Roth's Complaint
Tom Deveson
airports and public buildings named after RR in all the states and
counties? If so, is it succeeding?
I ask because I've just been reading an interview that Philip Roth gave
to *Paris Review* back in 1983/1984.
He's talking about what it was like to be a writer in the fifties.
"...Alienated in America, a stranger to its pleasures and preoccupations
-- that was how many young people like me saw their situation in the
fifties. It was a perfectly honorable stance, I think, shaped by our
literary aspirations and modernist enthusiasms, the high-minded of the
second post-immigrant generation coming into conflict with the first
great eruption of postwar media garbage. Little did we know that some
twenty years later the philistine ignorance on which we would have liked
to turn our backs would infect the country like Camus's plague. Any
satirist writing a futuristic novel who had imagined a President Reagan
during the Eisenhower years would have been accused of perpetuating a
piece of crude, contemptible, adolescent anti-American wickedness, when,
in fact, he would have succeeded, as prophetic sentry, just where Orwell
failed; he would have seen that the grotesquerie to be visited upon the
English-speaking world would not be an extension of the repressive
Eastern totalitarian nightmare but a proliferation of the Western farce
of media stupidity and cynical commercialism -- American-style
philistinism run amok. It wasn't Big Brother who'd be watching us from
the screen, but we who'd be watching a terrifyingly powerful world
leader with the soul of an amiable, soap opera grandmother, the values
of a civic-minded Beverly Hills Cadillac dealer, and the historical
background and intellectual equipment of a high school senior in a June
Allyson musical..."
How does this read over there another (nearly) twenty years on?
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
John Rennie
"Tom Deveson" <a...@devesons.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AbYpzLAJ...@devesons.demon.co.uk...
I know what it sounds like to me, here in the UK. It sounds
terribly snobbish and bloody unfair. While we are on the
subject I have always objected to the left's description of
RR as a 'B' film star. He starred in some memorable films
including Kings Row and The Hasty Heart. He also
starred in a film (again I have forgotten the title) with
Ginger Rogers where he played the part of a Sheriff
trying to combat the KKK in his town - it provoked
unfavourable comment from rightists in America at the
time.
Bayle
Tom Deveson <a...@devesons.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<AbYpzLAJ...@devesons.demon.co.uk>...
It sounds foolish. Eisenhower was the Reagan of the 50s. The
"intellectuals" loved to make fun of Eisenhower, as they loved to make fun
of Reagan. But Reagan knew two big things and he was willing to say them
(unlike the best and the brightest like McNamara, who knew everything but
was unwilling to say anything until 30 years later) and fight for them
(unlike Clinton, who was unwilling to fight for anything other than his own
survival). And he was right. Communism was evil and the New Deal had gone
off track. Unfortunately for his opponents, the American people
overwhelmingly agreed. And for 12 years the era of big government was over
and it was morning again in America.
What has now changed for many of us, as I think it changed for Orwell in
his day, is a loss of "alienation" along with the "emotional distance" and
cynical willingness to mock everything, a new world highly disorienting to
those of us who grew up in the 50s and 60s under the influence of those of
Roth's generation.
Alan Allport
news:01c1531c$08b11fe0$10541cd0@ilzyausv...
> And for 12 years the era of big government was over
Was it?
Here are the figures on federal government receipts, outlays and deficits
between 1980 and 1992 as a percentage of GDP, in constant 1992 dollars (see
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy1998/hist_wk1.html):
Year: Receipts: Outlays: Deficit:
1980 19.0 21.7 -2.7
1981 19.7 22.2 -2.6
1983 17.6 23.6 -4.0
1984 17.5 22.3 -4.9
1985 17.9 23.1 -5.2
1986 17.6 22.6 -5.1
1987 18.6 21.8 -3.3
1988 18.4 21.5 -3.1
1989 18.5 21.4 -2.8
1990 18.2 22.0 -3.9
1991 18.0 22.6 -4.6
1992 17.8 22.5 -4.7
For comparison, the estimated figures for 2001 are:
2001 19.0 19.4 (0.4)
I don't see why an administration that persistently allowed expenditure to
run ahead of income throughout a 12-year run, so that government spending as
a proportion of the economy was higher at the end of the period than it had
been at the start, can be considered the era in which 'Big Government
ended'. A case can quite reasonably be made that the increase in spending
was necessary - I don't particularly buy it, but it can at least be made -
but one can't rationally reconcile both it *and* the claim that the
Reagan-Bush years saw a contraction of Leviathan.
Alan.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9q6seq$p1p$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
I take your point but I was imprecise. The 12 years I was referring to were
1989-2000. The quote to Clinton. And the attitude to "big government" more
psychological than fiscal. And whether the money was spent on those things
everyone agree are governments responsibility (like defense) versus other
things.
Alan Allport
> I take your point but I was imprecise. The 12 years I was referring to
were
> 1989-2000.
Analyzing those years you find mean receipt, outlay and deficit figures of
18.6, 21.2 and -2.6 respectively. The corresponding Reagan-Bush year
averages are 18.2, 22.3 and -4.1. I don't know, maybe there's a revolution
buried somewhere in that 0.4 and 1.1 difference, but if so it's *very*
psychological.
> The quote to Clinton. And the attitude to "big government" more
> psychological than fiscal. And whether the money was spent on those things
> everyone agree are governments responsibility (like defense) versus other
> things.
I think there's an unfortunate tendency in conservative thinking about
government expenditure to discount defence spending as government spending -
to suggest that buying a B-1 bomber is somehow qualitatively different from
funding a school system or supporting the unemployed, that it comes out of a
different kitty or is a kind of involuntary mechanism of the body politic,
like breathing, that can't possibly be helped. For myself I have no quarrel
with the theoretical idea of reducing government size; I just don't see that
pork-barrel weapons procurement ought to be more privileged than anything
else.
Alan.
Greg-Orang-utan
Bayle wrote in message <01c1532d$243d10a0$10541cd0@ilzyausv>...
>
>I take your point but I was imprecise. The 12 years I was referring to were
>1989-2000. The quote to Clinton.
Was a Republican congress that gave Clinton, and Gore for his campaign, the
bragging rights to the end of the shortfall spending right? I recall Clinton
discussing this achievement and sticking his thumb up like the Fonz for
this, something his administration didn't actually accomplish on its own.
FWIW.
Martha Bridegam
Tom Deveson wrote:
It's cause for nostalgia. I'm afraid we have worse plagues to contend with
now, physically and politically, and the House may pass its version of the
wiretapping bill any moment now. (Transparent political plug: It may not be
too late this morning for folks in the U.S. to phone their representatives.
Emphasis on at least giving expiration dates to the new police powers might
be a good idea.)
Mr. Roth was really being too kind to Reagan, who was not foolish or
innocent. He came to office in part through the "October surprise"
arms-for-hostages deal with Iran (which we didn't know about until 1987, of
course). His first two actions in office were to fire the air traffic
controllers who were on strike, and to cut half a million poor Americans
off disability benefits. He appointed people to run public service agencies
that they actively disliked. He sponsored all kinds of nastiness in Central
America. I won't go on with his very grown-up, non-grandmotherly low crimes
and misdemeanors. There were so many.
On the other hand, though the early '80s would have looked bad to the
Assistant Commissioner for Human Opportunity, they weren't bad yet by
current standards. Homelessness was not yet normal -- social service
agencies still referred, touchingly, to "emergency shelters" as though the
residents would be heading home to their own beds any day now.
Strange also to run across the phrase "plague" written in the early 1980s
and *not* have it refer to the literal plague of AIDS -- a disease that as
of 1983 could not be cured, managed or even explained. But then AIDS hadn't
really made it to the center of public attention then, had it?
I guess Tom Frank would say Roth was ignoring the commodification of
alienation itself -- but maybe it wasn't so obvious then?
And is ignorance something one can become infected with? Better to say that
Reagan gave people permission to pretend they were innocent?
Just a few opening comments -- there's a lot here to think about.
/MAB
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9q724g$prn$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> "Bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:01c1532d$243d10a0$10541cd0@ilzyausv...
>
> > I take your point but I was imprecise. The 12 years I was referring to
> were
> > 1989-2000.
>
> Analyzing those years you find mean receipt, outlay and deficit figures
of
> 18.6, 21.2 and -2.6 respectively. The corresponding Reagan-Bush year
> averages are 18.2, 22.3 and -4.1. I don't know, maybe there's a
revolution
> buried somewhere in that 0.4 and 1.1 difference, but if so it's *very*
> psychological.
You're the expert in historical economic analysis, but I have some problems
with your data. I don't like the fact that it is scaled to GDP. Isn't this
a changing scale ? It also doesn't show the amount of programs the were
legacies, the shrinking of future growth, the increase in population, the
increase in an elderly population, etc. It also doesn't situate it in the
post-war trends. I'm also very suspicious of these kind of aggregate
numbers, especially when I have some knowledge of the underlying phenomena.
Not saying your wrong though ;-)
Also what happened to 1982?
> > The quote to Clinton. And the attitude to "big government" more
> > psychological than fiscal. And whether the money was spent on those
things
> > everyone agree are governments responsibility (like defense) versus
other
> > things.
>
> I think there's an unfortunate tendency in conservative thinking about
> government expenditure to discount defence spending as government
spending -
> to suggest that buying a B-1 bomber is somehow qualitatively different
from
> funding a school system or supporting the unemployed, that it comes out
of a
> different kitty or is a kind of involuntary mechanism of the body
politic,
> like breathing, that can't possibly be helped. For myself I have no
quarrel
> with the theoretical idea of reducing government size; I just don't see
that
> pork-barrel weapons procurement ought to be more privileged than anything
> else.
