OT An Open Letter to Mr. Yu

[Daniel Duffy]

Since its the height of construction season, I usually find myself on the
road managing projects and attending meetings. This hasn't given me much
time to participate in SHWI, but I do check in from time to time to see
what's happening. After coming home last night, I found this little gem:

"Today is the second anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers by
the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man. Have tempers cooled enough to discuss the
obvious counterfactual on shwi? Or are we going to have flame wars about
National Security Advisor Straczynski and the Venkman team again? I think,
after Raymond Stantz's suicide note, that the question of cause (notice I do
not say 'blame' or 'guilt') has been answered.

C. -- I guess I'm a New Yorker now."

Which begs the following questions:

How despicable do you have to be to think that 9/11 can be an occasion for
humor?
What kind of vermin are you that you would find this funny?

Before you answer these questions please take the time to view a memorial
at:

http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html (link provided by Glen
Reynold's "Tech Central Station" and his associated weblog)

That is, if you can get past the pictures of people jumping from the Towers.

I couldn't.

Shame on you! Shame on all of you who participated in this thread as if the
murder of 3,000 people was something to laugh at. How dare you write one
word of criticism against Phil Hunt, Jordan Bassior and even Steve Stirling
(or any one else at SHWI you've judged like a pharisee) after posting filth
like this.

You ain't a New Yorker Coyu, far from it. I suggest you find a real New
Yorker, preferably one who lost a loved one on that terrible day - maybe one
of those children who were reading memorials to their lost moms and dads
last Thursday, while you were thinking yourself so funny and clever. When
you do find real New Yorkers, read them your oh so witty post.

I hope they beat the crap out of you.

[Coyu]

Silly Duff. I was there.

[Daniel Duffy]

Post by Coyu
Silly Duff. I was there.

One way or another we all were Carlos. That doesn't give you a pass on what
you did.

One wonders why you didn't work in a few people jumping off the Towers while
under attack from the Marshmallow Man. Surely that would have been good for
a few more belly laughs.

In case you can't figure it out,there is a distinction between satire aimed
at the perpetrator of an evil deed and the satirizing of the deed itself.
In the first category belongs Mel Brookes' "Spring Time for Hitler" and
Chaplin's "The Great Dictator". In the second category would be a
hypothetical musical comedy set in Auschwitz, with the inmates forming a
chorus line on the way to the gas chambers. The first legitimately attacks
a criminal. The second trivializes the pain and suffering of the victims.

What you did was in the second category.

That is why it was repugnant.

However you can now congratulate yourself on entering the SHWI hall of
infamy besides Stirling and others. If Steve is infamous for wanting all
Muslim males dead, you get to be forever known as the guy who thought 9/11
was funny.

[President Chester A. Arthur]

OK, I'm going to jump out on a limb here.

Is Duffy faking? Perhaps I'm ever the optimist, but is it really plausible that
someone could be so hypocritically self-righteous?

Let's review. Why on Earth would an Ohioan think to tell a New Yorker what the
proper way to remember 9/11 is? Wouldn't Duffy have to remember Carlos talking
about the fiery ash raining down on his home, about "a pillar of smoke by day,
a pillar of fire by night"?

Why would he assume that watching the Fox News reports of the towers collapsing
made him the moral equivalent of someone who saw such things with his own eyes?
I have a hard time believing that any reasonable person would argue that "we
were all there" to someone who actually was there.

For that matter, wouldn't Duffy expect us to remember how he criticized Carlos
for being angry over 9/11? Wouldn't he naturally assume that we would look at
the two contradictory attitudes and decide that Duffy was just trying to hassle
someone he didn't like?

Of course, this opens up a larger issue with Duffy. Would the same man who
suggested Andrew Reeves was akin to a racist and an anti-Semite for calling
some Roman Catholic beliefs "silly" really throw around ethnic slurs and OT
posts about "lazy Europeans" with the vigor that D.P. Duffy does?

Wouldn't he realize that doing such a thing would make him look like a
hyper-sensitive hypocrite, flying into a rage whenever his "people" are
insulted but who happily insults members of unpopular minorities whenever he
gets the chance? For that matter, why would such an apparantly staunch Catholic
support the torture of criminal suspects despite the Church's strong opposition
to such tactics?

In short, I find it very difficult to believe that Daniel Patrick Duffy
actually means what he says. No well-spoken individual could believe what he
says and not be struck by the countless contradictions in his own behavior and
beliefs.

I think we are being subjected to a very sophisticated piece of performance
art. As an alternative, perhaps Serdar Argic's programmer has struck again, now
with a more sophisticated program that uses the computer software and hardware
of a new generation to create a new kind of 'bot.

Whoever you are, sir, I salute you: you've fooled everyone around here for a
long time, myself included.

ObWI: 1500. Portuguese soldier of fortune Alfonso de Albuquerque, sails from
the Portuguese fort at Hormuz up into the Red Sea, launches a commando raid
into Arabia...and steals the Kaba stone.

Through great luck and high adventure, Albuquerque and most of his men survive
the subsequent flight to their ships and rapid exit from the Persian Gulf
region. In late 1501, his surviving ship arrives in Lisbon Harbor with a big
black stone in its hold...




----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb

[Doug Hoff]

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
OK, I'm going to jump out on a limb here.
Is Duffy faking? Perhaps I'm ever the optimist, but is it really plausible that
someone could be so hypocritically self-righteous?
I think we are being subjected to a very sophisticated piece of performance
art. As an alternative, perhaps Serdar Argic's programmer has struck again, now
with a more sophisticated program that uses the computer software and hardware
of a new generation to create a new kind of 'bot.
Whoever you are, sir, I salute you: you've fooled everyone around here for a
long time, myself included.

Whoever is carrying out the charade gives himself away by presuming that he,
all by his lonesome, can cast Carlos into the SHWI's "hall of
infamy." That has to be done by informal consensus, and I haven't seen one.

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
ObWI: 1500.

[insert the Indiana Jones theme here]

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Portuguese soldier of fortune Alfonso de Albuquerque, sails from
the Portuguese fort at Hormuz up into the Red Sea, launches a commando raid
into Arabia...and steals the Kaba stone.
Through great luck and high adventure, Albuquerque and most of his men survive
the subsequent flight to their ships and rapid exit from the Persian Gulf
region.
In late 1501, his surviving ship arrives in Lisbon Harbor with a big
black stone in its hold...

Hmmm. Ransom? I imagine the kaba would fetch quite a price and the Sultan
would have the cash. Blackmail? Evacuate the Holy Land and the stone will
be returned.

Perhaps we would see an Islamic Expeditionary Force [sort of a Crusade in
reverse] sortie forth into the Med bent on returning the stone by force and
exacting revenge. Who stands with Portugual in defense (assuming, that is,
the Portuguese govt doesnt renounce the act and return the stone)?

[President Chester A. Arthur]

Subject: Re: OT An Open Letter to Mr. Yu
Date: 9/13/2003 5:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Whoever is carrying out the charade gives himself away by presuming that he,
all by his lonesome, can cast Carlos into the SHWI's "hall of
infamy." That has to be done by informal consensus, and I haven't seen one.

And it would explain the strong reaction to being called stupid. If I had
created an artificial lifeform of such complexity, I too would resent being
called stupid. Fear not, programmer, we find your faux-poster a marvelous work
of programming and electronics.
<snip theft of the Kaba, circa 1500>

Hmmm. Ransom? I imagine the kaba would fetch quite a price and the Sultan
would have the cash.

The Sultan, BTW, is this big muscular fellow:

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/portal/tarih_en.asp?belgeno=8804

"Bayezid II was not interested in such pomp and refrained from exceeding the
income assigned to him. Indeed, he was so frugal that he would even save on
it."

I don't see him as going for a ransom.


Blackmail? Evacuate the Holy Land and the stone will

be returned.

Ooh. There's a thought. Of course, there'd be nothing to stop the Mamelukes,
say, from moving in.

Perhaps we would see an Islamic Expeditionary Force [sort of a Crusade in
reverse] sortie forth into the Med bent on returning the stone by force and
exacting revenge.

There were already Ottoman armies in Italy and Hungary in this era, and we're
well before Lepanto. Things will get dicey somewhere in the western Med,
though. There's an alliance with Poland and diplomatic relations have just
started with Russia.

Who stands with Portugual in defense >(assuming, that is,

Louis XII is on the throne in France. Ferdinand and Isabella are still in
control in Spain.

the Portuguese govt doesnt renounce the act and return the stone)?

That's at least probable: they'd have to know how very dicey it would make
trading in the Indian Ocean.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb

[Emperor]

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
http://www.kultur.gov.tr/portal/tarih_en.asp?belgeno=8804

That doesn't exactly strike me as an unbiased source

[President Chester A. Arthur]

Subject: Re: OT An Open Letter to Mr. Yu
Date: 9/13/2003 6:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
http://www.kultur.gov.tr/portal/tarih_en.asp?belgeno=8804

That doesn't exactly strike me as an unbiased source

Most others said the same thing, and this one had the nice chronology attached.
Me, I just dig the swell picture: he looks like such an open-handed, generous
fellow.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb

[Doug Hoff]

Post by Doug Hoff

Subject: Re: OT An Open Letter to Mr. Yu
Date: 9/13/2003 5:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Blackmail? Evacuate the Holy Land and the stone will

be returned.

Ooh. There's a thought. Of course, there'd be nothing to stop the Mamelukes,
say, from moving in.

Maybe there would be some demand to turn it over to Portugual. I wonder how
the rest of Europe would react to a proposal that, if accepted, would put
Jerusalem, etc, in the hands of a single (Catholic) power?

Post by Doug Hoff

Who stands with Portugual in defense >(assuming, that is,

Louis XII is on the throne in France. Ferdinand and Isabella are still in
control in Spain.

