[Economy 101] I'd Love To Change The World
David Loewe, Jr.
"This year, the deep pockets of New York's rich were tapped like never
before. The state's wealthiest pay new higher income tax rates, higher
taxes for limousines and yachts, more to enter a horse in a race and
more to dabble in real estate.
Meanwhile, many are losing millions from the closing of business tax
loopholes and those making over $1 million are losing tax deductions
others get.
Now, early revenue figures suggest that taxing the wealthy more under
this year's state budget may have driven away richer New Yorkers. That
could make the economic comeback for the state even harder.
"You heard the mantra, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich,' " Gov. David
Paterson said Wednesday at a gathering of newspaper editors at an
Associated Press event in Syracuse. "We've done that. We've probably
lost jobs and driven people out of the state.""
I. Told. You. So.
"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
--
"Tax the rich, feed the poor
till there are no rich no more."
Alvin Lee
Jette Goldie
> >
> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
That woman should be stripped of her title and strung up in effigy on
the corner of Threadneedle Street.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
David Loewe, Jr.
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
>> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
>> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
>
>That woman should be stripped of her title and strung up in effigy on
>the corner of Threadneedle Street.
That woman should be a Duchess.
--
"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
characteristic of them."
- Margaret Thatcher
Dorothy J Heydt
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:52 +0100, Jette Goldie
><jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
>>> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
>>> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
>>
>>That woman should be stripped of her title and strung up in effigy on
>>the corner of Threadneedle Street.
>
>That woman should be a Duchess.
That all?
The one time I visited Britain, the one-pound coin was fairly
new, and people were calling it "the Thatcher" because "it's
thick and brassy and thinks it's a sovereign."
N.B. for my fellow Yanks: wondering "why Threadneedle Street"?
I looked it up. That's where the Bank of England is. If you
look on Wikipedia you'll find claims that it used to be
called something else altogether and function as the local
red-light district. Plus ca change, plus c'est la memsahib.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=845434&category=STATE
>
> "You heard the mantra, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich,' " Gov. David
> Paterson said Wednesday at a gathering of newspaper editors at an
> Associated Press event in Syracuse. "We've done that. We've probably
> lost jobs and driven people out of the state.""
>
> I. Told. You. So.
You told us that politicians are too lazy to look up the facts? Or
that he wishes his state was more like Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota? Those are the
states that had a less negative 12-month % change in total non-farm
employment than New York.
Source:
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.me.htm
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Kip Williams
> In article <4monb5tus99qj6ml8...@4ax.com>,
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:52 +0100, Jette Goldie
>> <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>>> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
>>>> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
>>>> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
>>> That woman should be stripped of her title and strung up in effigy on
>>> the corner of Threadneedle Street.
>> That woman should be a Duchess.
>
> That all?
"My Last Duchess."
Kip W
browning
David Friedman
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
You think that fairly describes Jette's attitude to Thatcher?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." wrote:
>>
>> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=845434&category=STATE
>>
>> "You heard the mantra, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich,' " Gov. David
>> Paterson said Wednesday at a gathering of newspaper editors at an
>> Associated Press event in Syracuse. "We've done that. We've probably
>> lost jobs and driven people out of the state.""
>>
>> I. Told. You. So.
>
>You told us that politicians are too lazy to look up the facts? Or
>that he wishes his state was more like Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana,
>Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota?
I told you people would leave over taxes. Even Governor Paterson admits
now that it is true.
>Those are the states that had a less negative 12-month % change in total
>non-farm employment than New York.
>
>Source:
>http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.me.htm
--
"Nursing does not diminish the beauty of a woman's breasts;
it enhances their charm by making them look lived in and
happy"
-Lazarus Long
Keith F. Lynch
> Paterson said Wednesday at a gathering of newspaper editors at
> an Associated Press event in Syracuse. "We've done that. We've
> probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state.""
> I. Told. You. So.
Where are the rich going to flee when Obama raises taxes sufficiently
on the rich and just the rich to pay for medical care for everyone?
I think if he stripped every millionaire of every asset, leaving every
one of them homeless and starving, that should finance unlimited free
medical care for every American for about a month. I wonder what
he'll do the following month?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> "You heard the mantra, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich,'" Gov. David
>> Paterson said Wednesday at a gathering of newspaper editors at
>> an Associated Press event in Syracuse. "We've done that. We've
>> probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state.""
>
>> I. Told. You. So.
>
>Where are the rich going to flee when Obama raises taxes sufficiently
>on the rich and just the rich to pay for medical care for everyone?
>
>I think if he stripped every millionaire of every asset, leaving every
>one of them homeless and starving, that should finance unlimited free
>medical care for every American for about a month. I wonder what
>he'll do the following month?
Doing the math, If you confiscated the net worth of the top 6 Americans
(as measured on the 2008 Forbes 400 list) you'd have more than enough
money to cover total US health care spending for a month (as measured in
2007).
http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358
http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/16/forbes-400-billionaires-lists-400list08_cx_mn_0917richamericans_land.html
--
"Caught between the longing for love
And the struggle for the legal tender"
Clyde J. Browne
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
> "David Loewe, Jr." wrote:
>>
>> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=845434&category=STATE
>>
>> "You heard the mantra, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich,' " Gov. David
>> Paterson said Wednesday at a gathering of newspaper editors at an
>> Associated Press event in Syracuse. "We've done that. We've probably
>> lost jobs and driven people out of the state.""
>>
>> I. Told. You. So.
>
> You told us that politicians are too lazy to look up the facts? Or
> that he wishes his state was more like Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana,
> Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota? Those are the
> states that had a less negative 12-month % change in total non-farm
> employment than New York.
>
> Source:
> http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.me.htm
The economy of Maine at a glance?
I think the one you're looking for is:
<http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstch.htm>
New York ties with Illinois and Missouri for 28th lowest increase, but
has a lower absolute unemployment than either.
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Kip Williams
> In article <ApSum.14590$tG1....@newsfe22.iad>,
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <4monb5tus99qj6ml8...@4ax.com>,
>>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:52 +0100, Jette Goldie
>>>> <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>>>>> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
>>>>>> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
>>>>>> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
>>>>> That woman should be stripped of her title and strung up in effigy on
>>>>> the corner of Threadneedle Street.
>>>> That woman should be a Duchess.
>>> That all?
>> "My Last Duchess."
>
> You think that fairly describes Jette's attitude to Thatcher?
Why would it?
Kip W
Climb Ev'ry Molehill...
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:52 +0100, Jette Goldie
>><jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
>>>> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
>>>> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
>>>
>>>That woman should be stripped of her title and strung up in effigy on
>>>the corner of Threadneedle Street.
>>
>>That woman should be a Duchess.
>
>That all?
>
>The one time I visited Britain, the one-pound coin was fairly
>new, and people were calling it "the Thatcher" because "it's
>thick and brassy and thinks it's a sovereign."
Remember, the UK is the country that showed it's gratitude to Churchill
by showing him the door.
--
"If tempted by something that feels "altruistic", examine your
motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still
want to do it, wallow in it!"
-Lazarus Long
Dorothy J Heydt
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:09:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:52 +0100, Jette Goldie
>>><jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
>>>>> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
>>>>> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
>>>>
>>>>That woman should be stripped of her title and strung up in effigy on
>>>>the corner of Threadneedle Street.
>>>
>>>That woman should be a Duchess.
>>
>>That all?
>>
>>The one time I visited Britain, the one-pound coin was fairly
>>new, and people were calling it "the Thatcher" because "it's
>>thick and brassy and thinks it's a sovereign."
>
>Remember, the UK is the country that showed it's gratitude to Churchill
>by showing him the door.
Well, AFAIK they wanted like hell to get rid of the Tory
government and get Labour in, and apparently quite a few of
the voters didn't realize till after the fact that getting
rid of Tory meant getting rid of Churchill.
And they voted him back in in, when was it, 1952?
David Friedman
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <ApSum.14590$tG1....@newsfe22.iad>,
> > Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >>> In article <4monb5tus99qj6ml8...@4ax.com>,
> >>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:52 +0100, Jette Goldie
> >>>> <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
> >>>>>> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
> >>>>>> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
> >>>>>> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
> >>>>> That woman should be stripped of her title and strung up in effigy on
> >>>>> the corner of Threadneedle Street.