In principle I agree with much of what you've said. And while agreeing
about "pork-barrel weapons procurement ", defense spending when you have
enemies is to some extent involuntary, or at least ought to be. My
favorite example is the failure of the French legislature to fund machine
guns shortly before the Franco-Prussian war when the Germans steamrollered
them using machine guns. Pretty stupid in retrospect.
Martha Bridegam
Bayle wrote:
> ...And while agreeing
> about "pork-barrel weapons procurement ", defense spending when you have
> enemies is to some extent involuntary, or at least ought to be. ...
So is social service spending when you have poor people, or at least it ought
to be.
/MAB
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<3BC72A1E...@pacbell.net>...
Fairness in advertising compels me to point out that the bill passed the
House Judiciary committee unanimously, 25 - 0, if the report I heard was
correct.
[snip Martha's attack on Reagan]
Clinton was a big fan of Reagan IIRC. Didn't he give Reagan a jar of
jellybeans while distancing himself from Jimmy Carter? He admired him for
the communication skills they shared, and that Bush lacks. Although I
understand today's NYT editorial page has decided that the Bush at the
press conference last night was the new Bush. So who knows.
Martha Bridegam
Tom Deveson wrote:
Another take on this:
Is it really fair to say that Orwell didn't predict the phenomenon of
political hegemony through advertising and entertainment? He did after all
help invent the criticism of popular culture. In his dystopia everyone is
ruled through television -- not just by being watched but also by having to
watch propaganda that is never turned off. Only the intelligentsia and,
presumably, a handful of genuine troublemakers, are subject to tight
political control. The rest of the population are kept scared enough to put
their faith in authority, but contented enough not to want more out of life
than cheap beer and "prolefeed" entertainment. I think Orwell knew all
about the "manufacturing of consent," he just didn't make the Chomsky
mistake of pretending that events in real life are as bad or as obvious as
they can be in a satire.
/MAB
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
Agreed. Though it would help if we had a President and a media that would
tell the truth about poverty, something that didn't happen during the
Clinton years, when poverty disappeared IIRC. It is also true that every
social service program with an entrenched constituency is not a
constitutional right, but charity.
Martha Bridegam
Bayle wrote:
> ...(Transparent political plug: It may not
> be
> > too late this morning for folks in the U.S. to phone their
> representatives.
> > Emphasis on at least giving expiration dates to the new police powers
> might
> > be a good idea.)
>
> Fairness in advertising compels me to point out that the bill passed the
> House Judiciary committee unanimously, 25 - 0, if the report I heard was
> correct.
The ACLU is more concerned about the Senate version than the House version,
though both are bad. The current question is how much the more principled
stands in the House version may be eroded by the reconciliation negotations.
See <http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/>. The House Judiciary Committee has a
relatively good record on questioning police-agency eavesdropping. Rep. Barr,
a Republican, has been particularly outspoken on the subject.
>
>
> [snip Martha's attack on Reagan]
>
> Clinton was a big fan of Reagan IIRC. Didn't he give Reagan a jar of
> jellybeans while distancing himself from Jimmy Carter? He admired him for
> the communication skills they shared, and that Bush lacks. Although I
> understand today's NYT editorial page has decided that the Bush at the
> press conference last night was the new Bush. So who knows.
I'm not surprised. Clinton was more of a Reaganite than a Democrat, more's the
pity.
/MAB
Alan Allport
> You're the expert in historical economic analysis, but I have some
problems
> with your data. I don't like the fact that it is scaled to GDP. Isn't this
> a changing scale ?
The crucial test of whether the government is changing from 'big' to 'small'
is in its relative share of GDP. If the economy grows then absolute state
income will increase along with it, as will expenditure, without any implied
change in policy; but this is not really an expansion of government, just a
reflection of the fact that the country has more money than it used to.
Likewise, a shrinking economy will procure less absolute revenue for
Washington - and, if the powers-that-be have any sense, less outflow -
without altering the size of government. But if the proportion of GDP
devoted to the state changes, then clearly something of much greater
significance is taking place. If the government spends $500 billion in 1980
and $1,000 billion in 1990, this information alone won't tell you about the
true state of government growth or shrinkage; perhaps the economy doubled in
size during that period, in which case nothing really changed. Or perhaps
the economy quadrupled in size, in which case the government actually shrank
by half. But if government spending as a proportion of GDP was 25 per cent
in 1980 and 50 per cent in 1990, then it's IMHO unquestionable that Big
Government just got Bigger.
> Also what happened to 1982?
19.2, 23.2 and -4.0 respectively ie. in line with the other figures. Sorry,
must have overlooked it when transcribing.
> In principle I agree with much of what you've said. And while agreeing
> about "pork-barrel weapons procurement ", defense spending when you have
> enemies is to some extent involuntary, or at least ought to be. My
> favorite example is the failure of the French legislature to fund machine
> guns shortly before the Franco-Prussian war when the Germans steamrollered
> them using machine guns. Pretty stupid in retrospect.
Shurely shome machine-gun mixshup here? It was the *French* who had the
wonder-weapon MG in the Franco-Prussian war - the famous 'Mitrailleuse', so
top-secret that it was considered too risky to teach French soldiers how to
use it. The French also had the equally well-known Chassepot breech-loader,
superior in range to the Prussian Zündnadelgewehr, although Moltke's men did
enjoy superiority in artillery with the Krupps cast-iron cannon. French
defence policy in 1870 was based upon a relatively small, professional,
well-equipped army. The Prussians, with qualitatively less advanced weaponry
but much larger numbers (and better logistical support), won the day.
Alan.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9q7cs5$3u8$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
Well that's not the way I would do it, It's like saying I got bigger by
standing next to reindeer after standing next to a giraffe. I used to be 20
per cent but now I'm 75 per cent. I'm not doubting that there are good
reasons to do it this way. Just that their are problems with these kind of
ratio scales.
The key question that you need to answer when deciding what scale to use in
money is whether you think the difference between $10,000 and $11,000 is
the same or different as that between $100,000 and $110,000. (Both 10% but
not equal) If you want them to be the same log them, if not leave them the
way they are. Money is usually logged but it is important to realize that
logging changes certain interpretations.
> > Also what happened to 1982?
>
> 19.2, 23.2 and -4.0 respectively ie. in line with the other figures.
Sorry,
> must have overlooked it when transcribing.
Those tables are brutal. Thanks for transcribing them.
> > In principle I agree with much of what you've said. And while agreeing
> > about "pork-barrel weapons procurement ", defense spending when you
have
> > enemies is to some extent involuntary, or at least ought to be. My
> > favorite example is the failure of the French legislature to fund
machine
> > guns shortly before the Franco-Prussian war when the Germans
steamrollered
> > them using machine guns. Pretty stupid in retrospect.
>
> Shurely shome machine-gun mixshup here? It was the *French* who had the
> wonder-weapon MG in the Franco-Prussian war - the famous 'Mitrailleuse',
so
> top-secret that it was considered too risky to teach French soldiers how
to
> use it.
Yes but IIRC, (Michael Howard at 25+ years and I can't find my copy to look
it up) the French legislature did refuse to fund these weapons at a level
sufficient to have turned the tide in soon-to-be-fought war. It is possible
that the reason they didn't was bad advice by the military, but I confess
that isn't the way I remember it. I first read Howard's book in a class on
military history taught by John Shy, the author of the essay on the
American Revolution in the Oxford History of the British Empire. Midway
through the course the October War broke out, and we spent much of the time
discussing strategy with two West Point types who had been in Vietnam and
were back doing graduate work.
> The French also had the equally well-known Chassepot breech-loader,
> superior in range to the Prussian Zündnadelgewehr, although Moltke's men
did
> enjoy superiority in artillery with the Krupps cast-iron cannon. French
> defence policy in 1870 was based upon a relatively small, professional,
> well-equipped army. The Prussians, with qualitatively less advanced
weaponry
> but much larger numbers (and better logistical support), won the day.
An advantage which the machine gun would have rendered moot. Possibly.
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
>
>
> Bayle wrote:
>
> > ...(Transparent political plug: It may not
> > be
> > > too late this morning for folks in the U.S. to phone their
> > representatives.
> > > Emphasis on at least giving expiration dates to the new police powers
> > might
> > > be a good idea.)
> >
> > Fairness in advertising compels me to point out that the bill passed
the
> > House Judiciary committee unanimously, 25 - 0, if the report I heard
was
> > correct.
>
> The ACLU is more concerned about the Senate version than the House
version,
> though both are bad. The current question is how much the more principled
> stands in the House version may be eroded by the reconciliation
negotations.
> See <http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/>. The House Judiciary Committee has
a
> relatively good record on questioning police-agency eavesdropping. Rep.
Barr,
> a Republican, has been particularly outspoken on the subject.
Yes, but that is the point. If you start the fight with Barr on your side,
someone who is about as far away from you as it is possible to be, then
clearly if the government abuses its newly acquired powers, you will have
allies in attacking the abuses. I have been amazed at how careful most
politicians have been, even after Sept 11. Plus we do still have a jury
system to block government misconduct.
> >
> >
> > [snip Martha's attack on Reagan]
> >
> > Clinton was a big fan of Reagan IIRC. Didn't he give Reagan a jar of
> > jellybeans while distancing himself from Jimmy Carter? He admired him
for
> > the communication skills they shared, and that Bush lacks. Although I
> > understand today's NYT editorial page has decided that the Bush at the
> > press conference last night was the new Bush. So who knows.
>
> I'm not surprised. Clinton was more of a Reaganite than a Democrat,
more's the
> pity.
The question is "What is a Democrat?". I thought I knew but now longer.
Other than LBJ in 1964, no Democratic presidential candidate has gotten
over 50% of the popular vote in recent times. This is not a good record. At
least it shows a certain out-of-stepness with the American public at large.