Yep, an Islamic force sets sail for Iberia, F&I are going to jump in for
sure.

Post by Doug Hoff

the Portuguese govt doesnt renounce the act and return the stone)?

That's at least probable: they'd have to know how very dicey it would make
trading in the Indian Ocean.

Yes, indeed.

[Daniel Duffy]

<snip various ad hominems and non sequiters>

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Wouldn't he realize that doing such a thing would make him look like a
hyper-sensitive hypocrite, flying into a rage whenever his "people" are
insulted but who happily insults members of unpopular minorities whenever he
gets the chance? For that matter, why would such an apparantly staunch Catholic
support the torture of criminal suspects despite the Church's strong opposition
to such tactics?

See this month's Atlantic Monthly cover story, "The Dark Art of
Interrogation". An interview with the author can be found at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-09-11.htm
After reading the above, I doubt if you will be making such simplistic
statements in the future.

As for the Catechism, I am conforming to the concept of "informed
conscience", in that any information obtained from terrorists which prevents
another 9/11 is justified. The same reasoning allows a soldier to kill on a
battlefield with out committing the sin of murder.

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
In short, I find it very difficult to believe that Daniel Patrick Duffy
actually means what he says. No well-spoken individual could believe what he
says and not be struck by the countless contradictions in his own behavior and
beliefs.
I think we are being subjected to a very sophisticated piece of performance
art. As an alternative, perhaps Serdar Argic's programmer has struck again, now
with a more sophisticated program that uses the computer software and hardware
of a new generation to create a new kind of 'bot.
Whoever you are, sir, I salute you: you've fooled everyone around here for a
long time, myself included.

On the plus side, if I'm not real you won't have to gather up the peasants
with their torches and pitchforks to try and get me boycotted or banned.
Why is it that I, a conservative Republican and practicing Catholic, am the
only card carrying member of the ACLU on this newsgroup?

[President Chester A. Arthur]

Yes, I suppose it was impolite of me to expose your secret, Ahmet. (If you
don't mind me calling you by your first name?) But there are people on the NG
who would be inclined to waste serious bandwidth arguing with you if they
weren't aware of your true nature. How's the weather over in Minnesota? It
looks like it's finally settling into rain here.

While I admire the care and creativity you've put into the Duffy-bot, I have to
think of the real posters on the newsgroup and their valuable time. If you'd
ever like to join us in discussing AH, please, drop the mask and come by
anytime. Someone who could create a program of such sophistication would surely
be able to construct a fascinating work of alternate history.


Yours in health,
Chester A. Arthur


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb

[Daniel Duffy]

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Yes, I suppose it was impolite of me to expose your secret, Ahmet. (If you
don't mind me calling you by your first name?) But there are people on the NG
who would be inclined to waste serious bandwidth arguing with you if they
weren't aware of your true nature. How's the weather over in Minnesota? It
looks like it's finally settling into rain here.
While I admire the care and creativity you've put into the Duffy-bot, I have to
think of the real posters on the newsgroup and their valuable time. If you'd
ever like to join us in discussing AH, please, drop the mask and come by
anytime. Someone who could create a program of such sophistication would surely
be able to construct a fascinating work of alternate history.

Apparently I was being much too logical for you, otherwise you might
actually write a post which attempts to answer or even refute the points I
made. Pity, I was hoping for more of a challenge.

[Coyu]

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
ObWI: 1500. Portuguese soldier of fortune Alfonso de Albuquerque, sails from
the Portuguese fort at Hormuz up into the Red Sea, launches a commando raid
into Arabia...and steals the Kaba stone.
Through great luck and high adventure, Albuquerque and most of his men
survive the subsequent flight to their ships and rapid exit from the Persian
Gulf region. In late 1501, his surviving ship arrives in Lisbon Harbor with
a big black stone in its hold...

Apparently it's not that big. It's also not the first time that this
would have happened -- it got ripped off in the 10th century.

It is, however, encased in a big silver band, which apparently holds
the pieces together.

I wrote this on another forum:

"It gets brought back to Portugal, sans most of its silver, where it
eventually becomes part of the Braganza dowry for Charles II in 1662,
along other sundries like Tangiers and Bombay."

"The knick-knack part of Charles II's collection eventually is sold
for another Van Dyck, and since it is a rock (though in a nice
setting), it passes into the possession of one Elihu Yale."

"From there its provenance is a little obscure, as it drifts from New
Englander to New Englander, but it eventually falls into the hands of
a resident of upstate New York with a certain affinity for, um, magic
rocks."

"Then there's the variant where the King of Portugal sends the rock
to the Vatican, where it's lost in the sack of Rome..."

"... except Benvenuto Cellini has it, um, stashed away during the
chaos."

"Later on, he crafts a falcon grasping it and presents it to the
Hospitallers of St. John... well, you folks know the rest."

But this is a little closer to secret history. Factoid: the Cube
has another rock too, and Mecca itself has been purged of its
peripheral devotions OTL, which in practice means a whole lot of
shrines and holy places were torn down.

My guess is that a ghazi who has made the pilgrimage finds a piece
of shiny black iron slag after a battle with the Habsburgs or the
Italians or something, and convinces himself and a bunch of other
people that it's the real thing.

Depending on the circumstances, this could actually happen quite a
bit, with as many Black Stones as there were once pieces of the
True Cross. Sooner or later, one of them will be considered the
real deal, out of credulity, Machiavellianism, or a mystically
eventful provenance, I dunno. Christian claims that they really do
have it will be considered a big infidel lie. Some might say that
God created a false rock to confuse the unbelievers, but I don't
think that will be orthodox.

[James Bodi]

Post by Coyu

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
ObWI: 1500. Portuguese soldier of fortune Alfonso de Albuquerque, sails from
the Portuguese fort at Hormuz up into the Red Sea, launches a commando raid
into Arabia...and steals the Kaba stone.
Through great luck and high adventure, Albuquerque and most of his men
survive the subsequent flight to their ships and rapid exit from the Persian
Gulf region. In late 1501, his surviving ship arrives in Lisbon Harbor with
a big black stone in its hold...

Apparently it's not that big. It's also not the first time that this
would have happened -- it got ripped off in the 10th century.
It is, however, encased in a big silver band, which apparently holds
the pieces together.
"It gets brought back to Portugal, sans most of its silver, where it
eventually becomes part of the Braganza dowry for Charles II in 1662,
along other sundries like Tangiers and Bombay."
"The knick-knack part of Charles II's collection eventually is sold
for another Van Dyck, and since it is a rock (though in a nice
setting), it passes into the possession of one Elihu Yale."
"From there its provenance is a little obscure, as it drifts from New
Englander to New Englander, but it eventually falls into the hands of
a resident of upstate New York with a certain affinity for, um, magic
rocks."
"Then there's the variant where the King of Portugal sends the rock
to the Vatican, where it's lost in the sack of Rome..."
"... except Benvenuto Cellini has it, um, stashed away during the
chaos."
"Later on, he crafts a falcon grasping it and presents it to the
Hospitallers of St. John... well, you folks know the rest."
But this is a little closer to secret history. Factoid: the Cube
has another rock too, and Mecca itself has been purged of its
peripheral devotions OTL, which in practice means a whole lot of
shrines and holy places were torn down.
My guess is that a ghazi who has made the pilgrimage finds a piece
of shiny black iron slag after a battle with the Habsburgs or the
Italians or something, and convinces himself and a bunch of other
people that it's the real thing.
Depending on the circumstances, this could actually happen quite a
bit, with as many Black Stones as there were once pieces of the
True Cross. Sooner or later, one of them will be considered the
real deal, out of credulity, Machiavellianism, or a mystically
eventful provenance, I dunno. Christian claims that they really do
have it will be considered a big infidel lie. Some might say that
God created a false rock to confuse the unbelievers, but I don't
think that will be orthodox.

--- Seems to me that a smart member of the ulema would make a virtue of necessity,
thus: revering the Kaaba was perilously close to idolatry, so Allah, in his
mysterious manner, inflamed the hearts of the unbeliever to remove the offending
rock and take the sin on themselves. So let's all enjoy a cool refreshing
glass of turnip juice. For two hundred and forty years, this just sounds
like sour grapes. Then the quake hits Lisbon ...



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Walter R. Strapps]

Post by Daniel Duffy

Post by Coyu
Silly Duff. I was there.

One way or another we all were Carlos. That doesn't give you a pass on what
you did.

Fuck you, Duffer, no 'we weren't all there'. Some of us actually live
in the city, Carlos is one of those, I'm another.

Your pathetic little display of 'indignation' over something that some
of us actually understand, and your want to use as a way to 'score
points' on Usenet makes me physically ill.

I am very, very sick of what happened that day, being used by people who
watched it on TV, as a way to pull a flag out of their asses and wave
their shit around as though *they* somehow have the right to tell New
Yorkers how they should react to what happened that day.

To tell people who were doing all they could after that day what jokes
are acceptable to make.

To tell people who were processing blood at the Red Cross Center in
Manhattan that fuckwits who live in the Midwest *really* understand what
happened, that New Yorkers couldn't possibly understand.

Go to hell, Duffer, and take your 'indignation' with you, you fucking
scumbag.
--
Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps, Ph.D

"The sheer closeness of our two countries and the intensity of our
mutual interaction combined with the disparity between us in terms of
wealth and power--all these things guarantee there will be problems in
U.S.-Canadian relations without anybody having to do anything to
deliberately worsen the situation."

Robert L. Stanfield, Oct. 28, 1971

[Alexander N. Bossy]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:16:16 -0400, "Walter R. Strapps"

Post by Walter R. Strapps
I am very, very sick of what happened that day, being used by people who
watched it on TV, as a way to pull a flag out of their asses and wave
their shit around as though *they* somehow have the right to tell New
Yorkers how they should react to what happened that day.

