jerry doyle runs for congress
Jms at B5
not. Well, he called back, and it's true. He's running for US Congress in the
24th district, state of California (just north of the valley).
I differ with Jerry on just about every one of his political views, always
have, but I think that his entering the race is great. And while our views
differ, the thing about Jerry is that he talks straight and you always know
where he stands on an issue, no waffling. So on that basis alone I think it'd
be great if he won. I don't have to agree with his positions to respect their
origin, and the forthrightness with which they are expressed.
Go get 'em, Jer.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Kristling Ravenshadow Dreamwalker
saying they don't plan on voting for "parties" any more; They vote for
those who they they think will do the best job, and be honest with them.
There's more then one "political scientist" expressing puzzlement at recent
election results here in Canada and down in the States- but a few others
are realizing that this trend, if it is one, might be the cause. Also, it
seems (and this is opinion, no idea if it's true) that the issues that get
us ticked off at BOTH sides are the ones they try and make "partisan".
Thoughts, all?
ObB5: I get this feeling from B5, too. People being sick of arguing over
old wounds and "party" lines and saying, "HELL, just figure out what you're
going to DO!" Anyone else see this theme?
--
------------------------------------------------
Living Sig V.1762.192
*"Perhaps, after all, America never has been discovered. I myself would
say that it has merely been detected." --Oscar Wilde
Daniel S., aka Kristling Celts-Blood Dreamwalker,
"I Ain't Afraid Of Cancer." \ICQ # 53874855
Fanfic mail: prnin...@crosswinds.net \ anything else:
ahsdrea...@home.com
PR Ninja Zeo Fic Universe: www.crosswinds.net/~prninjazeo/fan/
BoomTime, day 60 of The Aftermath YOLD 3165 (movement) 192:03:01 (1) [no
thud]
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
Tom Holt
The message <SEU64.13973$TT4.5...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com>
from "Kristling Ravenshadow Dreamwalker"
<prnin...@crosswinds.net> contains these words:
> This brings up an interesting point: More and more people I talk to are
> saying they don't plan on voting for "parties" any more; They vote for
> those who they they think will do the best job, and be honest with them.
[...]
> Thoughts, all?
First thought; isn't this, um, rather off topic..?
Second thought; When I go to the polls, I have the choice of voting
for one of 3 parties, all 3 of which I hold in the utmost contempt.
By voting for one (on the lesser-of-3-evils principle) I'm endorsing
a whole load of stuff that I find morally repulsive. Not that it
matters; the district I live in is a 'safe seat' for one of the 3
parties, and there's no way in hell the party of my 'choice' will
ever get elected there.
It won't be long before communications technology and the Internet
will make it possible for each issue of the day to be put to an
instant referendum, rendering 'representative' democracy obsolete.
This sounds like a good thing...
But; the problem with direct democracy is that there's no buffer
between the voters and the victims of their fury. Given the alarming
ease with which public opinion is manipulated by the media and other
demagogues, nobody who cared a damn about the rights and interests of
minorities would contemplate turning them over to the tender mercies
of The Voters. Anybody whose skin color, sexual orientation,
religious beliefs or leisure preferences don't happen to coincide
with those of the majority, or of the opinion-makers in the media,
would be well advised to leave a country where direct democracy is
about to be introduced, as quickly as possible. There's also the
small matter of who gets to shape the agenda and frame the questions
to be put to the vote ("How should we get rid of the
Jews/Catholics/gays/other minority we don't like? (a) electric chair
(b) cyanide gas (c) firing squad. Tick ONE box only") The inherent
risks in that scenario don't bear thinking about
There's no easy answer here. The original idea of a parliament was
that the people of a district would choose one of their number to
speak for them and decide policy with their best interests at heart.
In virtually every parliamentary democracy the world has ever known,
this ideal has been swiftly perverted into 'party politics', to the
point where, IMHO, the concept has lost all credibility.
Modern representative democracy gives a few of the voters (those who
live in 'marginal' areas; most seats are safe seats for one party or
another) a certain amount of say in which of two or three factions
gets to rule them for the next four or five years, and no meaningful
input whatsoever into policy formation (which is decided by
commercial and labor organisations, other pressure groups, external
pressures and the media bosses). As such, it's worthless; in that it
gives the people the illusion of being their own masters, it's
pernicious. The degree of protection it affords to the weak against
the strong or the few against the many is negligible.
Modern direct democracy, if ever experimented with, would be like
handing out loaded machine-guns to a bunch of stoned kids and asking
them to play nicely.
I have no glib solution to offer. IMHO, direct democracy is out of
the question, government by party isn't democracy at all, and the old
ideal of parliament without party, though tempting, simply doesn't
work. My personal feeling is that the whole concept of government
needs to be reconsidered from the ground up, and that in any such
debate, words such as' constitution' and 'inalienable rights' should
be invested with some real degree of meaning.
Keith Wood
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> I'd heard this rumor the other day, and called Jerry to see if it were true or
> not. Well, he called back, and it's true. He's running for US Congress in the
> 24th district, state of California (just north of the valley).
>
> I differ with Jerry on just about every one of his political views, always
> have, but I think that his entering the race is great. And while our views
> differ, the thing about Jerry is that he talks straight and you always know
> where he stands on an issue, no waffling. So on that basis alone I think it'd
> be great if he won. I don't have to agree with his positions to respect their
> origin, and the forthrightness with which they are expressed.
There can be no greater endorsement than when an honorable opponent
honors your character.
ImRastro
>I differ with Jerry on just about every one of his political views, always
>have,
Given this difference, and where my views fall, I think I'd rather you were
running. Now there's an idea.....a famous guy running for political office
who's views I could actually support.
SCon40
>honors your character.
That being said, I've done the vote for the good person who you completely
disagree with shtick before, and if you don't have a serious problem with the
person in office currently, it ain't worth doing. When the honorable, nice guy
votes against your beliefs time after time, you start to regret your decision.
I've got lots of friends who I completely disagree with politically - they will
always be my friends, but I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than vote for
them for any political office.
Padguy
>or
>not. Well, he called back, and it's true. He's running for US Congress in
>the
>24th district, state of California (just north of the valley).
Great idea. If he's elected, let's hope that he's on Airforce One if it's ever
highjacked. That way at least there'll be SOMEONE on the plane who can kick
ass and take names.
PAD
To...@fred.net
: I'd heard this rumor the other day, and called Jerry to see if it were true or
: not. Well, he called back, and it's true. He's running for US Congress in the
: 24th district, state of California (just north of the valley).
<snip>
: Go get 'em, Jer.
Hear hear, from a dissatisfied Democrat.
--
To...@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr
* "Faith Manages...... But Willow is in Tech Support"
Mary Kay Bergman 1961-1999
Daryl Nash
<much musing snipped>
>
> I have no glib solution to offer. IMHO, direct democracy is out of
> the question, government by party isn't democracy at all, and the old
> ideal of parliament without party, though tempting, simply doesn't
> work. My personal feeling is that the whole concept of government
> needs to be reconsidered from the ground up, and that in any such
> debate, words such as' constitution' and 'inalienable rights' should
> be invested with some real degree of meaning.
I'm rather fond of our American "democracy." (pssst... it's really a
Republic and the Founding Fathers_tm_ framed it that way, but some politician
along the line thought it would butter the voters up a little if they thought
"We the People" (c) were actually responsible for what's going on in the
country....) A direct democracy (as you call it--in the old days, it was just
a democracy) sounds like a good idea until you realize that most people are
frickin idiots. The Founding Fathers_tm_ argued against just such a tyranny
of the majority in the Federalist Papers.
The American system, for the most part, keeps things from happening too
quickly, and averts many rash decisions. If public hysteria or idiocy goes on
too long, there will still be problems, but generally people will calm down
and the Least Bad Thing will be put into law. That's why I'm often wary of
politicians who claim they want to get things done. I'm more interested in a
politician who improves a few little aspects of the government while otherwise
maintaining the status quo. Unless, of course, there is a major civil wrong
that needs to be addressed. And taxes, much as I hate them, do not count as a
major wrong.
Revolution is bad, even when it is for a good cause, and should be avoided at
all costs. There never was a rational revolution.
Oh, and I almost forgot about "big business." After all, they're the ones who
run America these days anyway. That does scare me. If the corporations have
all the power, we'll be ruled by the one with the most money. This could be
cause for a revolution in the not too distant future. Or they could be the
foundation for a new aristocracy, since the consumers with the most buying
power will be the most important citizens.
Daryl
Justin Bacon
<lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>First thought; isn't this, um, rather off topic..?
Not really. Talking about what the stars of Bab5 are doing now-a-days seems
perfectly on topic (to me at least -- not that my opinion matters in the
least).
>Second thought; When I go to the polls, I have the choice of voting
>for one of 3 parties, all 3 of which I hold in the utmost contempt.
>By voting for one (on the lesser-of-3-evils principle) I'm endorsing
>a whole load of stuff that I find morally repulsive. Not that it
>matters; the district I live in is a 'safe seat' for one of the 3
>parties, and there's no way in hell the party of my 'choice' will
>ever get elected there.
If you don't vote you succinctly tell the politicians that you don't care. Vote
for somebody, even if it has to be yourself (as a write in).
>It won't be long before communications technology and the Internet
>will make it possible for each issue of the day to be put to an
>instant referendum, rendering 'representative' democracy obsolete.
>This sounds like a good thing...
Bad. Very bad. For the reasons you cite, which can be mostly summed up as: (1)
Representative gov't gives you the ability to elect specialists who can devote
the time and energy necessary to understand the issues. (2) Representative
gov't, particularly as it has been institutionalized in this country, forces
compromise -- which prevents either extreme from getting too far out of
control. (3) Minority interests are protected.
Or, to put it more bluntly: The average person is an idiot... and 50% of the
population is even stupider.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
(Which reminds me of the Texas senator who once railed about the public
education system because "50% of our youth are testing below the national
average!". Well, obviously the system had failed him.)
J. Potts
<lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>First thought; isn't this, um, rather off topic..?
In article <19991220030114...@nso-bh.aol.com>,
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>Not really. Talking about what the stars of Bab5 are doing now-a-days seems
>perfectly on topic (to me at least -- not that my opinion matters in the
>least).
Actually, according to the group's charter, the "on topic" areas include:
"Other topics of interest to the fans in the newsgroup." Which is a nice
little open ended bit that means *anything* can be on topic if we want to
talk about it.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Tom Holt
The message <385DBC2A...@worldnet.att.net>
from Daryl Nash <dary...@worldnet.att.net> contains these words:
> The American system, for the most part, keeps things from happening too
> quickly, and averts many rash decisions. If public hysteria or idiocy goes on
> too long, there will still be problems, but generally people will calm down
> and the Least Bad Thing will be put into law. That's why I'm often wary of
> politicians who claim they want to get things done. I'm more interested in a
> politician who improves a few little aspects of the government while otherwise
> maintaining the status quo.
America has a little thing called a constitution, and Americans have
rights that supervene the whim of the legislature. (Britain, by
contrast, has no entrenched legislation, and our so-called rights can
be whisked away from us at the drop of a hat)
Provided the integrity of the constitution is maintained, and you
don't let the Bad Guys nibble away at the roots until it dies,
there's hope for you guys yet.
Tom Holt
The message <19991220030114...@nso-bh.aol.com>
from tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) contains these words:
> If you don't vote you succinctly tell the politicians that you don't care. Vote
> for somebody, even if it has to be yourself (as a write in).
Write-ins aren't an option in our electoral system.
And I refuse to vote for people whose hands I wouldn't touch if I was
drowning, thanks all the same. To endorse them in any way, even as a
protest vote 'to keep the other lot out', is to become an accomplice.
(Somewhere - I think it's Australia or Canada or one of those places
- I understand that you're forced to vote, by law. Now that's *sick*)
Or, to quote something I once saw on a lavatory wall in Oxford;
"Don't vote, it only encourages them."
(1)
> Representative gov't gives you the ability to elect specialists who can devote
> the time and energy necessary to understand the issues. (2) Representative
> gov't, particularly as it has been institutionalized in this country, forces
> compromise -- which prevents either extreme from getting too far out of
> control. (3) Minority interests are protected.
In theory; only rarely in practice.
Aaron P. Brezenski
Alison Hopkins <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Tom Holt wrote in message <199912202...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>>And I refuse to vote for people whose hands I wouldn't touch if I was
>>drowning, thanks all the same. To endorse them in any way, even as a
>>protest vote 'to keep the other lot out', is to become an accomplice.
>denote "No suitable candidate".
Yes! And when "No suitable candidate" wins, we abolish the office.
--
Aaron Brezenski
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me."
Card-Carrying Member of the Illuminati
Alison Hopkins
Tom Holt wrote in message <199912202...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>And I refuse to vote for people whose hands I wouldn't touch if I was
>drowning, thanks all the same. To endorse them in any way, even as a
>protest vote 'to keep the other lot out', is to become an accomplice.
>
Hear, hear. I've always thought we should have a ballot paper option to
denote "No suitable candidate".
Ali
Tom Holt
The message <83mdif$h1q$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>
from tina...@primenet.com (Aaron P. Brezenski) contains these words:
To paraphrase Douglas Adams; there is a school of thought that holds
that this has already happened...