Especially given that Gore ran at a time of unprecedented prosperity. Any
ideas how to fix it?
Alan Allport
> Well that's not the way I would do it, It's like saying I got bigger by
> standing next to reindeer after standing next to a giraffe. I used to be
20
> per cent but now I'm 75 per cent.
A more apposite analogy might be found on the body. Your feet are, I
imagine, larger now than they were when you were 5 years old. Does that mean
that you have experienced some peculiar podiatric expansion during the
intervening <x> years? Probably not; it's more likely that your whole body
has gotten larger and your feet have simply been keeping pace (feet being
good at that). Proportionally, nothing has changed. It would be misleading
to discuss the growth of your feet in isolation and to imply that their
aggrandizement is a phenomenon of interest in itself. In the same way, if
the economy increases in total size then the portion of it devoted to the
government ought, all other things being equal, to increase by the same
amount. Nothing remarkable about that. It's only if the ratio of government
to private economic activity alters that one can meaningfully talk of a
'growth' or 'shrinkage' of government. So only the percentage change, if
any, is really relevant.
Though as you say there are always problems with any scale that one chooses.
By the way, if your feet really are gargantuan then I apologize for the
tastelessness of my example.
> Yes but IIRC, (Michael Howard at 25+ years and I can't find my copy to
look
> it up) the French legislature did refuse to fund these weapons at a level
> sufficient to have turned the tide in soon-to-be-fought war.
I'm not really convinced that the presence of the machine gun in 1870 would
have made much difference either way. Even fancy models like the
Mitrailleuse were still rather primitive engines of war compared with the
Maxims that would appear twenty years later. The Gatlings used at Abu Klea
in 1885 didn't help Wolseley's troops all that much, and they were fighting
natives armed largely with spears.
Alan.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9q7gi8$jci$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> "Bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:01c15350$4be25de0$10541cd0@ilzyausv...
>
> > Well that's not the way I would do it, It's like saying I got bigger by
> > standing next to reindeer after standing next to a giraffe. I used to
be
> 20
> > per cent but now I'm 75 per cent.
>
> A more apposite analogy might be found on the body. Your feet are, I
> imagine, larger now than they were when you were 5 years old. Does that
mean
> that you have experienced some peculiar podiatric expansion during the
> intervening <x> years? Probably not; it's more likely that your whole
body
> has gotten larger and your feet have simply been keeping pace (feet being
> good at that). Proportionally, nothing has changed. It would be
misleading
> to discuss the growth of your feet in isolation and to imply that their
> aggrandizement is a phenomenon of interest in itself.
Not sure if this is good physiology. Your head for example, doesn't
maintain its proportion from birth. Also the number of neurons in the brain
actually declines with development as relevant neuronal groups are
selected. I think a better example might be the heart and brain. Once I am
an adult, suppose I double my weight and gain 150 pounds. Has my heart
grown? No. Has my brain or spine? No. The same size organs still govern and
supply my now larger body.
And in fact in the political arena, the same size institutions like the
Congress (??? plus 100) and the Supreme Court (9) still govern the larger
polity.
> In the same way, if
> the economy increases in total size then the portion of it devoted to the
> government ought, all other things being equal, to increase by the same
> amount.
Why? Is this an analytic or synthetic truth?
> Nothing remarkable about that.
There is to me. I must be missing something here.
> It's only if the ratio of government
> to private economic activity alters that one can meaningfully talk of a
> 'growth' or 'shrinkage' of government. So only the percentage change, if
> any, is really relevant.
So hypothetically.
2000
Widget Inc. contribution to GDP - $0 (doesn't exist)
Non-Widget Inc. GDP - $100
Government - $10.
Ratio $10/ $100 = .10
2001 (no inflation)
Widget Inc. contribution to GDP - $100 (very successful)
Non-Widget Inc. GDP - $100
Government - $10.
Ratio $10/ $200 = .05
So you would say the government just shrunk? Same number of employees, same
spending, same everything.
Why wouldn't it be the same size, but more efficient? Is this relevant?
Sorry I'm dense here. My statistical knowledge is good, having spent a lot
of time in Steinberg-Deitrich auditing stat courses, but my economics is
rusty, and my knowledge of the use of economic statistics in historical
research virtually non-existent.
Speaking of which, the work by the Nobel Prize winner in economics, Robert
Fogel's "Time on the Cross" (a "high" point of the quantitative approach)
seems to have been demolished fairly easily by more tradition historians of
slavery. At least that's the take of the authors that I read.
> Though as you say there are always problems with any scale that one
chooses.
>
> By the way, if your feet really are gargantuan then I apologize for the
> tastelessness of my example.
Actually my feet seem to be shrinking. Though maybe the sizes are changing
so people can brag about their feet. They actually have done this with golf
clubs.
> > Yes but IIRC, (Michael Howard at 25+ years and I can't find my copy to
> look
> > it up) the French legislature did refuse to fund these weapons at a
level
> > sufficient to have turned the tide in soon-to-be-fought war.
>
> I'm not really convinced that the presence of the machine gun in 1870
would
> have made much difference either way. Even fancy models like the
> Mitrailleuse were still rather primitive engines of war compared with the
> Maxims that would appear twenty years later. The Gatlings used at Abu
Klea
> in 1885 didn't help Wolseley's troops all that much, and they were
fighting
> natives armed largely with spears.
I defer to your judgment. At this point I just want to check Howard to make
sure that I'm not getting Alzheimer's disease.
Alan Allport
> > In the same way, if
> > the economy increases in total size then the portion of it devoted to
the
> > government ought, all other things being equal, to increase by the same
> > amount.
>
> Why? Is this an analytic or synthetic truth?
If twice as much economic activity is taking place, say, then the treasury
will receive twice as much revenue as it previously did through taxation of
that activity obviously this is a bit simplified but I think you get the
idea). Now the Government could, if it wanted to, choose to cut taxes in
half at this point and so retain its previous revenue in absolute $ terms
while returning the windfall half back to the taxpayer. This would reduce
federal activity in the economy as a proportion of GDP and would, in my
view, constitute a genuine shrinkage of government. Why? Well, the doubling
of GDP does not only bring added revenue, it also brings added problems that
governments traditionally intevene to solve. More business means more
transport, which means the necessity for more roads and railways. It means
environmental and fiscal regulation of more companies; more products for
patent review and drugs to regulate; more non-nationals to process through
immigration; quite probably more crime too. There may be a ethical case for
dispensing greater largesse towards society's unfortunates too, given the
overall increase in affluence within the nation. I am pulling examples in
somewhat randomly but again, I imagine you see my general point. Given all
these additional burdens, it's not likely that the government will be
willing or even able to keep its expenditure at the pre-boom level. It will
probably soak up the revenue it gained simply in order to manage the larger
economic infrastructure. I wouldn't describe this as government growth; it
seems to me simply maintaining the status quo in a new, bigger environment.
> So hypothetically.
>
> 2000
>
> Widget Inc. contribution to GDP - $0 (doesn't exist)
> Non-Widget Inc. GDP - $100
> Government - $10.
>
> Ratio $10/ $100 = .10
>
> 2001 (no inflation)
>
> Widget Inc. contribution to GDP - $100 (very successful)
> Non-Widget Inc. GDP - $100
> Government - $10.
>
> Ratio $10/ $200 = .05
>
> So you would say the government just shrunk?
Yes. The creation of Widget Inc. has its economic implications for the state
that have to either be met or ignored. If the state takes on the burden, it
increases its revenue to $20. If not, it effectively shrinks by half.
Alan.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9q7ljs$2b4$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
I see your point. Thanks for taking the time.
I would think that some things behave as you imply and some not. So as a
short hand, your way of looking at it has no doubt proved useful. As an
example of the kind thing that I'm thinking about I would mention something
like the interstate highway system. While it was being built it represented
an increase in government, but after it was built, assuming that it wasn't
obsolete the minute it came online, it's improvement of the infrastructure
would have allowed the growth of GDP without a similar growth (and maybe
even a decrease) in government. How common these kinds of examples are I
don't know. I would also think that a decrease in government (i.e. in
regulations and bureaucracy) could actually result in a growth in GDP,
which was one of the conservatives points IIRC. Whether it actually worked
out that way I also don't know.
> > So hypothetically.
> >
> > 2000
> >
> > Widget Inc. contribution to GDP - $0 (doesn't exist)
> > Non-Widget Inc. GDP - $100
> > Government - $10.
> >
> > Ratio $10/ $100 = .10
> >
> > 2001 (no inflation)
> >
> > Widget Inc. contribution to GDP - $100 (very successful)
> > Non-Widget Inc. GDP - $100
> > Government - $10.
> >
> > Ratio $10/ $200 = .05
> >
> > So you would say the government just shrunk?
>
> Yes. The creation of Widget Inc. has its economic implications for the
state
> that have to either be met or ignored. If the state takes on the burden,
it
> increases its revenue to $20. If not, it effectively shrinks by half.
>
> Alan.
>
Doesn't your formulation imply a philosophy of government? It would seem
that as the US got richer and richer, then in would have, almost by
definition, a bigger and bigger government. Something that would have
become especially apparent, if more and more of the income was generated
abroad.
Gene Zitver
>Agreed. Though it would help if we had a President and a media that would
>tell the truth about poverty, something that didn't happen during the
>Clinton years, when poverty disappeared IIRC.
You mean according to the media, right?
It is also true that every
>social service program with an entrenched constituency is not a
>constitutional right, but charity.
I'm not sure what you mean by an "entrenched constituency." Does this mean
Social Security and Medicare are charities? The beneficiaries of these programs
are entrenched until they die.
The preamble to the Constitution mentions such things as establishing justice
and promoting the general welfare as well as providing for the common defense.
