability is brought into action to prolong or
support the peace; if you doubt that, why don't you disarm all the
policemen.
I was only saying I believe the American model is the best in existence
for leading humanity forward. This isn't because of our foreign policy;
that has been execrable more often than not -- fortunately no worse than
any other large and significant country. It's really because of our
Constitution and the endless evolution (or revolution, however you want
to put it) it has inspired through the court system. I know I should
explain further but I haven't the time ( I keep saying that ) so, well,
there it is.
d.
Don Teeter
: Don Teeter wrote:
: > In article <Njzx5.27$6I1...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> Sayan Bhattacharyya wrote:
: >
: > : What has disappeared is the sense citizens need to have of
: > : entitlement -- the right, guaranteed by the state, to health, education,
: > : shelter, and democratic freedoms. If all those become the prey of the
: > : globalised market, the future is deeply insecure for the large majority of
: > : people
: >
: > This is the same great and dangerous lie that led to the deaths of
: > millions in the last century. The instant you "entitle" someone, you are
: > placing upon me the requirement to support that entitlement. And down we
: > go again on some dark yet familiar road.
: Yup. Just look at all those countries that have universal health care. Dark and
: familiar roads, every single one of them. As a matter of fact, sick freezing
: illiterate people on the street are the only sure signs of a thriving community.
: s.
Well, now you're just being facetious. Or incredibly shallow, whichever.
d.r.t.
Tim Smith
>Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Tim Smith wrote:
>> >
>> >> smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I'll say hand humanity over to Sweden or Holland, their records are better.
>> >>
>> >> In this century, perhaps. Let's not go back to the 17th, please.
>> >
>>
>> The point being? Wasn't it that you wished to argue that the Swedes
>> and Dutch are in some way inherently morally superior to these other
>> nasty western nations.
>
>their neighbors than the US. Bringing up the 17th century monarchies on the same
>terrain must win the prize for most either most disingenuous or most idiotic
>comment of the thread yet. Make your choice.
Well I'd vote for most insightful, myself. The assumption you are
making is that present economic conditions and political environment
that dictate political (as well as social) policies of a country
relect somehow an innate state of national morality. I find no
justification, either in history or in anything that I can find in
social science, for such an assumption. If either the Netherlands or
Sweden were to find themselves in the "moral" positions that have
complicated many western states in the late 20th century, I find no
reason to believe that would behave better, or differently in any way.
You used a phrase in an earlier posting in this newsgroup that I found
quite intriguing: it was "moral-bad-luck". It was the state, for
example, of Germans in 1933. I submit that neither the Swedes nor the
Dutch have been in that situation in the 20th century (we might forget
the Swedish neutrality in WWII?), and hence their recent "morality"
(in the curious sense that we tend to define it) has not been proved.
>Ah. Yes, next door in Germany, we missed all those secret wars. Do tell.
Left-field comment, from my perspective. Perhaps a more faithful r.a.b
reader can tell me if there is something here I'm missing. Or is this
like the comment that assumed that I did not know that there was no
USA in the 17th century?
Tim Smith
>Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> >Tim Smith wrote:
>> >
>> >> smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Tim Smith wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I'll say hand humanity over to Sweden or Holland, their records are better.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In this century, perhaps. Let's not go back to the 17th, please.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yeah, that's definitely the best one for the US.
>> >>
>> >> The point being? Wasn't it that you wished to argue that the Swedes
>> >> and Dutch are in some way inherently morally superior to these other
>> >> nasty western nations.
>> >
>> >The point being that Dutch and Swedish democracies have at living peacefully with
>> >their neighbors than the US. Bringing up the 17th century monarchies on the same
>> >terrain must win the prize for most either most disingenuous or most idiotic
>> >comment of the thread yet. Make your choice.
>>
>> Well I'd vote for most insightful, myself. The assumption you are
>> making is that present economic conditions and political environment
>> that dictate political (as well as social) policies of a country
>> relect somehow an innate state of national morality.
>
>On that contrary; that was your tacit assumption in bringing up 17th century
>conditions. It is precisely political and social realities I'm referring to -- and
>they are that the US has a recent (let's say post-war) history of aggression, whereas
>Sweden and the Netherlands do not (neither do a number of other countries, needless to
>say). The original poster wanted models for peaceful living -- sorry, the US, the
>least peaceful of all Western nations, won't qualify.
Throughout the 20th century, the Germans have been the least peaceful
of the Western nations. It's part of the historical record, and is
really not subject to serious debate.
But that is tangential to our discussion. I am claiming that there is
no moral superiority that inheres in being Dutch or Swedish. Rather,
that political circumstances have not allowed them to be as agressive
as the Germans, the French, the British, and, yes, the Americans. Thus
my perhaps too obscure reference to Dutch and Swedish agression in the
17th century.
