"National Socialist Radio"
Chuck Romberger
writes:
>cro...@access.digex.net (Francis A. Ney, Jr.) writes:
>>The closest pro-individual pro-constitution item I ever heard out of
National
>>Socialist Radio was a ten second sound bite of the Branch Davidian jurywoman
>>regretting her actions as a member thereof after the judicial lynch mob took
>>over. I wonder who got fired for letting that slip through...
>
>You know, you are one of a number of people who refer to NPR as
>"National Socialist Radio". Besides being a brand of this childish
>name calling that people like Rush Limbaugh revel in, it is
>*false*, plain and simple.
>
>Is it the content of NPR that makes you call them Socialist? If so, then
>your view of the political spectrum is *so* skewed that I can't take
>anything that you say seriously. Outside of the "Land of the Free and
>the Home of the Brave", conservative parties are typically left of the U.S.
>Democratic Party... The content of NPR can barely be called centrist.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I can't take seriously anyone who believes that our "statist's" are to
the "right" of the "conservatives" "elsewhere". If you haven't noticed
the idealogical bias in NPR perhaps it is because "you" agree with that bias.
That does not mean the bias does not exist. And "I" believe that the
liberatarian party best represents what is now "centrist" politic's in
the "Lotf, athotb".
>Is it the fact that NPR receives gov't funding that makes you call them
>socialist? Geez, then the military-industrial complex is the biggest
>socialist institution on the face of the planet. How much did NPR
>receive in gov't money last year? $250M? $500M? Last year, American
>*corporations* received $51 BILLION in direct subsidies. Does that
>make them socialist?
Yes it does make it socialist, though many refer to corporate support as "Good
Industrial Policy". That is what the "left" often calls their support of
their chosen business. Oh BTW, you seem to imply that "I" am not
"stealing" because "HE" took much more that "ME". Does the amount matter?
It's the old chestnut that "we all know what you are, it's just a matter of
setting the price." It's not the amount it is the "principle".
>Grab some perspective. That you even suggest that NPR is "Socialist"
>undermines the credibility of everything else you say.
>Vic
Timothy M Williams
: Is it the content of NPR that makes you call them Socialist?
Am I the only one here for whom "National Socialist" means something
quite distinctly different from socialist...?
Whereas I would under no circumstances regard NPR as socialist, there've
been times when it has smacked of a certain fascist mindset, I think.
==============================================================================
Timothy Williams <__> | "Your book is dictated by the soundest reason. You
Ferdinand the Bull (oo) | had better get out of France as quickly as you can."
tmwi...@mail.sas. \/--| --Voltaire
upenn.edu || | Page: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/isp/timothy.html
======Complaints to:=||-==british...@greenwich.ingrams.org===============
Andrew MacFarlane
(Timothy M Williams) wrote:
> Whereas I would under no circumstances regard NPR as socialist, there've
> been times when it has smacked of a certain fascist mindset, I think.
What are you referring to?
Charles Phillip Kalina
pscotto <psc...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
>Most of the right-wing cretins who post here label anything left of
>Ronald Reagan "socialist."
In fairness it should be noted that there are an equal number
(e.g. FAIR) for whom anything to the right of Noam Chomsky is
"conservative."
>Rather than undermining their credibility, it only enhances it with their
>own kind.
Like you said...
--
Charles P. Kalina, Political Genius and Policy Maven
Big O
Ferreira) wrote:
>| cro...@access.digex.net (Francis A. Ney, Jr.) writes:
>|
>| >The closest pro-individual pro-constitution item I ever heard out of
National
>| >Socialist Radio was a ten second sound bite of the Branch Davidian
jurywoman
>| >regretting her actions as a member thereof after the judicial lynch
mob took
>| >over. I wonder who got fired for letting that slip through...
>|
>| You know, you are one of a number of people who refer to NPR as
>| "National Socialist Radio". Besides being a brand of this childish
>| name calling that people like Rush Limbaugh revel in, it is
>| *false*, plain and simple.
>|
>| Is it the content of NPR that makes you call them Socialist? If so, then
>| your view of the political spectrum is *so* skewed that I can't take
>| anything that you say seriously. Outside of the "Land of the Free and
>| the Home of the Brave", conservative parties are typically left of the U.S.
>| Democratic Party... The content of NPR can barely be called centrist.
>|
>| Is it the fact that NPR receives gov't funding that makes you call them
>| socialist? Geez, then the military-industrial complex is the biggest
>| socialist institution on the face of the planet. How much did NPR
>| receive in gov't money last year? $250M? $500M? Last year, American
>| *corporations* received $51 BILLION in direct subsidies. Does that
>| make them socialist?
>|
>| Grab some perspective. That you even suggest that NPR is "Socialist"
>| undermines the credibility of everything else you say.
>|
>| Vic
Read the ex-socialist Ludwig von Mises' book _Socialism_ to find out what
is socialism -- in all of its many forms.
--
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the
contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand
that caused men to make laws in the first place"
Frederic Bastiat
"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to
other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen
at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without
committing a crime."
Frederic Bastiat
johann...@smtp.svl.trw.com
All Disclaimers Apply (so as to protect my employer).
Lizard
>
>cro...@access.digex.net (Francis A. Ney, Jr.) writes:
>
>>The closest pro-individual pro-constitution item I ever heard out of National
>>Socialist Radio was a ten second sound bite of the Branch Davidian jurywoman
>>regretting her actions as a member thereof after the judicial lynch mob took
>>over. I wonder who got fired for letting that slip through...
>
>You know, you are one of a number of people who refer to NPR as
>"National Socialist Radio". Besides being a brand of this childish
>name calling that people like Rush Limbaugh revel in, it is
>*false*, plain and simple.
>
is something I've asked before, and receive no answer to. If it is true that NPR
is 'centrist' or 'moderate' or even 'conservative', why is that the staunchest
defenders are from the furthest reaches of the loony left?
>Is it the content of NPR that makes you call them Socialist? If so, then
>your view of the political spectrum is *so* skewed that I can't take
>anything that you say seriously. Outside of the "Land of the Free and
>the Home of the Brave", conservative parties are typically left of the U.S.
>Democratic Party... The content of NPR can barely be called centrist.
>
Did it ever occur to you that might be because, in fact, the world is skewed
sharply to the left?
>Is it the fact that NPR receives gov't funding that makes you call them
>socialist? Geez, then the military-industrial complex is the biggest
>socialist institution on the face of the planet.
Yup, probably is. I don't think we'll ever have a fully privatized military so
long as there is any shred of government left, but we could reduce it to a small
force devoted *solely* to territorial defense, with an even smaller but
well-funded and equipped force devoted to rescue of American citizens held by
terrorists or the like. (Though in truth, I'd like to see this aspect handled
by private insurance) Let corporations which operate overseas hire mercenaries
to defend their holdings, and pass the costs directly on to their consumers.
This helps make sure that goods produced in foreign countries reflect the true
costs of doing business there. You liberals should appreciate that.
>How much did NPR
>receive in gov't money last year? $250M? $500M? Last year, American
>*corporations* received $51 BILLION in direct subsidies. Does that
>make them socialist?
>
I'd say so. America practices a form of 'corporate socialism' where corporations
are no longer truly capitalist entities but de facto branches of the government.
We should end ALL such corporate subisdies, including tariffs and import duties.
>Grab some perspective. That you even suggest that NPR is "Socialist"
>undermines the credibility of everything else you say.
>
That you deny it undermines the credibility of what YOU say. Balls in your
court.
--
Evolution Doesn't Take Prisoners:Lizard
Democracy:The Crude Leading the Crud:Florence King
Misanthropology:The study of why so many people are so stupid, and why most of
them should die, soon!
Lizard
>
>Vic,
>
>How long hae you been around these groups?
>
>Most of the right-wing cretins who post here label anything left of
>Ronald Reagan "socialist."
>
their
>own kind.
>
confirmed statist who favored the rapid expansion of government a
"rightist"? At best, he was moderately pro-capitalist, but only in
comparison to folks like Clinton.
>Peter Scotto
>Liberal, Democrat, NPR listener
Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards a cure.
Congratulations!
Lizard
>
>Vic Ferreira (vfer...@s.psych.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
>: Is it the content of NPR that makes you call them Socialist?
>
>Am I the only one here for whom "National Socialist" means something
>quite distinctly different from socialist...?
>
is one variant of socialism, and rightfully deserves to tossed on the
trashbin of history with all the other variants.
glindahl
: >
: Then why do so many socialists view an attack on NPR as a personal affront? This
: is something I've asked before, and receive no answer to. If it is true that NPR
: is 'centrist' or 'moderate' or even 'conservative', why is that the staunchest
: defenders are from the furthest reaches of the loony left?
Who is it you're referring to?
: Did it ever occur to you that might be because, in fact, the world is skewed
: sharply to the left?
If everyone (i.e. the world) is skewed to the left, maybe because that's
where most people want to be! Or maybe you're "skewed" to the right?
: I don't think we'll ever have a fully privatized military so
: long as there is any shred of government left, but we could reduce it to a small
: force devoted *solely* to territorial defense, with an even smaller but
: well-funded and equipped force devoted to rescue of American citizens held by
: terrorists or the like...
See? Even a fool can make sense every so often!
: >Grab some perspective. That you even suggest that NPR is "Socialist"
: >undermines the credibility of everything else you say.
: >
: That you deny it undermines the credibility of what YOU say. Balls in your
: court.
hmm ... and it looks wounded!
Dale O'Connor
Prof. Gingrich 1/7/95:
We don't, for example, practice
cannibalism. So if you were from new guinea or from the
brazilian rain forest, that might be an important
point. I mean, you may laugh about it. As late as the 1840's,
the british sent an officer to the nash country in
india to convince them to stop eating people. They had a habit
of getting an annual slave, they fattened the
slave, and then killed the slave and someone ate them. And this
young british officer was sent there. This is
referenced in drucker's book, "the effective executive." Young
officer sent there 24 years old, sits down with
the tribal chief, the tribal chieftain says, this is very
important about what i mean by civilization, the tribal
chieftain says, "of course you respect our customs." He said,
"of course, i do." He said, "our custom is to eat
people." "i respect that." He said, "of course you old chief
will respect our customs." And he said, "but of
course i do." "our custom is to shoot people who eat people."
They had a big tribal meeting. Gave it up.
They didn't -- do you see how it weaves together? So what i
want you to do, what i want you to be thinking
about and practicing is list the five values, or habits or
principles of American civilization that you think might
really happen. Once i would like to do next week, and i hope
Dr. Minnix will help me remember because,
again I'm pretty busy in between classes -- is i would like to
very early next week come back to you and say,
okay, let's spend ten minutes, as we get into American history,
what's your list? Just come in with five. Any
five. I don't care what they are. Five principles or habits
you would tell an immigrant on their first day are
useful. And then as we go through American history, let's see
if we can find examples of your habits. I will
give you one, by the way, that's truly radically American, that
if all of you are going to be honest, you'll admit
to, shopping. To be American is to learn to shop. It's
literally true. This is the most mall-oriented, not
necessarily to buy, but just to shop. More Americans spend more
hours wandering around stores going,
"wow, i'd like that." Goes back to incentive. Why are
Americans so driven? Because they're pursuing
happiness. What's one of their versions of happiness? A big
mall. Yeah.
"To communicate is
the beginning
of understanding."
Dale O'Connor
problems. One of the ones we're going to really focus on is
solving poverty and violence. This cannot be a
healthy country until we have found a core cultural solution to
the challenge of poverty and violence. The
way we're going to do this is we're going to apply vision,
strategies, projects and tactics. And then we're going
to apply listen, learn, help and lead, so that people can truly
learn. And then what we're going to do with
every challenge, challenge of the world market, the challenge of
the information age, third wave society, the
challenge of citizenship, the challenge of the culture poverty
and violence, for every challenge, we're going to
use the five pillars. So we're going to go down through and
say, all right, what can we learn from American
history? What can we learn from personal strength? What can
we learn from entrepreneurial free enterprise?
What can we learn from the spirit of invention and discovery?
And what can we learn from quality as defined
by deming. And then we'll apply those pillars to the problem.
So as you look at the last four sessions of the
course, as you're thinking through where we're going, you look at
the last four sessions of the course you can
say to yourself, okay, when i get to the information age, third
wave society, and American civilization, I'm
going to want to go back and think through my vision of it, my
strategies for getting there, my projects to
implement my strategies, my tactics, and then I'm going to want
to turn to other people say, "what do you
think." And I'm going to go through listen, learn, help and
lead. And as I'm thinking through the
implementation for that third wave information age, I'm going to
be saying, well, what did we learn in
American history? When we went from an agricultural to an
industrial society, what was the transition like?
What are the lessons out of that period? How does personal
strength relate to being able to use a computer?
I mean, we know personal strength meant in the neolithic, you
carried a big club and you had a rock.
Dale O'Connor
does personal strength mean in the age of the laptop? Which, by
the way, is a major reason for the rise of
power for women. If upper body strength matters, men win.
They are both biologically stronger and they
don't get pregnant. Pregnancy is a period of male domination in
traditional society. On the other hand, if
what matters is the speed with which you can move the laptop,
women are at least as fast, and in some ways
better. So you have a radical revolution based on technological
change and you've got to think that through.
If you talk about being in combat. What does combat mean? If
combat means living in a ditch, females have
biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they
get infections, and they don't have upper body
strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On
the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you
drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter,
you know. These things are very real. On the
other hand, if combat means being on an aegis class cruiser
managing the computer controls for 12 ships and
their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a
male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a
chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go
out and hunt giraffes.
Dale O'Connor
these kind of background, what do these transitions mean, how do
they apply, what does it mean for personal
strength. Entrepreneurial free enterprise, isn't it interesting
that at the end of the industrial era when large
systems dominated that the explosive growth of the last 20 years
is, guess what, tiny companies, start-ups in
garages, people in back rooms. That's people who drop out of
college and go create microsoft or go create
apple computing. It's spielberg's invention of "jurassic park."