I don't know if this makes them Constitutional rights or not.
Gene
ROBBIE
Tom Deveson <a...@devesons.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AbYpzLAJ...@devesons.demon.co.uk...
Twenty one gun salute for that....
ROBBIE
John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qdAx7.1723$oE5.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Oh Rennie....that was a heartbreaking paragraph.
>
>
John Rennie
"ROBBIE" <poolhal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9q809f$m1bk7$1...@ID-88989.news.dfncis.de...
It wasn't meant as such - it was, however, accurate.
You must remember Robbie that I have seen these films
and except perhaps for Kings Row you haven't. They
stand up very favourably against today's films.
Greg-Orang-utan
John Rennie wrote in message ...
>
>"ROBBIE"
>> > I know what it sounds like to me, here in the UK. It sounds
>> > terribly snobbish and bloody unfair. While we are on the
>> > subject I have always objected to the left's description of
>> > RR as a 'B' film star. He starred in some memorable films
>> > including Kings Row and The Hasty Heart. He also
>> > starred in a film (again I have forgotten the title) with
>> > Ginger Rogers where he played the part of a Sheriff
>> > trying to combat the KKK in his town - it provoked
>> > unfavourable comment from rightists in America at the
>> > time.
>>
>> Oh Rennie....that was a heartbreaking paragraph.
>
>It wasn't meant as such - it was, however, accurate.
>You must remember Robbie that I have seen these films
>and except perhaps for Kings Row you haven't. They
>stand up very favourably against today's films.
And we musn't permit ROBBIE to deny himself the pleasures of _Bedtime for
Bonzo_, perhaps the only film in which an American President has appeared
with one our simian betters in a starring role. Incredibly, Reagan plays a
college professor.
ROBBIE
John Rennie-Bean Counter <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ADLx7.7827$fo2.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Yeah like I haven't seen Hellcats of the Navy and Knute Rockne All American.
The Hasty Heart's shit as well.
>
>
Gene Zitver
>> It wasn't meant as such - it was, however, accurate.
>> You must remember Robbie that I have seen these films
>> and except perhaps for Kings Row you haven't. They
>> stand up very favourably against today's films.
>
>Yeah like I haven't seen Hellcats of the Navy and Knute Rockne All American.
>The Hasty Heart's shit as well.
The thing about Reagan is that he *was* a good actor (although not a great
one), and his acting skills served him well as a politician.
Gene
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
He also had a hell of a capacity for imagination under pressure. A bad thing
when he was telling his political whoppers, but a good thing when, as a rural
radio announcer, he managed to extrapolate the whole atmosphere of a ball game
from a tickertape giving a bare outline of of the plays. Ad-libbing like that
took a kind of intelligence that I don't think the Shrub has.
/MAB
ROBBIE
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3BC8C8D7...@pacbell.net...
I never thought I'd see the rehabilitation of that arsewipe on abg-o of all
places....
>
> /MAB
>
Martha Bridegam
ROBBIE wrote:
Don't worry, you won't.
/MAB
Bayle
Gene Zitver <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20011012194338...@nso-cv.aol.com>...
> Bayle wrote
>
> >Agreed. Though it would help if we had a President and a media that
would
> >tell the truth about poverty, something that didn't happen during the
> >Clinton years, when poverty disappeared IIRC.
>
> You mean according to the media, right?
>
Right. It was ironic.
> It is also true that every
> >social service program with an entrenched constituency is not a
> >constitutional right, but charity.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by an "entrenched constituency." Does this
mean
> Social Security and Medicare are charities? The beneficiaries of these
programs
> are entrenched until they die.
Emphasis on "every".
What I meant to say was that our social service programs can no longer be
viewed as sacrosanct and untouchable merely because they have long
histories, large constituencies and are supported by powerful lobbying
groups. As they are not constitutional rights, they all must all face a
close examination and the possibility of being changed, replaced, phased
out or eliminated.
This is true even of Social Security, which I don't view as charity.
Recently aid to farmers has not received its usual rubberstamping. For
example, I would also argue that given the new national security and
epidemiological needs, a single payer health care system ought to
considered as a way of monitoring for the occurrence of a biological
attack.
> The preamble to the Constitution mentions such things as establishing
justice
> and promoting the general welfare as well as providing for the common
defense.
> I don't know if this makes them Constitutional rights or not.
I've never heard it argued that way.
Alan Allport
> Don't worry, you won't.
Why, do a.b.g-o posters need to watch what they say?
Alan.
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<3BC8C8D7...@pacbell.net>...
> Ad-libbing like that
> took a kind of intelligence that I don't think the Shrub has.
Is "the Shrub" that world historical figure, the FDR and Churchill of his
time, who was a two-term US president that inaugurated a 24 year run of
Republican presidents, including the first Black and the first woman and
presided over the disintegration of the moronic left?
"Realism thrives during times when people feel insecure, just as idealism
does during times when security is taken for granted." Robert Kaplan, NYT
10/14/01
"Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
He won't hear *me* approving of Ronald Reagan, OK? Just because RR had
smarts doesn't mean he used them in the public interest.
/MAB
Alan Allport
> He won't hear *me* approving of Ronald Reagan, OK?
A better formulated response, I think.
Alan.
Martha Bridegam
Bayle wrote:
> Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
> <3BC8C8D7...@pacbell.net>...
>
> > Ad-libbing like that
> > took a kind of intelligence that I don't think the Shrub has.
>
> Is "the Shrub" that world historical figure, the FDR and Churchill of his
> time, who was a two-term US president that inaugurated a 24 year run of
> Republican presidents, including the first Black and the first woman and
> presided over the disintegration of the moronic left?
If that is ever written in a history book, it will mean the liars have won.
>
> "Realism thrives during times when people feel insecure, just as idealism
> does during times when security is taken for granted." Robert Kaplan, NYT
> 10/14/01
"Uncertain people turn to authority" -- Karen Jo Koonan, jury selection
expert.
>
>
> "Your old road is
> Rapidly agin'.
> Please get out of the new one
> If you can't lend your hand
> For the times they are a-changin'."
Congratulations, Bayle, you have once again stimulated my gag reflex.
We heard Dylan last night in concert. "It's Alright, Ma," "Masters of War,"
"Hard Rain," and "Blowin' In the Wind." Among others. He has apparently done
"Masters of War" in all seven concerts since he resumed touring October 5.
/MAB
John Rennie
That's the one. We deserve this sarcasm and that is why
I tried, unsuccessfully, to put forward a new slant on Reagan
the man. I fought some of Maggie Thatcher's ideas
vigorously but what I could not understand is why people on
the left felt it necessary to make so many stupid personal
attacks on her. The effect of many of these attacks
was to consolidate her support and even make some
of her supporters more extreme than they otherwise
might have been. I also find it strange that many who
attack Bush today were indirectly responsible for his
becoming President.
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
Ooooh, gee, does that mean I get a paper star to put on my notebook?
/MAB
Alan Allport
> Ooooh, gee, does that mean I get a paper star to put on my notebook?
Your first response to ROBBIE was a magisterial assurance that the likes of
Ronald Reagan would never be discussed in friendly terms in this newsgroup.
Your second response qualified this to your own opinions. I thought the
first response arrogant and the second reasonable; I was trying, in other
words, to be complimentary. You are free to get into a huff about this
should you choose.
By the way, re-reading the lyrics to _Masters of War_ it strikes me that a
song with such authoritative pretensions is naggingly unclear as to who its
targets are. Who exactly are the men whom Dylan hopes will die, and soon?
The board of Lockheed-Martin? The National Security Council? The army
top-brass? Who? All of them?
Alan.
Alan Allport
> I fought some of Maggie Thatcher's ideas
> vigorously but what I could not understand is why people on
> the left felt it necessary to make so many stupid personal
> attacks on her. The effect of many of these attacks
> was to consolidate her support and even make some
> of her supporters more extreme than they otherwise
> might have been.
Margaret Thatcher was the most remarkable, and in many ways the most
tactically astute and perceptive, British political figure of the second
half of the 20th Century. I think it ought to be possible to acknowledge
this (or at least argue the claim) without necessarily endorsing all - or
even any - of her specific policies.
Alan.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9q7cs5$3u8$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> "Bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:01c15345$cf39b900$10541cd0@ilzyausv...
> > My
> > favorite example is the failure of the French legislature to fund
machine
> > guns shortly before the Franco-Prussian war when the Germans
steamrollered
> > them using machine guns. Pretty stupid in retrospect.
>
> Shurely shome machine-gun mixshup here?
Right Alan. My mistake. Rereading Howard I still had to read it a number of
times before it was clear, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised I was
confused. Never did play a tactical level game of the FP war, which would
have helped. "Hey where's the errata? Aren't I supposed to get machine
guns?". "Oh, nevermind".
> It was the *French* who had the
> wonder-weapon MG in the Franco-Prussian war - the famous 'Mitrailleuse',
so
> top-secret that it was considered too risky to teach French soldiers how
to
> use it. The French also had the equally well-known Chassepot
breech-loader,
> superior in range to the Prussian Zündnadelgewehr, although Moltke's men
did
> enjoy superiority in artillery with the Krupps cast-iron cannon.
According to Howard's The Franco-Prussian War (page 35 - 36 ):
"The French army ... had been equipped in 1858 with the rifled
muzzle-loading pieces [artillery] ... and their conversion would be an
expensive affair. The government had spent 113 million francs on the
chassepot. The 13 million it asked for the artillery was refused, and with
the 2 1/2 million voted it was in no position to effect any radical
reforms. Nor did the Army consider it necessary."
After talking about a demonstration by the Belgian Army of Krupp's breech
loading gun [artillery] for French officers in 1867 at which the
superiority of the gun was noted and reported with no action taken and
Friedrich Krupp's approach to the French government himself, Howard makes
your point about the 'Mitrailleuse'.