Whether they would have been as agressive in the 20th century as the
Germans and others cannot be known, but my experiences in watching
right-wing rallies in Sweden, and listening to a few intemperate
Dutch, does not lead me to believe that they are any less capable of
it.
Of course, I have known many more moderate, temperate, progressive
Swedes and Dutch than these few foaming examples, just as I have known
a great number of peace-loving and very progressive young Germans (and
Brits, and, even, gosh, Americans).
I refuse to believe that there are nation-specific characteristics
that lead some nations (the NL, Sweden) to be charming peace givers,
and others (Germany, the USA) to be horrible war mongers.
Your arguments are a form of national stereotyping that has little
place in progressive thinking.
Sayan Bhattacharyya
>Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
>Tim Smith (tss...@best.com) wrote:
>: Why is it that the ones with all the money get to be the bad guys (the
>: English in the 19th, US in the late 20th, and probably the Chinese in
>: the mid 21st)?
>:
>: Them what's got money, makes the rules. Capiche?
>:
>: Then why do they have to violate them?
>
>>They make the rules for others, not themselves.
>>They want others to follow the rules.
>>
>>What is the point of being topdog if you have to
>>follow the same rules as the underdogs ?
>
>A more likely argument is that top-dog nations if sufficiently secure in
>their top-doggedness are more likely to be relaxed towards dissent.
Yeah, like the British were at Jalianwala Bag. Very relaxed towards
dissent.
Raghu wrote:
>>What is the point of being topdog if you have to
>>follow the same rules as the underdogs ?
From the book "We're Number One" , Vintage Books (1992): the USA
leads the industrailized western nations in not ratifying international
treaties (treaties are listed in the book), and is, again, the country
which has exercised the largest number of vetos at the U.N.
M J Carley
>You used a phrase in an earlier posting in this newsgroup that I found
>quite intriguing: it was "moral-bad-luck". It was the state, for
>example, of Germans in 1933. I submit that neither the Swedes nor the
>Dutch have been in that situation in the 20th century (we might forget
>the Swedish neutrality in WWII?), and hence their recent "morality"
>(in the curious sense that we tend to define it) has not been proved.
Funnily enough, I have just been reading Christoper Hitchens on the
American hatred of Sweden (initiated by Eisenhower). He pointed out
that Sweden is a country which has lost Bernadotte and Palme, both of
him did a lot more for world peace than most. Bernadotte,
incidentally, used Swedish neutrality to give passports to thousands
of Jews (more than many non-neutral countries did) and was murdered by
the Stern gang (who were not neutral: they wanted an alliance with
Hitler).
Bofors notwithstanding, Sweden has little to be ashamed of.
--
O makers of motorbikes and tractors! Builders of the Belfast and the
Titanic! Constructors of the Harlandic diesel electric locomotive
commissioned by the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway Company!
jimC
> >quite intriguing: it was "moral-bad-luck". It was the state, for
> >example, of Germans in 1933. I submit that neither the Swedes nor the
> >Dutch have been in that situation in the 20th century (we might forget
> >the Swedish neutrality in WWII?), and hence their recent "morality"
> >(in the curious sense that we tend to define it) has not been proved.
>
> American hatred of Sweden (initiated by Eisenhower). He pointed out
> that Sweden is a country which has lost Bernadotte and Palme, both of
> him did a lot more for world peace than most. Bernadotte,
> incidentally, used Swedish neutrality to give passports to thousands
> of Jews (more than many non-neutral countries did) and was murdered by
> the Stern gang (who were not neutral: they wanted an alliance with
> Hitler).
What're you talking about? His book _For the Sake of Argument_?
jimC
Tim Smith
>M J Carley wrote:
>>
>> In the referenced article, tss...@best.com (Tim Smith) writes:
>>
>> >You used a phrase in an earlier posting in this newsgroup that I found
>> >quite intriguing: it was "moral-bad-luck". It was the state, for
>> >example, of Germans in 1933. I submit that neither the Swedes nor the
>> >Dutch have been in that situation in the 20th century (we might forget
>> >the Swedish neutrality in WWII?), and hence their recent "morality"
>> >(in the curious sense that we tend to define it) has not been proved.
>>
>> Funnily enough, I have just been reading Christoper Hitchens on the
>> American hatred of Sweden (initiated by Eisenhower). He pointed out
>> that Sweden is a country which has lost Bernadotte and Palme, both of
>> him did a lot more for world peace than most. Bernadotte,
>> incidentally, used Swedish neutrality to give passports to thousands
>> of Jews (more than many non-neutral countries did) and was murdered by
>> the Stern gang (who were not neutral: they wanted an alliance with
>> Hitler).
>
>What're you talking about? His book _For the Sake of Argument_?
Yes, I'd like to see that Hitchens reference also.
I'm not sure that most Americans "hate" Sweden. A few rabid
right-wingers, maybe. From a national governmental perspective (smw's
point of view) we seem to have mostly treated it as if it doesn't
exist. But I'm sure that Hitchens could skillfully fabricate a case
that there is a national policy of hatred towards Sweden, and I'd like
to see how he does it.