But it's people just do their thing. It very
entrepreneurial. Talk about the whole concept of the spirit of
invention and discovery. Well, obviously if
you're entering the information age, inventing and discovery, but
it may not be inventing and discovering the
way that's obvious. We did -- one time we had post-its, those
little yellow things you stick on things. That's
an invention. Somebody got fairly rich off that. Invention
doesn't have to mean you are a ph.d., you advance
math and you are sitting in a lab some day. Invention can just
be an egg mcmuffin which was invented by a
particular franchise operator who wanted to find a way to use
mcdonald's in the morning. So he literally
invented egg mcmuffin, which is a social invention.
Dale O'Connor
finally, we look at the whole co
ncept of quality and how do things pull together, how do we make
it -- what did deming teach the japanese,
and how do we work as a team to learn every day to improve our
productivity. So i think these things are
very, very important and you'll see us go through in the next
nine weeks that kind of systematic effort to
understand America, understand ourselves, apply our vision of the
future, and see if we can come up with
solutions when we get to the last four. But to get to the last
four we've got to spend the next five weeks really
reimmersing ourselves in America. And the reason is, for the
last quarter century we haven't talked much
about America. We have all these modern counterculture myths
about America. We have politically correct
interpretations of America. That's not the way America works.
I mean, just -- one of the things you can do as
a test of this. Is look at the work ethic which i would argue
is at the very center of being American, and then
read your newspapers for the next week and see how often you find
things referred to as work as good rather
than as bad. I'll give you one example, because one of the last
stands -- I'm going to be male for a second
because I'm going to talk about sports which is much more a male
kind of thing -- but think about football, the
end of the football season, which coaches do we study on the
sports page? The winners, right? Who would
we study on the front page about politics? The losers. You
have an interview with the most losing coach in
America, the psychological trauma i felt as my team lost its 70th
consecutive game. I mean, why should joe
paterno or tom osborne be allowed to win all the time?
Shouldn't we have some kind of fairness here? You
only get to win six out of ten. It wouldn't be nice if you won
ten out of ten or 12 out of 12. Think about it.
Dale O'Connor
still have a bias
toward the winners butit's not total because we're gradually having
the social creeping over of the biases of the editorial page.
But historically, the business page is about who is
breaking through. The greatest breakthroughs of modern times:
computers, biotechnology, molecular
medicine, it's very hard to get them covered, why, because
they're just dull. They're about success. So it's
much harder to get those on page one in a way that's readable and
understandable, but those are going to break
through your life. O.J. simpson is now involved in a trial
which is interesting enough and violent enough and
sexy enough and has a big enough celebrity. You take the total
number of inches printed about O.J. last
year in any major newspaper then take the total number of inches
about molecular medicine, that's a
pathological society that runs around chasing bad news. You
don't find that on the sports page. And it's very
important because in classic America it was lindbergh's getting
to paris that worked. It wasn't the guy who
didn't make it.
Now next week, we're going to start with pillar
one, the lessons of American history and the
use of history for analysis and problem solving. We'll again
try to give you tools and give you ways of
thinking. The next week's reading assignment is the declaration
of independence, the constitution of the
united states, the federalist papers nos. 10 and 51, building a
community of citizens, from that book we're
going to use chapter 6. Toqueville's democratic prescription
self-interest, rightly understood. So i would
like -- the volume on community of citizens chapter 6,
toqueville's democratic prescription self-interest.
We're going to take those papers, which i would really like you
to read. I would operate as though you have
read them. That's what you ought to do, okay. Because in the
long run this course is for you, it's not for me.
Thank you. And i look forward very much to being with you next
week.
Dale O'Connor
>From: vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser)
[deletions]
> As far as socalism goes, in the past two weeks PBS (with government
>money) has devoted the better part of two weeks to:
> 1. Bill Moyers telling us that the solution to crime in america
> is more social spending and censorship of television.
> 2. Multiple Days of Propoganda and revisionist history covering
> Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. (The answer of course is that
> welfare only failed because we didn't spend enough money and
> that the federal government should have spent more effort building
> shadow governments run by people on public assistance with
> federal money).
> While I can't call NPR socialist, these programs were very
>specifically socialist in ideals, solutions and political dogma.
And so, it seems, you would have fewer objections to public funding --
if the programs conformed more to your view of the world.
It seems to me that the people now in power on the Hill have a lot in
common with what was going on in this country in the early 50s.
Call them "pinks," "fellow travelers," "socialists" and remind people
that "they" aren't "real Americans."
Dale
Dale O'Connor
deal, Newt raised an even bigger wedge issue by reminding his partisans of
"my Mom and Connie Chung."
So Connie Chung continues to be the highest profile media person in
the nation.
But I heard this and thought of them as code words.
Say: "my Mom and Connie Chung"
and everyone who hears that phrase will hear the words that aren't said:
"Hillary is a bitch."
As was suggested in some internet news groups recently, I'm beginning to
think that Newt's Mom set up Connie Chung -- which is why Newt okayed Chung
spending eight hours with Mom.
Focus on Hillary. Reinforce her image as a woman who is stronger than
her spouse. Further marginalize the president.
Dale O'Connor
Just think what Newt might have done in the first 100 days
without the distraction of the book deal.
Dale O'Connor
I'm going to come back to you again and
again with two concepts: life is hard. Freedom is frustrating.
And if you don't start out every morning and
understand that, that's part of why I'm so cheerful. The worst
that -- i mean, the worst thing, i get up in the
morning, i figure life's going to be hard, so when life is hard,
i go, "see? Proved i was right." And i get up in
the morning i say, "to be free is to be frustrated," so i go into
meetings, i get frustrated. I go, "see?" I'm very
serious.
I had a meeting yesterday morning
(that would have been on Jan. 6)
with all the senior
staff of the house republican party, including
all of the committee staff directors, and i said to them,
"the next eight months are going to be really hard. So
when it's really hard, say to yourself, 'ain't it great being in
the majority?' don't whine. Just relax, go home,
take a break, come in the next morning and go, 'wow, this is
neat. It's going to be really hard all day.'" and so
-- because you're coming to the core of this, and we're about to
run out of time, but this is really the core of the
course.
We can have a partnership in America. Partnership
means we both have to do it. We can't have a
system where people say, "i've got this great idea: i'll vote
for you, i'll do nothing, you take care of me." It
won't survive. It will die. So a free society, i really am
allowed to say to you, "maybe you haven't read
enough," and then you've just got to go read more. Now, you can
read more in lots of ways.
Or maybe you
ought to go find a good historian like Dr. Minnix and say, "which
two books would you read?" But i'll also
tell you, just as in life, you can walk around this room a week
from now and get different opinions from
different people about each other, same thing's true in history,
because history is just a reflection of life.
Now, let me ask very quickly: how long are we taking a break
for?
We have a 10-minute break. This is all
brand new to me. It's very exciting. And after 10 minutes,
we've got to be back in here, because we're live on
mind extension university, so we can't just hang out. Thank you
very, very much. See you in a couple
minutes.
There's everything wrong with selling out
your values because you want an office. But
my point, to give you heart, is: we're probably around here. So
there's no reason to say to ourselves, "we have
to have a higher standard than they had. Let's do the
constitution by 1775 or, boy, are we failures." Life
occurs organically, and we'll come back to this. Over time, you
can accomplish many things you can't
accomplish in the matter of a day or two. I think we have a
minute or two before we have to take a quick
break. Any questions or -- i've thrown a fair amount at you to
start though.
>> you say for the answers you
go back and you look at history. But there's so many people who
have different perspectives on what really
happened in history. You have to read all of them. Being free
-- I'm going to come back to you again and
again with two concepts: life is hard. Freedom is frustrating.
And if you don't start out every morning and
understand that, that's part of why I'm so cheerful. The worst
that -- i mean, the worst thing, i get up in the
morning, i figure life's going to be hard, so when life is hard,
i go, "see? Proved i was right." And i get up in
the morning i say, "to be free is to be frustrated," so i go into
meetings, i get frustrated. I go, "see?" I'm very
serious.
Dale O'Connor
of us figured that he must really identify with that animal. So
this morning my friend Jan made a phone call and Chicago's Lincoln
Park Zoo faxed her a Fact Sheet on the Hook-Lipped Rhinoceros.
She excerpted the following for America OnLine's TIME OnLine.
Subj: Re:Zoos, A Rhinoceros & Newt
Date: 95-01-23 12:52:58 EST
From: Janvier44
Fact Sheet on Rhinoceros
from Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo
Special Adaptations --
*Tends to charge first and investigate later, possibly because it's
near-sighted.
*Large ears can rotate to pick up sounds from many directions.
*Large nose and excellent sense of smell help to detect predators.
*Horns used for defense and possibly display.
Description --
Coat color varies with soil color due to wallowing behavior.
Two horns made up of fibrous keratin; forward horn larger
up to 28 inches.
Ecology --
Herbivorous browser: eats leafy plants as well as branches, shoots,
thorny wood bushes and fruit. Rhino skin harbors many external parasites
which areeaten by tickbirds and egrets that live with the rhino.
*********************
***Males will tolerate properly submissive male intruders.***
*********************
Mating non-seasonal. Gestation 15-16 months. Birth weight 85 pounds.
Adult weights 1 to 2 tons.
NOTE: ...Rhino horn made into dagger handles is a symbol of wealth
in many countries. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not consumed
primarily as anaphrodisiac; only small amounts are used for
this purpose.
Jan
Dale O'Connor
wrong with modern schools
for the poor. Schools need to be tough so
life gets easy, when schools are easy, life is tough. And these
guys, i didn't realize until i was thinking this
through last week, these guys were all tough because they'd all
been through real combat and they'd all been
real problems and they knew if you didn't train right and you
didn't care enough for your men to be tough on
them, they were going to die. I just acquired that when i was
nine or ten years of age by hanging out with
them, listening to my dad talking, going out in the field with
these guys occasionally and watching what they
did. Then we moved to france and lived there during the
algerian civil war. There was 100% inflation.
1957 and 1958. They paid us in script. They didn't give us u.
S. Dollars because it would have destroyed
the french currency. So i was a young kid by this stage, I'm
13-14 years old, I'm being paid in this funny
money. We're living on the french economy. I'm playing with
kids who's parents who were killed in world
war ii. We went to school past world war ii bomb damage. And
then in the decisive moment probably of my
live, we went to the battlefield of verdun, which was the largest
battlefield of world war i. I saw damage done
in 1916 that had not been repaired. 42 years later. And i
began to think about, you see bosnia, you see
rwanda, i began to think about my hometown. What would it be
like in America? What's it worth to not
have it happen?
Dale O'Connor
of the hydrogen bomb, how hard would i work
for my family to survive after a nuclear war? It's a good
question to ask yourself. A nuclear war occurs.
How hard would you work to survive? And i said, "you do
everything." He said, "fine." "doesn't it make
more sense to do it now so it doesn't occur?" And for some
reason it got -- it penetrated me totally because it
was the only morally correct answer. In the same way we faced,
i think in the spring of 1958, the concept of
the death of civilization. That summer we moved from orleans,
france, to stuttgart germany. Literally, the
day we arrived in stuttgart, we walked in, ordered breakfast, we
were changing stations, my dad picked up the
morning "stars and stripes," the united states army and marines
had landed in lebanon. He said, "i'll be back
when i can." And he went and reported in and came back four
days later. To me this was all real and you
better have people who care enough about their country that
they're prepared to do this or you don't keep your
country. In that context, we really worked very, very hard in
trying to put all of this together. And i can tell
my staff for a second we're missing three pages of my copy of the
chyron, so you may want to figure out how i
got three missing pages here. I also want to talk, though,
about as that went through, i came to the conclusion
after a while that i wanted to be in public life. I came to the
conclusion that it was very, very important that
we reach out and that you learn constantly. I mean -- just walk
over here. You make mistakes, you just
accept them -- actually the reason i told you that, john, it goes
from page 18 to page 21. Either you and i are
both missing -- it goes from chyron 56d to chyron 62a. You
may want to have somebody walk in here for a
second.
Dale O'Connor
is that when i started out
i found myself growing based on my
understanding of my mission in life, i mean i was not a natural
politician. I'm basically a book worm and my
basic attitude is to run and hide. I'm looking forward this
afternoon to watching the pittsburgh game. I'm
going to take a break for two hours and go do a town hall meeting
but i'll get to see the first half of the
pittsburgh game. But i had to learn the skills and the habits
necessary to do the things that were required,
because i really believe the country's at stake, not in a
republican-democrat sense, but in an historic sense and
that civilizations die and that every generation has to arouse
some people who try to make sure that they
understand what it takes to not die. So what I'm going to share
with you in these ten sessions is literally 36
years of work at this question. Now, in that context, i think
that you also should know that i have raised two
children, kathy and jackie sue. There are a lot of lessons of
life of raising children. I stayed home with my
older daughter for a while and my wife worked. And then i went
to night school and we had -- so i had a fair
amount of intimate relationship with my oldest daughter when she
was very young. And that's -- it is an
interesting experience looking back. It means we are both very
bonded and males always react different than
females. At one point my oldest daughter was spitting her pea
back out. You put it in, she dribble it out. I
got frustrated so i just put it on top of her head. She sat
there and stared at me. This created a certain trauma
which we still lived through. I also -- i have to say i learned
a lot and i changed a lot about being female in
the modern world for both my two daughters and for marianne.
And because i had grown up in an army
environment that was male dominated and was very different, so
that was for me very different. We also part
of what i mean by life was hard. Both marianne and i each have
lost our best friend. She lost her best friend
about five years ago to liver cancer and i lost my best friend
two years ago, a man jim tilton who i'd known
since high school, to pancreatic cancer. So i think we have
been through part of this and we speak from some
background. Now in that context, given those biases, i want to
work a lot at empowering you as an
individual. I think this is a very, very important part of
where we're going and what we're doing.
Dale O'Connor
the things i want to empower you with -- okay, that's fine.
-- is the notion of thinking of life over time, this
is by the way, i think, the greatest problem of having a
generationally driven education system. The notion of
-- because the fact, is life occurs over time. If you are 12,
you don't know that because you haven't lived very
long. If you are 51, you know that but you don't know how to
say it in a way that people who are 12 learn it.
