Bill Vanderzalm Family History
Non Prophet
and current BCAA shill?
I know he was in the gardening business before politics but what did
he do before that? What did his family do in Holland before coming to
Canada.
Oliver Wendell Jones
says...
They cornered the market on tulips
Bill Van
Non Prophet <lame...@heaven.org> wrote:
They had a prosperous tulip-growing business in Holland before WWII.
Bill's father used to travel to Canada a lot in the 1930s, tending the
family's tulip-bulb export business.
When Germany invaded in 1940, Zalm Sr. was trapped in Canada; the rest
of the family spent the war in occupied Holland.
Things got very bad in the winter of 1944-45, when the Germans had
pretty much looted anything edible. Some people starved and there was a
lot of malnutrition and the illnesses, such as TB, that result.
Bill Vander Zalm used to tell a story about how he and his family had to
eat tulip bulbs to survive that winter, and people certainly did eat
tulip bulbs. But a reporter I know once talked to an old lady from the
family's home town, a distant relative of the Zalms, who scoffed at
that. According to her, the Zalm family sold tulip bulbs to starving
people and profited from the situation. They weren't the only ones, of
course. My own family, who lived in occupied Holland, told stories about
bartering silver and gold jewelry with farmers who still had something
to eat.
I know the Vancouver Sun looked into this story back when the Zalm was
running for the Social Credit leadership. They weighed the old lady's
word against that of family members in B.C., who said she didn't know
what she was talking about. The Sun never published the story.
After the war, the family sold their holdings in Holland and moved to
B.C., and the rest is recent history.
bill
Non Prophet
reliable info!! Any other Vander Zalm family history info out there.
Oliver Wendell Jones
bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca says...
>
>Bill Vander Zalm used to tell a story about how he and his family had to
>eat tulip bulbs to survive that winter, and people certainly did eat
>tulip bulbs. But a reporter I know once talked to an old lady from the
>family's home town, a distant relative of the Zalms, who scoffed at
>that. According to her, the Zalm family sold tulip bulbs to starving
>people and profited from the situation. They weren't the only ones, of
>course. My own family, who lived in occupied Holland, told stories about
>bartering silver and gold jewelry with farmers who still had something
>to eat.
>
I hope you realize that when food becomes worth more than money, the people
trying to exchange money for food are the ones trying to 'take advantage'
Oliver Wendell Jones
>eat tulip bulbs to survive that winter, and people certainly did eat
>tulip bulbs. But a reporter I know once talked to an old lady from the
>family's home town, a distant relative of the Zalms, who scoffed at
>that. According to her, the Zalm family sold tulip bulbs to starving
>people and profited from the situation.
Regardless of the obviously ideologically biased scoffing relative from the
sketchy side of the family, this doesn't tell us what the Vander Zalm clan was
eating at the time. Far all we know, they were selling turnips to buy more
turnips so they'd never run out of turnips for themselves to eat.
And how would the farmer trading his food for gold know that gold would bounce
back? how would he know his farm would not be confiscated by the nazis if they
won the war? How can he speculate and survive and at the same time be the
messianic folk hero you seem to demand of him?
Bill Van
jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
> In article <billvan22-90827...@news.telus.net>,
> bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca says...
> >
> >Bill Vander Zalm used to tell a story about how he and his family had to
> >eat tulip bulbs to survive that winter, and people certainly did eat
> >tulip bulbs. But a reporter I know once talked to an old lady from the
> >family's home town, a distant relative of the Zalms, who scoffed at
> >that. According to her, the Zalm family sold tulip bulbs to starving
> >people and profited from the situation.
>
> Regardless of the obviously ideologically biased scoffing relative from the
> sketchy side of the family,
why do you call her ideologically biased?
and why the "sketchy" side of the family?
All your information on this topic comes from me, as far as I'm aware,
and I certainly don't know those things.
> this doesn't tell us what the Vander Zalm clan
> was
> eating at the time. Far all we know, they were selling turnips to buy more
> turnips so they'd never run out of turnips for themselves to eat.
You probably had to be there to know for sure. But it has been
documented that people in that time and place were starving and ate
tulip bulbs, which they got somewhere. The Vander Zalms grew tulip bulbs
for export, so we know they had 'em. They did not grow turnips. It seems
perfectly plausible that they would eat tulip bulbs, or sell tulip
bulbs, or both.
