The last venerable icon of Conservatism (in Europe aka Classical Liberalism), the Rt Hon., the Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS has died aged 87.
Lovers of personal liberty worldwide, especially Eastern Europe (and especially Romania), will always remember and honor her as one of their own. May God have mercy on her soul!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-political-phenomenon-dies (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-political-phenomenon-dies)
At last.
Mike
Off to The Guardian to read comments. Should be an entertaining day.
No, better the Miners Weekly, probably has a small circulation now, but they will be all signed up to micturate on her grave once it has been dug.
They would be wiser to stick her in an unmarked plot.
Mike
It sounds like she was a giant asshole.
Although I admittedly perceived her through my Eastern European bias, I'd take a dozen Thatchers over the politically hypercorrect, spineless leftist dungyard, which is the current Europen Union.
Quote from: Florestan on April 08, 2013, 05:19:50 AM
The last venerable icon of Conservatism (in Europe aka Classical Liberalism), the Rt Hon., the Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS has died aged 87.
Lovers of personal liberty worldwide, especially Eastern Europe (and especially Romania), will always remember and honor her as one of their own. May God have mercy on her soul!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-political-phenomenon-dies (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-political-phenomenon-dies)
Full agreement on my part, Andrei.
Rest in peace, Mrs. Thatcher.
Good riddance.
Thank god for petty tyrants and opportunist hijackers and abusers of workers' trust on the left---not leftists but betrayers of the left---because without them she would have been just another monster of greed and runaway privilege and contempt for the less fortunate and put-upon of the world. As history played out, she had an opportunity to...."be something".
Interesting (though not surprising) to read such polarized responses. Perhaps because she was not as radical as either her supporters or detractors thought. When she came into office, gov't spending was 43% of British GDP. When she left, it was 42%. So much for "rolling back socialism."
She did not make too many friends by equating Nelson Mandela with the worst of terrorists and, incredibly, at least until last year, Nelson Mandela was still on the list of people banned from British soil for terrorism. I do not know if that has changed.
But I do have huge respect for her, while disagreeing with much of what she stood for.
I wonder how many of this board's Thatcher admirers are British?
Suspicious Brits are already contemplating the "bad" news which will get "buried" over the next week or two.
Quote from: Todd on April 08, 2013, 05:44:40 AM
Off to The Guardian to read comments. Should be an entertaining day.
Not a bad idea...
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 08, 2013, 09:17:17 AM
Not a bad idea...
I think she's a polarizing person in Britain. She's probably more loved in the US and parts of Eastern Europe and, interestingly, East Asia (including China).
Quote from: springrite on April 08, 2013, 09:24:02 AM
She's probably more loved in[....]East Asia (including China).
I'd be interested in reading more about this; I can do some homework on my own, but if you have some sources ready-to-hand, please share.
Quote from: Octave on April 08, 2013, 09:28:00 AM
I'd be interested in reading more about this; I can do some homework on my own, but if you have some sources ready-to-hand, please share.
The washington post has an article with some graphs of economic data before and during her tenure as prime minister.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/08/a-look-back-at-margaret-thatchers-economic-record/?hpid=z2
Quote from: Parsifal on April 08, 2013, 09:39:47 AM
The washington post has an article with some graphs of economic data before and during her tenure as prime minister.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/08/a-look-back-at-margaret-thatchers-economic-record/?hpid=z2
My favorite line "Critics argue it [Privatization] enriched political allies of Thatcher and
led to unnecessary layoffs as firms tried to become more efficient"
Quote from: springrite on April 08, 2013, 09:24:02 AM
I think she's a polarizing person in Britain. She's probably more loved in the US and parts of Eastern Europe and, interestingly, East Asia (including China).
Hence the amusement it would offer. She was 'before my time' so I have no strong opinion on her, but many Brits I've met do seem to have a near pathological hatred of her.
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 08, 2013, 09:51:09 AM
many Brits I've met do seem to have a near pathological hatred of her.
I've had the same experience; yet she somehow managed to be elected to the PM-ship 3 times.
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 08, 2013, 09:51:09 AM
Hence the amusement it would offer. She was 'before my time' so I have no strong opinion on her, but many Brits I've met do seem to have a near pathological hatred of her.
Include me there. The real justice she received was to be comprehensively stabbed in the back and pulled out of power by her own party. Best I don't get started. She did good things, but often went about it in a bad way and she did plenty of outright bad things.
Mike
Should I be thinking of The Crimson Permanent Assurance just now? Because I cannot help it . . . .
Quote from: Velimir on April 08, 2013, 09:58:28 AM
I've had the same experience; yet she somehow managed to be elected to the PM-ship 3 times.
The electorate don't elect the PM. They elect MPs who form a government. She did lead three victories for her party, but it is clear the Faulklands gave her an extended political life: as it had looked prior to the Faulklands war that her government was heading for balot box defeat.
Mike
Quote from: Fafner on April 08, 2013, 06:16:55 AM
Although I admittedly perceived her through my Eastern European bias, I'd take a dozen Thatchers over the politically hypercorrect, spineless leftist dungyard, which is the current Europen Union.
You're a man after my own heart! 8)
Quote from: Gordon Shumway on April 08, 2013, 06:51:35 AM
Full agreement on my part, Andrei.
I knew it. 8)
Quote from: Florestan on April 08, 2013, 11:45:04 AM
You're a man after my own heart! 8)
I knew it. 8)
Yes, we (the peoples in the border) know that communists were more than simply dreamers wrong in some technical details on Economy.
Quote from: Gordon Shumway on April 08, 2013, 12:09:28 PM
Yes, we (the peoples in the border) know that communists were more than simply dreamers wrong in some technical details on Economy.
You live in Chile, right?
More balls than most male leaders -
RIP, Iron Lady.
Personally I couldn't stand her and as a university student in the 1970s I even thought of emigrating from Britain if she ever bacame PM (I didn't!) However, I admired the way she wiped the floor with all opposition and she will no doubt remain a giant figure in British political history. Unlike at least one person I know I am not celebrating her demise. However, I strongly object to the idea of a state funeral. Unlike Churchill in 1965, Thatcher remains a hugely divisive figure (as our present PM said yesterday) and, as we can see from the postings here, feelings (in the UK especially) remain highly polarised about her. Churchill was a hugely controversial figure before the war and amongst historians now, but at the time of his death in 1965 he was almost universally mourned in Britain and the nation was united in respect and admiration for him. This is simply not the case with Mrs Thatcher today.
Judging by some comments, one would think that she was not the 3-time-democratically-elected head of the limited, constitutional government of a rule-of-law-abiding country, but one of the worst tyrants ever to exercise absolute power over a helpless and defenseless nation...
You people west of the Iron Curtain will never know what it meant for us east of it to hear, after decades of appeasement and rapprochement (i.e, pandering to the Soviets), a major European leader taking a sharp stand against Soviet power and hegemony over half of Europe, calling Communism evil and showing willingness to fight and defeat it; you will never understand the ray of hope that shone in our hearts on hearing and seeing her words and deeds and at the thought that after all we were not abandoned forever to Soviets and Communism and one day we might be free again. By her moral courage and strong determination in the name of liberty, and for the leading role she played in the dismantling and fall of the Communist camp, she earned our profoundest respect and admiration. In our neck of the woods she will always be remembered with gratitude (together with two other like-minded Western leaders, equally respected and admired for the same reasons: Ronald Reagan and the Blessed Pope John Paul II).
Quote from: Florestan on April 09, 2013, 01:42:53 AM
Judging by some comments, one would think that she was not the 3-time-democratically-elected head of the limited, constitutional government of a rule-of-law-abiding country, but one of the worst tyrants ever to exercise absolute power over a helpless and defenseless nation...
You people west of the Iron Curtain will never know what it meant for us east of it to hear, after decades of appeasement and rapprochement (i.e, pandering to the Soviets), a major European leader taking a sharp stand against Soviet power and hegemony over half of Europe, calling Communism evil and showing willingness to fight and defeat it; you will never understand the ray of hope that shone in our hearts on hearing and seeing her words and deeds and at the thought that after all we were not abandoned forever to Soviets and Communism and one day we might be free again. By her moral courage and strong determination in the name of liberty, and for the leading role she played in the dismantling and fall of the Communist camp, she earned our profoundest respect and admiration. In our neck of the woods she will always be remembered with gratitude (together with two other like-minded Western leaders, equally respected and admired for the same reasons: Ronald Reagan and the Blessed Pope John Paul II).