If you say to me what can i get done by tomorrow, my answer is
not much. If you say to me what can i get
done in a decade, my answer is a lot. If you say what can i get
done in 30 years, the answer is an enormous
amount, and you'll do different things at different points. Now
what happens is people all to often in the
modern era say, okay, I'm good for a week. My answer is so why
would i pay any attention to it? We used
to have a rule in the house that if you hadn't been there at
least six years, the older guys didn't even learn your
name because they weren't sure you were going to stay around to
be worth the effort. So it's very important to
think through that what happens over time.
Dale O'Connor
Learning
occurs by learning what you need to know and going to
whatever discipline you need for the next building block of
learning. Credentialing occurs by sitting long
enough somebody stamps you with approval. They are not related.
Similarly, i think there is a cycle that's
involved which i have literally lived through. You study, you
apply, you get immersed and then you reflect.
So first of all, you study, you think through, what are the
principles, then you apply it to your planning. Then
you are immersed in doing, then you reflect on doing. For
example, on wednesday when i got sworn in, i was
purely in the immersion phase. I didn't have any time on
wednesday to do either studying or reflecting. We
began reflecting late wednesday night. But if you think of this
cycle, you want to do something, first you
study it then you apply what you've studied to your particular
project, then you immerse yourself in trying to
get it done, nd then you reflect on what knew you learned based
on the cycle. Then you go back and start
over again by deciding what you want to do next in studying
again. I also believe passionately in
apprenticeship, friendships and the importance of permanent
learning and permanent growth. I believe that
you need to reach out. You will hear it again and again during
the course. Find people who have already
done what you want to do and learn from them. People love to
teach. You go to somebody, say teach me
what you know. And the trick is simple, what do you want to do,
who's done it, go find them. I believe in
real professionalism, which is the application of systems that
work rather than either bureaucratism or
disciplinism. The bureaucratism is purely the idea that the
bureaucracy says do x even if it's stupid, so you
got your hole punched, at least you did what they told you to
even if it was dumb. Credentialism is, you may
not be able to speak german but you have a credit that says you
can speak german so you can teach german
even though you can't speak it. You may be able to speak german
but don't have the credentials, so you can't
teach it even though you can speak it. So we're now going to
put the kids in a german class with a non-
german speaker with the right credentials. We do that every day
in this country today and it's stupid. We
should abolish it tomorrow morning. And i want you to
understand the difference between the two models. I
also understand that this is the moral purpose of this course.
This course is essentially a moral course. It is
essentially arguing there is an America, America is good, that
that's it's worth doing but there's citizenship and
citizenship is your responsibility. That it's a partnership,
which means you have to meet your half of the
partnership.
Dale O'Connor
no hamburger flipping jobs, there are first
jobs. Any first job is good because it teaches you to go to
work. That only makes sense if you're thinking
about it in a continuum. Makes no sense, if all of life --
it's the difference between a polaroid and a movie.
The polaroid you're caught right here. Well, if I'm caught
right here, i don't want to be there. Well, but what
if it's a movie, and this is act 1 of a 20 act play? Well, then
act 1 may be cool, that's all right. In addition, i
want you to think of learning as a form of power. This is a
very, very important core concept that i don't think
we teach enough. Every time i start to do something, my first
step is to learn. It's not to go do it. It's to stop
and learn. Now, how do you learn? And this, by the way,
violates all of the academic disciplines, almost all
of which by definition i think are inadequate. I would argue
you want to follow knowledge as it is needed to
solve problems. One of the great moments of my life is -- i was
at emory, i was a history major, actually i was
originally a political science major and then i switched to
history. I was at a liberal arts college and i knew i
didn't understand computers. And a friend of mine who was a
state senator said, "you ought to go over to
georgia tech and meet a guy named pete jensen at the rich
computer center," this is 1965. And i walked in to
see jensen, and jensen said, "don't learn how to program a
computer." He said, "by the time you're going to
want to use them, programming is going to be obsolete and you're
hire somebody to program them.". He said,
"that would be like teaching you how to drive by becoming a
mechanic." He said, "learn how to think about
computers." And he said, "now the first thing i want you to do
i want you to go read drucker and i want you
to learn to think about what's called project evaluation and
review technique or a pert chart," which is a way of
thinking about doing a job i'll show you later on. And i never
took a course under jensen, i just read about 50
books and talked to him for hundreds of hours because i wanted to
learn. I wanted to follow the knowledge.
Dale O'Connor
course, Dr. Minnix has a history degree and i have a
history degree and i think we can reasonably match our standards
in the amount we've read with most
historians and we can match the course preparation. The truth
is this is in the best sense of the old-fashioned
word a liberal arts course. This is a course of trying to think
through life and trying to think through society
and trying to think through culture and whichever discipline we
need to borrow from for the purpose of the
course, we'll just borrow it. They can sue us later. The
essence is -- the essence of the course is applying
American civilization's principles to problem solving. So first
you got to figure out what are the principles of
American civilization and now how do we apply them to solve
problems? Example: list five rules, i want you
to try to do this for a second. List five rules you would tell
an immigrant the first day they arrived in America.
How would you teach them the children? Just think about it.
Somebody walks up to you says, "hi, i landed
today, i got off the airplane in atlanta." "i came from country
x." "i want to be an American." Give me an
example. What's one example you can give me? >> learn the
language. >> learning. See, you are already
in -- you already made a very key point. Should they really
learn english? Isn't that sort of discriminating
against their own language? >> yeah, they should. >> yeah,
they should. There's a very practical reason
they should. There is a very pragmatic reason they should. If
you are going to be in this commercial
economy, you better speak the language of the people who have the
money. >> learn the social customs.
>> learn the social customs. Give me an example of the social
customs. >> well, modes of dress, things
that we eat, times that we eat. >> okay. Of course when you
say things that we eat, this is the most diverse
world civilization on the planet about things we eat, but there
are limits.
Dale O'Connor
and there were long days when it was very lonely and
i was very scared. And i'd pull out that article and i think
it's okay, just keep going. And so i have a very
high value of persistence. I really do believe freedom is
frustrating. I also believe it's very, very dangerous to
protect a free society. My dad served in korea and i went as an
army brat, i went to see "the sands of iwo
jima" four times in one day. If you ever see the movie, it's
john wayne as a marine drill sergeant. He is a very
lonely and he's very tough because he's having to do to these
young people what they have to do learn to
survive on the battlefield and at the end of the movie he gets
killed. And i think it absolutely imprinted on me
the idea that you've got to be prepared to sacrifice everything
for your country if your country's going to
survive. And part of what i see public life is about is the
survival of your country. We then lived in fort riley
and i didn't even think about it until i was preparing this
class, but the people who taught me, i was nine or ten
years of age and i was hanging around with my dad and his
friends, the people who taught me about life had
served in world war ii in korea, they believe there's a term hard
training, easy mission; easy training hard
mission.
Dale O'Connor
you mean, you wouldn't get back up. It may
go back again to this work ethic concept. That established my
prejudices about work and struggle. I'm very
tough-minded about what you have to do to be a free person. I
think that character matters. I think this
whole debate over the bell curve is silly, it's nonsense, it's a
bunch of academics. And right wing academics
are as dumb as left wing academics. And the fact is what
matters in life is your character not your i. Q. And
group iq's are irrelevant. I don't want to know how well
whites score. I want to know how well you work.
Are you willing to show up? And i don't want to know that you
could in theory learn very fast except you are
a drug addict and you are unwilling to do anything while the
person next to you learns much slower but, by
the way, they put in nine hours a day and they are totally
reliable. So guess which one i want to hire? So all
this stuff about i. Q. Is i think nonsense. Tell me about
your character. Tell me whether or not you are
willing to learn. Tell me whether or not you are willing to do
things. In addition, i was taught very early that
persistence defeats all other characteristics in politics. A
wonderful newspaper man named paul walker, who
adopted me and he was my mentor when i was young, gave me one
time an article about lincoln's five defeats,
and i carried it in my wallet for years, because i couldn't
guarantee i was smarter. I couldn't guarantee i was
prettier. I couldn't guarantee i was more articulate. I could
guarantee i'd get up earlier. I'd work longer and
i'd never stop.
Gary Frazier
>Vic,
>How long hae you been around these groups?
>Most of the right-wing cretins who post here label anything left of
>Ronald Reagan "socialist."
>Rather than undermining their credibility, it only enhances it with their
>own kind.
>Peter Scotto
>Liberal, Democrat, NPR listener
Peter, I'm representing some cretins, and they're interested in pursuing
legal action against you for slander. They don't like being associated
with the right-wing nimrods who post around here, calling anyone to the
left of Attila the Hun "socialist".
Oh, great. I've just insulted nimrods everywhere...
Tom Brown
speaks extemporaneously, eh?. Thanks for posting.
Larry Hewitt
>In article <3fsnu9$o...@mudraker.mtholyoke.edu>, pscotto says...
>>
>>Vic,
>>
>>How long hae you been around these groups?
>>
>>Most of the right-wing cretins who post here label anything left of
>>Ronald Reagan "socialist."
>>
>>Rather than undermining their credibility, it only enhances it with
>their
>>own kind.
>>
>Likewise, what can you say about someone who would consider Reagan, a
>confirmed statist who favored the rapid expansion of government a
>"rightist"? At best, he was moderately pro-capitalist, but only in
>comparison to folks like Clinton.
Geez, can't you guys even agree among yourselves _who_ your heros are? At
the same time that RR is being elevated to conservative sainthood
elsewhere in this group, you call him a statist and a centrist.
Come on Lizard! Admit you are either so far right that the whole world is
left of you, or admit you're soofing us!
Larry
glindahl
: >If everyone (i.e. the world) is skewed to the left, maybe because that's
: >where most people want to be! Or maybe you're "skewed" to the right?
: >
: poverty, since most of the world does.
: I'm skewed off the chart.
You could be skewed right off the edge of several different charts!
Lizard
>
>Lizard (lizard....@vnet.net) wrote:
>: >
>: Then why do so many socialists view an attack on NPR as a personal affront? This
>: is something I've asked before, and receive no answer to. If it is true that NPR
>: is 'centrist' or 'moderate' or even 'conservative', why is that the staunchest
>: defenders are from the furthest reaches of the loony left?
>
>Who is it you're referring to?
>
etc.
>
>: Did it ever occur to you that might be because, in fact, the world is skewed
>: sharply to the left?
>
>If everyone (i.e. the world) is skewed to the left, maybe because that's
>where most people want to be! Or maybe you're "skewed" to the right?
>
By this logic, most of the world wants to live under some form of tyranny, and in abject
poverty, since most of the world does.
I'm skewed off the chart.
--
Evolution Doesn't Take Prisoners:Lizard
Usenet is a marketplace of ideas, but the majority of the vendors have
nothing to sell:Also Lizard
Please Take Note:New Provider! New Address! Same Old Ranting!
Don Porges
>In article <3fueoh$d...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Timothy M Williams says...
>>
>>Vic Ferreira (vfer...@s.psych.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>>
>>: Is it the content of NPR that makes you call them Socialist?
>>
>>Am I the only one here for whom "National Socialist" means something
>>quite distinctly different from socialist...?
>>
>A lot of people *think* that, but they'd be wrong. "National Socialist"
>is one variant of socialism, and rightfully deserves to tossed on the
>trashbin of history with all the other variants.
>
Also, guinea pigs are a kind of pig, and should be served as pork; also,
hot dogs are a kind of dog, and should be walked daily.
Bill Moore
>>Ronald Reagan "socialist."
>Likewise, what can you say about someone who would consider Reagan, a
>confirmed statist who favored the rapid expansion of government a
>"rightist"? At best, he was moderately pro-capitalist, but only in
>comparison to folks like Clinton.
In fact, Reagan was a leftist! Yeah, that's it. The Republicans are
all leftists, actually. This is obvious because most of them are
right-handed, and you better know that the left side of the brain
controls the right side of the body or I'll get your street paved over
except why the hell should my taxes pay for that which proves that Clinton
is a philanderer who makes me really mad because Hitler was a leftist!
The upshot of all of this is that because I am so opinionated I shouldn't
have to pay any taxes and can be really, really mad about it. I didn't pay
any taxes back in the 70s when I was a mountain man in Appalachia but since
I rejoined society I found out I'm a libertarian and believe the free market
is God and that people who go hungry probably do so because they listen to
NPR too much and you sure as hell better not use my money to help them or I'll
be really, really mad. Did I mention that I was mad??
Rational responses only, please :-)
Bill
Chuck Romberger
>In fact, Reagan was a leftist! Yeah, that's it. The Republicans are
>all leftists, actually. This is obvious because most of them are
>right-handed, and you better know that the left side of the brain
>controls the right side of the body or I'll get your street paved over
>except why the hell should my taxes pay for that which proves that Clinton
>is a philanderer who makes me really mad because Hitler was a leftist!
>The upshot of all of this is that because I am so opinionated I shouldn't
>have to pay any taxes and can be really, really mad about it. I didn't pay
>any taxes back in the 70s when I was a mountain man in Appalachia but since
>I rejoined society I found out I'm a libertarian and believe the free market
>is God and that people who go hungry probably do so because they listen to
>NPR too much and you sure as hell better not use my money to help them or
I'll
>be really, really mad. Did I mention that I was mad??
>
>Rational responses only, please :-)
>Bill
A rational response:
How have you "helped" someone not go hungry by asking person A
(a congressperson) to take money from person B (evil greedy property
owner) to feed C (poor downtrodden individual). If you actually cared
about the poor, hungry, and downtrodden then you would FORCE someone
else to fix the problem. If you really care, you make someone "do the
right thing" by taking their property and giving to those who "need".
I guess i was in a different kindergarten class when the subject of
sharing and caring came up! Sharing and caring by governmental edict
(force) doesn't make sense. If you care, YOU fix things that are broke.
If you care really deeply we will MAKE everyone care as deeply as you.
All poverty and injustice will disappear because the feds gets involved.
Did i mention i was sad? YOU CAN'T FORCE IT, IT WON'T WORK.