It also seems plausible that, being a relatively wealthy family with
tulip bulbs to sell, they had enough money to buy whatever food was
still available. No way to prove it, but the aunt could have been right.
>
> And how would the farmer trading his food for gold know that gold would
> bounce
> back?
Well, paper currency was pretty well worthless there and then. Gold and
silver was what most people had a little of, mostly in the form of
jewelry. Within occupied countries gold was valued because nothing else
was dependable, so it didn't need to bounce back. In the world economy,
the price of gold was fixed during the war, so again, it didn't need to
bounce back.
> how would he know his farm would not be confiscated by the nazis if
> they
> won the war?
We're talking 1944. The Allies had basically won already and were
waiting for spring to cross the Rhine and mop up.
> How can he speculate and survive and at the same time be the
> messianic folk hero you seem to demand of him?
Heh. As someone whose parents lived through that period, I can tell you
that some (but not all) farmers were regarded as profiteers. By the time
the war ended, many city people had used everything they had to survive
-- and some did not survive -- while those farmers who had charged as
much as they could for food had considerable stores of gold and silver
and had become wealthy. There was an effective transfer of wealth taking
place.
Okay?
Your turn now. Rather than snipe from the sidelines, why don't you
declare where you're coming from on this? In a similar situation where
your neighbours are starving, would you share what you could, or would
you charge what the traffic would bear?
bill
Bill Van
jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
>
> I hope you realize that when food becomes worth more than money, the people
> trying to exchange money for food are the ones trying to 'take advantage'
They are trying to stay alive. We're not talking about textbook
economics here, but human decency. Do you have any?
Oliver Wendell Jones
bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca says...
>
>In article <8pgfc.5848$zv6.3595@clgrps12>,
> jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
>
>>
>> I hope you realize that when food becomes worth more than money, the people
>> trying to exchange money for food are the ones trying to 'take advantage'
>
>They are trying to stay alive.
Anyone bartering anything is trying to stay alive.
>We're not talking about textbook
>economics here, but human decency. Do you have any?
I've never been put in a situation where my 'human decency' has been tested to
the degree that people you so casually pass judgement on had been in the
circumstances they found themselves, which is why I suspect you haven't been
either.
Oliver Wendell Jones
bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca says...
>
>In article <fDhfc.6017$zv6.3589@clgrps12>,
> jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
>
>> In article <billvan22-90827...@news.telus.net>,
>> bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca says...
>> >
>> >Bill Vander Zalm used to tell a story about how he and his family had to
>> >eat tulip bulbs to survive that winter, and people certainly did eat
>> >tulip bulbs. But a reporter I know once talked to an old lady from the
>> >family's home town, a distant relative of the Zalms, who scoffed at
>> >that. According to her, the Zalm family sold tulip bulbs to starving
>> >people and profited from the situation.
>>
>> Regardless of the obviously ideologically biased scoffing relative from the
>> sketchy side of the family,
>
>why do you call her ideologically biased?
My mistake, as far as I know the relative was a figment of your ideologically
biased imagination.
>
>and why the "sketchy" side of the family?
>
>All your information on this topic comes from me,
Yes, and your report was sketchy. "A reporter friend says a distant relative
said, the Zalm's hairdresser told OJ simpson's cousin...."
>It also seems plausible that, being a relatively wealthy family with
>tulip bulbs to sell, they had enough money to buy whatever food was
>still available. No way to prove it, but the aunt could have been right.
Sure, maybe they were handing over their useless gold, silver and jewels to
farmers. Can't have it both ways, Bill, were people handing over gold and
silver to farmers for scarce resources, or were the Zalms living large and
eating delicious gold and jewels?
>
>>
>> And how would the farmer trading his food for gold know that gold would
>> bounce
>> back?
>
>Well, paper currency was pretty well worthless there and then. Gold and
>silver was what most people had a little of, mostly in the form of
>jewelry. Within occupied countries gold was valued because nothing else
>was dependable, so it didn't need to bounce back. In the world economy,
>the price of gold was fixed during the war, so again, it didn't need to
>bounce back.
