French Election Upset
Mike Scott
not representing mainstream French society. It appears (from early
results) that the odious National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has
probably beaten Lionel Jospin (who is currently Prime Minister) in the
first round of the French presidential election, thus ensuring that the
secound round contest is between Le Pen and the incumbent Jacques
Chirac.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1942000/1942612.stm
--
Mike Scott
mi...@plokta.com
Niall McAuley
> It appears (from early results) that the odious National Front leader
> Jean-Marie Le Pen has probably beaten Lionel Jospin (who is currently
> Prime Minister) in the first round of the French presidential election,
> thus ensuring that the secound round contest is between Le Pen and the
> incumbent Jacques Chirac.
Well, a) this means Chirac wins, no second round needed, biggest majority
ever, b) look at all those Nazis, and c) how long before someone blames
the Israelis for making Nazi-ism fahsionable. Timestamp: 23:38.
--
Niall [real address ends in ie, not ei.invalid]
David T. Bilek
Ah, France. That basion of freedom, tolerance, friendly people, and
good government.
Oh wait, never mind.
-David
O. Deus
>OK, I take back anything I may have said elsewhere about racist attacks
>not representing mainstream French society. It appears (from early
>results) that the odious National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has
>probably beaten Lionel Jospin (who is currently Prime Minister) in the
>first round of the French presidential election, thus ensuring that the
>secound round contest is between Le Pen and the incumbent Jacques
>Chirac.
Hmm...wasn't France pushing for sanctions against Austria. Irony can be so
ironic sometimes, especially when it's becoming quite clear that a large
portion of the French public is so sick of things as they are, that they're
prepeared to vote for a fascist.
Shane Stezelberger
<gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> wrote:
>Well, a) this means Chirac wins, no second round needed, biggest majority
>ever, b) look at all those Nazis, and c) how long before someone blames
>the Israelis for making Nazi-ism fahsionable. Timestamp: 23:38.
Can I be first to blame them?
:-(
--
Shane Stezelberger
sstezel at erols dot kom
Laurel, MD
Andy Leighton
> ironic sometimes, especially when it's becoming quite clear that a large
> portion of the French public is so sick of things as they are, that they're
> prepeared to vote for a fascist.
But that is exactly the point isn't it? It isn't much of a protest vote
if you vote for another mainstream candidate. I am sure that a lot of people
voted FN as a kick up the arse for the mainstream.
It seems to me that the situation was caused by amongst others a high degree
of protest votes and low turnout. I hardly think that large proportions of
the French public have switched their support to FN, indeed there have been
some vox pop with people having a "What have we done!" reaction.
--
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_
mike stone
>
>I hardly think that large proportions of
>the French public have switched their support to FN, indeed there have been
>some vox pop with people having a "What have we done!" reaction.
They've done exactly what they set out to do - given the Establishment pols a
shock which will hopefully leave some of them in need of a change of underwear.
Other than that they have done _nothing_ which they can't correct on the second
ballot - the first one is nothing but a glorified opinion poll - serious voting
is done in the second round
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
Last words of King Edward II.
"I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - - AAARGHH!!!"
mike weber
>>From: Andy Leighton an...@azaal.plus.com
>>
>
>>I hardly think that large proportions of
>>the French public have switched their support to FN, indeed there have been
>>some vox pop with people having a "What have we done!" reaction.
>
>They've done exactly what they set out to do - given the Establishment pols a
>shock which will hopefully leave some of them in need of a change of underwear.
>Other than that they have done _nothing_ which they can't correct on the second
>ballot - the first one is nothing but a glorified opinion poll - serious voting
>is done in the second round
>
Wish our system worked that way, which might have allowed a few of the
Nader "protest" voters to come to their senses in time...
--
"Let me take my chances on the Wall of Death" -- R.Thompson
<mike weber> <mike....@electronictiger.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Kristopher
> Niall McAuley wrote:
>
>> Well, a) this means Chirac wins, no second round needed, biggest
>> majority ever, b) look at all those Nazis, and c) how long before
>> someone blames the Israelis for making Nazi-ism fahsionable.
>> Timestamp: 23:38.
>
> Can I be first to blame them?
>
> :-(
Only if you'd also like to be the first to be killfiled for it.
Kristopher
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> mws...@aol.com (mike stone) typed
> >They've done exactly what they set out to do - given the Establishment pols a
> >shock which will hopefully leave some of them in need of a change of underwear.
> >Other than that they have done _nothing_ which they can't correct on the second
> >ballot - the first one is nothing but a glorified opinion poll - serious voting
> >is done in the second round
> >
> Wish our system worked that way, which might have allowed a few of the
> Nader "protest" voters to come to their senses in time...
That's why a lot of us support Instant Runoff Voting
(Hugo-ballot style). (You can substitute "Perot" for
"Nader" in mike's last sentence, if it makes you feel
better.)
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
hasn't supported a successful Presidential candidate EVER
(been voting since 1972, backing candidates since 1964)
Arwel Parry
<an...@azaal.plus.com> writes
>On 22 Apr 2002 04:08:04 GMT, O. Deus <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> ironic sometimes, especially when it's becoming quite clear that a large
>> portion of the French public is so sick of things as they are, that they're
>> prepeared to vote for a fascist.
>
>But that is exactly the point isn't it? It isn't much of a protest vote
>if you vote for another mainstream candidate. I am sure that a lot of people
>voted FN as a kick up the arse for the mainstream.
Indeed. The usual saying is that the French vote with their heart in the
first round and with their head in the second, but they've come unstuck
this time because the vote was so fragmented. There were 13 other
candidates apart from Chirac, Jospin and Le Pen, and they got nearly 50%
of the votes between them.
>It seems to me that the situation was caused by amongst others a high degree
>of protest votes and low turnout. I hardly think that large proportions of
>the French public have switched their support to FN, indeed there have been
>some vox pop with people having a "What have we done!" reaction.
There was hardly any change between left wing and right wing parties
compared to the 1995 presidential election (40%:60%). On the right, Le
Pen got 2% more, Chirac got 1% less. The big change was on the left
where Jospin lost 7%, but there were 6 other candidates to take his
potential votes.
There will be a lot of people holding their noses in two weeks time, and
voting for Chirac, but he's now reckoned to be going to get up to 80% of
the votes in the second round.
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
Dan Goodman
news:3CC458C0...@uwm.edu:
> mike weber wrote:
>>
>> mws...@aol.com (mike stone) typed
>> >They've done exactly what they set out to do - given the
>> >Establishment pols a shock which will hopefully leave some of them
>> >in need of a change of underwear. Other than that they have done
>> >_nothing_ which they can't correct on the second ballot - the first
>> >one is nothing but a glorified opinion poll - serious voting is done
>> >in the second round
>> >
>> Wish our system worked that way, which might have allowed a few of
>> the Nader "protest" voters to come to their senses in time...
Speaking for myself, I _did_ come to my senses in time -- thanks to Gore
supporters in the media and in professional politics, who dissuaded me from
voting for him. They kept yapping about how it was my duty to vote for a
candidate who had made a point of taking the Democratic Party back from
people like me.
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> There was hardly any change between left wing and right wing parties
> compared to the 1995 presidential election (40%:60%). On the right, Le
> Pen got 2% more, Chirac got 1% less. The big change was on the left
> where Jospin lost 7%, but there were 6 other candidates to take his
> potential votes.
>
> There will be a lot of people holding their noses in two weeks time, and
> voting for Chirac, but he's now reckoned to be going to get up to 80% of
> the votes in the second round.
And I hope every one of those six other left candidates can
justify what he has done to his electorate! How psychotic,
to have a first-past-the-post system, even with a run-off,
in a multi-party democracy. Of course, it's just what
DeGaulle wanted, and what he got. "Vive le France; le
France, c'est moi!
--
Michael J. Lowrey
no Jospin worshipper, but really...!
Joel Rosenberg
> "Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote in
> news:3CC458C0...@uwm.edu:
>
>> mike weber wrote:
>>>
>>> mws...@aol.com (mike stone) typed
>>> >They've done exactly what they set out to do - given the
>>> >Establishment pols a shock which will hopefully leave some of them
>>> >in need of a change of underwear. Other than that they have done
>>> >_nothing_ which they can't correct on the second ballot - the first
>>> >one is nothing but a glorified opinion poll - serious voting is done
>>> >in the second round
>>> >
>>> Wish our system worked that way, which might have allowed a few of
>>> the Nader "protest" voters to come to their senses in time...
>
> Speaking for myself, I _did_ come to my senses in time -- thanks to Gore
> supporters in the media and in professional politics, who dissuaded me
> from
> voting for him. They kept yapping about how it was my duty to vote for a
> candidate who had made a point of taking the Democratic Party back from
> people like me.
>
In practice, given that Minnesota was clearly going to go for Gore, your
vote for Nader was a protest vote, just as mine for Bush was.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Mary McGrory in The Washington Post to Mark Shields on
CNN, a falafel curtain has descended across our continent,
transmogrifying the Arab aggressor into the victim.
--William Safire
Dan Goodman
news:JBZw8.44585$rC2.6...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
> Dan Goodman wrote:
>
>> "Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote in
>> news:3CC458C0...@uwm.edu:
>>
>>> mike weber wrote:
>>>>
>>>> mws...@aol.com (mike stone) typed
>>>> >They've done exactly what they set out to do - given the
>>>> >Establishment pols a shock which will hopefully leave some of them
>>>> >in need of a change of underwear. Other than that they have done
>>>> >_nothing_ which they can't correct on the second ballot - the
>>>> >first one is nothing but a glorified opinion poll - serious voting
>>>> >is done in the second round
>>>> >
>>>> Wish our system worked that way, which might have allowed a few of
>>>> the Nader "protest" voters to come to their senses in time...