> ... we abolish the office.
You bet.
Wrenching this topic back to within a long bowshot of relevance; I
think I'd vote for Mr Doyle even if his views didn't (in places)
coincide with my own. A man who's made a success in one notoriously
difficult field of endeavor, given it up on a whim and made... well,
a living, at least, in another, even less forgiving line of work,
*and* has a liking for big, fast motorcycles, can't be a complete deadhead.
Moyra J. Bligh
wrote:
>(Somewhere - I think it's Australia or Canada or one of those places
>- I understand that you're forced to vote, by law. Now that's *sick*)
Not Canada - lots of us Canucks don't bother to vote. I always vote,
but I have been known to intentionally spoil a ballot if I think all
the choices suck.
I once worked on a provincial by-election in B.C. where because of the
decided lack of quality of any of the candidates we started a campaign
to just have people spoil their ballots. Reasoning being that if when
the vote was counted there was an outrageous percentage of spoiled
ballots, the particular parties involved might just sit up and take
notice. Apathy won the day, however.
--
Moyra J. Bligh - mo...@interlog.com
FAQ maintainer - alt.fan.mira-furlan, moderator mira-f mailing list
===============================================================
Proud member of: B.a.B.e. (Be active Be emancipated)
Women's Human Rights Group - http://www.interlog.com/~moyra/
Prilaz Gjure Dezelica 26/II, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
Tel/Fax: +385 1 484 6176, Tel: +385 1 484 6180
e-mail: ba...@zamir.net - New address - nova adresa!
===============================================================
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>> Yes! And when "No suitable candidate" wins...
>
>
>To paraphrase Douglas Adams; there is a school of thought that holds
>that this has already happened...
Probably more than once...
>
>> ... we abolish the office.
>
>You bet.
Wouldn't that be a kick? But our constitution says we must have a
president to head the executive branch...<G>
>
>Wrenching this topic back to within a long bowshot of relevance; I
>think I'd vote for Mr Doyle even if his views didn't (in places)
>coincide with my own. A man who's made a success in one notoriously
>difficult field of endeavor, given it up on a whim and made... well,
>a living, at least, in another, even less forgiving line of work,
>*and* has a liking for big, fast motorcycles, can't be a complete deadhead.
Taking absolutely nothing away from Jerry (he may, in fact, be a great
congressman, if elected), there is a huge logical fallacy here, namely
that expertise/competency in one field implies expertise/competency in
another field. 'Tain't so, which is why I had problems with Dr. Spock
(the baby doctor) making his *expert* pronouncements on war, military,
etc. in the 60's. He was trading on his name, and too many people
swallowed it because he was a famous doctor.
That is not say, an expert can't have views on a subject unrelated to
his/her area of expertise. It just means, review those pronouncements
with open eyes, looking at the meat, not the person making the
pronouncements.
>
Tom Holt
The message <poit5ssvii8ct3a0i...@4ax.com>
from Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> contains these words:
> >Wrenching this topic back to within a long bowshot of relevance; I
> >think I'd vote for Mr Doyle even if his views didn't (in places)
> >coincide with my own. A man who's made a success in one notoriously
> >difficult field of endeavor, given it up on a whim and made... well,
> >a living, at least, in another, even less forgiving line of work,
> >*and* has a liking for big, fast motorcycles, can't be a complete deadhead.
> Taking absolutely nothing away from Jerry (he may, in fact, be a great
> congressman, if elected), there is a huge logical fallacy here, namely
> that expertise/competency in one field implies expertise/competency in
> another field. 'Tain't so,
Agreed. But since when did logic have anything to do with politics?
However -
It's not specific knowledge of or expertise in any given field I'm
thinking of; rather, it's the implication that someone who's made his
way in two difficult and very different fields of endeavor probably
has a certain strength of character, an ability to communicate, a
certain amount of pragmatism, and other characteristics that suggest
he'd probably be a better man for the job than the average party
hack. The fact that he chopped in a successful and profitable career
in order to have a go in a very uncertain and competitive field like
acting suggests to me that indecisiveness and self-doubt aren't among
his besetting sins... That he didn't come spectacularly unstuck after
making this apparently rash choice implies that he's either shrewd or
lucky or both (important qualities, both of them, for politics). By
turning his back on big bucks in his previous career in order to go
after a career in acting, it seems to me that he's probably not the
greedy type who'd take payoffs. Someone who turns to politics as his
third career probably isn't likely to be a fanatic or a hard-liner
(anybody who'd always wanted to be in politics since he was in
college should certainly never be allowed to hold office, and
probably should be humanely destroyed for the good of society).
Furthermore, someone who's had two quite different careers ought to
have a broader, more mature world view than someone who's only ever
been, say, a lawyer [spit spit...], an economist or a college lecturer.
As for the big motorcycles; I could never trust a guy who doesn't
enjoy toys or know how to play. On balance, I think it's the big
motorcyles that'd tip the balance for me; assuming he knows how to do
his own repairs and maintenance. I instinctively trust people with
grime under their fingernails.
Keith Wood
Padguy wrote:
>
> >I'd heard this rumor the other day, and called Jerry to see if it were true
> >or
> >not. Well, he called back, and it's true. He's running for US Congress in
> >the
> >24th district, state of California (just north of the valley).
>
> Great idea. If he's elected, let's hope that he's on Airforce One if it's ever
> highjacked. That way at least there'll be SOMEONE on the plane who can kick
> ass and take names.
Talk about inter-party teamwork!
" . . .witnesses later reported that Congressman Doyle devisied the
winning strategy. Doyle told
President Gore 'I'll catch 'em, you bore 'em to death!"
Martin Hardgrave
>
>There can be no greater endorsement than when an honorable opponent
>honors your character.
>
constituency represented by the other party. He would vote for the
other party candidate, spoiling (possibly) his ballot by writing "this
is a vote for NN himself, and is in no way an endorsement of the party
he represents".
--
Martin Hardgrave
Ken Mitchell
Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:199912190...@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> The message <SEU64.13973$TT4.5...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com>
> from "Kristling Ravenshadow Dreamwalker"
> <prnin...@crosswinds.net> contains these words:
>
> > This brings up an interesting point: More and more people I talk to are
> > saying they don't plan on voting for "parties" any more; They vote for
> > those who they they think will do the best job, and be honest with them.
Personally, I look for the candidate who won't screw the United States
Constitution TOO much. Even that seems to be beyond the capabilities of
most politicos these days.
>
> First thought; isn't this, um, rather off topic..?
>
> Second thought; When I go to the polls, I have the choice of voting
> for one of 3 parties, all 3 of which I hold in the utmost contempt.
> By voting for one (on the lesser-of-3-evils principle) I'm endorsing
> a whole load of stuff that I find morally repulsive. Not that it
> matters; the district I live in is a 'safe seat' for one of the 3
> parties, and there's no way in hell the party of my 'choice' will
> ever get elected there.
In the U.S., there's the Depublicans and the Remocrats, who are TweedleDum
and TweedleDumber. There are the Greens, the Perotistas (who call
themselves "Reform"), and a half-dozen other single-special-interest
groups. And there are the Libertarians. Of them all, only the Libs seem
interested in preserving the Constitution.
> It won't be long before communications technology and the Internet
> will make it possible for each issue of the day to be put to an
> instant referendum, rendering 'representative' democracy obsolete.
> This sounds like a good thing...
>
> But; the problem with direct democracy is that there's no buffer
> between the voters and the victims of their fury.
"Democracy" is three wolves and a sheep, voting on what to have for supper.
Without Constitutional restrictions on what government can do, ANYTHING can
happen. Even WITH such restrictions, if the "PeePul" don't hold their
government responsible, by voting the scoundrels out when needed, freedom is
in severe jeopardy.
> Modern representative democracy gives a few of the voters (those who
> live in 'marginal' areas; most seats are safe seats for one party or
> another)
Interesting tidbit; in the 1980's, there was more turnover in the Supreme
Soviet than in the U.S. Congress.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmit...@gvn.net
916-995-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax)
--------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm----------------
"lighght"
This is not a typo. This is a poem funded by the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA) that cost taxpayers $1,500. "lighght" is not the
title; it's the entire poem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Founding Member: "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
Keith Wood
SCon40 wrote:
>
> >There can be no greater endorsement than when an honorable opponent
> >honors your character.
>
> That being said, I've done the vote for the good person who you completely
> disagree with shtick before, and if you don't have a serious problem with the
> person in office currently, it ain't worth doing. When the honorable, nice guy
> votes against your beliefs time after time, you start to regret your decision.
> I've got lots of friends who I completely disagree with politically - they will
> always be my friends, but I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than vote for
> them for any political office.
Agreed -- but among member of his own party or those who feel it's time
for a change, this is a pretty good reason to vote for him.
I'm not in CA and don't know anyone in Doyle's district, so it's not
that important to me.
Ken Mitchell
Alison Hopkins <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:83md2r$88g$2...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> Tom Holt wrote in message <199912202...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>
>
> >And I refuse to vote for people whose hands I wouldn't touch if I was
> >drowning, thanks all the same. To endorse them in any way, even as a
> >protest vote 'to keep the other lot out', is to become an accomplice.
> >
>
> Hear, hear. I've always thought we should have a ballot paper option to
> denote "No suitable candidate".
:-) The Libertarians want to add a "None of the Above is Acceptable" to the
ballot - and leave the office vacant for a term if NOTA wins!
Jerome
Jms at B5 wrote:
> I differ with Jerry on just about every one of his political views, always
> have, but I think that his entering the race is great. And while our views
> differ, the thing about Jerry is that he talks straight and you always know
> where he stands on an issue, no waffling. So on that basis alone I think it'd
> be great if he won. I don't have to agree with his positions to respect their
> origin, and the forthrightness with which they are expressed.
>
> Go get 'em, Jer.
Congrats for Jerry!
Hmm. Makes one think. What ARE your environmental views, jms, if you care to walk into the fire and answer this nugget?
It may sound overly political, but this issue is more related to futurism and forward vision than most might realize.
-jk
Rob Levandowski
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
In article <83md2r$88g$2...@lure.pipex.net>, "Alison Hopkins"
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>Hear, hear. I've always thought we should have a ballot paper option to
>denote "No suitable candidate".
And, as the old joke goes, in no time at all some politician would have
their name changed to "No Suitable Candidate." And win in a landslide.
(Actually, it's not such a joke. Some joker in Florida started a few
phone companies named "I don't know," "I don't care Telecom," "It
doesn't matter phone co.," and so forth, so that when people signing up
for new phone service were asked which long distance company they
wanted, they'd get his hideously expensive service instead of a random
choice.)
--
Rob Levandowski
ro...@macwhiz.com
Corun MacAnndra
>
>This brings up an interesting point: More and more people I talk to are
>saying they don't plan on voting for "parties" any more; They vote for
>those who they they think will do the best job, and be honest with them.
>election results here in Canada and down in the States- but a few others
>are realizing that this trend, if it is one, might be the cause. Also, it
>seems (and this is opinion, no idea if it's true) that the issues that get
>us ticked off at BOTH sides are the ones they try and make "partisan".
>
>Thoughts, all?
Been doing this for years. Not since I saw first hand what politics were
all about at a news conference put on by the Youth International Party
at Kent State my first year of college (yes, *that* year) and saw what
goobs they were have I been involved in party politics. I vote for
indivduals and issues. As for honesty, you can never know when they're
telling the truth or just glad-handing you. So you pays your nickle and
you takes your chances.
The biggest problem is finding someone to vote FOR. There are plenty of
candidates to vote AGAINST.
Corun
Tom Holt
The message <robl-CA8700.2...@newse.nyroc.rr.com>
from Rob Levandowski <ro...@macwhiz.com> contains these words:
> (Actually, it's not such a joke. Some joker in Florida started a few
> phone companies named "I don't know," "I don't care Telecom," "It
> doesn't matter phone co.," and so forth, so that when people signing up
> for new phone service were asked which long distance company they
> wanted, they'd get his hideously expensive service instead of a random
> choice.)
"If France and Italy were to have a war, France could change its name
to Italy and get all Italy's mail"
- Robert Benchley.
Daryl Nash
Exactly. Thank Whomever that the constitution is so hard to amend.
Daryl
Shaz
"Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:83md2r$88g$2...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> Tom Holt wrote in message <199912202...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>
>
> >And I refuse to vote for people whose hands I wouldn't touch if I was
> >drowning, thanks all the same. To endorse them in any way, even as a
> >protest vote 'to keep the other lot out', is to become an accomplice.
> >
>
>
> denote "No suitable candidate".
>
I wish. And now the govt. here is saying that because of the poor turnout
for the European elections they're going to introduce fines to force people
to vote. If they do this I suspect you may hear there are a large number of
people who are in jail before the end of the next decade, especially if the
above suggestion isn't implemented first!
(myself included)
Shaz (who votes when she actually cares about the result, even though the
system around here means my vote rarely counts for much)
Tom Holt
The message <83ndur$s6o$1...@lure.pipex.net>
from "Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> contains these words:
> I wish. And now the govt. here is saying that because of the poor turnout
> for the European elections they're going to introduce fines to force people
> to vote. If they do this I suspect you may hear there are a large number of
> people who are in jail before the end of the next decade, especially if the
> above suggestion isn't implemented first!