So there you go. Money is a debt. That's why it's called a bill, Bill. If
the value goes kaput I am not interested in bartering with it, and go back to
bartering with a more reliable commodity.
>
>> how would he know his farm would not be confiscated by the nazis if
>> they
>> won the war?
>
>We're talking 1944. The Allies had basically won already and were
>waiting for spring to cross the Rhine and mop up.
And some imaginary miserly farmer in your mind was hoarding some food supplies
while everyone else ate turnips... You are bizarre.
>Heh. As someone whose parents lived through that period, I can tell you
>that some (but not all) farmers were regarded as profiteers. By the time
>the war ended, many city people had used everything they had to survive
>-- and some did not survive -- while those farmers who had charged as
>much as they could for food had considerable stores of gold and silver
>and had become wealthy. There was an effective transfer of wealth taking
>place.
>
>Okay?
Gosh maybe those stupid dutch should've learned from their mistakes the first
time around when they decided a tulip bulb was worth more than gold, and not
even because some meanie nazis had taken over - they decided this all on their
own. And they all loved 'ripping off' (profiting) off each other - all
classes got in on the action. We're talking halcyon days here. They loved it
so much they speculated about doing it so far off into the future that their
little house of cards fell.
>
>Your turn now. Rather than snipe from the sidelines, why don't you
>declare where you're coming from on this? In a similar situation where
>your neighbours are starving, would you share what you could, or would
>you charge what the traffic would bear?
>
That depends on which neighbors you're referring to. There are several
households in my neighborhood who I imagine do have jewelry and gold stashed
away in impressive quantities. And I do happen to have a fairly nice backyard
vegetable garden. Sure as shit I'd make a run for that wealth, anyone who
wouldn't jump at the chance to turn vegetables into gold is a fool. But I'm
not going to sit here and dream of some day when the conditions around me allow
me to do so.
Would you hand out your vegetables to the rich guy who refused to give you what
he could, just as the others had? Or would you demand equal or no payment at
all? Would you balk at taking the desperate rich man's gold, knowing that if
you don't he will be back to his old capitalist tricks in spring of 45?
And what happens when you find that there are more people who need vegetables
than you have vegetables. You're not going to starve yourself, so you'll keep
enough vegetables for you, or maybe you are willing to fast for a month, to
speculate on that bar of gold. Maybe you will give your last vegetable to a
rich man for a bar of gold. And why not? Why shouldn't the only man still in
posession of gold receive the only vegetable not yet consumed?
Oliver Wendell Jones
>
>why don't you
>declare where you're coming from on this?
Because I think you only want me to make a declaration like that so that you
can easily construct a pejorative interpretation of the philosophies I
epouse, particularly since you'd be able to regurgitate the usual ones once you
found them.
Bill Van
jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
You're going to be difficult to have a conversation with, then.
Bill Van
jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
> Yes, and your report was sketchy. "A reporter friend says a distant relative
> said, the Zalm's hairdresser told OJ simpson's cousin...."
>
There is no need for that kind of condescension. I have said quite
clearly that there's no practical way to check or prove the scenario I
put forward, only that I have personal knowledge of the scenario being
considered for publication by the Vancouver Sun.
I do know that the conditions existed in that place and time to make the
scenario plausible, both from recorded history and from the personal
recollections of my parents and others who lived through such events.
You responses, both the one above and your cryptic meanderings about
turnips, confirm my impression that we have nothing to talk about.
But that must be obvious to you, as well. Why bother inviting a
conversation if you have no intention of following through?
Have a nice life.
bill
Bill Van
jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
> In article <billvan22-96175...@news.telus.net>,
> bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca says...
> >
> >In article <8pgfc.5848$zv6.3595@clgrps12>,
> > jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I hope you realize that when food becomes worth more than money, the
> >> people
> >> trying to exchange money for food are the ones trying to 'take advantage'
> >
> >They are trying to stay alive.
>
> Anyone bartering anything is trying to stay alive.
>
> >We're not talking about textbook
> >economics here, but human decency. Do you have any?
>
> I've never been put in a situation where my 'human decency' has been tested
> to
> the degree that people you so casually pass judgement on had been in the
> circumstances they found themselves, which is why I suspect you haven't been
> either.