But that's not the main issue here. As a PM in GB her main concern should have been to do the best for British citizens, however oppressed you were behind the Iron Curtain. I have views on her, but I shut up since opinions on her mainly are for GB citizens to have....And I won't even start the discussion about how the Iron Curtain ended up where it did.
Quote from: Florestan on April 09, 2013, 01:42:53 AM
Judging by some comments, one would think that she was not the 3-time-democratically-elected head of the limited, constitutional government of a rule-of-law-abiding country, but one of the worst tyrants ever to exercise absolute power over a helpless and defenseless nation...
You people west of the Iron Curtain will never know what it meant for us east of it to hear, after decades of appeasement and rapprochement (i.e, pandering to the Soviets), a major European leader taking a sharp stand against Soviet power and hegemony over half of Europe, calling Communism evil and showing willingness to fight and defeat it; you will never understand the ray of hope that shone in our hearts on hearing and seeing her words and deeds and at the thought that after all we were not abandoned forever to Soviets and Communism and one day we might be free again. By her moral courage and strong determination in the name of liberty, and for the leading role she played in the dismantling and fall of the Communist camp, she earned our profoundest respect and admiration. In our neck of the woods she will always be remembered with gratitude (together with two other like-minded Western leaders, equally respected and admired for the same reasons: Ronald Reagan and the Blessed Pope John Paul II).
This is a perfectly fair point which I do respect. Rather like Gorbachev, Thatcher is likely to inspire more unanimous praise overseas than in her own country. I don't think that these contrasting views are mutually exclusive.
Quote from: vandermolen on April 09, 2013, 04:28:05 AM
This is a perfectly fair point which I do respect. Rather like Gorbachev, Thatcher is likely to inspire more unanimous praise overseas than in her own country. I don't think that these contrasting views are mutually exclusive.
Good point.
Quote from: vandermolen on April 09, 2013, 04:28:05 AM
This is a perfectly fair point which I do respect. Rather like Gorbachev, Thatcher is likely to inspire more unanimous praise overseas than in her own country. I don't think that these contrasting views are mutually exclusive.
A fair comparison that I would offer (being old enough to do so) is Richard Nixon, reviled in his own country for a variety of possibly sound reasons, yet recognized internationally as a very fine statesman at a high level. POV is such an important consideration.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 09, 2013, 04:45:23 AM
A fair comparison that I would offer (being old enough to do so) is Richard Nixon, reviled in his own country for a variety of possibly sound reasons, yet recognized internationally as a very fine statesman at a high level. POV is such an important consideration.
8)
A very appropriate comparison I would say.
Although one hopes that Lady Thatcher did not commit outright breaches of the law of the land. No such hope can be held out for President Nixon.
Why on earth would anyone actually revile an elected politician, or contemplate something like leaving one's country for, presumably, someplace better? They're politicians. I can think of few, if any, major American politicians that I actually despise*, living or dead. If they get elected, or their party wins election after election, they are the people's choice. Granted, in the US we have never had a Hitler or Mao or Lenin or Stalin or Ceausescu, or <insert least favorite blood thirsty ideological tyrant here> at the helm, or at least not since Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln, depending on one's view, so that colors my view, I suppose. Even corrupt old Nixon had his virtues and did a variety of good (or bad) things, both domestically and in foreign policy, though many may want to ignore them - opening relations with China, signing into law the EPA, breaking the shackles of the gold standard, and so on.
* One example is more local. Neil Goldschmidt, former mayor of Portland, cabinet member under Carter, and governor of Oregon, always struck me as an insufferable prick, though he was not a tyrant. And I thought that before it was learned that he was, in fact, a child rapist while in office, for which he did no time.
The China thing was huge. There should be a commemorative opera.
Just to balance the Eastern European love here, while I'm thankful to everyone in the West who chimed in to bring the Iron Curtain down, I don't think it's a reason to idolise such a problematic figure as Thatcher was.
I loved her usage of the Dead Parrot sketch, though.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 09, 2013, 06:08:57 AM
The China thing was huge. There should be a commemorative opera.
Nixon in China?
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 06:11:29 AM
Nixon in China?
Surely a good composer can come up with a jazzier title 8)
Sarge
Quote from: karlhenning on April 09, 2013, 05:54:54 AM
Although one hopes that Lady Thatcher did not commit outright breaches of the law of the land. No such hope can be held out for President Nixon.
Watergate (which I think you are referring to) was sort of an
ex post facto thing in the long tale of Nixon. Things that were morally repugnant yet quite legal were the Enemies List, the Kent State Massacre, the overall tenor of the administration. Ms. Thatcher's opponents at home can probably compile a matching list to go with, I assume.
8)
And it's a richer America, post-Nixon. He brought the term rat-fuck into general currency . . . .
(Not sure there need be a hyphen there, but, hey . . . .)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 09, 2013, 06:14:41 AM
Surely a good composer can come up with a jazzier title 8)
Sarge
Devils' Summit?
Dick Squared?
But the title as is has a nice Gluck-ly resonance.
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 06:22:04 AM
Devils' Summit?
Dick Squared?
Tea with Turandot? (He did met Madame Mao, didn't he?)
Sarge
Quote from: Todd on April 09, 2013, 06:00:21 AM
Why on earth would anyone actually revile an elected politician, or contemplate something like leaving one's country for, presumably, someplace better? They're politicians. I can think of few, if any, major American politicians that I actually despise*, living or dead. If they get elected, or their party wins election after election, they are the people's choice. Granted, in the US we have never had a Hitler or Mao or Lenin or Stalin or Ceausescu, or <insert least favorite blood thirsty ideological tyrant here> at the helm, or at least not since Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln, depending on one's view, so that colors my view, I suppose. Even corrupt old Nixon had his virtues and did a variety of good (or bad) things, both domestically and in foreign policy, though many may want to ignore them - opening relations with China, signing into law the EPA, breaking the shackles of the gold standard, and so on.
* One example is more local. Neil Goldschmidt, former mayor of Portland, cabinet member under Carter, and governor of Oregon, always struck me as an insufferable prick, though he was not a tyrant. And I thought that before it was learned that he was, in fact, a child rapist while in office, for which he did no time.
Re: Leaving the country. I was 18 or 19 at the time so please make allowances for my youthful radicalism - now I just listen to Miaskovsky 8)
Quote from: The new erato on April 09, 2013, 02:32:56 AMI have views on her, but I shut up since opinions on her mainly are for GB citizens to have....
I beg to differ. She didn't limit her influence to GB only but was actively involved in international affairs too. Anyone can, therefore, assess her merits (or lack thereof).
Quote
As a PM in GB her main concern should have been to do the best for British citizens, however oppressed you were behind the Iron Curtain
I imagine that someone who has won 3 elections in a row and was the longest-serving British PM in the 20th century must have done at least a modicum of good things for her country...
Quote
. And I won't even start the discussion about how the Iron Curtain ended up where it did.
But that's not the main issue here.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 09, 2013, 06:31:56 AM
Tea with Turandot? (He did met Madame Mao, didn't he?)
Sarge
I am thinking that The Firesign Theatre drew up a stage play on the theme . . . .
A Firesign opera: there's the ticket!
Quote from: vandermolen on April 09, 2013, 06:36:39 AM
Re: Leaving the country. I was 18 or 19 at the time so please make allowances for my youthful radicalism - now I just listen to Miaskovsky 8)
Well, if you are not radical when you are young, you don't have a heart.
If you are still radical when you are old, you don't have a brain.
I am glad you appear to have both! :D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 09, 2013, 06:16:51 AMthe Kent State Massacre
Not quite sure how Nixon is directly responsible for this one. Lots of protests occurred, but not all governors called out the National Guard. A terrible episode in history, sure, and one with political ramifications, but to say it was Nixon's doing is inaccurate. Now, you want to talk about shameless Red Baiting and the superbly well-executed political destruction of Helen Gahagan Douglas, that's another story. That appears to be a root of at least some institutional hatred of Nixon by some Democrats.
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 06:38:46 AMWell, if you are not radical when you are young, you don't have a heart.