> (myself included)
Yeah; reserve me a cell while you're at it; south-facing for choice,
with a view over the exercise yard.
Someone once said that Britain's the only recorded instance of a
sinking ship where everybody else leaves, but the rats stay.
Mac Breck
Mac
Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991219011758...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> >I'd heard this rumor the other day, and called Jerry to see if it were
true
> >or
> >not. Well, he called back, and it's true. He's running for US Congress
in
> >the
> >24th district, state of California (just north of the valley).
>
> Great idea. If he's elected, let's hope that he's on Airforce One if it's
ever
> highjacked. That way at least there'll be SOMEONE on the plane who can
kick
> ass and take names.
>
> PAD
>
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>
>The message <poit5ssvii8ct3a0i...@4ax.com>
> from Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> contains these words:
>
>
>> >Wrenching this topic back to within a long bowshot of relevance; I
>> >think I'd vote for Mr Doyle even if his views didn't (in places)
>> >coincide with my own. A man who's made a success in one notoriously
>> >difficult field of endeavor, given it up on a whim and made... well,
>> >a living, at least, in another, even less forgiving line of work,
>> >*and* has a liking for big, fast motorcycles, can't be a complete deadhead.
>
>> Taking absolutely nothing away from Jerry (he may, in fact, be a great
>> congressman, if elected), there is a huge logical fallacy here, namely
>> that expertise/competency in one field implies expertise/competency in
>> another field. 'Tain't so,
>
>Agreed. But since when did logic have anything to do with politics?
Hmm. Another oxymoron? "Political logtic"? <G>
>
>However -
>
Point well taken, Tom. (and, to be honest, I agreed with some of the
things Dr. Spock said...)
And, it seems that there is perhaps more on-the-job-training involved
with politics than most other, err, professions. Some of 'em CAN'T be
that clueless when they first run for office...
(waiting for the NBS to show up...)
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
> As for honesty, you can never know when they're
>telling the truth or just glad-handing you. So you pays your nickle and
>you takes your chances.
Actually, dear Corun, I pays my nickel...<G>(most nickles I know of
are a shade of green and they fly)
>
>The biggest problem is finding someone to vote FOR. There are plenty of
>candidates to vote AGAINST.
Agreed. A veritable plethora, lots, even...Haven't had a real
occasion to vote for someone for a while - a long while.
....and you were at Kent State THAT year?! Oh, you poor child! I
think a lot of us grew up that year (or became VERY disillusioned...)
Tom Holt
The message <ek906s86824p913r8...@4ax.com>
from Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> contains these words:
> >> Taking absolutely nothing
> And, it seems that there is perhaps more on-the-job-training involved
> with politics than most other, err, professions. Some of 'em CAN'T be
> that clueless when they first run for office...
Talking of politics and government... One of the neatest suggestions
for running a country I've come across is the constitution of Utopia
in W S Gilbert's 'Utopia Ltd'. According to Gilbert, Utopia was an
absolute monarchy; the king's word was law, his power unlimited. He
was, however, closely supervised at all times by the two wisest men
in the kingdom. As soon as the king did something they didn't hold
with, the wise men filed a complaint with the Public Exploder, whose
duty it was to blow the king to hell with dynamite and then assume
the throne in his place. "Despotism tempered with dynamite", Gilbert
called it. I think it might just work.
(Of course, in Gilbert's text, everything changed when Utopia came
into contact with British colonialism; the Utopians abandoned their
ancient constitution and floated Utopia as a limited company on the
stock exchange, "as in England." This caused a certain degree of
chaos, as you might expect, until the Utopians realised they'd
forgotten one key element of the British system - government by
party. Add that, they realised, and "no political measures will
endure, because one party will undoubtedly undo all that the other
party has done... there will be sickness in plenty, endless lawsuits,
crowded jails, endless confusion in the Army and Navy, and, in short,
general and unexampled prosperity.")
Justin Bacon
<lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>Write-ins aren't an option in our electoral system.
Odd. There was a rather nice space on *my* ballot last time. Perhaps it's a
state thing?
>(Somewhere - I think it's Australia or Canada or one of those places
>- I understand that you're forced to vote, by law. Now that's *sick*)
Australia.
>Or, to quote something I once saw on a lavatory wall in Oxford;
>"Don't vote, it only encourages them."
A thought every bit as worthy as the repository in which it was found.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Tom Holt
The message <19991222053955...@nso-fv.aol.com>
from tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) contains these words:
> In article <199912202...@zetnet.co.uk>, Tom Holt
> <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> >Write-ins aren't an option in our electoral system.
> Odd. There was a rather nice space on *my* ballot last time. Perhaps it's a
> state thing?
Yeah. Note the .uk in my e-mail address.
(I'm flattered that you assume I'm American. Like most flattery,
however, it isn't true)
> >(Somewhere - I think it's Australia or Canada or one of those places
> >- I understand that you're forced to vote, by law. Now that's *sick*)
> Australia.
Figures.
> >Or, to quote something I once saw on a lavatory wall in Oxford;
> >"Don't vote, it only encourages them."
> A thought every bit as worthy as the repository in which it was found.
You mean Oxford? Internationally acclaimed seat of learning and
repository of the world's wisdom? Yup; entirely worthy.
Justin Bacon
<lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>> Odd. There was a rather nice space on *my* ballot last time. Perhaps it's a
>> state thing?
>
>Yeah. Note the .uk in my e-mail address.
Doh. I dunno why I got it fixed in my head you were from the States.
>> A thought every bit as worthy as the repository in which it was found.
>
>You mean Oxford? Internationally acclaimed seat of learning and
>repository of the world's wisdom? Yup; entirely worthy.
Particularly since you mentioned a lavatory in Oxford -- should have been a
tip-off. ;)
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Mark Andrew Siefert
: Second thought; When I go to the polls, I have the choice of voting
: for one of 3 parties, all 3 of which I hold in the utmost contempt.
: By voting for one (on the lesser-of-3-evils principle) I'm endorsing
: a whole load of stuff that I find morally repulsive. Not that it
: matters; the district I live in is a 'safe seat' for one of the 3
: parties, and there's no way in hell the party of my 'choice' will
: ever get elected there.
<INCOHERENT RANT MODE ON>
Agreed! As a card-carrying Libertarian, I have to live with the
realization that the candidates I support will NEVER get into office under
our current system. (Yeah, we may win a local dog-catcher races, but
that's it.) My congressional representive (Jerry Kletchka) dosen't
represent me or anyone else who voted against him. Ditto for my Senators
(Kohl and Feingold). How can ever trust them to represent my concerns
regarding th government? I can't. Why should I have to wait for them to
lose an election, retire, or croak before someone else (who still won't
repersent my views) takes their place? On the same tolken, why should
someone who disagrees with my views suffer with my candidate?
And people wonder why I distrust the government.
Why should someone claim to represent me simply because they can
round up a larger group of supports than I can for my candidate, or vice
versa? Spare my the flowery, ultra-patriotic, civics-class claptrap about
democracy. Democracy (in any form) is about brute force. The majority
calls the shots while the minority better obey "the will of the people" to
keep themselves from being imprisoned or massacred. (e.g. The 1932 Bonus
Army, Kent State, Waco, Seattle, etc.)
: There's no easy answer here. The original idea of a parliament was
: that the people of a district would choose one of their number to
: speak for them and decide policy with their best interests at heart.
: In virtually every parliamentary democracy the world has ever known,
: this ideal has been swiftly perverted into 'party politics', to the
: point where, IMHO, the concept has lost all credibility.
Well, for some good ideas I can recommend reading chapter 22 of
Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." (I especailly like Prof's
commitment to 'no compulsory taxation" and for politicians to "reach into
their own poaches" to pay to government that they support.) Also read L.
Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach" for some excellent ideas on how to
run a congress.
--
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
"[Like] fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible
master."
--Professor Bernardo de la Paz
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
by Robert A. Heinlein
E-MAIL: cth...@csd.uwm.edu WWW: http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu
=========================================================================
Justin Bacon
<cth...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
> Why should someone claim to represent me simply because they can
>round up a larger group of supports than I can for my candidate, or vice
>versa? Spare my the flowery, ultra-patriotic, civics-class claptrap about
>democracy. Democracy (in any form) is about brute force. The majority
>calls the shots while the minority better obey "the will of the people" to
>keep themselves from being imprisoned or massacred. (e.g. The 1932 Bonus
>Army, Kent State, Waco, Seattle, etc.)
This would be better placed on a fantasy newsgroup of some sort.
But, then again, that comment would apply to most of the idiocies extremist
libertarians support.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
James Bell
I'm surprised this thread lasted as long as it did before the left-wing
resorted to mockery and ridicule. Nearly a full week before running out of
substance is quite astounding for a liberal. I congratulate you!
Jim
Tom Holt
The message <3864F4A7...@naxs.com>
from James Bell <jam...@naxs.com> contains these words:
[Concerning a post from Justin Bacon, too obnoxious to requote]
> I'm surprised this thread lasted as long as it did before the left-wing
> resorted to mockery and ridicule. Nearly a full week before running out of
> substance is quite astounding for a liberal. I congratulate you!
Indeed. Mr Bacon, like so many of his persuasion, does seem to regard
insults, ad hominem attacks and unilateral declarations of victory
as an acceptable substitute for rational discussion. I guess it goes
with the territory. Defending the positions he chooses to espouse
must mean that he spends enough time in the wrong to be able to claim
it as his domicile for tax purposes.
"He is a dreamer: let us leave him"
norv...@sirius.com
Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <3864F4A7...@naxs.com>
> from James Bell <jam...@naxs.com> contains these words:
>[Concerning a post from Justin Bacon, too obnoxious to requote]
>> I'm surprised this thread lasted as long as it did before the left-wing
>> resorted to mockery and ridicule. Nearly a full week before running out of
>> substance is quite astounding for a liberal. I congratulate you!
>
> Indeed. Mr Bacon, like so many of his persuasion, does seem to regard
> insults, ad hominem attacks and unilateral declarations of victory
> as an acceptable substitute for rational discussion. I guess it goes
> with the territory.
Actually, I'd recommend that you just consider the source... IMHO, acting
like a moron is not specifically or solely a "liberal" problem; there are
certain people who only open their mouths in order to remove one foot and
insert the other one. :-)
And a merry Christmas to you, too, Mr. Bacon...
Tom Holt
The message <1999122600...@mail1.sirius.com>
from norv...@sirius.com contains these words:
Mr Bacon was born to be a liberal, as the sparks fly upwards.
However, I for one suffer him gladly; he makes my point about himself
and what he stands for far more eloquently than I ever could.
Mark Andrew Siefert
: In article <83v6tc$7qb$1...@uwm.edu>, Mark Andrew Siefert
: <cth...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
:> Why should someone claim to represent me simply because they can
:>round up a larger group of supports than I can for my candidate, or vice
:>versa? Spare my the flowery, ultra-patriotic, civics-class claptrap about
:>democracy. Democracy (in any form) is about brute force. The majority
:>calls the shots while the minority better obey "the will of the people" to
:>keep themselves from being imprisoned or massacred. (e.g. The 1932 Bonus
:>Army, Kent State, Waco, Seattle, etc.)
: This would be better placed on a fantasy newsgroup of some sort.
So democracy ISN'T about mob rule? The United States government
has NEVER violated the Bill of Rights (e.g. Censorship, gun control,
illegal search and seizure, government consfiscation of property without
compensation, etc.) with the popular support of the American people? Our
noble and free government has NEVER used force to enact it's policies with
the blessing of the majority? Political, ethnic, and religious minorites
have NEVER been oppressed by our wonderful democratic system? This is
nothing more than a "fantasy?"
: But, then again, that comment would apply to most of the idiocies extremist
: libertarians support.
And just what, pray tell, does "extremist" mean? I seem to forget
that we live in the wonderful age of "compromise," (i.e. Selling out your
principles for popular support.) "bipartisanship," (i.e. The two parties
working together....to take away our freedom.) and "moderate-centrism"
(i.e. A colellective lack of political spine due to a terminal lack of
principle and an overdose of cowardice.) that anyone who dares to stick to
any political viewpoint that his not popularly condoned is dubbed an
"extremist." Or, is the word that Mr. Bacon uses to say "I can't
reasonably debate you, so, I'll just call you names?"
My beliefs, as "extreme" as they appear to most, are born out of a
consistent understanding of the principles of rights and liberty.
Liberals, who claim to support "civil liberties", are more than willing to
deny the individual the right to dispose of their property as they see
fit. Conservatives, who claim to the be guarenteers of "limited
government", would do the exact opposite, defending economic freedom yet
advocating restrictions on freedoms of a more personal nature (sexuality,
abortion, drugs, etc.). Of course, it's getting harder to tell the
difference between Left and Right is this age of bipartisanship:
Democrats who support censorship film and video games. Republicans who
want to ban handguns.
Do we really have a "two-party" system anymore? What's the real
difference between liberals/Democrats and conservative/Republicans? Both
are more than willing to use force and violate individual rights on the
grounds that it's "good for us." What's the alternative?
For me, that alternative is "extreme" libertarianism. I have no
desire to foist my lifestyle on others. Why should others, like Mr.
