Timeless Orwell
Q
even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he
sould be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear,
hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary
that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not
matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no desive victory
is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All
that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the
intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more
easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the
higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in
the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are the strongest.
In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of
theInner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and
he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not
happening or is being waged for purposes quite other that the declared ones;
but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink.
Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical beief
that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania
the undisputet master of the entire world.
Martha Bridegam
One of the amazing things about Orwell is that I've tried time after time to
quote his essays to my own purpose, and time after time I've found that the
vast majority of his sentences are so specifically directed that they can't be
pulled out of context to any kind of ringing effect. Parts of *1984* are an
exception to this rule -- which to me is a reason to like his essays and
reportage better than his novels.
Here are some good bits from "Inside the Whale" -- not to say at all that I
think they're literally applicable to things going on now, just interesting
starting points for thought. Like every good Orwell essay it's a piece of
writing that is tightly connected to its own time -- in this case, early 1940.
It might, ironically, help now to remember that although the world was not the
same after World War II, art did remain possible, and so did other good things.
Also that Orwell himself did not share Miller's attitude during the actual war.
As people know, he served in the Home Guard and worked for the BBC on a daily
broadcast designed to encourage sympathy for English culture among
intellectuals in South and Southeast Asia.
I've often thought that the United States of America was a little bit
whale-shaped. But I guess nobody is "inside" anything now.
"...Good novels are not written by orthodoxy-sniffers, nor by people who are
conscience-stricken about their own unorthodoxy. Good novels are written by
people who are *not frightened*. This brings me back to Henry Miller...
...I first met Miller at the end of 1936, when I was passing through Paris on
my way to Spain. What most intrigued me about him was to find that he felt no
interest in the Spanish war whatever. He merely told me in forcible terms that
to go to Spain at that moment was the act of an idiot. He could understand
anyone going there from purely selfish motives, out of curiosity, for instance,
but to mix oneself up in such things *from a sense of obligation* was sheer
stupidity. In any case my ideas about combating Fascism, defending democracy,
etc., etc., were all boloney. Our civilisation was destined to be swept away
and replaced by something so different that we should scarcely regard it as
human -- a prospect that did not bother him, he said. And some such outlook is
implicit throughout his work....
...Huxley remarks that the people in El Greco's pictures always look as though
they were in the bellies of whales, and professes to find something peculiarly
horrible in the idea of being in a 'visceral prison'. Miller retorts that, on
the contrary, there are many worse things than being swallowed by whales, and
the passage makes it clear that he himself finds the idea rather attractive.
Here he is touching upon what is probably a very widespread fantasy...
...for the fact is that being inside a whale is a very comfortable, cosy,
homelike thought. The historical Jonah, if he can be so called, was glad enough
to escape, but in imagination, in day-dream, countless people have envied him.
It is, of course, quite obvious why. The whale's belly is simply a womb big
enough for an adult. There you are, in the dark, cushioned space that exactly
fits you, with yards of blubber between yourself and reality, able to keep up
an attitude of the completest indifference, no matter *what* happens. A storm
that would sink all the battleships in the world would hardly reach you as an
echo....
...there is no question that Miller himself is inside the whale. All his best
and most characteristic passages are written from the angle of Jonah, a willing
Jonah. Not that he is especially introverted -- quite the contrary. In his case
the whale happens to be transparent. Only he feels no impulse to alter or
control the process that he is undergoing. He has performed the essential Jonah
act of allowing himself to be swallowed, remaining passive, *accepting*.
It will be seen what this amounts to. It is a species of quietism, implying
either complete unbelief or else a degree of belief amounting to mysticism. The
attitude is "Je m'en fous' or 'Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him',
whichever way you like to look at it; for practical purposes both are
identical, the moral in either case being 'Sit on your bum'. But in a time like
ours, is this a defensible attitude? Notice that it is almost impossible to
refrain from asking this question. At the moment of writing we are still in a
period in which it is taken for granted that books ought always to be positive,
serious and 'constructive.'...
...If one looks at the books of personal reminiscence written about the war of
1914-18, one notices that nearly all that have remained readable after a lapse
of time are written from a passive, negative angle. They are the records of
something completely meaningless, a nightmare happening in a void. That was not
actually the truth about the war, but it was the truth about the individual
reaction. The soldier advancing into a machine-gun barrage or standing
waist-deep in a flooded trench knew only that here was an appalling experience
in which he was all but helpless. He was likelier to make a good book out of
his helplessness and his ignorance than out of a pretended power to see the
whole thing in perspective. As for the books that were written during the war
itself, the best of them were nearly all the work of people who simply turned
their backs and tried not to notice that the war was happening. Mr E.M. Forster
has described how in 1917 he read 'Prufrock' and others of Eliot's early poems,
and how it heartened him at such a time to get hold of poems that were
'innocent of public-spiritedness'....
...The truth was that in 1917 there was nothing that a thinking and sensitive
person could do, except to remain human, if possible. And a gesture of
helplessness, even of frivolity, might be the best way of doing that. If I had
been a soldier fighting in the Great War, I would sooner have got hold of
'Prufrock' than *The First Hundred Thousand* or Horatio Bottomley's *Letters to
the Boys in the Trenches*. I should have felt, like Mr Forster, that by simply
standing aloof and keeping touch with pre-war emotions, Eliot was carrying on
the human heritage. What a relief it would have been at such a time, to read
about the hesitations of a middle-aged highbrow with a bald spot! So different
from bayonet-drill! After the bombs and the food-queues and the
recruiting-posters, a human voice! what a relief!
But, after, all, the war of 1914-18 was only a heightened moment in an almost
continuous crisis. At this date it hardly even needs a war to bring home to us
the disintegration of our society and the increasing helplessness of all decent
people. It is for this reason that I think that the passive, non-cooperative
attitude implied in Henry Miller's work is justified. Whether or not it is an
expression of what people *ought* to feel, it probably comes somewhat near to
expressing what they *do* feel. Once again it is the human voice among the
bomb-explosions, a friendly American voice, 'innocent of public-spiritedness'.