Close. At the end of the war, three immediate family members had TB as a
result of malnutrition. I was born two years after the war; my
grandfather had died of TB by then. We were among the hundreds of
thousands who emigrated during the 1950s because the Dutch economy lay
in ruins. I know something of that period. Sounds like you don't.
Oliver Wendell Jones
bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca says...
Only if you're trying to win some kind of argument and think you can get behind
my ideas rather than have to attack them head on.
Look Bill, you're having an idealist brainfart. Your claim was that farmers
who traded gold for food was not compatible with 'human decency', and the
evidence you provided was that people starved. But wait a second, the people
who traded gold and jewels for food would be the LAST people to starve. So in
fact, the wealthy survived longer than anyone else would have, by having their
wealth stripped of them. Let you suggest that those who were the LAST to
starve deserve the MOST pity, rather than the people who were the FIRST to
starve, who didn't have any gold or jewels to stave off their deaths.
Bill Van
gu...@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> Bill Van <bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >tulip bulbs. But a reporter I know once talked to an old lady from the
> >family's home town, a distant relative of the Zalms, who scoffed at
> >that. According to her, the Zalm family sold tulip bulbs to starving
> >people and profited from the situation. They weren't the only ones, of
> >course. My own family, who lived in occupied Holland, told stories about
> >bartering silver and gold jewelry with farmers who still had something
> >to eat.
>
> I was sort of thinking today, watching a heart wrenching story on the TV
> news that reporters pretty much limits themselves to "He said, she said"
> but never "this is what happened " or "That's the way it is"
I was always partial to that approach. But you have to be thorough. If
you have the time and the mandate to talk to enough people and to
observe for yourself, and you can bring some reasonable judgment to a
situation, and your employers trust that judgment, you can report that
way. If you get it wrong, readers/viewers will be all over you. If you
get it right, they'll also let you know, and the positive feedback is
almost as good as a pay cheque.
When you don't have those conditions, when you're required to produce
multiple stories per day, you can't get familiar enough with what's
going on to report authoritatively. I'm not saying that kind of
reporting is gone for good -- it's not -- but there is less of it,
largely because media owners today have cost-cutting as a major
priority, salaries are the most obvious place to cut, there are now far
fewer reporters than a few years ago, and the remaining reporters
usually don't have the time on a given story.
Most reporters in most situations now have no choice but to do the "he
said, she said" thing.
>
> Consider, let's suppose that the old lady was right. What was the
> alternative? For the Der Zalms not to sell any bulbs which they had in
> considerable supply? Then the story would have been "While the rest of the
> village was starving the Der Zalms refused to sell any bulbs to them"
Agreed. It's a hard one. You probably had to be there to be able to
judge, in the terms the Dutch used, who was "right" and who was "wrong"
during the occupation. I've had 20-odd years to think about the Zalms'
situation, and I don't know. There are probably people still living who
do, but I don't have access to them.
>
> I have seen enough wartime stories to know what a short trip it is from a
> hero to a villain.
I have an aunt, still living, who was in her teens during the war. She
went out with a German soldier. I don't think anything other than
hormones was involved; most of my relatives were into resistance,
passive or active. End of the war, the townsfolk shaved her head and
paraded her through town. A year later she married a Polish soldier -- a
member of the Allied liberation forces -- and immigrated to Canada. So
yes, I know there's a broad grey area.
>
> Personally, I think Bill Fantaaaastic is an idiot who destroyed the Social
> Credit after the Liberals did not allow him to destroy them. He's the one
> to be principally blamed for the 10 years fo NDP blunders and looting.
I agree with your assessment of the Zalm, on the whole, if not with your
summary of the NDP era.
>
> BTW, welcome back. Hope you ahd a good time.
Thanx. Had almost nothing but sunny weather at Pacific Rim, which is a
minor miracle this time of year. We would have been happy with a
seasonal storm, big waves and horizontal rain. But I seriously wrenched
my back slipping on a rocky headland our last day out there, and have
been enriching my local chiropractor as a consequence. Feeling good
again,though.
> Maybe now you can answer my
> question about how do you square sharing our views with a bunch of lunatic
> goons like the NDP?
"Your views," I assume you mean.
We're not going to cover that in a paragraph or two. But let's begin.
I've never joined a party. When I was a reporter, that would have meant
a conflict of interest. It's habit now.