Bacon, Bill Clinton, Newt Gigirch, Pat Buchanan, or "the people" (whoever
the hell they are), force me to live as they see fit?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is my beef with "democracy."
Mark Andrew Siefert
: Actually, I'd recommend that you just consider the source... IMHO, acting
: like a moron is not specifically or solely a "liberal" problem; there are
: certain people who only open their mouths in order to remove one foot and
: insert the other one. :-)
Very true. The Left has no monopoly on bad manners. I've met
more than a few conservatives who resort to name calling when logic (if
you can call it that) fails them. I should know, I used to be a
right-winger. That was before I lost God.
However it is entertaining to watch liberals call conservatives
"Nazis" while the latter labels their opponents "Communists"... It's the
only time that either are correct about anything.
--
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
Who takes the label of "ANARCHIST" as a compliment
Tom Holt
The message <843t5p$n63$1...@uwm.edu>
from Mark Andrew Siefert <cth...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> contains these words:
> For me, that alternative is "extreme" libertarianism. I have no
> desire to foist my lifestyle on others. Why should others, like Mr.
> Bacon, Bill Clinton, Newt Gigirch, Pat Buchanan, or "the people" (whoever
> the hell they are), force me to live as they see fit?
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is my beef with "democracy."
forms of government - monarchy or oligarchy - very much, either.
There have been benevolent monarchies, even one or two benevolent
oligarchies (if you trust the history books) but very few of them.
Democracy, or the form of elective oligarchy which passes for
democracy these days, generally has a better human rights record than
the rule of kings, barons or military dictators...
...Which is on a par with saying a kick in the teeth is better than
having your skull smashed in. Neither is fun. Your beef is with
government. And a very fine beef it is, to be sure.
Mark Andrew Siefert
:
: It's not just democracy. I doubt whether you'd enjoy the other two
: There have been benevolent monarchies, even one or two benevolent
: oligarchies (if you trust the history books) but very few of them.
: Democracy, or the form of elective oligarchy which passes for
: democracy these days, generally has a better human rights record than
: the rule of kings, barons or military dictators...
Benevolent dictatorship, hmmm? Is that any thing like
jumbo shrimp or military intellgence? Tyranny is tyranny, I don't care
whether or not the despot in question oppresses me because they care for
my well being.
:
: ...Which is on a par with saying a kick in the teeth is better than
: having your skull smashed in. Neither is fun.
However, if someone kicks me in the teeth, I expect them to at
least cover my dentist bills. If the governemnt wrongs me, I can't
sue them for damages. They get to hide behind "soverign immunity." The
issue is essentially accountability. Can I expect the government to be
subject to the very same laws that it imposes on me? If not, then why
should I ever to obey comply to ANY of the laws on their books?
:Your beef is with government.
Ultimately, yes. I confess to being an anarcho-capitalist in my
heart of hearts. No one ASKED me whether I wanted to have my property
and income taxed. No one ASKED me if I wanted the services that the
government claims they provide in return for this wholesale robbery. Just
because my mom popped me out of her uterus in this particular geographical
location means I have to obey a bunch of ex-ambulance chasers in
Washington D.C.?
I would love nothing more than to never have to worry
about what government is doing--it saves on anacids and aspirin. However,
we live in an imperfect world and we must make do with what we have. I
conceede that was may NEVER be able to rid ourselfs of that pestulance
called "The State." However, I believe that in order to keep our
freedoms, that State should be as small, impotent, and harmless as
possible.
:And a very fine beef it is, to be sure.
I that case, I'll take mine medium-rare with french fires, and a
garden salad with catalina dressing.
--
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
"[Like] fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible
Mark Maher
>Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>:
> Benevolent dictatorship, hmmm? Is that any thing like
>jumbo shrimp or military intellgence? Tyranny is tyranny, I don't care
>whether or not the despot in question oppresses me because they care for
>my well being.
DESPOT - a person exercising power abusively, oppressively, or tyrrannousy.
It would seem that by definition, a despot is exept from caring about your
individual well-being.
> However, if someone kicks me in the teeth, I expect them to at
>least cover my dentist bills. If the governemnt wrongs me, I can't
>sue them for damages. They get to hide behind "soverign immunity." The
>issue is essentially accountability. Can I expect the government to be
>subject to the very same laws that it imposes on me? If not, then why
>should I ever to obey comply to ANY of the laws on their books?
Rule of law is not perfect, by any means. It is arbitrary because it relies on
individual people to make the laws, enforce the laws, exercise judgement of the
laws and to carry out any sentence deemed appropriate by any perceived lack of
compliance with those laws. Still, it is a helluva lot better than Rule of whim.
Since all of the above functions regarding law are carried out by individual
people, each with their own agenda, all of the aforementioned processes are
subject to error or abuse. But you are in error when you think that the
government itself or any member of that government is above the law. In fact, a
significant portion of those is government service willingly sacrifice the
protections afforded to you and I by the constitution in order to provide the
services that they do in defense of this country and its citizens - even the
anarchists among them.
> Ultimately, yes. I confess to being an anarcho-capitalist in my
>heart of hearts. No one ASKED me whether I wanted to have my property
>and income taxed. No one ASKED me if I wanted the services that the
>government claims they provide in return for this wholesale robbery. Just
>because my mom popped me out of her uterus in this particular geographical
>location means I have to obey a bunch of ex-ambulance chasers in
>Washington D.C.?
> I would love nothing more than to never have to worry
>about what government is doing--it saves on anacids and aspirin. However,
>we live in an imperfect world and we must make do with what we have. I
>conceede that was may NEVER be able to rid ourselfs of that pestulance
>called "The State." However, I believe that in order to keep our
>freedoms, that State should be as small, impotent, and harmless as
>possible.
Sorry, but you're living in a delusion if you think that in this era of ethnic
strife, increasing despotism, religious conflict and OBTW nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons in the hands of desperately dangerous people who have no
hesistation to use them that the United Sates should be impotent. The only thing
keeping many of those otherwise dangerous people in check is the strength of the
United States and it's demonstrated (albeit reluctant) willingness to exercise
that strength. I'd rather this government was concerning itself with reigning in
tyrrany elsewhere about the globe than concentrating on creating it here. The
last time I checked, I was still perfectly free to buy groceries in large
quantities at 2 am on a Monday night. Yeah, I have to *buy* them, and part of
that price is given over to government, but everything of any value comes with a
price attached.
I am not blind to the many abrigements that governments, particularly the parts
of the federal government, have made on our constitutional rights, all in the
name of protecting us from ourselves. But unlike countries such as the former
Yugoslavia, the vast majority of people here believe that they are best served
by preserving this country in it's current form, not tearing it down in search
of some idealistic "live my life anyway I please without account to anyone else"
existence. Some people are responsible enough to live that way, but most require
some constraint on their behavior, be that moral, religious or legal.
> I that case, I'll take mine medium-rare with french fires, and a
>garden salad with catalina dressing.
>
Before someone takes you up on your suggestion and decides to tear the country
to shreds, I suggest that you band together with your fellow-minded individuals
and buy some deserted Island where you can all go and live out your anarchist
dream. Better yet, stay here, stay skeptical, but above all stay involved in the
political process. The government only gets away with what they think we let
them get away with. That's a fundamental difference between us and most other
places. If you don't believe it, ask a certain paranoid power-monger named
Richard Nixon - who was last appearance in public office was getting onto Marine
Corps One on the back lawn of the White House while the U. S. Marshals were
ringing the bell at the front door to serve notice of impending impeachment
proceedings.
It ain't perfect - in fact it can get downright ugly at times (Waco comes to
mind), but it's as good as anything else out there. You have a beef with the
government, then take a stand and change it.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Bill
"Mark Maher" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:847voi$lo4$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
>
> I am not blind to the many abrigements that governments, particularly the
parts
> of the federal government, have made on our constitutional rights, all in
the
> name of protecting us from ourselves. But unlike countries such as the
former
> Yugoslavia, the vast majority of people here believe that they are best
served
> by preserving this country in it's current form, not tearing it down in
search
> of some idealistic "live my life anyway I please without account to anyone
else"
> existence. Some people are responsible enough to live that way, but most
require
> some constraint on their behavior, be that moral, religious or legal.
>
Which is why we need our citizens better educated about the constitution and
declaration of independance. How many laws have been inacted by courts over
the past 50 years? The most obvious (and hopefully least controversial)
would be school bussing. The supreme court enacted those laws, even though
it does not have the power to do so. Two recent issues on the state level
are Vouchers in Ohio and Domestic Partnerships in Vermont. Take your own
stand on the issues, but in each case the State Courts have founds clauses
in the constitution(state and fedral) that do not exist. This is where
litmus tests for judges need to be, not how they feel on an issue (which is
dumb, because if they state an opinion ahead of time, they will have to sit
out on the preceedings), but if they know their role.
The government laid out in the constitution works. Its too bad no one knows
what the constitution says anymore.
Mike Van Pelt
Mark Maher <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Before someone takes you up on your suggestion and decides to tear
>the country to shreds, I suggest that you band together with your
>fellow-minded individuals and buy some deserted Island where you
>can all go and live out your anarchist dream.
This was tried. A group found an island which was not claimed
by any nation, and founded the Republic of Minerva on it, which
was, I gather, intended to be the first pure libertarian utopia.
They even minted a gold coin.
They were promptly conqured by Tonga.
--
Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the moon, | Mike Van Pelt
and that's a very dubious and disappointing honor. | m...@netcom.com
It's been far too long. -- Gene Cernan | KE6BVH
Tom Holt
The message <846u73$q6h$1...@uwm.edu>
from Mark Andrew Siefert <cth...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> contains these words:
> Tyranny is tyranny, I don't care
> whether or not the despot in question oppresses me because they care for
> my well being.
There's a case to be made for the proposition that the worst
oppressors are those who oppress you 'for your own good'; it's the
insult-to-injury thing.
Tom Holt
The message <847voi$lo4$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
from "Mark Maher" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> contains these words:
> I'd rather this government was concerning itself with reigning in
What you've said there is entirely right; but was it what you wanted to say..?
If what you meant to say was "I'd rather this government was
concerning itself with reining in [=restraining] tyranny elsewhere
about the globe etc' - well, maybe, insofar as I'd rather the big
heavy boots of government went and kicked the heads of foreigners and
left me alone. But it's no fun for the foreigners, and it's morally
insupportable.
If you really meant 'reigning' - well, big difference; I'm sure the
people bombed and shelled and shot by the USA, the British and the
other self-appointed Guardians of Global Truth & Justice over the
years rest happily in their graves knowing it was all in a good
cause, as do the American, Britsh etc soldiers who were killed to
boost some politician's approval rating. Personally, I'm at least 75%
a pacifist, and my view of war is a slight paraphrase of Karl Marx,
namely "a bayonet is a piece of steel with a citizen on each end".
Tom Holt
The message <848has$k2c$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>
from m...@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) contains these words:
> In article <847voi$lo4$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Mark Maher <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Before someone takes you up on your suggestion and decides to tear
> >the country to shreds, I suggest that you band together with your
> >fellow-minded individuals and buy some deserted Island where you
> >can all go and live out your anarchist dream.
> This was tried. A group found an island which was not claimed
> by any nation, and founded the Republic of Minerva on it, which
> was, I gather, intended to be the first pure libertarian utopia.
> They even minted a gold coin.
> They were promptly conqured by Tonga.
Proving what? Does the fact that something noble and beautiful was
destroyed invalidate nobility and beauty? Does treading on the
year's first crocus disprove spring?
The only sensible moral I can draw from your anecdote is; when
packing before sailing to Utopia, don't forget to take plenty of
Sidewinder missiles.
Mike Van Pelt
That's pretty much the moral: If you create something noble and
beautiful, and don't take measures to defend it from aggressors,
the aggressors will take it from you and/or destroy it.
This is the biggest problem I have with "capital-L Libertarians".
If you do not defend your country from aggressors, sooner or later
(probably sooner) you are going to be the slaves of those
aggressors. Or dead. "Capital-L All Taxation Is Theft
Libertarianism" has no provision that any such Libertarian has ever
adequately explained to me for funding an adequate defense of the
country from real external enemies. Generally, the ones I have
discussed this with have pooh-poohed the whole concept that real
external enemies actually exist, insisting that if we only adhered
to Libertarian Principles strictly enough, the aggressors would be
happy to leave us in peace.
Let's just say I'm too skeptical on this point to want to put it to
the test, because when I'm proven right, it would be far too late.
With the end of the unlamented Soviet Empire, this is not as
big a deal as it once was. With the impending rise of the
Communist Chinese Empire, it's a bigger deal (and growing)
than it was a few years ago.
Tom Holt
The message <8493d0$l4r$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>
from m...@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) contains these words:
> That's pretty much the moral: If you create something noble and
> beautiful, and don't take measures to defend it from aggressors,
> the aggressors will take it from you and/or destroy it.
Sadly true. And very often, the aggressor is the government.
> "Capital-L All Taxation Is Theft
> Libertarianism" has no provision that any such Libertarian has ever
> adequately explained to me for funding an adequate defense of the
> country from real external enemies.
All due respect; but I can't really believe that the USA is
threatened by any 'real external enemies' (except, of course, the Canadians...)