No sermons, merely the subjective truth. And along those lines, apparently, it
is still possible for a good novel to be written. Not necessarily an edifying
novel, but a novel worth reading and likely to be remembered after it is read.
While I have been writing this book another European war has broken out. It
will either last several years and tear Western civilisation to pieces, or it
will end inconclusively and prepare the way for yet another war which will do
the job once and for all...."
...and so on into Orwell's dire predictions for the end of liberal thought and
a totalitarian future and "the *impossibility* of any major literature until
the world has shaken itself into its new shape."
c/o MAB
John Rennie
"Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3BA65F5D...@pacbell.net...
> <snipping Q's quote from *1984*>
>
> One of the amazing things about Orwell is that I've tried time after time
to
> quote his essays to my own purpose, and time after time I've found that
the
snipped for brevity
Martha you have managed to correct the story I told
about Burroughs and Orwell elsewhere. Of course
it was Miller and I am still on Orwell's side.
Martha Bridegam
John Rennie wrote:
Burroughs could be self-righteous and public-spirited in his own strange way.
About the (real) evils of presuming methadone addiction is therapeutic, for
example. And he was too mean to be anybody's Jonah. Thin-lipped Old Weird
Middle American Gothic mean. (Yes, I've been rereading Greil Marcus this
week.)
You want an American innocent abroad, best stick to Henry Miller.
/MAB
Paul Sebastianelli
Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BA65F5D...@pacbell.net>...
><snipping Q's quote from *1984*>
>
>One of the amazing things about Orwell is that I've tried time after time
to
>quote his essays to my own purpose, and time after time I've found that the
>vast majority of his sentences are so specifically directed that they can't
be
>pulled out of context to any kind of ringing effect.
I find that P&TEL is very timeless, and can be applied to a lot of
different modern subjects.
>"...Good novels are not written by orthodoxy-sniffers, nor by people who
are
>conscience-stricken about their own unorthodoxy.
That's a great line.
paul.
Jean-Francois Paradis
another good one...
Good prose is like a window pane.
Which was... I don't remember where... damnit.
Jean-Francois Paradis
ps: Gosh... I don't see my posts since 3 days... fortunately I see
yours...
Chris Pando
<paradis_je...@hotmail.com> wrote:
... snip ...
>
>another good one...
>
>Good prose is like a window pane.
>
>Which was... I don't remember where... damnit.
>
And there I was, thinking it was "good prose is like
windowpane." Makes a world of difference, but it
probably explains why I'm so fond of Pynchon.
Chris
--
It is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one
constantly struggles to efface one’s own personality. Good
prose is like a windowpane. George Orwell
Martha Bridegam
Chris Pando wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:40:04 -0400, Jean-Francois Paradis
> <paradis_je...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
> >
> >another good one...
> >
> >Good prose is like a window pane.
> >
> >Which was... I don't remember where... damnit.
> >
>
> And there I was, thinking it was "good prose is like
> windowpane." Makes a world of difference, but it
> probably explains why I'm so fond of Pynchon.
"...with wine, with poetry, or with virtue...," innit?
>
>
> Chris
> --
> It is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one
> constantly struggles to efface one’s own personality. Good
> prose is like a windowpane. George Orwell
>
A '60s-veteran friend once tried to tell me that George Orwell had used
LSD. I couldn't get him to bet money on this claim, which is a pity
because I could have used the cash at the time. But I do wonder where he
got the idea in the first place. Maybe mixed him up with Huxley?
We can probably be grateful that Orwell stuck to beer, tea and tobacco,
apart from the kif experiment in Morocco and whatever he got up to in
Burma. Per his housekeeper, he was having regular howling nightmares by
the late forties. I'm not sure his subconscious needed to be stirred up
any further. He probably would have written an awful thriller about
king-rat werewolves or something.
/MAB
Martha Bridegam
Paul Sebastianelli wrote:
Yes, and it has considerable bearing on the way the "limits of taste" have been
contracting to the point of discomfort here in the one and only home of the
First Amendment.
See, for example:
- At <http://www.poynter.org/medianews/>, the 'Doonesbury' item, & the link to
Gene Weingarten's column in the Washington Post about humor.
- ZDNet on concern among makers of video games
<http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2812413,00.html?chkpt=zdnn_mh_>.
- ClearChannel's "don't-play" list of songs:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/18/DD228327.DTL>.
- Further discussions on Plastic of video games and the ClearChannel list:
<http://www.plastic.com/>.
On a slightly more hopeful note, at least Jerry Falwell has seen fit to
apologize for tastelessly claiming that we were attacked by fundamentalists as
heavenly punishment for not being sufficiently fundamentalist ourselves:
<http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010917/us/attacks_falwell_apology_1.html>.
All of this is so complicated.
It's perfectly true that U.S. entertainment media have been full of offensive
cartoonish no-consequences cruelty for years. Arguably now our image-makers are
simply recognizing what pacifists and the outside world have been saying for
years: that in a healthy society, images of violence shouldn't be separated
from empathy with the victims of violence. In fact, Naomi Klein has just
written a column along these lines called "The End of Video-Game Wars" --
<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11503>.
Not to say that the mainstream entertainment industry is the only offender
here: I don't like the too-easy use of empty "revolution" and "struggle"
metaphors in the lefty vocabulary either. But I *really, really* don't like
imagining that peaceable social-justice activists may now feel constrained to
take down their Che Guevara posters due to an unofficial ban on ill-advised
metaphors.
All this self-suppression is getting to be bad for our sense of ourselves as
free citizens of a country that celebrates the right to speak without caution.
And as the Washington Post column points out, gallows humor *is* necessary in
crisis. As Gene notes, Tom Lehrer's pretty-damn-tasteless apocalypse humor does
come to mind at really bad moments. Y'know what else? Joking helps. It really
helps. It doesn't cheapen the horror to make a joke. Psychologically speaking,
*all* of humor is a response to fear. Sit and be solemn forever, and real
mourning turns into self-regarding piety.
I don't want to start a tasteless-jokes derby here by posting this, but I do
want to suggest that it is perfectly seemly to face a national threat by
carrying on as usual with as much good cheer as possible.