[Treding very carefully here because it's obvious that the wounds are
no more healed for you than for me]

Walter,

Not being in the city on 9/11 really doesn't make a difference. I
wasn't. I was in the air when I heard what had happened, and I only
saw it on TV some fourteen or fifteen hours later when Canada finally
finished processing us through customs. The fact that I had no images
of what happened on that dreadful day except for those in my own mind
didn't diminish the experience. It may not have been the same
experience as you had, but unlike people in the city, I had to sit and
think about what had happened. I couldn't do anything. I couldn't
help. I couldn't even call people and make sure that they were fine,
or let them know that I was. (I couldn't even get a connection to
London.)

Not being in the city didn't make it any easier to bear. I still
thought about the people at Cantor Fitzgerald whom I'd intervied with
two years earlier, and wondered if they'd managed to escape. It
didn't stop me from thinking of the Port Authority people whom I'd
worked on several projects with five or six years earlier. My mere
physical location didn't change how I felt, or how I feel today.

And, when BA finally flew me back to NYC a fortnight later, when US
airspace was reopened, and the company that I was then working with
had lifted the ban on non-essencial travel so I could return from
London, I realized that New York wasn't the city that I'd left less
than a month earlier. It was so subdued, and seeing those tattered
pictures of smiling people with phone numbers of their desperate
friends and family -- friends and family whom I knew would never get
the phone call that they were praying for broke my heart. It still
does.

Post by Walter R. Strapps
To tell people who were doing all they could after that day what jokes
are acceptable to make.

I haven't read Carlos' post, so won't pass judgment upon it. I have
no intent in doing so since I know that I'm not remotely ready to
laugh at 9/11, and don't want to hear someone else make jokes about.
This is still a raw wound for many of us, New Yorkers and non-New
Yorkers, people who were in the city at the time and others who
weren't. Therefore everyone should walk on egg-shells when
approaching the issue and not assume that people who experienced it
differently somehow don't care or can't understand. We all do.

In peace,
Alexander

[Mark the Marker]

<snip>

Classy.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by Daniel Duffy
You ain't a New Yorker Coyu, far from it. I suggest you find a real New
Yorker, preferably one who lost a loved one on that terrible day - maybe one
of those children who were reading memorials to their lost moms and dads
last Thursday, while you were thinking yourself so funny and clever. When
you do find real New Yorkers, read them your oh so witty post.
I hope they beat the crap out of you.

Cool down son. There is no deed so evil that it cannot be made to seem
absurd. All of human existence is absurd, therefore can be construed as
a Cosmic practical joke. Evil is mockable. However, I would not crack
wise in the presence of someone who lost somebody on 9/11 as that would
be unmannerly and in bad taste. Evil must never be seen as triumphant
but only as a bad joke.

Bob Kolker

[Jussi Jalonen]

Such post-modern moral relativism died on 9/11. The murder of 3,000 people
is not a joke.

Damn straight. That whole mess in Chile three decades ago was a
horrible thing, and is nothing to be laughed about. Americans should
feel deeply ashamed about the actions which their government supported
back then.

Oops, wrong 9/11.




Cheers,
Jalonen

[SwimLFS]

Post by Jussi Jalonen
Oops, wrong 9/11.

Liquidating Alliende was a net plus for the human race.

RIIIIGHT.

While he was moving toward a massive shift in the social system, it
never would have come off, as he moved further and further left in a
spectrum and with a population that offered him proportionally less
support the further left he moved.

Murdering a democratically elected official is not a net plus for the
human race. It's good Realpolitik for American Cold War interests,
barely that.

Cheers

L

[JoatSimeon]

While he was moving toward a massive shift in the social system, it never

would have come off

-- many of his supporters, if not Allende himself, were not going to let little
things like elections get in the way of The Revolution.

Among other things, they knew that if the government fell and the opposition
took over -- inevitable, given how unpopular Allende's regime had become --
that a lot of them would go on trial.

Extra-legal violence, intimidation, killings and property seizures had already
become common. The country was heading for civil war.

One should note that Pinochet did get Chile out of the economic dead-end it had
gotten into -- probably impossible in a democratic situation due to entrenched
special interests gumming things up -- and that he did eventually hand over
power to an elected government.

Chile has done very well since politically and economically, far better than
any other country in Latin America.

[Robert J. Gill]

Post by JoatSimeon
One should note that Pinochet did get Chile

out of the economic dead-end it had gotten into
[snip]

Post by JoatSimeon
Chile has done very well since politically and

economically, far better than any other country
in Latin America.



I'd be careful about using that argument, were I in
your position; it sounds similar to people defending
the Castro regime by saying: "But he has such a great
health care system!" while downplaying the shabby
(yes, an understatement, I know) treatment of people
who have to live under the regime. Which is why I don't
like to play the annoying "my dictator is better
than your dictator" game.

Nor do I subscribe to the notion that being socialist
necessarily means one is going to going to turn into a
monster. See Tanzania, for instance. Yes, the economy
went to s*** under Nyerere (yes, he even accepted blame
for this), but he managed to improve the standard of
Tanzanian living, *without* being a tyrant [1], passing
power to the next guy, peacefully. Big improvement over
his recently deceased (few weeks ago) neighbor, Idi Amin,
and---no ifs, ands, or buts, Steve--anyone who had the
balls to stand up to the butcher of Uganda, when nobody
else would--well, OK, he did get Botswana's help--has my
undying admiration and respect. [2]

In fact, he was such a swell guy that there was a SHWI
post from two years ago, titled "Red Tanzania," which
asked what he would be like as just another African thug.

[1] ObWI: How could other 3rd world governments have
embraced socialism, without going nasty, using Nyerere
as a model?

[2] ObWI: Nyerere killed in war with Uganda? Ol' Julius
was an outspoken foe of South African apartheid; is
the timetable for the collapse of the racist regime altered,
now that an ally of Robbin's Island's most famous prisoner
is no more?

[Alexander N. Bossy]

Post by Robert J. Gill

Post by JoatSimeon
One should note that Pinochet did get Chile

out of the economic dead-end it had gotten into
[snip]

Post by JoatSimeon
Chile has done very well since politically and

economically, far better than any other country
in Latin America.
I'd be careful about using that argument, were I in
your position; it sounds similar to people defending
the Castro regime by saying: "But he has such a great
health care system!" while downplaying the shabby
(yes, an understatement, I know) treatment of people
who have to live under the regime. Which is why I don't
like to play the annoying "my dictator is better
than your dictator" game.

But, Pinochet was a far better (less bad?) dictator than Castro:
Pinochet allowed himself to be voted out of power. There are *very*
few dictators who do that. And, in Pinochet's case, it wasn't a
question of being forced to accept a transition to democracy by the
oposition as in Poland, for example. (Of course, Poland is a middle
ground case. There were elections. Romania would be the real
counter-example, since it took a revolution and physically killing the
tyrant and his wife to put an end to that regme.)

Post by Robert J. Gill
[1] ObWI: How could other 3rd world governments have
embraced socialism, without going nasty, using Nyerere
as a model?

No. Most of the Third World Dictators used socialism as a tool to
legitimize their dictatorships. They weren't interested in democracy
or even quasi-democratic governments. They wanted to be dictators,
and used whatever tools would serve that end.

Alexander "the Cynic"

[phil hunt]

Post by Robert J. Gill
ObWI: Nyerere killed in war with Uganda?

IIRC, in OTL Tanzania won that war easily, Amin being incompetent as
well as cruel.

[Andrew Gray]

On 14 Sep 2003 02:56:11 -0700, Jussi Jalonen

Post by Jussi Jalonen

Such post-modern moral relativism died on 9/11. The murder of 3,000 people
is not a joke.

Damn straight. That whole mess in Chile three decades ago was a
horrible thing, and is nothing to be laughed about. Americans should
feel deeply ashamed about the actions which their government supported
back then.

I thought it was 5,000, BTW.

5k was one of the later-early-estimates, AIUI, and seems to have stuck;
a quick glance at the BBC gives 2,800 in New York (this figure is
imprecise as to whether or not it includes the passengers; it reads like
it, although the same article gives seperate figures for the Pentagon
plane), 40 in the PA. crash, 125 in the Pentagon, and another 59 in the
plane that hit the Pentagon. So somewhere a little over 3,000, although
it's not uncommon still to hear news programmes saying five.

(These numbers don't, of course, include "knock-on deaths" - people
whose deaths were hastened by respiratory problems in NYC, for example -
and I expect we'll see a study in a few years time listing a brief blip
in odd sectors because of that - certainly not to the extent of 2,000
people though.)

My comment on the post that sparked this - well, I'm with Alan, I think;
suffice it to add that the most distasteful thing about the original
post was the fact that someone reacted so badly to it, and did so in a
manner bearing the strange hallmarks of using an undeniably tragic event
as a stick to further ones personal grievances. Not to say that it was,
it just looked like it. Mr Duffy, if you wish to raise such an issue in
future, there is no need to sling ones shit in such a contrivedly public
manner...

ObWI: That Swedish referendum... no, children, the 1990 (or was it 91?)
one. WI they vote "no" to joining the EU? A mere 52% voted yes...

[phil hunt]

Um, Andrew, I think he was referring to the death
toll of those murdered under the Pinochet regime
(and 5,000 is the figure I've heard most often in
association with Pinochet's 1973-1990 rule), not
the 2001 attacks. Am I right, Phil?

Yes

[Alan Lothian]

In article <3f63251b$0$13115$***@nnrp.fuse.net>, Daniel Duffy
<***@fuse.net> wrote:

<snippaggio>

Post by Daniel Duffy
How despicable do you have to be to think that 9/11 can be an occasion for
humor?
What kind of vermin are you that you would find this funny?
Before you answer these questions please take the time to view a memorial
http://www.gunstuff.com/america-attacked.html (link provided by Glen
Reynold's "Tech Central Station" and his associated weblog)
That is, if you can get past the pictures of people jumping from the Towers.