Irrational flame responses only please.
Scott C Nichols
>
> As far as socalism goes, in the past two weeks PBS (with government
>money) has devoted the better part of two weeks to:
>
> 1. Bill Moyers telling us that the solution to crime in america
> is more social spending and censorship of television.
I really like how Mr. Moyers' program is summed up in 19 words, after all
his report on poverty was what 6 hours long? I don't know, I didn't get
to see this program. Therefore, 19 words, should be able to sum up a
long serious discussion of crime in America.
>
> 2. Multiple Days of Propoganda and revisionist history covering
> Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. (The answer of course is that
> welfare only failed because we didn't spend enough money and
> that the federal government should have spent more effort building
> shadow governments run by people on public assistance with
> federal money).
>
>
Likewise, the program on LBJ's Great Society summarized in a few
sentences.
Note, no actual facts on how either of these programs are socialistic,
just blatant sound bites. So, what you are trying to tell me is that
both of these programs did not present both sides of either argument? It
was just left wing propaganda?
> While I can't call NPR socialist, these programs were very
>specifically socialist in ideals, solutions and political dogma.
Why does everyone talk about socialism as a *bad* thing? It seems to me
that the ideal socialist society would not be a bad thing, if it actually
worked. Likewise for communism. As Churchhill once said, "If you're not
liberal when you are 20, you have no heart; if you're not conservative
when you are 40, you have no brain" (or something like that).
If human beings weren't corrupted by power, greed, etc., these evil
socialistic ideas could work, but I guess we haven't evolved to the point
where friendship and love are more important than money & property.
Scott Nichols
s...@nmia.com
Lizard
says...
>
>In article <3g25dd$8...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
>mswi...@palette.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael R Swihart) wrote:
>
>> I honestly do not understand this paragraph. When and how do you
>> pay to support the opinions of Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrinch?
>
>Ah, Mike, they are federal officials, and their salaries come out of our
>pockets.
A solution.
Why not a three check-off boxes on your Income Tax form? Check 1 to give
a dollar to pay the President, 1 to give 50 cents to each of your
senators, and one to give 50 cents to your representative.
Lizard
Cute, but irrelevant. What evidence do you offer that the collectivist,
centrally controlled state of National Socialism differs in any
*meaningful* way from the collectivist, centrally controlled state of
International Socialism?
Whether the mythical collective is called "the Master Race" or "the
Workers" is irrelevant;it remains a non-existent god to which all of
value will be sacrificed, until there is nothing left to feed it and it
consumes itself.
Vic Ferreira
(Sorry about the delay... busy times...)
liz...@vnet.net (Lizard) writes:
>In article <3fs7th$g...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Vic Ferreira says...
>>
>>You know, you are one of a number of people who refer to NPR as
>>"National Socialist Radio". Besides being a brand of this childish
>>name calling that people like Rush Limbaugh revel in, it is
>>*false*, plain and simple.
>>
>Then why do so many socialists view an attack on NPR as a personal
>affront? This is something I've asked before, and receive no answer
>to. If it is true that NPR is 'centrist' or 'moderate' or even
>'conservative', why is that the staunchest defenders are from the
>furthest reaches of the loony left?
I don't believe this claim. Last week, when the subcommittee of the
whatever was being broadcast on NPR, one person who came forward
staunchly defending NPR as it currently stands is a Republican
Member of Congress from, I think, New York.
Regardless, your argument does not follow. The contents of public
libraries could hardly be called "socialist" or "leftist", but if
attempts were made to eliminate public library systems, people from
the "loony left" would protest. People on the "loony left" don't
assume that the mere fact that something is government funded makes
it subversive and dangerous.
[snip]
[stuff about reducing military funding and what not deleted...]
>I'd say so. America practices a form of 'corporate socialism' where
>corporations are no longer truly capitalist entities but de facto
>branches of the government. We should end ALL such corporate
>subisdies, including tariffs and import duties.
Look, if your position is really that the government should end all
funding to all possible things, then I'll certainly give you
credit for consistency. I won't, however, give you credit for insight.
It's an empirical question (and, ironically, probably impossible to
answer) as to whether a near-anarchistic or near-socialistic system
is "better" (I won't even try to define "better"). My opinion is that
the Libertarian, laissez faire approach is a recipe for increased
socio-economic stratification and increased social injustice.
But that's just an opinion.
>>Grab some perspective. That you even suggest that NPR is "Socialist"
>>undermines the credibility of everything else you say.
>>
>That you deny it undermines the credibility of what YOU say. Balls in your
>court.
This returns us to the original argument, then: Is NPR socialist? I
think this one is easy. People have been going nuts on this newsgroup
(and everywhere, I s'pose) on whether NPR is "liberal", or has a
leftist bias, and I think that there's a legitimate argument there.
The point of my original post, though, was that the political spectrum
in the United States is itself so far to the right, that no part of it
overlaps with socialism. If NPR were socialist, it would be
lambasting Clinton everyday for being too conservative (read The
Nation...). Maybe you want to make your own private definition of
socialism for U.S. politics (like has been done with the term
"liberal"), but who would care then? I could call NPR "National
Fascist Radio", and then redefine "fascism" as being in line with the
Democratic Party platform...
Vic
M. Bakalor
Dale O'Connor <dal...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Prof. Gingrich 1/7/95: The point I'm trying to make
Dale, big guy, take a deep breath and SHUT UP! I respect your opinion but
posting dozens of random thoughts on "rofessor gingrich?" Come on guy,
get a grip. What is the "point your trying to make?"
>"To communicate is
> the beginning
> of understanding."
Yah, but next time, do it in one post huh, kiddo?
Mark
--
Mark Bakalor 1722 Cheney Drive San Jose, CA 95128 408-995-6275
Chair - San Jose Youth Commission / Chief of Staff - Junior State of Amer.
<A href="http://www.hal.com/~barry/Mark/">Check out my home page.</A>
Dale O'Connor
>Dale, big guy, take a deep breath and SHUT UP! I respect your opinion but
>posting dozens of random thoughts on "rofessor gingrich?" Come on guy,
>get a grip. What is the "point your trying to make?"
Those weren't Dale's thoughts. That was a segment of Newt's 1/7/95
lecture -- his thoughts -- and in sequence, at least on my Trumpet reader.
Why so many posts? Trumpet will take only so much wind at a time.
Why did I post? Not everyone can get over to http://www.pff.org -- to
take it all in, in one gulp -- all two hours, with no paragraph markers.
And I want everyone to know where Newt is coming from and where he wants
us to go.
BTW, the 1/14/95 lecture is now available at http://www.pff.org. All
kinds of caveats about not redistributing at the top.
Those caveats and restrictions weren't posted for the 1/7/95 lecture.
And then Pat Schroeder had that press conference on piglets in a trench
and real men hunting giraffes. That same segment -- on live action video --
even made it to the tabloid network TV shows this week.
They didn't need to restrict access to the other nine lectures. Nothing
nearly as good as in lecture one.
Dale
Dale O'Connor
>>Dale, big guy, take a deep breath and SHUT UP! I respect your opinion but
>>posting dozens of random thoughts on "rofessor gingrich?"
Kids, this is why Dale has so much time to tell you everything you need
to know about Professor Gingrich -- and more.
Didn't you Generation Xers hear about all of those big corporations
shedding thousands of managers and others in the 90s? Your parents
might have been among them.
Well, it happened to me three years ago. My bronze parachute did pretty
well in the markets in 1992 and 1993. But Ginny Maes and Mutual Funds
and Bonds took a dive in 1994 and my parachute almost hit the ground.
I'd really like to have a job again that would keep me much, much too
busy to post this nonsense.
No more lifetime employment. Perhaps no more Social Security down the
road. Darwinism reigns. A lot of the animals don't make it.
But you guys will take care of yourselves.
When you go out and finally get a good job, save at least 20 percent of
what you earn and invest it as wisely as you can. And then be very
careful about the people you send to Washington. If they mess up
future markets by buying votes for '96 with tax credits, here's what
is going to happen to your money for your "golden" years.
\
\
\
\
\
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dale
"To communicate is
the beginning
of understanding."
Brian K. Yoder
>Peter, I'm representing some cretins, and they're interested in pursuing
>legal action against you for slander. They don't like being associated
>with the right-wing nimrods who post around here, calling anyone to the
>left of Attila the Hun "socialist".
I have always been astounded that so many people claim that Attilla was
the opposite of a socialist. Do you REALLY think he was anything but
an advocate of unlimited (and brutal) government power? Sounds like an
early socialist to me.
--Brian
--
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human |
| byo...@netcom.com| freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the |
| US Networx, Inc. | creed of slaves." -- William Pitt |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
Andy Royle Psuedo user
>In article <3g6uli$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Vic Ferreira says...
>>
>>
>>(Sorry about the delay... busy times...)
>>
>>liz...@vnet.net (Lizard) writes:
>
>>>Then why do so many socialists view an attack on NPR as a personal
>>>affront? This is something I've asked before, and receive no answer
>>>to. If it is true that NPR is 'centrist' or 'moderate' or even
>>>'conservative', why is that the staunchest defenders are from the
>>>furthest reaches of the loony left?
>>
>>I don't believe this claim. Last week, when the subcommittee of the
>>whatever was being broadcast on NPR, one person who came forward
>>staunchly defending NPR as it currently stands is a Republican
>>Member of Congress from, I think, New York.
>>
>oxymoronicness. The NY Republican party is VERY liberal. They tend to be
>anti-gun, pro-tax, etc...they are just marginally to the right of the NY
>Democrats, who in turn are marginally to the right of Mao.
>
I would disagree on this. Most southern democrats are now
southern republicans! (as of November)
Even before then, most southern democrats were a lot more conservative
then your average northern republican, I think. Having lived in
the north for a while (and voted Republican), and currently living
in the south (and voting Democrat), I find suitable (to me) politicians hard
to find down here.
[9 pages of 29 different posts deleted]
Joseph Guerrant
>In article <3ft4bg$h...@dhostwo.convex.com> vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>>
>> As far as socalism goes, in the past two weeks PBS (with government
>>money) has devoted the better part of two weeks to:
>>
>> 1. Bill Moyers telling us that the solution to crime in america
>> is more social spending and censorship of television.
>I really like how Mr. Moyers' program is summed up in 19 words, after all
>his report on poverty was what 6 hours long? I don't know, I didn't get
>to see this program. Therefore, 19 words, should be able to sum up a
>long serious discussion of crime in America.
Well, many people probably did see the show, so a long long reprise
of the whole thing would probably bore them. ;)
>>
>> 2. Multiple Days of Propoganda and revisionist history covering
>> Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. (The answer of course is that
>> welfare only failed because we didn't spend enough money and
>> that the federal government should have spent more effort building
>> shadow governments run by people on public assistance with
>> federal money).
>>
>>
>Likewise, the program on LBJ's Great Society summarized in a few
>sentences.
>Note, no actual facts on how either of these programs are socialistic,
>just blatant sound bites. So, what you are trying to tell me is that
>both of these programs did not present both sides of either argument? It
>was just left wing propaganda?
>> While I can't call NPR socialist, these programs were very
>>specifically socialist in ideals, solutions and political dogma.
>Why does everyone talk about socialism as a *bad* thing? It seems to me
>that the ideal socialist society would not be a bad thing, if it actually
>worked. Likewise for communism. As Churchhill once said, "If you're not
>liberal when you are 20, you have no heart; if you're not conservative
>when you are 40, you have no brain" (or something like that).
>If human beings weren't corrupted by power, greed, etc., these evil
>socialistic ideas could work, but I guess we haven't evolved to the point
>where friendship and love are more important than money & property.
I think a lot of the time people value money and property in terms
of friendship and love. Just that they'd prefer to use it the way
they think is right. Other times, perhaps not.
Aren't families sort of socialistic, often? Some religous
communities? Does socialism have to exist at the point of a gun?
Could people opt out of it if they wanted to?
--
Joe Guerrant - jg...@primenet.com
Mike Jones
>In article <D2z0I...@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, Don Porges says...
>>
>>In article <3g17qm$6...@ralph.vnet.net>, Lizard <liz...@vnet.net> wrote:
>>>A lot of people *think* that, but they'd be wrong. "National Socialist"
>>>is one variant of socialism, and rightfully deserves to tossed on the
>>>trashbin of history with all the other variants.
>>Also, guinea pigs are a kind of pig, and should be served as pork; also,
>>hot dogs are a kind of dog, and should be walked daily.
>Cute, but irrelevant. What evidence do you offer that the collectivist,
>centrally controlled state of National Socialism differs in any
>*meaningful* way from the collectivist, centrally controlled state of
>International Socialism?
Perhaps because the National Socialist state was, by design and by
philosophy, controlled by the "Master Race" people. While an analogous
situation was certainly true of the communist states we have
experience of, it is not true of the philosophy of socialism.
The fact that capitalism works much better in practice than socialism
is due much more to its having a better correspondance with the actual
behavior of people than to its being more "right" than socialism in
any metaphysical sense. The measure of a system is how well it works
for the people who live under it. If people were different, socialism
could work. If it worked better for people who freely chose it, it
would be a better system.
>Whether the mythical collective is called "the Master Race" or "the
>Workers" is irrelevant;it remains a non-existent god to which all of
>value will be sacrificed, until there is nothing left to feed it and it
>consumes itself.
The fact that you appear to believe that the National Socialist
goverment used the idea of collectivism as anything other than a
buzzword to get themselves elected into a position where they could
seize power seriously undermines your credibility. Anyone who talkes
about "collectives" while operating a police state is clearly doing so
only to hide their true intentions.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
A bad compromise is better than a good battle.
- Russian proverb
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>Yup, probably is. I don't think we'll ever have a fully privatized
military so
>long as there is any shred of government left, but we could reduce it to
a small
>force devoted *solely* to territorial defense, with an even smaller but
>well-funded and equipped force devoted to rescue of American citizens
held by
>terrorists or the like. (Though in truth, I'd like to see this aspect
handled
>by private insurance) Let corporations which operate overseas hire
mercenaries
>to defend their holdings, and pass the costs directly on to their
consumers.