So "Shurely shome machine-gun mixshup here". But not in memory, but in
initial comprehension. I don't know if I should be glad or distressed ;-)
Thanks for the help.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9q7cs5$3u8$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> > My
> > favorite example is the failure of the French legislature to fund
machine
> > guns shortly before the Franco-Prussian war when the Germans
steamrollered
> > them using machine guns. Pretty stupid in retrospect.
>
> Shurely shome machine-gun mixshup here? It was the *French* who had the
> wonder-weapon MG in the Franco-Prussian war - the famous 'Mitrailleuse',
so
> top-secret that it was considered too risky to teach French soldiers how
to
> use it. The French also had the equally well-known Chassepot
breech-loader,
> superior in range to the Prussian Zündnadelgewehr, although Moltke's men
did
> enjoy superiority in artillery with the Krupps cast-iron cannon. French
> defence policy in 1870 was based upon a relatively small, professional,
> well-equipped army. The Prussians, with qualitatively less advanced
weaponry
> but much larger numbers (and better logistical support), won the day.
[correction of my mistake in another post]
I also ran into the following quote in the NYT Book Review 10/14/01 by
Robert Kaplan.
"Whereas the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 was an aristocratic duel
between two armies that effected few civilians ..."
Does this ring true to you? "Few"? What about the Siege of Paris?
Gene Zitver
>We heard Dylan last night in concert. "It's Alright, Ma," "Masters of War,"
>"Hard Rain," and "Blowin' In the Wind." Among others. He has apparently done
>"Masters of War" in all seven concerts since he resumed touring October 5.
Did he have anything to say about The Current Situation (aside from his choice
of songs)?
Gene
Gene Zitver
>Is "the Shrub" that world historical figure, the FDR and Churchill of his
>time, who was a two-term US president that inaugurated a 24 year run of
>Republican presidents, including the first Black and the first woman and
>presided over the disintegration of the moronic left?
I assume you make a distinction between the moronic left and the non-moronic
left?
Gene
Gene Zitver
Did kids actually do this in your school? Weren't the kids who got a lot of
stars resented and ridiculed by the other kids?
Gene
Gene Zitver
>What I meant to say was that our social service programs can no longer be
>viewed as sacrosanct and untouchable merely because they have long
>histories, large constituencies and are supported by powerful lobbying
>groups. As they are not constitutional rights, they all must all face a
>close examination and the possibility of being changed, replaced, phased
>out or eliminated.
>
>This is true even of Social Security, which I don't view as charity.
>Recently aid to farmers has not received its usual rubberstamping. For
>example, I would also argue that given the new national security and
>epidemiological needs, a single payer health care system ought to
>considered as a way of monitoring for the occurrence of a biological
>attack.
If that's what it takes to convince people of the need for single-payer health
care in the US, I'm all for it. Of course it *would* create an entrenched
constituency consisting of the entire population.
Gene
Gene Zitver
>Bayle wrote:
>
>> Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
>> <3BC8C8D7...@pacbell.net>...
>>
>> > Ad-libbing like that
>> > took a kind of intelligence that I don't think the Shrub has.
>>
>> Is "the Shrub" that world historical figure, the FDR and Churchill of his
>> time, who was a two-term US president that inaugurated a 24 year run of
>> Republican presidents, including the first Black and the first woman and
>> presided over the disintegration of the moronic left?
>
>If that is ever written in a history book, it will mean the liars have won.
I'm pretty sure all these things won't happen, but I'm prepared to wait and
see. Who knows what strange and wondrous political transformations await us in
the post-Sept. 11 world? The ACLU and the Gun Owners of America are among the
new strange bedfellows. GW Bush has changed from a Friedmanite to a Keynesian.
Gene
Alan Allport
> I also ran into the following quote in the NYT Book Review 10/14/01 by
> Robert Kaplan.
>
> "Whereas the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 was an aristocratic duel
> between two armies that effected few civilians ..."
>
> Does this ring true to you? "Few"? What about the Siege of Paris?
I suppose he means "with the exception of Paris". I agree that it does read
a bit strangely when you consider that the siege of the capital was one of
the war's signal moments.
Alan.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9qcn8c$tr3$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
My point about Reagan almost exactly. Not that I understood it at the time.
Or even totally understand it to this day. But those who contemptuously
dismiss Reagan and his success with a smug intellectual and moral
superiority have identified themselves as being incapable of understanding
the American politics of the last 30 years and certainly what's going on
today. You are better placed than me to know if the same holds true about
Thatcher and Britain, though it seems from afar that Blair has displayed
some of Thatcher's backbone.
Assuming the polls are correct and 71% of the British public support Blair
and the coalition, who are in the other 29%? Are they disaffected Labour
supporters? I can't imagine the Conservative Party not backing him? What
about the Liberals?
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
No. He only spoke to introduce the band. There's an account on rmd that says he
signed autographs & shook hands afterwards, but nothing substantive.
/MAB
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
I think so, vaguely, and if so, then yes, definitely.
/MAB
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
>
>
> Bayle wrote:
>
> > Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
> > <3BC8C8D7...@pacbell.net>...
> >
> > > Ad-libbing like that
> > > took a kind of intelligence that I don't think the Shrub has.
> >
> > Is "the Shrub" that world historical figure, the FDR and Churchill of
his
> > time, who was a two-term US president that inaugurated a 24 year run of
> > Republican presidents, including the first Black and the first woman
and
> > presided over the disintegration of the moronic left?
>
> If that is ever written in a history book, it will mean the liars have
won.
>
"The final, famous exchange, when someone in the audience shouts "Judas"
and Dylan, after a pause, replies "I don't believe you", then after a pause
adds "You're a liar", has always had a mumble after it. On the CD you can
hear the final words: he turns to the band and tells them "play fucking
loud." "
> >
> > "Realism thrives during times when people feel insecure, just as
idealism
> > does during times when security is taken for granted." Robert Kaplan,
NYT
> > 10/14/01
>
> "Uncertain people turn to authority" -- Karen Jo Koonan, jury selection
> expert.
Is this a joke? Did she work for OJ?
> >
> >
> > "Your old road is
> > Rapidly agin'.
> > Please get out of the new one
> > If you can't lend your hand
> > For the times they are a-changin'."
>
> Congratulations, Bayle, you have once again stimulated my gag reflex.
Glad to oblige.
"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
> We heard Dylan last night in concert. "It's Alright, Ma," "Masters of
War,"
> "Hard Rain," and "Blowin' In the Wind." Among others. He has apparently
done
> "Masters of War" in all seven concerts since he resumed touring October
5.
Do you really thing that "Master's of War" is one of his best songs? Did he
sing "God On My Side"? I thought Dylan left that simple minded world view a
long ago.
Can't say this doesn't give the old boys (Dylan, Springsteen and Young)
something real to write about for a change? I thought "Rise Up" (if that's
the title) was one of Springsteen's better recent efforts. Even Woody put a
sign on his guitar that said "This machine kills Fascists". One thing is
clear is that the world described in "It's Alright Ma" has disappeared. Did
they cheer and jeer (like we did during Nixon's impeachment) when he sang
about the president? Be honest now? I can't believe all the Bob fans are in
that 9%. You may review "Before the Flood" if you need to compare. Just
don't assume that your side will own the folksong army, this time around.
Alan Allport
> My point about Reagan almost exactly. Not that I understood it at the
time.
> Or even totally understand it to this day. But those who contemptuously
> dismiss Reagan and his success with a smug intellectual and moral
> superiority have identified themselves as being incapable of understanding
> the American politics of the last 30 years and certainly what's going on
> today. You are better placed than me to know if the same holds true about
> Thatcher and Britain, though it seems from afar that Blair has displayed
> some of Thatcher's backbone.
Curiously, I would say that Thatcher's political genius, at least in the
early years of her leadership, was not her ideological rigidity (for which
she is so often admired or condemned), but her flexibility. The real
demonstration of 'backbone' could be found on the Opposition benches; the
Labour Party during the 1980s was apparently willing to dispense with all
hope of electoral success in defence of its trade union and nuclear
disarmament shibboleths. Thatcher, by contrast, managed to maintain an aura
of New Right puritanism while actually fudging specific policies quite a
lot. She eschewed bailing out 'lame ducks' but came to British Leyland's
rescue. She vowed to get tough with the coalminers, but backed down from a
confrontation with the NUM in 1981 when the timing was not auspicious. She
spoke of crackdowns on immigration (a hot topic in the late 1970s) but did
relatively little to change the rules. She wrapped herself in the flag but
successfully negotiated a solution to the Rhodesian problem and almost
bought off the Argentineans before the Falklands. In short, she was willing
to compromise her principles on a routine basis while never seeming to make
the dreaded U-Turn that had destroyed her predecessor, Edward Heath. The
fact that the Left caricatured her as a fanatic made this all the easier.
Alan.
Martha Bridegam
Bayle wrote:
> ...
> >
> > "Uncertain people turn to authority" -- Karen Jo Koonan, jury selection
> > expert.
>
> Is this a joke? Did she work for OJ?
>
I don't think so. She was speaking at a training session on police brutality
cases, on what makes a citizen predisposed to believe the policeman's side of
the story. I do think she's right. Scared people want The Authorities to come
along and make everything all better again. You need a bit of confidence in
yourself before you can accept the disturbing possibility that The Authorities
aren't any more brilliant or less fallible than you and your neighbors are.
As for Dylan, the interesting thing about his art is that he has mainly stuck
to pointing out bad patterns; he has very rarely done any yelling about
specific political events. He's perfectly right, for example, that (as Orwell
noted) the people shouting loudest for war are very rarely the ones fighting
it. Whether or not you think a particular war is worth fighting, the general
point is worth keeping in mind.