Hmmm. You may think that kitsch is a better weapon against lunatic scum
than humour. I must disagree.

Post by Daniel Duffy
Shame on you! Shame on all of you who participated in this thread as if the
murder of 3,000 people was something to laugh at.

Daniel, a word to the wise: indignation is rarely a useful emotion. I
love NYC as much as any Brit alive (I've known it, on and off, beyond a
quarter century), and felt the city's wounds that day, and counted my
manhood cheap I was not there. I wept with sorrow and frustrated rage.
But it is the custom of my people, and indeed of damn near all the New
Yorkers I have known, to laugh at horror. With the kind of laughter
that will destroy our enemies.

You are missing the point.

[Daniel Duffy]

<snip>

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by Daniel Duffy
That is, if you can get past the pictures of people jumping from the Towers.

Hmmm. You may think that kitsch is a better weapon against lunatic scum
than humour. I must disagree.

I'm afraid kitsch is all we know out here in the American Midwest. However,
if you prefer something more elevated try:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/drew.htm

and the Esquire magazine article at:

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=262146

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by Daniel Duffy
Shame on you! Shame on all of you who participated in this thread as if the
murder of 3,000 people was something to laugh at.

Daniel, a word to the wise: indignation is rarely a useful emotion.

Actually I find it can be an extremely useful motivator.

Post by Alan Lothian
I love NYC as much as any Brit alive (I've known it, on and off, beyond a
quarter century), and felt the city's wounds that day, and counted my
manhood cheap I was not there. I wept with sorrow and frustrated rage.

As did we all.

Post by Alan Lothian
But it is the custom of my people, and indeed of damn near all the New
Yorkers I have known, to laugh at horror. With the kind of laughter
that will destroy our enemies.

With all due respect Alan, and believe me when I say that I have a huge
reservoir of respect for you and your opinions, I cannot disagree more
strongly. It's not laughter that will destroy our enemies.

Post by Alan Lothian
You are missing the point.

No, I appreciate your point, and the need for a psychological release.
However, I see a world of difference between that and trivializing an act of
mass murder by turning it into satire. That is just simple bad taste.

[Emperor]

Post by Daniel Duffy
I'm afraid kitsch is all we know out here in the American Midwest. However,
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/drew.htm

Er, don't ever, ever speak for me, you certin.

[Daniel Duffy]

Ugh. Cretin.

LOL!

[Lyn David Thomas]

Post by Daniel Duffy
No, I appreciate your point, and the need for a psychological release.
However, I see a world of difference between that and trivializing an
act of mass murder by turning it into satire. That is just simple bad
taste.

This is such a difficult thing.... September 11th saw an event
unparalleled in the history of the USA, not that remarkable in world or
historical terms, but almost unique in the history of the USA. Not since
Pearl Harbour has such an attack struck the USA. I would contend that the
magnitude was less to do with the horrific loss of life (though the
numbers were extraordinary) as the fact that a home city on the
continental mainland of the USA could be attacked in such a devastating
way by an unseen enemy. It really shattered a complacency felt but most,
that the USA was invulnerable to such an attack, it jolted them back into
the real world, where the USA exists and coexists with a world where not
all share the same values or beliefs. It brought home that a substantial
part of the world hates the USA and all it stands for, and that a small
minority are prepared to do despicable things. I think we would all
agree that the events of that day were horrific and gut wrenching. Those
of us that watched the events unfold on TV will never forget it. Most
were gripped by the unreality of the situation, two massive blocks filled
with people on fire, the obvious threat to lives and then the
incomprehensible sudden collapse of the first tower and the obvious loss
of life that it entailed. TV can never capture such events, it can't pick
up on the emotional charge fully. We have all been brought up on disaster
films and the instant accessibility of news, that dulls the edge of the
human reality of such events.

For all our disagreements over what happened next I think we all share as
sense of grief and shock about the event.

Should it be something that can be the basis of humour, well like
everything humour is subjective. I can't say I found the article funny or
grossly offensive, but then it is not for me to say what is offensive to
New Yorkers. Bad taste – probably, should not have been posted –
maybe. It is too soon I think to subject such an event to the pen of
satire or ironic humour. Humour can be very positive – or it can be
negative, it depends on the intent and how it is done. I wouldn't have
made the post, but its not my call. I don't think it puts anyone beyond
the pale for making it though.

[The Peacock King]

I'm glad you recognize that Carlos Yu has gone too far. He has become an
increasingly annoying presence on this NG. Again, I must say that SHWI
needs new blood. Bad.

Rare acquaintances: Coyu, Giwer, tolerance of differing viewpoints.

[President Chester A. Arthur]

Wow, an off-topic flame from Duffy. I'm surprised and surprised.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb

[Daniel Duffy]

<snip>

Free speech is essential. Coyu exercised that. If you don't like the
jibe, say you didn't like it. That would be "nuff ced."

Since when has Coyu been a champion of free speech?

Nobody is trying to censor Coyu. He has every right to say what he wants
(even if he doesn't believe that the internet is "liberty hall").

And I have every right to tell him what I think of his post.

[Daniel Duffy]

<snip>

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Wow, an off-topic flame from Duffy. I'm surprised and surprised.

Well you could always try to organize a boycott of Coyu and try to get him
banned from the newsgroup. Unless of course you can find a distinction
between wanting the hypothetical deaths of millions of Muslims or lauging it
up over the actual deaths of thousands.

[Emperor]

Post by Daniel Duffy
Well you could always try to organize a boycott of Coyu and try to get him
banned from the newsgroup.

I think it goes without saying that you are a much more likely target of such
actions, Duff.

Seriously, get off SHWI. You have no place here.

[Daniel Duffy]

Post by Emperor

Post by Daniel Duffy
Well you could always try to organize a boycott of Coyu and try to get him
banned from the newsgroup.

I think it goes without saying that you are a much more likely target of such
actions, Duff.
Seriously, get off SHWI. You have no place here.

Very good Emp. You've managed to write a post longer than one sentence.

[phil hunt]

Post by Emperor

Post by Daniel Duffy
Well you could always try to organize a boycott of Coyu and try to get him
banned from the newsgroup.

I think it goes without saying that you are a much more likely target of such
actions, Duff.
Seriously, get off SHWI. You have no place here.

Perhaps I'm just getting nostalgic, but IIRC, shwi dodn't used to be
like this. *Do* I remember correctly? Or was it always full of
flames and backbiting?

[Al Montestruc]

Post by Emperor

Post by Daniel Duffy
Well you could always try to organize a boycott of Coyu and try to get him
banned from the newsgroup.

I think it goes without saying that you are a much more likely target of such
actions, Duff.
Seriously, get off SHWI. You have no place here.

Didn't you run off and say you were never coming back cassy-baby?
What happened, you get tired of holding your breath?

[The Peacock King]

Post by Daniel Duffy
<snip>

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Wow, an off-topic flame from Duffy. I'm surprised and surprised.

Well you could always try to organize a boycott of Coyu and try to get him
banned from the newsgroup. Unless of course you can find a distinction
between wanting the hypothetical deaths of millions of Muslims or lauging it
up over the actual deaths of thousands.

I disagree with your politics often enough, but I have to commend you for
taking on those who think that the NG is their private estate.

However, I don't want to ban Coyu from SHWI. The NG has become inbred and
incestuous already without limiting debate further. I don't like his acting
like dictator of SHWI but he is certainly not to be excluded.

[Bernard Guerrero]

There are people trying to make everything change. They want to kill and
conquer foreigners, eliminate all dissent to warmongering at home, and
discard liberties more than two centuries old.

Thank God, I was starting to think I was the only one. :^)

Free speech is essential. Coyu exercised that. If you don't like the
jibe, say you didn't like it. That would be "nuff ced."

Much as I think you're an ignorant bonehead, I must agree on this point at least.

Bernard Guerrero

[Robert J. Kolker]

Please see my response to Mr. Speer, and then perhaps you can explain to me
how I violated Coyu's free speech.

Of course you did no such thing. You objected -very- strenuously- to
what Cujo wrote, which is your right. Frankly, I think you went over the
top. Instead of pointing out that Cujo was being trivial and shallow and
a legend in his own mind, you went to pieces. Don't do that.

If Mel Brooks can come up with -Springtime for Hitler-, surely you can
find some satirical and darkly comical way of showing your contempt and
disdain for Jihadis and other excessevely Islamic Moslems. Keep a sense
of proportion. A thousand years from now, few will even know what
happened on 9/11 let alone talk or write about it.

The bastards may knock down a building or two, but we must never let
them deprive us of our sense of humor.

Bob Kolker

[Daniel Duffy]

<snip>

Post by Robert J. Kolker
Of course you did no such thing. You objected -very- strenuously- to
what Cujo wrote, which is your right. Frankly, I think you went over the
top. Instead of pointing out that Cujo was being trivial and shallow and
a legend in his own mind, you went to pieces. Don't do that.

Pieces no, over the top, ....maybe. Pictures of people jumping from the
Towers have that effect on me.

Post by Robert J. Kolker
If Mel Brooks can come up with -Springtime for Hitler-, surely you can
find some satirical and darkly comical way of showing your contempt and
disdain for Jihadis and other excessevely Islamic Moslems.

I have noted "Springtime for Hitler" as well as Chaplin's "Great Dictator".
There is a big difference between mocking the criminal and mocking the
victims.

Keep a sense

Post by Robert J. Kolker
of proportion. A thousand years from now, few will even know what
happened on 9/11 let alone talk or write about it.

If we remember the Battle of Hastings nearly a millennia ago, we'll remember
9/11.

Post by Robert J. Kolker
The bastards may knock down a building or two, but we must never let
them deprive us of our sense of humor.