>>
>> Speaking for myself, I _did_ come to my senses in time -- thanks to
>> Gore supporters in the media and in professional politics, who
>> dissuaded me from
>> voting for him. They kept yapping about how it was my duty to vote
>> for a candidate who had made a point of taking the Democratic Party
>> back from people like me.
>>
>
> In practice, given that Minnesota was clearly going to go for Gore,
> your vote for Nader was a protest vote, just as mine for Bush was.
That's what many of the Minnesotans who voted for Jesse Ventura in the
gubernatorial race thought they were doing. (And I'm 99% sure Ventura
didn't expect to win.)
Shane Stezelberger
Stezelberger) wrote:
>>ever, b) look at all those Nazis, and c) how long before someone blames
>>the Israelis for making Nazi-ism fahsionable. Timestamp: 23:38.
>
>Can I be first to blame them?
>Shane Stezelberger
Aw, shit. That'll teach me to post first thing on a Monday morning.
I thought I read that as "blames the *French*."
Naturally it is one's knee-jerk, Monday-morning impulse, at times of
crisis such as these, to blame the French.
I meant no harm to the Israelis just then. I apologize to anyone
outside of France I may have offended this morning. I trust I make
myself obscure.
--
Shane "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" Stezelberger
Shane Stezelberger
wrote:
>>> Well, a) this means Chirac wins, no second round needed, biggest
>>> majority ever, b) look at all those Nazis, and c) how long before
>>> someone blames the Israelis for making Nazi-ism fahsionable.
>>> Timestamp: 23:38.
>>
>> Can I be first to blame them?
>>
>> :-(
>
>Only if you'd also like to be the first to be killfiled for it.
Fine. That is fine with me. Go ahead and "killfile" me; I clearly
deserve it. Only an idiot or a bigot would blame Israel for the
outcome of an election in France, and clearly I am both.
There is no possible way I could have misunderstood Niall McAuley's
initial post. :-( :-(
Rob Hansen
>>From: Andy Leighton an...@azaal.plus.com
>>
>
>>I hardly think that large proportions of
>>the French public have switched their support to FN, indeed there have been
>>some vox pop with people having a "What have we done!" reaction.
>
>They've done exactly what they set out to do - given the Establishment pols a
>shock which will hopefully leave some of them in need of a change of underwear.
>Other than that they have done _nothing_ which they can't correct on the second
>ballot - the first one is nothing but a glorified opinion poll - serious voting
>is done in the second round
On a radio report I was listening to the commentator said that Le Pen
is only expected to get between 20% - 30% of the vote in the final
round. 'Only'? An openly racist politician getting a quarter of the
vote in a supposedly liberal democracy is an appalling figure.
Remember, Le Pen's National Front party held 30-40 seats in the
national assembly at one point, which is like the Klan having a couple
of dozen Representatives in the US Congress or the BNP having a
similar number in the UK Parliament (no openly fascist or racist party
has ever won a single Parliamentary seat, btw.) No, rationalize it all
you like, but something is rotten in the state of France.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
Joel Rosenberg
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:45:02 GMT, sst...@erols.com (Shane
> Stezelberger) wrote:
>
>>>ever, b) look at all those Nazis, and c) how long before someone blames
>>>the Israelis for making Nazi-ism fahsionable. Timestamp: 23:38.
>>
>>Can I be first to blame them?
>>Shane Stezelberger
>
> Aw, shit. That'll teach me to post first thing on a Monday morning.
> I thought I read that as "blames the *French*."
>
> Naturally it is one's knee-jerk, Monday-morning impulse, at times of
> crisis such as these, to blame the French.
>
> I meant no harm to the Israelis just then. I apologize to anyone
> outside of France I may have offended this morning. I trust I make
> myself obscure.
>
FWIW, I assume it was a dig at that shitty little country, France.
--
David T. Bilek
>Shane Stezelberger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:45:02 GMT, sst...@erols.com (Shane
>> Stezelberger) wrote:
>>
>>>>ever, b) look at all those Nazis, and c) how long before someone blames
>>>>the Israelis for making Nazi-ism fahsionable. Timestamp: 23:38.
>>>
>>>Can I be first to blame them?
>>>Shane Stezelberger
>>
>> Aw, shit. That'll teach me to post first thing on a Monday morning.
>> I thought I read that as "blames the *French*."
>>
>> Naturally it is one's knee-jerk, Monday-morning impulse, at times of
>> crisis such as these, to blame the French.
>>
>> I meant no harm to the Israelis just then. I apologize to anyone
>> outside of France I may have offended this morning. I trust I make
>> myself obscure.
>>
>FWIW, I assume it was a dig at that shitty little country, France.
>
It never ceases to amaze me that more people aren't appalled at how
often France and China find themselves on the same side of an issue.
-David
mike stone
>
>>They've done exactly what they set out to do - given the Establishment pols
>a
>>shock which will hopefully leave some of them in need of a change of
>underwear.
>>Other than that they have done _nothing_ which they can't correct on the
>second
>>ballot - the first one is nothing but a glorified opinion poll - serious
>voting
>>is done in the second round
>
>On a radio report I was listening to the commentator said that Le Pen
>is only expected to get between 20% - 30% of the vote in the final
>round. 'Only'? An openly racist politician getting a quarter of the
>vote in a supposedly liberal democracy is an appalling figure.
>Remember, Le Pen's National Front party held 30-40 seats in the
>national assembly at one point, which is like the Klan having a couple
>of dozen Representatives in the US Congress or the BNP having a
>similar number in the UK Parliament (no openly fascist or racist party
>has ever won a single Parliamentary seat, btw.) No, rationalize it all
>you like, but something is rotten in the state of France.
Which is why the voters did what they did. To make the regular parties do
something in their pants.
If they feel that round one hasn't driven the lesson home, they can reinforce
it in round two simply by staying at home. If there are enough abstentions,
then Le Pen's 17% may become 25% or even higher - not because he gets more
votes the second time (he probably won't) but simply because Chirac gets _less_
than the combined "non-Le-Pen vote" of round one
Vicki Rosenzweig
GMT:
>On 22 Apr 2002 04:08:04 GMT, O. Deus <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> ironic sometimes, especially when it's becoming quite clear that a large
>> portion of the French public is so sick of things as they are, that they're
>> prepeared to vote for a fascist.
>
>But that is exactly the point isn't it? It isn't much of a protest vote
>if you vote for another mainstream candidate. I am sure that a lot of people
>voted FN as a kick up the arse for the mainstream.
There were 16 candidates. Most of them knew, like everyone else, that
they would get fewer votes that Jospin, Chirac, or the fascist. Which
would have made those candidates plausible protest votes.
>
>It seems to me that the situation was caused by amongst others a high degree
>of protest votes and low turnout.
Low is a relative term: 72 percent would be considered very high turnout
in any US election.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
mike stone
>It never ceases to amaze me that more people aren't appalled at how
>often France and China find themselves on the same side of an issue.
>
>
Arnold Toynbee wouldn't have been
Istr him writing over 30 yrs ago that "The China of 1965(?) is the France of
1965 writ large" ie a state which considered itself the centre of the world,
but had fallen on hard times and had its pride hurt
mike stone
>
>Arwel Parry wrote:
>> There will be a lot of people holding their noses in two weeks time, and
>> voting for Chirac, but he's now reckoned to be going to get up to 80% of
>> the votes in the second round.
>
Only if the turn-out is the same as round one. If, say, a majority of Socialist
voters abstain rather than vote for Chirac, then his percentage might be a good
deal lower
>And I hope every one of those six other left candidates can
>justify what he has done to his electorate!
They haven't done _anything_ to the electorate. Nobody was obliged to vote for
them. If some people _chose_ to vote for them rather than for Jospin, there was
no reason why they should be denied the opportunity
O Deus
> Low is a relative term: 72 percent would be considered very high turnout
> in any US election.
Yes but then again France has distinctly inferior broadcast channels
to that of the US so the comparison is really not valid.
mike stone
>
>mike weber wrote:
>> Wish our system worked that way, which might have allowed a few of the
>> Nader "protest" voters to come to their senses in time...
>
>That's why a lot of us support Instant Runoff Voting
>(Hugo-ballot style). (You can substitute "Perot" for
>"Nader" in mike's last sentence, if it makes you feel
>better.)
Passing thought. If the US had adopted the Frog electoral system, is ther any
chance that _Perot_ could have made second place in 1992. If so, at whose
expense and what would his chances have been on the second ballot
Doug Wickstrom
<Xns91F8A2D2765...@209.98.98.13>
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> excited the ether to say:
IIRC, the immediate pre-election polls showed Ventura a close
second behind Coleman and ahead of Humphrey, with all three
having a chance to win within the margin of error of the polls.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@attbi.com>
"China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese." --Charles de Gaulle
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> >> Wish our system worked that way, which might have allowed a few of the
> >> Nader "protest" voters to come to their senses in time...
> >
> >That's why a lot of us support Instant Runoff Voting
> >(Hugo-ballot style). (You can substitute "Perot" for
> >"Nader" in mike's last sentence, if it makes you feel
> >better.)
>
> any chance that _Perot_ could have made second place in 1992. If so, at
It is possible, if folks weren't convinced that a dissenting
vote is a wasted vote, as our current system nearly
guarantees.
Tentative guess: at Bush 1.1's expense; people were
wearying of Reaganism.
_Whoever_ got squeezed out, though: in the second round the
Establishment and their lapdogs would have piled on Perot so
severely as a nutbar (which he was, I might add), that his
chances would have been zilch, nada.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
poli.sci. geek
Joel Rosenberg
Yup; and if I'd believed the polls, I'd have voted for Ventura.
--
mike stone
>
>Tentative guess: at Bush 1.1's expense; people were
>wearying of Reaganism.