David J. Loftus
<39CA8041...@infi.net>:
Organization:
Tim Smith wrote:
> Why is it that the ones with all the money get to be the bad guys (the
> English in the 19th, US in the late 20th, and probably the Chinese in
> the mid 21st)?
How do you think they got all the money?
David Loftus
Tim Smith
>Of course not -- that's why I qualified 'post-war,' obviously.
>
>> But that is tangential to our discussion. I am claiming that there is
>> no moral superiority that inheres in being Dutch or Swedish.
>
>Neither do I; I'm claiming that Dutch and Swedish politics (foreign and domestic) are more
>appealing than US foreign and domestic politics.
>
>> Rather,
>> that political circumstances have not allowed them to be as agressive
>> as the Germans, the French, the British, and, yes, the Americans. Thus
>> my perhaps too obscure reference to Dutch and Swedish agression in the
>> 17th century.
>
>Nothing obscure about it; the thirty-year-war was quite a party, after all.
>
>> Whether they would have been as agressive in the 20th century as the
>> Germans and others cannot be known, but my experiences in watching
>> right-wing rallies in Sweden, and listening to a few intemperate
>> Dutch, does not lead me to believe that they are any less capable of
>> it.
>
>I think we want to think in terms of institutions, not individuals or individual groups, no
>matter how unappealing they may be.
>
>> I refuse to believe that there are nation-specific characteristics
>> that lead some nations (the NL, Sweden) to be charming peace givers,
>> and others (Germany, the USA) to be horrible war mongers.
>> Your arguments are a form of national stereotyping that has little
>> place in progressive thinking.
>
>Oh, nonsense. You keep thinking in terms of genetics of national mentality; I'm thinking in
>terms of history, politics, institutions, political education, and democratic practice.
>And, yes, those differ from country to country, without conferring any moral superiority
>onto any member of any of those countries.
We are at an impasse. My interpretation of your position is that you
believe that the Dutch and Swedes, for whatever reasons, would and
would have behaved differently from the Germans and Americans in
implementing international policy if they were in positions of power.
That they would have behaved, somehow, more rationally and more
peacefully. Correct me if this is a misinterpretation.
My claim is that I see no reason, either from my reading of history or
from personal experience, to believe that there is very much
difference between peoples, when push comes to shove. The Swedes and
the Dutch have been forced in this century to be peaceful. They have
no alternative. They were not so in the 17th century. Did they somehow
acquire a saintly odor in 300 years? No, people do not change that
fast. But circumstances do.
The democratic institutions (constitutional monarchy) that the Swedes
and Dutch live and rule under were developed by a number of countries
in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Dutch, in particular, have a long
and proud tradition of liberty and tolerance, and I'm not trying to
deny this. But this tradition was developed, after a lot adventuresome
and often brutal mercantile politicking in the 17th century, because
of their weak position in a Europe dominated directly by Spain,
France, and then Germany, and always indirectly by England. Does this
make them bad people? Of course not. But it does call into question
claims that they would somehow be morally superior to others in making
international policy.
By the way, at no point in this discussion have I been trying to
defend the USA in its actions since 1945. It has been often stupid,
occasionally immoral, and once in a while extremely beneficial to the
world (the Berlin airlift, for one example).
People are people.
ObBook: Nathaniel's Nutmeg Or, the True and Incredible Adventures of
the Spice Trader Who Changed the Course of History
Tim Smith
Yeah, that was the point.
M J Carley
>
>>What're you talking about? His book _For the Sake of Argument_?
>
>Yes, I'd like to see that Hitchens reference also.
>
>I'm not sure that most Americans "hate" Sweden. A few rabid
>right-wingers, maybe. From a national governmental perspective (smw's
>point of view) we seem to have mostly treated it as if it doesn't
>exist. But I'm sure that Hitchens could skillfully fabricate a case
>that there is a national policy of hatred towards Sweden, and I'd like
>to see how he does it.
I should, I suppose, first apologize for identifying the state with
the people (I don't like having it done to me) but Hitchens (it is an
old Nation column in `For the sake of argument') makes a convincing
case for American government hatred of Sweden (or at least
contempt). The article was written during the Reagan/Bush era, and he
notes the abuse heaped on Sweden for, for example, helping broker a
deal in Angola.
Raghu Seshadri
: I refuse to believe that there are nation-specific characteristics
: that lead some nations (the NL, Sweden) to be charming peace givers,
: and others (Germany, the USA) to be horrible war mongers.
I agree. This thesis becomes even more absurd
when you consider that many Swedes and Dutch etc
emigrated to America. Has the atlantic journey
suddenly injected them with warmongering propensities ?
A dramatic case of a nation changing its characteristics
at will is Tibet. This was a warmongering nation
which regularly attacked its neighbors; they burnt
down Beijing once. Once Buddhism arrived, they
underwent a seachange, and became the gentle race
they now are.