So long as we mock the criminal and not the victims.

[Emperor]

Post by Daniel Duffy

Post by Robert J. Kolker
of proportion. A thousand years from now, few will even know what
happened on 9/11 let alone talk or write about it.

If we remember the Battle of Hastings nearly a millennia ago, we'll remember
9/11.

Hey Danny?

That implies that Hastings, which set the course for British and thus Western
history for the next millennium, is obviously less important than a terrorist
attack. Because God knows that never in the course of history has an attack
been launched on innocent civilians that killed thousands of them. 9/11 was,
after all, the first time in history that's ever happened, right Danny?

[Jordan179]

In world-historical terms, an attack which kills 3000 people in NYC is
currently far more important than a civil war in the Congo which kills
3,000,000 -- which incidentally is about the number slain there in the past
five years. Surprising, isn't it?
When three thousand are killed in the US, governments topple, armies are
blasted into fragments and cities burn half a world away.
When three million Congolese die, three million Congolese die and the world
isn't even aware it's happening, for the most part.

A classic demonstration of the difference in terms of global effect
between events happening in a metropolis and in a backwater. It may be
"unfair," but it's true.

No doubt there were battles as large, and as locally significant as Hastings in
India and East Asia in 1066. None of them were, in the long term, as important
either.

One obvious candidate soon after Hastings would be Manzikert, 1071, as
a result of which the Byzantine Empire lost Anatolia to the Turks, and
as a result was set firmly on the path that led to the fall of
Constantinople to the Crusaders in 1204 and to the Ottoman Turks in
1453.

Hmm ... and some of the English who fought at Hastings might have been
in the Varangian Guard at Manzikert. Ouch!

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Mark the Marker]

Post by Emperor

Post by Daniel Duffy

Post by Robert J. Kolker
of proportion. A thousand years from now, few will even know what
happened on 9/11 let alone talk or write about it.

If we remember the Battle of Hastings nearly a millennia ago, we'll remember
9/11.

Hey Danny?
That implies that Hastings, which set the course for British and thus Western
history for the next millennium, is obviously less important than a terrorist
attack. Because God knows that never in the course of history has an attack
been launched on innocent civilians that killed thousands of them. 9/11 was,
after all, the first time in history that's ever happened, right Danny?

9-11 may very well (we'll see) have been the catalyst for a democratic
revolution in the Middle East, and a re-aligning of the post-Cold War
Western alliance.

If that's the case, it certainly will be mentioned in history books a
few centuries from now...

[Bernard Guerrero]

"Daniel Duffy" <***@fuse.net> wrote in message news:<3f645166$0$52125$***@nnrp.fuse.net>...

(snip)

Post by Bernard Guerrero

Post by Bernard Guerrero

Free speech is essential. Coyu exercised that. If you don't like the
jibe, say you didn't like it. That would be "nuff ced."

Much as I think you're an ignorant bonehead, I must agree on this point at

least.
Please see my response to Mr. Speer, and then perhaps you can explain to me
how I violated Coyu's free speech.

Didn't say you did, did I? I agreed with precisely what Mr. Speer
wrote (and have no difficulties with Carlos' humor whatsoever.)

Bernard Guerrero

[Robert J. Gill]

I am sick and tired of the slogan that

"everything changed" on September 11, 2001.



Yeah, that, and: "We've lost our innocence."
In other words, nothing in the U.S., from the
Revolution, to the Civil War, to anti-Indian
genocide, to the World Wars (and Cold War),
to McCarthyism, to Vietnam, and beyond affected
America's innocent "utopian" standing prior
to 9/11. Uh, yeah, right--pull the other one. :P


Also, what did post-9/11 people mean by "the death
of irony?" That one went over my head, but I'm sure
that view's off the mark as well.


[Snip good points I agree with]

[The Peacock King]

Post by The Peacock King
I'm glad you recognize that Carlos Yu has gone too far. He has become an
increasingly annoying presence on this NG. Again, I must say that SHWI
needs new blood. Bad.

You are not that new blood. If anything, you need to leave.

First off: I don't think Coyu should leave ; he should just be more tolerant
of other peoples' views and less censorious. I get annoyed by some of his
posts, but I don't want to exclude him from debate. Just like I get annoyed
by Giwer and Bassior, but I don't even want them to leave SHWI. The more
posters, the better.

Second: I never referred to myself as "new blood". I was saying that SHWI
has become effectively like a closed society, and needs new posters to
liven it up.

Third, I have and will continue to take holidays from SHWI when I feel like
it. But I'm not going to succumb to the pressure of self appointed absolute
rulers of SHWI. It was terrible what Herr Yu did to Cleven, who was one
of the best posters in the history of the NG. I never try to push people off
the NG.

If Herr Yu can step down from his high horse and just reasonably debate
without coming off as El Caudillo de SHWI I would welcome his posts. The
debate here needs to be WIDENED, not LESSENED, n'est pas?

[Emperor]

Post by The Peacock King
It was terrible what Herr Yu did to Cleven, who was one
of the best posters in the history of the NG. I never try to push people off
the NG.

First off, I think "one of the best posters in the history of SHWI" is
overrating Cleven just a tad, even when he was sane. That's awfully high
praise.

And the goodwill I did have for his posts was effectively ruined by his insane
period.

[Old Toby]

Post by Daniel Duffy
How despicable do you have to be to think that 9/11 can be an occasion for
humor?
What kind of vermin are you that you would find this funny?

<snip>

Post by Daniel Duffy
You ain't a New Yorker Coyu, far from it. I suggest you find a real New
Yorker, preferably one who lost a loved one on that terrible day - maybe one
of those children who were reading memorials to their lost moms and dads
last Thursday, while you were thinking yourself so funny and clever. When
you do find real New Yorkers, read them your oh so witty post.

Coyu may be an immigrant from far off Wisconsin, so his New Yorker
status could be questioned, but I'm a New Yorker born and raised.
In my 25 years I've left New York only for short trips, vacations,
and college (but even then, New York was my home and where I returned
for every break). I don't think one can reasonably dispute my New
Yorkerness. And what I have to say is:

Shit, Danny, you don't have a clue, do you? For you 9/11 was yet
another made for TV tragedy, something to feel sad about, to feel
angry about, just like the man on TV said you should. And when
you don't want to feel sad or angry, well, you can turn the TV
off, think about other things, go back to real life.

Well, 9/11 was real life in New York. On the day itself it was
everything, and on 9/12 too. How long did it take to return to
normal? It never did. In the days after the attack, nearly a
quarter of Manhattan was closed off. Slowly the closed area
receeded, till today one can walk almost completely around the
WTC site, but this took over a year to happen. for weeks a pillar
of smoke was visible for miles around, filling downtown with white
ash and an aweful stench that could hurt the lungs. For months the
site continued to smolder, and it took half a year or more to clear
the rubble from the site. Subway service took a year to return to
"normal" and even now, there is still a closed station that used to
be under the WTC. PATH train service to downtown from New Jersey
has yet to resume, although a temporary station is supposed to open
this year.

For months (at very least) 9/11 was not something we could
ignore. It was something in our face. Something we were
reminded of, every time we used the subway, looked down a
street that used to offer a view of the WTC, tried to go
somewhere where the streets were blocked, saw fighter planes
patroling overhead, or tanks and armed soldiers in our streets.

Should we have lived those months thinking only the PC "terrible
tragedy" thoughts about the WTC that the media peddles to Middle
America? COULD we have lived like that, without falling into a
crippling depression? To have taken humor away from 9/11 would
be to take humor away from our lives.

Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net

[Daniel Duffy]

<snip>

Post by Old Toby
Shit, Danny, you don't have a clue, do you? For you 9/11 was yet
another made for TV tragedy, something to feel sad about, to feel
angry about, just like the man on TV said you should. And when
you don't want to feel sad or angry, well, you can turn the TV
off, think about other things, go back to real life.

You'll have to excuse us here in Fly-Over Country if we were under the
impression that it was America that was attacked, not just New York.
Similar attitudes were in evidence almost 62 years ago after the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor - despite the fact that the vast majority of
stateside Americans were not present in Hawaii on 12/7.

And they didn't even have made for TV movies ack then.

<snip>

Post by Old Toby
Should we have lived those months thinking only the PC "terrible
tragedy" thoughts about the WTC that the media peddles to Middle
America? COULD we have lived like that, without falling into a
crippling depression? To have taken humor away from 9/11 would
be to take humor away from our lives.

Well there is humor, and then there is tastelessness. Let me repeat part of
a follow-up post to Coyu:

"In case you can't figure it out,there is a distinction between satire aimed
at the perpetrator of an evil deed and the satirizing of the deed itself.
In the first category belongs Mel Brookes' "Spring Time for Hitler" and
Chaplin's "The Great Dictator". In the second category would be a
hypothetical musical comedy set in Auschwitz, with the inmates forming a
chorus line on the way to the gas chambers. The first legitimately attacks
a criminal. The second trivializes the pain and suffering of the victims.

What you did was in the second category.

That is why it was repugnant."

No one else has responded to these points, perhaps you'd care to try?

[Graham Broad]

Post by Daniel Duffy
I hope they beat the crap out of you.

About a year ago I saw a fellow on television remarking in all
seriousness that there was no place in the world for humour post 9/11,
that all irony (which he believed to be the basis of all humour) died
with the Twin Towers. And to be honest, I thought that was *very*
funny, *very* funny indeed, the idea that humour could survive, for
instance, Auschwitz, but not 9/11.

GB

[JoatSimeon]

(Graham Broad)
Um, why? Is bin Laden a moral relativist?

-- no, tho' such views materially aid him.

It's hard to fight a sword of steel with a piece of limp noodle; a passionate
belief in one's own rightness is a great asset in war. Doubt weakens you. In
this, al Quaeda has a strong advantage.

Luckily, we have other assets which more than compensate; we're not nuts, for
instance.

For that matter, the pomo stuff has never been very influential in the US,
outside the circle of the 'usual suspects'.

According to a recent survey, 83% of the US population believe in the Virgin
Birth of Jesus; 28% believe in Darwinian evolution. (I saw it in the NYT,
IIRC.)

I'm not _altogether_ happy with that -- I'm an atheist myself -- but it does
point out a major reason why the US is still a Great Power in the traditional
sense and none of the Eurozone countries are, either individually or
collectively.

It probably feeds into a lot of other stuff, too -- why US birth-rates are
higher than European ones, and rising, for example.

Of course, the different historical experience of the US since 1914 is also
important there.

The World Wars weren't nearly so shattering an experience here; for the US,
(some setbacks aside) the last century is essentially a story of victory and
triumph, an ascent to ever-higher levels of relative wealth and power. For
Europe, it's been a century of morale-sapping defeats and phyrric victories.

To put it another way, the popular culture of the US -- particularly its
attitudes towards war and power -- has changed a lot less in the last 100 years
than that of the Eurozone.

[Daniel Duffy]

<snip interesting observations>

Post by JoatSimeon
I'm not _altogether_ happy with that -- I'm an atheist myself -- but it does
point out a major reason why the US is still a Great Power in the traditional
sense and none of the Eurozone countries are, either individually or
collectively.

<snip more interesting - and occasionally astute - observations>

For me, the above begs the following questions: Given that neither atheism
or theism is a testable or falsifiable hypothesis (God's existence can be
neither be proven nor disproven logically or empirically), why be an
adherent of such a weak and debilitating meme? If the truth of the matter
is unobtainable, why promote the meme most likely to handicap a society's
ability to compete in a Darwininian "clash of civilizations"?

[Tristan Jones]

Post by JoatSimeon
According to a recent survey, 83% of the US population believe in the Virgin
Birth of Jesus; 28% believe in Darwinian evolution. (I saw it in the NYT,
IIRC.)

Why would so many people believe in the Virgin birth in the USA and so
few people in evolution?

[JoatSimeon]

I mean, a socialist solution couldn't have

worked, at all, ever,

-- well, since socialism is the economic equivalent of trying to fly by jumping
off a tall building and loudly denying the existance of gravity, yeah, that's
about right.

"Works fine so far!" he cries, as he falls past the 32nd floor... 8-).

The shining success of North Korea, Cuba and the various Gosplan-style
economies also comes to mind.

There are still people who believe socialism will work the _next_ time it's
tried, with just _one more modification_; and there are still people who
believe the earth is flat or that they can communicate with the dead, too.

Allende's backers wanted a Marxist dictatorship; experience has shown that
these inevitably produce mass killing on a far larger scale than Pinochet ever
dreamed of, and that they also inevitably and without fail produce economic
disaster.

That's why the most brutal, evil and ruthless right-wing dictator is preferable
to a Marxist -- or at least, to a Marxist who still believes in that crap.

These days, even the Chinese Communist Party knows that there's no alternative
to market economics, and the children of Bejing's Politburo are all buying
stocks and real estate.

[Ivan Hodes]

Post by JoatSimeon
Allende's backers wanted a Marxist dictatorship; experience has shown that
these inevitably produce mass killing on a far larger scale than Pinochet ever
dreamed of,

ObWI: this was true

Post by JoatSimeon
That's why the most brutal, evil and ruthless right-wing dictator is preferable
to a Marxist -- or at least, to a Marxist who still believes in that crap.

ObWI: this was true

Ivan "chomp, chomp, chomp" Hodes

[President Chester A. Arthur]

Subject: Re: OT An Open Letter to Mr. Yu
Date: 9/15/2003 6:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Post by JoatSimeon
Allende's backers wanted a Marxist dictatorship; experience has shown that
these inevitably produce mass killing on a far larger scale than Pinochet

ever

Post by JoatSimeon
dreamed of,

ObWI: this was true

You'd probably need to make Salvador Allende something more than the head of a
disintegrating leftist coalition that wasn't going to last the year. Dig the
mysterious "backers", when in OTL the people who backed a dictatorship in Chile
weren't Marxists at all.

Post by JoatSimeon
That's why the most brutal, evil and ruthless right-wing dictator is

preferable

Post by JoatSimeon
to a Marxist -- or at least, to a Marxist who still believes in that crap.

ObWI: this was true

From the man who proudly boasted of being the descendant of Nazi killers to one
who finds Hitler preferable to Tito, Mussolini preferable to Togliatti.

Sad.

Ivan "chomp, chomp, chomp" Hodes

----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb

[Jörg Raddatz]

Post by President Chester A. Arthur

Subject: Re: OT An Open Letter to Mr. Yu
Date: 9/15/2003 6:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Post by JoatSimeon
Allende's backers wanted a Marxist dictatorship; experience has shown that
these inevitably produce mass killing on a far larger scale than Pinochet

ever

Post by JoatSimeon
dreamed of,

ObWI: this was true

You'd probably need to make Salvador Allende something more than the head of a
disintegrating leftist coalition that wasn't going to last the year. Dig the
mysterious "backers", when in OTL the people who backed a dictatorship in Chile
weren't Marxists at all.

Post by JoatSimeon
That's why the most brutal, evil and ruthless right-wing dictator is

preferable

Post by JoatSimeon
to a Marxist -- or at least, to a Marxist who still believes in that crap.

ObWI: this was true

From the man who proudly boasted of being the descendant of Nazi killers to one
who finds Hitler preferable to Tito, Mussolini preferable to Togliatti.

Could you please explain? "Nazi killers" is quite ambiguous (shorthand
for NSDAP-members who were killers? Or people who killed Nazis?), so I
simply do not get it.

Jörg

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Sad.

Ivan "chomp, chomp, chomp" Hodes

----
"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb

[President Chester A. Arthur]

Subject: Re: OT An Open Letter to Mr. Yu
Date: 9/16/2003 2:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Could you please explain? "Nazi killers" is quite ambiguous (shorthand
for NSDAP-members who were killers? Or people who killed Nazis?), so I
simply do not get it.
Jörg

He used to boast about "My family doesn't debate Nazis, we kill them." Now he's
covered by explaining that the party supported by most of the German right,
that killed its own left-wing as soon as it came to power. that massacred
domestic Communists and trade unions. and preached revanchist nationalism...was
leftist.

Bizarre bizarre.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb

[SwimLFS]

Post by JoatSimeon

I mean, a socialist solution couldn't have

worked, at all, ever,
-- well, since socialism is the economic equivalent of trying to fly by jumping
off a tall building and loudly denying the existance of gravity, yeah, that's
about right.

I appoligze, I was being unclear. I didn't mean communism, or
state-run centralized economies. I meant socialism, which has worked
in Europe, sort of. Christian socialism is a rather odd animal, though
I can see such a thing being adapted to Latin America.

Post by JoatSimeon
"Works fine so far!" he cries, as he falls past the 32nd floor... 8-).
The shining success of North Korea, Cuba and the various Gosplan-style
economies also comes to mind.

Again, those are Marxist-Stalinist. Not socialist.

Post by JoatSimeon
There are still people who believe socialism will work the _next_ time it's
tried, with just _one more modification_; and there are still people who
believe the earth is flat or that they can communicate with the dead, too.

Again, Europe. Finland, Germany, so on, so forth. Higher average
standard of living than the US, better health care, though greater
taxes, and higher unemployment.

Post by JoatSimeon
Allende's backers wanted a Marxist dictatorship; experience has shown that
these inevitably produce mass killing on a far larger scale than Pinochet ever
dreamed of, and that they also inevitably and without fail produce economic
disaster.

While some of Allende's backers wanted a brutal revolutionary
dictatorship, this does not take into account what I said about
Allende, which you nicely snipped out. He was forced a long a much
faster path than he wanted.

Post by JoatSimeon
That's why the most brutal, evil and ruthless right-wing dictator is preferable
to a Marxist -- or at least, to a Marxist who still believes in that crap.

Hitler vs. Rosa Luxembourg, using your definition of socialism. The
latter seems less bad. Maybe she would try to take over the world and
kill millions in the process, but hey, who knows?

Your ability to reduce complicated real-world events and human beings
to their most basic, simplistic components is shockly high quality. It
avoids all sorts of levels of neuance and flexibility.

Cheers

L

[JoatSimeon]

I appoligze, I was being unclear. I didn't mean communism, or state-run

centralized economies. I meant socialism, which has worked in Europe, sort of.

-- If you meant Social Democracy in the style of, say, Sweden, I'd point out
that that wasn't what Allende's backers -- certainly the ones gaining in power
in 1973 -- wanted.

They were thinking of Cuba.

Certainly the violent attacks on the economic basis of middle-class life and
the formation of extra-legal armed leftist militias indicate a desire for
revolutionary dictatorship.

Allende's coalition didn't have a prayer of winning another election; the
problem was that they didn't have the slightest intention of giving up power,
either.

Higher average standard of living than the US

-- errr... no. Interesting to note the relative position of Sweden in the
per-capita income stakes in 1973 and now, btw.

Hitler vs. Rosa Luxembourg, using your definition of socialism.

-- note that the NSDAP was the _National Socialist German Workers Party_.
Nazism is a mutation of _left_ wing politics.

Your ability to reduce complicated real-world events and human beings to their

most basic, simplistic components is shockly high quality.

-- if I could get all the subtle nuances of human affairs into a usenet
posting, I'd be a God, not an authory. 8-).

[Dan Goodman]

Post by JoatSimeon
-- note that the NSDAP was the _National Socialist German Workers
Party_. Nazism is a mutation of _left_ wing politics.

If you consider free enterprise a bad thing, there's a limited choice of
alternative economic policies.

Aside from (sometimes) advocating socialism, the Nazis were fairly firmly
on the right.