I've managed to live a full life with no heart, then. I have always found youthful idealism bothersome, perhaps more so when I was youthful myself.
Quote from: Florestan on April 08, 2013, 05:19:50 AM
Lovers of personal liberty worldwide, especially Eastern Europe (and especially Romania), will always remember and honor her as one of their own.
The irony is, when Eastern Europeans finally got a chance to implement Thatcherite economics in their own countries, a lot of them hated it.
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 06:38:46 AM
Well, if you are not radical when you are young, you don't have a heart.
If you are still radical when you are old, you don't have a brain.
I am glad you appear to have both! :D
:)
Quote from: Velimir on April 09, 2013, 07:11:25 AM
The irony is, when Eastern Europeans finally got a chance to implement Thatcherite economics in their own countries, a lot of them hated it.
True. :)
Quote from: Todd on April 09, 2013, 06:51:53 AM
I've managed to live a full life with no heart, then. I have always found youthful idealism bothersome, perhaps more so when I was youthful myself.
+1.
An assessment from another perspective:
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/09/the-socialist-dragon-slayer
Quote from: Andrew B. WilsonWinston Churchill described socialism as "the morbid doctrine that nothing matters but the equal sharing of miseries." He spoke of the "inexhaustible" follies of socialism. But while Churchill often mocked socialism, he did not dedicate his political career to its destruction. That is where the great wartime leader most differed from Lady Margaret Thatcher, Britain's prime minister from 1979 to 1990 — that, and the fact that she came along several decades after him.... which was more than enough time to demonstrate the accuracy of Churchill's sallies against socialism.
Unlike Churchill (either during World War II or in his second premiership from 1951-55), Thatcher did not seek peaceful co-existence with prevailing socialist orthodoxies. She hated the false pieties of leftwing/socialist thinking and she laid Britain's long-term economic decline from the end of World War II to the mid- and late-70s squarely at the feet of the baleful influence of socialism.
In well-chosen words that seem eerily apropos to our time and country (from her speech to the Conservative Party Conference in 1978), she spoke of how Britain had been undone, not by "unusually wicked people," but those with "enough good intentions to pave the well-worn path twice over":
"The root of the matter is this: We have been ruled by men who live by illusion: the illusion that you can spend money you haven't earned without eventually going bankrupt or falling into the hands of your creditors; the illusion that real jobs can be conjured into existence by Government decree, like rabbits out of a hat; the illusion that there is some other way of creating wealth than hard work and satisfying your customers; the illusion that you can have freedom and enterprise without believing in free enterprise; the illusion that you can have an effective foreign policy without a strong defense force; and a peaceful and orderly society without absolute respect for the laws."
Those open-minded enough to value diversity -- which requires fair consideration of perspectives (and facts!) inconvenient to our prejudices -- might use the link to see the rest of the article.
Others, of course, are free to engage in the usual nasty slander that greets me on this site whenever I suggest that the prevailing orthodoxy espoused by the authoritarians who ironically call themselves "liberals" today might not be entirely accurate.
Quote from: Florestan on April 09, 2013, 01:42:53 AMYou people west of the Iron Curtain will never know what it meant for us east of it to hear, after decades of appeasement and rapprochement (i.e, pandering to the Soviets), a major European leader taking a sharp stand against Soviet power and hegemony over half of Europe, calling Communism evil and showing willingness to fight and defeat it; you will never understand the ray of hope that shone in our hearts on hearing and seeing her words and deeds and at the thought that after all we were not abandoned forever to Soviets and Communism and one day we might be free again. By her moral courage and strong determination in the name of liberty, and for the leading role she played in the dismantling and fall of the Communist camp, she earned our profoundest respect and admiration. In our neck of the woods she will always be remembered with gratitude (together with two other like-minded Western leaders, equally respected and admired for the same reasons: Ronald Reagan and the Blessed Pope John Paul II).
It always strikes me how much admirers of Reagan (and Thatcher, apparently) attribute the disintegration of the Soviet Union to those tireless windbags. It was Gorbachev, afterall, who announced in 1988 that the Brezhnev Doctrine would be abandoned and that the Soviet Union would not meddle in the internal affairs of Warsaw pact countries. It was also Gorbachev who proposed to revise the Soviet Constitution to allow the participation of other parties and drafted a new Union Treaty which would make membership of the republics in the Soviet Union voluntary. It was on the eve of the ratification of this treaty that the coup was attempted by Soviet hardliners, and it was the unarmed citizens of Moscow that barricaded the streets to prevent tanks from reaching the parliament building the next day. As to the conditions that led to the instability of the Soviet Union, you can attribute it to the hectoring of Reagan and Thatcher, or to the overwhelming corruption and economic stagnation of the Brezhnev era, the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan and Gorbachev's failed attempts at reform, which resulted in economic collapse, with rationing of prosaic items such as eggs and meat.
Quote from: Parsifal on April 09, 2013, 08:54:54 AMAs to the conditions that led to the instability of the Soviet Union, you can attribute it to the hectoring of Reagan and Thatcher, or to the overwhelming corruption and economic stagnation of the Brezhnev era, the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan and Gorbachev's failed attempts at reform, which resulted in economic collapse, with rationing of prosaic items such as eggs and meat.
The rot and inefficiency of the Soviet system created the conditions of its own demise, but the massive arms buildup Reagan pushed for was instrumental in pushing the Soviet system over the edge. One can make contrafactual arguments about how the system would have eventually collapsed - in 1995? 2000? 2014? Who knows? - but the events of the 80s were ultimately critical, and the Soviet economic reforms too inconsequential. People who revere Reagan and Thatcher assign too much credit to them for the collapse of the USSR; those who dislike or hate them assign too little. What's most important is that the USSR is gone.
#nowthatchersdead# topic on tweeter was mistakenly thought as "Now That Cher's Dead", and lots and lots of people in the US mourned Cher's demise until eventually most of them realised that it was Thatcher (while the rest asked "Who's Thatcher?")
So many points here. You will be glad If i don't attempt even half of them. Thatcher did a number of unpalatable things that needed to be done. But she did them in the brutal kind of fashion that literally destroyed communities. If mining had to go....don't take it away and lazily assume it will be replaced by something or other that will provide jobs. Her thinking was half baked. Removing a seeming problem did not solve the problem, it changed the nature of it.
In Scotland she removed the steel industry, mining, shipbuilding and other heavy industry. This needed done, but she left a wasteland instead of ensuring there could be growth in new industries. By the end of her premiership there was not even one Conservative MP in Scotland. The Scots, Welsh and the Irish pretty much detested her.
She broke public ownership utilities up and what resulted was not competition, but cartels that control prices and produce profits that seem now to substantially escape tax. The public utilities are no longer there as necessities, rather they are a means of exploiting those who need to use them.
She removed exchange controls. There were reasons, but the outcome is that he have no idea how much money flows in our out of the economy, especially...out. We make calculations, but I know these are sophisticated finger in the air estimates subject to regular and alarming revisions. We lost control of our finances by doing this.
Hand in hand with this she started down the road of bank deregulation and we can see where that lead.
She wanted people to be property owning, but sold off the public stock of housing and did not replace it. We now have a housing crisis. I do know that people in the US would see her as simply clearing out socialism; but what has developed means that through the bursting of the housing bubble, young people cannot join the house property owning sector. Private rents have rocketed so they can't save for a deposit. That of course is not all her fault, Labour caused at least some of the damage. But why denude society of an asset of housing stock which would have kept rents to affordable levels?
She had highly suspect business connections with the likes of BAT, arms dealers and manufacturers, tobacco companies, dictators....suspect friends.
She over her entire time promoted only one female to the cabinet, not due to the lack of available talent, but entirely down to ego. Even looking at that one single fact: how could there be a claim that the country was appropriately or well governed when half the population was unrepresented in the decision making?
She broke the power of the unions and that was needed, she was very good on foreign policy, in the main.....but...
Just prior to the Falklands War she had the lowest approval rating of any PM on record. So the war was very handy. She made the unforgivable decision to sink the Belgrano when it was outside of the enforcement limit and sailing away from the islands. Her defence of that was lamentable. It was quite posssibly the act of a war criminal. She was a personal friend of Pinochet!! She refused to join in action against apartide in South Africa and through her influence prevented Nelson Mandella from entering the UK.