>
>_Whoever_ got squeezed out, though: in the second round the
>Establishment and their lapdogs would have piled on Perot so
>severely as a nutbar (which he was, I might add), that his
>chances would have been zilch, nada.
You sure?
From a Republican perspective, isn't even the worst "nutbar" still better than
a Democrat?
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> >From: "Michael J. Lowrey" oran...@uwm.edu
> >Tentative guess: at Bush 1.1's expense; people were
> >wearying of Reaganism.
> >
> >_Whoever_ got squeezed out, though: in the second round the
> >Establishment and their lapdogs would have piled on Perot so
> >severely as a nutbar (which he was, I might add), that his
> >chances would have been zilch, nada.
>
> You sure?
>
> From a Republican perspective, isn't even the worst "nutbar" still better than
> a Democrat?
I can't speak for the Republicans, obviously, but Perot was
sufficiently off the charts, and insufficiently under their
control, that they (particularly their leadership) would
mostly have held their collective noses and supported the
Eisenhower Republican "Democrat" Clinton instead of the
nutbar, just as most Democrats (especially their leadership)
would have supported Bush 1.1 had the tables been turned.
--
Orange Mike
Joel Rosenberg
>>From: "Michael J. Lowrey" oran...@uwm.edu
>>
>
>>Tentative guess: at Bush 1.1's expense; people were
>>wearying of Reaganism.
>>
>>_Whoever_ got squeezed out, though: in the second round the
>>Establishment and their lapdogs would have piled on Perot so
>>severely as a nutbar (which he was, I might add), that his
>>chances would have been zilch, nada.
>
> You sure?
>
> From a Republican perspective, isn't even the worst "nutbar" still better
> than a Democrat?
>
Bush the Elder actively worked against the election of one Republican
candidate that I know of, openly saying that people should vote for his
Democratic opponent. He was hardly the only one.
Joshua Hesse
:I can't speak for the Republicans, obviously, but Perot was
:sufficiently off the charts, and insufficiently under their
:control, that they (particularly their leadership) would
:mostly have held their collective noses and supported the
:Eisenhower Republican "Democrat" Clinton instead of the
:nutbar, just as most Democrats (especially their leadership)
:would have supported Bush 1.1 had the tables been turned.
Huh? Clinton didn't waffle over to the Liberal Republican side until
after the 1994 elections made it seem to be a good idea.
-Josh
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
"You scream at them at the top of your lungs and then hit them over the head
with an immense wooden mallet? You're weird, sir." -Dave Brown on girls.
Neil Belsky
"Niall McAuley" <gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> wrote in message
news:a9vf4d$obo$1...@dorito.esatclear.ie...
> "Mike Scott" <mi...@plokta.com> wrote in message
news:he26cuoe8u9elnvns...@4ax.com...
> > It appears (from early results) that the odious National Front leader
> > Jean-Marie Le Pen has probably beaten Lionel Jospin (who is currently
> > Prime Minister) in the first round of the French presidential election,
> > thus ensuring that the secound round contest is between Le Pen and the
> > incumbent Jacques Chirac.
>
> Well, a) this means Chirac wins, no second round needed, biggest majority
> the Israelis for making Nazi-ism fahsionable. Timestamp: 23:38.
> Niall [real address ends in ie, not ei.invalid]
>
A couple of points:
1)With this result the French have actually been able to unite BOTH Arabs
and Jews.
According to the BBC interviews in both the Jewish and Arab sections of
Paris found that membrs of both groups have said they are getting the heck
out of France, because they fear for their lives.
Now THAT'S PROGRESS!
2)The Quebecuers (sp?) would probbly find out just how little the "Pure"
French really think of them.
Neil
--
"Dear Anna,
I miss you very much.
I wish I had,
Some of your blood"
Theodore Sturgeon
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
> :I can't speak for the Republicans, obviously, but Perot was
> :sufficiently off the charts, and insufficiently under their
> :control, that they (particularly their leadership) would
> :mostly have held their collective noses and supported the
> :Eisenhower Republican "Democrat" Clinton instead of the
> :nutbar, just as most Democrats (especially their leadership)
> :would have supported Bush 1.1 had the tables been turned.
>
> Huh? Clinton didn't waffle over to the Liberal Republican side until
> after the 1994 elections made it seem to be a good idea.
Throughout his entire career, Clinton was always a centrist,
a "New Democrat" (i.e., an Eisenhower Republican); that's
why a lot of people fought him so hard in the primaries: he
was the most conservative candidate. Of course, many people
feel that's why he won, too.
--
Orange Mike
Rob Hansen
>>From: Rob Hansen r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk
>>On a radio report I was listening to the commentator said that Le Pen
>>is only expected to get between 20% - 30% of the vote in the final
>>round. 'Only'? An openly racist politician getting a quarter of the
>>vote in a supposedly liberal democracy is an appalling figure.
>>Remember, Le Pen's National Front party held 30-40 seats in the
>>national assembly at one point, which is like the Klan having a couple
>>of dozen Representatives in the US Congress or the BNP having a
>>similar number in the UK Parliament (no openly fascist or racist party
>>has ever won a single Parliamentary seat, btw.) No, rationalize it all
>>you like, but something is rotten in the state of France.
>
>Which is why the voters did what they did. To make the regular parties do
>something in their pants.
>
>If they feel that round one hasn't driven the lesson home, they can reinforce
>it in round two simply by staying at home. If there are enough abstentions,
>then Le Pen's 17% may become 25% or even higher - not because he gets more
>votes the second time (he probably won't) but simply because Chirac gets _less_
>than the combined "non-Le-Pen vote" of round one
I think you've missed my point. I wasn't commenting at all on what
message French voters may or may not want to send. I was commenting on
the problem that exist *anyway*, on the fact that, though he will
almost certainly win, Le Pen is still expected to secure a fifth to a
quarter of the vote and how appalling it is that so many will vote for
him in the forthcoming election. This, and the number of seats the NF
has secured in the national assembly, shows just how deep seated the
problem of racism is in France, I think. Fascists have also made
inroads in Denmark, Austria, and some other countries in continental
Europe, which is a deeply worrying trend.
Dan Goodman
news:aa3vvl$gks$1...@unlnews.unl.edu:
> Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>
> :I can't speak for the Republicans, obviously, but Perot was
> :sufficiently off the charts, and insufficiently under their
> :control, that they (particularly their leadership) would
> :mostly have held their collective noses and supported the
> :Eisenhower Republican "Democrat" Clinton instead of the
> :nutbar, just as most Democrats (especially their leadership)
> :would have supported Bush 1.1 had the tables been turned.
>
> Huh? Clinton didn't waffle over to the Liberal Republican side until
> after the 1994 elections made it seem to be a good idea.
I would have to check in _The Almanac of American Politics_; but my memory
says that Clinton was a New, Improved Democrat With Fiscal Responsibility
And Less Liberalism when he first began campaigning for the nomination.
Dan Goodman
news:rn3bcugq0bdtkjba6...@4ax.com:
> I think you've missed my point. I wasn't commenting at all on what
> message French voters may or may not want to send. I was commenting on
> the problem that exist *anyway*, on the fact that, though he will
> almost certainly win, Le Pen is still expected to secure a fifth to a
> quarter of the vote and how appalling it is that so many will vote for
> him in the forthcoming election. This, and the number of seats the NF
> has secured in the national assembly, shows just how deep seated the
> problem of racism is in France, I think. Fascists have also made
> inroads in Denmark, Austria, and some other countries in continental
> Europe, which is a deeply worrying trend.
I think the 80/20 rule (the Pareto Principle) applies here. Twenty percent
of the electorate belongs to the whacko right and/or the whacko left. It
does seem that the far left is losing the whacko vote to the far right,
though.
Note: What counts as "whacko" depends on what's politically normal. At
one time, the idea that every male English citizen above the rank of
servant should have the vote was way out on the left fringe.
mike stone
>> I think you've missed my point. I wasn't commenting at all on what
>> message French voters may or may not want to send. I was commenting on
>> the problem that exist *anyway*, on the fact that, though he will
>> almost certainly win, Le Pen is still expected to secure a fifth to a
>> quarter of the vote and how appalling it is that so many will vote for
>> him in the forthcoming election.
But if he were _not_ racist (or scary in some other way) then his success
wouldn't be putting the fear of God (or of the Devil) into the regular
politicoos.
IOW, if Le Pen were not sinister, there would have been no point in voting for
him
Joel Rosenberg
>>Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>>> I think you've missed my point. I wasn't commenting at all on what
>>> message French voters may or may not want to send. I was commenting on
>>> the problem that exist *anyway*, on the fact that, though he will
>>> almost certainly win, Le Pen is still expected to secure a fifth to a
>>> quarter of the vote and how appalling it is that so many will vote for
>>> him in the forthcoming election.
>
> But if he were _not_ racist (or scary in some other way) then his success
> wouldn't be putting the fear of God (or of the Devil) into the regular
> politicoos.
>
> IOW, if Le Pen were not sinister, there would have been no point in voting
> for him
>
>
Nah. A protest vote still makes sense, in a lot of cases, if the person
voting for is simply an outsider. Got my governor elected, I think.
Some reports, by the way, have said that Le Pen was trying to court the
Jewish vote, of late. It may even have worked, given the precedent of all
those Florida Jewish votes for Buchanan . . .
mike weber
typed
>Bush the Elder actively worked against the election of one Republican
>candidate that I know of, openly saying that people should vote for his
>Democratic opponent. He was hardly the only one.
>
'Vote for the crook; It's important!"?
--
"Let me take my chances on the Wall of Death" -- R.Thompson
<mike weber> <mike....@electronictiger.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Hal O'Brien
>
> Naturally it is one's knee-jerk, Monday-morning impulse, at times of
> crisis such as these, to blame the French.
>
Too many qualifiers. That sentence could be *much* shorter. I like the
final three words.
-- Hal
Hal O'Brien
>
> Passing thought. If the US had adopted the Frog electoral system, is ther any
> chance that _Perot_ could have made second place in 1992. If so, at whose
> expense and what would his chances have been on the second ballot
>
The difference is, unlike LePen Perot never wanted to win. Which is why he
tubed himself when he did. He just wanted Bush to lose. At which he was
admirably successful.
A better, more sincerely crazy candidate (as opposed to Perot, who's
insincerely crazy) would be Lyndon LaRouche.
-- Hal
Dan Goodman
news:MPG.172f9958a...@news-east.giganews.com:
Just because he believes that the British really won the Revolutionary War,
and Queen Elizabeth rules the US (in her spare time, when she's not running
the world's drug trade), and has a few other unusual ideas, and sees
himself as a (secular) messiah, you're calling him crazy?
Kristopher
>
> Kristopher wrote:
>
>>>> Well, a) this means Chirac wins, no second round needed,
>>>> biggest majority ever, b) look at all those Nazis, and
>>>> c) how long before someone blames the Israelis for making
>>>> Nazi-ism fahsionable.
>>>> Timestamp: 23:38.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Only if you'd also like to be the first to be killfiled for it.
>
> Fine. That is fine with me. Go ahead and "killfile" me; I
> clearly deserve it. Only an idiot or a bigot would blame
> Israel for the outcome of an election in France, and clearly
> I am both.
You did ask if you could be the first to blame the Israelis for
making Nazism fasionable, no?
--
Kristopher
"I'd like to trade in this shovel for what's behind Door #2.
Oh, look, a backhoe."
Kristopher
>
> Shane Stezelberger wrote:
>
>>> ever, b) look at all those Nazis, and c) how long before
>>> someone blames the Israelis for making Nazi-ism
>>> fahsionable. Timestamp: 23:38.
>>
>> Can I be first to blame them?
>
> Aw, shit. That'll teach me to post first thing on a Monday
> morning. I thought I read that as "blames the *French*."
>
> Naturally it is one's knee-jerk, Monday-morning impulse, at
> times of crisis such as these, to blame the French.
>
> anyone outside of France I may have offended this morning.
> I trust I make myself obscure.
Ah, I now see what happened.
Martin Wisse
>OK, I take back anything I may have said elsewhere about racist attacks
>not representing mainstream French society. It appears (from early
>results) that the odious National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has
>probably beaten Lionel Jospin (who is currently Prime Minister) in the
>first round of the French presidential election, thus ensuring that the
>secound round contest is between Le Pen and the incumbent Jacques
>Chirac.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1942000/1942612.stm
Let's put this in context, hein?
As y'all know, France has a two tier election system for presidental
elections: the two candidates with the most votes go on to the second
round.
Le Pen won approx 17 % of the votes, Chirac won 20%, Jospin 16 %:
<http://www.liberation.fr/presidentielle/resultats/html/0.html>
Those are not huge margins. Now if we look at the other candidates, we
see that the two Trotskite candidates won almost 13 % of the votes, with
the communists winning another 3 % or so. Le Pen narrowly beat Jospin
for the same reason Nader is a swearword amongst Democrats...
And if you look at the previous presidential elections,
<http://web.archive.org/web/20020214232158/http://www.electionworld.org/election/france.htm>
when Le Pen won 15% or so of the votes, the evidence for a socalled
right wing switch seems to be less clear.
Le Pen making it to the second round is mostly a fluke, an artifact of
the electoral system France uses.
This does not mean all is well in the state of France, Le Pen will
probably pick up more votes in the next round -Bruno Megret has already
endorsed him- but the chances of Chirac losing the second round are
slim..
What's worrying is the effect this will have on the morale of other
right wing extremists, like the BNP in the UK, who will take heart of
this.
And the consistent support for Le Pen is evidence of a something being
hideously wrong in France, but it isn't the blitzkreig people make it
out to be.
From what I know, this is probably a case of the political elites, both
left and right wing being sufficiently isolated from the people to give
populists like Le Pen a chance. We have a similar case here in the
Netherlands.
Martin Wisse
--
Kings and lords come and go and leave nothing but
statues in a desert, while a couple of young men
tinkering in a workshop change the way the world works.
-Terry Prachett, _The Truth_
Martin Wisse
>>From: "Michael J. Lowrey" oran...@uwm.edu
>>
>
>>Arwel Parry wrote:
>
>>> There will be a lot of people holding their noses in two weeks time, and
>>> voting for Chirac, but he's now reckoned to be going to get up to 80% of
>>> the votes in the second round.
>>
>
>Only if the turn-out is the same as round one. If, say, a majority of Socialist
>voters abstain rather than vote for Chirac, then his percentage might be a good
>deal lower
>
>>And I hope every one of those six other left candidates can
>>justify what he has done to his electorate!
>
>They haven't done _anything_ to the electorate. Nobody was obliged to vote for
>them. If some people _chose_ to vote for them rather than for Jospin, there was
>no reason why they should be denied the opportunity
Yeah, I feel the same way. One can just as well blame Jospin for not
supporting one of the other leftwing candidates.
Martin Wisse
--
There are no normal people--only people you don't know very much about.
-Nancy Lebovitz, rasfw
Hal O'Brien
> > insincerely crazy) would be Lyndon LaRouche.
>
> Just because he believes that the British really won the Revolutionary War,
> and Queen Elizabeth rules the US (in her spare time, when she's not running
> the world's drug trade), and has a few other unusual ideas, and sees
> himself as a (secular) messiah, you're calling him crazy?
>
That's a big 10-4, good buddy.
I mean... LaRouche *could've* gone into writing alternate histories, instead.
But did he? Noooooooooooooo...
-- Hal
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> They've done exactly what they set out to do - given the Establishment
> pols a shock which will hopefully leave some of them in need of a change
> of underwear. Other than that they have done _nothing_ which they can't
> correct on the second ballot
What? Having to chose between the right and the far and loony right
seems like nothing that can't be corrected in the second ballot?
Jospin might very probably have won in the second ballot - according to
the polls, he's the most popular first minister France ever had.
>- the first one is nothing but a glorified
> opinion poll - serious voting is done in the second round
A lot of Frenchmen are right now moaning with their heads in their hands
and pondering the falsity of this. :-(
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Fascists have also made
> inroads in Denmark, Austria, and some other countries in continental
> Europe, which is a deeply worrying trend.
They carried the day - they did in Italy, and don't think our brand is
any better than Le Pen, they aren't.
The fact is that Chirac is something France should be fucking proud of:
somebody who'd rather lose an election that win it by getting into bed
with the sickos. Most of the European right didn't resist the
temptation. Any "moderate" right-wing party in Europe can win if it
sheds some scruples and takes on the neofascist, the racists, the Hate
parties. They can, and they do. And until the left is locked into this
"No truce with the system" /"let's go court the centre" dance, they'll
keep their majority and be trounced each time.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> But that is exactly the point isn't it? It isn't much of a protest vote
> if you vote for another mainstream candidate. I am sure that a lot of people
> voted FN as a kick up the arse for the mainstream.
The problem I seem to gather is that it was a nice sunny day, Jospin was
a very good administrator but face it not that glamorous a personality,
the whole thing was terribly boring, and people thought what the hell,
I'll go vote for the second turn. It wasn't a protest vote, it largely
was idling on holiday. And as for protest, well, just today I heard the
clip of one of the leftist candidates telling his voters with great
scorn "they want you to believe that if you vote for me Jospin isn't
going to go to the second turn. What do they believe, that you French
are idiots?"
Well, perish the thought.
And now they're in shock, and gasping for breath, and all red in the
face for the shame of it. My only small consolation is that they'll quit
acting all commiserating and superior toward us Italians, but it's small
consolation all told.
As somebody wrote around here: sometimes people forget that democracy
isn't a gift, it's something that needs nurturing and feeding and caring
for. Otherwise, one day you wake up and find it gone.
(And somebody else in the translators' mailing list wrote: so the French
now have to choose between the crook and the fascist. We've gone one
better - one vote, and we could choose them all together. Yeah!)
Arwel Parry
<mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> writes
>What's worrying is the effect this will have on the morale of other
>right wing extremists, like the BNP in the UK, who will take heart of
>this.
I worry that the press are talking up the BNP -- everybody seems to be
panicking about them at the moment, but they're only contesting 64 seats
out of more than 6,500.
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <3cd01d05...@news.demon.nl>, Martin Wisse
><mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> writes
>>What's worrying is the effect this will have on the morale of other
>>right wing extremists, like the BNP in the UK, who will take heart of
>>this.
>
>I worry that the press are talking up the BNP -- everybody seems to be
>panicking about them at the moment, but they're only contesting 64 seats
>out of more than 6,500.
6,500 seats? Really?
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/15/02
My latest novel is THE DRAGON SOCIETY, published by Tor.
Dan Goodman
news:cbJx8.2581$iU4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:57:18 +0100, Arwel Parry
> <ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <3cd01d05...@news.demon.nl>, Martin Wisse
>><mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> writes
>>>What's worrying is the effect this will have on the morale of other
>>>right wing extremists, like the BNP in the UK, who will take heart of
>>>this.
>>
>>I worry that the press are talking up the BNP -- everybody seems to be
>>panicking about them at the moment, but they're only contesting 64 seats
>>out of more than 6,500.
>
> 6,500 seats? Really?
For a complete picture of the French electoral system, see _The Statesman's
Yearbook_. It seems to have been designed so that anyone trying to
understand it would be trapped in its intricacies. I particularly like the
local electoral colleges.
mike stone
>
> Chirac won 20%, Jospin 16 %:
><http://www.liberation.fr/presidentielle/resultats/html/0.html>
>
>Those are not huge margins. Now if we look at the other candidates, we
>see that the two Trotskite candidates won almost 13 %
Which raises a thought.
If the two Trots had joined forces and united behind one man, who then did well
enough to pick up a few percentage points from Jospin and from other minor
parties, could we now be gwetting ready for a runoff between Le Pen and a
Trotskyite?
mike stone
>What? Having to chose between the right and the far and loony right
>seems like nothing that can't be corrected in the second ballot?
>
Yes, the sensible right will win.
If Jospin had got 3% more, and Chirac 3% less, then the sensible aprt of the
left would be heading for a similar walkover. Would you object to that? If not,
then don't moan just because the dice didn't fall as you would have liked them
to
>Jospin might very probably have won in the second ballot - according to
>the polls, he's the most popular first minister France ever had.
>
>
Then why did five-sixth of the voters prefer someone else?
If the people who voted for the "splinter" candidates had thought that Jospin
was better than Chirac in some major way, they were perfectly free to _vote_
for Jospin. They didn't, and the candidates they _did_ vote for were not under
the slightest obligation to withdraw in his favour
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> >From: ada...@libero.it (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan)
>
> >What? Having to chose between the right and the far and loony right
> >seems like nothing that can't be corrected in the second ballot?
> >
>
> Yes, the sensible right will win.
Oh, I see.
I like this use of emotionally charged words like "moan". Pretty way to
reduce somebody else's arguments to emotional faults they have. This has
been pulled on me before.
The "sensible right" in France is moaning along with me, btw.
mike stone
>
>I like this use of emotionally charged words like "moan". Pretty way to
>reduce somebody else's arguments to emotional faults they have. This has
>been pulled on me before.
>
>The "sensible right" in France is moaning along with me, btw.
>
You mean they are _pretending_ to - whilst privately, I am sure, snickering all
the way to the polling booth
BTW, you still haven't answered my question - would you be equally upset if the
votes had gone a bit differently and Le Pen's success had handed the easy win
to Jospin rather than Chirac - or does it all just depend on whose Bush is
Gore'd, or vice versa?
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:57:18 +0100, Arwel Parry
><ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I worry that the press are talking up the BNP -- everybody seems to be
>>panicking about them at the moment, but they're only contesting 64 seats
>>out of more than 6,500.
>
>6,500 seats? Really?
They're having local elections in England next week; these would be
6500 seats in various city councils and so on.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Arwel Parry
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:57:18 +0100, Arwel Parry
><ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <3cd01d05...@news.demon.nl>, Martin Wisse
>><mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> writes
>>>What's worrying is the effect this will have on the morale of other
>>>right wing extremists, like the BNP in the UK, who will take heart of
>>>this.
>>
>>I worry that the press are talking up the BNP -- everybody seems to be
>>panicking about them at the moment, but they're only contesting 64 seats
>>out of more than 6,500.
>
>6,500 seats? Really?
Yes, this year the elections are for the District Councils in England
and Wales, which usually elect their members in thirds (I don't know how
the elections are being conducted in the London boroughs and the
ex-metropolitan counties, which tend to be organised a little
differently from the ordinary counties).
My local council has 57 councillors, and 19 of them are up for election
this year. The average figure is 1 district councillor for about every
3000 inhabitants (though some rural wards may only have 6-700
inhabitants and their own councillor), so for the whole country
19-20,000 sounds about right, about 1 county councillor for around
20,000 inhabitants, and I think around 1 MP for about 70,000 inhabitants
- at any rate, those figures sound about right for this area!
David G. Bell
lei...@pvv.ntnu.no "Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y" wrote:
> In article <cbJx8.2581$iU4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:57:18 +0100, Arwel Parry
> ><ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>I worry that the press are talking up the BNP -- everybody seems to be
> >>panicking about them at the moment, but they're only contesting 64 seats
> >>out of more than 6,500.
> >
> >6,500 seats? Really?
>
> They're having local elections in England next week; these would be
> 6500 seats in various city councils and so on.
Yep.
Like parts of the US system, some seats come up for re-election every
year, so I'm stuck with the current clown for a while yet. It's not
everyone at once, like Parliament.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Mr. Punch's Advice to a Young Man About to Become a Farmer:
"Marry, instead."
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.org.uk> wrote:
>On Thursday, in article <aa8l98$6lp$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no>
> lei...@pvv.ntnu.no "Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y" wrote:
>
>> They're having local elections in England next week; these would be
>> 6500 seats in various city councils and so on.
>
>Yep.
>
>Like parts of the US system, some seats come up for re-election every
>year, so I'm stuck with the current clown for a while yet. It's not
>everyone at once, like Parliament.
Oh, right. We vote for all seats in local elections at once,
on a four-year cycle (same as the parliamentary elections, only
staggered; we had a parliamentary election last year and will have
local elections next year). Norway basically has two tiers of local
government; first the contry is divided into 19 "provinces", then
there are hundreds of municipalities (some with only a few hundred
people, others are entire cities). Both tiers are run by elected
councils; we vote for both at once.
Thomas Womack
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@libero.it> wrote:
>Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> But that is exactly the point isn't it? It isn't much of a protest vote
>> if you vote for another mainstream candidate. I am sure that a lot of people
>> voted FN as a kick up the arse for the mainstream.
>
>The problem I seem to gather is that it was a nice sunny day, Jospin was
>a very good administrator but face it not that glamorous a personality,
>the whole thing was terribly boring, and people thought what the hell,
>I'll go vote for the second turn. It wasn't a protest vote, it largely
>was idling on holiday.
But there was still a 70% turnout; OK, "go to the beach instead" got 50%
more votes than anyone else, but we're still talking about more than
10% of the French electorate -- what's that, three million, four million
people -- actively voting for the National Front.
It's horrible. But it's a beautiful day in Nottingham, and I don't
have the spare money to get to Paris, and there are already enough
people protesting there.
Tom. A wimp.
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> In message <3cd01d05...@news.demon.nl>, Martin Wisse
> <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> writes
> >What's worrying is the effect this will have on the morale of other
> >right wing extremists, like the BNP in the UK, who will take heart of
> >this.
>
> I worry that the press are talking up the BNP -- everybody seems to be
> panicking about them at the moment, but they're only contesting 64 seats
> out of more than 6,500.
6500?!!?
Or are you talking about local councils, etc., not just MPs?
--
Orange Mike
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> >From: mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse)
> > Chirac won 20%, Jospin 16 %:
> >Those are not huge margins. Now if we look at the other candidates, we
> >see that the two Trotskite candidates won almost 13 %
>
> Which raises a thought.
>
> If the two Trots had joined forces and united behind one man, who then did well
> enough to pick up a few percentage points from Jospin and from other minor
> parties, could we now be gwetting ready for a runoff between Le Pen and a
> Trotskyite?
You underestimate the ability of Trots, and indeed
strong-ideology-ites in general ("Left" or "Right"), to
engage in mutually destructive factionalism.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
watched it happen
Steve Glover
<dsg...@visi.com> writes
>>>I worry that the press are talking up the BNP -- everybody seems to be
>>>panicking about them at the moment, but they're only contesting 64 seats
>>>out of more than 6,500.
>>
>> 6,500 seats? Really?
>
>For a complete picture of the French electoral system, see _The Statesman's
>Yearbook_. It seems to have been designed so that anyone trying to
>understand it would be trapped in its intricacies. I particularly like the
>local electoral colleges.
The 6,500 seats aren't in the French Parliament, they're the seats being
contested in the England and Wales (I've seen no sign of a campaign in
Scotland, or at least in Edinburgh) local government elections. Unless,
of course, the BNP referred to is actually the French bank (It's a pity
they've removed the ticker from their web page - we used to call it the
Marquee de Paribas).
Steve
--
Steve Glover, Fell Services Ltd. Available from - 01/02/2002
Weblog at http://weblog.akicif.net/blogger.html
Home: steve at fell.demon.co.uk, 0131 551 3835
Away: steve.glover at ukonline.co.uk, 07940 584 653
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> But there was still a 70% turnout;
70% is very low for France, it seems.
OK, "go to the beach instead" got 50%
> more votes than anyone else, but we're still talking about more than
> 10% of the French electorate -- what's that, three million, four million
> people -- actively voting for the National Front.
One in five in the nation, one in eight in Paris.
>
> It's horrible. But it's a beautiful day in Nottingham, and I don't
> have the spare money to get to Paris, and there are already enough
> people protesting there.
Well, there's this to be said: Europe offers ample and entertaining
opportunities for street protest these days. In Italy we have a superior
quality of demonstrations, huge, colorful, middle-class, generously
speckeled with intellectuals of all shades and kinds. A superior
protest experience, I reccomend it.
Pete McCutchen
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On a radio report I was listening to the commentator said that Le Pen
>is only expected to get between 20% - 30% of the vote in the final
>round. 'Only'? An openly racist politician getting a quarter of the
>vote in a supposedly liberal democracy is an appalling figure.
>Remember, Le Pen's National Front party held 30-40 seats in the
>national assembly at one point, which is like the Klan having a couple
>of dozen Representatives in the US Congress or the BNP having a
>similar number in the UK Parliament (no openly fascist or racist party
>has ever won a single Parliamentary seat, btw.) No, rationalize it all
>you like, but something is rotten in the state of France.
I don't know as much as perhaps I should about French politicians, but
is La Pen really a racists/fascist? I'm not denying that he is; it's
just that those terms are often tossed about with reckless abandon.
To use one example, Berlosconi was accused of "racism" when he
trumpeted the superiority of Western culture. His comments, in
addition to being almost self-evidently correct, weren't "racist" --
they were what you might call "culturist," a different matter
entirely. If your objective is developing a high level of economic
and military strength, then the Western cultural toolkit is clearly
your best bet, at present.
So, is La Pen a racist, who doesn't like Arab immigrants because of
their swarthy skin, or is he raising legitimate questions about
unassimilated Arab immigrants? Even if he's a racist, is it possible
that his supporters voted for him because they have legitimate
concerns, and he's the only one addressing them? I'm not defending
him -- I'm genuinely curious.
On another note, I read an interesting article on a libertarian blog
-- http://samizdata.blogspot.com/. Scroll down to the article headed
"Preparing the Ground." The article makes the point that, while the
French politicians may argue about the purposes to which state
intervention is to be used, _none_ of the parties were antistatist, to
any degree. That is, all of them see the state as the institution of
first and last resort to solve all problems. Europeans often claim
that America simply doesn't have a political left, in any meaningful
sense of the term. Well, could it be that France doesn't have a
"right" at all, in the American sense of the term? That there's
simply no strain of French political culture which questions state
intervention, in principle? If so, it occurs to me that something is
indeed rotten in the state of France.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
>Speaking for myself, I _did_ come to my senses in time -- thanks to Gore
>supporters in the media and in professional politics, who dissuaded me from
>voting for him. They kept yapping about how it was my duty to vote for a
>candidate who had made a point of taking the Democratic Party back from
>people like me.
What do you mean "people like me"?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
Dal Dan) wrote:
>Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Fascists have also made
>> inroads in Denmark, Austria, and some other countries in continental
>> Europe, which is a deeply worrying trend.
>
>They carried the day - they did in Italy, and don't think our brand is
>any better than Le Pen, they aren't.
Is Berlosconi really a fascist, or are you, perhaps, exaggerating a
bit?
What I've read of him (which I admit isn't that much) doesn't sound
that bad. He made those comments about the superiority of Western
culture to Muslim culture, but that strikes me as a gaffe in the
Michael Kinsley sense of the term -- Kinsley said that a "gaffe" is
when a politician accidentally tells the truth. He favors somewhat
lower taxes, and a slightly less intrusive regulatory state. And his
labor minister wanted to loosen Italy's absurd rules making it
virtually impossible for employees to be fired. Before the leftists
murdered him, that is. (Oh, I forget -- they're not really leftists,
since leftists don't hurt people.)
What "fascist" policies does he support? I'll happily accept
correction, if it turns out that he really and truly does want to send
flying squads to round up Jews.
--
Pete McCutchen
Michael J. Lowrey
> On another note, I read an interesting article on a libertarian blog
> -- http://samizdata.blogspot.com/. Scroll down to the article headed
> "Preparing the Ground." The article makes the point that, while the
> French politicians may argue about the purposes to which state
> intervention is to be used, _none_ of the parties were antistatist, to
> any degree. That is, all of them see the state as the institution of
> first and last resort to solve all problems. Europeans often claim
> that America simply doesn't have a political left, in any meaningful
> sense of the term. Well, could it be that France doesn't have a
> "right" at all, in the American sense of the term? That there's
> simply no strain of French political culture which questions state
> intervention, in principle? If so, it occurs to me that something is
> indeed rotten in the state of France.
France has a very powerful "right" in the American sense of
the term, but it's an authoritarian right, shading to the
more-or-less openly fascistic/corporatist. It doesn't, to
the best of my knowledge, have an anti-statist or
libertarian tradition of any meaningful sort; their
anarchists come out of the anarcho-syndicalist, not the
anarcho-capitalist, heritage.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
Wobbly
Trinker
Pete McCutchen wrote:
> I don't know as much as perhaps I should about French politicians, but
> is La Pen really a racists/fascist? I'm not denying that he is; it's
> just that those terms are often tossed about with reckless abandon.
> To use one example, Berlosconi was accused of "racism" when he
> trumpeted the superiority of Western culture. His comments, in
> addition to being almost self-evidently correct, weren't "racist" --
> they were what you might call "culturist," a different matter
> entirely. If your objective is developing a high level of economic
> and military strength, then the Western cultural toolkit is clearly
> your best bet, at present.
>
> So, is La Pen a racist, who doesn't like Arab immigrants because of
> their swarthy skin, or is he raising legitimate questions about
> unassimilated Arab immigrants? Even if he's a racist, is it possible
> that his supporters voted for him because they have legitimate
> concerns, and he's the only one addressing them? I'm not defending
> him -- I'm genuinely curious.
Judge for yourself:
http://www.wcotc.com/racialdir/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,690101,00.html
http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/contemp1/lepen.htm
http://www.adl.org/international/LePen-2-history.html
http://www.adl.org/international/LePen-3-racism.html
Le Pen's party, Front National, is associated with National Front
in England: http://www.nationalfront.org/
--Trinker
David T. Bilek
>
>So, is La Pen a racist, who doesn't like Arab immigrants because of
>their swarthy skin, or is he raising legitimate questions about
>unassimilated Arab immigrants? Even if he's a racist, is it possible
>that his supporters voted for him because they have legitimate
>concerns, and he's the only one addressing them? I'm not defending
>him -- I'm genuinely curious.
>
Well, he did say that the Holocaust was just a "detail of history". I
suspect you aren't a big fan of politicians who talk like that.
As to genuine concerns, I dunno. Most of his supporters seem to be
voting for him because they don't like the darkies polluting their
French Culture. Here's a quote from a supporter in Paris that was
interviewed:
"It is not because I don't like foreigners, but I am fed up with the
situation in the suburbs - that's a simple fact. Every time there is
a crime, it is committed by a person of North African origin.
...
The best thing is for them to go back. Even the immigrants are not
happy in the suburbs. They should sort things out in their own
countries so they wouldn't need to come here. "
So this Le Pen voter first says he doesn't dislike foreigner, but then
says that all crime is committed by North Africans and that they
should go back to Africa.
Now, you can't blame a politician for every supporter's views, but you
don't have to be a genius to detect a pattern here if you know
anything about Le Pen and his ilk. Really.
-David
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Magnar Kj|nn|y) wrote:
>In article <cbJx8.2581$iU4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:57:18 +0100, Arwel Parry
>><ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I worry that the press are talking up the BNP -- everybody seems to be
>>>panicking about them at the moment, but they're only contesting 64 seats
>>>out of more than 6,500.
>>
>>6,500 seats? Really?
>
>They're having local elections in England next week; these would be
>6500 seats in various city councils and so on.
Ah! Okay. Over here, those tend to be scattered all across the
calendar; I was assuming that was 6,500 _national_ seats, which made
no sense. I know Parliament's not that large.
Thanks.
Rob Hansen
Wisse) wrote:
>What's worrying is the effect this will have on the morale of other
>right wing extremists, like the BNP in the UK, who will take heart of
>this.
This doesn't much worry me. No fascist party has ever succeeded in
winning even a single Parliamentary seat over here, not even back in
the 1930s golden age of European fascism when the British Union of
Fascists, the biggest fascist movement we've had, actually had a
charismatic leader and a coherent political programme. It didn't take
then and it won't take now, particularly since the BNP seems to be
composed primarily of thugs and bully boys, unlike its continental
counterparts. Localized rabble-rousing is all they're capable of.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
Joshua Hesse
:Well, he did say that the Holocaust was just a "detail of history". I
:suspect you aren't a big fan of politicians who talk like that.
At least he admits that it happened, unlike the rest of Europe,
which is trying to forget it, and the rest of the eurasian continent,
which is denying it ever happened. (Or the middle-east, which is
trying to make it happen _again_.)
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
"You scream at them at the top of your lungs and then hit them over the head
with an immense wooden mallet? You're weird, sir." -Dave Brown on girls.
Robert Sneddon
<0009...@bigred.unl.edu> writes
>David T. Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> :Well, he did say that the Holocaust was just a "detail of history". I
> :suspect you aren't a big fan of politicians who talk like that.
>
>At least he admits that it happened, unlike the rest of Europe,
>which is trying to forget it,
Uh, you might recall where the Holocaust was perpetrated -- in Germany,
Poland and other parts of Occupied Europe. The trains ran from France,
from Italy, little Denmark, Austria. I don't personally know if any
Jewish people were taken from the Channel Islands -- I sincerely hope
not. We can not, will not forget it, because its causes and its remnants
are all around us. Barely a month goes by without some kind of incident
which drives what happened back into the public consciousness somewhere
in Europe.
Is there such a great knowledge of the Holocaust in America, then? Are
schoolkids taught the horrific details in history class? Do large groups
of Americans travel to visit Treblinka and Auschwitz, where, as you
claim, Europe is trying to sweep it under the rug?
The major sources of vocal academic Holocaust denial seem to be in
America, to my mind. Europe got to see the Nazis insane stupidity at
first hand. America had Lindbergh and the Bund.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Tony von Krag
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Then why oh why does the press of Europe rant large on the terrors of
the IDF and how wonderful the PA is?
--
Chef Anthony von Krag ACF retired
Have spices & cast iron cookware, will travel
User of sharp knives, Washer of hands and cutting boards
You want Me!!! To cook *THAT* well done?
David T. Bilek
I have no quibble at all with the majority of your post, but...
> The major sources of vocal academic Holocaust denial seem to be in
>America, to my mind. Europe got to see the Nazis insane stupidity at
^^^^^^
You misspelled "the Middle East". There are no serious
academics denying the Holocaust in the USA. It seems to be a pet
industry in places like Saudi Arabia.
>first hand. America had Lindbergh and the Bund.
>
-David
Pete McCutchen
<no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Is there such a great knowledge of the Holocaust in America, then? Are
>schoolkids taught the horrific details in history class? Do large groups
>of Americans travel to visit Treblinka and Auschwitz, where, as you
>claim, Europe is trying to sweep it under the rug?
Americans do visit those locations, though not in the same numbers as
Europeans. We're a fairly rich country, but you know, not all of us
can afford to fly to Europe just to visit Treblinka.
They do, however, learn about the Holocaust in school, and I've seen
groups of schoolchildren (well, teenagers) in the Holocaust Museum,
which, as you know Bob, is located in our nation's capital.
>
> The major sources of vocal academic Holocaust denial seem to be in
>America, to my mind. Europe got to see the Nazis insane stupidity at
>first hand. America had Lindbergh and the Bund.
David Irving is a Brit, no?
We do allow Holocaust denial, because we believe in free speech, even
odious speech. But most Americans believe that the Holocaust
happened. And the Bund has been pretty seriously discredited. Even
Lindbergh got on board, after the war started, though Roosevelt
refused to let him back in the military, despite his willingness to
volunteer. (I've read the he trained pilots in the Pacific, and that
he actually flew a few illegal missions, but I could well have dreamed
that.)
--
Pete McCutchen
John Bartley I solved my XP problems w/ Service Pack Linux
> >From: "Michael J. Lowrey" oran...@uwm.edu
> >
>
> >Tentative guess: at Bush 1.1's expense; people were
> >wearying of Reaganism.
> >
> >_Whoever_ got squeezed out, though: in the second round the
> >Establishment and their lapdogs would have piled on Perot so
> >severely as a nutbar (which he was, I might add), that his
> >chances would have been zilch, nada.
>
> You sure?
>
> From a Republican perspective, isn't even the worst "nutbar" still better than
> a Democrat?
Not this Republican's. Clinton was a kleptocrat, and thereby somewhat
self-limiting, but enough of a Demopublican to be dangerous. Not so
dangerous as to make me vote for Perot.
Others:
Jimmy's primary fault was being Earnest, and thereby not dangerous.
LBJ was too damn good at logrolling, and we did not have enough Wayne
Morses in the Senate to control him - and look what happened.
JFK was a sabre-rattler, and thereby dangerous.
I won't go back further, because we would pass the political
singularity created by TV.
Robert Sneddon
Krag <von...@yahoonospam.com> writes
>
>Then why oh why does the press of Europe rant large on the terrors of
>the IDF and how wonderful the PA is?
They don't want the Warsaw Ghetto massacre to occur again? Europeans
have seen at first hand what a dominant monoculture does with demonised
interlopers who have the temerity to fight back with whatever comes to
hand.
Slightly off-topic, the Israeli government is not bound by the American
constitution, of course, but it does seem to go in for doing things the
original framers made a big point of making not just illegal, but
impossible to enact into American law as the act would be
unconstitutional.
For example, Israeli practice is to assume collective guilt; someone
whose son or daughter becomes a suicide bomber is likely to get their
house bulldozed in reprisal. The American constitution specifically bans
punishing innocents for the criminal acts of another. I have yet to see
any American decry the Israeli actions in these cases; do all Americans
believe that a bomber's family deserve to be punished for their child's
action?
Probably not. You might also like to consider that "the press of
Europe" is not monolithic either.
Arwel Parry
<oran...@uwm.edu> writes
Yes, it's councils this year -- MP's jobs are pretty safe for 3-4 years.
There seems to have been some misapprehension about this part of the
thread - I'm talking about the British National Party, not the Banque
Nationale de Paris! :-)
Last year there was a big fuss when the BNP did surprisingly well in 3
or 4 parliamentary seats (2 of which were in the same town). This year
they're contesting 64 council seats, which is pretty small beer really.
To explain the 6,500 seats, in England and Wales most areas have two
councils, the county council and the district council (the old
metropolitan counties (bigger cities) only have one as Maggie scrapped
the Metropolitan County Councils because it got embarrassing that the
Tories couldn't get anyone elected to them). Members of these councils
are elected for fixed 4-year terms, so the usual pattern is:
Year 1: Whole County Council elected
Year 2: 1/3rd of District Council elected
Year 3: 1/3rd of District Council elected
Year 4: 1/3rd of District Council elected
The only exception to this is when there have been substantial changes
to ward boundaries, as happened here 2 or 3 years ago, and the whole
council gets elected at once. My district council ward has 3
councillors, and forms about half of a county council ward which has one
councillor, so we have an election for somebody every year. The year of
the boundary changes, every voter had 3 votes, and the candidate who got
most was elected to the district council for 4 years, the 2nd candidate
was elected for 3 years, and the 3rd candidate was elected I think for 1
year. (At local level there's no guarantee that people will vote for
candidates of the same party when they've got multiple votes - there's a
lot of personal voting at this level).
Avram Grumer
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On another note, I read an interesting article on a libertarian blog
> -- http://samizdata.blogspot.com/. Scroll down to the article headed
> "Preparing the Ground." The article makes the point that, while the
> French politicians may argue about the purposes to which state
> intervention is to be used, _none_ of the parties were antistatist,
> to any degree. That is, all of them see the state as the institution
> of first and last resort to solve all problems. [...]
Is this really true?
I'm playing a CD (Cake's _Motorcade of Generosity_) and I wanted to
listen to one track ("Jolene") over gain. I didn't resort to the
institutional power of the state at all -- I just dug up my remote and
hit a button. Does this make me an "antistatist"? (But then, I'm not
French.) And since when is antistatism a right-wing thing?
In case this isn't coming through, I've been having a lot of trouble
with right-libertarian rhetoric recently, and the degree to which they
seem to be trying to define some very real political viewpoints out of
existence. I wrote about it a bit on my weblog a couple of months ago:
http://www.PigsAndFishes.org/links/weblog/archives.html?year=2002&month=0
3&day=07#20020307004520
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to
stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Robert Sneddon
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:09:08 +0100, Robert Sneddon
><no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>They do, however, learn about the Holocaust in school, and I've seen
>groups of schoolchildren (well, teenagers) in the Holocaust Museum,
>which, as you know Bob, is located in our nation's capital.
Which of many Holocaust Museums is that? One of the several in Israel,
or (limiting myself to America) the one in Florida, or the one in
Virginia, or the one in... Having a Holocaust Museum is not a singular
concept, it seems. Is there some committee that makes the Washington
D.C. museum the official one?
For me, the important museums of the Holocaust are the camps
themselves; Europe has kept many of them them pretty much intact to
remind ourselves of what we did, and what we didn't do, and warn our
young. "Arbeit Macht Frei" still stands over the gates at Auschwitz.
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/au-arbeit.html
What does the Washington museum have to match that chilling reminder?
>> The major sources of vocal academic Holocaust denial seem to be in
>>America, to my mind. Europe got to see the Nazis insane stupidity at
>>first hand. America had Lindbergh and the Bund.
>
>David Irving is a Brit, no?
"Hal Turner" is an American, yes?
Irving is dislikeable, certainly, but I think he was railroaded in the
court case to some extent. I've never seen writings where he denied the
Wannsee Protocols and their aftermath. He picked at the details, rather,
and there is a certain academic rigidity extant that sees any
questioning of details of the systematic destruction of millions of Jews
and others as absolute denial. I am aware that there are real anti-
Semitic deniers who attempt to pick at the evidence because they wish
to deny it completely; I'm just not sure Irving fits into this category.
>
>We do allow Holocaust denial, because we believe in free speech, even
>odious speech. But most Americans believe that the Holocaust
>happened.
Nearly all Europeans do so too. Quite a few Europeans have (or had)
relatives and acquaintances who were forced into the camps. I'd guess a
much higher proportion believe in the Holocaust than, say, Americans.
What we see in Europe coming from America is the Turner Diaries and
other irrationalities. German law does not permit what the American
First Amendment defends as a right; the Germans know their own minds,
and what they found in 1945 when the veil of secrecy was swept aside and
they could no longer ignore what many had suspected still scars them to
this day.
> And the Bund has been pretty seriously discredited. Even
>Lindbergh got on board, after the war started, though Roosevelt
>refused to let him back in the military, despite his willingness to
>volunteer.
For several years before Dec 1941, and during the occupation of Western
Europe after May 1940, Lindy was both isolationist and somewhat of a fan
of Mean Mr. Moustache, going so far as to buy a house in the Wannsee
district of Berlin. His diaries and writings of the time evince a naive
anti-jewish mindset that does not descend into active hatred as such.
Margaret MacDonald
> For example, Israeli practice is to assume collective guilt; someone
> whose son or daughter becomes a suicide bomber is likely to get their
> house bulldozed in reprisal. The American constitution specifically bans
> punishing innocents for the criminal acts of another.
Sure. But the US government do it anyway (cue Drugs
War [tm] footage).
Meg
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> For example, Israeli practice is to assume collective guilt; someone
>whose son or daughter becomes a suicide bomber is likely to get their
>house bulldozed in reprisal. The American constitution specifically bans
>punishing innocents for the criminal acts of another. I have yet to see
>any American decry the Israeli actions in these cases; do all Americans
>believe that a bomber's family deserve to be punished for their child's
>action?
>
> Probably not. You might also like to consider that "the press of
>Europe" is not monolithic either.
Well, if it's not monolithic, then why hasn't it reported American
objections to Israeli actions? You've just said you've seen no such
reports in the European press, but the objections have certainly
occurred.
I'd suggest not trusting _any_ press, _anywhere_, to accurately
reflect a large and complicated society.
Joel Rosenberg
>
> For several years before Dec 1941, and during the occupation of Western
> Europe after May 1940, Lindy was both isolationist and somewhat of a fan
> of Mean Mr. Moustache, going so far as to buy a house in the Wannsee
> district of Berlin. His diaries and writings of the time evince a naive
> anti-jewish mindset that does not descend into active hatred as such.
His wife, eventually, having looked over his writings in some detail,
finally came to the conclusion that he was an anti-semite.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From Mary McGrory in The Washington Post to Mark
Shields on CNN, a falafel curtain has descended
across our continent, transmogrifying the Arab
aggressor into the victim.