/MAB
Bayle
Gene Zitver <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20011014152323...@nso-mr.aol.com>...
I agree with that. I freely admit to using slight hyperbole. What I find
unbelievable is the number of times people point out inconsistencies
between prior statements and current policies. As if anyone's comments
prior to Sept 11 have anything to do with the current situation or are in
any way inconsistent. No one alive today under 80 has any idea what it is
like to live in the kind of world we now live in. And I'm not even sure
those who were adults during WWII do either.
I'm predicting (hoping for) the emergence of a new pragmatic consensus.
Bayle
Gene Zitver <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20011014152323...@nso-mr.aol.com>...
Yes, and so do those on the non-moronic left. They are afraid that the
highly publicized actions of the moronic left will tar them so badly they
will never recover in our lifetime.
Another distinction I have seen made is between the anti-terrorist left
(supporting limited war) and the anti-war left (the pacifists and the
anti-globalization crowd) though their rhetoric often overlaps.
Alan Allport
news:3BC9F698...@pacbell.net...
> As for Dylan, the interesting thing about his art is that he has mainly
stuck
> to pointing out bad patterns; he has very rarely done any yelling about
> specific political events.
The alternate way of putting this would be that he throws vague insults at
groups of people without ever being willing to specify his targets so that
they might usefully respond. This is something we're all guilty of from time
to time, of course. But it's not necessarily something to be admired as a
tactic of choice.
Alan.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9qcrt5$218$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
I was actually thinking about the Falklands, not having followed most of
the other stuff that closely over here. Reagan displayed some of the same
"flexibility". It was often clear verbally where he stood as a theoretical
matter but he was often accused of be unwilling to fight for many of those
positions, especially the socially divisive ones. Basically most people
generally agreed with him overall, liked him and distrusted his opponents.
Plus I'm sure that when many on the left attacked him, the voter's realized
that they too were being attacked. (As you pointed out about Thatcher.)
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9qcte2$pig$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> "Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3BC9F698...@pacbell.net...
>
> > As for Dylan, the interesting thing about his art is that he has mainly
> stuck
> > to pointing out bad patterns; he has very rarely done any yelling about
> > specific political events.
And when he does they are often distorted. (See William Zanzinger, IIRC)
>
> The alternate way of putting this would be that he throws vague insults
at
> groups of people without ever being willing to specify his targets so
that
> they might usefully respond. This is something we're all guilty of from
time
> to time, of course. But it's not necessarily something to be admired as a
> tactic of choice.
I prefer to think that he is responding to the ambiguity and the chaos in
the world, rather like a biblical prophet. That makes him very dangerous to
think that you have him on your side.
I would also argue that his insults are poetic and ironic rather than vague
(especially in his best and more mature work). A favorite example of this
is the following, which could have been written about William Jefferson
Clinton, another outlaw for whom "no charge held against him, Could they
prove." Is he good or bad? Honest man or thief? Who knows? The answer is
blowin in the wind, i.e. nowhere. This is the work of an artist who grew
up, and recognized moral ambiguity in general and the moral ambiguity of
the 60s in particular. Remember that many of the people who want to claim
him now are the same ones who labeled him a Judas for abandoning the
simplistic view of the world they currently hold.
John Wesley Harding
John Wesley Harding
Was a friend to the poor,
He trav'led with a gun in ev'ry hand.
All along this countryside,
He opened a many a door,
But he was never known
To hurt an honest man.
'Twas down in Chaynee County,
A time they talk about,
With his lady by his side
He took a stand.
And soon the situation there
Was all but straightened out,
For he was always known
To lend a helping hand.
All across the telegraph
His name it did resound,
But no charge held against him
Could they prove.
And there was no man around
Who could track or chain him down,
He was never known
To make a foolish move.
Alan Allport
> I was actually thinking about the Falklands, not having followed most of
> the other stuff that closely over here.
The Falklands was IMHO an example where she distinguished herself from
Labour more through style than substance. Jim Callaghan had been willing to
use military force to defend the Islands during a spat in the late 1970s (he
deployed a nuclear submarine to the South Atlantic and leaked the
information to the Argentineans to warn them off), and as an Old Left
warrior Michael Foot was roused into martial ardor by the thought of a
right-wing dictatorship seizing British territory (what he would have done
if it had been a left-wing dictatorship will, perhaps fortunately, never be
known). But the image of the Iron Lady juxtaposed against the unilateralist
waverers on the opposite benches seems to have struck a chord that ruined
Labour's chances in 1983, even though the Falklands had nothing directly to
do with the nuclear debate, and the Tories had just as wonky a record over
the Falklands as Labour.
> Basically most people generally agreed with him overall, liked him and
distrusted his opponents.
I would never claim all that of Mrs. T. In fact I would argue that most of
her supporters didn't much like her personally; TINA ("There is No
Alternative") was the lady they ultimately succumbed to.
> Plus I'm sure that when many on the left attacked him, the voter's
realized
> that they too were being attacked. (As you pointed out about Thatcher.)
I'm not sure I would put it quite like that, but something of deep
structural importance took place in British politics in the 1970s and
Thatcher exploited it far more successfully than her enemies. In a nutshell
the working class, particularly the semi-skilled working class (the C2s in
sociological terms) became more conservative (small 'c') and the middle
class more leftward-leaning; trade unionism, with the rise of huge public
sector organizations like NUPE, became more white-collar, less connected to
the industrial working class, and more politically radical. I suppose
there's an analogy with the Reagan Democrats here, but I would be wary of
pushing it too far because contingent circumstances in both countries made
for somewhat different politics. Thatcher, at any rate, realized that she
could build an electoral base on the C2s and their disaffection with their
traditional parliamentary representatives, who seemed to be wandering from
grass-roots working class concerns into the abstractions of race and gender
politics and a disastrous obsession with the nuclear question.
Alan.
John Rennie
"Alan Allport" <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:9qcte2$pig$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
As he always says "the answer is blowing in the wind".
John Rennie
You mustn't forget the 'dont knows'.
>
John Rennie
"Alan Allport" <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:9qcn8c$tr3$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
Agreed. What a shame she didn't retire in glory after 10 years
of rule and decided to enact the Poll Tax.
Alan Allport
> Agreed. What a shame she didn't retire in glory after 10 years
> of rule and decided to enact the Poll Tax.
The post-1987 administration was markedly different in style from her
previous two - less careful, more inclined to push ahead legislation for
ideological reasons regardless of the practical electoral consequences. The
Poll Tax fiasco was only the most dramatic instance of this. Hubris brings
down the tragic heroine; there's probably an opera in there somewhere.
Alan.
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
Sure, why not? John Adams (the composer, not the president) made an opera of
Nixon in China -- see
<http://cdnow.com/switch/from=sr-544270/target=buyweb_purchase/ddcn=SD-75597+79193+2>.
So why not Maggie in the Falklands and the Houses of Parliament?
/MAB
tom .
> We heard Dylan last night in concert. "It's Alright, Ma," "Masters of War,"
> "Hard Rain," and "Blowin' In the Wind." Among others. He has apparently done
> "Masters of War" in all seven concerts since he resumed touring October 5.
well, as someone pointed out on rmd, bob and the band performed masters of war
at almost all of the shows in august as well. and the rest of the songs have
shown up regularly over the last year or two.
> He's perfectly right, for example, that (as Orwell noted) the people shouting
loudest for war are very rarely the ones fighting it.
when did he say that?
and come on, leave poor george alone...he's a much nicer man than that nader
nut, ain't he?
tom .
> > As for Dylan, the interesting thing about his art is that he has mainly
> stuck to pointing out bad patterns; he has very rarely done any yelling about
> specific political events.
>
> The alternate way of putting this would be that he throws vague insults at
> groups of people without ever being willing to specify his targets so that
> they might usefully respond. This is something we're all guilty of from time
> to time, of course. But it's not necessarily something to be admired as a
> tactic of choice.
usefully respond to a song?
tom .
excuse me, but i have to interject here -- this is a george orwell newsgroup.
true, it was once a newsgroup dedicated to fly fishing. and before that,
according to others, it had something to do with another topic...i forget which
at the moment...but one or two people from that group are still here. the
point, however, is that it is certainly not a bob dylan newsgroup, despite its
confused origins. as such, please, let's limit the discussion of bob dylan's
work and music to a minimum. if i want a newsgroup where the work of bob dylan
is poorly discussed, i can go to rec.music.dylan. so please, for the love of
god and all that is holy, stop now.
tom .
> By the way, re-reading the lyrics to _Masters of War_ it strikes me that a
> song with such authoritative pretensions is naggingly unclear as to who its
> targets are. Who exactly are the men whom Dylan hopes will die, and soon?
> The board of Lockheed-Martin? The National Security Council? The army
> top-brass? Who? All of them?
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/masters.html
it's just a song, al. don't get your shorts in a knot about it not being
explicit enough for you. he wasn't running for office or testifying at a
congressional hearing or calling for someone's execution. he was a 21 year old
guy expressing these things called "feelings"...anyway, if it makes you feel
any better, bob recently commented on the song:
Q: Give me an example of a song that has been widely misinterpreted.
A: Take "Masters of War." Every time I sing it, someone writes that it's an
antiwar song. But there's no antiwar sentiment in that song. I'm not a
pacifist. I don't think I've ever been one. If you look closely at the song,
it's about what Eisenhower was saying about the dangers of the
military-industrial complex in this country. I believe strongly in
everyone's right to defend themselves by every means necessary.
+++++++++
some believe this is what bob's is talking about --
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial
and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that
security and liberty may prosper together.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower 1961.
the full speech -
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
Tom Deveson
>Sure, why not? John Adams (the composer, not the president) made an opera of
>Nixon in China
Good ole abg-o synch, ever reliable.
I've just been playing one of Adams's Emily D settings, to use with a
music class later, and then I switch on and I read this.
By the way, the question with which I inaugurated this complex thread
was about naming things like airports and public buildings after Ronnie
R. Is it happening? in every state? in every county? Any good examples?
Our local Winnie Mandela and Sally Mugabe buildings were quietly renamed
by the council some time ago.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
John Rennie
rather than a Puccini.
ROBBIE
DAIPL
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:9qcmin$63h$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> "Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3BC9DCC4...@pacbell.net...
>
> > Ooooh, gee, does that mean I get a paper star to put on my notebook?
>
> Your first response to ROBBIE was a magisterial assurance that the likes
of
> Ronald Reagan would never be discussed in friendly terms in this
newsgroup.
> Your second response qualified this to your own opinions. I thought the
> first response arrogant and the second reasonable; I was trying, in other
> words, to be complimentary. You are free to get into a huff about this
> should you choose.
>
> By the way, re-reading the lyrics to _Masters of War_ it strikes me that a
> song with such authoritative pretensions is naggingly unclear as to who
its
> targets are. Who exactly are the men whom Dylan hopes will die, and soon?
> The board of Lockheed-Martin? The National Security Council? The army
> top-brass? Who? All of them?
>
> Alan.
>
>
Alan Allport
news:9qefq6$na2g5$1...@ID-88989.news.dfncis.de...
> '..(one could see his French soul revelling in the pedantry of it)...'
I still think that if you wish someone dead it is at least polite to
identify them. And that a song that is supposed to have political "meaning"
ought to have the courage to make clear whom it's criticizing. But I'll
defer to the Dylan crowd at this point.
Alan.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9qcvj3$fml$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> "Bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:01c154f0$66f067c0$29541cd0@ilzyausv...
>
> their disaffection with their
> traditional parliamentary representatives, who seemed to be wandering
from
> grass-roots working class concerns into the abstractions of race and
gender
> politics and a disastrous obsession with the nuclear question.
I take your point about the distinctions. Your excerpt above however seems
equally applicable to the US and the decline of the Democratic party, both
then and now. Not that it tells the whole story.
I think your word "abstractions" is telling. I heard a reporter, who
attended Bush's address to Congress recently, describe the reactions of the
press. The American press was very impressed by Bush's pragmatism and plain
talk. The international press, on the other hand, felt that he had fallen
short in both style and substance. I believe this is akin to the snickering
on the left about compassionate conservatism. Bush clearly sees that most
Americans want to help people as neighbors, poor people, victims of racial
intolerance. They do want a "fairer society", in Blair's terms. What they
aren't willing to do is buy into massive government programs justified by
intellectual mumbo jumbo and the condescending assurance by those on the
left that these programs really implement justice, take our word for it.
Bayle
tom . <blin...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<3BCA73F9...@hotmail.com>...
Thanks tom. But if Dylan had a high opinion of Eisenhower in the early
60s, no wonder he couldn't wait to get out of the folk music scene. I'm
pretty sure Joan and Pete didn't take Masters of War that way.
Alan Allport
news:sqdyvCAS...@devesons.demon.co.uk...
> By the way, the question with which I inaugurated this complex thread
> was about naming things like airports and public buildings after Ronnie
> R. Is it happening? in every state? in every county? Any good examples?
I think the trend may be exaggerated. Public edifices seem more often to be
named after obscure party hacks or military retirees. There's a road leading
into Philadelphia from New Jersey that has the official designation Route 30
but which also enjoys the honorific title of Admiral Wilson Boulevard. I
don't know who Admiral Wilson was or what kind of lifestyle he pursued, but
I wonder if he liked being associated with a road that (until its recent
clean-up anyway) was best known for its liquor stores, go-go clubs and
bored-looking prostitutes.
Alan.
Bayle
tom . <blin...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> excuse me, but i have to interject here -- this is a george orwell
newsgroup.
> true, it was once a newsgroup dedicated to fly fishing. and before that,
> according to others, it had something to do with another topic...i forget
which
> at the moment...but one or two people from that group are still here.
the
> point, however, is that it is certainly not a bob dylan newsgroup,
despite its
> confused origins. as such, please, let's limit the discussion of bob
dylan's
> work and music to a minimum. if i want a newsgroup where the work of bob
dylan
> is poorly discussed, i can go to rec.music.dylan. so please, for the
love of
> god and all that is holy, stop now.
You mean you haven't heard the version of "Memphis Blues" on the bootleg of
the sub-basement tapes where bob sings:
"Orwell, he's in the ally, with his pointed shoes and his belles,
speaking to some French girl, who says she knows him well"
After all it was GO who was in Paris not Shakespeare.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9qep7s$p87$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
It's our Soho.
This must be your man. Must admit I never heard of him myself.
Chris Pando
What's the difference between topical and timeless? If he had "thrown"
specific insults at specific people, the song would now be a dated
novelty.
But the problem isn't the specific; you fix a specific problem, and
all that happens is that you have another problem elsewhere. It's
the patterns that need addressing.
Of course, the real issue is not the tactic of choice, but rather the
goal to be accomplished.
Dylan, entertainer or political philosopher?
Chris "It's only rock'n'roll" Pando
--
Well, the deputy walks on hard nails and the preacher rides a mount
But nothing really matters much, it's doom alone that counts
And the one-eyed undertaker, he blows a futile horn.
"Come in," she said, "I'll give you shelter from the storm."
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
Courtesy of the Ronald Reagan presidential library:
<http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ed_events/named.htm>
That's 26 U.S. locations plus a stamp collection, a scholarship, a Star Wars
missile range and an aircraft carrier.
On the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, see
<http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/112697.html>.
/MAB
Alan Allport
> That's 26 U.S. locations plus a stamp collection, a scholarship, a Star
Wars
> missile range and an aircraft carrier.
There are currently 4 Ronald Reagan schools in the United States. To put
this into perspective there are also 6 Lyndon Johnson, 11 FDR, 13 Harry S.
Truman, 14 Dwight D. Eisenhower and no less than 36 John F. Kennedy schools.
Even Carter and Ford have one each. In other words, it's all part and parcel
of the Presidential culture.
Alan.
Tom Deveson
>There are currently 4 Ronald Reagan schools in the United States. To put
>this into perspective there are also 6 Lyndon Johnson, 11 FDR, 13 Harry S.
>Truman, 14 Dwight D. Eisenhower and no less than 36 John F. Kennedy schools.
>Even Carter and Ford have one each. In other words, it's all part and parcel
>of the Presidential culture.
Any for Franklin Pierce or Warren Harding? They might feel a bit
uninspiring.
And have we got schools named after Viscount Goderich or Neville
Chamberlain over here? So might they.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
Alan Allport
> Any for Franklin Pierce or Warren Harding?
Yes - 2 and 3 respectively.
If anyone's wondering where I'm getting these numbers, by the way, see
http://nces.ed.gov/ccdweb/school/listSchools.asp
Alan.
Gene Zitver
>Bush clearly sees that most
>Americans want to help people as neighbors, poor people, victims of racial
>intolerance. They do want a "fairer society", in Blair's terms. What they
>aren't willing to do is buy into massive government programs justified by
>intellectual mumbo jumbo and the condescending assurance by those on the
>left that these programs really implement justice, take our word for it.
C'mon. I enjoy kicking around elements of the left as much as the next guy, but
these non-specific, one-size-fits-all charges are getting a little old. Which
"massive government programs" are you talking about? Please, give me one
example of a massive government program that the left shoved down the throats
of an unwilling American public. Yesterday you indicated support for
single-payer health insurance. It's hard to imagine a more massive (or more
justified) government program. I was working on this issue in the late
'80s-early '90s and at the time more than 60 percent of the US population
(according to a Wall Street Journal poll) favored the idea, including a
majority of self-described "conservatives." It's obviously the best and most
cost-effective way to deal with health care. So why hasn't it ever been
seriously considered (instead we got Hillary Clinton's godawful mess of a
proposal)? I have my ideas, but I'd like to hear yours.
Gene
Bayle
Gene Zitver <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20011015193144...@nso-mk.aol.com>...
> Bayle wrote
>
> >Bush clearly sees that most
> >Americans want to help people as neighbors, poor people, victims of
racial
> >intolerance. They do want a "fairer society", in Blair's terms. What
they
> >aren't willing to do is buy into massive government programs justified
by
> >intellectual mumbo jumbo and the condescending assurance by those on the
> >left that these programs really implement justice, take our word for it.
>
> C'mon. I enjoy kicking around elements of the left as much as the next
guy, but
> these non-specific, one-size-fits-all charges are getting a little old.
Which
> "massive government programs" are you talking about? Please, give me one
> example of a massive government program that the left shoved down the
throats
> of an unwilling American public.
Are you saying that there aren't any?
How about busing or affirmative action (and other forms of social
engineering)?
*****
http://www.adversity.net/FRAMES/CorruptQuotaStories/01_AGC_Position_on_Quota
s.htm
"Associated General Contractors cites three massive government programs
through which the racial and gender quota requirements are imposed:
The Section 8(a) set-aside program operated by the U.S. Small Business
Administration which affects direct federal contracting, including defense.
The "disadvantaged" business enterprise program (DBE) pertaining to
federal-aid highway construction.
The small "disadvantaged" business (SDB) program, which permeates virtually
every federal contracting agency, which pertains to direct federal
contracting."
*****
There was a famous school desegregation case in St. Louis, where a district
court judge forced the city to build a magnet school to draw in white kids
that had two swimming pools IIRC, in a kind of perverse field of dreams and
the kids still wouldn't come. Haven't government integration programs been
largely a failure?
And didn't Clinton's welfare reform, reform something? Though I grant you
that many of these programs had broader support in the beginning, LBJ and
Nixon having more in common than either with Reagan or Clinton.
> Yesterday you indicated support for
> single-payer health insurance. It's hard to imagine a more massive (or
more
> justified) government program.
Justified is the key.
> I was working on this issue in the late
> '80s-early '90s and at the time more than 60 percent of the US population
> (according to a Wall Street Journal poll) favored the idea, including a
> majority of self-described "conservatives."
Yep. So they really screwed it up.
> It's obviously the best and most
> cost-effective way to deal with health care. So why hasn't it ever been
> seriously considered (instead we got Hillary Clinton's godawful mess of a
> proposal)?
Yes it was.
> I have my ideas, but I'd like to hear yours.
First (minus one) , timing. Bringing it up after gays in the military and
the Lani Gunier fiasco (which both reeked of left wing meddling, whatever
their ultimate merits) tactically wasn't very smart. His initial bad
foreign policy performance didn't help either.
First of all Hillary shouldn't have been involved. We voted for Bill not
her. And it shouldn't have been done in secret by fat cat academics that
would be perceived as being that dirty word "liberals".
Secondly it should have been fought for on the grounds of efficiency,
saving money, and providing massive amounts of information to improve
health care and medical research. (Much of the information that would be
generated on the effectiveness of treatment is only possessed by the
insurance companies at this time.)
Mainly though it should have been fought for as being a right of the
working American. I forget the exact language (and the phrasing is very
important) but Chris Matthews gave a talk in Pennsylvania and he talked
about how the ex governor (and pro-life) Bob Casey would have fought for
it. He would have gone into the blue collar neighborhoods (the Reagan
democrats and those suspicious of government) and have talked about how, if
government funded all these special interest programs, didn't they think
health care ought to be a right. The language is extremely important. When
I heard it I thought, of course, that's the way to phrase it. But even now
I can't remember it exactly. It's not obvious.
Finally Congress was unwilling to do it because it meant that ultimately
they would have to set limits on health care, something that the have shown
themselves incapable of doing in the face of the senior citizens lobby. And
something that is very dangerous politically. So they preserved the status
quo.
John Rennie
health scheme means? Is it like our NHS?
Bayle
John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in article
<_EZy7.2636$nT1.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
> Bayle/Gene. Can you describe what the 'single payer'
> health scheme means? Is it like our NHS?
Gene is probably a better source, since he said he worked for its passage.
To me it means a system where doctors and hospitals (all private) submit
their bills to one agency and the patients are not required to pay, other
than perhaps a small fee. Somehow someone has to watch the hospitals and
doctors to make sure they don't get rich or commit fraud, and someone has
to places limits on the authorized procedures so that medical expenses
don't rise to infinity. Not an easy job.
One summer, visiting a lab in London I needed to see a doctor, so I went to
the university health service. I had insurance info and all that but they
just treated me without any paperwork or payment. They were there, they
weren't busy and that was their job. Seemed like it made sense at the
time. Don't know if it was part of the NHS.
Martha Bridegam
Bayle wrote:
Welcome aboard.
/MAB
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<3BCC7BE5...@pacbell.net>...
Thanks Matey, I mean MAB. I've always been on the good ship Single Payer.
Not that I wasn't glad to see Bill and Hillary's plan go under.
John Rennie
I understood what you stated about the Single Payer
Scheme in one go. I was so looking forward to Hilary's
scheme but when I read what she put forward I just
could not come to grips with it. I look forward to
Gene's comments but then I always do.
psandje
> Margaret Thatcher was the most remarkable, and in many ways the most
> tactically astute and perceptive, British political figure of the second
> half of the 20th Century. I think it ought to be possible to acknowledge
> this (or at least argue the claim) without necessarily endorsing all - or
> even any - of her specific policies.
Tactically astute - yes but what about her strategy? In the longer term part
of her legacy appears to be the destruction of the Tory party as a
creditable alternative government. Having said that I am reminded of
something that Graham Greene wrote in the Quiet American "liberalism has
infected the whole political system - that's why we don't have a Liberal
Party anymore." ( I am quoting from memory so I am sure I am mangling it
somewhat)
Has Thatcherism so infected the UK body politic that we no longer have a
Thatcherite party?
Paul Stables
Alan Allport
news:9qi4mf$jq...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> Tactically astute - yes but what about her strategy?
In the long-term - great for Thatcherism, arguably disastrous for the Tory
Party (as your latter point suggests).
Alan.
ROBBIE
manual.
Bayle <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:01c1557e$1a9b2520$02541cd0@ilzyausv...
Martha Bridegam
" tom ." wrote:
> > We heard Dylan last night in concert. "It's Alright, Ma," "Masters of War,"
> > "Hard Rain," and "Blowin' In the Wind." Among others. He has apparently done
> > "Masters of War" in all seven concerts since he resumed touring October 5.
>
> well, as someone pointed out on rmd, bob and the band performed masters of war
> at almost all of the shows in august as well. and the rest of the songs have
> shown up regularly over the last year or two.
>
> > He's perfectly right, for example, that (as Orwell noted) the people shouting
> loudest for war are very rarely the ones fighting it.
>
> when did he say that?
>
> and come on, leave poor george alone...he's a much nicer man than that nader
> nut, ain't he?
Somewhere before WWII, Orwell talked about the rarity of finding "a jingo with a
bullet-hole in him." And then later -- certainly 1940 or after -- he dredged up
the comment and added, "Sooner or later we write our own epitaphs."
I'd be grateful if someone could find either of these references. I'm no longer
sure where to look for them.
/MAB
Alan Allport
news:3BCCCC55...@pacbell.net...
> Somewhere before WWII, Orwell talked about the rarity of finding "a jingo
with a
> bullet-hole in him." And then later -- certainly 1940 or after -- he
dredged up
> the comment and added, "Sooner or later we write our own epitaphs."
IIRC, which is not saying much at this time of the evening, the first quote
*is* from WWII and is in one of his (2?) pieces about strategic bombing.
Alan.
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
Hmmm. Still looking without success (dammit), but have just found this in a
1944 "As I Please":
"I see that Lord Winterton, writing in the *Evening Standard*, speaks of the
'remarkable reticence (by no means entirely imposed by rule or regulation)
which Parliament and Press alike have displayed in this war to avoid
endangering national security' and adds that it has 'earned the admiration of
the civilised world.'
It is not only in war time that the British Press observes this voluntary
reticence. One of the most extraordinary things about England is that there is
almost no official censorship, and yet nothing that is acutely offensive to
the governing class gets into print, at least in any place where large numbers
of people are likely to read it. If it is 'not done' to mention something or
other, it just doesn't get mentioned. The position is summed up in the lines
by (I think) Hilaire Belloc:*
'You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God! the English journalist:
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there is no reason to.'
No bribes, no threats, no penalties -- just a nod and a wink and the thing is
done. A well-known example was the business of the Abdication. Weeks before
the scandal officially broke, tens or hundreds of thousands of people had
heard all about Mrs. Simpson, and yet not a word got into the Press, not even
into the *Daily Worker*, although the American and European papers were having
the time of their lives with the story. Yet I believe there was no definite
official ban: just an official 'request' and a general agreement that to break
the news prematurely 'would not do.' And I can think of other instances of
good news stories failing to see the light although there would have been no
penalty for printing them.
Nowadays this kind of veiled censorship even extends to books. The M.O.I. does
not, of course, dictate a party line or issue an index expurgatorius. It
merely 'advises.' Publishers take manuscripts to the M.O.I., and the M.O.I.
'suggests' that this or that is undesirable, or premature, or 'would serve no
good purpose.' and though there is no definite prohibition, no clearly
statement that this or that must not be printed, official policy is never
flouted. Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really
well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip.
And that is the state we have reached in this country thanks to three hundred
years of living together without a civil war."
c/o MAB
* Davison notes: "It is, in fact, from *The Uncelestial City* by Humbert Wolfe
(1885-1940), poet and satirist." About whom does anyone know anything else?
Davison also notes that in discussing the M.O.I.'s reactions to books, Orwell
probably had in mind the rejection of *Animal Farm* by Jonathan Cape after a
Ministry of Information official commented that publishing it would be
"ill-advised."
Alan Allport
> Hmmm. Still looking without success (dammit), but have just found this in
a
> 1944 "As I Please":
Look in that column about Vera Brittain's Bombing Committee.
Alan.
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
You're at least two-thirds right, thanks. Funny, I thought there was another
note, possibly in a diary, reflecting that he himself has become "a jingo with
a bullet-hole in him."
Here's the one I think you mean: "As I Please," Tribune, 19 May 1944. Quoted,
not endorsed:
"War is not avoidable at this stage of history, and since it has to happen it
does not seem to me a bad thing that others should be killed besides young
men. I wrote in 1937: 'Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the
aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great war
comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a
bullet hole in him.' We haven't yet seen that (it is perhaps a contradiction
in terms), but at any rate the suffering of this war has been shared out mroe
evenly than that of the last one was. The immunity of the civilian, one of the
things that have made war possible, has been shattered. Unlike Miss Brittain,
I don't regret that. I can't feel that war is 'humanised' by being confined to
the slaughter of the young and becomes 'barbarous' when the old get killed as
well."
Personally I disagree: there has got to be something civilized to come back to
when the war is over.
/MAB
Alan Allport
> Here's the one I think you mean: "As I Please," Tribune, 19 May 1944.
Quoted,
> not endorsed:
>
> "War is not avoidable at this stage of history, and since it has to happen
it
> does not seem to me a bad thing that others should be killed besides young
> men. I wrote in 1937: 'Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the
> aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great
war
> comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a
> bullet hole in him.'
So is the original in _Homage to Catalonia_?
Alan.