/MAB
Jonathan Mason
> Chris Pando wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:40:04 -0400, Jean-Francois Paradis
> > <paradis_je...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ... snip ...
> >
> > >
> > >another good one...
> > >
> > >Good prose is like a window pane.
> > >
> > >Which was... I don't remember where... damnit.
> > >
> >
> > And there I was, thinking it was "good prose is like
> > windowpane." Makes a world of difference, but it
> > probably explains why I'm so fond of Pynchon.
>
> "...with wine, with poetry, or with virtue...," innit?
>
> >
> >
> > Chris
> > --
> > It is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one
> > prose is like a windowpane. George Orwell
> >
>
> A '60s-veteran friend once tried to tell me that George Orwell had used
> LSD. I couldn't get him to bet money on this claim, which is a pity
> because I could have used the cash at the time. But I do wonder where he
> got the idea in the first place. Maybe mixed him up with Huxley?
>
> We can probably be grateful that Orwell stuck to beer, tea and tobacco,
> apart from the kif experiment in Morocco and whatever he got up to in
> Burma. Per his housekeeper, he was having regular howling nightmares by
In the late forties he was a dying man in an advanced state of TB, one
of whose prime symptoms is waking up in the night with drenching
sweats.
Gene Zitver
>Not to say that the mainstream entertainment industry is the only offender
>here: I don't like the too-easy use of empty "revolution" and "struggle"
>metaphors in the lefty vocabulary either. But I *really, really* don't like
>imagining that peaceable social-justice activists may now feel constrained to
>take down their Che Guevara posters due to an unofficial ban on ill-advised
>metaphors.
They *should* feel constrained to take them down because Che was responsible
for establishing Soviet-style prison camps in Cuba, but I guess that's another
thread.
>All this self-suppression is getting to be bad for our sense of ourselves as
>free citizens of a country that celebrates the right to speak without
>caution.
>
>And as the Washington Post column points out, gallows humor *is* necessary in
>crisis. As Gene notes, Tom Lehrer's pretty-damn-tasteless apocalypse humor
>does
>come to mind at really bad moments. Y'know what else? Joking helps. It really
>helps. It doesn't cheapen the horror to make a joke. Psychologically
>speaking,
>*all* of humor is a response to fear. Sit and be solemn forever, and real
>mourning turns into self-regarding piety.
>
>I don't want to start a tasteless-jokes derby here by posting this, but I do
>want to suggest that it is perfectly seemly to face a national threat by
>carrying on as usual with as much good cheer as possible.
Harry Shearer, who does several voices on "The Simpsons," does a weekly public
radio show that combines humor with music. On this week's show he actually
manages to say some humorous things, not about the horrible events themselves,
but about the media coverage, the stupid things some people have said in the
aftermath, etc.
If you have RealPlayer, you can hear the show at:
http://play.rbn.com/?url=livecon/kcrw/g2demand/ls/ls010916le_Show.rm&start
=&proto=rtsp
Gene
Paul Sebastianelli
Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BA7BA8C...@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>Paul Sebastianelli wrote:
>
>> Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BA65F5D...@pacbell.net>...
>> ><snipping Q's quote from *1984*>
>> >
>> >One of the amazing things about Orwell is that I've tried time after
time
>> to
>> >quote his essays to my own purpose, and time after time I've found that
the
>> >vast majority of his sentences are so specifically directed that they
can't
>> be
>> >pulled out of context to any kind of ringing effect.
>>
>> I find that P&TEL is very timeless, and can be applied to a lot of
>> different modern subjects.
>>
>> >"...Good novels are not written by orthodoxy-sniffers, nor by people who
>> are
>> >conscience-stricken about their own unorthodoxy.
>>
>> That's a great line.
>>
>> paul.
>
>Yes, and it has considerable bearing on the way the "limits of taste" have
been
>contracting to the point of discomfort here in the one and only home of the
>First Amendment.
I think there are other countries with the same freedom?
;-)
>
>See, for example:
>
>- At <http://www.poynter.org/medianews/>, the 'Doonesbury' item, & the link
to
>Gene Weingarten's column in the Washington Post about humor.
>
>- ZDNet on concern among makers of video games
><http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2812413,00.html?chkpt=zdnn_m
h_>.
>
>- ClearChannel's "don't-play" list of songs:
><http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/
18/DD228327.DTL>.
**LOL**
Indeed. I was able to get back on the ice for some shinny
the last couple of days, and although I am a little sore after
a summer away from it, there is no relief from apprehension
quite like it.
So strap on those skates folks: it's a great catharsis!
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Jonathan Mason wrote:
Thanks, Doc.
Nice to have you back.
/MAB
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
> Martha Bridegam wrote
>
> >Not to say that the mainstream entertainment industry is the only offender
> >here: I don't like the too-easy use of empty "revolution" and "struggle"
> >metaphors in the lefty vocabulary either. But I *really, really* don't like
> >imagining that peaceable social-justice activists may now feel constrained to
> >take down their Che Guevara posters due to an unofficial ban on ill-advised
> >metaphors.
>
> They *should* feel constrained to take them down because Che was responsible
> for establishing Soviet-style prison camps in Cuba, but I guess that's another
> thread.
That's one reason why I don't have such a poster on my own wall. My point is, we
can quarrel with people's choice of imagery all we like for good reasons like the
one you cite, but free speech nevertheless depends on its continual exercise even
in disagreeable ways.
Obvious point, I guess.
>
> ....
> Harry Shearer, who does several voices on "The Simpsons," does a weekly public
> radio show that combines humor with music. On this week's show he actually
> manages to say some humorous things, not about the horrible events themselves,
> but about the media coverage, the stupid things some people have said in the
> aftermath, etc.
>
> If you have RealPlayer, you can hear the show at:
> http://play.rbn.com/?url=livecon/kcrw/g2demand/ls/ls010916le_Show.rm&start
> =&proto=rtsp
>
> Gene
Thx.
/MAB
Martha Bridegam
Paul Sebastianelli wrote:
> Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BA7BA8C...@pacbell.net>...