>This helps make sure that goods produced in foreign countries reflect
the true
>costs of doing business there. You liberals should appreciate that.
Insurance companies could hire these same mercenaries to rescue tourists
who had taken out a "terrorism" insurance policy with them.
Lizard
>
<Attempt at humor deleted>
Hmm. Satirizing your opponents is good form, but good satire must contain
elements of truth. I'll give you a B for effort, but a D for execution.
Lizard
>
>In article <3ft4bg$h...@dhostwo.convex.com> vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser)
writes:
>>
>> As far as socalism goes, in the past two weeks PBS (with government
>>money) has devoted the better part of two weeks to:
>>
>> 1. Bill Moyers telling us that the solution to crime in america
>> is more social spending and censorship of television.
>
>I really like how Mr. Moyers' program is summed up in 19 words, after all
>his report on poverty was what 6 hours long? I don't know, I didn't get
>to see this program. Therefore, 19 words, should be able to sum up a
>long serious discussion of crime in America.
>
wasn't. It could be summed up not in 19 words, but two:Capitalism Sucks. Then
again, the bulk of political programs on PBS can be summed up in just the same
way. It is what their sponsors PAY them to say, just like the commercial
networks need to support consumerism.
>
>Why does everyone talk about socialism as a *bad* thing?
For much the same reason we talk about being eaten alive by rabid ants as a
bad thing. Becuase it is.
> It seems to me
>that the ideal socialist society would not be a bad thing, if it actually
>worked.
a)Even if it 'worked', it would be a bad thing.
b)It won't work.
> Likewise for communism. As Churchhill once said, "If you're not
>liberal when you are 20, you have no heart; if you're not conservative
>when you are 40, you have no brain" (or something like that).
>
I was never a liberal.
>If human beings weren't corrupted by power, greed, etc., these evil
>socialistic ideas could work, but I guess we haven't evolved to the point
>where friendship and love are more important than money & property.
>
Friendship and love are impossible without selfishness. Communism fails not
because human beings are too evil, but because human beings are too GOOD. We
are too good to believe we should be as willing to give a kidney to a perfect
stranger as to our own spouse or child. We are too good to willingly devote
the greatest effort we can muster to feed and house an ungrateful wretch who
views our work as his due for the mere fact of his existence. We are
too good to live for nothing but the needs of others, to view our own
existence as a torment eased solely by racing to the altar to be
sacrificed. Humankind has never reached the state of total moral depravity
that would be necessary for communism to work.
Lizard
>>Then why do so many socialists view an attack on NPR as a personal
>>affront? This is something I've asked before, and receive no answer
>>to. If it is true that NPR is 'centrist' or 'moderate' or even
>>'conservative', why is that the staunchest defenders are from the
>>furthest reaches of the loony left?
>
>I don't believe this claim. Last week, when the subcommittee of the
>whatever was being broadcast on NPR, one person who came forward
>staunchly defending NPR as it currently stands is a Republican
>Member of Congress from, I think, New York.
>
A "New York Republican" is a lot like a "Southern Democrat", in terms of
oxymoronicness. The NY Republican party is VERY liberal. They tend to be
anti-gun, pro-tax, etc...they are just marginally to the right of the NY
Democrats, who in turn are marginally to the right of Mao.
>Regardless, your argument does not follow. The contents of public
>libraries could hardly be called "socialist" or "leftist", but if
>attempts were made to eliminate public library systems, people from
>the "loony left" would protest.
Well, yes, since they don't have anything ELSE to do with their time,
like hold down jobs.
> People on the "loony left" don't
>assume that the mere fact that something is government funded makes
>it subversive and dangerous.
>
And this is what makes them so loony.
>[snip]
>
>
>[stuff about reducing military funding and what not deleted...]
>
>>I'd say so. America practices a form of 'corporate socialism' where
>>corporations are no longer truly capitalist entities but de facto
>>branches of the government. We should end ALL such corporate
>>subisdies, including tariffs and import duties.
>
>Look, if your position is really that the government should end all
>funding to all possible things, then I'll certainly give you
>credit for consistency.
Let's simplify:My position is that we should end all government.
> I won't, however, give you credit for insight.
>It's an empirical question (and, ironically, probably impossible to
>answer) as to whether a near-anarchistic or near-socialistic system
>is "better" (I won't even try to define "better"). My opinion is that
>the Libertarian, laissez faire approach is a recipe for increased
>socio-economic stratification and increased social injustice.
Please define "social justice" as something other than "granting one
group of people the right to rob another group of people, then changing
it around again a few years later".
<deleted>
>The point of my original post, though, was that the political spectrum
>in the United States is itself so far to the right, that no part of it
>overlaps with socialism.
You must be joking. It's ALL socialist. Even the "radical right wing
Congress" won't just eliminate social security and medicare. Jesse Helms
supports farm subsidies. William F. Buckley (not a politician, but a
leading figure on the right) wrote an ode to statism called "Gratitude"
where he says it's A-OK for the State to enslave young people to pick up
trash so as to make them 'better citizens'. And the whole "right wing" of
America favors intrusion into all aspects of private life for the
"greater good of society".
> If NPR were socialist, it would be
>lambasting Clinton everyday for being too conservative (read The
>Nation...). Maybe you want to make your own private definition of
>socialism for U.S. politics (like has been done with the term
>"liberal"), but who would care then? I could call NPR "National
>Fascist Radio", and then redefine "fascism" as being in line with the
>Democratic Party platform...
>
I have no problem with agreeing that the Democratic Party platform is
fascist. :)
>
>Vic
Tom Clarke
>In article <D2z0I...@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, Don Porges says...
>>
>>In article <3g17qm$6...@ralph.vnet.net>, Lizard <liz...@vnet.net> wrote:
>>>A lot of people *think* that, but they'd be wrong. "National Socialist"
>>>is one variant of socialism, and rightfully deserves to tossed on the
>>>trashbin of history with all the other variants.
>>Also, guinea pigs are a kind of pig, and should be served as pork; also,
>>hot dogs are a kind of dog, and should be walked daily.
>Cute, but irrelevant. What evidence do you offer that the collectivist,
>centrally controlled state of National Socialism differs in any
>*meaningful* way from the collectivist, centrally controlled state of
>International Socialism?
^International Communism^
Is that what you mean?
>Whether the mythical collective is called "the Master Race" or "the
>Workers" is irrelevant;it remains a non-existent god to which all of
>value will be sacrificed, until there is nothing left to feed it and it
>consumes itself.
Sure sounds like you mean "communism".
You are today's winner of a free copy of my list of "isms"
which I award for particulary egregious abuse of "isms".
Look for your copy in your e-mail.
Tom Clarke
--
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment
and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against
the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices - Adam Smith, WofN
Jeffrey Salzberg
: Well, yes, since they don't have anything ELSE to do with their time,
: like hold down jobs.
Wow. You mean I don't *have* to spend 40-70 hours per week here in this
office?
Cool!
: > People on the "loony left" don't
: >assume that the mere fact that something is government funded makes
: >it subversive and dangerous.
: >
: And this is what makes them so loony.
Ah, so thinking for oneself is "loony". . . .
Bruce Baugh
:Geez, can't you guys even agree among yourselves _who_ your heros are? At
:the same time that RR is being elevated to conservative sainthood
:elsewhere in this group, you call him a statist and a centrist.
Define "this group". On talk.politics.libertarian, where I'm reading
this, you'll find a consensus among the regulars that, sure enough,
Reagan presided over a very rapid expansion of the powers of the
State, much of which he specifically approved of (insofar as his
submitted budgets should be taken as guides to his desires). We can
and do differ over the benefits of some of his specific policies,
but as nearly as I know he's not a hero to any t.p.l reader. He's
just somewhat less loathsome than Bush or Clinton.
Reagan's last budget differs in its priorities by about 2% from
Carter's last budget. If Carter was center-left, then a 2% change
should not amount to making Reagan right-wing, unless you're
arguing that the entire political spectrum is metastable within
about 5% of the current US budget. If you _are_ arguing that,
then it's your side (whatever that may be) that's having some
serious internal disagreements, because a few threads over
(gestures down the alphabet) folks are claiming that the whole
US spectrum is out of whack relative to the rest of the West.
bru...@teleport.com * Bruce Baugh, posting from but not for Teleport
List Manager, Christlib, where Christianity and libertarianism intersect
(E-mail to majo...@teleport.com, "subscribe christlib" in body)
"The white cells are for loading and unloading only."
Bruce Baugh
:>Likewise, what can you say about someone who would consider Reagan, a
:>confirmed statist who favored the rapid expansion of government a
:>"rightist"? At best, he was moderately pro-capitalist, but only in
:>comparison to folks like Clinton.
:
:In fact, Reagan was a leftist!
Statist <> leftist. After all, fascism and national socialism are
predicated upon very large centralized States, and yet they are not
"left" as such. Bismarck, inventor of the welfare state (and far
more honest about his motives than most of his successors) wasn't
left-wing, either.
Reagan submitted budgets, year after year, which vastly expanded
the scope of the central State. That seems like a good working
definition of statism to me, at least. He differed from his left
critics only in the purposes to which the tools would be put, not
on the principle of central control. I am here disregarding
rhetoric and looking at actions, which are far more meaningful.
Reagan talked a good minarchist game. But he never seriously
tried to play it.
Dale O'Connor
>: Well, yes, since they don't have anything ELSE to do with their time,
>: like hold down jobs.
Here's a paragraph excerpted from the 1/27/95 edition of that
great liberal publication founded by Col. McCormick,
The Chicago Tribune. The editorial is about an age discrimination suit.
<<Christine McKennon had worked for the Banner 30 years, only to be
dismissed at age 62. The company said this was part of a workforce
reduction plan, but she suspected her age had made her dispensable.
She sued and, in a deposition, admitted that while employed there she
had taken home and copied some confidential documents on the company's
finances.>>
I saw the editorial on America OnLine just before AOL went down for
maintenance and dashed off a letter to the editor.
To The Editor:
I applaud the Tribune on today's editorial. Three years ago when
I became a reluctant Ameritech early retiree at age 52, I became
for the first time since the age of 21 a political activist.
Currently tight finances mean that my activity is confined to
posting on America OnLine (mostly TIME OnLine) and on the Internet.
Neither party is addressing the problem that has such an impact
on my generation and on the economic future of all of us. And
I am unable to start a ground swell of people who care, because
most of my generation hasn't gotten online yet and they aren't
dialing into talk radio.
We must find a way to stop wasting human resources.
And even in class actions, those who once worked for the largest
corporations, can't afford the time and the funds to take them on
in court.
Age discrimination is real. It must be understood and confronted.
And here is an excerpt of an e-mail I just sent to one of
my contemporaries who is online.
"...The next thought that pops into my head is a department meeting
I attended at Illinois Bell the fall of 1969, a few months after
starting there at a feisty age 30.
Charles L. Brown had just become president of Illinois Bell. (He
went from there to AT&T and made that 1983/84 deal on divestiture
of the Bell System.) Brown spoke at the end of the day at the 1969
Corporate Communications department meeting and I observed how
few women were sitting in offices in any department. You rated your
own office at district level. In 1969, there might possibly have
been one woman at that level. It was unusual for a woman to be
hired at just below district level -- as I had been.
Brown's response to a question he hadn't expected: "That's a rather
broad question."
There were quite a few chuckles. But when refreshments were served
at 5 o'clock, several men came up to me and said they thought the
answer had been far too cavalier. ...
First there was sexism.
Then ageism --
which for women, more than men,
is combined with lookism.
And Lizard, I have been sending out resumes for three years
and have had several job interviews.
And I actually feel that posting here may be a more worthwhile
use of my time.
I'm writing not for the 100 people who post on these forums
but for the 25 million people that they say are logging on and
just reading.
Dale O'Connor
is part of Newt's hypocrisy.
So he's only taking a dollar advance. And he probably wouldn't
even be taking that -- were it not for a legal convention.
Without some kind of what is termed "consideration," you don't have
a contract.
In the 2 1/2-hour C-Span documentary taped at the Atlanta zoo
just before Newt officially became Speaker, he told C-Span's
Brian Lamb that he had no doubt that he would recoup the
$4.5 million that he has decided not to take as an advance.
Ever hear of royalties? The author gets a variable percentage
of every book sold -- whatever is in the contract. BTW, I haven't
seen what Newt's percentage will be. Someone thought it would be
one-third of the cover price. Anyone know?
It has also been pointed out, in this news group (I think), that
getting the royalties upfront as an advance gives the author some
independence from the publisher. I took a seminar taught by a
successful author of biographies on how to get published and she
advised us to go for the biggest advance our agent could get for us.
Her experience: "If the publisher has given you an advance,
the publisher will have to work hard enough at promoting your book,
to get the advance back AND more."
Not having an advance, Newt is even more beholden to what Murdoch's
publishing house will do to promote his tome.
Lizard
>
>liz...@cybernetics.net (Lizard) writes:
>>In article <D2z0I...@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, Don Porges says...
>>>
>>>In article <3g17qm$6...@ralph.vnet.net>, Lizard <liz...@vnet.net> wrote:
>>>>A lot of people *think* that, but they'd be wrong. "National Socialist"
>>>>is one variant of socialism, and rightfully deserves to tossed on the
>>>>trashbin of history with all the other variants.
>>>Also, guinea pigs are a kind of pig, and should be served as pork; also,
>>>hot dogs are a kind of dog, and should be walked daily.
>>Cute, but irrelevant. What evidence do you offer that the collectivist,
>>centrally controlled state of National Socialism differs in any
>>*meaningful* way from the collectivist, centrally controlled state of
>>International Socialism?
>
>Perhaps because the National Socialist state was, by design and by
>philosophy, controlled by the "Master Race" people.
And the socialist state will be controlled by the Workers. As mythical as the
Master Race.
>While an analogous
>situation was certainly true of the communist states we have
>experience of, it is not true of the philosophy of socialism.