Having studied the pathology of war and its causes for a number of
years, I was left with the belief that wars between nations generally
stem from mutual fear and loathing. Where two natural enemies exist,
whether we're talking about Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BC
or the USA and the USSR in our own time, fear and loathing starts
with the perception that the other guy is big and nasty and heavily
armed, and doesn't think like we do... The next stage, which
unhappily seems to follow as night follows day, is the assumption
that unless we stomp them, they'll stomp us, because they can. Next
comes the rationalisation that if we don't want to get stomped, we'd
better stomp them first; and if we don't want to get stomped on our
own turf, we'd better go onto their turf and stomp them there.
There's slightly more to it than that, of course; there are concepts
such as 'buffer zones' and 'spheres of influence' and even 'matters
of principle' (though they're often an excuse for the big nations to
stomp on the little nations, for their own good, and/or what Joe
Haldeman has immortally described as 'Wars for the ratings'; see
above, under Clinton, W.) Fundamentally, however, the main cause of
war, especially in the 20th century, is fear. 'They are a threat',
the wise men tell us, 'therefore they've got to go...'; and next
thing you know, you're hip-deep in body bags.
The USA isn't like some small mid-European or mid-Eastern state
that's liable to be swallowed up on purely commercial grounds by its
unpleasant neighbors. Conquering and garrisonning the USA (the latter
perhaps a far more onerous task than the former) is an undertaking
beyond the resources of most nations even if there's no American
standing army, simply because it's very big and a long way away
across the sea from the likely predators. I believe it follows that
the USA is likely to be attacked by a foreign enemy only if it makes
itself formidable and inspires fear, ie through the size and killing
power of its armed forces. My conclusion is that if America disbands
her standing army, she'll be more, not less, likely to avoid attack
from abroad.
Even if I'm underestimating the risk, I'd still strongly advocate
getting rid of standing armies, and especially of their aircraft,
tanks, artillery and other high-tech toys, against which no civilian
uprising could hope to succeed. "Whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it, and institute new government"... By stockpiling
weapons of mass destruction, government effectively denies us this
essential and fundamental right, which guarantees all the others. I
don't believe the vague and improbable spectre of the Red Menace is
sufficient justification.
ImRastro
> If the governemnt wrongs me, I can't
>sue them for damages. They get to hide behind "soverign immunity."
I've been avoiding these threads like the plague, but think I should step in
for just a moment here. You can sue the Government, both the individual
government employees and the entity itself. I do it every day and usually feel
pretty good about it. :) Don't get me wrong, you'll have to wind your way
through a seemingly endless maze of prroceedural hoops and immunities, but it
can be done.
Dwight Williams
I seem to recall the same applies up here in Canada, if anyone's
wondering. "Sovereign immunity" has been getting steadily and quietly
discarded.
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Harper
>Personally, I'm at least 75%
>a pacifist, and my view of war is a slight paraphrase of Karl Marx,
>namely "a bayonet is a piece of steel with a citizen on each end".
Personally, I'd rather "people" (i.e. governments and politicians) in
general minded their own bloody business. There isn't a country on the
planet that doesn't need to solve many, many, *many* internal problems
before they start preaching to others how they should live their lives.
As a Brit, I say this (in fact, I'd rather we'd adopted such a policy
several hundred years ago, in which case all this messy colonial stuff
wouldn't have arisen), and as a "world-watcher" I'd much rather the US and
Russia did the same nowadays. And as soon as possible.
But then, I tend towards the simplistic naivete as far as global politics
is concerned...
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Cassius81
>All due respect; but I can't really believe that the USA is
>threatened by any 'real external enemies' (except, of course, the
>Canadians...)
>
>Having studied the pathology of war and its causes for a number of
>years, I was left with the belief that wars between nations generally
>stem from mutual fear and loathing. Where two natural enemies exist,
>whether we're talking about Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BC
>or the USA and the USSR in our own time, fear and loathing starts
>with the perception that the other guy is big and nasty and heavily
>armed, and doesn't think like we do... The next stage, which
>unhappily seems to follow as night follows day, is the assumption
>that unless we stomp them, they'll stomp us, because they can. Next
>comes the rationalisation that if we don't want to get stomped, we'd
>better stomp them first; and if we don't want to get stomped on our
>own turf, we'd better go onto their turf and stomp them there.
>
>There's slightly more to it than that, of course; there are concepts
>such as 'buffer zones' and 'spheres of influence' and even 'matters
>of principle' (though they're often an excuse for the big nations to
>stomp on the little nations, for their own good, and/or what Joe
>Haldeman has immortally described as 'Wars for the ratings'; see
>above, under Clinton, W.) Fundamentally, however, the main cause of
>war, especially in the 20th century, is fear. 'They are a threat',
>the wise men tell us, 'therefore they've got to go...'; and next
>thing you know, you're hip-deep in body bags.
If I may quote Wu Ch'i for a moment:
"Now there are five matters which give rise to military operations. First, the
struggle for fame; second, the struggle for advantage; third, the accumulation
of animosity; fourth, internal disorder; and fifth, famine."
"There are also five categories of war. First, righteous war; second,
aggressive war; third, enraged war; fourth, wanton war; and fifth, insurgent
war. Wars to supress violence and quell disorder are Righteous. Those which
depend on force are Agressive. When troops ae raised because rulers are
actuated by anger, this in Enraged war. Those in which all propriety is
discarded because of greed are Wanton wars. Those who, when the state is in
disorder and the people exhausted, stir up trouble and agitate the multitude,
cause Insurgent wars."
"There is a suitable method for dealing with each: a righteous war must be
forestalled by proper government; an agressive war by humbling one's self; an
enraged war by reason; a wanton war by deception and treachery; and an
insurgent war by authority."
Gee, even 2400 years ago we had a pretty good idea of what the hell was going
on with war. Oh, and for those of you who haven't read it, I'd suggest picking
up a copy of Sun Tzu and Wu Ch'i's The Art of War. The Sam Griffith translation
is still my favorite, mainly because it contains all sorts of extra stuff.
As for this discussion on government... I'm an anarchist myself, despite the
fact that we seem to be getting a really bad rap (that thing in Seattle didn't
help). So what's wrong with letting people govern themselves, eh? Cultures
always have their own "unwritten" laws that are usually followed with much more
tenacity than the stuff the government puts out. And I personally feel that the
moment ambition is no longer rewarded, the world will be something of a better
place.
Of course, I'm still in high school, and therefore quite naive. Maybe I'll feel
differently after I've been mugged a few times, eh?
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
Asuka Langley Sohryu: "I should *never* kiss to kill time!"
Steve Brinich
> As for this discussion on government... I'm an anarchist myself,
> despite the fact that we seem to be getting a really bad rap (that
> thing in Seattle didn't help).
How many times does it need to be repeated: "You show me somebody
proposes a riot/bombing/assassination/whatever; I'll show you the
provocateur...."
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Keith Wood
This HAS to be the best Freudian slip I've seen this year!
Mark Andrew Siefert wrote:
> (I especailly like Prof's
> commitment to 'no compulsory taxation" and for politicians to "reach into
> their own poaches" to pay to government that they support.)
"POACHES"?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ryan Pearman
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
> > Yes! And when "No suitable candidate" wins...
>
>
> To paraphrase Douglas Adams; there is a school of thought that holds
> that this has already happened...
You know, if I remember correctly, this DID happen for some legislature seat
or something in the state of Washington some 8 years back or so. Somebody
ran as "none of the above" or some other such name and won (I think).
Picture on the election info packet was blank. I also remember that there
was a stink about this but forgot what became of it.
You know, if anybody here gets enough signatures, they can get on any number
of ballots. It's easy to come up with a slogan of "No suitable candidate.
I will not perform my office." and see what happens.....
--Ryan
Keith Wood
James Bell wrote:
>
> Justin Bacon wrote:
>
> > In article <83v6tc$7qb$1...@uwm.edu>, Mark Andrew Siefert
> > <cth...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
> >
> > > Why should someone claim to represent me simply because they can
> > >round up a larger group of supports than I can for my candidate, or vice
> > >versa? Spare my the flowery, ultra-patriotic, civics-class claptrap about
> > >democracy. Democracy (in any form) is about brute force. The majority
> > >calls the shots while the minority better obey "the will of the people" to
> > >keep themselves from being imprisoned or massacred. (e.g. The 1932 Bonus
> > >Army, Kent State, Waco, Seattle, etc.)
> >
> > This would be better placed on a fantasy newsgroup of some sort.
> >
> > But, then again, that comment would apply to most of the idiocies extremist
> > libertarians support.
>
> I'm surprised this thread lasted as long as it did before the left-wing
> resorted to mockery and ridicule. Nearly a full week before running out of
> substance is quite astounding for a liberal. I congratulate you!
It's not a left-wing or right-wing issue. There are hive-mind
collectivists on both sides of that fence. I have met as many
right-wing as left-wing bigots who think that the Branch Davidians got
what they deserved, and who parrot the Federal line.
Funny how they got a little quieter when it was discovered that Feds
committed perjury about the Waco debacle . . .
. . .many of them, anyhow.
Andrew Venor
> Tom Holt wrote in message <199912202...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>
> >And I refuse to vote for people whose hands I wouldn't touch if I was
> >drowning, thanks all the same. To endorse them in any way, even as a
> >protest vote 'to keep the other lot out', is to become an accomplice.
> >
>
> Hear, hear. I've always thought we should have a ballot paper option to
> denote "No suitable candidate".
>
> Ali
Actually the state of Nevada has a spot on the ballot for you to choose
"None of the Above". I've vote that a few times myself.
ALV
SCon40
>- I understand that you're forced to vote, by law. Now that's *sick*)
It's Australia. If you don't vote, you are fined a set amount of money by law.
They also use preferential balloting (Person X 1st, Person Z 2nd, Person Y
3rd, etc.) which makes for very interesting electoral strategies.
George Missonis
> with politics than most other, err, professions. Some of 'em CAN'T be
> that clueless when they first run for office...
>
> (waiting for the NBS to show up...)
Watch C-SPAN if you really wish to be depressed. The coverage of the bill to fund
religious-based drug treatment programs several months ago was prime stuff.
Religious belief was considered an acceptable substitute for training in drug
counseling and treatment. People in the program can be compelled to attend
religious services. People could be refused employment by these groups based on
the religious belief of the prospective employee. (I really wished a Wiccan group
managed to sneak into the program watch the politician's reaction.). Most of these
people have no concept of what the Constitution means, they're too busy pandering
to the perceived prejudices of the party "faithful". There are a lot of very
"sincere" people I wish had nothing to do with politics.
And remember: Jerry Doyle is running, not Michael Garibaldi.
Robert Martin
sucking parasites). I think that pretty much sums it up.
Personally I haven't seen what Mr. Doyle's platform is so I can't say if I
would vote for him or not. I think I would vote for Garibaldi though. (I
know he is a fictional character.) But I live in Florida so it doesn't
matter anyway.
--
Maybe it is your purpose in life to set a bad example
> >
> >Agreed. But since when did logic have anything to do with politics?
>
> Hmm. Another oxymoron? "Political logtic"? <G>
> >
George Missonis
> think a lot of us grew up that year (or became VERY disillusioned...)
One of my former neighbors was friendly with a state trooper back them.
When several of the leaders of the "radicals" appeared on TV, the trooper
pointed out the "student leader" who was also a state trooper.
Robert Martin
office should be immediately disqualified from holding it. Drag them in
kicking and screaming and give them a list of thing to fix before they can
leave then find someone else to fix the next bunch of problems.
--
Maybe it is your purpose in life to set a bad example
"Tom Holt" <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:199912220...@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> The message <ek906s86824p913r8...@4ax.com>
> from Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> contains these words:
>
> > >> Taking absolutely nothing
> > And, it seems that there is perhaps more on-the-job-training involved
> > with politics than most other, err, professions. Some of 'em CAN'T be
> > that clueless when they first run for office...
>
> Talking of politics and government... One of the neatest suggestions
> for running a country I've come across is the constitution of Utopia
> in W S Gilbert's 'Utopia Ltd'. According to Gilbert, Utopia was an
> absolute monarchy; the king's word was law, his power unlimited. He
> was, however, closely supervised at all times by the two wisest men
> in the kingdom. As soon as the king did something they didn't hold
> with, the wise men filed a complaint with the Public Exploder, whose
> duty it was to blow the king to hell with dynamite and then assume
> the throne in his place. "Despotism tempered with dynamite", Gilbert
> called it. I think it might just work.
>
> (Of course, in Gilbert's text, everything changed when Utopia came
> into contact with British colonialism; the Utopians abandoned their
> ancient constitution and floated Utopia as a limited company on the
> stock exchange, "as in England." This caused a certain degree of
> chaos, as you might expect, until the Utopians realised they'd
> forgotten one key element of the British system - government by
> party. Add that, they realised, and "no political measures will
> endure, because one party will undoubtedly undo all that the other
> party has done... there will be sickness in plenty, endless lawsuits,
> crowded jails, endless confusion in the Army and Navy, and, in short,
> general and unexampled prosperity.")
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Matt Maurano
<marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Rule of law is not perfect, by any means. It is arbitrary because it relies on
>individual people to make the laws, enforce the laws, exercise judgement of the
>laws and to carry out any sentence deemed appropriate by any perceived lack of
>compliance with those laws. Still, it is a helluva lot better than Rule of whim.
>
>Since all of the above functions regarding law are carried out by individual
>people, each with their own agenda, all of the aforementioned processes are
>subject to error or abuse. But you are in error when you think that the
>government itself or any member of that government is above the law. In fact, a
>significant portion of those is government service willingly sacrifice the
>protections afforded to you and I by the constitution in order to provide the
>services that they do in defense of this country and its citizens - even the
>anarchists among them.
So they sacrifice protections. How does this prove that they do not
ignore the law when possible?
Look at the bill of rights. Unreasonable search and siezure- Ever
heard of the drug exception to the constitution? Find a worthy
cause/minority to persecute, and you can do whatever you want. FDR
sent the Japanese Americans to prison. Did he have the authority? Not
really, but it was politically viable, so it happened. Want to make
money for your police department? Sieze the property of some poor
bastard, shoot him, and apoligize when you realize he was not a drug
dealer. Then keep the money.
This is unjust- search and siezure requires a lower quality of proof
than a criminal conviction does. It is also unconstitutional. If we
make more laws against it, will that fix the problem? The kids at
Columbine broke a number of laws. Adding more would have stopped them?
>Sorry, but you're living in a delusion if you think that in this era of ethnic
>strife, increasing despotism, religious conflict and OBTW nuclear, biological
>and chemical weapons in the hands of desperately dangerous people who have no
>hesistation to use them that the United Sates should be impotent. The only thing
>keeping many of those otherwise dangerous people in check is the strength of the
>United States and it's demonstrated (albeit reluctant) willingness to exercise
>that strength. I'd rather this government was concerning itself with reigning in
>tyrrany elsewhere about the globe than concentrating on creating it here. The
>last time I checked, I was still perfectly free to buy groceries in large
>quantities at 2 am on a Monday night. Yeah, I have to *buy* them, and part of
>that price is given over to government, but everything of any value comes with a
>price attached.
Somehow, small government worked in 1800. Of course, we were a hell of
a lot less important then. As much as I would like to think that we
could survive without a military (as we did before WW2), I think that
we have pissed off too many people to go back.
>I am not blind to the many abrigements that governments, particularly the parts
>of the federal government, have made on our constitutional rights, all in the
>name of protecting us from ourselves. But unlike countries such as the former
>Yugoslavia, the vast majority of people here believe that they are best served
>by preserving this country in it's current form, not tearing it down in search
>of some idealistic "live my life anyway I please without account to anyone else"
>existence. Some people are responsible enough to live that way, but most require
>some constraint on their behavior, be that moral, religious or legal.
There is always social constraint. I personally don't feel like
murdering people because afterwards, I'd feel like everybody was
watching me. For some, this is not enough of a restraint. Of course,
restraining people like these does not take a federal police force who
will ignore the Constitution to make the next budget assignment a bit
more favorable. A state police force would certainly suffice. When
stuff goes federal, it goes corrupt. Even the state legislatures are
not fantastic. Keep everything as local as you possibly can.
Is there some reason that the federal government runs a retirement
account for me? As far as I can tell, my choice to donate is being
made at gunpoint. That has *nothing* to do with protecting me from
others. I don't object so much to my local police force prosecuting
rapists as I do to the federal mafia going after
Keith Wood
Paul Harper wrote:
>
> Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> said :
>
> >Personally, I'm at least 75%
> >a pacifist, and my view of war is a slight paraphrase of Karl Marx,
> >namely "a bayonet is a piece of steel with a citizen on each end".
Nobody is more pacifistic than is a rattlesnake. If you don't force him
to go to war with you, he won't go to war with you. If you DO force the
issue, he makes a few decisive actions, then it is over again.
BTW, can you provide a source for anything resembling that statement by
Marx? It would be nice to have when I discuss the complete failure of
Marxism as a system.
J. Alexander Harman
> threatened by any 'real external enemies' (except, of course, the Canadians...)
I think our neighbors to the south would present a rather larger threat than those
to the north; Mexico and the rest of the Latin American countries envy our
prosperity. Actually, most of the rest of the world envies and resents us; we
support our comfortable lifestyle by using more than our share of the world's
resources, and we are able to do so because of our military might. By share I
mean geographic share; one could make a case that we have a reasonable claim to
resources elsewhere that we develop, but the peoples of the countries from whom we
take those resources would probably not find that case terribly persuasive.
> Having studied the pathology of war and its causes for a number of
> years, I was left with the belief that wars between nations generally
> stem from mutual fear and loathing. Where two natural enemies exist,
> whether we're talking about Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BC
> or the USA and the USSR in our own time, fear and loathing starts
> with the perception that the other guy is big and nasty and heavily
> armed, and doesn't think like we do... The next stage, which
> unhappily seems to follow as night follows day, is the assumption
> that unless we stomp them, they'll stomp us, because they can. Next
> comes the rationalisation that if we don't want to get stomped, we'd
> better stomp them first; and if we don't want to get stomped on our
> own turf, we'd better go onto their turf and stomp them there.
>
> There's slightly more to it than that, of course; there are concepts
> such as 'buffer zones' and 'spheres of influence' and even 'matters
> of principle' (though they're often an excuse for the big nations to
> stomp on the little nations, for their own good, and/or what Joe
> Haldeman has immortally described as 'Wars for the ratings'; see
> above, under Clinton, W.) Fundamentally, however, the main cause of
> war, especially in the 20th century, is fear. 'They are a threat',
> the wise men tell us, 'therefore they've got to go...'; and next
> thing you know, you're hip-deep in body bags.
You're leaving out wars of conquest motivated by greed; there've been rather a lot
of them in history. Rome was sacked by poorer peoples who wanted what the Romans
had. China fell the same way several times through its history; the most recent
conquerors were the Mongols and the Manchu.
> The USA isn't like some small mid-European or mid-Eastern state
> that's liable to be swallowed up on purely commercial grounds by its
> unpleasant neighbors.
No, it's like the great empires mentioned above--which were also swallowed up,
more or less on "commercial" grounds, by unpleasant neighbors.
> Conquering and garrisoning the USA (the latter
> perhaps a far more onerous task than the former) is an undertaking
> beyond the resources of most nations even if there's no American
> standing army, simply because it's very big and a long way away
> across the sea from the likely predators
Conquering and garrisoning it might be impossible, but looting it? Fairly easy,
in the absence of a standing military. Mexico probably wouldn't try to conquer
the whole country, but their army would be sufficient, at the very least, to take
back those states that were once part of the Empire of Mexico (Texas, Arizona, New
Mexico, and California). The rest of the country would likely end up as numerous
little city-states controlled by whatever faction--a gang, a corporation, a
political party, a religious group, whatever--has the most firepower in the area.
I would expect very few such places to have more personal freedom than the present
United States. The best we could hope for would be an oligarchy of corporations,
as envisioned in Robert Heinlein's "Friday;" personally, I'd much rather be
"oppressed" by our present government than by a board of directors to whom the
lives of workers and consumers are less important than the bottom line. I'm not a
liberal because I like big government; I'm a liberal because I fear big business.
My political representatives may or may not have my interests at heart, but at
least they're *supposed* to; it's in their job description. The same cannot be
said of the people who run multinational corporations.
Later,
Alex
Keith Wood
Tom Holt wrote:
> All due respect; but I can't really believe that the USA is
> threatened by any 'real external enemies' (except, of course, the Canadians...)
I dunno, Tom, the Chinese are doing a pretty good job of preparing to
fight us. In fact, they are rivalling the Congressional Red Army and
Clintoon White House for the role of Greatest Potential Threat to the US
people and the Constitution of the United States.
One group weakens our society, the other moves in to fill the void left
by our inability to develop a foreign policy that would even Rebo and
Zootie would claim to have authored. Who is the greater threat?
Keith Wood
Cassius81 wrote:
> Gee, even 2400 years ago we had a pretty good idea of what the hell was going
> on with war. Oh, and for those of you who haven't read it, I'd suggest picking
> up a copy of Sun Tzu and Wu Ch'i's The Art of War. The Sam Griffith translation
> is still my favorite, mainly because it contains all sorts of extra stuff.
Not to mention the fact that it was translated by warriors for warriors,
not merely as a social tome.
And don't forget "A Book of Five Rings" ("Go Rin No Sho") by Musashi.
Or "On War" (the complete edition, several volumes' worth) by von
Clausewitz.
Or "War As I Knew It" by Patton the Elder.
With these five works in hand, you can find nearly anything you need to
know about tactics, strategy, or the abject inability of most Elect
Officials to understand how to fight a war that they were too stupid to
keep out of in the first place!
Tom Holt
The message <oDY74.34993$Dk.4...@news1.mia>
from "Robert Martin" <rmar...@bellsouth.net> contains these words:
> I like that idea. But I think that anyone who aspires for a political
> office should be immediately disqualified from holding it. Drag them in
> kicking and screaming and give them a list of thing to fix before they can
> leave then find someone else to fix the next bunch of problems.
In ancient Athens, members of the executive council who set the
agenda for the meetings of the assembly, in which the entire
population was supposedly allowed to vote on every issue, were chosen
at random, by lot, and weren't allowed to refuse - a bit like jury
service today. I think it was the philosopher Socrates who had to be
dragged in to the council chamber when his name came up
An hour before assembly meetings started, the Athenian police
surrounded the market-place with a long rope dipped in red paint and
herded people up the hill to take part in the debates, like a cattle
drive. Anybody who tried to get out of the way and got splashed with
paint as a result was liable to be fined. Similarly, it was against
the law (punishable by death, IIRC) to refuse to fight for one side
or the other in the event of civil war; it didn't matter which side
you chose, so long as you chose one.
The Athenian democracy turned out to be as flawed and obnoxious as
all the rest that followed it; but at least they had style...
Tom Holt
The message <386AD7A8...@wam.umd.edu>
from "J. Alexander Harman" <man...@wam.umd.edu> contains these words:
> You're leaving out wars of conquest motivated by greed; there've been rather a lot
> of them in history. Rome was sacked by poorer peoples who wanted what the Romans
> had.
Rome is an interesting case in point. The Roman empire in the West
(the Eastern empire survived in one form or another for a further
1,000 years) didn't fall because a superior military force suddenly
showed up on the frontier like a band of marauding Hell's Angels and
beat the pudding out of the legions. What did for the Romans was the
200+ years of almost non-stop civil wars caused by successful
military commanders usurping the throne and in turn being usurped by
their own generals, combined with economic collapse and murderous
rates of inflation resulting from the savage levels of taxation
required to pay for all these civil wars. The province of Britain,
for example, was abandoned not because the Romans were kicked out by
invaders, but because a Roman general (with the rather splendid name
of Magnus Maximus) "borrowed" the Roman garrison of Britain and used
it to invade the capital and overthrow the emperor (IIRC, he failed...)
It's also worth remembering that the 'barbarians' who overthrew the
Roman empire didn't burst through the defences; they were invited in,
to serve as mercenary soldiers, since the endless internecine warfare
referred to above had depleted the empire's manpower reserves.
In other words, Rome's standing armies caused the collapse of the
empire. Moral; where you have standing armies, you get military
coups; which tend to be rather worse for your nation's health than
the risk posed by possible foreign enemies.
> > Conquering and garrisoning the USA (the latter
> > perhaps a far more onerous task than the former) is an undertaking
> > beyond the resources of most nations even if there's no American
> > standing army, simply because it's very big and a long way away
> > across the sea from the likely predators
> Conquering and garrisoning it might be impossible, but looting it? Fairly easy,
> in the absence of a standing military. Mexico probably wouldn't try to conquer
> the whole country, but their army would be sufficient, at the very least, to take
> back those states that were once part of the Empire of Mexico (Texas, Arizona, New
> Mexico, and California).
I think you do the Mexicans an injustice. Do you have any reason to
suppose that they'd be prepared to stoop to state-organised Viking
raids if it wasn't for the strong right arm of the US Army? Even
though I'm not a liberal, I'd hesitate before making that sort of
allegation about any race or nation.
IIRC, the so-called Mexican Empire was a short-lived artificial
construct patched together by interfering European governments so
that some princeling or other (German, or French; I can't remember
which) could have a kingdom to play with, and was duly brought down
by the Mexican people. I don't see a nation with a historical
tradition of fighting for its own freedom wanting to get involved in
gratuitous wars of conquest and aggression.
Besides, if they want California, I say let 'em have it. With green stamps.
The rest of the country would likely end up as numerous
> little city-states controlled by whatever faction--a gang, a corporation, a
> political party, a religious group, whatever--has the most firepower in the area.
A cynic might suggest that that's how it is now...
Tom Holt
The message <386A9149...@bctv.com>
from Keith Wood <k...@bctv.com> contains these words:
thing that begins at home...
I'll concede the point, as made by Orwell in '1984', that
totalitarian societies find foreign wars useful as a way of
controlling their own people. China might well be such a society (I
don't know enough about it to pass judgement) and if so, God help the
poor devils who happen to live next door. But there's a lot of land
and a lot of water between China and the USA, and plenty of easy prey
much closer to home. By the time a notional Chinese empire had
conquered far enough round the globe to threaten the USA, it'd be
well past the stage in the lifecycle of empires at which they tear
themselves apart from the inside and collapse; which (fortunately
enough) every empire in history has so far done.
Jon Niehof
> and tics (blood sucking parasites).
> I think I would vote for Garibaldi though.
Someone, somewhere, had a bumber sticker:
"Ivanova in 2000: Our Last, Best Hope"
Althought I still think nothing beats the Dole/Portman
ticket. It would be great to see a female president *and*
vice. And for some reason that combination just seems about
right...
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
But trust is the sound of the grave-dog's bark.
Trust is the sound of betrayal in the dark.
Trust is the sound of a soul's last breath.
Trust is the sound of death.
George Missonis
> to the north; Mexico and the rest of the Latin American countries envy our
> prosperity.
In some cases, they envy the image they see of the U.S. in American television. The
reality comes as a surprise. Some people have talked about going back, some have done
it. Part of the influx from the south is due to the chaos we've created there by
overthrowing elected governments and waging war on threats to "business as usual."
> By share I
> mean geographic share; one could make a case that we have a reasonable claim to
> resources elsewhere that we develop, but the peoples of the countries from whom we
> take those resources would probably not find that case terribly persuasive.
Native peoples felt no one could "own the earth". Now, someone owns it because their
grandparents killed or evicted the Indians to take it. Do we have a wonderful system,
or what?
> You're leaving out wars of conquest motivated by greed; there've been rather a lot
> of them in history. Rome was sacked by poorer peoples who wanted what the Romans
> had. China fell the same way several times through its history; the most recent
> conquerors were the Mongols and the Manchu.
Some of those empires fell to migrating populations displaced by bigger threats behind
them.
> Conquering and garrisoning it might be impossible, but looting it? Fairly easy,
> in the absence of a standing military.
Having been a fly on the wall during political discussions, it's likely many of our
current politicians would be willing to continue to govern us for new masters.
Unfortunately, they are about power, not belief.
G.
--Drive carefully, it's me.
George Missonis
> Gee, even 2400 years ago we had a pretty good idea of what the hell was going
> on with war. Oh, and for those of you who haven't read it, I'd suggest picking
> up a copy of Sun Tzu and Wu Ch'i's The Art of War. The Sam Griffith translation
> is still my favorite, mainly because it contains all sorts of extra stuff.
>
> always have their own "unwritten" laws that are usually followed with much more
> tenacity than the stuff the government puts out. And I personally feel that the
> moment ambition is no longer rewarded, the world will be something of a better
> place.
>
> Of course, I'm still in high school, and therefore quite naive. Maybe I'll feel
> differently after I've been mugged a few times, eh?
The Art of War is still better than anything written later.
Every system has its pros and cons. Unfortunately, we have cultures like Littleton
High School where the "outs" feel abused and alienated enough to pick up guns. In
my high school, we had a set of guys held back for several years along the way,
physically more developed than anyone else, who were our football team. One of
these guys stood in front of the desk of our only minority student while the
teacher was out of the room, put his hands on the desk, and spit on the poor guy.
No one made a peep of protest. This was a _long_ time ago, but I suspect things
haven't changed all that much in the country. So some of the violence is a strange
kind of "self-defense" against a system that denigrates, abuses, and then ignores
the kids on the "bottom". Until we can find a better system, these things will
happen again.
Oh, someone tried to hold me up at gunpoint (doesn't count cause I had no money at
the time), but it didn't change any of my viewpoints (except maybe to carry a
snubnose .38 instead of the .22).
George dba Reptar
George Missonis
> I like that idea. But I think that anyone who aspires for a political
> office should be immediately disqualified from holding it. Drag them in
> kicking and screaming and give them a list of thing to fix before they can
> leave then find someone else to fix the next bunch of problems.
>
Let's draw lots--loser gets to serve. This would eliminate aspiring
politicians and eliminate the cost of campaigning...
Steve Brinich
> This is unjust- search and siezure requires a lower quality of proof
> than a criminal conviction does. It is also unconstitutional. If we
> make more laws against it, will that fix the problem?
No, but enforcing the existing laws will. IIRC, at least one of the
perpetrators of the Abner Louima toilet-plunger rape received a long
prison sentence. That may focus the minds of the NYPD (or not, in which
case a few more cases will be needed until the clue-by-four connects).
If Lon Horiuchi were now converting large boulders into small pebbles,
as he should be, it might improve the attitudes of certain Feds (or not,
in which case see above).
Cassius81
>The Art of War is still better than anything written later.
Well. I haven't read everything ever written, so I can't comment...
>Every system has its pros and cons. Unfortunately, we have cultures like
>Littleton
>High School where the "outs" feel abused and alienated enough to pick up
>guns.
I'm something of an "out" myself... though admittedly I've had it pretty easy.
Never have I ever seriously considered picking up a weapon and killing someone,
though. Oh, sure... I've thought about it while pissed at someone/something,
but it just doesn't seem like a good way of soving a problem.
>In
>my high school, we had a set of guys held back for several years along the
>way,
>physically more developed than anyone else, who were our football team. One
>of
>these guys stood in front of the desk of our only minority student while the
>teacher was out of the room, put his hands on the desk, and spit on the poor
>guy.
>No one made a peep of protest. This was a _long_ time ago, but I suspect
>things
>haven't changed all that much in the country.
I dunno... for some reason I've always had faith in people's abilities to
change their ways. And I've found that the best way to change anything is to
turn yourself into that little girl from Tiny Toon Adventures and repeatedly
ask "Why?" Once they can't give you a good answer for something, you force 'em
to think.
It works in theory. In practice, people usually just run away very fast.
>So some of the violence is a
>strange
>kind of "self-defense" against a system that denigrates, abuses, and then
>ignores
>the kids on the "bottom".
"Some" violence is self-defense against an unfair system? Only "some"?
>Until we can find a better system, these things
>will
>happen again.
Undoubtedly. In my none-too-humble opinion, the reason people kill each other
is because of a lack of empathy. So, unless anyone plans to breed a new race of
human telepaths, we're gonna have murders.
I could be wrong on both counts, though. Killing could be caused by something
else entirely, or a P5 could become jealous of a P12 and kill 'im.
Does that make any sense at all, or am I just rambling?
>Oh, someone tried to hold me up at gunpoint (doesn't count cause I had no
>money at
>the time), but it didn't change any of my viewpoints (except maybe to carry a
>snubnose .38 instead of the .22).
Using guns seems to be the direct way of solving a problem. And the direct way
is *never* the best way.
In fact, the best way is usually to circle around the problem, sneak up behind
it, and club it in the back of its head before it sees you. After that, you're
free to steal its watch, wallet, and wedding ring.
I'm pretty sure that metaphor makes sense if you ponder it for long enough.
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
Orson Scott Card:
"This emotion I'm feeling now, this is love, right?"
"I don't know. Is it a longing? Is it a giddy stupid happiness just because
you're with me?"
"Yes."
"That's influenza. Watch for nausea or diarrhea within a few hours."
George Missonis
> IIRC, the so-called Mexican Empire was a short-lived artificial
> construct patched together by interfering European governments so
> that some princeling or other (German, or French; I can't remember
> which) could have a kingdom to play with, and was duly brought down
> by the Mexican people. I don't see a nation with a historical
> tradition of fighting for its own freedom wanting to get involved in
> gratuitous wars of conquest and aggression.
You might enjoy the movie "Juarez", with Paul Muni, which tells this story.
Or at least, the Hollywood version.
George Missonis
> >my high school, we had a set of guys held back for several years along the
> >way,
> >physically more developed than anyone else, who were our football team. One
> >of
> >these guys stood in front of the desk of our only minority student while the
> >teacher was out of the room, put his hands on the desk, and spit on the poor
> >guy.
> >No one made a peep of protest. This was a _long_ time ago, but I suspect
> >things
> >haven't changed all that much in the country.
>
> I dunno... for some reason I've always had faith in people's abilities to
> change their ways.
It can take a while. Deer had a long time to develop the "stare at the headlights
and get run over by a car" behaviour. Automobiles have only had around a hundred
years so far to remove it from the gene pool.
Rural humans had thousands of years to develop the "big families to work the
fields" mindset. As mechanized farming conquers the world displacing people into
the cities, it will take a while to change the mindset.
Andrew Wendel
"Keith Wood" <k...@bctv.com> wrote in message news:386A8F80...@bctv.com...
>
>
> Paul Harper wrote:
> >
> > Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> said :
> >
> > >Personally, I'm at least 75%
> > >a pacifist, and my view of war is a slight paraphrase of Karl Marx,
> > >namely "a bayonet is a piece of steel with a citizen on each end".
>
> Nobody is more pacifistic than is a rattlesnake. If you don't force him
> to go to war with you, he won't go to war with you. If you DO force the
> issue, he makes a few decisive actions, then it is over again.
Yes, but what forces him to attack. He will come at you if you get between him
and his home. So, what if you don't see his home. Japan attacked because the
Pacific Fleet was a threat (in their eyes). Americans consider it a cowardly
attack because we were not going after them. So, who is right?
> BTW, can you provide a source for anything resembling that statement by
> Marx? It would be nice to have when I discuss the complete failure of
> Marxism as a system.
In my opinion, Marxism failed because there is no incentive to work hard. The
Soviets tried quotas, but without a carrot to go for, many just went though the
motions. If I remember right, they lost more troops in training accidents due
to faulty equipment than anything else. There was no reason to go for quality.
--
Andy
------
Andrew Wendel
Engineering God
mailto:blind...@iname.com
http://www.planetkc.com/pyro
-------------------------------------------
It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere.
Brian Watson
> "Keith Wood" <k...@bctv.com> wrote in message news:386A8F80...@bctv.com...
> >
> >
> > Paul Harper wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> said :
> > >
> > > >Personally, I'm at least 75%
> > > >a pacifist, and my view of war is a slight paraphrase of Karl Marx,
> > > >namely "a bayonet is a piece of steel with a citizen on each end".
> >
> > Nobody is more pacifistic than is a rattlesnake. If you don't force him
> > to go to war with you, he won't go to war with you. If you DO force the
> > issue, he makes a few decisive actions, then it is over again.
>
> Yes, but what forces him to attack. He will come at you if you get between him
> and his home. So, what if you don't see his home. Japan attacked because the
> Pacific Fleet was a threat (in their eyes). Americans consider it a cowardly
> attack because we were not going after them. So, who is right?
I'm American and I consider it easily one of the most brilliant attacks in Naval
history. No one before the attack believed it was even possible to launch an air
attack on the military base from a sea based launch site. The American arrogance
that nothing, anywhere, could possibly attack our bases with any degree of success
was just blown out of the water, litterally, and some of those Admirals got off
their asses and did some serious rethinking of their strategies. Naval air power
had been born, and it is here to stay.
Mark Maher
>
>I'm American and I consider it easily one of the most brilliant attacks in
Naval
>history. No one before the attack believed it was even possible to launch an
air
>attack on the military base from a sea based launch site. The American
arrogance
>that nothing, anywhere, could possibly attack our bases with any degree of
success
>was just blown out of the water, litterally, and some of those Admirals got off
>their asses and did some serious rethinking of their strategies. Naval air
power
>had been born, and it is here to stay.
I'm also a big believer in Naval Aviation but the Japanese didn't dream this
idea up on their own. Yamamoto got the idea to go after the Pacific fleet in
Pearl Harbor from the British attack on the Italian naval forces in Taranto over
a year earlier:
"On the night of November 11, 1940, the British carried out a daring and
well-planned attack on the Italian fleet anchorage at Taranto. Taranto is
located in Southeast Italy, on the western side of the "heel" of the Italian
boot, on the Gulf of Taranto on the Ionian Sea. All six of the Italian
battleships of the 5th and 9th Divisions were in port on the night of the
attack. The new British armored carrier, "Illustrious", approached undetected to
within 170 miles of the base and launched two strikes of torpedo-carrying
Swordfish aircraft, some of which were from the complement of "Eagle."
The Swordfish used in the attack were old biplanes carrying one torpedo a piece.
The attack sank or disabled three Italian battleships, two of which were later
repaired.
As for the attack on Pearl Harbor, the amount of information that the US
government had regarding an imminent attack somewhere and that Pearl Harbor was
a potential target was overwhelming. Whether it was arrogance on our part or
something else that allowed the attack to occur unchallenged has been hotly
debated ever since. One thing is for sure - the fact that the attack occurred
without a previous declaration of war was sufficient to enrage the greater
public to the point that we, as a country, were on a war-time footing overnight.
The Japanese military did perceive the US pacific fleet to be a threat but they
didn't react defensively to protect themselves. They attacked the Pacific fleet
in Pearl Harbor to clear an obstacle to their conquest of the western Pacific
Ocean. They were clearly the aggressors in this fight.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Andrew Wendel
"Mark Andrew Siefert" <cth...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:83v6tc$7qb$1...@uwm.edu...
<SNIP>
> Why should someone claim to represent me simply because they can
> round up a larger group of supports than I can for my candidate, or vice
> versa? Spare my the flowery, ultra-patriotic, civics-class claptrap about
> democracy. Democracy (in any form) is about brute force. The majority
> calls the shots while the minority better obey "the will of the people" to
> keep themselves from being imprisoned or massacred. (e.g. The 1932 Bonus
> Army, Kent State, Waco, Seattle, etc.)