> >
> ... here in the one and only home of the
> >First Amendment.
>
> I think there are other countries with the same freedom?
> ;-)
Similar, OK, similar. But you call your free-speech laws something else. I like
what we call ours. "The First Amendment." It's kinda catchy.
Here's our Bill of Rights, from the Library of Congress. The LOC site has this
listed under "Historical Documents" but I'm happy to report it's still in
force. See <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html>.
/MAB
John Rennie
And for good measure here is ours written nearly 100 years earlier
and from which you 'purloined' most of yours.
http://www.rahbarnes.demon.co.uk/bill1688.htm
Martha Bridegam
John Rennie wrote:
Thank you. Seriously, I had never read that.
"That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not
to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament." -- has
that been interpreted as protecting free speech only for Parliament itself or
also for the general public?
/MAB
John Rennie
It is the rule that protects Parliamentary privilege. An MP or Peer
can say what he likes about anyone in Westminster just as an ordinary
citizen
can say the same in a court of law. Outside these places all are subject
to
the laws of libel.
Martha Bridegam
Martha Bridegam wrote:
....
Look at this: the ClearChannel "don't-play" list includes John Lennon's "Imagine."
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/columnists/docs/LAMBERT/docs/137030.htm
/MAB
Gene Zitver
London Letter to the Partisan Review in the winter of 1945:
"... I don't share the average English intellectual's hatred of his own country
and am not dismayed by a British victory... I hate to see England either
humiliated or humiliating anybody else. I wanted to think that we would not be
defeated, and I wanted to think that the class distinctions and imperialist
exploitation of which I am ashamed would not return...
"... People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own
wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are
unwelcome... To name just one easily isolated example: who foresaw the
Russo-German Pact of 1939? A few pessimistic Conservatives foretold an
agreement between Germany and Russia, but the wrong kind of agreement, and for
the wrong reasons. So far as I am aware, not one intellectual of the Left,
whether russophile or russophobe, foresaw anything of the kind. For
that matter, the Left as a whole failed to foresee the rise of Fascism and
failed to grasp that the Nazis were dangerous even when they were on the verge
of seizing power. To appreciate the danger of Fascism the Left would have had
to admit its own shortcomings, which was too painful: so the whole phenomenon
was ignored or misinterpreted, with disastrous results.
"The most one can say is that people can be fairly good prophets when their
wishes are realisable. But a truly objective approach is almost impossible,
because in one form or another almost everyone is a nationalist. Left-wing
intellectuals do not think of themselves as nationalist, because as a rule they
transfer their loyalty to some foreign country, such as the USSR, or
indulge it in a merely negative form, in hatred of their own country and its
rulers. But their outlook is essentially nationalist, in that they think
entirely in terms of power politics and competitive prestige. In looking at any
situation they do not say, 'What are the facts? What are the
probabilities?' but, 'How can I make it appear to myself and others that my
faction is getting the better of some rival faction?' To a Stalinist it is
*impossible* that Stalin could ever be wrong, and to a Trotskyist it is equally
impossible that Stalin could every be right. So also with Anarchists,
pacificsts, Tories or what-have-you. And the atomisation of the world, the lack
of any real contact between one country and another, makes delusions
easier to preserve. To an astonishing extent, it is impossible to discover what
is happening outside one's own immediate circle... But one expects governments
and newspapers to tell lies. What is worse, to me, is the contempt even of
intellectuals for objective truth so long as their own brand of nationalism is
being boosted. The most intelligent people seem capable of
holding schizophrenic beliefs, or disregarding plain facts, of evading
serious questions with debating-society repartees, or swallowing baseless
rumours and of looking on indifferently while history is falsified. All these
mental vices spring ultimately from the nationalistic habit of mind, which is
itself, I suppose, the product of fear and of the ghastly emptiness of machine
civilisation. But at any rate it is not surprising that in our age the
followers of Marx have not been much more successful as prophets than the
followers of Nostradamus."
I don't necessarily think all of this is immediately relevant or even correct.
Nor do I mean to aim it at anyone in particular. Or I suppose, rather, I mean
to aim it at everyone, including myself.
Gene
Gene Zitver
>Look at this: the ClearChannel "don't-play" list includes John Lennon's
>"Imagine."
>
>http://www.pioneerplanet.com/columnists/docs/LAMBERT/docs/137030.htm
Geez. If you're looking for a reason to laugh after all the horror, this is it.
Gene
Paul Sebastianelli
Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BA82D09...@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>Paul Sebastianelli wrote:
>
>> Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BA7BA8C...@pacbell.net>...
>> >
>> ... here in the one and only home of the
>> >First Amendment.
>>
>> I think there are other countries with the same freedom?
>> ;-)
>
>Similar, OK, similar. But you call your free-speech laws something else. I
like
>what we call ours. "The First Amendment." It's kinda catchy.
I don't know, it's always made it sound like an
afterthought to me. Like they had such a piss-up
when they wrote the original that they forgot to add
that bit and therefore had to 'amend' it.
Rmeinds me of that epsiode of the Simpsons where
Bart has a dream about the founding fathers in which
it begins to snow outside, and they all go out to play.
And Thomas Jefferson is heard to exclaim:
"Come look everybody! John Hancock is writing his
name in the snow!!"
paul.
Paul Sebastianelli
John Rennie wrote in message ...
Yeah, well, that's nothing. Here's Canada's Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, entrenched in our constitution
way, way back in 1982:
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.head.html
How's that for tradition? (I for one have never read it.
Can't get past the first line about "the supremacy of God.")
paul, speaking my mind since I was nine.
Paul Sebastianelli
Gene Zitver wrote in message
<20010919135915...@mb-dd.aol.com>...
Thanks for that, Gene.
There's one Orwell quote I've been thinking about
lately:
"Revenge is sour."
Even more, I have been pondering an Albert Einstein
quote:
"The world will not evolve past it's current state of crisis
by using the same thinking that created the situation."
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
Actually I cried.
Joel points out that various folks have now censored John Lennon, the National
Anthem and Louis Armstrong. "What's next? Baseball and apple pie?" And I had to
point out they *did* briefly cancel baseball too.
/MAB
Paul Sebastianelli
Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BA94EAF...@pacbell.net>...
heh, heh.
Znet seems like it's going to be out for a while:
That is depressing.
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Paul Sebastianelli wrote:
It's back online now.
Someone mentioned this on RMD, so I did read the editor's message that was
posted last night. It said the server had gone down under a combination of
high usage and the nimda virus, & the ISP was telling them it didn't have
backups. Looks like they have straightened it out now. The ZMag site has
always been slow & clunky to use so it's no surprise it was overwhelmed.
/MAB
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
> As long as we're posting possbily relevant Orwell quotes, this is from his
> London Letter to the Partisan Review in the winter of 1945:
>
> "... I don't share the average English intellectual's hatred of his own country
> and am not dismayed by a British victory... "
This is a ridiculous charge, especially if made in 1945. Orwell wasn't above
sneering overstatement, was he?
/MAB
Gene Zitver
To put the quote in some context, it's preceded by a confession that he was
mistaken a number of times in his predictions earlier during the war.
"How could I write such things? Well, there is a clue in the fact that my
predictions, especially about military events, were by no means always wrong.
Looking back through my diaries and the news commentaries which I wrote for the
BBC over a period of two years, I see that I was often right as against the
bulk of the left-wing intelligentsia. I was right to the extent that I was not
defeatist, and after all the war has not been lost. The majority of left-wing
intellectuals, whatever they might say in print, were blackly defeatist in 1940
and again in 1942. In the summer of 1942, the turning-point of the war, most of
them held it as an article of faith that Alexandria would fall and Stalingrad
would not. I remember a fellow broadcaster, a Communist, saying to me with a
kind of passion, 'I would bet you anything, *anything*, that Rommel will be in
Cairo in a month.' What this person really meant, as I could see at a glance,
was, 'I *hope* Rommel will be in Cairo in a month.' I myself didn't hope
anything of the kind, and therefore I was able to see that the chances of
holding on to Egypt were fairly good. You have here an example of the
wish-thinking that underlies almost all political predictions at present.
"I could be right on a point of this kind, because I don't share the average
English intellectual's hatred of his own country…"
So who knows? It does sound like one of his sweeping generalizations. Maybe
someone familiar with the history of the British intelligentsia during WWII can
tell us if Orwell was anywhere close to the mark.
Gene
Paul Sebastianelli
Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BAA19D4...@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>Paul Sebastianelli wrote:
>
>> Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BA94EAF...@pacbell.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Gene Zitver wrote:
>> >
>> >> Martha Bridegam wrote
>> >>
>> >> >Look at this: the ClearChannel "don't-play" list includes John
Lennon's
>> >> >"Imagine."
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.pioneerplanet.com/columnists/docs/LAMBERT/docs/137030.htm
>> >>
>> >> Geez. If you're looking for a reason to laugh after all the horror,
this
>> is it.
>> >>
>> >> Gene
>> >
>> >Actually I cried.
>> >
>> >Joel points out that various folks have now censored John Lennon, the
>> National
>> >Anthem and Louis Armstrong. "What's next? Baseball and apple pie?" And I
>> had to
>> >point out they *did* briefly cancel baseball too.
>>
>> heh, heh.
>>
>> Znet seems like it's going to be out for a while:
>>
>> www.zmag.org
>>
>> That is depressing.
>>
>> paul.
>
>It's back online now.
Thanks. More good news:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/631538.asp?cp1=1
>
>Someone mentioned this on RMD, so I did read the editor's message that was
>posted last night. It said the server had gone down under a combination of
>high usage and the nimda virus, & the ISP was telling them it didn't have
>backups. Looks like they have straightened it out now. The ZMag site has
>always been slow & clunky to use so it's no surprise it was overwhelmed.
Yeah. I've stopped using the site because it has gotten
too slow. Never used to be. Is it possible that it has grown
too fast? Would that cause a website to be slow & clunky?
I'm still on the e-mail list, so that's how I heard about their
troubles.
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Paul Sebastianelli wrote:
> ...
>
> Thanks. More good news:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/631538.asp?cp1=1
>
> >...
Thanks for this. See also http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
/MAB
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
> English intellectual's hatred of his own country鈥|"
>
> So who knows? It does sound like one of his sweeping generalizations. Maybe
> someone familiar with the history of the British intelligentsia during WWII can
> tell us if Orwell was anywhere close to the mark.
>
> Gene
Interesting along these lines from Hitchens:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens
BTW, as a Dire Straits fan (sorry, Paul), I have to say it's odd for him to
mention "So Far Away," the first song of the "Brothers in Arms" album, in such an
appropriate context, & yet not discuss that album's other material. See especially
the lyrics at <http://orion.spaceports.com/~mmp/letras/BrothersInArms.html>.
/MAB
High & Low Life
> Gene Zitver wrote:
>
> > Martha Bridegam wrote
> >
> > >Look at this: the ClearChannel "don't-play" list includes John Lennon's
> > >"Imagine."
> > >
> > >http://www.pioneerplanet.com/columnists/docs/LAMBERT/docs/137030.htm
> >
> > Geez. If you're looking for a reason to laugh after all the horror, this
is it.
> >
> > Gene
>
> Actually I cried.
Actually I applauded. It's partly because of hypocritical hoo-hah like
Lennon's "Imagine" that we found ourselves fat, complacent and vulnerable on
the morning of September 11. The hippy generation never understood evil.
Listen to the lyrics of "Imagine" and try to tell me it's not the work of a
boy.
Well! We only hope many of that child-like generation grew-up last week.
> Joel points out that various folks have now censored John Lennon, the
National
> Anthem and Louis Armstrong. "What's next? Baseball and apple pie?" And I
had to
> point out they *did* briefly cancel baseball too.
I don't know who Joel is, but tell him to stop quaking and fetch his gun, a
quart of gin, a carton of Lucky Strikes, and have a good bunk-up. Do him a
world of good. *Then* tell him to go do his duty.