So I'm not exactly an NDP partisan. But I'm a social democrat, which in
Canada covers a spectrum from the NDP to the Red Tories. It includes
some big-L Liberals, IMO, although I'm not sure about you. Your
experiences seem to have convinced you that anyone who thinks we
shouldn't let people starve on the streets is a godless communist taking
money out of your pocket at gunpoint.
I think most of us here are in favor of a mixed economy. We're either in
favor of "free" enterprise, or capitalism if you prefer, or at least
reconciled to it as a necessary part of the mix. How much of what else
should be in the mix is what we argue about.
In the last few years, as I've begun to feel comfortable expressing
political opinions, I have encountered a pretty extreme set of values on
the right end of the spectrum on the local news groups. It has been an
easy choice to line up on the left and argue with the right-wingers. You
have personal experience of this.
The B.C. NDP? They have won when their opponents deserved to lose. They
were competent under Harcourt, less so under Clark. They are the only
alternative to what are widely perceived as the Campbell Liberals'
excesses, though I don't think their level of organization can sustain
current poll results.
Something to chew on. We have time.
cheers.
bill
Oliver Wendell Jones
In fact, you also finger wag at the possibility that a gold and jewelless Zalm
clan actually had the nerve to use commerce to keep themselves alive. So you
neither want the aristocrat to survive, nor the industrious freeman individual.
Just who is allowed to survive, under your system of ethics? Let me guess, the
man who just keeps repeating his prayers?
Oliver Wendell Jones
bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca says...
>Something to chew on. We have time.
>
>
Speaking of something to chew on, I'd still like to hear about why you think
that when the going gets tough everyone should sit around doing nothing and
anyone who tries to fend for himself is 'indecent'. You have denied lord, serf
and freeman the label of 'decency' for their actions during turmoil. So in
your murky quest for idealism during upheaval, who gets appointed as the
barometer of decency, a preacher? Could that be why the churches got so
involved in supporting and bolstering the 'humanism' promoted by fascist states
in europe in the lead up to WW2?
Bill Van
jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
> Speaking of something to chew on, I'd still like to hear about why you think
> that when the going gets tough everyone should sit around doing nothing and
> anyone who tries to fend for himself is 'indecent'.
I have said nothing of the sort. I think nothing of the sort.
But light dawns. You're making unwarranted assumptions about what I
think. If I say it's indecent to let people starve when you have food
but they have no money, you accuse me of, well, whatever it is that
you're accusing me of in the above paragraph. I say that's bullshit. And
hello, Ken. (Could be Mike, but as I recall, he doesn't spell as well as
you do.)
Next you're going to accuse me of refusing to deal with your ideas,
right?
I've been here before, Ken. You have adopted a political philosophy that
leads you to grotesquely, and to most people obviously incorrect
conclusions. You're incapable of recognizing that, because you believe
it the way a fundamentalist believes religious dogma. You are unable to
see that your beliefs do not apply in the real world.
You argue dishonestly. One of your favorite techniques is to seize on an
unimportant detail in your opponents' arguments and ignore everything
else.
People who don't buy into it get insulted by you and abused by your
obscene little friend, Artie.
I have no more time for you.
> You have denied lord,
> serf
> and freeman the label of 'decency' for their actions during turmoil.
You are eight centuries out of date.
> So in
> your murky quest for idealism during upheaval, who gets appointed as the
> barometer of decency, a preacher? Could that be why the churches got so
> involved in supporting and bolstering the 'humanism' promoted by fascist
> states
> in europe in the lead up to WW2?
Even your constant use of changing pseudonyms is dishonest. It's not
just to avoid kill-files, is it? It's because when people realize who
you are, they will not talk to you. So you disguise yourself.
Piss off, Ken.
Oliver Wendell Jones
Well that was useful. What have you got against Ken McVay anyway, are you a
newsgroup nazi?
In article <billvan22-9BAF3...@news.telus.net>,
bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca says...
Bill Van
gu...@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> Bill Van <bill...@dotheobvious.yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >observe for yourself, and you can bring some reasonable judgment to a
> >situation, and your employers trust that judgment, you can report that
> >way. If you get it wrong, readers/viewers will be all over you. If you
>
> If you allow such culture to develop in your news org, eventually it will
> develop a certain slant. That is only natural that it should be so. But
> your audience, at least the portion who do have more than two braincells to
> rub together, will acknoledge the slant and compensate for it.