So, how did she lead the party through three elections? Look at who her opposition was, that is one reason. The Labour Party was largely neutralised by internecine battles. They could not bring themselves to deal with the changed landscape, rather to maunder on about the past. They did not construct strong alternative policies.
Poll tax riots, broken communities, greed culture,
Then Todd asks why anyone could feel so personally about a politician.
I will try to simply observe now, as I have written much more than I intended. Bit I imagine I will be pricked into more comment.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on April 09, 2013, 09:35:45 AMThen Todd asks why anyone could feel so personally about a politician.
And I still ask. The political system in a democratic country (small 'd', meant in the broadest sense) is not about one voter or citizen, even when that voter or citizen is me. I don't like the current President or Senate Majority Leader here in the States, or the Speaker of the House for that matter, but why should I personalize my dislike? (Gibes and jokes don't really count, in my view.) I cannot change the outcome of an election, nor should I be able to. I got it, people become dissatisfied with this or that or the other thing about society and politics and so on, and it's great when people push for change that they want to see, but I simply cannot abide actual personal animosity toward people who are, after all, just doing their jobs. You don't like 'em, vote 'em out. If they don't get voted out, it may be you who is wrong.
Todd, High minded humbug. I will leave it at that.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on April 09, 2013, 09:58:39 AMTodd, High minded humbug. I will leave it at that.
I always enjoy such posts, that merely
hint at much greater insights. Hate whoever you want; you don't really need to rationalize.
Well, I think that was handling me probably more generously than I deserve. I don't think I am rationalising a reaction. It is the other way round, the reaction follows the effects of observed behaviours.
Mike
Oddly enough, in view of all this, I went into my local town (Crowborough, East Sussex, UK) earlier this afternoon, to take my wife's laptop in to be repaired, when I was approached by the local BBC TV reporter and asked my views on Mrs Thatcher's legacy. I gave, what I thought was a fairly balanced assessment - 'important figure in British History, strong leader, first female PM etc but noted that they chose the most negative thing I said 'divisive and harmful to society' to play on the 6.30 local BBC News!
Quote from: vandermolen on April 09, 2013, 11:21:40 AM
Oddly enough, in view of all this, I went into my local town earlier this afternoon, to take my wife's laptop in to be repaired, when I was approached by the local BBC TV reporter and asked my views on Mrs Thatcher's legacy. I gave, what I thought was a fairly balanced assessment - 'important figure in British History, strong leader, first female PM etc but noted that they chose the most negative thing I said 'divisive and harmful to society' to play on the 6.30 BBC News!
Dratted newshounds!
Quote from: karlhenning on April 09, 2013, 11:23:22 AM
Dratted newshounds!
I am very amused/bemused by the whole thing but suspect that my right wing employers might think differently 8)
Not STILL those nasty arms dealers surely.
Mike
Quote from: vandermolen on April 09, 2013, 11:25:09 AM
I am very amused/bemused by the whole thing but suspect that my right wing employers might think differently 8)
There's a scene in the "Free For All" episode of The Prisoner (the one where no. 6 runs for the office of no. 2) where a pair of journalists interview him. He generally responds, "No comment," whereupon the journalizt furnishes an answer for him. To the question where no. 6 does give an answer, the journalist notes down, "No comment."
Quote from: knight66 on April 09, 2013, 11:28:27 AM
Not STILL those nasty arms dealers surely.
Mike
Hehe v funny! Certainly not.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 09, 2013, 11:30:53 AM
There's a scene in the "Free For All" episode of The Prisoner (the one where no. 6 runs for the office of no. 2) where a pair of journalists interview him. He generally responds, "No comment," whereupon the journalizt furnishes an answer for him. To the question where no. 6 does give an answer, the journalist notes down, "No comment."
I suspected they would select my negative comments but felt I should try to be honest. In case this sounds sanctimonious I am quite capable of NOT being honest. 8)
Quote from: vandermolen on April 09, 2013, 11:21:40 AM
Oddly enough, in view of all this, I went into my local town (Crowborough, East Sussex, UK) earlier this afternoon, to take my wife's laptop in to be repaired, when I was approached by the local BBC TV reporter and asked my views on Mrs Thatcher's legacy. I gave, what I thought was a fairly balanced assessment - 'important figure in British History, strong leader, first female PM etc but noted that they chose the most negative thing I said 'divisive and harmful to society' to play on the 6.30 local BBC News!
That is how the media works. Somehow most people in the west seem to think that they have freedom of the press and it is somehow different from places where there allegedly isn't. Well, I have lived in both places for over 20 years each and they are more similar then you would like to admit. They know what they want to convey and you are the tools. I now refuse all interviews from AP and other western press because that is what they always always do. You talk for 40 minutes and they somehow got "China is a monster and the people here are outraged" out of it, every time. At least in China I get my columns and LIVE talk shows and I can convey my thoughts without missing a syllable.
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 05:20:20 PM
That is how the media works. Somehow most people in the west seem to think that they have freedom of the press and it is somehow different from places where there allegedly isn't. Well, I have lived in both places for over 20 years each and they are more similar then you would like to admit. They know what they want to convey and you are the tools. I now refuse all interviews from AP and other western press because that is what they always always do. You talk for 40 minutes and they somehow got "China is a monster and the people here are outraged" out of it, every time. At least in China I get my columns and LIVE talk shows and I can convey my thoughts without missing a syllable.
No, I cannot agree with this having lived in both types of places as well. I'll use Russia as a good example, where the press is clearly geared in one direction. In the US, there may be different stations/organizations that will do what you say about twisting the information to suit their needs, but there are so many options and each chooses what they want to write or say. This is significantly different from many countries, where diverging from the 'party' line is at best a fireable offense or at worst a deadly one (again using Russia, look at just how many 'opposition' journalists have been killed there).
By the way, a good example - try to write a criticism of the Russian Orthodox Church and you may find yourself in prision soon (see end of article)...http://news.yahoo.com/russias-orthodox-leader-says-feminism-very-dangerous-202254393.html (http://news.yahoo.com/russias-orthodox-leader-says-feminism-very-dangerous-202254393.html)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on April 09, 2013, 06:03:51 PM
No, I cannot agree with this having lived in both types of places as well. I'll use Russia as a good example, where the press is clearly geared in one direction. In the US, there may be different stations/organizations that will do what you say about twisting the information to suit their needs, but there are so many options and each chooses what they want to write or say. This is significantly different from many countries, where diverging from the 'party' line is at best a fireable offense or at worst a deadly one (again using Russia, look at just how many 'opposition' journalists have been killed there).
I see your point. It is different, but not as different as you think especially when it comes to international issues. I am sure I have worked with the press of both countries much more than you have. It is certainly less different than you think.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on April 09, 2013, 06:03:51 PM...This is significantly different from many countries, where diverging from the 'party' line is at best a fireable offense or at worst a deadly one (again using Russia, look at just how many 'opposition' journalists have been killed there).
I think your implication that journalists have been knocked off by the government is off the mark. What gets them killed is usually writing about some oligarch/criminal's money. It ain't good there, but it isn't as bad as you imply.
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 06:50:41 PM
I see your point. It is different, but not as different as you think especially when it comes to international issues. I am sure I have worked with the press of both countries much more than you have. It is certainly less different than you think.
That may be true, but I also have a lot of experience dealing with the press in multiple countries. And while there is something to your point, it IS as different as I indicated. We are not exactly talking apples to apples here, but it is hard to argue that the press in these countries is as open as the press in the US. I am talking broadly here, while I get the feeling you may not be.
In Eastern Europe for example, it is very common for stories to be bought. A standard approach is for a company/organization to pay for the story so that the story comes out exactly as the comp/org wants (and we're talking the leading news outlets of that country). Of course, many governments exert undue influence on the press. This is not acceptable at professional organizations in the US (or is certainly grounds for firing or whatever). And if the US govt were caught trying to twist someone's arm, there would be a huge pushback. There are all sorts of watchdog agencies/groups in the US that look for just such things.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on April 09, 2013, 07:08:07 PM
In Eastern Europe for example, it is very common for stories to be bought. A standard approach is for a company/organization to pay for the story so that the story comes out exactly as the comp/org wants (and we're talking the leading news outlets of that country).
Also in the US
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/business/media/sponsors-now-pay-for-online-articles-not-just-ads.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Quote from: Parsifal on April 09, 2013, 07:05:08 PM
I think your implication that journalists have been knocked off by the government is off the mark. What gets them killed is usually writing about some oligarch/criminal's money. It ain't good there, but it isn't as bad as you imply.
That's true too. But I'd say it's both. The government doesn't make their lives easier (and the boundry between business and government is far murkier than it is in the West). But I actually think it is worse than I said. There have been an estimated 200-300+ deaths of Russian journalists in the last 20 years (can you imagine the reaction in the US to such a statistic (excluding warzone deaths)). It is obvious, if you watch Russian news, that there is no interest in presenting more than one side. But this also means that 'true' journalists face real risk if they pursue certain avenues of inquiry or if they show the 'wrong' stories. They don't all result in death. But losing one's job can be almost as bad. Or they can harass your family and make life difficult.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on April 09, 2013, 07:08:07 PM
but it is hard to argue that the press in these countries is as open as the press in the US.
I never said that.
Feeding preconceived prejudices is...
Well, never mind.
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 07:29:46 PM
I never said that.
My apologies. You wrote (which I apparently took to mean something other than what you meant):
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 05:20:20 PM
Somehow most people in the west seem to think that they have freedom of the press and it is somehow different from places where there allegedly isn't.
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 07:31:42 PM
Feeding preconceived prejudices is...
Well, never mind.
I'm sorry, are you referring to me?
Quote from: Parsifal on April 09, 2013, 07:05:08 PM
I think your implication that journalists have been knocked off by the government is off the mark. What gets them killed is usually writing about some oligarch/criminal's money. It ain't good there, but it isn't as bad as you imply.
Absolutely correct. I lived in Russia from 2005 until last year - there is any amount of "opposition press" in the sense of expressing opinions, opposing gov't policies and so on. Nobody cares about that really. What gets you killed is writing about
someone else's money.
A reporter may write something, but there are certain things that are formulated to be in the report:
Tiananmen square (whenever mentioned, always "where hundreds, possibly thousands of students....", regardless of what the report is about)
An American deported for spying (criminal act! America NEVER has spies!)
President Xi Jinping (Son of a trusted Mao deputy. What? If Mao had 1000 people who can be called his deputies at one point or another, maybe his father qualified. The point of the reference is to make the reader think negatively. He was famous for his bravery as the biggest critic of Mao)
China, North Korea's ally (What bullshit. China hated DPRK and DPRK considers China to be enemy #1 and biggest threat.)
Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa (Taiwan was never formerly known as Formosa except when it was called so in Japanese when Japan occupied it. Would you say such and such region in Poland once occupied by Germany or Russia as "formerly known as (insert German or Russian name)?)
I was part of an active opposition movement for years. I know how members of my group make up lies and the press is very happy to help mislead:
Every political prisoner "has cancer, refused treatment, lost most of his teeth, hair all grey, can't meet family members" and (after I helped get their release throu working with the politcal pressures abroad) when they came out to the US a few years later they are in super health. Teeth mysteriously appeared, cancer gone, and hair is black again.
Mr. Wei Jingsheng, one of those people, smoking in the Capitol building: "The no smoking sign is for common folks. Would Mao not be allowed to smoke in any building. I am the Mao of the Democratic Movement." -- no one said anything, and no reporters would report it (or was overrulled by the boss).
Another one involved with human trafficing of young girls to be used as prostitutes to fund his "cause" but actually just himself, and was well protected by the US gov and the press that knew about it.
Al Gore fundraising "scandal" allegedly involved "Chinese businessmen and a Chinese monk". But the "Chinese businessmen" were Indonisia if Chinese decent, and the "Chinese monk" was Taiwanese, and none of them have ever been to China or have anything to do with China. But if it is negative press, they are Chinese. The Chinese scientist allegedly stole secrets but later cleared of all charges was likelwise "Chinese" but was second generation Chinese American whose grandparents came from Taiwan. If it is bad press, he is Chinese. If he wins the Nobel Prize, he is American.
Americans are bombarded with all these negative press about China most of which has nothing to do with China.
The Sudan story is one of the worst, making it seems like China started the war and was funding the war. Blatant lies.
No, you are right. They are more free. But free to do what?
Recently a China correspondent resigned and called me. Another one of her stories was edited with these "a peony festival was held in Tiananmen Square where in 1989 hundreds maybe thousands of students..." and she had had enough. She protested to no avail. No she is a happy farmer in the Beijing subburb, helping with green farming.
When it comes to China or Russia or Muslims, you kind of know what will be ignored, what will be reported and how they will twist it.
Sorry if we are derailing the topic. I have said all I wanted to say here and people will believe what they want to believe. So everyone stay where you are. I am going to the music room now. ;D
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2013, 08:02:49 PM
Sorry if we are derailing the topic. I have said all I wanted to say here and people will believe what they want to believe. So everyone stay where you are. I am going to the music room now. ;D
It is not really a question about belief, but you are right. We are derailing the topic.
R.I.P.
It was a vey interesting discussion and probably better than more yards of my negativity. I won't say much about the press. But from Gov stories I have been close to; even what I think of as the more intelligent newspapers deliberately distort and mislead to make the story fit their concept of what underlying message they want to project about the events. I can't recall even one story being accurate despite factual briefings. It really opened a door I had hoped was not there. If they are so deliberately inaccurate and wrongheaded about the few stories I know from the inside, then why would any of the rest of what they produce be more truthful....what can I believe that I am told?
Well, back on thread duty, parliament will have seven hours today to discuss Thatcher's life and legacy. A pity they could not apply that time to legislation.
I wonder if anyone will specifically point out that when the miners resisted the destruction of their industry, way of life, communities and livelihoods, she branded them as, "The enemy within." How totalitarian is that? Demonising a large group of citizens who will be very badly damaged by your policies.
The miners were badly lead and manipulated, the outcome was unacceptable violence which played into Thatcher's hands. Pits were uneconomic, yet we now import coal at a high price. In Wales we have many second generation unemployed where dependency on state benefits has become a way of life and that is what replaced communities where the men mostly worked hard in a demanding job and supported themselves and their families. This was as much about smashing a union as it was about economics and the people working in the industry got caught between two wrongheaded people and suffered a great deal.
I think wisely her family have decided on cremation as it is unlikely any grave would be left undamaged. Not good, but indicating how divisive she was and how fresh it all remains for many people.
As an aside, I have just read that Thatcher was part of the research team that developed Mr Whippy ice cream.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on April 09, 2013, 10:35:54 PM
As an aside, I have just read that Thatcher was part of the research team that developed Mr Whippy ice cream.
Mike
I hope that this is mentioned in the parliamentary tributes :)
.As someone who strongly and actively dislikes most Romanian politicians, from left to right, I certainly understand your feelings, Mike. But Todd is right in pointing out that in democracy politicians don't vote themselves in power: they get themselves elected by the people. If a person we dislike, or one whose policies we find to be detrimental to the society, is elected (sometimes not once, but even twice and thrice --- plenty of cases here in Romania too) then the blame (if blame is the right word) is not on him/her, but on that part of the people that trusted them. Each and every British citizen who voted Conservatives in the 3 elections they won under Thatcher's rule is equally responsible for what she did, good or bad.
Most interesting discussion, indeed, gents.
I prefer a beast like Thatcher over a ghost like Merkel. Well at least from the entertainment point of view ;)
Thatcher VS. Cheney Death-Match! (oh . . . .)
Quote from: knight66 on April 09, 2013, 10:35:54 PM
Well, back on thread duty, parliament will have seven hours today to discuss Thatcher's life and legacy. A pity they could not apply that time to legislation.
If it be any consolation (no, I don't expect so), the US Congress cannot be bothered to see to the important — not to say urgent — work which is on their plate, and which they were elected to see to, either.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 10, 2013, 04:50:31 AM
Thatcher VS. Cheney Death-Match! (oh . . . .)
Nah, Thatcher would crush him like a bug. :) One thing I did admire in her was the way she was always able to think quickly on her feet. She was much more entertaining at question time than Major, who followed her.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on April 10, 2013, 05:27:46 AM
Nah, Thatcher would crush him like a bug. :)
That is indeed the plan! ; )
Quote from: Florestan on April 10, 2013, 02:17:22 AM
.As someone who strongly and actively dislikes most Romanian politicians, from left to right, I certainly understand your feelings, Mike. But Todd is right in pointing out that in democracy politicians don't vote themselves in power: they get themselves elected by the people. If a person we dislike, or one whose policies we find to be detrimental to the society, is elected (sometimes not once, but even twice and thrice --- plenty of cases here in Romania too) then the blame (if blame is the right word) is not on him/her, but on that part of the people that trusted them. Each and every British citizen who voted Conservatives in the 3 elections they won under Thatcher's rule is equally responsible for what she did, good or bad.
I think that is quite an eccentric point of view. You don't get much choice really and on the basis of one single vote cast about each four years, they do substantially what they like. You write as though they don't want power, but the public thrust it on to them. Obviously not so. They are by and large starving for power then normally very reluctant to put it aside. Leaders get binned by their party when they are seen as an elective liability. It is not just about having a chance to vote them out. The Demos usually has no say in who leads the parties and when the leader gets the shove. For instance no one sensible would have voted Michael Foot in as leader of the Labour party and he was hopeless, mired in the past. His party did that and suffered the consequences, as possibly did the country.
I in part agree that people get the governments they deserve, but there are lots of exceptions to that canard: Zimbabwe for one. That of course is extreme, but with a lot of voters casting their vote tribally and until recently only two possible groups of power holders, the concept of the democracy being government by the people for the people is a joke.
In over 40 years I have only had two votes that contributed towards someone being elected. All the rest of the time I have lived in safe seats where I would not have voted for the party with the stranglehold. So I feel that I have been disenfranchised most of my life. I throw my vote away by casting it and have no effective say in the completion of the government that is elected.
Politics is often based on a cult of personality, so pardon me if I turn round and denigrate an exceptionally defective one who I believe damaged swathes of the people she was supposed to be governing.
Mike
Quote from: karlhenning on April 10, 2013, 05:31:20 AM
That is indeed the plan! ; )
I like your plan. If only it came a few years, say a decade or so earlier...
Quote from: karlhenning on April 10, 2013, 05:26:32 AM
If it be any consolation (no, I don't expect so), the US Congress cannot be bothered to see to the important — not to say urgent — work which is on their plate, and which they were elected to see to, either.
Yes, I do watch all of that and I would despair if I was over in the US. No doubt starting with good intent; how do countries end up with the governmental porridge we experience? (Rhetorical one that.)
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on April 10, 2013, 05:36:40 AMI throw my vote away by casting it and have no effective say in the completion of the government that is elected.
Well, that's intrinsic to democracy of pretty much any practical form. You and I - or anyone on this board - have an inconsequential voice in politics. Ideally, everyone would have an equally inconsequential individual voice. It's the mass of voters that decides, or ought to decide.
Yes, I get it, moneyed interests and others sway the electorate through devious trickery and outright corruption, and so on, but sometimes that may not be the case. I mean, here in the US, after Citizens United, we, the unwashed masses, were warned, warned again, and warned some more by the left about how money would determine everything – until it didn't. Several extremely rich candidates burned through millions to lose. Super PACs raised hundreds of millions, spent freely, yet some of their pet candidates and measures failed. None of this is to say that the current situation in the US isn't in need of reform, but it does point out that the left may have misjudged a few things. Now, perhaps in the UK's system, where the head of government is not elected by the people (and technically, the President is not, either), things are more dire and the people are steamrolled all the time.
Now, you are indeed correct that politicians are power hungry and usually not keen on giving it up. But at the same time, reelection means delivering for the electorate. Often that just takes the form of government largesse delivered with a pretty bow, but sometimes that isn't enough. Here in the States we have had people at the pinnacle of power lose their seats – Tom Foley and Tom Daschle come to mind, and Bush Sr after his big war victory – which, while not common, or at least not common enough, at least restores faith in the electorate to an extent.
It also helps to have a decentralized federal structure. There's much more to vote on here than specific parties or presidential candidates. I get to vote on everything from President down to school board, and various measures, some actually sponsored by citizens' groups. I've got a slightly more than inconsequential voice on these. (Maybe.) Sometimes on issues I couldn't care less about.
(In your somewhat glum mood regarding democracy, you may want to stay away from Kenneth Arrow's work.)
Quote from: knight66 on April 10, 2013, 05:36:40 AM
I think that is quite an eccentric point of view. You don't get much choice really and on the basis of one single vote cast about each four years, they do substantially what they like. You write as though they don't want power, but the public thrust it on to them. Obviously not so. They are by and large starving for power then normally very reluctant to put it aside. Leaders get binned by their party when they are seen as an elective liability. It is not just about having a chance to vote them out. The Demos usually has no say in who leads the parties and when the leader gets the shove. For instance no one sensible would have voted Michael Foot in as leader of the Labour party and he was hopeless, mired in the past. His party did that and suffered the consequences, as possibly did the country.
I in part agree that people get the governments they deserve, but there are lots of exceptions to that canard: Zimbabwe for one. That of course is extreme, but with a lot of voters casting their vote tribally and until recently only two possible groups of power holders, the concept of the democracy being government by the people for the people is a joke.
In over 40 years I have only had two votes that contributed towards someone being elected. All the rest of the time I have lived in safe seats where I would not have voted for the party with the stranglehold. So I feel that I have been disenfranchised most of my life. I throw my vote away by casting it and have no effective say in the completion of the government that is elected.
Politics is often based on a cult of personality, so pardon me if I turn round and denigrate an exceptionally defective one who I believe damaged swathes of the people she was supposed to be governing.
Mike
I largely agree. I'm pleased to say that I haver never yet voted for the party which was actually elected or for the MP who was elected in my constituency either. Had a dilemma last time as the existing MP (a Conservative) got me off an unfair parking ticket! The main parties in the UK are now virtually indestinguishable anyway. Labour have moved to the Right, the Conservatives to the Left (a bit) and the Lib-Dems remain at the Centre.
Quote from: knight66 on April 09, 2013, 10:35:54 PM
Well, back on thread duty, parliament will have seven hours today to discuss Thatcher's life and legacy. A pity they could not apply that time to legislation.
Also makes me think of the brilliant neologism coined for the comparable event here on this side of the pond: Reaganalia.
Quote from: knight66 on April 10, 2013, 05:36:40 AM
You write as though they don't want power, but the public thrust it on to them. Obviously not so. They are by and large starving for power then normally very reluctant to put it aside.
(http://www.panarchy.org/debellis/anarchy/images/politics1.gif)
Quote
In over 40 years I have only had two votes that contributed towards someone being elected. All the rest of the time I have lived in safe seats where I would not have voted for the party with the stranglehold. So I feel that I have been disenfranchised most of my life. I throw my vote away by casting it and have no effective say in the completion of the government that is elected.
(http://www.panarchy.org/debellis/anarchy/images/vote.gif)
http://themusicsalon.blogspot.nl/2013/04/margaret-thatchers-favorite-composer.html
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/forum/general-discussion/margaret-thatcher-loved-bartok
Quote from: Florestan on April 10, 2013, 02:17:22 AM
.As someone who strongly and actively dislikes most Romanian politicians, from left to right, I certainly understand your feelings, Mike. But Todd is right in pointing out that in democracy politicians don't vote themselves in power: they get themselves elected by the people. If a person we dislike, or one whose policies we find to be detrimental to the society, is elected (sometimes not once, but even twice and thrice --- plenty of cases here in Romania too) then the blame (if blame is the right word) is not on him/her, but on that part of the people that trusted them. Each and every British citizen who voted Conservatives in the 3 elections they won under Thatcher's rule is equally responsible for what she did, good or bad.
I don't know about there, but here it seems more and more like democracy is becoming a facade, with all of the campaign contributions, super PACs, etc.
So many people didn't like Romney, but voted for him anyways, because there wasn't a better choice (I'm just one of them). The real people who control this country are the ones with money, because they can donate to their preferred candidate, and then that candidate can use the money for campaign ads, etc. The American people can't vote for people they've never heard of or never made the ballot.
And of course, there are the banks who donate to both parties to ensure they are forever protected so they can continue ripping off America and damaging the country in general for their own monetary gain.
There was one candidate that caught my attention, but he never made it to the ballot. He made it to NPR, but that was about it. I don't think Fox News or CNN was very interested in featuring him. Probably not enough corporate or financial institution sponsors/connections.
Quote from: Marc on April 10, 2013, 09:39:40 AM
http://themusicsalon.blogspot.nl/2013/04/margaret-thatchers-favorite-composer.html
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/forum/general-discussion/margaret-thatcher-loved-bartok
Nice. :)
Quote from: Greg on April 10, 2013, 02:50:47 PM
I don't know about there, but here it seems more and more like democracy is becoming a facade, with all of the campaign contributions, super PACs, etc.
Here too. Facade is not the right word, though --- downright farce is more appropriate. What we really have is a particracy --- the three main parties rule the game and despite proclaiming different ideologies (one social-democratic, one liberal and one conservative) they all subscribe to one and the same: getting in power at all costs and staying there as long as possible. And that is not all: I won't even begin to discuss the shameful privileges a Romanian MP enjoys as compared to an ordinary citizen: the very thought of it makes me puke.
Going to the voting booths in Romania does nothing else than legitimating and perpetuating the farce. I have since long ceased to vote and I don't think I'll ever do it again. Actually, I'm opposed to the very concept of democracy (except on local, small scale territorial units) and political parties (no exception whatsoever), not only because it has become empty, but on principle: to put it bluntly, I loathe democracy and political parties just as much as I loathe tyranny --- but that is another issue; if you (or anyone else) want to discuss it feel free to PM me.
Quote
So many people didn't like Romney, but voted for him anyways, because there wasn't a better choice (I'm just one of them).
Oh yes, that's the principle I've applied to all my votes but one (and that single one which I voted enthusiastically eventually turned out to be the greatest disappointment of them all...). But then I realized that this is wrong: voting the least bad people or party gives those people or parties no real incentive to stand for, and make, any real difference, because they know they'll always be the least bad choice no matter what they do and therefore they'll always have enough votes to make it into the Parliament and enjoy their privileges accordingly. They masquerade as anti-establishment outsiders but they are none of it: they are part and parcel of the farce and facade.
Quote
The real people who control this country are the ones with money, because they can donate to their preferred candidate, and then that candidate can use the money for campaign ads, etc.
The American people can't vote for people they've never heard of or never made the ballot.
And of course, there are the banks who donate to both parties to ensure they are forever protected so they can continue ripping off America and damaging the country in general for their own monetary gain.
Same here but there we go again to the very essence of democracy: it can't be fixed, it is conceptually broken. Just as Communism could not have been fixed by replacing Brezhnev with Gorbachev, so democracy cannot be fixed by replacing Bush jr. with Obama, or Thatcher with Blair, or etc etc etc. The problem is not who drives the car -- the problem is the car itself was badly designed and as a result was even worsel damaged during operation.
Quote from: Florestan on April 11, 2013, 05:46:05 AM
Here too. Facade is not the right word, though --- downright farce is more appropriate. What we really have is a particracy --- the three main parties rule the game and despite proclaiming different ideologies (one social-democratic, one liberal and one conservative) they all subscribe to one and the same: getting in power at all costs and staying there as long as possible. And that is not all: I won't even begin to discuss the shameful privileges a Romanian MP enjoys as compared to an ordinary citizen: the very thought of it makes me puke.
Going to the voting booths in Romania does nothing else than legitimating and perpetuating the farce. I have since long ceased to vote and I don't think I'll ever do it again. Actually, I'm opposed to the very concept of democracy (except on local, small scale territorial units) and political parties (no exception whatsoever), not only because it has become empty, but on principle: to put it bluntly, I loathe democracy and political parties just as much as I loathe tyranny --- but that is another issue; if you (or anyone else) want to discuss it feel free to PM me.
Oh yes, that's the principle I've applied to all my votes but one (and that single one which I voted enthusiastically eventually turned out to be the greatest disappointment of them all...). But then I realized that this is wrong: voting the least bad people or party gives those people or parties no real incentive to stand for, and make, any real difference, because they know they'll always be the least bad choice no matter what they do and therefore they'll always have enough votes to make it into the Parliament and enjoy their privileges accordingly. They masquerade as anti-establishment outsiders but they are none of it: they are part and parcel of the farce and facade.
Same here but there we go again to the very essence of democracy: it can't be fixed, it is conceptually broken. Just as Communism could not have been fixed by replacing Brezhnev with Gorbachev, so democracy cannot be fixed by replacing Bush jr. with Obama, or Thatcher with Blair, or etc etc etc. The problem is not who drives the car -- the problem is the car itself was badly designed and as a result was even worsel damaged during operation.
I should have stuck with my original intention of not voting. ;D I think most people felt like they were voting for the "lesser of two evils" in the last US election. I heard that phrase quite a bit.
"Particracy" is a new term for me. I hear more and more than America is turning into an oligarchy, and it seems more apparent the more I read about stuff.
There may be a way to "fix" democracy, but it might be extreme.
I vote if I possibly can. Possibly devalued, it was nevertheless a right hard fought for.
THE funeral parade will go right in front of my office windows, but I won't be in London.
Mike
Quote from: Greg on April 11, 2013, 12:20:00 PM
I should have stuck with my original intention of not voting. ;D I think most people felt like they were voting for the "lesser of two evils" in the last US election. I heard that phrase quite a bit.
I've heard that in practically every US presidential election, starting with Geo. H.W. Bush VS. Michael Dukakis.
Quote from: Greg on April 11, 2013, 12:20:00 PM
I think most people felt like they were voting for the "lesser of two evils" in the last US election.
But the majority still chose the greater of two evils.
Again.
And if you think things are bad now then just hold on tight because what's coming will make this seem like the good old days.
Oh, well -- that's what we deserve for allowing the moronic narcissists in Hollywood to do our thinking for us.
Quote from: Florestan on April 08, 2013, 05:19:50 AM
The last venerable icon of Conservatism (in Europe aka Classical Liberalism), the Rt Hon., the Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS has died aged 87.
Lovers of personal liberty worldwide, especially Eastern Europe (and especially Romania), will always remember and honor her as one of their own. May God have mercy on her soul!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-political-phenomenon-dies (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-political-phenomenon-dies)
It takes someone who used to live under communism to truly appreciate the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. These two individuals and Pope John Paul II were largely responsible for the collapse of communism that set millions of people free ...
Quote from: Coopmv on April 11, 2013, 05:40:05 PM
It takes someone who used to live under communism to truly appreciate the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. These two individuals and Pope John Paul II were largely responsible for the collapse of communism that set millions of people free ...
Nah. "Communism" -- by which you seem to mean the Soviet Union and its empire -- collapsed due to the catastrophic failure of its idiotic economic policies and the impossibility of keeping hundreds of millions enslaved in a massive police state built on lies when modern communications made the truth all too easy to see. The fiasco in Afghanistan undoubtedly hastened its demise, but whether the Reagan arms race hastened the end of the Soviet abomination or prolonged it is a question that cannot be answered definitively.
Reagan's foreign policy was unconscionable, illegal, and disastrous; his domestic policies relatively inconsequential except for three brilliant high court appointments -- O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy -- without whom our nation would be in even deeper doo-doo than it is today. Perhaps the best thing that can be said of him is that he had a clear (if inconsistent) moral compass that made him the least harmful President since Eisenhower and a towering success in comparison to all the halfwits occupying the office since.
Thatcher took the reins as Great Britain was imploding in a rapid decline into economic catastrophe due to the failures of the welfare state and helped rescue it from impending doom, but only for a short while, for as soon as prosperity began to return, the ignorant, spoiled, selfish masses resumed murdering and eating the goose that lays golden eggs.
That would be a great name for a band: The Towering Nitwits
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 11, 2013, 07:12:51 PM
three brilliant high court appointments -- O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy -- without whom our nation would be in even deeper doo-doo than it is today.
Thanks for the first chuckle of the day.
Quote from: Greg on April 11, 2013, 12:20:00 PM
There may be a way to "fix" democracy, but it might be extreme.
Which one?
Quote from: Daverz on April 12, 2013, 03:31:26 AM
Thanks for the first chuckle of the day.
I wouldn't expect Lester Maddux to acknowledge the greatness of Martin Luther King, either.
Quote from: Parsifal on April 12, 2013, 05:58:59 AM
Educate the population?
Ah yes, the old
canard of the Enlightenment. The problem is it was tried and failed miserably.
Quote from: Parsifal on April 12, 2013, 05:58:59 AM
Educate the population?
Oh, that were extreme ; )Quote from: Florestan on April 12, 2013, 06:04:38 AM
Ah yes, the old canard of the Enlightenment. The problem is it was tried and failed miserably.
Such a fine line between an education system, and a channel for conditioning . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on April 12, 2013, 06:06:06 AM
Such a fine line between an education system, and a channel for conditioning . . . .
Yes, but a genuine education system is
ipso facto undemocratic, because it strives for excellence in knowledge, independence in thought and moral compass in action --- a far cry from the egalitarian and leveling ideal of the democratic dogma.
Well, if Madam Thatcher had been a prime minister in September 1939, Poland would probably have not been left alone... (and IIWW would have lasted considerably shorter)
Quote from: Daimonion on April 12, 2013, 06:24:45 AM
Well, if Madam Thatcher had been a prime minister in September 1939, Poland would probably have not been left alone... (and IIWW would have lasted considerably shorter)
Difficult to speculate on such lines; we are all creatures of our time, and a Thatcher in 1939 would necessarily have been a different person to the actual Thatcher.
Quote from: Florestan on April 12, 2013, 06:12:49 AM
Yes, but a genuine education system is ipso facto undemocratic, because it strives for excellence in knowledge, independence in thought and moral compass in action --- a far cry from the egalitarian and leveling ideal of the democratic dogma.
A genuine education system allows each individual an equal opportunity to develop his or her own mind according to his or her own ability and inclination. I see nothing undemocratic about that.
Quote from: Florestan on April 12, 2013, 06:04:38 AM
Ah yes, the old canard of the Enlightenment. The problem is it was tried and failed miserably.
The human condition has improved dramatically since the Enlightenment, so I fail to see where the miserable failure is.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 12, 2013, 06:28:08 AM
Difficult to speculate on such lines; we are all creatures of our time, and a Thatcher in 1939 would necessarily have been a different person to the actual Thatcher.
Right, obviously. A similar conditional, however, would apply equally well to Lord Churchill.
Quote from: Daimonion on April 12, 2013, 06:24:45 AMWell, if Madam Thatcher had been a prime minister in September 1939, Poland would probably have not been left alone... (and IIWW would have lasted considerably shorter)
She was 14 at the time. She would have been out of her depth. And even Churchill's elevation first to the First Lord of the Admiralty and then PM wasn't enough to shorten the war after the policy of appeasement of the 30s.
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2013, 06:37:54 AM
She was 14 at the time. She would have been out of her depth
Well. What I had in mind was NOT that
14-years old Thatcher as a PM would have changed anything ;)
Quote from: Daimonion on April 12, 2013, 06:24:45 AM
Well, if Madam Thatcher had been a prime minister in September 1939, Poland would probably have not been left alone... (and IIWW would have lasted considerably shorter)
You have the ability to foresee how history would have proceeded if England had pursued a different policy in 1939? Perhaps with Poland secure against invasion Germany would never have invaded the Soviet Union and would not have lost the War. Perhaps perceived belligerence by England would have made it harder for Roosevelt to get the isolationist US to enter the war. Perhaps all of western Europe would be part of Germany now. :)
Quote from: Parsifal on April 12, 2013, 06:51:31 AMPerhaps all of western Europe would be part of Germany now.
I thought that was a practical outcome of the current Euro crisis.
Quote from: Parsifal on April 12, 2013, 06:51:31 AM
You have the ability to foresee how history would have proceeded if England had pursued a different policy in 1939? Perhaps with Poland secure against invasion Germany would never have invaded the Soviet Union and would not have lost the War. Perhaps perceived belligerence by England would have made it harder for Roosevelt to get the isolationist US to enter the war. Perhaps all of western Europe would be part of Germany now. :)
All of these, both mine and yours, is speculation obviously. Still, however, I believe that the most probably scenario would be as follows. If England (and France!) attacked Germany in September 1939, Berlin would be captured within months - Hitler's army was prepared for offensive war (rather than for defense) and it was all (apart for some like 5 divisions in the West) at the Polish borders (if you want you may check Erich von Manstein's memories for German's view of what could have happened if the Allies attacked).
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 12, 2013, 04:51:16 AM
I wouldn't expect Lester Maddux to acknowledge the greatness of Martin Luther King, either.
Yeah, right, I'm like a fanatical segregationist because I find your praise of Antonin Scalia risible. What an asshole.
It's Lester Madd
ox, BTW.
EDIT: the irony is that Antonin Scalia is the guy who thinks that voting rights are a "racial entitlement".
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2013, 07:00:36 AM
I thought that was a practical outcome of the current Euro crisis.
And the funny thing is that politicians in my country (i.e. in Poland and it includes the ruling party) are just at this moment doing their best to introduce us into the Euro zone. What a great sense of the Zeitgeist!
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2013, 07:00:36 AM
I thought that was a practical outcome of the current Euro crisis.
Excluding the Nordic countries for a start.
Mike
Quote from: Daimonion on April 12, 2013, 06:24:45 AM
Well, if Madam Thatcher had been a prime minister in September 1939, Poland would probably have not been left alone... (and IIWW would have lasted considerably shorter)
It is true that the best time for the French and British to invade Germany was when all the German tanks were in Poland (ie in September 1939). Instead of that they sat behind the Maginot Line and waited for 'something to happen'. Still, it's easy for me to be wise after the event.
Quote from: Daverz on April 12, 2013, 07:06:46 AM
Yeah, right, I'm like a fanatical segregationist because I find your praise of Antonin Scalia risible. What an asshole.
No, though you're welcome to misunderstand if you choose. Lester Maddox's attitude toward Martin Luther King is a prime example of bigotry. In his case, it's racial.
Quote from: Daimonion on April 12, 2013, 06:31:01 AM
Right, obviously. A similar conditional, however, would apply equally well to Lord Churchill.
That's what came to mind immediately for me, too. In Churchill's case, however, the record is very clear that he understood full well what Hitler was up to and warned loud and clear about the danger, but the nitwits in power were too dumb and delusional to heed the voice of reason and read the writing on the wall ... much like the nitwits in power today.
Per Santayana, those who refuse to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Quote from: vandermolen on April 12, 2013, 09:59:09 AM
It is true that the best time for the French and British to invade Germany was when all the German tanks were in Poland (ie in September 1939). Instead of that they sat behind the Maginot Line and waited for 'something to happen'.
That's a good point, but pne can go even further in historical speculation: given the rapid, strong and effective response Thatcher gave to the Argentinians, one can imagine her striking Germany not in 1939 but much earlier, at the very first clear signs that Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles by beginning to rearm and rebuild her military. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on April 13, 2013, 09:38:41 AM
That's a good point, but pne can go even further in historical speculation: given the rapid, strong and effective response Thatcher gave to the Argentinians, one can imagine her striking Germany not in 1939 but much earlier, at the very first clear signs that Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles by beginning to rearm and rebuild her military. ;D
Right! In March 1936, for instance, when Hitler made the remilitarization of the Rhineland, his forces (very modest ones, 3 divisions if I remember well) were ordered to immediately withdraw if the French army would make any offensive move.
Quote from: Daimonion on April 12, 2013, 06:24:45 AM
Well, if Madam Thatcher had been a prime minister in September 1939, Poland would probably have not been left alone... (and IIWW would have lasted considerably shorter)
For the 20th century, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were the two most important British politicians while Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were the two most important American politicians. These four people have helped shape the world history in a very big way. Lets not forget Pope John Paul II, who with Reagan and Thatcher brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union ...
That Neville Chamberlin was a joker, what a spineless appeaser that man was.
Fareed on now:
The problems of the '70s aren't the problems of today!!
Oh really? Same banks, etc.,...
Just listen to Stockman vs. Goolbee, oh, you'll be in stitches!!
Quote from: snyprrr on April 14, 2013, 09:06:46 AM
Fareed on now:
The problems of the '70s aren't the problems of today!!
Oh really? Same banks, etc.,...
Just listen to Stockman vs. Goolbee, oh, you'll be in stitches!!
It is still about jobs and the economy. We have someone who is totally clueless about the economy leading the country. He tries to avoid talking about the economy and spends all his time to talk about gun control ... >:(