For the record, it is supposed to be the rule of the majority tempered by the
rights of the minority.
Brian Watson
Hmmm.. I hadn't heard of this particular battle before. It was perhaps the first,
but Yamamoto seemed to have scaled it up considerably. The Japanese fleet was
larger, they had more planes and carriers, they attacked a considerably larger
target, correct? Plus, the very range of the attack from a home base is a large
factor in the Japanese attack. The British had a home port considerably closer than
the Japanese. I'd still say the Japanese one was much more daring in it's scope.
> As for the attack on Pearl Harbor, the amount of information that the US
> government had regarding an imminent attack somewhere and that Pearl Harbor was
> a potential target was overwhelming. Whether it was arrogance on our part or
> something else that allowed the attack to occur unchallenged has been hotly
> debated ever since. One thing is for sure - the fact that the attack occurred
> without a previous declaration of war was sufficient to enrage the greater
> public to the point that we, as a country, were on a war-time footing overnight.
It's my understanding that early attempts at radar were underway in Hawaii, and they
actually picked up what was the incoming bomber squadron but dismissed it as a bug
in their systems, or they were unable to convince anyone at the base that there was
any problems.
> The Japanese military did perceive the US pacific fleet to be a threat but they
> didn't react defensively to protect themselves. They attacked the Pacific fleet
> in Pearl Harbor to clear an obstacle to their conquest of the western Pacific
> Ocean. They were clearly the aggressors in this fight.
Oh certainly, but if you are going to enter into a war, and know someone is going to
be fighting you, it'd simply be foolish if you warn them ahead of time that you've
got a flight of bombers coming in on their fleet. I don't expect them to apologize
for the attack on Pearl Harbor, and I don't apologize for the destruction of
Hiroshima or Nagasaki. War is war.
Mark Maher
>Mark Maher wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm.. I hadn't heard of this particular battle before. It was perhaps the
first,
>but Yamamoto seemed to have scaled it up considerably. The Japanese fleet was
>larger, they had more planes and carriers, they attacked a considerably larger
>target, correct? Plus, the very range of the attack from a home base is a
large
>factor in the Japanese attack. The British had a home port considerably closer
than
>the Japanese. I'd still say the Japanese one was much more daring in it's
scope.
Of course it was - no disagreement with that assessment. It was also completely
consistent with their typical strategy and completely predictable. They had
started their earlier war against Russia with a surprise attack against the
Russian Imperial Navy.
Also, I must add this correction. According to testimony by Vice Admiral Shigeru
Fukudome, Yamamoto's chief of staff from November 15, 1939 to April 10, 1941,
Yamamoto first mentioned attacking Pearl Harbor using aerial torpedoes in March
or April of 1940 (source: "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor"
by Gordon W. Prange)
>It's my understanding that early attempts at radar were underway in Hawaii, and
they
>actually picked up what was the incoming bomber squadron but dismissed it as a
bug
>in their systems, or they were unable to convince anyone at the base that there
was
>any problems.
IIRC, they were told the formation that they were picking up was probably a
flight of B-17s that was due in from the West Coast. Oops!
>> The Japanese military did perceive the US pacific fleet to be a threat but
they
>> didn't react defensively to protect themselves. They attacked the Pacific
fleet
>> in Pearl Harbor to clear an obstacle to their conquest of the western Pacific
>> Ocean. They were clearly the aggressors in this fight.
>
>Oh certainly, but if you are going to enter into a war, and know someone is
going to
>be fighting you, it'd simply be foolish if you warn them ahead of time that
you've
>got a flight of bombers coming in on their fleet. I don't expect them to
apologize
>for the attack on Pearl Harbor, and I don't apologize for the destruction of
>Hiroshima or Nagasaki. War is war.
But even war has some rules of conduct. The Japanese wanted to make sure that
the United States was served at least a nominal notice just before the first
bombs fell. A very long comedy of errors led to the late delivery of what was
essentially the formal declaration of war. Secretary of State Hull already had
initial reports of the attack by the time the Japanese delegates arrived to
deliver it. Legend has it that when Yamamoto heard the attack had started before
the declaration was delivered, he stated the "I fear that all we have done is
awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
To borrow from Bester, "Got it in one..."
__!_!__
Gizmo
Keith Wood
Brian Watson wrote:
>
> Andrew Wendel wrote:
>
> > "Keith Wood" <k...@bctv.com> wrote in message news:386A8F80...@bctv.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Harper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> said :
> > > >
> > > > >Personally, I'm at least 75%
> > > > >a pacifist, and my view of war is a slight paraphrase of Karl Marx,
> > > > >namely "a bayonet is a piece of steel with a citizen on each end".
> > >
> > > Nobody is more pacifistic than is a rattlesnake. If you don't force him
> > > to go to war with you, he won't go to war with you. If you DO force the
> > > issue, he makes a few decisive actions, then it is over again.
> >
> > Yes, but what forces him to attack. He will come at you if you get between him
> > and his home. So, what if you don't see his home. Japan attacked because the
> > Pacific Fleet was a threat (in their eyes). Americans consider it a cowardly
> > attack because we were not going after them. So, who is right?
>
> I'm American and I consider it easily one of the most brilliant attacks in Naval
> history. No one before the attack believed it was even possible to launch an air
> attack on the military base from a sea based launch site. The American arrogance
> that nothing, anywhere, could possibly attack our bases with any degree of success
> was just blown out of the water, litterally, and some of those Admirals got off
> their asses and did some serious rethinking of their strategies. Naval air power
> had been born, and it is here to stay.
More importantly, without Pearl Harbor, we would never have won the
Pacific War. If not for the destruction of the battleship fleet in one
swell foop, while the carriers stayed on the loose, we would have been
unable to build the carriers which won the air superiority needed to
start taking back the islands.
George Missonis
> didn't react defensively to protect themselves. They attacked the Pacific fleet
> in Pearl Harbor to clear an obstacle to their conquest of the western Pacific
> Ocean. They were clearly the aggressors in this fight.
>
> Gizmo
The Japanese had already scuffled with the Russians in a series of border incidents.
Manchuria's industrial region and China were the great prizes, but they really
couldn't digest China (Shades of an earlier discussion...). Their bouts with the
Russians were enough to make them turn away from war with Russia. When the western
powers threatened to cut off their oil supply, the choices for Japan were to have
the military and civilian sectors run out of oil and gas in about six months or to
go take the oilfields from the Dutch. The American government expected the Japanese
to fight rather than surrender to the threat of the embargo, but they thought there
would be an attack on the Philipines which would give them an excuse for war.
OldFatGuy
Justin Bacon
<marka...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>One thing is for sure - the fact that the attack occurred
>without a previous declaration of war was sufficient to enrage the greater
>public to the point that we, as a country, were on a war-time footing
>overnight.
I've often wondered what the outcome of history would have been if they
Declaration of War had been delivered by the Japanese embassy when it was
*supposed* to be -- just before the attack, instead of just after it. Instead
of serving as a point of moral outrage, it could have (as the Japanese
intended) served as a crushing blow to our national morale.
I'm not convinced that it would have happened that way -- but it would be an
interesting "what if" to consider.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
<blind...@iname.com> writes:
>In my opinion, Marxism failed because there is no incentive to work hard. The
>Soviets tried quotas, but without a carrot to go for, many just went though
the
>motions. If I remember right, they lost more troops in training accidents due
>to faulty equipment than anything else. There was no reason to go for
>quality.
That's Big Problem #1. Big Problem #2 is that Marxism as a system doesn't make
any sense. The theory is that power tends to accumulate to those who control
the means of production, and that therefore true democracy is impossible under
capitalism because those who control the means of production have a bigger
share of the power pie than those who don't. Marx's solution? You consolidate
the means of production into the hands of the people. But since, in a modern
society, you can't duplicate Ancient Greece and give everyone a direct vote on
every issue (because (a) modern issues are too complex and numerous for that;
and (b) such a system allows the majority to tyrannize the minority) you are
essentially putting the means of production into the hands of elected
officials(*) -- in other words, you are, out of hand, isolating political and
economic (and, by extension, social) power into the hands of the few. That's
just a ticking time bomb waiting to go off.
I agree with Marx's conclusion that those who control the means of production
will have a tendency to use that point of leverage to control far more. The
solution is not Marxism, however. It is anti-trust law, campaign finance
regulations, and a social security system. The first to keep competition alive
over the various modes of production; the second to isolate the political world
from the economic; and the last to guarantee that no one is left out in the
cold (figuratively speaking).(**)
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
(*) In the corruption of Marxism which was communism in most of the communist
nations, these got put into the hands of the bureaucracy -- in other words,
totally removing the means of production from the common citizen. Bravo. You're
completely pooch-screwed.
(**) A properly implemented social security system functions as a safety net.
No one is allowed to fall below the basic standard of living, and as a result
people will be more willing to take the type of speculative chances which drive
progress. An acrobat's safety net both prevents accidents, and gives your
average acrobat the ability to perform stunts which -- without the net -- he
might not be willing to attempt. Ditto a properly implemented social security
system.
Justin Bacon
<lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>By the time a notional Chinese empire had
>conquered far enough round the globe to threaten the USA, it'd be
>well past the stage in the lifecycle of empires at which they tear
>themselves apart from the inside and collapse; which (fortunately
>enough) every empire in history has so far done.
"Far enough round the globe"? You mean like, the time it would take them to
cross the ocean? Or are you hoping that Japan and Taiwan are going to jump up
and defend us?
Again, your political philosophy is suffering from an extremely short-term
horizon ("they can't attack us tomorrow, therefore we're perfectly safe forever
and ever") and, apparently, a complete failure to comprehend geography.
I also note that you're apparently hoping that no one *except* the U.S.
embraces this philosophy -- because the only way they could slow down a
(hypothetical) Chinese attack would be if *they* had a standing military. In
turn you're ignoring the fact that if the Japanese have a standing military
capable of slowing down China until we can take the time to rebuild our
military machine, and we don't, then at some point Japan could be just as much
a threat as China.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
<lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>All due respect; but I can't really believe that the USA is
>threatened by any 'real external enemies' (except, of course, the
>Canadians...)
>
>Having studied the pathology of war and its causes for a number of
>years, I was left with the belief that wars between nations generally
>stem from mutual fear and loathing.
If you don't think there are nations out there that loath the USA, then I
suggest you buy yourself the clue you are so obviously lacking. They are not
"real external enemies" today because we have taxes which fund a national
defense program. Eliminate the taxes, and thus the national defense program,
and there's nothing standing in their way.
>Conquering and garrisonning the USA (the latter
>perhaps a far more onerous task than the former) is an undertaking
>beyond the resources of most nations even if there's no American
>standing army, simply because it's very big and a long way away
>across the sea from the likely predators.
You're ignoring the Rome vs. Carthage type of warfare -- where you are solely
interested in destruction, not cultivation.
>Even if I'm underestimating the risk, I'd still strongly advocate
>getting rid of standing armies, and especially of their aircraft,
>tanks, artillery and other high-tech toys, against which no civilian
>uprising could hope to succeed.
Again, we've descended into the fantasy land of extreme libertarianism. You've
just admitted that no civilian resistance could hope to compete against a moden
military (with "aircraft, tanks, artillery, and other high-tech toys") -- and
yet you assume that a civilian force will protect us against the modern
militaries of other nations.
Personally I don't agree with your premise, but either way there are two
possiblities:
1. Civilian resistance does work against established militaries (probably using
guerilla tactics); in which case we're better off with a standing army for a
deterrent rather than waiting for the invasion to come to us.
2. Civilian resistance doesn't work against established militaries (your
assumption); in which case we need an established military in order to protect
us from foreign threats.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
>If not for the destruction of the battleship fleet in one
>swell foop, while the carriers stayed on the loose, we would have been
>unable to build the carriers which won the air superiority needed to
>start taking back the islands.
Take *back* the islands? :-)
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
<lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>In other words, Rome's standing armies caused the collapse of the
>empire. Moral; where you have standing armies, you get military
>coups; which tend to be rather worse for your nation's health than
>the risk posed by possible foreign enemies.
Let me see if I can follow your spurious logic: The remote chance that a large
mass of American soldiers would suddenly decide to follow illegal orders to
coup the government they helped to elect should be avoided by throwing open the
borders to any two-bit nation who decides they want a cut of the American pie.
Sorry. Not a convincing argument.
Besides which, the quickest way to get a bunch of pissed off military men who
would want to change the course of government action would be to attempt to
dissolve the military en masse.
>Even if I'm underestimating the risk, I'd still strongly advocate
>getting rid of standing armies, and especially of their aircraft,
>tanks, artillery and other high-tech toys, against which no civilian
>uprising could hope to succeed.
Let me try to follow the spurious logic again: Out of the 250+ nations out
there, you're willing to bet that not one of them -- not today, not tomorrow,
not for the rest of all time -- would ever decide to attack the U.S. with a
modern military.
Sorry. Once again you've failed to construct a convincing argument.
>> The rest of the country would likely end up as numerous
>> little city-states controlled by whatever faction--a gang, a corporation, a
>> political party, a religious group, whatever--has the most firepower in the
area.
>
>A cynic might suggest that that's how it is now...
If that were actually the case, wouldn't you be jumping for joy?
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com