And that's how it should be, IMO. I much prefer the European model of
journalism, where you know when you pick up a paper or tune in a channel
what its bias is -- political, religious, whatever, and they're up-front
about it. In Canada they also have biases, but they don't admit it; they
try to maintain the fiction that they're objective.
> I have first mistook this "he said, she claims" style as giving the
> audience the room to make their own conclusions,
It can work that way. News is a daily or even hourly business. You can't
always know for sure what's what when your deadline arrives. Then it's
better to do "he said, she said," than to guess. And the audience has to
make up its own mind.
> but increasingly it is
> becoming obvious that the average news consumer is utterly incapable of
> doing so.
Perhaps. But in every subject area, there are readers who really know
their stuff because that's what they do for a living, for a hobby, as an
obsession, a political interest, whatever. They will call, e-mail, write
letters to the editor and otherwise expose you if you screw up.
> I was somewhat disappointed this afternoon listening to Phillip Till trying
> to get some sort of a ... well to be honest, I can't exactly figure out
> what the hell he was trying to do ... but he succeded in organizing a
> lynching party of the Prime Minister, despite his initial claims to the
> contrary. And all that because Martin said in some speech "Norway" instead
> of "Normandy"
I have little time for radio talk shows. They have far more interest in
getting a rise out of the audience -- and thereby keeping the ratings up
-- than in trying to figure out what's real and what isn't. I do not
consider what they do to be journalism.
> >When you don't have those conditions, when you're required to produce
> >multiple stories per day, you can't get familiar enough with what's
> >going on to report authoritatively.
>
> This is the time when people who value their integrity would walk or make
> that condition to become the story itself.
Which would get you fired, and make you unemployable in a town where a
few companies own all the media. Some walk, some get trapped. Some do
whatever is asked of them, some try to stay with it and maintain
integrity. That's a hard road, but some still walk it.
>
> >So I'm not exactly an NDP partisan. But I'm a social democrat, which in
> >Canada covers a spectrum from the NDP to the Red Tories.
>
> Wrong, it does not. I have known many people in the Liberal party who
> ideologically had no business being there. That did not make them Red
> Liberals, only confused Socialists.
I'm talking about parties that advocate a mixed economy, try to find a
balance between letting capitalists capitalize, reining them in when
they poison the rivers or endanger their employees, and collect enough
taxes to maintain some kind of social safety net. They might not like
the label, but they're all social democrats of some kind.
Surely that includes the Liberals, the party that brought in
unemployment insurance, medicare, and a host of other social programs.
The current B.C. Liberals, who are trying to dismantle as much of the
safety net as they can before the voters catch up with them, are the
exception, not the rule. Harry Hammer would have called them yellow
dogs, as he did the Liberals who defected to Social Credit.
> The problem is that many people join a
> political party based on who its leader is, how they look electorally right
> now, because a neighbour asked them to for some idiotic reason, etc.
> without having the least clue about that party's fundamental philosophy.
> Unfortunately, many politicos of those parties don't have much of a clue,
> either.
Yes.
> >Your
> >experiences seem to have convinced you that anyone who thinks we
> >shouldn't let people starve on the streets is a godless communist taking
> >money out of your pocket at gunpoint.
>
> Total nonsense.
Where do you draw the line then? Let free enterprise do whatever it
wants? Which social programs would you like to kill? Would you maintain
some of them? If yes, how does that not make you a social democrat?
> >I think most of us here are in favor of a mixed economy. We're either in
> >favor of "free" enterprise, or capitalism if you prefer, or at least
> >reconciled to it as a necessary part of the mix. How much of what else
> >should be in the mix is what we argue about.
>
> Again you are dead wrong. The NDP claims it accepts market economy or free
> enterprise, but in its Statement of Principles it makes it perfectly clear
> that it does not.
You believe they're lying when they say they accept a market economy. I
believe they're lying when they say they accept that statement of
principles. They're just another political party trying to get elected.
Their policies vary somewhat, but the only hard-line socialists among
them are a minority who talk a lot and lose votes at party conventions.