One could likewise argue that according to the propogandists, rule by the Master
Race would lead mankind into a golden age of prosperity, with the 'inferior
peoples' justly controlled, for their own good, by their Rightful Leaders. And
Many Words would be Capitalized, because they Look Better that way.
>The fact that capitalism works much better in practice than socialism
>is due much more to its having a better correspondance with the actual
>behavior of people than to its being more "right" than socialism in
>any metaphysical sense.
How can a moral system which is not in tune with the actual nature of man be
'metaphysically right'? It seems the ideal metaphysical system is that which is
100% in accordance with the nature of being human;that what is morally right and
what is practically right become one.
>The measure of a system is how well it works
>for the people who live under it.
And this can be determined, in advance, by seeing how the systems jibes with
actual human needs and nature. A moral system MUST be a practical system, designed
to guide the average man in his decisions in the course of an average day. Moral
systems are not about "What do I do if a comet hits the Earth?" but "Should I
steal office supplies?"
.
>If people were different, socialism
>could work. If it worked better for people who freely chose it, it
>would be a better system.
>
The fact that people freely choose socialism, and it still fails, is telling
indeed. Whild some individuals certainly do, the average human does not loathe
himself enough to be a good socialist.
>>Whether the mythical collective is called "the Master Race" or "the
>>Workers" is irrelevant;it remains a non-existent god to which all of
>>value will be sacrificed, until there is nothing left to feed it and it
>>consumes itself.
>
>The fact that you appear to believe that the National Socialist
>goverment used the idea of collectivism as anything other than a
>buzzword to get themselves elected into a position where they could
>seize power seriously undermines your credibility.
Untrue. All of Nazism/fascism is collectivist. Consider the origin of the word
'fascism' -- the Roman symbol of office. Do you know the mythical origin of that
symbol?
Read the writings of the founders of Nazism -- they were obsessed with the Group,
the Folk, the Fatherland, the Nation, the State -- anything but The Individual.
Look at the propoganda -- masses, idenitcally dressed, marching in perfect order.
Every aspect of life from infancy to senility was made to serve the purposes of
the collective. Any individual was expendible;what mattered was the collective
good, the collective will, the collective purpose.
Nazi Germany had cradle-to-grave security, guaranteed employment, health care, and
education. It had incredible government funding for the arts. It had stiff gun
control. Hitler was a fanatical environmentalist and the Hitler Youth spent a lot
of time planting trees. In nearly every way, it put into practice all the
principles of the typical American liberal -- and it put them into practice in the
only way they ever COULD be put into practice, by means of the most brutal and
barbaric tyranny ever recorded in the history of man;by the reduction of human
beings, in some cases literally, to raw materials to be used to feed the
UberState. Nazi Germany is the ultimate example of collectivist ideals and the
results of their implementation without limit or compromise.
>Anyone who talkes
>about "collectives" while operating a police state is clearly doing so
>only to hide their true intentions.
>
A police state is inherently collectivist.
>A bad compromise is better than a good battle.
> - Russian proverb
Which explains why Russia is in the state it is in. In America, we have a
saying:"The only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow streak and some dead
possums."
Steve Brinich
> The fact that you appear to believe that the National Socialist
>goverment used the idea of collectivism as anything other than a
>buzzword to get themselves elected into a position where they could
>seize power seriously undermines your credibility. Anyone who talkes
>about "collectives" while operating a police state is clearly doing so
>only to hide their true intentions.
All police states are by definition socialist, since the State can dictate
the use of any and all property against the wishes of its nominal "owners".
--
Steve Brinich | If you won't turn off the program | Finger PGP key
ste...@digex.net| when you leave sick bay, |89B992BBE67F7B2F
GEnie: S.BRINICH | you could at least run the screensaver. |64FDF2EA14374C3E
Steve Brinich
> For the life of me, I can't find anything in the basic ideas
>of socialism that intrinsically leads to Stalins or Hitlers.
You'll find it all explained in a straighforward manner in Hayek's
_The Road To Serfdom_, in the chapter titled "Why The Worst Get On Top".
To summarize, the basic ideas of socialism (State control of the means
of production) require the State to make fiat decisions as to who gets
their economic desires granted and who doesn't. This sort of power,
and the enforcement mechanisms required to sustain it, makes high government
positions extremely attractive to people with great powerlust and small
ethics, and creates a climate of factionalism that is fertile ground for
such.
Vic Ferreira
>>Regardless, your argument does not follow. The contents of public
>>libraries could hardly be called "socialist" or "leftist", but if
>>attempts were made to eliminate public library systems, people from
>>the "loony left" would protest.
>Well, yes, since they don't have anything ELSE to do with their time,
>like hold down jobs.
[snip]
> >
> >Look, if your position is really that the government should end all
> >funding to all possible things, then I'll certainly give you
> >credit for consistency.
>Let's simplify:My position is that we should end all government.
Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight. I'm debating whether
NPR should get gov't funding with an anarchist??!?
Don't you have bigger fish to fry? I would think that you'd be fighting
the rule of law someplace else...
[snip]
>Please define "social justice" as something other than "granting one
>group of people the right to rob another group of people, then changing
>it around again a few years later".
Egads. I imagine that people like Thomas Jefferson are a tad too
socialist for you, but even they acknowledged that social injustices
follow in our economic system because rich people die with all their
money, and give it to their kids who didn't have to work for it. Poor
people, on the other hand, die with no money, and have nothing to pass
on to their kids besides their debts, who now, if they can, must work
their way out of it. You may give me some crap about evolution not
taking any prisoners, but any civilized person's sense of justice must
claim that it is wrong for a person to be relegated to any role in a
society merely because of the position they were born into.
And on that note, I exit this thread. If I wanted to discuss social
policy within various political and economic systems, I'd read
talk.politics or something. Unfortunately, I cannot. I guess I'm
just one of those weird exceptions on the loony left who has something
better to do with his time.
Yours,
Vic
Mike Jones
>In article <3gdu0r$p...@usenet.rpi.edu>, Mike Jones says...
>>Likewise, there's nothing in the basic ideas of capitalism that leads
>>to Pinochets. Socialism does not, at base, require a strong state. In
>>fact, it argues rather against it.
>Socialism does require a strong state, because nothing else could compel
>people to act against their own self interest. Capitalism is the natural
>state of man once technology has progressed beyond the hunter-gatherer stage.
>Any other form of economic organization mandates a powerful central
>government to enforce it. Some might argue that this a lesser evil, but the
>evidence does not bear it out.
I don't really want to continue this discussion any farther, because
we have reached the Libertarian Impasse (tm).
Belief that capitalism is the "natural state" of man is an incredibly
short-sighted view in light of history. Looking at the
post-hunter-gatherer history of man, capitalism occupies such a small
fraction of history that it seems incredibly premature to say that it
is the "natural state". For hundreds of years, feudalism was believed
to be the natural state of man. It is effectively impossible to
continue the discussion beyond this point, because one side assumes
its conclusion - that the favored system is right because of the
natural order of things - and ignores the observed fact that human
society is a changeable (and constantly changing) thing.
>>>>The fact that capitalism works much better in practice than socialism
>>>>is due much more to its having a better correspondance with the actual
>>>>behavior of people than to its being more "right" than socialism in
>>>>any metaphysical sense.
>>>How can a moral system which is not in tune with the actual nature of man
>be
>>>'metaphysically right'? It seems the ideal metaphysical system is that
>which is
>>>100% in accordance with the nature of being human;that what is morally
>right and
>>>what is practically right become one.
>>If "being in tune with the actual nature of man" equaled
>>"metaphyscially right", there would be no sin.
>Certainly there would. Acting against the nature of man would be sin. Free
>will means we don't always make the correct choices.
But how can one act against one's nature? What does this mean? Does
man, as a species, have a nature, which inidividuals may act counter
to? If so, where does that leave the individual? Do individuals each
have their own nature? If so, how can anyone act against his own
nature? Isn't anything an individual does freely in accord with his
nature?
>>Dragging morals into
>>discussions of governmental systems is a difficult business
>Discussing governmental systems without morals is a futile business.
Quite the contrary. Discussing governmental systems without morals is
THE ONLY way to ensure inidividual liberties. The only appropriate
restrictions on invidivual liberties are those agreed to as necessary
for the survival of the society (speaking philosophically). Neither
your, my, or Larry Flynt's morals have anything to do with that.
Morals are *individual* codes of conduct. Government has no business
telling me what my individual code should be. They can tell me how I
should behave in certain areas relative to other members of society,
but the line gets drawn right there.
>>; morals
>>are the domain of the individual.
>And government rules individuals and, in theory, protects the liberties of
>individuals. Said theory is pretty damn theoretical from where I sit.
Government rules the interactions between individuals. Believing that
government rules the actual individuals is the genesis of tyranny.
>> Systems can be judged in this
>>context only by the extent to which they allow or prevent moral
>>actions on the part of the individuals they comprise. The complicating
>>factor is that morals, like systems, are not universal. The system
>>under which a person lives affects his ideas of morals. A serf may
>>well have truly believed that it was immoral to not give obeisance to
>>the king, though that idea is replusive an immoral to what we would
>>today call a "free man".
>Why do you assume that belief==reality? You would not hold up the
>mathematical system of the serf (One, two, many) or his planetology (The
>earth is a disk, the stars move in crystal spheres) as equal to modern
>calculus or astronomy;why do you grant his moral knowledge any more validity
>than his scientific knowledge?
That's an, um, very interesting historical view. Firstly, you should
know that there were systems in China that were essentially feudal
with vastly greater scientific knowledge than in the European dark
ages. You should also realize that even the serfs could count their
money and figure out how much grain to plant, if nothing else. Your
characterization of their mathematical skills is more appropriate only
to the most primitive aborigines.
Secondly, why should their level of scientific knowledge have any
particular bearing on their level of moral knowledge? If you wish to
claim that we are more advanced morally for the same reasons we are
more advanced scientifically (i.e., we've had more time to work on
it), I would give that a better hearing.
Thirdly, what do moral beliefs have to do with reality? You cannot
objectively prove that capitalism is a better system in the context of
some external reality. Man is the measure of his systems. Morals are
all about beliefs. Reality enters only when people act upon those
beliefs. Hence, again, the idea that government should govern actions.
Not beliefs, ergo not morals.
>>If a socialist state *intrinsically required*
>>a Stalin in order to operate, then we could say a lot about the moral
>>rightness of the system.
>It does, and thus, we can.
Except that it doesn't. I have already postulated that socialism is
not, given the current state of people, a workable system. The idea
that imposing a non-workable system produces pathological results
should not be surprising. A socialist system that grew normally (and
again, I freely admit that human nature would have to be different
than it is today) would not intrinsically require a Stalin. There's a
lot of difference between looking at something and concluding that it
won't work and concluding that it is evil. This is, in a way, a
defining difference between socialism and National Socialism as
observed in our world. Contrary to your claims above, National
Socialism did not promise utopia for everyone, but merely for the
master race. The path to that utopia required subjugating the
inferiors. This is the basic premise. Socialism, by contrast, merely
puts forth a set of rules for performing economic transactions.
>> Since it doesn't, the water is much more
>>murky. If such a state does not have that as an intrinsic requirement,
>>but we have observed practically that it almost always leads in that
>>direction, we can conclude that the system doesn't work very well in
>>the real world and is probably a mistake (at least at this point in
>>human history - I have a feeling Jefferson's ideas would not have
>>worked very well in the Middle Ages)
>I used to think that, but now, I am not so sure. Liberty is a contagious
>disease, and usually fatal to kings of all sorts. It's easy to claim that
>some people "are not ready for freedom", and thus, need some sort of
>benevolent overlord to 'guide' them to liberty. (This argument is
>usually advanced by liberals to explain the post-colonial dictatorships of
>Africa) What people are often not ready for is *democracy* -- but democracy
>is not a synonym for freedom. Democracy only works in a culture where people
>are taught, from a very early age, that there are fundemental rights which
>belong to all humans which cannot be infringed upon. Give democracy to a
>people still immersed in collectivist tribal warfare, and the largest gang
>will 'democratically' order the execution of all the smaller gangs.
>Liberty, on the other hand, can grow anywhere. Nearly all humans, except the
>most depraved, can quickly learn that they must take full responsibility for
>their own lives, and, if they butt into OTHER people's lives, will get a
>ploughshare bonked over their head.
This is a very odd set of statements. How do you propose to have
liberty without democracy (or at least a republic arrangement)? Would
a benevolent dictatorship suffice?
>>>>The measure of a system is how well it works
>>>>for the people who live under it.
>>>And this can be determined, in advance, by seeing how the systems jibes
>with
>>>actual human needs and nature. A moral system MUST be a practical system,
>designed
>>>to guide the average man in his decisions in the course of an average day.
>Moral
>>>systems are not about "What do I do if a comet hits the Earth?" but "Should
>I
>>>steal office supplies?"
>>Here's your basic confusion. Socialism and capitalism, and even
>>democracy, are not moral systems.
>No, but they *derive* from moral systems. You cannot discuss any of the
>above without eventually hitting a moral credo. "The majority should rule" --
>is a moral credo, and not a very good one.
Fascinating. Under capitalism, and under democracy, the majority
*does* rule - products with few buyers tend to disappear, small voting
interests do not get represented.
>>They are social and economic
>>systems. They cannot be judged to have moral value except by observing
>>the moral effects they have on individuals.
>>It is often not possible to determine ahead of time how well a system
>>will work. Systems that work in one place, at one time, for one group
>>of people, may not work as well - or at all - for others.
>>It surprises me to find this confusion so often among libertarians.
>>People who are so dedicated to the importance of the individual should
>>not make the mistake of imparting qualities that are essentially
>>individual - such as morality - as inherent qualities of economic
>>systems. It makes no sense to say that socialism is immoral, or that
>>capitalism is greedy, or that democracy is slothful, any more than it
>>makes sense to say that your automobile is lazy when it does not start
>>on a winter morning.
>The components of my automobile are not volitional and do not have desires.
>The components of an economic system -- do. Ignoring this has been the fatal
BUT THE SYSTEM ITSELF DOES NOT. Sorry for shouting, but this is a big
point.