RS
Francis Muir
> [stuff]
I see that our panegyricist of motorbikes in now at the University of
Bath, UK. Bath the city used to be in Somerset and had been there for
getting on for a couple of thousand years. But that was not good enough
for some would-be rationalist busy-body with a measure of power who
decided that Somerset was too large and got out his scissors and clipped
off a chunk and called it Avon. Now why the hell would a new county be
called Avon when every school kid knows that "avon" means "river" in
Welsh? Luckily mail addressed to Bath, Somerset, England still gets there.
Francis Muir
> : that lead some nations (the NL, Sweden) to be charming peace givers,
> : and others (Germany, the USA) to be horrible war mongers.
>
> when you consider that many Swedes and Dutch etc
> emigrated to America. Has the atlantic journey
> suddenly injected them with warmongering propensities ?
>
> A dramatic case of a nation changing its characteristics
> at will is Tibet. This was a warmongering nation
> which regularly attacked its neighbors; they burnt
> down Beijing once. Once Buddhism arrived, they
> underwent a seachange, and became the gentle race
> they now are.
"The gentle race they now are". So there are nation-specific
characteristics after all, contrasdicting your earlier agreement with
Tim Smith that there are not. Which is it?
Raghu Seshadri
:
: So, if you turn the world to the Dutch today because
: they are tolerant and mild, there is no assurance that
: they won't suddenly turn into Vikings tomorrow.
: They very well could.
Some more examples of how fickle and transient
national-characteristics can be -
The fierce Vikings have turned into pussycat Swedes.
The world-conquering Romans into modern Italians
who couldn't even conquer Greece.
China, about which a 19th c Englishman once said
"one white man with a stick can drive away a hundred
Chinese", is now menacing all Asia, and will
no doubt confront the USA sooner or later.
So these 'national characteristics' are ephemeral
things and historically valueless in basing
policies on.
RS
Tim Smith
>
>
>Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith (tss...@best.com) wrote:
>> : I refuse to believe that there are nation-specific characteristics
>> : that lead some nations (the NL, Sweden) to be charming peace givers,
>> : and others (Germany, the USA) to be horrible war mongers.
>>
>> I agree.
>
>Sigh, everybody agrees. Nobody in this thread has argued that there's
>moral superiority in being related to Swedes and Dutch. I've been talking
>of countries. Tim argues that Holland and Sweden would have behaved just
>as badly if they'd been more powerful. I'd argue against that that we've
>seen plenty of small powerless countries behaving badly, if I had the
>energy.
Richard Harter
>
>
>Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith (tss...@best.com) wrote:
>> : I refuse to believe that there are nation-specific characteristics
>> : that lead some nations (the NL, Sweden) to be charming peace givers,
>> : and others (Germany, the USA) to be horrible war mongers.
>>
>> I agree.
>
>Sigh, everybody agrees. Nobody in this thread has argued that there's
>moral superiority in being related to Swedes and Dutch. I've been talking
>of countries. Tim argues that Holland and Sweden would have behaved just
>as badly if they'd been more powerful. I'd argue against that that we've
>seen plenty of small powerless countries behaving badly, if I had the
>energy.
Tim can say for himself what he is arguing. However drawing a
comparison between the pacific Swedes and the agressive Americans is
illegitimate precisely because they are in different circumstances.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" - Iain Bowen
Paul Ilechko
Don Teeter wrote:
> I was only saying I believe the American model is the best in existence
> for leading humanity forward.
Jingo bells, jingo bells, jingo all the way
Oh what fun it is to live in America today
..as long as you're not a Mexican migrant worker who gets beaten to a
pulp for "reducing property values" standing on a corner trying to get
minimum wage work.
Paul Ilechko
Tim Smith wrote:
> Throughout the 20th century, the Germans have been the least peaceful
> of the Western nations. It's part of the historical record, and is
> really not subject to serious debate.
You've obviously never been to a football match in England.
Richard Harter
And are you a Mexican migrant worker who got beaten to a pulp for
"reducing property values" whilst standing on a corner trying to get
minimum wage work? If not, whereof do you speak?
Richard Harter
>
>
>Richard Harter wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:08:49 -0400, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tim Smith (tss...@best.com) wrote:
>> >> : I refuse to believe that there are nation-specific characteristics
>> >> : that lead some nations (the NL, Sweden) to be charming peace givers,
>> >> : and others (Germany, the USA) to be horrible war mongers.
>> >>
>> >> I agree.
>> >
>> >Sigh, everybody agrees. Nobody in this thread has argued that there's
>> >moral superiority in being related to Swedes and Dutch. I've been talking
>> >of countries. Tim argues that Holland and Sweden would have behaved just
>> >as badly if they'd been more powerful. I'd argue against that that we've
>> >seen plenty of small powerless countries behaving badly, if I had the
>> >energy.