Hogarth
Martha Bridegam
High & Low Life wrote:
> //MAB wrote:
>
> > Gene Zitver wrote:
> >
> > > Martha Bridegam wrote
> > >
> > > >Look at this: the ClearChannel "don't-play" list includes John Lennon's
> > > >"Imagine."
> > > >
> > > >http://www.pioneerplanet.com/columnists/docs/LAMBERT/docs/137030.htm
> > >
> > > Geez. If you're looking for a reason to laugh after all the horror, this
> is it.
> > >
> > > Gene
> >
> > Actually I cried.
>
> Actually I applauded. It's partly because of hypocritical hoo-hah like
> Lennon's "Imagine" that we found ourselves fat, complacent and vulnerable on
> the morning of September 11. The hippy generation never understood evil.
> Listen to the lyrics of "Imagine" and try to tell me it's not the work of a
> boy.
>
> Well! We only hope many of that child-like generation grew-up last week.
At the risk of sickening you further with hippie childishness:
"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the
heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up
that which is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build
up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to
embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboreth?..."
Any twelve-year-old gang kid can fight. Grownups, including grownups who are
not pacifists, know when it is time not to fight.
<snipping your bizarre advice for my husband, who has faced earthquake and
armed robbery with great courage.>
If you're going to talk about complacency, let's talk about twenty years of
Republican/centrist national policy that has resulted in a degraded public
health system, layoffs at public hospitals, inadequate inspections of dangerous
workplaces, soldiers eligible for Food Stamps, underpaid privately employed
security guards who probably haven't had a square meal or a good night's sleep
in weeks (See <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011162t.pdf>), a housing shortage,
wretched shelters for economically displaced people that have lately been doing
their limited best to help the New Yorkers evacuated from their homes, and
shocking rates of both child poverty and obesity in a population from which
soldiers have to be recruited if there is in fact to be a war. Not to even
start on the failures of national banking and investment oversight.
The left-liberal nonprofits have struggled through these long years to hold the
nation's well-being together -- not for the greater glory of the state, but
because the people of a country have got to look after each other, whether in
war or in peace.
Working frantically for little or no pay, defending unpopular people against
the wildly popular gospel of the sainted Market, these "complacent" liberals
have been kicked in the teeth for their pains by Republicans and Clintonites
who saw things like national public services and minimum wages as pointless
hindrances to business. As your post illustrates, I doubt very many folks will
thank them now, either.
/MAB
Paul Sebastianelli
High & Low Life wrote in message <9ofqdg$cm5q3$1...@ID-54485.news.dfncis.de>...
By "duty" are you referring to a bowel movement, like people
do with their dogs? Does a quart of gin usually help solve the
problem?
Martha, please extend my condolescences to your husband
regarding his unfortunate blockage.
paul.
Paul Sebastianelli
Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BAB7CB5...@pacbell.net>...
Ah, yes, the "git-yer-gun" school of dispute resolution. Usually
ineffective as far as resolving disputes goes, but always effective
for displaying one's own rugged machismo.
To pull yet another analogy from the ice - it is very similar
to what someone said to me at the rink yesterday:
"That's my motto: I'm not a great skater, but I sure can knock
the motherfuckers over..."
Uh, yeah...
paul.
Paul Sebastianelli
Paul Sebastianelli
High & Low Life wrote in message <9ofqdg$cm5q3$1...@ID-54485.news.dfncis.de>...
>//MAB wrote:
>
>> Gene Zitver wrote:
>>
>> > Martha Bridegam wrote
>> >
>> > >Look at this: the ClearChannel "don't-play" list includes John
Lennon's
>> > >"Imagine."
>> > >
>> > >http://www.pioneerplanet.com/columnists/docs/LAMBERT/docs/137030.htm
>> >
>> > Geez. If you're looking for a reason to laugh after all the horror,
this
>is it.
>> >
>> > Gene
>>
>> Actually I cried.
>
>Actually I applauded. It's partly because of hypocritical hoo-hah like
>Lennon's "Imagine" that we found ourselves fat, complacent and vulnerable
on
>the morning of September 11. The hippy generation never understood evil.
>Listen to the lyrics of "Imagine" and try to tell me it's not the work of a
>boy.
Is this a trick question? Are you hinting that John Lennon
may have really been a girl!?!
Wow! What's your source on this?
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Paul Sebastianelli wrote:
Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BAACFE9...@pacbell.net>...
>
...
>
>Interesting along these lines from Hitchens:
>http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens
>
>BTW, as a Dire Straits fan (sorry, Paul),huh?
paul.
/MAB
High & Low Life
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
> Any twelve-year-old gang kid can fight. Grownups, including grownups who
are
> not pacifists, know when it is time not to fight.
When do you propose that this nation fight? When terrorists have nuclear
bombs, or biological surprises for us? You *must* know now, even in face of
your unfounded optimism, that these folks will not hesitate to use such
weapons?
>
> <snipping your bizarre advice for my husband, who has faced earthquake and
> armed robbery with great courage.>
Obviously I wasn't aware that you're married to this Joel figure. But my
advice, bizarre or not, still stands, especially the bit about the good
bunk-up.
>
> If you're going to talk about complacency, let's talk about twenty years
of
> Republican/centrist national policy that has resulted in a degraded public
> health system, layoffs at public hospitals, inadequate inspections of
dangerous
> workplaces, soldiers eligible for Food Stamps, underpaid privately
employed
> security guards who probably haven't had a square meal or a good night's
sleep
> in weeks (See <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011162t.pdf>), a housing
shortage,
> wretched shelters for economically displaced people that have lately been
doing
> their limited best to help the New Yorkers evacuated from their homes, and
> shocking rates of both child poverty and obesity in a population from
which
> soldiers have to be recruited if there is in fact to be a war. Not to even
> start on the failures of national banking and investment oversight.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> The left-liberal nonprofits have struggled through these long years to
hold the
> nation's well-being together -- not for the greater glory of the state,
but
> because the people of a country have got to look after each other, whether
in
> war or in peace.
Perhaps it's news to you that we have a free market economy: what tangible
(measurable) value you contribute will be returned through profits or wages.
A "left-liberal nonprofit" is just what it says it is: a nonprofit.
>
> Working frantically for little or no pay, defending unpopular people
against
> the wildly popular gospel of the sainted Market, these "complacent"
liberals
> have been kicked in the teeth for their pains by Republicans and
Clintonites
> who saw things like national public services and minimum wages as
pointless
> hindrances to business. As your post illustrates, I doubt very many folks
will
> thank them now, either.
This sounds like semi-autobiographical cant, though I know nothing about
you.
I can tell, however, that you don't have children.
Hogarth
Martha Bridegam
Paul Sebastianelli wrote:
> ....
>
> Martha, please extend my condolescences to your husband
> regarding his unfortunate blockage.
>
> paul.
Joel expresses his Condoleezas right back atcha.
/MAB
Paul Sebastianelli
apologize to me because you like shitty
music. ;-)
paul.
Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3BABA7B7...@pacbell.net>...
Gene Zitver
>Perhaps it's news to you that we have a free market economy
Your belief that we have a free-market economy is touching, but it's long been
more a case of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. And
since September 11, you may be the last free-marketeer left in the USA. For
example, airline executives are saying that allowing the free market to work
its magic *now* could mean the collapse of commercial air travel in this
country. So Congress is appropriating $15 billion to help bail out the
airlines, without a peep of protest from free-market ideologues.
what tangible
>(measurable) value you contribute will be returned through profits or wages.
Hmm, let me think. I assume the top executives of the companies which
manufacture Smith & Wesson revolvers, Gordon's gin and Lucky Strike cigarettes
(to choose some random examples) earn somewhat more than New York City
firefighters. Whose work do you think was more valuable last week?
Gene
High & Low Life
"Gene Zitver" <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010922111604...@mb-mf.aol.com...
> High & Low Life wrote
>
> >Perhaps it's news to you that we have a free market economy
>
> Your belief that we have a free-market economy is touching, but it's long
been
> more a case of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
And
> since September 11, you may be the last free-marketeer left in the USA.
For
> example, airline executives are saying that allowing the free market to
work
> its magic *now* could mean the collapse of commercial air travel in this
> country. So Congress is appropriating $15 billion to help bail out the
> airlines, without a peep of protest from free-market ideologues.
Not true. I've heard several protesting. But you dishonestly
mischaracterize "free-market ideologues."
>
> what tangible
> >(measurable) value you contribute will be returned through profits or
wages.
>
> Hmm, let me think. I assume the top executives of the companies which
> manufacture Smith & Wesson revolvers, Gordon's gin and Lucky Strike
cigarettes
> (to choose some random examples) earn somewhat more than New York City
> firefighters. Whose work do you think was more valuable last week?
Evidently firefighters are paid enough because new recruits continue to fill
their ranks. In fact, in many urban areas they are paid quite well relative
to other wage-earners. They typically have excellent benefits, including
survivor benefits for their families. There's a trade-off as well for every
municipality between higher wages and the number you need to employ to keep
the firehouses staffed.
Hogarth
Gene Zitver
>"Gene Zitver" <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010922111604...@mb-mf.aol.com...
>> High & Low Life wrote
>>
>> >Perhaps it's news to you that we have a free market economy
>>
>> Your belief that we have a free-market economy is touching, but it's long
>been
>> more a case of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
>And
>> since September 11, you may be the last free-marketeer left in the USA.
>For
>> example, airline executives are saying that allowing the free market to
>work
>> its magic *now* could mean the collapse of commercial air travel in this
>> country. So Congress is appropriating $15 billion to help bail out the
>> airlines, without a peep of protest from free-market ideologues.
>
>Not true. I've heard several protesting. But you dishonestly
>mischaracterize "free-market ideologues."
If I mischaracterized unfairly, I apologize. Can you give me examples of some
of the protestors and what they said?
>> what tangible
>> >(measurable) value you contribute will be returned through profits or
>wages.
>>
>> Hmm, let me think. I assume the top executives of the companies which
>> manufacture Smith & Wesson revolvers, Gordon's gin and Lucky Strike
>cigarettes
>> (to choose some random examples) earn somewhat more than New York City
>> firefighters. Whose work do you think was more valuable last week?
>
>Evidently firefighters are paid enough because new recruits continue to fill
>their ranks. In fact, in many urban areas they are paid quite well relative
>to other wage-earners. They typically have excellent benefits, including
>survivor benefits for their families. There's a trade-off as well for every
>municipality between higher wages and the number you need to employ to keep
>the firehouses staffed.
Well you didn't really answer my question. But I'll ask another. If
firefighters-- who routinely risk their lives to save others-- are paid enough
(thanks mostly to strong unions), are some corporate executives-- who oversee
the production and distribution of products that kill people-- paid too much?
Gene
Paul Sebastianelli
Gene Zitver wrote in message
>High & Low Life wrote
>
>>Perhaps it's news to you that we have a free market economy
>
>Your belief that we have a free-market economy is touching, but it's long
been
>more a case of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. And
>since September 11, you may be the last free-marketeer left in the USA. For
>example, airline executives are saying that allowing the free market to
work
>its magic *now* could mean the collapse of commercial air travel in this
>country. So Congress is appropriating $15 billion to help bail out the
>airlines, without a peep of protest from free-market ideologues.
Wow. Very well put. Thanks for that, Gene.
paul.
Paul Sebastianelli
High & Low Life wrote in message <9oieu3$dk564$1...@ID-54485.news.dfncis.de>...
This is probably largely due to the fact that firemen
have very strong unions. Unions, of course, being
the bete noir of most free-marketeers.
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
How nice. I hope those survivor benefits are as high as the $500,000-plus tax
breaks that The Nation estimated would go to members of the Bush Administration.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010625&s=scherer
Talk about unlearning decadence -- the decadence in our country is our national
ingratitude to the people we actually rely on. *This* is "making mock o' uniforms
that guard you while you sleep." And while we're at it, I hope it's not too much
to ask that we spare a little more public money for urban emegency rooms.
> There's a trade-off as well for every
> >municipality between higher wages and the number you need to employ to keep
> >the firehouses staffed.