--William Safire
Ed Dravecky III
> Nearly all Europeans do so too. Quite a few Europeans have (or had)
> relatives and acquaintances who were forced into the camps. I'd guess a
> much higher proportion believe in the Holocaust than, say, Americans.
"I base this on nothing, of course."
--
Ed Dravecky III
Addison TX USA
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <iq9ecusf14f0o37oo...@4ax.com>, Pete McCutchen
><p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:09:08 +0100, Robert Sneddon
>><no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>They do, however, learn about the Holocaust in school, and I've seen
>>groups of schoolchildren (well, teenagers) in the Holocaust Museum,
>>which, as you know Bob, is located in our nation's capital.
>
> Which of many Holocaust Museums is that? One of the several in Israel,
>or (limiting myself to America) the one in Florida, or the one in
>Virginia, or the one in...
The two best and largest in the U.S. are in Washington and Los
Angeles. The one in Washington is officially the National Holocaust
Museum.
>Having a Holocaust Museum is not a singular
>concept, it seems. Is there some committee that makes the Washington
>D.C. museum the official one?
Yes. The United States Congress declared it the official one for the
U.S.
> For me, the important museums of the Holocaust are the camps
>themselves; Europe has kept many of them them pretty much intact to
>remind ourselves of what we did, and what we didn't do, and warn our
>young. "Arbeit Macht Frei" still stands over the gates at Auschwitz.
>
>http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/au-arbeit.html
>
> What does the Washington museum have to match that chilling reminder?
Family photos and possessions of thousands who died in the camps,
matched with the date and place of death. It's quite effective.
>>> The major sources of vocal academic Holocaust denial seem to be in
>>>America, to my mind. Europe got to see the Nazis insane stupidity at
>>>first hand. America had Lindbergh and the Bund.
But America now has far more Jews than Europe, and believe me, they
remember. Dozens of my friends lost family members in the camps.
> What we see in Europe coming from America is the Turner Diaries and
>other irrationalities.
Well, yes, because that's what makes nice lurid headlines in the
papers. What _we_ see over here is _your_ Holocaust deniers, and the
Polish troublemakers setting up crosses and nightclubs at Auschwitz.
If American disbelief in the Holocaust were widespread, it wouldn't be
news. It's always the aberrations you hear about, never the norm.
Kip Williams
>
> For example, Israeli practice is to assume collective guilt; someone
> whose son or daughter becomes a suicide bomber is likely to get their
> house bulldozed in reprisal. The American constitution specifically bans
> punishing innocents for the criminal acts of another. I have yet to see
> any American decry the Israeli actions in these cases; do all Americans
> believe that a bomber's family deserve to be punished for their child's
> action?
I do believe that's intended as a disincentive for suicide bombers.
You can't say "do that again and I'll kill you" to someone who is
planning to vaporize everything around them. I'm guessing the idea
is to dissuade with threats, rather than the notion that this will
show that lousy family what we think of them.
Doesn't seem to be working all that well, so far, but calling it
something it isn't just adds to the murk, of which there is already
plenty.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"What's a rubber to a duck? / What's the old cow think /
When you load 'er on the truck? / What's time to a hog?" --The
Dillards
Kevin J. Maroney
<no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Irving is dislikeable, certainly, but I think he was railroaded in the
>court case to some extent. I've never seen writings where he denied the
>Wannsee Protocols and their aftermath. He picked at the details, rather,
>and there is a certain academic rigidity extant that sees any
>questioning of details of the systematic destruction of millions of Jews
>and others as absolute denial
Based on the documents and research presented during the trial, I feel
confident in saying that David Irving systematically misreported
events and misquoted primary and secondary sources to further the myth
that Hitler didn't know about the extermination of the Jews. This has
been demonstrated in his works dating back at least to 1977's
_Hitler's War_, which is supposed to be his most solid work.
He also systematically distorts history to minimize the size of the
Holocaust, the number of camps devoted to direct extermination of
detainees, and so forth.
There are a great many "Holocaust deniers" who don't attempt to deny
the existence of the camps, or of the mass deaths. They just try to
deny that the camps were *designed* as extermination camps, claiming
instead that most of the (relatively few) dead were casualties of
disease. Really, you know, it could have happened to anyone--don't you
know there was a war on?
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Kevin J. Maroney
solved my XP problems w/ Service Pack Linux) wrote:
> Clinton was a kleptocrat,
And so fiendishly clever that he managed to hide all evidence of his
criminality throughout an investigation of magnitude unprecedented in
human history. The bastard!
Neil Belsky
"Kevin J. Maroney" <k...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ah2hcu4579okl95ac...@4ax.com...
They just try to
> deny that the camps were *designed* as extermination camps, claiming
> instead that most of the (relatively few) dead were casualties of
> disease. Really, you know, it could have happened to anyone--don't you
> know there was a war on?
>
> --
> Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
> Games are my entire waking life.
Good sarcasm, but FAR too close to the truth.
When I was flying to Confiction I was sitting next to an older German
couple.
We had a pleasent discussion and then the conversation turned to the Dutch.
"A very nice people" they said.
But We really don't see why they can't put the war behind them."
A little voice in my head was screaming:
You mean they should forget about the fact that you blitzkrieged across
their country?
It was just business?
Neil
--
"Dear Anna,
I miss you very much.
I wish I had,
Some of your blood"
Theodore Sturgeon
Joel Rosenberg
> Robert Sneddon wrote:
>>
>> For example, Israeli practice is to assume collective guilt; someone
>> whose son or daughter becomes a suicide bomber is likely to get their
>> house bulldozed in reprisal. The American constitution specifically bans
>> punishing innocents for the criminal acts of another. I have yet to see
>> any American decry the Israeli actions in these cases; do all Americans
>> believe that a bomber's family deserve to be punished for their child's
>> action?
>
> I do believe that's intended as a disincentive for suicide bombers.
> You can't say "do that again and I'll kill you" to someone who is
> planning to vaporize everything around them. I'm guessing the idea
> is to dissuade with threats, rather than the notion that this will
> show that lousy family what we think of them.
>
> Doesn't seem to be working all that well, so far, but calling it
> something it isn't just adds to the murk, of which there is already
> plenty.
>
And it's kind of interesting to see that assertion come from somebody who,
I understand, is from the UK. Does the US Constitution apply there, too?
Tony von Krag
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <vonkrag-A06306...@unix9.sihope.com>, Tony von
>Krag <von...@yahoonospam.com> writes
>>
>>Then why oh why does the press of Europe rant large on the terrors of
>>the IDF and how wonderful the PA is?
>
> They don't want the Warsaw Ghetto massacre to occur again? Europeans
>have seen at first hand what a dominant monoculture does with demonised
>interlopers who have the temerity to fight back with whatever comes to
>hand.
Do you honestly think the IDF in the PA lands is comprable to the
Whermacht in Warsaw? I look at the maps and see Israel surounded by
hostile govs and people.
>
> Slightly off-topic, the Israeli government is not bound by the American
>constitution, of course, but it does seem to go in for doing things the
>original framers made a big point of making not just illegal, but
>impossible to enact into American law as the act would be
>unconstitutional.
>
> For example, Israeli practice is to assume collective guilt; someone
>whose son or daughter becomes a suicide bomber is likely to get their
>house bulldozed in reprisal. The American constitution specifically bans
>punishing innocents for the criminal acts of another. I have yet to see
>any American decry the Israeli actions in these cases; do all Americans
>believe that a bomber's family deserve to be punished for their child's
>action?
I not sure why you put the US sys of governance in this debate, it makes
a nice strawman tho. I'd imagine that the thought of leaving my family
and loved ones hanging in the breeze homeless would make a shaheed
think, guess not tho.
>
> Probably not. You might also like to consider that "the press of
>Europe" is not monolithic either.
Yeppers I agree but in reading several major papers one might think so.
Tony von Krag
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:09:08 +0100, Robert Sneddon
><no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
snip
Even
>Lindbergh got on board, after the war started, though Roosevelt
>refused to let him back in the military, despite his willingness to
>volunteer. (I've read the he trained pilots in the Pacific, and that
>he actually flew a few illegal missions, but I could well have dreamed
>that.)
He did and was a hero, Air and Space did some nice work on documenting
this.
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>You mean they should forget about the fact that you blitzkrieged across
>their country?
After some length of time and some degree of apology and some degree
of reparation, national offenses must be forgiven. Obviously the
German to whom you were talking thought that the conditions had been
met.
"Not forgiving is like drinking rat poison and then waiting for the
rat to die." (--Anne Lamott)
Kip Williams
>
> Kip Williams wrote:
>
> > Robert Sneddon wrote:
> >>
> >> For example, Israeli practice is to assume collective guilt; someone
> >> whose son or daughter becomes a suicide bomber is likely to get their
> >> house bulldozed in reprisal. The American constitution specifically bans
> >> punishing innocents for the criminal acts of another. I have yet to see
> >> any American decry the Israeli actions in these cases; do all Americans
> >> believe that a bomber's family deserve to be punished for their child's
> >> action?
> >
> > I do believe that's intended as a disincentive for suicide bombers.
> > You can't say "do that again and I'll kill you" to someone who is
> > planning to vaporize everything around them. I'm guessing the idea
> > is to dissuade with threats, rather than the notion that this will
> > show that lousy family what we think of them.
> >
> > Doesn't seem to be working all that well, so far, but calling it
> > something it isn't just adds to the murk, of which there is already
> > plenty.
> >
>
> And it's kind of interesting to see that assertion come from somebody who,
> I understand, is from the UK. Does the US Constitution apply there, too?
(Before anybody tells Joel that I'm as American as Apple Pie, I just
wanted to mention that I know he's talking to Robert. Actually, Joel
and I have met: I watched him bring down a UFO with a roll of tape
last year. It was caught in, I think, the ceiling fan.)