>>
>> Tim can say for himself what he is arguing. However drawing a
>> comparison between the pacific Swedes and the agressive Americans is
>> illegitimate precisely because they are in different circumstances.
>
>Unless they are in different circumstances because... oh, well.
> I'll refer you back to the original post commending the US as the world's
>model for peace. That's where Sweden and Holland came in. Sure, they aren't
>superpowers. But that's rather the point.
> I'm outta here.
As usual.
The original post didn't commend the US as the world's model for
peace, at least if you meant this bit:
The goal is self-determination for everyone. Some societies
of course do not recognize this as a worthy goal, and they
cannot be forced to. But I think given enough centuries of
American influence, humanity as a whole will eventually find
a way to live in peace and mutual respect. Note that this
requires Americans learn to do so too, and we have a long ways
to go as well, but I do believe we're farther along that road
then most and in the best position to light the way.
Now that may be a dubious proposition but it is not the proposition
you represent it to be. Perhaps you have some other post in mind.
Evidently so, for the examples of Holland and Sweden are irrelevant to
the above thesis.
Tim Smith
>
>
>Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> Throughout the 20th century, the Germans have been the least peaceful
>> of the Western nations. It's part of the historical record, and is
>> really not subject to serious debate.
>
>You've obviously never been to a football match in England.
<G> No, thank you. At the Germany-England match in the Euro cup this
year, there were a few English fans who were holding up signs saying
"Remember Dresden". Shudder.
Ron Hardin
> >You've obviously never been to a football match in England.
>
> <G> No, thank you. At the Germany-England match in the Euro cup this
> year, there were a few English fans who were holding up signs saying
> "Remember Dresden". Shudder.
That's good old needling.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Paul Ilechko
Richard Harter wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:48:16 GMT, Paul Ilechko
> <pile...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Don Teeter wrote:
> >
> >> I was only saying I believe the American model is the best in existence
> >> for leading humanity forward.
> >
> >Jingo bells, jingo bells, jingo all the way
> >Oh what fun it is to live in America today
> >
> >..as long as you're not a Mexican migrant worker who gets beaten to a
> >pulp for "reducing property values" standing on a corner trying to get
> >minimum wage work.
>
> And are you a Mexican migrant worker who got beaten to a pulp for
> "reducing property values" whilst standing on a corner trying to get
> minimum wage work? If not, whereof do you speak?
It happpened recently in Long Island.
Ron Hardin
> Let me be the first to tell you that your legal system is not precisely the envy of the
> world at this point, and that a country where, what is it, 40? percent of the
> population vote has no business putting itself forward as the haven of democracy.
It's the right to vote, and on what; not the vote. The Soviets used to get 99.9%
turnout.
A lot of law is made by agencies and judges today, which probably is wrong, and
someday perhaps a vote will come up on that matter, or perhaps not. That's the place
to criticize the democracy, not on the turnout.
Ron Hardin
> > It's the right to vote, and on what; not the vote.
>
> measure of democratic participation.
You have to show what it's measuring.
I wonder if you can say it without deverbal nouns (decision, participation, measure (?)).
Richard Harter
<pile...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
You were there to see it happen?
Richard Harter
>
>
>Richard Harter wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:07:11 GMT, Paul Ilechko
>> <pile...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Richard Harter wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:48:16 GMT, Paul Ilechko
>> >> <pile...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Don Teeter wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I was only saying I believe the American model is the best in existence
>> >> >> for leading humanity forward.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jingo bells, jingo bells, jingo all the way
>> >> >Oh what fun it is to live in America today
>> >> >
>> >> >..as long as you're not a Mexican migrant worker who gets beaten to a
>> >> >pulp for "reducing property values" standing on a corner trying to get
>> >> >minimum wage work.
>> >>
>> >> And are you a Mexican migrant worker who got beaten to a pulp for
>> >> "reducing property values" whilst standing on a corner trying to get
>> >> minimum wage work? If not, whereof do you speak?
>> >
>> >It happpened recently in Long Island.
>>
>> You were there to see it happen?
>
>Is there a point to this, Richard?
Was it a fact or an urban legend? Politicized rhetoric is rich in
little anecdotes that have scant substance. Welfare queens driving
cadillacs. Medicine costing more for people than dogs.
Richard Harter
>
>
>Richard Harter wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:09:41 -0400, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Richard Harter wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:07:11 GMT, Paul Ilechko
>> >> <pile...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Richard Harter wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:48:16 GMT, Paul Ilechko
>> >> >> <pile...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Don Teeter wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I was only saying I believe the American model is the best in existence
>> >> >> >> for leading humanity forward.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Jingo bells, jingo bells, jingo all the way
>> >> >> >Oh what fun it is to live in America today
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >..as long as you're not a Mexican migrant worker who gets beaten to a
>> >> >> >pulp for "reducing property values" standing on a corner trying to get
>> >> >> >minimum wage work.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And are you a Mexican migrant worker who got beaten to a pulp for
>> >> >> "reducing property values" whilst standing on a corner trying to get
>> >> >> minimum wage work? If not, whereof do you speak?
>> >> >
>> >> >It happpened recently in Long Island.
>> >>
>> >> You were there to see it happen?
>> >
>> >Is there a point to this, Richard?
>>
>> Was it a fact or an urban legend?
>
>Since when do you ask? Does it strike you as implausible, by any chance? Which part?
>A poor guy beaten up? A poor guy beaten up for being in the wrong neighborhood? Or
>are we merely wondering whether anybody would have the nerve to actually _name_
>property values in this context?
Actually the story sounds fishy - a Mexican migrant worker standing on
a street corner on Long Island? Naming property values as a reason
sounds implausible - "goddamn dirty greaser" sounds much more likely.
The kind of people that beat other people to a pulp generally aren't
the kind of people that babble about property values.
Be that as it may the original is, to all appearances, one of those
anonymous "facts" that get tossed around. It might be a real
incident; it might be a real incident that has been filtered with a
lot of spin; and it might simply be an urban legend.
> I still remember my bemusement at the "no loitering" signs and laws when I came
>to this country. Never expected that it could be a crime to hang out. A few years
>later, they set fire to the house of a black guy who moved into a white neighborhood
>that bordered on mine Baltimore. Do you want proof that 'property values' were
>involved?
The incident you mention doesn't sound like property values to me; it
sounds like run of the mill nasty racism. We have plenty of that in
this country.
Do I want proof that 'property values' were involved in what?
ted samsel
> >Since when do you ask? Does it strike you as implausible, by any chance? Which part?
> >A poor guy beaten up? A poor guy beaten up for being in the wrong neighborhood? Or
> >are we merely wondering whether anybody would have the nerve to actually _name_
> >property values in this context?
>
> Actually the story sounds fishy - a Mexican migrant worker standing on
> a street corner on Long Island?
Well, Elmesford, NY, in Westchester County has a rather sustantial
enclave
of Mexicans who are primarily employed as lawn mantenance and
horticultural
stoop labor in LonGuyLand and the up-scale burbs in the NYC environs.
Some cuts all that yanqui and pycckii mafiya grass.
And there are some decent mom&pop Mexican eateries in the area where one
can
get menudo, a tripe stew that is said to cure hangovers, on weekends.
Just like
home for me.
"Pa' un crudo/come menudo.."
--
TBSa...@infi.net
http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel/
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow (1914-1999)
THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
Paul Ilechko
Richard Harter wrote:
> >Since when do you ask? Does it strike you as implausible, by any chance? Which part?
> >A poor guy beaten up? A poor guy beaten up for being in the wrong neighborhood? Or
> >are we merely wondering whether anybody would have the nerve to actually _name_
> >property values in this context?
>
> Actually the story sounds fishy - a Mexican migrant worker standing on
> a street corner on Long Island? Naming property values as a reason
> sounds implausible - "goddamn dirty greaser" sounds much more likely.
> The kind of people that beat other people to a pulp generally aren't
> the kind of people that babble about property values.
This was a recent incident. Two mexicans were lured to an abandoned
warehouse, on the pretext of being given a job, and beaten up. The perps
haven't been caught yet, AFAIK. Locals were asked for comments, and some
complained about the immigrant workers reducing property values by
hanging out on street corners waiting for work. This was in all the NY
papers.
Anatoly Vorobey
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>smw wrote:
>> Let me be the first to tell you that your legal system is not precisely the envy of the
>> world at this point, and that a country where, what is it, 40? percent of the
>> population vote has no business putting itself forward as the haven of democracy.
>
>It's the right to vote, and on what; not the vote. The Soviets used to get 99.9%
>turnout.
You're underestimating us. I distinctly remember 99.98% coming up after
an election.
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
mel...@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
Richard Harter
Thank you for the amplification. It's much appreciated. I hope you
forgive me for harping on the matter but this is an excellent example
of how news gets transformed. Your original statement was:
..as long as you're not a Mexican migrant worker who gets beaten to a
pulp for "reducing property values" standing on a corner trying to get
minimum wage work.
How does this differ from your amplified explanation? Immigrant
workers have been converted into migrant workers. Comments of (some)
locals has been given as the motive of the unknown assailants. The
description is exaggerated ("were beaten" vs "beaten to a pulp").
This is the way these things are done. Details are culled out.
Events and actions are conflated. Dramatic exaggeration is added.
Persons are recategorized. Motives are attributed. Thus are truths
born.
Richard Harter
>
>
>Richard Harter wrote:
>
>> ...
>
>> > I still remember my bemusement at the "no loitering" signs and laws when I came
>> >to this country. Never expected that it could be a crime to hang out. A few years
>> >later, they set fire to the house of a black guy who moved into a white neighborhood
>> >that bordered on mine Baltimore. Do you want proof that 'property values' were
>> >involved?