>
> Well you didn't really answer my question. But I'll ask another. If
> firefighters-- who routinely risk their lives to save others-- are paid enough
> (thanks mostly to strong unions), are some corporate executives-- who oversee
> the production and distribution of products that kill people-- paid too much?
>
> Gene
Yes, thx, Gene.
With the added reminder that Orwell was almost inappropriately cheered up during
the war by the democratizing effects of common hardship -- fewer evening clothes,
fewer ostentatious society events, general slight shabbiness because of
rationing, fewer advertising posters, fences taken down from public parks for
use as scrap iron, etc.
/MAB
High & Low Life
"Paul Sebastianelli" <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CB6r7.43805$Aa7.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
--In part because of the unions; in part because the work is actually
high-skilled these days. By the way: I'm a believer in free markets, and
I'm a corporate lawyer, but I happen to like unions.
Hogarth
High & Low Life
"Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3BAD0023...@pacbell.net...
> > >> Hmm, let me think. I assume the top executives of the companies which
> > >> manufacture Smith & Wesson revolvers, Gordon's gin and Lucky Strike
> > >cigarettes
> > >> (to choose some random examples) earn somewhat more than New York
City
> > >> firefighters. Whose work do you think was more valuable last week?
> > >
> > >Evidently firefighters are paid enough because new recruits continue to
fill
> > >their ranks. In fact, in many urban areas they are paid quite well
relative
> > >to other wage-earners. They typically have excellent benefits,
including
> > >survivor benefits for their families.
>
> How nice. I hope those survivor benefits are as high as the $500,000-plus
tax
> breaks that The Nation estimated would go to members of the Bush
Administration.
I heard today that each widow (widower--any?) of the firefighters crushed in
the WTC will receive her husband's salary for her life, plus various
educational benefits to their offspring--benefits worth far more to these
(mainly young) widows than $500,000.
Hogarth
High & Low Life
> High & Low Life wrote
>
> >"Gene Zitver" <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20010922111604...@mb-mf.aol.com...
> >> High & Low Life wrote
> >>
> >> >Perhaps it's news to you that we have a free market economy
> >>
> >> Your belief that we have a free-market economy is touching, but it's
long
> >been
> >> more a case of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
> >And
> >> since September 11, you may be the last free-marketeer left in the USA.
> >For
> >> example, airline executives are saying that allowing the free market to
> >work
> >> its magic *now* could mean the collapse of commercial air travel in
this
> >> country. So Congress is appropriating $15 billion to help bail out the
> >> airlines, without a peep of protest from free-market ideologues.
> >
> >Not true. I've heard several protesting. But you dishonestly
> >mischaracterize "free-market ideologues."
>
> If I mischaracterized unfairly, I apologize. Can you give me examples of
some
> of the protestors and what they said?
I heard two conservative, nationally-syndicated radio talk show hosts
question the bail-out (Tom Martino and Michael Reagan). Both seemed to
think the airlines have shown such callous disregard for passengers over the
last 20 years that they don't deserve the money.
I like a good G&T or Martini and a cigar, so your question strikes me as a
leading one. Since my own wages are paid by several corporations (some now
being eaten in bits by the free market), I'm reluctant to advocate meddling
with the system. Do I think certain members of our society are underpaid?
Certainly. My daughter's grade-school teacher, for one: she acts as
guardian, instructor and surrogate mother figure for the tike, and can't
afford to live in my community. Do I think some chumps are over-paid:
absolutely, though many actors/actresses spring to mind more readily than do
CEOs. I haven't a prescription to fix the imbalance, and I wouldn't want to
try.
Hogarth
Paul Sebastianelli
High & Low Life wrote in message <9omm80$de4c1$1...@ID-54485.news.dfncis.de>...
Is that normal? Or are these special circumstances
for America's Heroes(TM)?
paul.
Gene Zitver
>I heard two conservative, nationally-syndicated radio talk show hosts
>question the bail-out (Tom Martino and Michael Reagan). Both seemed to
>think the airlines have shown such callous disregard for passengers over the
>last 20 years that they don't deserve the money.
My apologies to Mr. Martino and Mr. Reagan. I also read that the head of the
Heritage Foundation criticized the bail-out. Still, I think the recent crisis
has exposed a lot of fair-weather free marketeers.
Gene
Gene Zitver
>>I heard today that each widow (widower--any?) of the firefighters crushed
>in
>>the WTC will receive her husband's salary for her life, plus various
>>educational benefits to their offspring--benefits worth far more to these
>>(mainly young) widows than $500,000.
>
>Is that normal? Or are these special circumstances
>for America's Heroes(TM)?
Paul, I usually appreciate your sarcasm, but I think it's rather misplaced
here. The people involved in the rescue and recovery at the WTC and the
Pentagon *are* heroes, even if the corporate media say so. Of course I take
your point that other firefighters who act heroically in less publicized
circumstances are no less deserving.
Gene
Martha Bridegam
Glad to hear that at any rate.
/MAB
Paul Sebastianelli
Gene Zitver wrote in message
>Paul Sebastianelli wrote
>
>>>I heard today that each widow (widower--any?) of the firefighters crushed
>>in
>>>the WTC will receive her husband's salary for her life, plus various
>>>educational benefits to their offspring--benefits worth far more to these
>>>(mainly young) widows than $500,000.
>>
>>Is that normal? Or are these special circumstances
>>for America's Heroes(TM)?
>
>Paul, I usually appreciate your sarcasm, but I think it's rather misplaced
>here. The people involved in the rescue and recovery at the WTC and the
>Pentagon *are* heroes, even if the corporate media say so.
Without a doubt.
Never meant to suggest otherwise. My sarcasm is
directed at the media and at events like that celebrity
telethon that was on TV last weekend, not at the
rescue workers. Referring to them constantly as
"America's Heroes," rather than just as plain "heroes,"
is, in my opinion, commodifying their heroism for
other purposes. But that there efforts are heroic
is beyond a doubt.
My apologies to American citizens of abg-o, but
the flag waving seems to be getting on my nerves.
Generally apologetic,
paul, who doesn't like any flag, including his own.