> >>>> That woman should be a Duchess.
> >>> That all?
> >> "My Last Duchess."
> >
> > You think that fairly describes Jette's attitude to Thatcher?
>
> Why would it?
It was your addition to the thread.
If I wanted to defend it, the argument would be that Jette wants a
politician who will mirror Jette's desires and policies, not act on her
own judgement of what's best for the country. Just as the Duke wanted a
Duchess who would value only him. The fact that Thatcher did things
other than what Jette wanted her to proves she was an evil person who
deserves execution.
Jette is, after all, proposing more or less the same treatment for
Thatcher that the Duke applied to the Duchess.
It's a bit stretched, but I couldn't think of a better way of following
onto your line.
Colette Reap
>If I wanted to defend it, the argument would be that Jette wants a
>politician who will mirror Jette's desires and policies, not act on her
>own judgement of what's best for the country.
One of the many troubles with Thatcher was that she didn't act on her
own judgement, as you, of all people, should be well aware.
--
Colette
Carol Hague
>The fact that Thatcher did things
> other than what Jette wanted her to proves she was an evil person who
> deserves execution.
I think you missed the part of Jette's post that said *in effigy* .
She was proposing that Mrs T should be hung in a symbolic fashion, not
literally.
--
Carol. www.mullimages.com
"This might as well say "bing tiddle tiddle bong".
It's complete gibberish," - Rodney McKay, Stargate: Atlantis
Paul Dormer
dlo...@mindspring.com (David Loewe, Jr.) wrote:
>
> That woman should be a Duchess.
Why a duchess? That's not an honour, merely a title given to wives of
dukes. She can easily become a duchess - she's not currently married so
all she has to do is find an eligible duke. And all a duke is is someone
whose ancestor had a wife who was the king's mistress.
She is a member of the Order of Merit, which is about as high as honours
go. (There are only 24 at any one time.) It amuses me that she was
member whilst Sir Michael Tippett was a member. The composer was a gay
pacifist who served time as a conscientious objector during WWII,
probably as far from Thatcher as you can get.
Robert Sneddon
<djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>Well, AFAIK they wanted like hell to get rid of the Tory
>government
The key phrase was "A land fit for heroes". The troops being demobbed
weren't going to accept going back to the old ways of a few robber
barons running the economy into the ground and heaven help the hindmost.
Labour planned and implemented sweeping changes to the UK's social
structure with a State pension scheme, the NHS, nationalisation of many
of the heavy industries. The Tories promised little and were given the
boot.
> and get Labour in, and apparently quite a few of
>the voters didn't realize till after the fact that getting
>rid of Tory meant getting rid of Churchill.
Winston was an indifferent Conservative -- he was actually Liberal for
most of his political career and only swung towards the Conservatives in
the 30s because of the question of Empire and the necessity to rearm.
>
>And they voted him back in in, when was it, 1952?
1951 through 1955, in part as a reaction to Labour's continued
Austerity programme -- Britain was still rationing children's sweets
when Germany had abolished such rationing.
Winston made an indifferent peacetime Prime Minister; he was given the
task of continuing the dismantling of the Empire against his wishes, and
he was getting on in years by this time (he was 76 years old in 1951,
really too old to be asked to run a country).
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
David V. Loewe, Jr
Dormer) wrote:
>dlo...@mindspring.com (David Loewe, Jr.) wrote:
>
>> That woman should be a Duchess.
>
>Why a duchess? That's not an honour, merely a title given to wives of
>dukes.
I mean as an inheritable title. Like Princess Alexandria, Duchess Of
Fife was able to hold the Duchy. The Dukedom Of Marlborough is
inheritable in the female line.
>She can easily become a duchess - she's not currently married so
>all she has to do is find an eligible duke. And all a duke is is someone
>whose ancestor had a wife who was the king's mistress.
Eh? The Duke Of Kent? The Duke Of Gloucester? The Duke Of York? The
Duke Of Edinburgh? The Duke Of Wellington? The Duke Of Marlborough?
>She is a member of the Order of Merit, which is about as high as honours
>go. (There are only 24 at any one time.) It amuses me that she was
>member whilst Sir Michael Tippett was a member. The composer was a gay
>pacifist who served time as a conscientious objector during WWII,
>probably as far from Thatcher as you can get.
--
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all."
- James Graham, Marquis of Montrose
Tim McDaniel
Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4monb5tus99qj6ml8...@4ax.com>,
>dlo...@mindspring.com (David Loewe, Jr.) wrote:
>
>> That woman should be a Duchess.
>
>Why a duchess? That's not an honour, merely a title given to wives
>of dukes.
Poppycock. Ladies can be peeresses in their own right. Almost all
remainders go to the heir male of the body legally begotten, but a
fair number of peers got special remainders due to, e.g., not having
sons (e.g. Mountbatten's marquisate).
The larger problems are
- the traditional peerage for a former Prime Minister was a county.
Offering a duchy to Churchill was quite exceptional.
- Since the life peerage act in the 1960s, no new hereditary peerages
have been created, except for members of the royal family (and I
think only upon marriage). And by that act, modern life peerages
can be only a barony.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
David Friedman
ca...@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >The fact that Thatcher did things
> > other than what Jette wanted her to proves she was an evil person who
> > deserves execution.
>
> I think you missed the part of Jette's post that said *in effigy* .
>
> She was proposing that Mrs T should be hung in a symbolic fashion, not
> literally.
Fair enough.
But it's the feeling that counts.
David Friedman
Colette Reap <col...@lspace.org> wrote:
On the contrary. Part of acting on one's own judgement is judging which
experts to believe.
Paul Dormer
wrote:
>
> - Since the life peerage act in the 1960s, no new hereditary peerages
> have been created, except for members of the royal family (and I
> think only upon marriage). And by that act, modern life peerages
> can be only a barony.
Not true. Harold MacMillan became Earl of Stockton, an hereditary title,
in 1984. His grandson is the current Earl.
Carol Hague
> In article <1j6llbi.l7desdawwj6vN%ca...@wrhpv.com>,
> ca...@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) wrote:
>
> > David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The fact that Thatcher did things
> > > other than what Jette wanted her to proves she was an evil person who
> > > deserves execution.
> >
> > I think you missed the part of Jette's post that said *in effigy* .
> >
> > She was proposing that Mrs T should be hung in a symbolic fashion, not
> > literally.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> But it's the feeling that counts.
I think the feeling Jette expressed is that there should be public
recognition of how badly the Iron Lady screwed up the UK banking system
(if I am wrong about that, my apologies).
I mean, we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year over here, but it
doesn't mean we actually advocate burning people alive, even ones who
try to blow up Parliament.
Dorothy J Heydt
Carol Hague <ca...@wrhpv.com> wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1j6llbi.l7desdawwj6vN%ca...@wrhpv.com>,
>> ca...@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) wrote:
>>
>> > David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >The fact that Thatcher did things
>> > > other than what Jette wanted her to proves she was an evil person who
>> > > deserves execution.
>> >
>> > I think you missed the part of Jette's post that said *in effigy* .
>> >
>> > She was proposing that Mrs T should be hung in a symbolic fashion, not
>> > literally.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> But it's the feeling that counts.
>
>I think the feeling Jette expressed is that there should be public
>recognition of how badly the Iron Lady screwed up the UK banking system
>(if I am wrong about that, my apologies).
>
>I mean, we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year over here, but it
>doesn't mean we actually advocate burning people alive, even ones who
>try to blow up Parliament.
No, you laugh at them and pass around cups of tea.
http://tyrell.livejournal.com/154027.html
Brett Paul Dunbar
Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> writes
Two other non royal hereditary peerages were created after 1965. George
Thomas was created Viscount Tonypandy and William Whitelaw Viscount
Whitelaw. As Tonypandy was gay and Whitelaw had four daughters but no
sons both titles are now extinct as there was no heir. There are also
two royal hereditary peerages created during the period; Duke of York
and Earl of Wessex.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Paul Dunbar
To email me, use reply-to address
Carol Hague
> In article <1j6m47f.btpgcy14n0zi1N%ca...@wrhpv.com>,
> Carol Hague <ca...@wrhpv.com> wrote:
> >I mean, we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year over here, but it
> >doesn't mean we actually advocate burning people alive, even ones who
> >try to blow up Parliament.
>
> No, you laugh at them and pass around cups of tea.
>
> http://tyrell.livejournal.com/154027.html
Well yes, but we do that *anyway*... :-)
Tim McDaniel
Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <memo.2009092...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>, Paul
>Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> writes
>>In article <h9ip35$8b6$1...@reader1.panix.com>, tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> - Since the life peerage act in the 1960s, no new hereditary peerages
>>> have been created, except for members of the royal family (and I
>>> think only upon marriage). And by that act, modern life peerages
>>> can be only a barony.
>>
>>Not true. Harold MacMillan became Earl of Stockton, an hereditary title,
>>in 1984. His grandson is the current Earl.
>
>Two other non royal hereditary peerages were created after 1965. George
>Thomas was created Viscount Tonypandy and William Whitelaw Viscount
>Whitelaw.
Thank you for the corrections.
>As Tonypandy was gay and Whitelaw had four daughters but no sons both
>titles are now extinct as there was no heir.
They presumably had heirs general. They didn't have heirs male
of the body lawfully begotten, the requirement in most remainders.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Jette Goldie
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:52 +0100, Jette Goldie
>> <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>>> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
>>>> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
>>>> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
>>> That woman should be stripped of her title and strung up in effigy on
>>> the corner of Threadneedle Street.
>
>
> The one time I visited Britain, the one-pound coin was fairly
> new, and people were calling it "the Thatcher" because "it's
> thick and brassy and thinks it's a sovereign."
>
They're still called "Maggies"
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Jette Goldie
Churchill was a war time prime minister - he didn't have the mind set
to be a good peace time PM. Thatcher was pretty good during the
Falklands - and would probably have done a better job of the first
Gulf war than her successor. In fact we probably wouldn't have had a
second.
But she almost destroyed this country (some parts more than others) -
and we're still finding the messes that her apparently successful
policies created.
Jette Goldie
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1j6llbi.l7desdawwj6vN%ca...@wrhpv.com>,
>> ca...@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) wrote:
>>
>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that Thatcher did things
>>>> other than what Jette wanted her to proves she was an evil person who
>>>> deserves execution.
>>> I think you missed the part of Jette's post that said *in effigy* .
>>>
>>> She was proposing that Mrs T should be hung in a symbolic fashion, not
>>> literally.
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> But it's the feeling that counts.
>
> I think the feeling Jette expressed is that there should be public
> recognition of how badly the Iron Lady screwed up the UK banking system
> (if I am wrong about that, my apologies).
No, you got that exactly right.
>
> I mean, we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year over here, but it
> doesn't mean we actually advocate burning people alive, even ones who
> try to blow up Parliament.
>
--
Brett Paul Dunbar
<jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>Carol Hague wrote:
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1j6llbi.l7desdawwj6vN%ca...@wrhpv.com>,
>>> ca...@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that Thatcher did things other than what Jette wanted
>>>>>her to proves she was an evil person who
>>>>> deserves execution.
>>>> I think you missed the part of Jette's post that said *in effigy* .
>>>>
>>>> She was proposing that Mrs T should be hung in a symbolic fashion, not
>>>> literally.
>>> Fair enough.
>>> But it's the feeling that counts.
>> I think the feeling Jette expressed is that there should be public
>> recognition of how badly the Iron Lady screwed up the UK banking system
>> (if I am wrong about that, my apologies).
>
>No, you got that exactly right.
I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher. Britain went from a
position where our GDP was, on at least some estimates slightly lower
than Italy's to a situation where it comfortably exceeds France's. Much
of this growth was in the financial services. Yes we have had a major
crisis but these just seem to be one of those things that happen no
matter how your banking sector is structured [1] and we did get a lot of
benefit from the sector during the previous thirty years. We went from
consistently growing less than the rest of the G7 to consistently
growing more. Even with the recent recession we have had a higher
overall growth rate so are still better off than we would be if we
hadn't specialised in financial services.
[1] For example not having big banks doesn't really help; during the
Great Depression the US suffered a massive crisis wiping out 40%
of the banking sector as small interconnected local banks
collapsed in a chain reaction of bank runs. Britain already had
the structure of a handful of giant banks and had no bank runs
at all.
Keith F. Lynch
> The key phrase was "A land fit for heroes". The troops being
> demobbed weren't going to accept going back to the old ways of a few
> robber barons running the economy into the ground and heaven help
> the hindmost. Labour planned and implemented sweeping changes to
> the UK's social structure
That begs the question of whether the changes were an improvement for
the veterans or for anyone else. And why didn't the same thing happen
after the previous war?
> with a State pension scheme, ...
That looks very strange. In American English, the word "scheme" has
a strong connotation of nefarious underhanded fraudulent doings.
Karl Johanson
news:h9h0b6$23o$5...@reader1.panix.com...
>> Paterson said Wednesday at a gathering of newspaper editors at
>> an Associated Press event in Syracuse. "We've done that. We've
>> probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state.""
>
>> I. Told. You. So.
>
> on the rich and just the rich to pay for medical care for everyone?
>
> I think if he stripped every millionaire of every asset, leaving every
> one of them homeless and starving, that should finance unlimited free
> medical care for every American for about a month. I wonder what
> he'll do the following month?
That sounds like a fun game. I'll try.
If Obama starts a mud pie fight on Wall Street, I wonder what he'll do the
following month?
Karl Johanson
Colette Reap
>I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher.
Depending which part of the UK one lives in and/or which industry one
works/worked in, I suspect the you might find that the consensus of
opinion for significant chunks of the affected populations is that the
words 'fair' and 'Thatcher' do not belong together in the same
universe, let alone the same sentence.
(Notwithstanding the GDP thing, but to most people that is a remote
concept; people are more likely to think about is things that directly
impact their daily lives - and while her policies may have raised GDP,
they also caused a lot of pain and grief to a *lot* of people.)
--
Colette
David Friedman
Colette Reap <col...@lspace.org> wrote:
The problem with such a statement--not just in the case of Thatcher but
any politician--is that your "caused" includes an implicit assumption
about the alternative, what would have happened if someone else had been
Prime Minister. We can have varying opinions about that, but we can't
know--we don't get to run parallel time lines and watch.
It isn't easy to distinguish between "she cut spending on something
important to me because she was a wicked, selfish person" and "she cut
spending on something important to me because the money wasn't there to
spend, and if she hadn't cut that she would have had to cut something
else more important to other people and perhaps to me."
Jette Goldie
> In article <jqdrb591ias1vibm4...@4ax.com>,
> Colette Reap <col...@lspace.org> wrote:
>
>> Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher.
>> Depending which part of the UK one lives in and/or which industry one
>> works/worked in, I suspect the you might find that the consensus of
>> opinion for significant chunks of the affected populations is that the
>> words 'fair' and 'Thatcher' do not belong together in the same
>> universe, let alone the same sentence.
>>
>> (Notwithstanding the GDP thing, but to most people that is a remote
>> concept; people are more likely to think about is things that directly
>> impact their daily lives - and while her policies may have raised GDP,
>> they also caused a lot of pain and grief to a *lot* of people.)
>
> The problem with such a statement--not just in the case of Thatcher but
> any politician--is that your "caused" includes an implicit assumption
> about the alternative, what would have happened if someone else had been
> Prime Minister. We can have varying opinions about that, but we can't
> know--we don't get to run parallel time lines and watch.
>
> It isn't easy to distinguish between "she cut spending on something
> important to me because she was a wicked, selfish person" and "she cut
> spending on something important to me because the money wasn't there to
> spend, and if she hadn't cut that she would have had to cut something
> else more important to other people and perhaps to me."
>
When you have whole towns and communities whose major industries
ceased to exist and an entire generation were made jobless, it's more
than "something important to me".
Then there's her policies on housing - part of which ties into that
whole "sub prime mortgages" thing - and transport.
And many haven't forgiven her for something she did before she even
became PM. Do you know that rickets are reappearing in inner city
children? We had wiped that out - we thought - with milk and vitamins
to every child.
David G. Bell
<1j6mcgt.706t7lno30rjN%ca...@wrhpv.com> ca...@wrhpv.com
"Carol Hague" wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j6m47f.btpgcy14n0zi1N%ca...@wrhpv.com>,
> > Carol Hague <ca...@wrhpv.com> wrote:
>
> > >I mean, we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year over here, but it
> > >doesn't mean we actually advocate burning people alive, even ones who
> > >try to blow up Parliament.
> >
> > No, you laugh at them and pass around cups of tea.
> >
> > http://tyrell.livejournal.com/154027.html
>
> Well yes, but we do that *anyway*... :-)
There was a pilot TV program for "The UXB Factor" but Simon Cowell said
he wouldn't be a judge unless Hermann Goering was a contestant.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
Andy Leighton
><jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>>Carol Hague wrote:
>>> I think the feeling Jette expressed is that there should be public
>>> recognition of how badly the Iron Lady screwed up the UK banking system
>>> (if I am wrong about that, my apologies).
>>
>>No, you got that exactly right.
>
> I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher.
Even if you are the most fervent supporter of Thatcher's ideals (and I'm
not anywhere close to being one of these) would you want to give her
a hereditary honour considering her criminal and corrupt son? The family
has already been given one hereditary honour, a baronetcy for Denis -
presumably for putting up with her for so long, which has been passed
on.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Lee Ratner
and that is what is important to some people rather than the results
for the multitudes. Thats why we do not have universal healthcare in
the United States, because it would prevent honest business people
from making money off the suffering of the people. We have turned
sociopathy into a virtue.
Philip Chee
> And many haven't forgiven her for something she did before she even
> became PM. Do you know that rickets are reappearing in inner city
> children? We had wiped that out - we thought - with milk and vitamins
> to every child.
Wow. I remember when the phrase "Maggie Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" was
current currency.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Support wildlife, throw a party.
* TagZilla 0.066.6
Robert Sneddon
<k...@KeithLynch.net> writes
>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The key phrase was "A land fit for heroes". The troops being
>> demobbed weren't going to accept going back to the old ways of a few
>> robber barons running the economy into the ground and heaven help
>> the hindmost. Labour planned and implemented sweeping changes to
>> the UK's social structure
>
>That begs the question of whether the changes were an improvement for
>the veterans or for anyone else.
The concensus is yes, very much so. The NHS is supported widely by all
the population and is a third-rail for any political party here much as
the defence budget is in the US.
> And why didn't the same thing happen
>after the previous war?
The Labour party was not as strong then as it was after WW2 and WW1 was
neither as harsh or as long -- very few bombs landed on British soil for
example. Attempts to socialise the UK in the inter-war period led to
events like the General Strike in 1926 with troops and armoured cars
deployed on the streets to keep order.
>> with a State pension scheme, ...
My mistake, the State pension was introduced much earlier.
UK workers and employers pay National Insurance Contributions (NIC) to
the Government based on a percentage of earnings with a top limit. I
think this is similar in structure to Social Security contributions in
the US. The NI funds are not ring-fenced, they are pooled with all other
Treasury funds. The Government pays a basic pension to all qualifying
citizens, scaled depending on their contribution record (this is
complicated by compensating factors for people with periods of
unemployment, long-term chronic illness etc. where their contribution
record is spotty). Theory says these NICs also cover the costs of
running the NHS to make it free at the point of use (no co-pays or other
such silliness) but as I said the NICs are not ring-fenced so the NHS is
funded directly from the Exchequer instead.
Paul Dormer
br...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Brett Paul Dunbar) wrote:
> As Tonypandy was gay
Of course, that doesn't stop him continuing the title if he'd really
wanted to. :-)
Documentary on TV recently about the Wagner family. Siegfried, Richard
Wagner's son, was gay, but his mother found a suitable candidate to be
his wife, just so the Wagner line could be continued. (This was the
English born Winnifred, who later got quite friendly with Hitler, but
that's another story.)
Jette Goldie
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:44:09 +0100,
> Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <h9jh3e$12t$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jette Goldie
>> <jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>>> Carol Hague wrote:
>
>>>> I think the feeling Jette expressed is that there should be public
>>>> recognition of how badly the Iron Lady screwed up the UK banking system
>>>> (if I am wrong about that, my apologies).
>>> No, you got that exactly right.
>> I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher.
>
> Even if you are the most fervent supporter of Thatcher's ideals (and I'm
> not anywhere close to being one of these) would you want to give her
> a hereditary honour considering her criminal and corrupt son? The family
> has already been given one hereditary honour, a baronetcy for Denis -
> presumably for putting up with her for so long, which has been passed
> on.
>
Her daughter is no gem either.
David Loewe, Jr.
<lbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 26, 3:42�am, Jette Goldie <jgoldie...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> David Friedman wrote:
People die of starvation and malnutrition. Are farmers "making money
off the suffering of people"?
--
"Oh a sleeping drunkard up in Central Park
Or the lion hunter in the jungle dark
Or the chinese dentist or the British Queen
They all fit together in the same machine"
-Vonnegut, Pack, Puerta, Drummond & North
David Loewe, Jr.
<fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes
>>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The key phrase was "A land fit for heroes". The troops being
>>> demobbed weren't going to accept going back to the old ways of a few
>>> robber barons running the economy into the ground and heaven help
>>> the hindmost. Labour planned and implemented sweeping changes to
>>> the UK's social structure
>>
>>That begs the question of whether the changes were an improvement for
>>the veterans or for anyone else.
>
> The concensus is yes, very much so. The NHS is supported widely by all
>the population and is a third-rail for any political party here much as
>the defence budget is in the US.
Defense spending is not a the third-rail of US politics. That would be
Social Security.
>> And why didn't the same thing happen after the previous war?
>
> The Labour party was not as strong then as it was after WW2 and WW1 was
>neither as harsh
Excuse me?
Battle Of The Somme, anyone? Didn't the entire population of young men
in certain villages disappear?
>or as long -- very few bombs landed on British soil for
>example. Attempts to socialise the UK in the inter-war period led to
>events like the General Strike in 1926 with troops and armoured cars
>deployed on the streets to keep order.
--
"I would take even money that England will not exist in
the year 2000."
Paul Ehrlich 1969
Karl Johanson
> "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
> They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
> characteristic of them." - Baroness Thatcher
Thank goodness Baroness Thatcher is in a position to make such an accusation
without any trace of sanctimoniousness, considering that she never tried to
implement her own political ideas with tax money(ironic mark).
Karl Johanson
Brett Paul Dunbar
<col...@lspace.org> writes
>Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher.
>
>Depending which part of the UK one lives in and/or which industry one
>works/worked in, I suspect the you might find that the consensus of
>opinion for significant chunks of the affected populations is that the
>words 'fair' and 'Thatcher' do not belong together in the same
>universe, let alone the same sentence.
While that might be true; it doesn't make it a reasonable attitude.
An odd fact is that output in the coal industry declined less as a
percentage under Thatcher than it did either before or after her.
<Http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7950000/newsid_7952300/795
2388.stm>
The decline in output, in percentages:
11 years of Thatcher: 33%
11 years before Thatcher: 45%
11 years after Thatcher (Major and Blair): 72%
11 years of New Labour (Blair and Brown): 64%
This isn't the popular perception to say the least.
>
>(Notwithstanding the GDP thing, but to most people that is a remote
>concept; people are more likely to think about is things that directly
>impact their daily lives - and while her policies may have raised GDP,
>they also caused a lot of pain and grief to a *lot* of people.)
GDP reflects fairly directly the amount of wealth the nation
collectively possesses which rather directly affects both employment and
government revenue. An increased GDP is a reflection of something that
is fairly directly beneficial.
T Guy
> I mean, we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year over here, but it
> doesn't mean we actually advocate burning people alive, even ones who
> try to blow up Parliament.
(T Guy):
I always think of Guy Fawkes' Night as the commemoration of a valiant
yet failed attempt.
T G
T Guy
Remember, the UK is the country that showed it's gratitude to
Churchill by showing him the door.
(T Guy):
The post of Prime Minister is based on manifesto commitments, not
gratitude for past performance.
T Guy
David Harmon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>
>That woman should be a Duchess.
"If everybody minded their own business, the world would go round a deal
faster than it does."
David Harmon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>People die of starvation and malnutrition. Are farmers "making money
>off the suffering of people"?
When they lobby for farm price support programs that pay them for _not_
growing food, then yes.
David Friedman
<53f265e3-b274-4688...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Lee Ratner <lbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is always one explanation of why other people disagree with you
about what is best for the country--that it's because they are wicked
people. Certainly less trouble than actually trying to understand the
arguments that convince them of a different conclusion than yours.
And since, of course, you know with certainty that your beliefs are
true, it wouldn't be worth the trouble anyway.
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Ah but some people were making lots of money because of Thatcher
> >and that is what is important to some people rather than the results
> >for the multitudes. Thats why we do not have universal healthcare in
> >the United States, because it would prevent honest business people
> >from making money off the suffering of the people. We have turned
> >sociopathy into a virtue.
>
> People die of starvation and malnutrition. Are farmers "making money
> off the suffering of people"?
"Who grindeth for thy greed
Man's belly pinch and need
And the blood of man for filthy usury"
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/peace_of_dives.html
On my short list of works of literature that do a good job of making an
economic point.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
There is more than enough food to feed the world.
Thank you, Norman Borlaug.
--
"I pissed a lot of people off today. I'm good at that."
-- Tim Masterson
David Friedman
David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
And biofuel programs to drive up the world price of food.
David Friedman
<922ddd45-a11c-4552...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
I had a similar reaction to the initial post, although I wouldn't put it
in terms of "manifesto commitments." Gratitude is a good reason to thank
someone, perhaps to give him honors or a pension. It's a bad reason to
give someone a job--that ought to be because you think he can do it well.
There is no inconsistency in British voters believing that Churchill did
a magnificent job of being a wartime Prime Minister but would do a poor
job of being a peacetime Prime Minister. Whether they were correct I
don't know.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> > Ah but some people were making lots of money because of Thatcher
>> >and that is what is important to some people rather than the results
>> >for the multitudes. Thats why we do not have universal healthcare in
>> >the United States, because it would prevent honest business people
>> >from making money off the suffering of the people. We have turned
>> >sociopathy into a virtue.
>>
>> People die of starvation and malnutrition. Are farmers "making money
>> off the suffering of people"?
>
>"Who grindeth for thy greed
>Man's belly pinch and need
>And the blood of man for filthy usury"
>
>http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/peace_of_dives.html
And, yet, we're not calling for "free" distribution of all food stuffs.
Yet.
>On my short list of works of literature that do a good job of making an
>economic point.
--
"Molon labe!"
- Leonidas
Colette Reap
>In message <jqdrb591ias1vibm4...@4ax.com>, Colette Reap
><col...@lspace.org> writes
>>Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher.
>>
>>Depending which part of the UK one lives in and/or which industry one
>>works/worked in, I suspect the you might find that the consensus of
>>opinion for significant chunks of the affected populations is that the
>>words 'fair' and 'Thatcher' do not belong together in the same
>>universe, let alone the same sentence.
>
>While that might be true; it doesn't make it a reasonable attitude.
But then it's very difficult to be reasonable when you've been
terrified that you can't pay your mortgage or your other bills and
there are no jobs in your area and you've been out of work for months
and your marriage/family is cracking under the strain...
>
>An odd fact is that output in the coal industry declined less as a
>percentage under Thatcher than it did either before or after her.
>
<snip coal figures>
Hm - interesting - thanks for that.
--
Colette
Jette Goldie
Coal wasn't one of the industries I was thinking of - though in fact
the Scottish coalfields didn't "decline" under Thatcher - they just
ceased to exist.
Paul Ciszek
In article <239807c9-1005-4bbc...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
What was so commendable about trying to put a Catholic on the thone,
and remove whatever check might have exsited on the power of the
crown? Isn't that what Fawkes was trying to do?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Robert Sneddon
<br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>An odd fact is that output in the coal industry declined less as a
>percentage under Thatcher than it did either before or after her.
>
><Http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7950000/newsid_7952300/795
>2388.stm>
>
>The decline in output, in percentages:
>
> 11 years of Thatcher: 33%
> 11 years before Thatcher: 45%
> 11 years after Thatcher (Major and Blair): 72%
> 11 years of New Labour (Blair and Brown): 64%
>
>This isn't the popular perception to say the least.
Coal mining is an extractive industry and the UK has been extracting
coal on an industrial scale for longer than anyone else -- I describe
coal as literally fuelling the Industrial Revolution. By the time of
Thatcher many of the existing coal areas had been seriously depleted and
it was only with the introduction of wide-scale mechanisation in the
1950s and 1960s (and the resultant loss of jobs) that the remaining coal
could be recovered at a reasonable cost. At the same time we could
import subsidised coal from Eastern Europe (paid for in hard currency)
to feed power stations.
Robert Sneddon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:16:23 +0100, Robert Sneddon
><fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The concensus is yes, very much so. The NHS is supported widely by all
>>the population and is a third-rail for any political party here much as
>>the defence budget is in the US.
>
>Defense spending is not a the third-rail of US politics. That would be
>Social Security.
President GW Bush spent a large part of his first term in office making
great efforts to try and privatise Social Security, to hand the funds
and future contributions over to Wall Street investors with the
whole-hearted support of the Republican Party in Congress and he then
went on to win a second term with a clear popular majority. Nobody
threatens to cut the defense budget and survives and prospers in US
politics. Guns are infinitely more important than butter in the American
psyche.
>>> And why didn't the same thing happen after the previous war?
>>
>> The Labour party was not as strong then as it was after WW2 and WW1 was
>>neither as harsh
>
>Excuse me?
>
>Battle Of The Somme, anyone? Didn't the entire population of young men
>in certain villages disappear?
WW1 killed about half the number of British soldiers that WWII did
(going from memory) and it killed a handful of civilians in Britain. The
war monument in my home town (population 10,000 when I was born there in
1955, a bit less earlier) had a couple of hundred names on it. Most of
them were from WWII, not the Great War. Remember we were also fighting
in Asia after Japan attacked British interests there.
William December Starr
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
> I told you people would leave over taxes. Even Governor Paterson
> admits now that it is true.
It looks like this is the old "race to the bottom" problem, just
viewed from a different angle.
An at least partial solution is to do things at the _federal_ level,
since abandoning one's nation and citizenship is a significantly
bigger life-change than merely moving from one state to another.
Even for the rich.
-- wds
William December Starr
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>
>>> You think that fairly describes Jette's attitude to Thatcher?
>>
>> Why would it?
>
> It was your addition to the thread.
>
> If I wanted to defend it, the argument would be that Jette wants a
> politician who will mirror Jette's desires and policies, not act
> on her own judgement of what's best for the country. Just as the
> Duke wanted a Duchess who would value only him. The fact that
> Thatcher did things other than what Jette wanted her to proves she
> was an evil person who deserves execution.
This is why people don't bother arguing with you anymore.
Well, why I don't anyway.
-- wds
William December Starr
Lee Ratner <lbra...@gmail.com> said:
> Ah but some people were making lots of money because of Thatcher
> and that is what is important to some people rather than the
> results for the multitudes. Thats why we do not have universal
> healthcare in the United States, because it would prevent honest
> business people from making money off the suffering of the
> people. We have turned sociopathy into a virtue.
"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that sociopathy, for lack of
a better word, is good. Sociopathy is right, sociopathy works.
Sociopathy clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of
the evolutionary spirit."
The sad thing is, I bet there are a lot of people who support that.
-- wds
William December Starr
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
> Remember, the UK is the country that showed it's gratitude to
> Churchill by showing him the door.
Is "They decided that the properties that make for a great wartime
leader might not make for the sort of post-wartime leader they
wanted" an any less valid way of expressing what happened?
-- wds
William December Starr
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> said:
> Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> with a State pension scheme, ...
>
> That looks very strange. In American English, the word "scheme"
> has a strong connotation of nefarious underhanded fraudulent
> doings.
In Keith American English, perhaps. In the American English that I
know the word has a variety of definitions, and which one applies is
dependent upon the context of its usage.
-noun
1. a plan, design, or program of action to be followed; project.
2. an underhand plot; intrigue.
3. a visionary or impractical project.
4. a body or system of related doctrines, theories, etc.: a
scheme of philosophy.
5. any system of correlated things, parts, etc., or the manner of
its arrangement.
6. a plan, program, or policy officially adopted and followed, as
by a government or business: The company's pension scheme is very
successful.
7. an analytical or tabular statement.
8. a diagram, map, or the like.
9. an astrological diagram of the heavens.
-- Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, ) Random House, Inc. 2009.
-- wds
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The concensus is yes, very much so. The NHS is supported widely
>> by all the population and is a third-rail for any political party
>> here much as the defence budget is in the US.
>
> Defense spending is not a the third-rail of US politics. That
> would be Social Security.
I'd say that Robert has it right, conceptually. It's true that when
U.S. politicians or political observers talk about the idea of
making cuts to Social Security there's always the ritual invocation
that it'll never happen because Social Security is the third rail of
American politics, but note that (slight exaggeration) they don't
even *talk about* cutting defense spending.
If it isn't the third rail, it's only because it's something even
more instantly and completely lethal.
-- wds
William December Starr
Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> said:
> Churchill was a war time prime minister - he didn't have the mind
> set to be a good peace time PM. Thatcher was pretty good during
> the Falklands - and would probably have done a better job of the
> first Gulf war than her successor. In fact we probably wouldn't
> have had a second.
Do you mean that you think she could have persuaded George H.W. Bush
to override the advice he was getting from his people re not trying
to conquer Iraq-slash-capture/kill/topple Saddam Hussein, or just
that she would have had the British elements of the Coalition of the
Willing go ahead and do it on their own?
-- wds
Thomas Womack
Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> WW1 killed about half the number of British soldiers that WWII did
>(going from memory) and it killed a handful of civilians in Britain.
Wrong way round; according to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission
relayed through Wikipedia, WW1 killed just under 900,000 British
soldiers (1.95% of the population), as well as excess civilian deaths
of around 100,000 due to lack of food.
WW2 killed 383,000 British soldiers (0.8% of the population), and
about 61,000 British civilians died in bombings.
I think it would be unusual if any village that didn't host a large
WW2 air base or military hospital had more WW2 deaths than WW1.
However, twice as many German soldiers died in WW2 as in WW1.
Tom
j...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<ddfr-4D3E70.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com (David Friedman) wrote:
> There is no inconsistency in British voters believing that Churchill
> did a magnificent job of being a wartime Prime Minister but would do
> a poor job of being a peacetime Prime Minister. Whether they were
> correct I don't know.
He did become PM in the 1950s. While he didn't mess up utterly, he
wasn't outstanding in the way he was during wartime. Of course, he was
somewhat older by then.
Sometimes the British public seems to just want a change, and one can
certainly imagine them wanting a fairly drastic change after six years
of the privations of WWII.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> >
> I mean, we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year over here, but it
> doesn't mean we actually advocate burning people alive, even ones who
> try to blow up Parliament.
>
Fawkes was sentenced to be strangled within an inch of his life and
then drawn-and-quartered. He only escaped this by his own actions. I
think celebrating this event by burning him in effigy does say quite
a lot about the English people, and none of it good. Changing the
effigy to Thatcher doesn't improve things.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
David V. Loewe, Jr
<fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes
>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:16:23 +0100, Robert Sneddon
>><fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The concensus is yes, very much so. The NHS is supported widely by all
>>>the population and is a third-rail for any political party here much as
>>>the defence budget is in the US.
>>
>>Defense spending is not a the third-rail of US politics. That would be
>>Social Security.
>
> President GW Bush spent a large part of his first term in office making
>great efforts to try and privatise Social Security, to hand the funds
>and future contributions over to Wall Street investors
That is just wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_privatization#George_W._Bush.27s_privatization_proposal
"On February 2, 2005, Bush made Social Security a prominent theme of his
State of the Union Address. In this speech, which sparked the debate, it
was Plan II of CSSS's report that Bush outlined as the starting point
for changes in Social Security. He outlined, in general terms, a
proposal based on partial privatization. After a phase-in period,
workers currently less than 55 years old would have the option to set
aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in individual
accounts that could be invested in the private sector, in "a
conservative mix of bonds and stock funds"."
And so we see that W was going to allow a *portion* (thus *partial*
privatization) of the funds *if the individual account holder wanted to
do so* to be handed "over to Wall Street investors."
>with the whole-hearted support of the Republican Party in Congress and
>he then went on to win a second term with a clear popular majority.
...from the previously cited URL...
"President George W. Bush discussed the "partial privatization" of
Social Security since the beginning of his presidency in 2001. But only
after winning re-election in 2004 did he begin to invest his "political
capital" in pursuing changes in earnest."
So, no, not until after he had faced the voters for the last time did he
really try to do anything about it.
>Nobody threatens to cut the defense budget and survives and prospers in
>US politics. Guns are infinitely more important than butter in the
>American psyche.
As an American voter much closer to the issue than you are, I call
"Bullshit!" Remember the "Peace Dividend"?
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/u_s_military_spending
Look at that graph and note how defense spending declines from 1985
until 1997 or so?
>>>> And why didn't the same thing happen after the previous war?
>>>
>>> The Labour party was not as strong then as it was after WW2 and WW1 was
>>>neither as harsh
>>
>>Excuse me?
>>
>>Battle Of The Somme, anyone? Didn't the entire population of young men
>>in certain villages disappear?
>
> WW1 killed about half the number of British soldiers that WWII did
>(going from memory) and it killed a handful of civilians in Britain. The
>war monument in my home town (population 10,000 when I was born there in
>1955, a bit less earlier) had a couple of hundred names on it. Most of
>them were from WWII, not the Great War. Remember we were also fighting
>in Asia after Japan attacked British interests there.
And this is wrong as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_by_1914_borders
UK Military deaths: 885,138
UK Civilian deaths: 109,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country
UK Military deaths: 382,700
UK Civilian deaths: 67,100
--
"Does any one know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
Gordon Lightfoot
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>> Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The concensus is yes, very much so. The NHS is supported widely
>>> by all the population and is a third-rail for any political party
>>> here much as the defence budget is in the US.
>>
>> Defense spending is not a the third-rail of US politics. That
>> would be Social Security.
>
>I'd say that Robert has it right, conceptually. It's true that when
>U.S. politicians or political observers talk about the idea of
>making cuts to Social Security there's always the ritual invocation
>that it'll never happen because Social Security is the third rail of
>American politics, but note that (slight exaggeration) they don't
>even *talk about* cutting defense spending.
Then explain this
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/u_s_military_spending graph to us,
William.
>If it isn't the third rail, it's only because it's something even
>more instantly and completely lethal.
Then how did President Clinton get re-elected?
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
I'm going to have to chime in here and opine that definition 2 has quite
a following. I wouldn't go so far as "a strong connotation," but there
definitely is a connotation "of underhand plot" when used by Joe Six
Pack.
--
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people."
Paul Ehrlich 1969
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>
>> Remember, the UK is the country that showed it's gratitude to
>> Churchill by showing him the door.
>
>Is "They decided that the properties that make for a great wartime
>leader might not make for the sort of post-wartime leader they
>wanted" an any less valid way of expressing what happened?
Given what someone else has already said, "No."
--
"I think between us, Bill Clinton and I have settled any
lingering myths about the brilliance of Rhodes scholars."
Kris Kristofferson
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_exile
--
"God was knocking on the door. And He wanted in real bad."
Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle - Footfall
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> David Friedman wrote:
>>>>
>> The problem with such a statement--not just in the case of Thatcher
>> but any politician--is that your "caused" includes an implicit
>> assumption about the alternative, what would have happened if someone
>> else had been Prime Minister. We can have varying opinions about that,
>> but we can't know--we don't get to run parallel time lines and watch.
>> It isn't easy to distinguish between "she cut spending on something
>> important to me because she was a wicked, selfish person" and "she cut
>> spending on something important to me because the money wasn't there
>> to spend, and if she hadn't cut that she would have had to cut
>> something else more important to other people and perhaps to me."
>>
>
> When you have whole towns and communities whose major industries ceased
> to exist and an entire generation were made jobless, it's more than
> "something important to me".
>
Objection, John Henry Fallacy.
Major industries have disappeared throughout history. No one mourns
for the telegraphers, the telephone switchboard operators, the
wainwrights, or the blacksmiths -- though the latter two raised
great hue and cry when industrialization claimed their crafts. Do
you think the governments that let those jobs disappear did anything
wrong? Do you think the government should preserve cashier jobs by
preventing stores from switching to self-serve or automated checkouts?
Sean O'Hara
> Thats why we do not have universal healthcare in
> the United States, because it would prevent honest business people
> from making money off the suffering of the people. We have turned
> sociopathy into a virtue.
Objection, begging the question.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:44:09 +0100,
>> I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher.
>
> not anywhere close to being one of these) would you want to give her
> a hereditary honour considering her criminal and corrupt son? The family
> has already been given one hereditary honour, a baronetcy for Denis -
> presumably for putting up with her for so long, which has been passed
> on.
>
Well, I think the British should've stripped their "nobility" of all
titles and lands centuries ago and shipped them to Tasmania.
And you know, it's never too late.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> >
> Churchill was a war time prime minister - he didn't have the mind set to
> be a good peace time PM. Thatcher was pretty good during the Falklands
> - and would probably have done a better job of the first Gulf war than
> her successor. In fact we probably wouldn't have had a second.
>
How would she've done that? Taking down Hussein wasn't politically
viable -- the Saudis and Turks wouldn't've supported it, and there
would've been too much chance of giving the Iranians an opening.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Andy Leighton
>declared:
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:44:09 +0100,
>> Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher.
>>
>> Even if you are the most fervent supporter of Thatcher's ideals (and I'm
>> not anywhere close to being one of these) would you want to give her
>> a hereditary honour considering her criminal and corrupt son? The family
>> has already been given one hereditary honour, a baronetcy for Denis -
>> presumably for putting up with her for so long, which has been passed
>> on.
>
>Well, I think the British should've stripped their "nobility" of all
>titles and lands centuries ago and shipped them to Tasmania.
This doesn't seem very respectful of property rights.
>And you know, it's never too late.
--
"Pay no attention to what the critics say; there has never been set up
a statue in honor of a critic."
- Jean Sibelius
T Guy
>
> > Remember, the UK is the country that showed it's gratitude to
> > Churchill by showing him the door.
>
>
> > The post of Prime Minister is based on manifesto commitments, not
> > gratitude for past performance.
(David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> ):
> I had a similar reaction to the initial post, although I wouldn't put it
> in terms of "manifesto commitments." Gratitude is a good reason to thank
> someone, perhaps to give him honors or a pension. It's a bad reason to
> give someone a job--that ought to be because you think he can do it well.
>
> There is no inconsistency in British voters believing that Churchill did
> a magnificent job of being a wartime Prime Minister but would do a poor
> job of being a peacetime Prime Minister.
(T Guy):
Yes. In fact, this is how I would have expressed it had I been
slightly less irritated with DVL.
Or, as WDS suggests, "They decided that the properties that make for a
great wartime
leader might not make for the sort of post-wartime leader they
wanted."
(David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> ):
Whether they were correct I don't know.
(T Guy):
I'd say yes if we are ignoring the question of what the word 'correct'
means and acknowledging that History isn't Chemistry. We do not have a
control Great Britain to compare with Attlee's Britain, much less one
where Churchill was returned in 1945.
T Guy
David Friedman
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
Or at least, a lot who believe that that's what other people believe.
You have surely seen the right wing equivalent--Ayn Rand provides
examples. The reason liberals are liberals is that they hate excellence,
want to grind everyone down to a uniform level. That sort of thing.
Reflect on your reactions to "explanations" of that sort, and apply the
result, mutatis mutandis.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Karl Johanson
news:lo2vb5l9bp8gfv8t0...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:06:34 -0400, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Andy Leighton
>>declared:
>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:44:09 +0100,
>>> Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't think you are being fair to Thatcher.
>>>
>>> Even if you are the most fervent supporter of Thatcher's ideals (and I'm
>>> not anywhere close to being one of these) would you want to give her
>>> a hereditary honour considering her criminal and corrupt son? The
>>> family
>>> has already been given one hereditary honour, a baronetcy for Denis -
>>> presumably for putting up with her for so long, which has been passed
>>> on.
>>
>>Well, I think the British should've stripped their "nobility" of all
>>titles and lands centuries ago and shipped them to Tasmania.
>
> This doesn't seem very respectful of property rights.
Or Tasmania!
Karl Johanson
Carol Hague
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Carol Hague
> declared:
> > >
> > I mean, we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year over here, but it
> > doesn't mean we actually advocate burning people alive, even ones who
> > try to blow up Parliament.
> >
>
> Fawkes was sentenced to be strangled within an inch of his life and
> then drawn-and-quartered. He only escaped this by his own actions. I
> think celebrating this event by burning him in effigy does say quite
> a lot about the English people, and none of it good.
I doubt that half the people who let off fireworks in November (it has
spread through most of the month, I'm sorry to say) know much more about
Guy Fawkes than his name.
And condemning a whole nation because we had (admittedly) inhumane
punishments for criminals four hundred years ago seems a bit silly to
me.
I mean, if you want to have a go at the English, I'm sure we've done
something horrid more recently than that.
--
Carol. www.mullimages.com
"This might as well say "bing tiddle tiddle bong".
It's complete gibberish," - Rodney McKay, Stargate: Atlantis
David Friedman
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
A perfectly reasonable position, if one takes it for granted that
governments, on the whole, will do good things.
On the other hand, you probably regard competition between firms as a
feature, not a bug--would be less happy with a system where firms were
not constrained in their treatment of customers by the risk of losing
them. For those of us with a more realistic view of governments, the
same argument applies to them.
Tim Illingworth
wrote:
>In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Jette Goldie
>declared:
>>
>> When you have whole towns and communities whose major industries ceased
>> to exist and an entire generation were made jobless, it's more than
>> "something important to me".
>>
>
>Objection, John Henry Fallacy.
>
>Major industries have disappeared throughout history. No one mourns
>for the telegraphers, the telephone switchboard operators, the
>wainwrights, or the blacksmiths -- though the latter two raised
>great hue and cry when industrialization claimed their crafts. Do
>you think the governments that let those jobs disappear did anything
>wrong? Do you think the government should preserve cashier jobs by
>preventing stores from switching to self-serve or automated checkouts?
In this case, the previous Government had been propping up these
zombie industries because they were full of their voters. The new
Government had no such interest, and let them go to the wall. Thus it
required a policy change by government, and so is seen as "deliberate
action" by those affected.
Tim
David Friedman
> WW1 killed about half the number of British soldiers that WWII did
> (going from memory) and it killed a handful of civilians in Britain. The
> war monument in my home town (population 10,000 when I was born there in
> 1955, a bit less earlier) had a couple of hundred names on it. Most of
> them were from WWII, not the Great War. Remember we were also fighting
> in Asia after Japan attacked British interests there.
That surprised me, so I checked Wikipedia.
WWI:
U.K. population 45.4 million, military deaths 885,000, civilian 109,000
WWII:
U.K. population 47.8 million, military deaths 383,000, civilian 67,000
So you have it backwards. WWI killed more than twice as many British
soldiers as WWII, and considerably more civilians.
David Loewe, Jr.
<Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> ( "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>):
>>
>> > Remember, the UK is the country that showed it's gratitude to
>> > Churchill by showing him the door.
>>
>> > (T Guy):
>>
>> > The post of Prime Minister is based on manifesto commitments, not
>> > gratitude for past performance.
>
>(David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> ):
>
>> I had a similar reaction to the initial post, although I wouldn't put it
>> in terms of "manifesto commitments." Gratitude is a good reason to thank
>> someone, perhaps to give him honors or a pension. It's a bad reason to
>> give someone a job--that ought to be because you think he can do it well.
>>
>> There is no inconsistency in British voters believing that Churchill did
>> a magnificent job of being a wartime Prime Minister but would do a poor
>> job of being a peacetime Prime Minister.
>
>(T Guy):
>
>Yes. In fact, this is how I would have expressed it had I been
>slightly less irritated with DVL.
What was so irritating about what I wrote?
>Or, as WDS suggests, "They decided that the properties that make for a
>great wartime
>leader might not make for the sort of post-wartime leader they
>wanted."
>
>(David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> ):
>
>Whether they were correct I don't know.
>
>(T Guy):
>
>I'd say yes if we are ignoring the question of what the word 'correct'
>means and acknowledging that History isn't Chemistry. We do not have a
>control Great Britain to compare with Attlee's Britain, much less one
>where Churchill was returned in 1945.
--
"One cries foul and will not speak
The other claims a little victory
And all the time you know we fail to see
This is the language of love"
Dan Fogelberg
Thomas Womack
>declared:
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>>>>
>>> The problem with such a statement--not just in the case of Thatcher
>>> but any politician--is that your "caused" includes an implicit
>>> assumption about the alternative, what would have happened if someone
>>> else had been Prime Minister. We can have varying opinions about that,
>>> but we can't know--we don't get to run parallel time lines and watch.
>>> It isn't easy to distinguish between "she cut spending on something
>>> important to me because she was a wicked, selfish person" and "she cut
>>> spending on something important to me because the money wasn't there
>>> to spend, and if she hadn't cut that she would have had to cut
>>> something else more important to other people and perhaps to me."
>>>
>>
>> When you have whole towns and communities whose major industries ceased
>> to exist and an entire generation were made jobless, it's more than
>> "something important to me".
>>
>
>Objection, John Henry Fallacy.
>
>Major industries have disappeared throughout history.
This is true; and a side-effect of this in the modern day has been the
consecutive disappearance of the idea of the hereditable job -- the
miners that Thatcher abolished were the sons of miners and the
grandsons of miners: who now has the trade of his grandfather? -- the
idea of the job for life, and pretty much by now the idea of the
career.
I don't think anyone knows how to handle this properly; Dilbert
pointed out that the tricks that made co-workers into communities had
been exploited to the point that they were now dead, and there's a
corrosive position that insists that work is the way to fulfilment
without noticing that fulfiling work isn't and has never been terribly
common, then tries to deny the necessity for fulfilment, which is
really not an approach you can take with humans.
The free market's answer to people with substantial but obsolete
skills is to treat them as unskilled, which interacts really badly
with the social scoring system in our primate brains; and the
unskilled jobs (in which, of course, conditions are pushed to the
bottom by the press of applicants, particularly if you've ended up
with tens of thousands of people simultaneously made redundant in the
same area) don't make money enough to maintain a lathe in the shed and
make little brass steam-engines, which is about the only shape of
fulfilment that I've seen work reasonably well for obsolete
machinists.
This is the kind of hole the escape from which requires new
philosophy; Marx is somewhat discredited, but we need an analysis of
his level of solidity. Maybe Confucius has something like an answer,
maybe what can be done is to endure, but that's a bugger of a creed to
sell. Maybe someone will figure out a way of teaching languages
efficiently enough that people can start migrating world-wide to where
the work is, but that doesn't work when the expected living standards
in Sheffield and Saigon are so different.
Tom
Thomas Womack
>declared:
>> >
>> Churchill was a war time prime minister - he didn't have the mind set to
>> be a good peace time PM. Thatcher was pretty good during the Falklands
>> - and would probably have done a better job of the first Gulf war than
>> her successor. In fact we probably wouldn't have had a second.
>>
>
>How would she've done that? Taking down Hussein wasn't politically
>viable -- the Saudis and Turks wouldn't've supported it, and there
>would've been too much chance of giving the Iranians an opening.
And? The Iranians are not monsters, and I'm not quite sure to who's
profit it is that Americans seem to have been trained so virulently to
dislike them; the Middle East being mostly ruled from Persia is a
circumstance that has prevailed for fair fractions of the last three
millenia, and I get the impression that for most of the last fifty
years life for the man (and particularly for the woman) in the street
has been better in Tehran than in Riyadh.
Tom
David Loewe, Jr.
>Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Carol Hague
>> declared:
>> > >
>> > I mean, we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year over here, but it
>> > doesn't mean we actually advocate burning people alive, even ones who
>> > try to blow up Parliament.
>> >
>>
>> Fawkes was sentenced to be strangled within an inch of his life and
>> then drawn-and-quartered. He only escaped this by his own actions. I
>> think celebrating this event by burning him in effigy does say quite
>> a lot about the English people, and none of it good.
>
>I doubt that half the people who let off fireworks in November (it has
>spread through most of the month, I'm sorry to say) know much more about
>Guy Fawkes than his name.
>
>And condemning a whole nation because we had (admittedly) inhumane
>punishments for criminals four hundred years ago seems a bit silly to
>me.
>
>I mean, if you want to have a go at the English, I'm sure we've done
>something horrid more recently than that.
South African concentration camps, perhaps?
--
"Khan...I'm laughing at the superior intellect."
Admiral James T. Kirk
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I think the British should've stripped their "nobility" of
>> all titles and lands centuries ago and shipped them to Tasmania.
>
> This doesn't seem very respectful of property rights.
"Get off this estate."
"What for?"
"Because it's mine."
"Where'd you get it?"
"From my father"
"Where'd he get it?"
"From his father."
"And where did he get it?"
"He fought for it."
"Well, I'll fight you for it."
Carl Sandburg, "The People, Yes."
It certainly seems that there has to be some element of "The status
quo's been the status quo for so long now that the law is going to
recognize it as legitimate regardless of how it came to be" in a
property-rights regime. But that's not to say that it has to trump
all.
-- wds
William December Starr
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
> Then explain this
> http://www.nationalpriorities.org/u_s_military_spending graph to
> us, William.
>
>> If it isn't the third rail, it's only because it's something even
>> more instantly and completely lethal.
>
> Then how did President Clinton get re-elected?
Hmm. Does it work better if I say "Cut defense spending without the
consent of the Deptartment of Defense and the military"?
-- wds
T Guy
condemning a whole nation because we had (admittedly) inhumane
> >punishments for criminals four hundred years ago seems a bit silly to
> >me.
>
> >I mean, if you want to have a go at the English, I'm sure we've done
> >something horrid more recently than that.
("David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> ):
> South African concentration camps, perhaps?
(T Guy):
Nope. Have another try.
T Guy
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> In article <7i9emjF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How would she've done that? Taking down Hussein wasn't politically
>> viable -- the Saudis and Turks wouldn't've supported it, and there
>> would've been too much chance of giving the Iranians an opening.
>
> And? The Iranians are not monsters,
Of course not. It's their government that's monstrous.
http://mashable.com/2009/06/21/neda/
> and I'm not quite sure to who's
> profit it is that Americans seem to have been trained so virulently to
> dislike them;
You are aware of events in the Iranian Revolution? And their
government's stance on the US? And their stance on Israel?
> the Middle East being mostly ruled from Persia is a
> circumstance that has prevailed for fair fractions of the last three
> millenia, and I get the impression that for most of the last fifty
> years life for the man (and particularly for the woman) in the street
> has been better in Tehran than in Riyadh.
>
And if there was a way we could take down the House of Saud without
wrecking the global economy, I'd be all for it. But from a
geopolitical outlook that's not going to happen, and an increase in
Iranian power in the region would not be good for the US or Europe.
As for your "fifty years" claim, I'm not so sure about that. My
understanding is that the Saudis were liberalizing their society
until the attack on Mecca, which was only thirty years ago.
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> It looks like this is the old "race to the bottom" problem, just
>> viewed from a different angle.
>>
>> An at least partial solution is to do things at the _federal_ level,
>> since abandoning one's nation and citizenship is a significantly
>> bigger life-change than merely moving from one state to another.
>> Even for the rich.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_exile
Yes some Americans do that, or would if if the federal tax burden on
the wealthy went up. But without having numbers, my gut feeling is
"not many." It's a pretty _big_ change to one's life.
-- wds