>>
>> The incident you mention doesn't sound like property values to me; it
>> sounds like run of the mill nasty racism. We have plenty of that in
>> this country.
>
>Run of the mill nasty racism combined with "the neighborhood is going down" translating
>into concern with property values. Surely, we don't need to debate whether property
>values _are_ going down when a neighborhood turns from white to black? I'm amazed you
>think that the one can be separated from the other.
I am amazed that you can write anything so superficial.
Richard Harter
>
>
>Richard Harter wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:20:27 -0400, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Richard Harter wrote:
>> >
>> >> ...
>> >
>> >> > I still remember my bemusement at the "no loitering" signs and laws when I came
>> >> >to this country. Never expected that it could be a crime to hang out. A few years
>> >> >later, they set fire to the house of a black guy who moved into a white neighborhood
>> >> >that bordered on mine Baltimore. Do you want proof that 'property values' were
>> >> >involved?
>> >>
>> >> The incident you mention doesn't sound like property values to me; it
>> >> sounds like run of the mill nasty racism. We have plenty of that in
>> >> this country.
>> >
>> >Run of the mill nasty racism combined with "the neighborhood is going down" translating
>> >into concern with property values. Surely, we don't need to debate whether property
>> >values _are_ going down when a neighborhood turns from white to black? I'm amazed you
>> >think that the one can be separated from the other.
>>
>> I am amazed that you can write anything so superficial.
>>
>
>I was rather flabbergasted that I had to. But you're avoiding the issue -- are "nasty
>racism" and "concern for property value" separate issues or not?
Separate issues that may become intertwined.
Francis Muir
Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:27:00 GMT,
> Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >smw wrote:
> >> Let me be the first to tell you that your legal system is not precisely the envy of the
> >> world at this point, and that a country where, what is it, 40? percent of the
> >> population vote has no business putting itself forward as the haven of democracy.
> >
> >It's the right to vote, and on what; not the vote. The Soviets used to get 99.9%
> >turnout.
>
> You're underestimating us. I distinctly remember 99.98% coming up after
> an election.
I believe only the Oz have a better voting percentage and it leads to
some curious elections.
Stephen Hayes
Francis Muir wrote in a message to All:
FM> I see that our panegyricist of motorbikes in now at the University
FM> of Bath, UK. Bath the city used to be in Somerset and had been
FM> there for getting on for a couple of thousand years. But that was
FM> not good enough for some would-be rationalist busy-body with a
FM> measure of power who decided that Somerset was too large and got
FM> out his scissors and clipped off a chunk and called it Avon. Now
FM> why the hell would a new county be called Avon when every school
FM> kid knows that "avon" means "river" in Welsh? Luckily mail
FM> addressed to Bath, Somerset, England still gets there. --- NewsGate
FM> v1.0 gamma 1
I believe Avon has now been abandoned, though I'm not sure if the status quo
ante has been restored.
Actually some of those new and no more counties were quite convenient. Some of
my ancestors came from what was called, briefly, Humberside, and that was a
convenient geographical label. Now I have to say that they came from "the East
Riding of Yorkshire and the Isle of Axholme in Lincolnshire". "Humberside"
saved quite a bit of typing.
Keep well
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail: meth...@bigfoot.com
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.fmlynet.org
Sayan Bhattacharyya
> Bofors notwithstanding, Sweden has little to be ashamed of.
La paloma se murio', se murio' con un disparo,
La paloma se murio', se murio' con un disparo,
Un hombre estaba mirando con un fusil en la mano.
La paloma se murio', Senyores aqui presentes,
La paloma se murio', Senyores aqui presentes,
El hombre vendio' el fusil, siguio' causando la muerte.
Disparando contra hermanos, destruyendo continentes.
Ay que parabienes tristes tengo que cantar yo.
(Rolando Alarcon, `Parabien de la Paloma').
M J Carley
>
>I see that our panegyricist of motorbikes in now at the University of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Me, apparently)
>Bath, UK. Bath the city used to be in Somerset and had been there for
>getting on for a couple of thousand years. But that was not good enough
>for some would-be rationalist busy-body with a measure of power who
>decided that Somerset was too large and got out his scissors and clipped
>off a chunk and called it Avon.
It's worse. Bath is no longer in Somerset: it is Somerset. I pay my
local taxes to `Bath and North East Somerset' council. The police
charge goes to Somerset and Avon constabulary.
--
O makers of motorbikes and tractors! Builders of the Belfast and the
Titanic! Constructors of the Harlandic diesel electric locomotive
commissioned by the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway Company!