[President Chester A. Arthur]

Subject: Re: OT An Open Letter to Mr. Yu
Date: 9/16/2003 2:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Post by JoatSimeon
-- note that the NSDAP was the _National Socialist German Workers
Party_. Nazism is a mutation of _left_ wing politics.

If you consider free enterprise a bad thing, there's a limited choice of
alternative economic policies.
Aside from (sometimes) advocating socialism, the Nazis were fairly firmly
on the right.

Indeed. And we all know what Hitler with the Nazis who seriously advocated
socialism. He put them in the ground.

Nazis as leftists is a fairly significant sign of being either completely
unfamilar with history, or being brain-eaten. And since we all know Stirling
has read some history books, guess where that puts him?


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb

[Jussi Jalonen]

Post by JoatSimeon

Higher average standard of living than the US

-- errr... no.

-- errr, yes.

Post by JoatSimeon
Interesting to note the relative position of Sweden in the per-capita income
stakes in 1973 and now, btw.

-- the man specifically mentioned also Finland, not just Sweden.
Interesting to note the position of Sweden's eastern neighbour as one
of the most competitive economies and the most technologically
advanced societies in the world.

Post by JoatSimeon
-- note that the NSDAP was the _National Socialist German Workers Party_.
Nazism is a mutation of _left_ wing politics.

-- note that in politics, terminology should never be taken at its
face value. E.g., the German Democratic Republic, the Russian Liberal
Democratic Party.



-- Cheers,
-- Jalonen


P.S. What's with the "--"s, anyway?

[Stuart Wilkes]

***@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote in message news:<***@mb-m11.aol.com>...

<snip>

Post by JoatSimeon
-- note that the NSDAP was the _National Socialist German Workers Party_.
Nazism is a mutation of _left_ wing politics.

A common misunderstanding, Your Touchiness.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:

On economics:
" But all that I heard had the effect of arousing the strongest
antagonism in me. Everything was disparaged-the nation, because it
was held to be an invention of the 'capitalist' class (how often I had
heard that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to be an
instrument in the hands of the bourgeosie for the exploitation of the
working masses; the authority of the law, because that was a means of
holding down the proletariat; religion, as a means of doping the
people, so as to exploit them afterward; morality, as a badge of
stupid and sheepish docility. There was nothing that they did not drag
in the mud."

Hitler was for private property and privately run businesses.

"We stand for the maintenance of private property...We shall protect
free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible
economic order."

In a speech delivered to the industrialists in Berlin on 20 February
1933, Hitler stated:

"Private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it
is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and
personality."

Which of course he would provide.

On religion:

VOELKISCHER BEOBACHTER, 24 March 1933, Page 1

[Hitler's Speech at second meeting of the Reichstag of 1933, on
23 March 1933, asking for the adoption of the Enabling Act.]

"While the Government is determined to carry through the political and
moral purging of our public life, it is creating and insuring
prerequisites for a truly religious life. The Government sees in both
Christian confessions the most important factors for the maintenance
of our folkdom. It will respect agreements concluded between them and
the
States.
However, it respects that its work will meet with a similar
appreciation.
The Government will treat all other denominations with equal objective
justice.
It can never condone, though, that belonging to a certain
denomination or to a certain race might be regarded as a license to
commit or
tolerate crimes. The Government will devote its care to the sincere
living
together of Church and State."

Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on March 23, 1933 "The Reich
government sees in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the
ethics and morality of the folk."

On the proper role of women in society:

Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933:
"A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding
reactionary
and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most
suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious
duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can
continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of
the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the
builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's
source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place
for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family,
in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that
those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in
the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their
abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other
ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially
reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to
fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.
The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary.
It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no
intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer
and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age.
But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in
motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the
living mother of a family who gives the state children.
German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning
to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more
rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected
to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and
her daily bread is not a good trade."

I trust that the preceeding citations will provide a start in the long
process of improving your somewhat inadequate understanding of the
derivation of Nazi ideology.

Stuart Wilkes

[Phil Edwards]

Post by Daniel Duffy
<snip>

Post by JoatSimeon
-- note that the NSDAP was the _National Socialist German Workers Party_.
Nazism is a mutation of _left_ wing politics.

A common misunderstanding, Your Touchiness.

It's only a *common* misunderstanding among people who wilfully choose
to misunderstand, I've always found - although it does seem to be
common among people who've just been backed into a corner with regard
to their own right-wing sympathies. Curious, that.
<much snipped>

Post by Daniel Duffy
I trust that the preceeding citations will provide a start in the long
process of improving your somewhat inadequate understanding of the
derivation of Nazi ideology.

Yeah, but they were probably all lying. They were Nazis, after all.

P "it's even the National Socialist German *Workers* Party!!!" E

[Wesley Taylor]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:24:01 +0100, Phil Edwards

Post by Phil Edwards

Post by Daniel Duffy
<snip>

Post by JoatSimeon
-- note that the NSDAP was the _National Socialist German Workers Party_.
Nazism is a mutation of _left_ wing politics.

A common misunderstanding, Your Touchiness.

It's only a *common* misunderstanding among people who wilfully choose
to misunderstand, I've always found - although it does seem to be
common among people who've just been backed into a corner with regard
to their own right-wing sympathies. Curious, that.
<much snipped>

Post by Daniel Duffy
I trust that the preceeding citations will provide a start in the long
process of improving your somewhat inadequate understanding of the
derivation of Nazi ideology.

Yeah, but they were probably all lying. They were Nazis, after all.
P "it's even the National Socialist German *Workers* Party!!!" E

The problem is that the NSDAP was neither a mutation of Left or Right
wing but a really sick and screwy merger of the two. The held private
property sacrocanct but not private control of that property. (the
property was yours and your responsibility but you will do what the
state tells you to with it) And so on. It confuses the daylights out
of some folks.

[David Tenner]

Post by Wesley Taylor
The problem is that the NSDAP was neither a mutation of Left or Right
wing but a really sick and screwy merger of the two. The held private
property sacrocanct but not private control of that property. (the
property was yours and your responsibility but you will do what the
state tells you to with it) And so on. It confuses the daylights out
of some folks.

I think the problem here is that you are seeing Left versus Right in
modern American terms--government intervention versus laissez-faire. This
has not been the historical meaning of the terms in Europe [1] where to be
sure the Right has defended private property but has often been more
concerned with other values, such as racial and national "purity",
traditional sexual morality, imperialism and military glory, defending
established churches, etc. To be sure, even by European standards the
NSDAP was not an orthodox right-wing party, but the fact that it was not
for complete laissez-faire--and realistically *no* modern major European
parties have been for that--did much less to remove it from the Right than
you seem to think. When the Papens and Hugenbergs let Hitler come to
power in 1933, no doubt it was largely due to their mistaken belief that
they could control him--but they were not wrong in thinking that they had
some things in common with him.

[1] And not always in the US, but that's another matter.

[jlk7e]

Post by David Tenner

Post by Wesley Taylor
The problem is that the NSDAP was neither a mutation of Left or Right
wing but a really sick and screwy merger of the two. The held private
property sacrocanct but not private control of that property. (the
property was yours and your responsibility but you will do what the
state tells you to with it) And so on. It confuses the daylights out
of some folks.

I think the problem here is that you are seeing Left versus Right in
modern American terms--government intervention versus laissez-faire. This
has not been the historical meaning of the terms in Europe [1] where to be
sure the Right has defended private property but has often been more
concerned with other values, such as racial and national "purity",
traditional sexual morality, imperialism and military glory, defending
established churches, etc.

In Germany, the traditional right was protectionist, as it represented
the agrarian interests, so not very laissez-faire at all. The Right
Liberals (National Liberals/German People's Party) were probably the
closest to laissez-faire capitalism.

To be sure, even by European standards the

Post by David Tenner
NSDAP was not an orthodox right-wing party, but the fact that it was not
for complete laissez-faire--and realistically *no* modern major European
parties have been for that--did much less to remove it from the Right than
you seem to think. When the Papens and Hugenbergs let Hitler come to
power in 1933, no doubt it was largely due to their mistaken belief that
they could control him--but they were not wrong in thinking that they had
some things in common with him.

Yes, but there *were* weird left wing elements in the Nazi party
program. From the 25 Points of 1920:

Point 11: Abolition of income unearned by labor or effort; breaking
the bondage of interest.

Point 12: Considering the enormous sacrifices of property and blood
which every war demands from a people, personal enrichment because of
war has to be seen as a crime against the people. We therefore demand
complete confiscation of all war profits.

Point 13: We demand nationalization of all (previously) incorporated
companies (trusts).

Point 14: We demand profit sharing in big businesses.

Point 15: We demand a generous extension of old age insurance.

Point 17: We demand land reform suited to our national needs, creation
of a law providing for expropriation without compensation of land for
common purposes, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all
speculation.

None of these things would've been advocated by normal right wing
parties. Of course, there's also lots and lots of traditional right
wing planks in the platform, and much of this weird left wingish stuff
was jettisoned once the Nazis actually came to power (especially after
the Long Knives). But still, there were some odd leftish strands of
Nazi ideology (such as it was)

[jlk7e]

Post by jlk7e
Yes, but there *were* weird left wing elements in the Nazi party
program.

[snippage of some of the 25 points]
Actually, the more "socialistic" parts were jettisoned well before Hitler
came to power. What happened is that Hitler gave his own "explanations"
of these points (quoted in Halperin, *Germany Tried Democracy: A
"For National Socialists it goes without saying that industrial capital,
since it creates values, will remain untouched. We combat only Jewish
international loan capital." (August 1920)
To clear up "false interpretations" of point 17: "In view of the fact
that the NSDAP believes in the principle of private property, it is
self-evident that the phrase 'expropriation without indemnities' refers
only to the creation of legal means whereby land which was acquired in
illegal ways or which is not being administered to the best interests of
the nation might be expropriated if necessary. This is directed primarily
against Jewish land-speculation companies." (April 13, 1928)

Yeah, Hitler certainly jettisoned a lot of that stuff. And I think
the idea that *Hitler*, as opposed to some elements of the Nazi party,
was socialistic is highly dubious. When you look at changes between
the DAP program of 1919 and the NSDAP program of 1920, which Hitler
participated in, the biggest changes are to make the party much more
rightward leaning, adding all the German nationalism stuff. There
were, though, more leftist elements in the party, like the Strassers,
but Hitler got rid of them as soon as he came to power.

[phil hunt]

Post by Wesley Taylor
The problem is that the NSDAP was neither a mutation of Left or Right
wing but a really sick and screwy merger of the two. The held private
property sacrocanct but not private control of that property. (the
property was yours and your responsibility but you will do what the
state tells you to with it) And so on. It confuses the daylights out
of some folks.

The other problem is that "left" and "right" are very vague terms
that can be used to mean all sorts of things. To answer the
quewstion "was the NSDAP left or right wing?" you must first define
what you mean by those terms.

Which I will proceed to do.

Recall that historically the terms came from the French
_Etats-Generaux_; the nobles and bishops sat on the king's right and
the represenatives of the commoners (the _tiers etat_) sat on his
left. So left-wing means representing and for the benefit of the
common people; and right-wing means representing and for the benefit
of the rich.

So to discover which the Nazis were, consider the results of their
policies. Obviously by 1945 both the rich and the poor were well and
truly fucked, so a better year of comparison is 1939. Note also I am
considering the Nazis' *policies* not their *rhetoric*, since among
politicians the two are not reliably similar.

So, my operational definition is to find the Gini coefficient (a
measure of inequality of income) in Germany for both 1933 and 1939.
If between those years, the coefficient went up, making society
lewss equal, the Nazis were right-wing; if it went down, they were
left-wing.

[Wesley Taylor]

Post by phil hunt
The other problem is that "left" and "right" are very vague terms
that can be used to mean all sorts of things. To answer the
quewstion "was the NSDAP left or right wing?" you must first define
what you mean by those terms.
Which I will proceed to do.

Interesting definitions snipped.

As with most definitions of Right/left, they are nearly useless due to
the lack of connection to the reality of the era under discussion. Not
that I can think of good definitions, that was part of why the Nazi's
could take items from all over the spectrum and meld them into a
superficially coherent platform. Not unlike Huey Long and Benito
Mussilini, among others from the era. Including FDR.

I think that the whole right/left political model is a load of manure,
but it is the usually understood model.

[phil hunt]

Post by Wesley Taylor
I think that the whole right/left political model is a load of manure,
but it is the usually understood model.

If it's the most common model -- and it often is -- then it's
unlikely to be entirely manure. In the UK (and other countries with
the first-past-the-post electoral system) politics has coalesced
into 2 big parties, one which broadly looks after the interests of
the well off, the other broadly the less well off. This is less true
now than it was from about 1930-1990. Countries with a more
proportional electoral system tend to have more parties, but they
all seem to have a position on which (wealth-based) section of
society they appeal to.

[jlk7e]

Post by phil hunt

Post by Wesley Taylor
I think that the whole right/left political model is a load of manure,
but it is the usually understood model.

If it's the most common model -- and it often is -- then it's
unlikely to be entirely manure. In the UK (and other countries with
the first-past-the-post electoral system) politics has coalesced
into 2 big parties, one which broadly looks after the interests of
the well off, the other broadly the less well off. This is less true
now than it was from about 1930-1990. Countries with a more
proportional electoral system tend to have more parties, but they
all seem to have a position on which (wealth-based) section of
society they appeal to.

Not necessarily. For instance: The Catholic Center Party. Discuss.

Also: regional parties generally don't fit on a nationwide left-right spectrum.

[phil hunt]

Post by jlk7e

Post by phil hunt
If it's the most common model -- and it often is -- then it's
unlikely to be entirely manure. In the UK (and other countries with
the first-past-the-post electoral system) politics has coalesced
into 2 big parties, one which broadly looks after the interests of
the well off, the other broadly the less well off. This is less true
now than it was from about 1930-1990. Countries with a more
proportional electoral system tend to have more parties, but they
all seem to have a position on which (wealth-based) section of
society they appeal to.

Not necessarily. For instance: The Catholic Center Party. Discuss.

Who were they?

Post by jlk7e
Also: regional parties generally don't fit on a nationwide left-right spectrum.

Indeed, they are mainly focussed on regional autonomy/independence.

[Wesley Taylor]

Post by phil hunt

Post by Wesley Taylor
I think that the whole right/left political model is a load of manure,
but it is the usually understood model.

If it's the most common model -- and it often is -- then it's
unlikely to be entirely manure. In the UK (and other countries with
the first-past-the-post electoral system) politics has coalesced
into 2 big parties, one which broadly looks after the interests of
the well off, the other broadly the less well off. This is less true
now than it was from about 1930-1990. Countries with a more
proportional electoral system tend to have more parties, but they
all seem to have a position on which (wealth-based) section of
society they appeal to.

It is a gross oversimplification of the presence of two coalitions.
Often the worst nastiness is inside the coalitions as groups with
little in common save a vague identity with the party fight for
control. For example, the old Rockefeller/Country club republicans and
Reagan Republicans. New Deal Dems and the Environmental crowd.
It primarily survives because it is simple and describes things
quickly for the folks on the fringes of politics (i.e., most people).
A more realistic model is one with multiple axis and that recognizes
coalitions of interest.

Your assessment of there being those two models for parties in the US
at least is wrong. For much of the period you note the US had two
parties, perceived as you note, but BOTH being largely concerned with
the interests of the less well off. The party that was supported by
the more well off actually was the one perceived as acting for the
less well off. The model is a gross oversimplification whose primary
strength is the ease of use and familiarity.

[Jussi Jalonen]

Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on March 23, 1933 "The Reich government
sees in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the ethics and morality of
the folk."

Leaving aside the fact that religious commitment doesn't necessarily
indicate any political orientation either towards the left or the
right - at least not on this Continent, which has had an ample
collection of Christian socialist as well as secular conservative
parties - one has to once again bear in mind that what Hitler said in
public speeches was rather different from what he said in private.
There are other quotes, ranging from "National Socialism and religion
cannot exist together" and "Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate
child" to "Christianity is an invention of sick brains" and "The best
thing is to let Christianity die a natural death".

Obviously, this doesn't alter the fact St*rl*ng is a rather, hm, silly
little man with strange convictions. Nevertheless, suggesting that A.
Hitler actually saw Christianity as a basis for the National ethics is
equal to suggesting that he was a left-wing socialist :-/




Cheers,
Jalonen

[Jörg Raddatz]

Post by SwimLFS

Post by JoatSimeon

I mean, a socialist solution couldn't have

worked, at all, ever,
-- well, since socialism is the economic equivalent of trying to fly by jumping
off a tall building and loudly denying the existance of gravity, yeah, that's
about right.

I appoligze, I was being unclear. I didn't mean communism, or
state-run centralized economies. I meant socialism, which has worked
in Europe, sort of. Christian socialism is a rather odd animal, though
I can see such a thing being adapted to Latin America.

[snip]

Post by SwimLFS
Again, Europe. Finland, Germany, so on, so forth. Higher average
standard of living than the US, better health care, though greater
taxes, and higher unemployment.

It might be argued that the socialism you associate with germany *is*
as much a Christian socialism as a leftish one - catholic workers
associations come from mid-19th century here and in the Zentrum, the
"socialist" wing was quite strong for some times.

ObWI: Around 1928, the left-wingers in Zentrum (Wirth, Stegerwald) get
the upper hand over the right-wingers like Kaas and Bruning.

Even today, there is a very strong "socialist" element in the CDU/CSU,
which is as important in keeping the general political consensus
(far?) to the left of the USA as the SPD is.

Jörg

[Maxim Afanasiev]

Post by Daniel Duffy
Since its the height of construction season, I usually find myself on the
road managing projects and attending meetings. This hasn't given me much

[...]

Gentlemen, is it the same Mr Daniel "don't you dare call me stupid"
Duffy that used to tell Carlos how impossible it is that a man of Mr
Duffy's professional standing and achivements be, er, stupid? :-)

That was a year or so ago. I wasn't reading the newsgroup for a while
and don't feel like googling for more-than-a-year-old rants now... I
just have a feeling it is the same one :-)

-- Maxim

[Jussi Jalonen]

Post by Maxim Afanasiev
Gentlemen, is it the same Mr Daniel "don't you dare call me stupid"
Duffy that used to tell Carlos how impossible it is that a man of Mr
Duffy's professional standing and achivements be, er, stupid? :-)

Yeah, the same fellow. "Don't ever call me stupid again". Daniel
Patrick Duffy, September 18th, on the Year of our Lord 2002.

Reminds me of the good old "Fish Called Wanda", but sadly, not quite
as funny. More like the opposite.

Post by Maxim Afanasiev
That was a year or so ago. I wasn't reading the newsgroup for a while and
don't feel like googling for more-than-a-year-old rants now... I just have a
feeling it is the same one :-)

He is. BTW, now that you're reading the group again, stick around. I
for one like your posts.




Cheers,
Jalonen

[Maxim Afanasiev]

Post by Jussi Jalonen
He is. BTW, now that you're reading the group again, stick around. I
for one like your posts.

Thanks so much. I really try to stick around, mostly lurking - since
1995 or so. I should confess that back then I began (blush) by trying to
teach political history to David Tenner. :-) I really hope I have
improved since then. There's something in this group that makes people
come back even after a prolonged absence.

-- Maxim

Post by Jussi Jalonen
Cheers,
Jalonen