The odd time when they succeed in passing a radical resolution, the
party strategists and candidates *always* ignore them completely.
> The idea that free enterprise would somehow work for no
> profit is utterly idiotic.
Nobody here is suggesting that they would, or should. OTOH, most of us
would draw a line somewhere when they want to minimize taxes beyond
reason and maximize profits to the point of poisoning the rivers,
bringing back the 60-hour work week, or employing children for unskilled
labour. You?
> >It has been an easy choice to line up on the left
> >and argue with the right-wingers. You
> >have personal experience of this.
>
> No. I have always marched to the beat of my own drummer. I do not take a
> position only because some Pinko lunatic took one.
Nor do I take a position just because some right-wing lunatic takes the
opposite one. All I'm saying is that when their positions are laughably
stupid, it's easy to oppose them. Do you not think that some of the
right-wing posters around here are cretins?
> Much of what you
> believe I believe in, has been ascribed to me by others with no foundation
> at all. I recall one instance (not sure what the issue was) where you
> danced with the hawks and I was on the side of the doves, and eventually
> you had to admit that my position carried more weight.
That's possible. When I'm caught in an error, as all of us are from time
to time, I prefer to fess up and move on. When *you* get caught in a
losing argument, your usual response is that it wasn't important.
Nevertheless, I generally respect your integrity. You're usually
consistent and for the most part, your arguments are based on
information rather than prejudice. But there's room for more than one
political opinion in this country, and I'm not offended that not
everyone shares mine. You seem to be less tolerant of other people's
views.
> >The B.C. NDP? They have won when their opponents deserved to lose.
>
> Very few parties in BC win anything.
> The NDP have slipped in because there was nobody else on the menu.
> And when they self-destructed, the Liberals slipped in because there was
> nobody else left on the menu.
I can more or less agree with that. But next election, we may have to
close the restaurant.
> But of course none of the above really answers the question:
> Given the overwhelming numbers of utter idiots and lunatics, never mind the
> goons, in the NDP, does it not disturb you that your political views are so
> closely aligned with theirs?
Lunatics are everywhere, Karl. When I take a position it's because it
makes sense to me, not because it jibes with NDP policy or because some
lunatic agrees with it. Plenty of crazy people post in favor of the B.C.
Liberals. Is that grounds for you leaving them?
> If my views were supported by such people, I would sit down and start
> thingking "something ain't right here, whay are people with political
> ideas that I beleive in, such cretins and why are they so quick to resortt
> to violence? Why do they spread so much hatred around them, why are they
> so deceptfull, why do they look at every situation from the point of view
> of envy, from the point of view of victimization, why can't they see a
> single issue except in terms of 'Us vs. Them' " ??
Chrissake. You're constantly defending a provincial government that
thinks *only* in terms of us versus them, and has spent its first term
trying to punish the people it doesn't like.
>
> Do you not do such self-examination?
Constantly. I couldn't take part in this kind of discussion if I didn't.
But I have serious doubts as to whether you do.
cheers.
bill
Oliver Wendell Jones
>I recall one instance (not sure what the issue was) where you
>danced with the hawks and I was on the side of the doves, and eventually
>you had to admit that my position carried more weight.
>
Awww, look at the idealists fight over the status of 'dove'. You'll both make
an excellent meal for a hawk.
Oliver Wendell Jones
>hello, Ken. (Could be Mike, but as I recall, he doesn't spell as well as
>you do.)
>
since I refused to divulge the source of the 'philosophy' I expouse, you've got
no choice but to invent a spectre you can ad hominem. And so I become some old
nemesis of yours, allowing you to carry on your righteous crusade.
>I've been here before, Ken. You have adopted a political philosophy that
>leads you to grotesquely, and to most people obviously incorrect
>conclusions.
And exactly what 'grotesque' philosophy do "Mike and Ken" subscribe to? Are
they infidels?
This seems rather ironic, as I recall you going into conniptions when I
casually mixed you up with 'Bill K.'.
Oliver Wendell Jones
Ok I've determined that the people you're pejoratively indentifying me with as
a lame ad hominem are in fact those freaks from Fathers BC. But it seems to me
that they have much more in common with idealistic nattering nabobs like Bill
Van and Karl Pollak than with the existentialist ubermensch of yours truely.