Francis Muir
Stephen Hayes wrote:
>
> FamilyNet HQ: Telnet:\\www.family-bbs.net
>
> Francis Muir wrote in a message to All:
>
> FM> I see that our panegyricist of motorbikes in now at the University
> FM> of Bath, UK. Bath the city used to be in Somerset and had been
> FM> there for getting on for a couple of thousand years. But that was
> FM> not good enough for some would-be rationalist busy-body with a
> FM> measure of power who decided that Somerset was too large and got
> FM> out his scissors and clipped off a chunk and called it Avon. Now
> FM> why the hell would a new county be called Avon when every school
> FM> kid knows that "avon" means "river" in Welsh? Luckily mail
> FM> addressed to Bath, Somerset, England still gets there. --- NewsGate
> FM> v1.0 gamma 1
>
> I believe Avon has now been abandoned, though I'm not sure if the status quo
> ante has been restored.
>
> Actually some of those new and no more counties were quite convenient. Some of
> my ancestors came from what was called, briefly, Humberside, and that was a
> convenient geographical label. Now I have to say that they came from "the East
> Riding of Yorkshire and the Isle of Axholme in Lincolnshire". "Humberside"
> saved quite a bit of typing.
If Avon has been abandoned then someone better tell Carley who posts
from there. As to 'East Riding of Yorkshire" there was never a need to
address that way; "Yorks" was always sufficient. The Thridings were
administrative entitities.
ObBook: Winifred Holtby's *South Riding*. Or not. A mythic thriding. The
1938 film is probably worthlooking at.
M J Carley
>If Avon has been abandoned then someone better tell Carley who posts
>from there. As to 'East Riding of Yorkshire" there was never a need to
Bath and North East Somerset, actually.
>address that way; "Yorks" was always sufficient. The Thridings were
>administrative entitities.
Funnily enough, I was born in North Yorks.
Francis Muir
>
> In the referenced article, fra...@stanford.edu writes:
>
> >If Avon has been abandoned then someone better tell Carley who posts
> >from there. As to 'East Riding of Yorkshire" there was never a need to
>
> Bath and North East Somerset, actually.
>
> >address that way; "Yorks" was always sufficient. The Thridings were
> >administrative entitities.
>
> Funnily enough, I was born in North Yorks.
Has anyone ever stopped to think what "funnily enough" really means?
Probably not.
M J Carley
>> Funnily enough, I was born in North Yorks.
>
>Has anyone ever stopped to think what "funnily enough" really means?
>Probably not.
`By a funny [strange] coincidence'?
Bruce McGuffin
ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
> Funnily enough, I have just been reading Christoper Hitchens on the
> American hatred of Sweden (initiated by Eisenhower). He pointed out
> that Sweden is a country which has lost Bernadotte and Palme, both of
> him did a lot more for world peace than most. Bernadotte,
> incidentally, used Swedish neutrality to give passports to thousands
> of Jews (more than many non-neutral countries did) and was murdered by
> the Stern gang (who were not neutral: they wanted an alliance with
> Hitler).
>
> Bofors notwithstanding, Sweden has little to be ashamed of.
Maybe you mean General Eisenhower, but I think American dislike for
Sweden [1] predates President Eisenhower.
My Grandmother was of pure Swedish extraction, and though she and
her parents were born in the US, she grew up speaking Swedish at
home. My father tells me that before WWII she was very proud to be
Swedish, but became embarassed about it during the war. I can't
remember her talking about Sweden, or about being Swedish, although
it wasn't a "thing" either (nobody ever told me "don't mention
Sweden to Grandma").
My Grandmother reportedly had had a slight Swedish accent, but
worked hard to overcome it in her 40's, during the war years.
When I knew her she had no discernable accent, unless you count
mid-western.
Bruce McGuffin
[1] I can't say that I've observe any anti-Swedish sentiment since the
mid-70's, when the cold war started getting colder [2], except for one
of my co-workers who has a Norwegian flag on the wall of his office.
Isn't that just like a norsky?
[2] Swedish joke, Ca. 1970: Swedish foreign policy gives new dimensions
in meaning to the word chicken-shit.
-Mammel,L.H.
Francis Muir <fra...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>M J Carley wrote:
>>
>> Funnily enough, I was born in North Yorks.
>
>Has anyone ever stopped to think what "funnily enough" really means?
>Probably not.
Indeed, I stopped and thought about it when I saw the cited line.
It appears to be the conversion of the ejaculation, "That's funny!"
into an adverbial phrase, and as such it's something of a joke -
an ironic notation on the impulse itself, or as Nietzsche put it,
"an epigram on the death of a feeling."
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Richard Harter
wrote:
>In the referenced article, fra...@stanford.edu writes:
>>M J Carley wrote:
>
>>> Funnily enough, I was born in North Yorks.
>>
>>Has anyone ever stopped to think what "funnily enough" really means?
>>Probably not.
>
>`By a funny [strange] coincidence'?
Someone should write an essay about the replacement of 'odd' and
'strange' by 'funny'. On one side there is room for fulminations
about the debasement of the language as precise terms are replaced by
fuzzy terms. On the other there is scope for theories about the
sources of humor.
Someone probably already has.