>flaw of social engineers since day one. Humans aren't predictable mechanisms.
>All it takes is one human acting in a way contrary to predictions to destroy
>the system. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the people act in a predictable
>manner -- a single maverick is all it takes. One Marx or Jefferson or Rand or
>Hitler or Edison can, literally, change the world. (How many Polish
>electricians does it take to topple an empire?)
The problem is that most systems are stable most of the time. It
*does* matter whether 99.99% of the people act in a predictable
manner, becuase if that were not true there would *be* no such thing
as a social system. Yes, there are mavericks, but you overstate their
individuality. Would Jefferson have had the same ideas or the same
success had he grown up a serf in feudal Austria? Edison in 3rd
century Micronesia?
>>>>>Whether the mythical collective is called "the Master Race" or "the
>>>>>Workers" is irrelevant;it remains a non-existent god to which all of
>>>>>value will be sacrificed, until there is nothing left to feed it and it
>>>>>consumes itself.
>>>>The fact that you appear to believe that the National Socialist
>>>>goverment used the idea of collectivism as anything other than a
>>>>buzzword to get themselves elected into a position where they could
>>>>seize power seriously undermines your credibility.
>>>Untrue. All of Nazism/fascism is collectivist. Consider the origin of the
>word
>>>'fascism' -- the Roman symbol of office. Do you know the mythical origin of
>that
>>>symbol?
>>Yes. Do you realize there is a difference between a team and a press
>>gang?
>There is claimed to be a difference, but in reality, it tends to be minimal.
>The primary difference is freedom of entrance and egress -- no one was free
>to choose to be, or not be, a member of whatever ethnic classification the
>Nazi's decided to dump them in. Hence, a press gang, and not a team.
I completely fail to understand how someone who professes to be a
libertarian and speaks well of Rand can think that the difference
between a team and a press gang is minimal. To me, the difference is
critical.
>Any time a society claims there is a higher moral question than "What's in it
>for me?", that society is doomed. America was the first society founded on
>that question;life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inherently
>individual things.
And the very point of having a society rather than anarchy is the
recognition that SOMETIMES, "what's in it for me" MUST be suborned to
"what's in it for US". I fail to see the superiority of a system where
people lose their liberty individually because they would not cede a
bit of it in order to maintain the rest collectively, and so did
Jefferson. Or, as Franklin said, "if we do not hang together, we will
most assuredly all hang separately." The men at the Consitutional
Congress bound together exactly because they realized that a certain
amount of collective strength was necessary to maintaining individual
liberty. Failing to realize this does their memory a disservice.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
It's an old mathematical truism that there are only three good
numbers - none, one, and all. The programming equivalent is that you should
be suspicious of any constant in your code other than zero or one.
- P. J. Plauger
Bruce Baugh
:Nazi Germany had cradle-to-grave security, guaranteed employment, health care, and
:education. It had incredible government funding for the arts. It had stiff gun
:control. Hitler was a fanatical environmentalist and the Hitler Youth spent a lot
:of time planting trees. In nearly every way, it put into practice all the
:principles of the typical American liberal -- and it put them into practice in the
:only way they ever COULD be put into practice, by means of the most brutal and
:barbaric tyranny ever recorded in the history of man;
You were doing fine up to this last clause. A variety of tyrants have beat
out Hitler this century: Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot for starters. As a percentage
of population, I believe Idi Amin also beats him out. Not to defend Hitler -
he is in the first rank of butchers and will be for a long time to come. But
he had rivals and superior in the fiedl.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bru...@teleport.com * Bruce Baugh, posting from but not for Teleport
List Manager, Christlib, where Christian & libertarian concerns hang out
(E-mail to majo...@teleport.com, "subscribe christlib" in body)
Usenet Mottos, #23 in a series:
"The unconsciousness of the landscape becomes complete." - Max Ernst
Joel P. Brown
Dale O'Connor <dal...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>My last post: >There is talk that the House may be re-establishing a
>>committee that got lots of headlines back in the 1950s,
>>the Committee on Un-American Activities.
Really! Where did you hear that?
>I was 15 in 1954 and from May to September kept quite a
>detailed diary -- including my take on the Army-McCarthy hearings.
>
>I didn't have to wait for Ed Murrow to unmask McCarthy. Sen.
>Symington of Missouri did it one afternoon after I came home
>from school.
They had C-Span back then? :> :> :>
>If the general electorate would only seek out more unfiltered
>information from a variety of sources.....
I agree.
--
el...@iastate.edu
Joel P. Brown
Lizard
>
<deleted>
>Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight. I'm debating whether
>NPR should get gov't funding with an anarchist??!?
>
Welcome to Usenet. Welcome to Lizard.
>Don't you have bigger fish to fry? I would think that you'd be fighting
>the rule of law someplace else...
>
Why pick and choose? It's all equally bad. Government control of the arts
and the news, however, is especially odious.
>[snip]
>
>>Please define "social justice" as something other than "granting one
>>group of people the right to rob another group of people, then changing
>>it around again a few years later".
>
>Egads. I imagine that people like Thomas Jefferson are a tad too
>socialist for you,
Did Thomas Jefferson advocate robbing the workers to support the
indigent?
>but even they acknowledged that social injustices
>follow in our economic system because rich people die with all their
>money, and give it to their kids who didn't have to work for it.
I see nothing remotely unjust about this. The money belongs to the
parents;they earned it. You might wish to argue that their children did
not earn it, and this is so, but...and please pay attention, for this is
important...NEITHER DID ANYONE ELSE. That is, while it is true that Buffy
Buffington, Jr., did not pull himself up by his fingernails to earn
Daddy's loot, none of the "poor" or "needy" have any more of a claim to
it. The money goes to Buffy Jr. not beause he has a moral right to it,
but because Buffy Sr. has a moral right to it -- including, of course,
the right to decide who will benefit from it after he goes to that big
golf club in the sky.
You might as well claim that I have an 'unfair advantage' because I
inherited a strong work ethic from my mother, and, if I have children, I
will pass this "advantage" on to them. (Yes, it is memetic inheritance,
but then, so is money.)
>Poor
>people, on the other hand, die with no money, and have nothing to pass
>on to their kids besides their debts, who now, if they can, must work
>their way out of it. You may give me some crap about evolution not
>taking any prisoners, but any civilized person's sense of justice must
>claim that it is wrong for a person to be relegated to any role in a
>society merely because of the position they were born into.
>
You have a curious sense of 'justice'. What did the poor person do to
MERIT this handout of wealth? You don't give someone something just
because they *need* it.
Further, people are not "trapped" if they happen to lack wealth. They are
trapped if they lack a certain set of social skills and learned
behaviors. Poverty, especially poverty in welfare state like modern
America, requires certain behaviors to survive;pulling yourself out of
poverty requires an alternate set of behaviors. You might wish to stop
looking at raw money, and start looking at the skill set needed to earn
it and keep it. "Give a man a dollar, and he will buy a Big Mac. Give a
man training in business management, and he will buy a McDonalds
franchise."
>
>And on that note, I exit this thread. If I wanted to discuss social
>policy within various political and economic systems, I'd read
>talk.politics or something.
That's one of the many groups this is crossposted to. :)
>Unfortunately, I cannot. I guess I'm
>just one of those weird exceptions on the loony left who has something
>better to do with his time.
>
What? Contemplating how to use other people's money to salve your
conscience?
Chuck Romberger
unelightened "pinks" out there to feel the stark fist of removal
upon their nekked buttocks.
In <3gp7e5$l...@news.iastate.edu> el...@iastate.edu (Joel P. Brown)
writes:
>
>In article <daleoc.57...@interaccess.com>,
>Dale O'Connor <dal...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>>My last post: >There is talk that the House may be re-establishing a
>>>committee that got lots of headlines back in the 1950s,
>>>the Committee on Un-American Activities.
>
>Really! Where did you hear that?
RIGHT here!!!! on the net, was it in a-albionic section?
>
>>I was 15 in 1954 and from May to September kept quite a
>>detailed diary -- including my take on the Army-McCarthy hearings.
>>
>>I didn't have to wait for Ed Murrow to unmask McCarthy. Sen.
>>Symington of Missouri did it one afternoon after I came home
>>from school.
>
>They had C-Span back then? :> :> :>
>
>>If the general electorate would only seek out more unfiltered
>>information from a variety of sources.....
They would never do that unless it was fun too!!!!!!!!!
>I agree.
So do I.
>>> me too
>>>>> me three
>>>>>>>we all agree aparently, the motion carries!!!!
Henry I. Widman
>Subj: Bobster & Newtster
>In that fine book on the 1988 primaries, "What It Takes,"
>Bob Dole was referred to as the Bobster.
>
>And now we have --
>
>The Newtster.
>
>Dale
I like "Bendover Bob" (saw this one on the net) better. It very well describes
his politics. Don't know about Mr. Newt yet. We'll see if his convictions hold
up to his rhetoric.
Henry
Henry I. Widman
AT&T Global Information Solutions - Data Services
Dayton, Ohio
hwi...@usdsd1.daytonoh.ncr.com
James A. Donald
> If everyone (i.e. the world) is skewed to the left, maybe because that's
> where most people want to be! Or maybe you're "skewed" to the right?
Or maybe taking money by force is more attractive than earning it.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind |
of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the |
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. | jam...@netcom.com
Roger Fulton
> From The New York Times 1/28/95 -- excerpts
> "Newt's a very patient fellow and able to handle a harangue going
> on around him better than I," Armey said. "I like peace and quiet,
> and I don't have tolisten to Barney Fag - Barney Frank - haranguing
> in my ear because I made a few bucks off a book I worked on."
The response is easy.
We should just "mispronounce" Armey's last name as "Head."
--
Roger Fulton
ro...@wrq.com
Stan Knight
>WHich he deserves if he writes a popular book. Plus, did he not say he
>was giving most of it to charity? He may have even said how much.
Yes. He did not say that. There's a whole lot more to Newt's book deal
then just the money. Look in to it.
Stan Knight
|On a clear day you can see forever|
Thomas C. Hartman
>the transcribing of a stumbled word as if it were an intentional
>personal attack. And I take this exception especially in light
>of the fact that I went to the press that had the tape and explained
>to them in the best humor I could that I had simply mispronounced a
>name and did not need any psychoanalysis aboutmy subliminal or about
>my Freudian predilections." -- 1/27/95 House majority leader
> Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas)
>"I don't think it was on the tip of his tongue, but I do believe it
>was in the back of his mind. There are a lot of ways to
>mispronounce my name. That is the least common."
> 1/27/95 Rep Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
>From The New York Times 1/28/95 -- excerpts
>Headline: HOUSE GOP USES ANTI-GAY SLUR
>Reporter: JERRY GRAY
>WASHINGTON - The House majority leader, Rep. Dick Armey of Texas,
>set off a dispute on Capitol Hill on Friday...
>Armey, first privately and then on the floor of the House,
>quickly apologized to Frank for the remark, which the majority
>leader had made in an interview with a group of radio broadcasters.
>Armey said he had simply misprononounced Frank's name, and in his
>statement on the House floor he attacked the news media for
>reporting the remark, which he had tried to squelch, and said they were
>casting it as an "intentional personal attack" on Frank...
>...The events began as Armey was discussing with the broadcasters
>a book, to be published in April, that he has written about freedom.
>At one point in the discussion, he turned to the recent furor in the
>House over Gingrich's own book deal.
>"Newt's a very patient fellow and able to handle a harangue going
>on around him better than I," Armey said. "I like peace and quiet,
>and I don't have tolisten to Barney Fag - Barney Frank - haranguing
>in my ear because I made a few bucks off a book I worked on."
I agree Armey didn't intend to say "Barney Fag." But as Frank said, Armey was
definately thinking it.
>Dale
Thom
Jeffrey Salzberg
: I agree Armey didn't intend to say "Barney Fag." But as Frank said, Armey was
: definately thinking it.
As Frank also said, it can't "slip out" if its not in there to begin with.
Tony Criswell
> >was in the back of his mind. There are a lot of ways to
> >mispronounce my name. That is the least common."
> > 1/27/95 Rep Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Thom,
I suspect when the straight white guys got together in the lounge after
work, their pet name for Barney Frank was Barney Fag. Just a joke among
friends...right? Sorry guys. Just like when you swear among the guys,
sometime or another you're going to slip when the in-laws are around.
Well, this "pet" name came popping out on national TV.
I have no sympathy for Armey. If you have no respect for somebody when
they aren't there, you're not going to have it when they are there. If
you are a jerk in private, be prepared to be one in public.
Tony
***************************************************************
The opinions expressed above are mine. Any resemblence
between mine and my employer's are PURELY coincidental.
***************************************************************
Jean Paul Reveyoso
Uh Dick Breath (oops I mean Armey, they sound just alike) is a liar and a
hypocrite.
"If you can't be just, you can always be arbitrary."
Naked Lunch> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John G. Otto
>> In article <daleoc.55...@interaccess.com>,
>> Dale O'Connor <dal...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>> "I take strong exception to the airing of the tape and even
>> the transcribing of a stumbled word as if it were an intentional
>> personal attack. And I take this exception especially in light
>> of the fact that I went to the press that had the tape and explained
>> to them in the best humor I could that I had simply mispronounced a
>> name and did not need any psychoanalysis aboutmy subliminal or about
>> Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas)
>> "I don't think it was on the tip of his tongue, but I do believe it
>> was in the back of his mind. There are a lot of ways to
>> mispronounce my name. That is the least common."
>> [1995-01-27] Rep Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
>> From The New York Times [1995-01-28] -- excerpts
>> Headline: HOUSE GOP USES ANTI-GAY SLUR
>> Reporter: JERRY GRAY
>> ...The events began as Armey was discussing with the broadcasters
>> a book, to be published in April, that he has written about freedom.
>> At one point in the discussion, he turned to the recent furor in the
>> House over Gingrich's own book deal.
>> "Newt's a very patient fellow and able to handle a harangue going
>> on around him better than I," Armey said. "I like peace and quiet,
>> and I don't have to listen to Barney Fag - Barney Frank - haranguing
>> in my ear because I made a few bucks off a book I worked on."
>
> I agree Armey didn't intend to say "Barney Fag." But as Frank said,
> Armey was definately thinking it.
And this is a perfect illustration of radical left media bias.
So what if he was thinking that Barney Frank is a fag?
It just doesn't matter, one way or the other.
So what if Gingrich had gone ahead and written a book that "sold
like hot-cakes"? It just doesn't matter.
The flaming radical leftist media puffed on this one for all it
was worth, trying to make something really important out of what
was extremely minor.
Part of the price of free speech is hearing speech you don't like.
You may not be willing to pay that price, but I am. That does not
mean that any one should be robbed to pay the costs for distributing
speech with which one disagrees, nor that, once robbed, one should
refrain from ensuring that one's own opinions are distributed.
--
jgo ott...@freenet.tlh.fl.us
AnkerStein
Mark.O.Wilson
says...
>
>I agree Armey didn't intend to say "Barney Fag." But as Frank said,
Armey was
>definately thinking it.
So you feel that the fact that Armey called Frank a bad name when
he was angry at him, proves that Armey is a homophobe?
And by association so are the rest of the republicans?
--
Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.ncr.com
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because your mob calls itself a government, does't mean it's
legitimate.
Gun control means hitting your target.
Hugh Miller
>I agree Armey didn't intend to say "Barney Fag." But as Frank said, Armey was
>definately thinking it.
In a recent debate aired on C-SPAN with William Safire, Mary Matalin's husband quipped:
"Dick Armey called Barney Frank 'Barney Fag' and then said he'd misspoken himself. Now I ask
you, have you ever heard anyone say, 'The Titanic sagged'?"
----
Hugh Miller, Ph.D. Voice: 312-508-2727
Asst. Professor of Philosophy FAX: 312-508-2292
Loyola University Chicago Home: 312-338-2689
6525 N. Sheridan Rd. E-mail: hmi...@luc.edu
Chicago, IL 60626 WWW: http://www.luc.edu/~hmiller
PGP Public Key 4793C529: FC D2 08 BB 0C 6D CB C8 0B F9 BA 55 62 19 40 21
PowerStar
:
I agree that I don't think he intentionally meant to say Barney Fag..
however.. I think that him and some other guys were sitting around just doing
that and that was their pet name for him.. And that being the case, as it
seems rather likely, we have a senate full of guys that haven't outgrown their
High School Days.. Name Calling and Pet Names for people you don't like went
out with High School..
These people are there to make laws that benefit the populace and that do not
unfairly tread on others.. Just because a group is in the majority, doesn't
mean they have the right to tread on the minority.. That's what this country
is all about.. Something the religious right would really rather forget. And
one other little thing, if you've noticed, we keep saying that they have the
right to free speech and that everyone does.. but those people we say have the
right to free speech never give us the same luxury..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PowerStar WWW: http://www.indy.net/~daryl/
If life was fair, condoms and bra's would be one size fits all!
What happens between two consenting adults is THEIR business
NOT the governments!
Morality: What one uses to judge against someone else...
Prejudice: What one uses as a weapon against someone else...
Humanity: Opposite of Morality and Prejudice..
I am Pentium of Borg, Division if Futile, You will be Approximated.
Philip L. Peterson
: Thomas C. Hartman (thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
: > >"I don't think it was on the tip of his tongue, but I do believe it
: > >was in the back of his mind. There are a lot of ways to
: > >mispronounce my name. That is the least common."
: > > 1/27/95 Rep Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
: Thom,
: I suspect when the straight white guys got together in the lounge after
: work, their pet name for Barney Frank was Barney Fag. Just a joke among
: friends...right? Sorry guys. Just like when you swear among the guys,
: sometime or another you're going to slip when the in-laws are around.
: Well, this "pet" name came popping out on national TV.
: I have no sympathy for Armey. If you have no respect for somebody when
: they aren't there, you're not going to have it when they are there. If
: you are a jerk in private, be prepared to be one in public.
Of course why would you respect Barny Frank? I mean anyone who is in
public office and has had a prostitution racket running out of his house
doesn't chalk up any great marks for intelligence in my book.
Jeffrey Salzberg
: Uh Dick Breath (oops I mean Armey, they sound just alike) is a liar and a
: hypocrite.
: "If you can't be just, you can always be arbitrary."
Was it really necessary to quote three screens full of previous messages
in order to post your two lines of reply?
Jeffrey Salzberg
: So what if he was thinking that Barney Frank is a fag?
: It just doesn't matter, one way or the other.
Don't tell me; let me guess. You also see nothing wrong with the word
"nigger", right?
James9
> And this is a perfect illustration of radical left media bias. So what
if
> he was thinking that Barney Frank is a fag? It just doesn't matter, one
> way or the other.
I know it's embarrassing for the Republican Party to be caught with its
foot in its mouth, but I'm surprised at how easily you dismiss it. It DOES
matter, because it is a rather precise illustration of their true nature.
No one has to wade through political double-talk. Armey put it right there
in front of anyone willing to listen.
> So what if Gingrich had gone ahead and written a book that "sold like
> hot-cakes"? It just doesn't matter.
Let me tell you why this DOES matter. If you'll recall, the Republican
Party was notorious for jumping on the Democrats for all the back-room
deals that were made - deals that benefitted a few at the expense of the
American taxpayers. What does Gingrich do? He turns right around and does
the EXACT same thing. It doesn't take much to figure out that most of what
Republicans TALK about is nothing but that - TALK. Politics as usual.
> The flaming radical leftist media puffed on this one for all it was
> worth, trying to make something really important out of what was
> extremely minor.
I can understand your propensity to rationalize the relative
"unimportance" of these events, since they truly damage the credibility of
the Repubican Party. Believe me, it has nothing to do with the "radical
leftist media," and it has EVERYTHING to do with SNewts lack of integrity.
Harold Brashears
: ott...@freenet.tlh.fl.us (John G. Otto) writes:
: > So what if Gingrich had gone ahead and written a book that "sold like
: > hot-cakes"? It just doesn't matter.
: Let me tell you why this DOES matter. If you'll recall, the Republican
: Party was notorious for jumping on the Democrats for all the back-room
: deals that were made - deals that benefitted a few at the expense of the
: American taxpayers. What does Gingrich do? He turns right around and does
: the EXACT same thing. It doesn't take much to figure out that most of what
: Republicans TALK about is nothing but that - TALK. Politics as usual.
While not a republican, I would like to ask in what way Gingrich's
book deal is the EXACT same thing? Same as what? Was some
democrat pilloried for making a commercial book deal?
Philip L. Peterson
: ott...@freenet.tlh.fl.us (John G. Otto) writes:
: > And this is a perfect illustration of radical left media bias. So what
: if
: > he was thinking that Barney Frank is a fag? It just doesn't matter, one
: > way or the other.
: I know it's embarrassing for the Republican Party to be caught with its
: foot in its mouth, but I'm surprised at how easily you dismiss it. It DOES
: matter, because it is a rather precise illustration of their true nature.
: No one has to wade through political double-talk. Armey put it right there
: in front of anyone willing to listen.
Ahhh, then should we assume all liberals are racist because of the
college president who said that blacks are not genetically able to do
well in college.
To use your steorotyping logic I guess all liberals are racists.
James9
> Ahhh, then should we assume all liberals are racist because of the
> college president who said that blacks are not genetically able to do
> well in college.
I think we're addressing two entirely separate issues - In my last post, I
was attempting to point out that someone representing the Republican Party
made a very significant error, and sweeping it under the carpet wasn't
doing anything to boost credibility. The point you've made suggests that
I've attempted to paint all Republicans with the same brush - this is
simply not the case. I am well aware of the diversity that exists among
different individuals within the party.
Lizard
Oh, Gods above and below, what a straight line! (Pun intended)
--
Evolution doesn't take prisoners. -- Lizard
I like guns, because, without guns, you can't shoot people -- F. King
Whenever A annoys or injures B on the premise of saving or improving X,
A is a scoundrel -- Mencken.
Jim0123
homosexuals. He is a citizen, he as the right to like or dislike
anyone he wants.
Becoming a politician does NOT negate ones right to hold
personal opinions about any person or group one may imagine.
If Armey wants to dislike homosexuals, then he CAN. Is such
dislike incompatible with his office - NO, it isn't. The proper
'representative' may reflect any aspect of the general publics
likes and dislikes. Lots of people dislike homosexuals 'just
because' ... and Armey simply reflects their viewpoint.
It seems that 'conservatives' get judged according to 'liberal'
criteria in the media. Any politician which does not agree with
some 'liberal' precepts is judged as a 'liberal-gone-bad'. Of
course, the truth is that some people simply are NOT 'liberals'
in the first place and do not accept certain things which
'liberals' may. Armey is a "conservative-gone-GOOD" insofar
as conservatives are concerned. He should NEVER have
apologized to Frank, but instead stood by his opinion.
Nope ... all you "-ism" watchers ... I don't dislike homosexuals
one bit - perfectly fine folks in my opinion. HOWEVER, not
everyone feels that way ... and they GET THEIR SAY at every
level of government. Fair is fair.
[ Language, while a product of thought, is an imprecise
mechanism for the conveyance of thought. ]
Roger Fulton
> definately thinking it.
My solution is to misprononuce Armey's last name as "Head" every
chance I get.
What Repukelicans really want: bring back HUAC.
--
Roger Fulton
ro...@wrq.com
Lizard
Tell me, is it the word that bothers you, or the thought? Would you be
happy if you knew Army though of Sen. Frank as "Barney Fag", but simply
didn't *say* so? Do you think that Jesse Helms is less of a bigot than
David Duke, because he does not use the 'n' word, and Duke does?
Which do you prefer -- honest, open, contempt, or hatred veiled behind a
lie of pretty words? It seems we are, indeed, heading towards a new
Victorianism, where it matters not what you think, but what you say.
Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where the halls of Congress echoed
loudly with every epithet and slur known to man, than one in which the
hatred was just as real but the language a lie.
Paul H. Henry
> Gee ... you all act as if Armey didn't have any RIGHT to dislike
> homosexuals. He is a citizen, he as the right to like or dislike
> anyone he wants.
>
> Becoming a politician does NOT negate ones right to hold
> personal opinions about any person or group one may imagine.
> If Armey wants to dislike homosexuals, then he CAN. Is such
> dislike incompatible with his office - NO, it isn't.
Which would be a valid point to bring up if anyone were suggesting
that Armey ought to be arrested or removed from office in the middle
of his term for his ill-conceived remark, which no one is suggesting.
All that is being asserted is that Dick Armey is an asshole, which he
is, and that his bigoted remarks reflect badly on the Republican
Party, which they do, and that it would be nice if he were to get
voted out of office next year, which it would.
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu) ||>>>>>>>>>>>Confirm Dr. Foster!<<<<<<<<<<<
|_) || "Rights aside, how could anybody
| aul H. Henry - Lawrence, Kansas || actually love a gun?" --Larry King
==================== http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~phenry ===================
James9
> Gee ... you all act as if Armey didn't have any RIGHT to dislike
> homosexuals. He is a citizen, he as the right to like or dislike anyone
> he wants.
Of course he has this right. But let's be honest - there are culturally
acceptable ways to handle this, and then there's the way HE handled it. It
wouldn't have been any different if he'd blurted out the word "nigger"
while speaking the name of an Afro-American.
> Lots of people dislike homosexuals 'just because' ... and Armey simply
> reflects their viewpoint.
Right you are...just because of people like him. People don't HAVE to
dislike homosexuals, you know. They're TAUGHT to do this through the kind
of reinforcement provided by people like Armey.
> He should NEVER have apologized to Frank, but instead stood by his
> opinion.
He never should have apologized? Why NOT? Whether or not Armey likes
homosexuals, a public forum (a public office, no less) is NOT the place to
use derogatory epithets - to do so is nothing short of moronic.
> HOWEVER, not everyone feels that way ... and they GET THEIR SAY at every
> level of government. Fair is fair.
There are laws against defamation of character - that's fair too, I
suppose.
James9
phe...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Paul H. Henry) writes:
> All that is being asserted is that Dick Armey is an asshole, which he
is,
> and that his bigoted remarks reflect badly on the Republican Party,
which
> they do, and that it would be nice if he were to get voted out of office
> next year, which it would.
Well said.
Jeffrey Salzberg
: > Don't tell me; let me guess. You also see nothing wrong with the word
: > "nigger", right?
<deletia>
: Which do you prefer -- honest, open, contempt, or hatred veiled behind a
: lie of pretty words?
Gosh, I wasn't aware that those were the only two options.
John J. Viveiros
>From: jim...@aol.com (Jim0123)
>Subject: Re: Armey Called Frank a Fag
>Date: 26 Mar 1995 01:35:29 -0500
Then why didn't he just come out and say that he disliked gays? If you are
telling me that he lied when he said that it was not intentional and not a
"Freudian slip", then why should I support this liar.
John J. Viveiros jv...@chevron.com (work)
Midland Texas vtt...@prodigy.com (home)
If this wasn't a .com account, I wouldn't be a lurker.
Philip L. Peterson
Terry McIntyre
: In article <3knsgu$q...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Thomas C. Hartman
: says...
: >
: >I agree Armey didn't intend to say "Barney Fag." But as Frank said,
: Armey was
: >definately thinking it.
: So you feel that the fact that Armey called Frank a bad name when
: he was angry at him, proves that Armey is a homophobe?
: And by association so are the rest of the republicans?
Sounds like quite a leap of logic to me. Why don't you
infer from the scanty data that Thomas is a Liberal, left-handed,
and tell us his hair color too?
--
Terry McIntyre <tmci...@pgh.net> http://www.lm.com/~tmcintyr
Freedom is Worth Defending!
Lizard
> <deletia>
In the realm of politics, I am afraid they are. Deal with it.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
>> : Which do you prefer -- honest, open, contempt, or hatred veiled behind a
>> : lie of pretty words?
>> Gosh, I wasn't aware that those were the only two options.
>In the realm of politics, I am afraid they are. Deal with it.
Not true at all. I feel sorry for anyone whose view of the world is so sadly
limited.