In article <GIXfc.37258$dg7.16452@edtnps84>, jo...@owendell.com says...
Oliver Wendell Jones
>unimportant detail in your opponents' arguments and ignore everything
>else.
>
Like this?:
>> You have denied lord,
>> serf
>> and freeman the label of 'decency' for their actions during turmoil.
>
>You are eight centuries out of date.
>
Just using terms with clear definitions. Modern equivelents tend to confuse
people still mired in moral universalism.
Old money capitalists are the lords, serfs are farmers or labourors, and
freemen are modern day entrepreneuers. Even today, when the going gets tough,
idealists like you seize up in a hurry and the real business of survival is
left to those who are prepared to take for themselves. Your biggest worry in a
crisis would be the state of the traffic lights... you'd run out in the street
to direct traffic, bopping around fittingly like a chicken with it's head
lopped off, as do-gooders are want to do when the shit hits the fan.
Too bad Bill, your nonsense might have seemed compelling before 9/11 before we
were in the midst of hyper-singularity, watching every idealist get tested over
and over in a crisis and watching them fail using the same patterns, every
time...
Bill Van
jo...@owendell.com (Oliver Wendell Jones) wrote:
> Ok I've determined that the people you're pejoratively indentifying me with
> as
> a lame ad hominem are in fact those freaks from Fathers BC.
Yeah, I've realized you're not one of them, though you share some of
their arcane vocabulary. For that, I beg your pardon.
Might be jumping to another conclusion here, but I think you're crazier
than they are.
> But it seems to
> me
> that they have much more in common with idealistic nattering nabobs like Bill
> Van and Karl Pollak than with the existentialist ubermensch of yours truely.
>
Whatever else you are, you're a troll, hiding whatever identity you used
to post under to entice the unwary into stupid discussions they would
avoid if they realized who you were.
I have no time for you. Bye.
bill
Bill Van
gu...@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> >Harry Hammer would have called them yellow
> >dogs, as he did the Liberals who defected to Social Credit.
>
> The furniture guy?
> Was he politically active?
>
He used to run for city council (in Vancouver, I think) in the 1970s and
was a provincial Liberal. I believe he may have been on the provincial
executive at one time, may even have been provincial leader for a while
when the party was on life support.
I ran into him on some political story in the early 1980s. Can't recall
the subject now, but he was still bitter about the Zalm, Pat McGeer and
other Liberals who had left to join Social Credit. Harry called them
"yellow dogs" for abandoning the party.
bill
gap...@vcn.bc.ca
> >When you don't have those conditions, when you're required to produce
> >multiple stories per day, you can't get familiar enough with what's
> >going on to report authoritatively.
>
> that condition to become the story itself.
Yes, but those with integrity just spent thousands on a Journalist diploma, and
have to eat!
I see it as the media gets the kids fresh out of school, let's them race off on
their own time(& dime) to put in the necessary investment to get the GOOD
stories, then pull them in, take their work, hire them on and dump spitloads of
work on too-few of them until they burn out, or somehow get some leverage to
dictate their terms and move up into the managerial ranks (just like the
Beaurocracies!)
> without having the least clue about that party's fundamental philosophy.
> Unfortunately, many politicos of those parties don't have much of a clue,
> either.
The proven problem is that all these things are imminently mutable!
> Very few parties in BC win anything.
Exactly! The BC electorate traditionally EVICTS, rather than ELECTS parties!
Your friend,
<+]::-{(} ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)
Ask me how to connect with me in any of 5 Instant Messengers
(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
gap...@vcn.bc.ca
crap to choose from!
Your friend,
<+]::-{(} ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)
Ask me how to connect with me in any of 5 Instant Messengers
(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
gu...@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> gap...@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
>
> >> This is the time when people who value their integrity would walk or ma
> >> that condition to become the story itself.
> >
> >Yes, but those with integrity just spent thousands on a Journalist diplom
> >have to eat!
>
> That sounds like a personal problem to me. I did not tell them to study
> journalism and I am definitely not obligated to read their crap. What are
> they going to eat when nobody reads their damned rag?
>
> I think it is about high time that consumers stopped putting up with third
> rate crap and realized that in the market place_they_ are the ones with th
> money so they are the ones with the power.
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland