International 5

sto,

Is Denmark's Muslim population primarily Turkish, as in Germany?

20144. sakonige - 6/6/2001 12:23:17 PM

Message # 20140

sako, you really do love me.

Sure, I like you RustlerPike. You're a lot of fun.

20145. sakonige - 6/6/2001 12:27:56 PM

How about a tango in Buenos Aires?

I would love to!

20146. Uzmakk - 6/6/2001 6:30:54 PM

Pike:

I am also concerned for you. You have to get away from these hounds here on the Mote and you have to get over having your carbine taken away from you. You need a distraction, you need a diversion, you need something that is completely different than all of the things that you normally do and worry about. You need a quest, Pike; and I, the Steppelord, am going to supply you with such a boon.

Expect an email by this coming Sunday.

I have spoken.

20147. arkymalarky - 6/6/2001 7:43:53 PM

Oh, Landogoshen.

20148. joezan - 6/6/2001 7:49:06 PM

arky:

Do people really say that?

I thought it was just something Loweesie from the Snuffy Smiff show said.

(-;

20149. sakonige - 6/6/2001 7:54:41 PM

I said something kind of like that when TT crashed in the midst of a fine flame this afternoon. PE was just getting ready to blast the hell out of some poor sucker who would not quit while he was behind.

20150. sakonige - 6/6/2001 8:05:01 PM

It's not really schadenfreude to laugh at someone who asks for their grief.

20151. arkymalarky - 6/6/2001 8:05:54 PM

I thought since RP's in the Middle East it was appropriate somehow. Plus my grandmother used to say it. She had all kinds of neat stuff like that to replace cussing.

Gee, Sakonige, I've seen so much of that in 3 and a half years it wouldn't be too special. Besides, you know he'll do it again once TT is back up.

20152. sakonige - 6/6/2001 8:11:57 PM

Hi, arkymalarky! There's often a lot of good information laced into the insults. Part of this argument concerned the factors contributing to the drop in the crime rate in the last decade. I had a nice, thick wedgie I was waiting to drive into a crevice, but it may not pop out again.

20153. arkymalarky - 6/6/2001 8:16:06 PM

Hahaha! Well, maybe TT will get back up before the wedgie opportunity passes you by.

20154. RustlerPike - 6/7/2001 2:34:26 AM

sto, uzmakk:

I would be very grateful if you could arrange a week for me (and maybe my kids - how will I live without them?) on a secluded beach somewhere. Is this something that the Mote can arrange?

Still, the very thought counts. It also reminds me that there is peace and quiet somewhere.

We tied Spain last night, 1:1. But Spain deserved to beat us.

20155. RustlerPike - 6/7/2001 2:36:33 AM

I have this new persona I want to try out but I don't know how to convince The Mote server that I am not Rustler Pike. Anyone?

20156. stostosto - 6/7/2001 3:30:43 AM

Rustler,

If you can arrange to come to Denmark, you're always welcome, kids included. Just say when.

And 1-1 against Spain is a highly respectable result, even if the Spaniards possibly deserved the win. How is Richard Nielsen doing? Is he popular? Because as I've probably told you, he never was here, even though he coached the team that so fabulously won the Euro Championship in 1992. By! Beating! The! Germans! 2!-0!

20157. stostosto - 6/7/2001 3:31:36 AM

I mean that part about you coming to Denmark, btw.

20158. stostosto - 6/7/2001 3:37:26 AM

Ronski,

yes, the Muslims here are primarily Turks, but many of those are Kurds which is not quite the same thing. We do not have as high a proportion of foreigners in general, and Turks in particular, as they do in Germany.

We also have many Pakistanis, Iraqis, Lebanese/Palestinians, Iranians, Bosnians, and Somalis - plus a few from many other countries, e.g. Sri Lanka.

20159. alistairconnor - 6/7/2001 3:48:23 AM

Russ: We tied Spain last night, 1:1
Well, Spain beat France a few weeks ago... so that means Israel is the best (non-)nation in the world!

Does that cheer you up?

Sto :
You really think that a month on a Danish beach would cheer him up? I hope you've got boots and oilskins to lend him.

20160. stostosto - 6/7/2001 4:08:44 AM

alistair:

I said a week. What do you know about Danish beaches, btw? Have you ever been here?

And how say you about me and family coming for a visit in the third week of July?

I have received a number of offerings for so-called gîtes accommodations. I think we'll prefer that to the tent, after all.

One problem is I can't find precisely where the different gîtes are located, since I don't have a map where these tiny villages appear.

Could I mail you about it?

20161. stostosto - 6/7/2001 4:13:02 AM

And, alistair:

What's with the French world champions anyway? They lost to Australia?!

By contrast, Denmark proudly beat the shit out of the football superpower of Malta yesterday: 2-1 on our home ground.

OK, so maybe that wasn't so great, but we beat the Czechs 2-1 last Saturday, so now we're actually the top dog of our qualification group, and we just might pull it off.

20162. alistairconnor - 6/7/2001 4:37:11 AM

It was just a cheap shot, Sto. No, I've never been further north than Belgium or Wales, so I've no idea what Danish beaches are like. Given the high concentration of pig farms in Denmark, is there a problem of algae washing up on the beaches due to nitrate laden runoff? This has been happening on a large scale in Britanny and lower Normandy over the the past few years. Yucky.


... Please mail me about the gîtes. And you are welcome for the third week of July.

20163. stostosto - 6/7/2001 5:05:47 AM

alistair,

pig farms do constitute an environmental problem, exactly along the lines you mention: Nitrate in the sea water nourishes the excessive growth of algae which suffocate other forms of life. We haven't had significant problems with algae pollution on our beaches, even though there have been temporary prohibitions against bathing last year or the year before.

I think the problem has been at least partly taken care of by way of a huge environmental program that obliges the farmers to contain the pig shit and piss in enourmous tanks and regulates at which time of year they're allowed to spread it on the fields. It's a question of when the plants are most able to absorb it.

This program - "the water environmental plan" --was laid out and adopted by parliament back in 1988, I think, and it has been a source of much anger and quarrel between farmers' organisations and the environmental authorities and politicians ever since.

(It feels like I have mentioned this before here...)

20164. alistairconnor - 6/7/2001 5:48:32 AM

Don't think you have Sto. A few weeks ago, the French government was condemned by the courts for issuing permits for new pig farms which do not respect the obstensibly stringent anti-pollution regulations... paradoxically, this was hailed as a landmark victory by the minister of the environment! (she is Green, and is making little headway against agricultural pollution because of the power of the farmers' lobby).

20165. RustlerPike - 6/7/2001 6:27:00 AM

Sto:

Could you post a picture of a Danish beach that I could conceivably hole up in? I would upload a picture of me and then my cyberimage could live on that beach. I'm sure it would make me feel a tad better.

Which reminds me of what a shrink once told me: neurotics build castles in the sky. Psychotics live in them.

20166. RustlerPike - 6/7/2001 6:29:53 AM

As for the football team: I don't know, I just don't believe in Israeli football for some reason. I think we can do a lot better.

It's largely a population problem, of course. If we had 60 million people to pick from instead of 6, we would probably have a better team, no.

Which brings me back to the subject of conquest... hmmmm...

20167. stostosto - 6/7/2001 7:14:35 AM

Rustler,

we have only 5 million to pick from...

20168. RustlerPike - 6/7/2001 7:38:34 AM

Sto:

Really?

Hmmm.

There are more Jewish Israelis than Danes?

20169. stostosto - 6/7/2001 7:59:39 AM

Rustler,

yep. You are a great people.

20170. stostosto - 6/7/2001 8:19:59 AM

Oh, and Rustler:

I might as well tell you lest you hear it from another source and think I am hiding something from you: Israel is very cross with Denmark right now. Relations are reportedly at an all-time low since 1948. The Israelis feel the Danish government is taking a one-sided view of the violence, blaming it all on the Israeli side.

It began when Sharon was elected and the Danish foreign minister, Mr Mogens Lykketoft, stated that "of course we cannot applaud a man with such a criminal record". Minor diplomatic crises. The Israeli ambassador protested at this gratuitous criticism of a democratically elected leader, and added that Mr Lykketoft was risking the destruction of the Danish legacy of helping the Jews during WWII. This was not well received; half-hinting that Lyketoft would have been on the Nazi side was seen by some as a rather insulting proposition. I should perhaps add that Lykketoft is considered more or less the mastermind of this Danish government since its taking office in 1993. But he is new in the capacity of Foreign Minister. He was an "iron fist" minister of finance until early this year. He also has a record of youthful leftism, (haven't they all? Germany's Joschka Fischer was a "stone-thrower", and France's PM Lionel Jospin has just commented on his Trotskyist past...) which at the time (1970s) included a certain element of sympathy with third world liberation movements, including the PLO.

(cont.)

20171. stostosto - 6/7/2001 8:32:02 AM

>>>

Whether this factors in is impossible to say, but when Arafat was here last week (as yours truly duly reported), he was very warmly received, according to the Israeli POV, and also too warmly. Hugging, kissing, etc.

Politically, our PM promised Arafat Danish backing for his proposal that EU observers be stationed in Israeli/WB/Gaza hotspots; a proposal that Israel is against and that the rest of the EU has turned down, at least for now. I reported Swedish PM's Göran Persson's dismissal of the idea on behalf of the EU which is presently chaired by Sweden. (Chairmanship rotates every six months).

Also, the Israelis noted angrily that the Danish PM insultingly snubbed the (aforementioned) Israeli ambassador when he was accompanying the Danish-Israeli Michael Melchior on a recent trip here. Mr Melchior is a junior minister in the present Israeli government.

Shimon Peres has aired the Israeli disappointment with Denmark, if in a carefully diplomatic tone.

The last thing that has caught Israeli ire was a comment by Mr Lykketoft that the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv "didn't change his view as to who is ultimately responsible for the violence".

Now, there's a row in the Danish parliament. The government is critisised from a parliamentary majority, and the foreign minister has been called to explain the Danish shift in policy towards Israel. This will take place next Wednesday, I believe.

[end report from Copenhagen].

20172. stostosto - 6/7/2001 8:35:51 AM

alistair:

I don't have your email address - it's not listed in the Cafe. If you don't want it publicised here, you can mail me at sto@privat.dk

20173. stostosto - 6/7/2001 8:42:08 AM

Oh, I forgot a significant detail: The Danish ambassador to Israel was called to a meeting in the Israeli foreign ministry where the Israelis voiced an unusual harsh criticism of Denmark.

And the Danish parliament's hearing of the foreign minister Mogens Lykketoft is tomorrow, not Wednesday as I said. Perhaps I will have something more on this tomorrow.

The general mood here is rather indifferent to all this, however.

20174. stostosto - 6/7/2001 8:43:44 AM

I am out of here for the next couple hours -- probably for today, in fact.

See you.

20175. Indiana Jones - 6/7/2001 10:21:16 AM

Democracy in action

Most recent polls gave Toledo an edge of 4 to 10 percentage points. But Torres said there is hidden support for Garcia from Peruvians ashamed to admit to pollsters that they are planning to vote for a man responsible for one of the most disastrous governments in Peru's history.

Garcia left Peru mired in surging guerrilla violence, 3,000 percent annual inflation and food shortages. But his charisma and ability to transmit hope to Peruvians, especially young voters who do not remember his government, have boosted his chances in the runoff....

Garcia denied charges he used lithium to control an alleged manic-depressive disorder. Toledo battled allegations that he pocketed campaign funds, abandoned an illegitimate daughter and used cocaine while romping with three prostitutes in 1998.

20176. marjoribanks - 6/7/2001 3:15:33 PM

As a kid growing up in India, i'm pretty sure that I only knew two Chinese names. There were Chinese classmates, and long-time Chinese residents manning shops along the Causeway, but they had notably un-Chinese names like Florence and Peter.

The two Chinese names were Mao (gleaned from somewhere or the other) and Huen Tsang. The last fellow was an icon in our early school textbooks, and repeatedly cited for his role in visiting India and taking Buddhism back with him. At least that's what I gathered at age 8 or so.

I'd pretty much forgotten about this name, and Huen Tsang, until yesterday when I ran across this fairly interesting book by veteran NY Times reporter Richard Bernstein.

I don't care for Bernstein's stuff in general, and I have a fairly strong, detailed, dislike for most of the NY Times foreign correspondents, but I spent a fairly enjoyable hour plus leafing through this book. It's nominally a journey in Tsang's footsteps (turns out, btw, he wasn't at all the man who took Buddhism to China), and also contains some quite touching ruminations of the authors till-then incomplete life (he makes the decision to marry his Chinese girl while on the trip), some telling passages on his Jewishness and upbringing, and then quite a lot on Buddhism.

20177. marjoribanks - 6/7/2001 3:24:58 PM

I already knew quite a lot of the bare bones of the history in the book, but thoroughly enjoyed and was intrigued by the fleshing-out. Most intriguing to me was the account of Kumarajiva, the accounts of the Kuchans and the Tocharians and other middle points of passage as Buddhism did move from India to China. Kumarajiva, who I'd only vaguely heard of, in particular comes out as a major world figure, a kind of giant in cultural relations.

The author kind of loses energy when his girlfriend leaves him to travel alone through much of India and Pakistan, his mood perceptibly grows irritable and he shows no patience or sympathy in these parts compared to his boundless enthusiasm in China. I appreciate the honesty in his reporting this, however, it is human and I grew to kind of like this fiftyish, fairly fastidious, man even as he loses his temper with the standoffish Maharajah of Benaras and complains about the degredation of the Ganges.

There is also, thread-regulars please note, a Yusufzai Pathan from Peshawar in the book, a man who proudly declaims his multilingual skills and traces some Pathan history, gilding the status of his tribe. So, guys, there's more than one such bloke.

All in all, it was an interesting book. I recommend it to those interested in such things. As such, it was a useful kind of appendix for me after reading Eraly's 'The Gem in the Lotus' which largely focuses on the birth and spread of Buddhism in India and the subcontinent.

20178. stostosto - 6/7/2001 4:10:32 PM

marj,

I think I read a review of that book, probably in The Economist. The reviewer was annoyed by the personal stuff.

20179. Andonly - 6/7/2001 9:39:08 PM

"Sting's vocal's are shown for the 5th rate rubbish they really are, every time Cheb Mami-habibi opens his glorious mouth!"

Truer words have never been typed. "Sting" (I feel compelled to use quotation marks--what kind of idiot calls himself "Sting"?) is a banal, drippy misogynist.

Forunately for him, flogging that formula around the globe proves to be lucrative.

*****

I want to purchase an Um Kalthoum CD. However, there are several available and I don't know which one to buy. Any recommendations appreciated.

I've discovered two Israeli singers of what must be labelled pop-liturgical melodies whose stuff is pleasant though (mostly) un-danceable: "Shirona", and "Bat-Ella". The latter, I think, might have been somewhat popular years ago... I've heard her on the radio or in a movie or something.

20180. Andonly - 6/7/2001 10:16:05 PM

Ha! Just purchased The History and Geography of Human Genes, new but for a small remainder mark, for all of $14.44 including shipping, via Amazon.

20181. RustlerPike - 6/8/2001 5:10:03 AM

sto:

Can I send you on a mission? It would involve throwing a pie in someone's face.

You could say you received orders from a bearded Jew you've never met or spoken to. I'm sure they'd take you straight to the looney bin and you wouldn't have to fear being jailed at all.

So what is it about the Danish government which would make it more pro-pimpleyass Arafat than, say, the Swedes? There must be a reason.

Also: who is this Shirona? I've never heard of her other than on the Mote.

20182. stostosto - 6/8/2001 5:56:57 AM

Rustler,

So what is it about the Danish government which would make it more pro-pimpleyass Arafat than, say, the Swedes? There must be a reason.

There is only one reason, I think: Mr Mogens Lykketoft. He is a brilliant man, an accomplished power broker and skilfull political navigator. He is arguably, as I said, the mastermind behind the present government (long, intriguing story), and he is one of the most bitterly resented top politicians. He is used to being unpopular. He is also used to being right, and, one might say, eventually vindicated. The Danish economy was in a perpetual mess for several decades until the 'Lykketoft' era. Since that time, almost every economic indicator has improved, and the economy is quite resilient. Now, Mr Lykketoft was far from the only factor in this. But he can reasonably claim some credit.

Thriving in the face of unpopularity, being used to rely more on one's own analysis than that of others, being used to be proven right, even harbouring a certain arrogance: These may be very valuable traits in a minister of finance who has to ram through unpopular reform measures.

But they are less beneficial, if not outright unfortunate, in a foreign minister. And that may be my take on things: Mr Lykketoft is opinionated and a little too arrogant for foreign policy.

Or, he has some cunning plan... The next logical career step for a man of his position and ambitions is some international top job: EU, OECD, UN, OSCE, World Bank, something. Perhaps he is advertising himself to the right people?

Although I must say I don't really see him as a guy who is in it for personal gain. He probably genuinely resents Sharon.

I have to go, but I'll see if I can dig up a photo of Mr Lykketoft. He looks quite a card.

20183. stostosto - 6/8/2001 6:15:08 AM

Mogens Lykketoft, Danish foreign minister

20184. stostosto - 6/8/2001 6:23:30 AM

But, Rustler, before we go overboard in frothing rage at Mr Lykketoft (I am prone to such, you know that), it should be noted that nothing has actually been changed in the Danish foreign policy which is in line with the EU, with the UN, even with the USA. It's largely a question of rhetoric.

Mr Lykketoft did express shock and indignation at the Tel Aviv bombing and promptly sent an official telegram of sympathy and condolence to the Israeli government. He, and the Danish government and Parliament, has also consistently called on the Palestinian Authority and Arafat to stop the terror actions, and reign in the terrorists.

He has said, however, that Israel is the stronger part in the conflict, and that it's difficult to see what could be demanded of the Palestinians since they haven't got anything to give.

Jerusalem Post reported yesterday on the Danish-Israeli row, alleging that Mr Lykketoft has called for EU economic sanctions against Israel. This isn't accurate. He has called for produce from the occupied areas not to be labelled Israeli products which confers on them a special advantageous status in the current trade regime between EU and Israel.

I'll see if I can find the Jerusalem Post bit.

20185. stostosto - 6/8/2001 6:44:16 AM

A summary of the Jerusalem Post article is here. JP charges $2 for the full article. Bugger.

The framing of that article screams to high heaven, though.

"Melchior: Europe's pro-Palestinian stand due to guilt over Holocaust "

Melchior is a Danish born junior minister and former chief rabbi of Norway, I think. He is out of well-known Danish Jewish family. Thus, there was a Danish chief rabbi called Bent Melchior whom I think is his uncle, or, perhaps father. Bent's brother, Arne, is a prominent politician and former several times government minister.

As such, I can only surmise that Melchior's remark on the European "guilt" is taken out of context. Because in Denmark there is absolutely no guilt over the Holocaust.

The Danish rescue operation of the Jews is a matter of some pride, as is the fact that no Jewish property was laid hand on during their exile in Sweden. And there is no doubt that Melchior is aware of this.

Danes were not very heroic during WWII, but it can't in any way be said that Danes were complicit in the Holocaust.

20186. Indiana Jones - 6/8/2001 9:02:44 AM

The New Unilateralism


With ABM and Kyoto, the new unilateralism is earning notice. It began with a great gnashing of teeth by our allies: Nations that spent the better part of the last 500 years raping and pillaging vast swaths of the globe now pronounce themselves distressed at the arrogance of the United States for refusing, at the height of its power, to play the docile international citizen.

20187. stostosto - 6/8/2001 10:22:49 AM

Are the Irish playing Nice, or are they the new Danes of Europe?

'No' campaign makes gains in Irish EU referendum

The Nice Treaty, cumbersomely put together in December, must be ratified by all EU member countries to be in effect.

An Irish no will likely cause enough trouble that the process of enlargement will be held back.

How idiotic.

20188. stostosto - 6/8/2001 10:23:57 AM

UK: Blair won, only 60% bothered to vote, Hague steps down. (Yawn).

20189. Ronski - 6/8/2001 11:24:02 AM

I see the UK's Liberal Democrats (I think that's what they're calling themselves these days) did rather well for a change.

20190. Ronski - 6/8/2001 11:45:59 AM

Some interesting stuff here:

Middle East Media and Research Institute

20191. marjoribanks - 6/8/2001 3:04:43 PM

That link looks like a good resource, Ronski. Maybe the hosts will link it in permanently, certainly it looks like the best source for Al-Jazeera's often-provocative reports.

-----


All,

Due to the outpouring of interest in this thread about the ongoing Nepali soap opera, I hasten to bring you pictures of the main involved parties.

Here's the tubby Etonian who offed his family in a drunken rage over familial disapproval of his intended:

20192. marjoribanks - 6/8/2001 3:08:08 PM

And here's the object of forbidden love, now in mourning somewhere in India:

20193. Ronski - 6/8/2001 3:10:21 PM

What was wrong with her, anyway?

20194. marjoribanks - 6/8/2001 3:11:38 PM

And, for no particular reason, here's a picture of an eyewitness giving his account of what happened:



What pisses Nepalis off no end is that this account portrays neer-do-well Prince Paras (cousin of the killer prince, and son of the present King) as a hero. This is the fellow who (1) got drunk with the killer prince before the incident and (2) has slain at least 4 people in drunk driving accidents in the past few years.

20195. Ronski - 6/8/2001 3:14:33 PM

I'll bet they have some really winding roads.

20196. marjoribanks - 6/8/2001 3:16:13 PM

Ronski,

She's cuter (I think) than that picture shows. The other photos I've seen depict a really elegant and lovely young woman.

The problem is that she's from a branch of the Rana family that has been rivals with the royal line for centuries, and that she's half-Indian (her mother is from the Gwalior ruling family). The killer prince's mom is from the other faction of the Rana family, and opposed (vehemently) the marriage on the ground that the Maoist rebels and others in Nepal would immediately consider the marriage suspect because of a suspected sympathy for India and also because those particular Ranas were all bad.

I'm interested to see a picture of the Queen-approved bride that was selected for the killer Prince. I suspect that that image will tell us pretty much all we need to know.

20197. Ronski - 6/8/2001 3:18:32 PM

I suppose the gobbling up of Sikkim years ago didn't ease anybody's suspicions about India, either.

20198. marjoribanks - 6/8/2001 3:18:42 PM

Kathmandu (lovely little valley city, in my opinion) is jammed with dark crowded narrow streets. A drunk driver speeding home at night is pretty much shooting fish in a barrel. It's a surprise the dude's only killed four times if he's what he's portrayed to be.

20199. marjoribanks - 6/8/2001 3:33:19 PM

I don't think Nepal is particularly concerned about a Sikkim-style event. Nepalis resent Indians kind of like Canada resents the US. Plus, all supplies to Nepal pretty much come in on roads from India (though there is that China highway) so there is some wariness.


FWIW, Nepal has become a major staging ground for proxy eye-poking by India and Pakistan. I have no idea of whether it is true, but the Indian government now routinely claims that Pakistan's ISI is entrenched in Nepal. What is true is that the crime factions in India have moved into Nepal in a big way, with the bosses sitting in Kathmandu and pulling their minions strings from afar.

Kathmandu is an odd city, by the way. Some great architectural beauty, a touristy cafe district unparalelled in South Asia, and then a typical subcontinental overgrown warren where most people live.

20200. Andonly - 6/8/2001 4:19:45 PM

Sto: "He has said, however, that Israel is the stronger part[y] in the conflict, and that it's difficult to see what could be demanded of the Palestinians since they haven't got anything to give."

The pretense of helplessness pays. But someday perhaps Palestinians will discover as Jews did that other people's pity is poverty wages.

Better to stop throwing rocks, cease exploding themselves in crowded places, start educating their poor, brainwashed youth to want peace, and build a damn country on what's left of the west Bank and Gaza. Were they unilaterally to declare an end to the conflict between themselves and Israel, draw up a peace treaty, and keep to it, the hardliners in Israel would be delegitimized instantly. Inside 20 years, the Palesinians would probably have Jerusalem in every sense that counts.

By the way, I hate to say it, but I'm liking Sharon more as time goes by.

Ronski's MEMRI link in Message # 20190 has a gruesomely fascinating exchange between Arabs arguing on a talk show on al-Jazeera broadcast out of (I think) Qatar, on the subject of whether Zionism is as bad as Naziism or worse. The moderator eventually shouts down the lone dissenter, an intellectual whose point that Holocaust denial is not only "garbage" but political suicide is vitriolically opposed by a woman who believes the Palestinian cause is best served by attacking Israel and the US "psychologically". By this she means that Arabs must insist loudly and often on the "truth": that the Holocaust never ocurred, and in fact that the "real Holocaust" is being perpetrated now by Israel against Arabs.

20201. Andonly - 6/8/2001 4:23:00 PM

Thanks for the Nepal info, Banks.

20202. Andonly - 6/8/2001 4:49:23 PM

Oh yeah, RustlerPike: the only reason you've heard of Shirona at all is because, some time ago, I asked if you had ever heard of her. It seems no one has, but if you're curious go here. Scroll down past the (sigh) Cantor Wally Songbook and the other sure dreck to the tenth item, which is the mysteriously named "Shirona: Judaic Love Songs". Click on the three samples to get a sense of what she sounds like.

I find her CD seems less like love songs than, as mentioned, pleasant liturgical pop tunes. Some of it could work as incidental music for an improved cinematic treatment of the Exodus or something. One or two songs come off simply as folk ditties.

The musical arrangements are a bit dull-witted, but Shirona herself has a lovely voice, a number of the songs are quite pretty, and none are actually annoying.

By the way, from the same retailer linked above I found a tape of Israeli folk songs that only contains one true dud ("Shoshana", which I guess sounds like an even more insipid version of "How Much is that Doggy in the Window"--yes, it's possible). Seems this goofy Murcan couple toured Israel collecting folk music, then put together their renditions in this small, uncontrived anthology. They do okay, including a nice version of "Yerushalyim shel Zahav".

20203. stostosto - 6/8/2001 8:34:24 PM

The Big Row over Danish foreign policy has been defused.

The government says it hasn't changed its policy towards Israel and the Palestinians, and it denies that it didn't urge Arafat to stop the violence at his recent stop-over in Copenhagen.

Thus, everybody agrees on policy, there isn't even disagreement over which words was said to Arafat as opposed what should have been said. Not even the much publicised promise by the PM to Arafat regarding EU observators was acknowledged as such by the government. It says that this would be conditioned on an agreement by both parties.

But the opposition maintains that the government (PM and foreign minister) somehow created an impression of a policy change, there were mixed signals etc.

So what's left? The Israelis think they picked up some worrying signals and made a fuss. This made the Danish opposition critisise the government. But it turns out the 'wrong' signals weren't really there. And that they weren't in any case intended.

Is the Danish government lying? Well, it's easy to document what was said at the meetings and press conferences, and the government duly produced tape transcripts.

Is it clumsy, then? Or are the Israelis hyper-sensitive? I'd say probably both.

20204. khaval alazman - 6/8/2001 11:26:15 PM

Andonly: I love Umm Kulthum's voice, but I am no expert on her stuff. I actually find Egyptian music a little bit alien and much prefer Maghrebi, Yemenite, and some Levantine stuff. This all, of course, a matter of familiarity.

As for Shirona, I have never heard of her. Nor have I heard of Bat Ella (crazily cool name, thhough - I'll put money on it's being a Fitzgerald reference).

I was also brought up with "zionist Top 40" -those folk song standards of the nation and Kibbutz movement. I don't know if I could stomach hearing them sung in an AMerican accent.

Shoshana *is* an annoying song, but it's very much part of the cannon.

My vote for best folk song is Erev Shel SHoshanim.

I'm a candidate for World's Worst Guitar Player, but I can play just about every Israeli folk song. It was mandatory to be able to do this during youth movement life.

Also, our youth movement used to put on these MASSIVE concerts annually (we were the biggest movement in Melbourne back in my day). Anyway, an integral part of these concerts was the movement choir.

So, when I was 16, and I got to organise the choir for that year, I gathered the best of the truly VAST number of musicians in the movement (we were also known for our musicality), and we decided to arrange the songs to maximise harmonies and minimise accompaniment.

We also used very strange and wonderful harmonies. At the time, I was obsessed with Bulgarian choral music, and the beautiful arrangements of their a capella songs.

We sang Erev Shel Shoshanim, and another couple of songs I can't remember, in this vein. Really amazing.

Another thing I like to do for a bit of fun on the guitar and singing, is a funkification of the Pesackh Seder songs - particularly Ve-hi she'amda and Ha'Lakhma. All notes are bluesed with original melody as the basis, and there is a slightly dfferent rythmn. Really fun, and it sounds quite good.

20205. khaval alazman - 6/8/2001 11:28:41 PM

WOW! and AWESOME! Khatemi has won between 80% and 90% of the vote in exit polls. His platform is one of further reform and this election has not been about whether he would win (this was a foregone conclusion), but whetherh e could accrue the requisite mandate to push through his agenda in the Majlis with a little interference from the ulema as possible.

Whoo hoo.

20206. stostosto - 6/9/2001 3:42:49 AM

80-90%!!!

That should tell the mullahs something.

20207. khaval alazman - 6/9/2001 4:19:30 AM

Those are just the exit polls, though - sto. But the majority is going to be massive, whatever the final count. It's mandate material.

20208. RustlerPike - 6/9/2001 10:17:24 AM

Ceasefire continues.

It seems like a matter of a week or two tops before a serious terror attack provides the excuse for Sharon's launching his offensive. Not that anyone really believes that'll solve anything.

Well, maybe some people do. I don't.

But it'll be nice seeing the F-16s in action again. Hope he does that again. If not them - maybe artillery?

20209. RustlerPike - 6/9/2001 10:50:06 AM

You guys don't appreciate me enough, you know? I told you about Or Adom, right? The action group on police brutality I founded when I was a 23 year old journalist? Do you know that we seem to have been very influential in bringing about the establishment of mahash - the branch of the Ministry of Justice which investigates offenses by policemen? (these had previously previously investigated by other policemen - with the expected results).

Do you realize that were it not for mahash Israel's police would probably have been much more trigger-happy in October than they were? Do you realize this could have caused there to be 50 or 100 killed instead of 13? I mean - history would have been different.

20210. RosettaStone - 6/9/2001 11:10:46 AM

One can't be but impressed by Sharon by his honesty. Unusual in a politician.

And his willing to keep up the ceasefire until Arafat screws up again.

20211. Andonly - 6/9/2001 12:33:44 PM

"I actually find Egyptian music a little bit alien and much prefer Maghrebi, Yemenite, and some Levantine stuff."

Direct me to some, if you please. What is alien often appeals to me (although I loathe virtually all rap and am indifferent-to-hostile to most hip hop). For instance, I find Vietnamese pop music appealing despite its silliness. Not that I would ever buy any; I would buy Um Kalthoum.

Actually, maybe the problem is that Vietnamese pop music isn't all that alien...

"As for Shirona, I have never heard of her."

Independent label. Go to the link above to hear what she sounds like.

"Nor have I heard of Bat Ella (crazily cool name, thhough - I'll put money on it's being a Fitzgerald reference)."

I dunno. The woman's name is Bat-Ella Birnbaum. Maybe her parents were being clever?

"I was also brought up with "zionist Top 40" - those folk song standards of the nation and Kibbutz movement. I don't know if I could stomach hearing them sung in an AMerican accent."

Hebrew is awflly mangled in the US. (One of the myriad reasons I usually avoid going to synagogue.) Fortunately, this little tape I bought isn't too bad. It's a husband and wife duo, Lori and Joel Abramson, and she's pretty tolerable. It's only when he comes in from out of the background vocals on one song that I want to scream. Fully as painful as when my English-born, goyische husband utters the word "Shabbos" or, well, the name of any Jewish holiday at all. (Frankly, I'm sure I'm only slightly less egregious myself.)

20212. Andonly - 6/9/2001 12:33:59 PM

"Shoshana *is* an annoying song, but it's very much part of the cannon. My vote for best folk song is Erev Shel SHoshanim."

That one I don't think I know.

The Abramsons' collection consists of: Kum v'Hithalech Ba'aretz, Shir Ha'emek, Gan Hashikmim, Shiri Li Kineret, LaMidbar, Ein Gedi, Shoshana, Bab El Wad, and Yerushalayim shel Zahav. So obviously, there is another folk song out there that could have been substituted for the dreadful Shoshana.

20213. Andonly - 6/9/2001 12:47:50 PM

Re Iran, I don't know why you guys are surprised at the 80-90% vote in favor of Khatami. What I'm curious about is what percentage of the population voted.

20214. RustlerPike - 6/9/2001 1:15:51 PM

Shirona actually has an impressive voice.

Still, that link you gave really reminds me of how pathetic American Judaism is. Rabbi Herschel and Cantor Joel.

20215. Andonly - 6/9/2001 1:16:59 PM

Rustler,

There's an Israeli I talk to from time to time at the supermarket--he has a booth there, where he sells mobile phones: a very honest, no-bullshit guy. His name is Yonah, he's alone here in the States, all his family are in Beit HaTikva.

The other day I asked him what he thought of Sharon's policy of restraint. Would it work? He shrugged. "Nothing's going to work." Then he rethought that. "Maybe separation, them in the east, us in the west. We'd annex the closest settlements, the more distant settlers could leave Palestinian territory and resettle in Israel."

Isn't that what Barak offered Arafat, what Arafat walked away from?, I asked. Yonah almost made a face at the mention of Arafat's name. "Barak was very smart," he said, "His purpose was to unmask Arafat. He was always against the Oslo accords." I said I heartily agreed with him on that point, but asked whether he thought separation was really possible. "Sure," he said "That's how it was before '67. We'd have to guard the border, just like with Syria, but--", and he shrugged again. Yeah, but what about Jerusalem, I asked.

"Jerusalem," he sighed, "That's a problem."

Now, Pike, you've said before that separation is impossible, that Palestinians and Israelis are living practically on top of each other, as things are. I've heard other Israelis tout separation as the cure for both peoples' ills. I'm skeptical, myself, for a variety of reasons. But not entirely--it's a quasi-solution I would like to believe in, as it seems not a lot less ridiculous that the possibility of peace itself.

I'm interested to know your opinion about this in some depth, if you've thought about it.

20216. Andonly - 6/9/2001 1:22:38 PM

"Still, that link you gave really reminds me of how pathetic American Judaism is. Rabbi Herschel and Cantor Joel."

Don't forget Rabbi Joe Black.

Judaism here is indeed debased, to a large extent. There are exceptions, of course, to be found among the Orthodox, the Reconstructionists, and possibly a negligibly tiny movement located almost entirely in NY, called Humanistic Judaism. (I think they're mostly atheists.)

20217. PelleNilsson - 6/9/2001 3:38:46 PM

We need to retroactively celebrate events of the 6th of June.

First naturally Denmark's magnificient, heroic victory by 2-1 over Malta at home.

(On the same day Sweden beat another giant of football, Moldavia, by 6-0)

Second we have the Swedish National Day.



The picture shows the greater state arms of Sweden.

The occasion of the national day is the coronation on 6th June, 1523, of Gustav Vasa, the fellow who liberated Sweden from the Danish tyranny and "the father of Sweden".

Our national day is a 20th century invention. Its celebration is characterised by a marked lack of enthusiasm.

20218. JudithAtHome - 6/9/2001 4:21:01 PM

Sounds like a lot of our holidays....except, of course, the ones devoted to making money.

20219. jexster - 6/9/2001 4:21:28 PM

Pelle..I had the great good fortune of taking a seminar last semester with a fellow student who's an exchange scholar from Copenhagen.

It being a political science course we naturally discussed political and social difference between the US and you Norsemen leaving me ever more convinced that when Condo Rice yaps about there being no "values gap" between the US and its increasingly estranged Euro friends, that she is either very dumb or very disingenuous.

How say you about this emerging rift?

20220. jexster - 6/9/2001 4:22:16 PM

God Save Gustav!

20221. RustlerPike - 6/10/2001 1:39:08 AM

I think Israel needs a monarchy and a coat-of-arms too. They're so -impressive and respectable-like!

Ando:

I'm interested to know your opinion about this in some depth, if you've thought about it.

Well thanks for the question, first of all. I'm flattered.

I've said it a lot of times but I'll say it again: this is not a conflict between two nations over a homeland. If it were that, it would have been solved in a compromise along the Camp David lines. This is Israel wanting to survive on the one hand (and thus always being willing to compromise over land) and the radical elements in the Arab world (led by Nasser in the past, and Saddam Hussein in the present) which are using the Pal problem to further their admitted aim - the annihilation of Israel, which they view as an unacceptable foreign presence on their turf.

There is no 'total' solution that does not involve a very big war in the Mideast and millions of dead people (hopefully, from my pov, Arabs). As an interim solution - since this conflict will go on for quite a while to come - Israel needs defensible borders. The only defensible border I can see east of me is the Jordan River. My conclusion is: throw the WB&G Pals into Jordan (ugly - but not too difficult to do) and let them topple Abdullah. Then we carry on the fight from there: it'll be a lot like the situation on the Lebanese border.

As for international intervention, Bosnia style: if we're tough enough and admant enough, I don't see a problem there.

20222. RustlerPike - 6/10/2001 10:13:38 AM

They seemed to have discovered Heliopolis. I think.

20223. Andonly - 6/10/2001 12:58:33 PM

Thank you, RP.

Link to Heliopolis material?

******

From Ha'aretz:

In his round of security contacts, CIA director George Tenet submitted to PA and Israeli officials a document outlining a cease-fire arrangement conducive to a renewal of diplomatic talks in another few weeks. Tenet submitted the document, called "a menu for a cease-fire" during a Friday meeting in Ramallah at which Israel was represented by Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, Shin Bet head Avi Dichter, and top IDF officers.

Beyond the call for an immediate cessation of violence, leading features in Tenet's plan include:

* Redeployment of IDF troops to positions they held before September 28, 2000 (when violence first erupted).

* Removal of closures enforced by Israel.

* Arrest of 20 to 30 Hamas and Islamic Jihad men who have been involved in terror by the PA

* An end to anti-Israel incitement in PA and confiscation of mortars and other illegal firearms.

Friday's Tenet-mediated security contact in Ramallah between the Israeli security officials and PA counterparts ended without tangible results, but the sides agreed to meet again soon.

After the Ramallah meeting, Jibril Rajoub, head of PA preventive security on the West Bank, said the PA has no intention of arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives, and that it has not been asked to do so.

Interviewed by Palestine Radio, Rajoub said that the arrest issue "didn't come up at the meeting." The demand to arrest a list of suspected terrorists, Rajoub added, "exists only in the Israelis' heads.".

20224. khaval alazman - 6/10/2001 1:07:30 PM

Fuck!

I normally love the BBC, and am truly addicted to it.

But just now, there was a segment on the funerals of the slain Palestinian women.

They played a short clip of Palestinians screaming and chanting, but neglected to say *what* they were chanting. There was only reference to "the angry mourners".

What were they chanting?

"Itbah el Yahud" Kill the Jews.

Tell me, if this sort of shit were chanted about the Palestinians by the Jews at one of the funerals of their dead, you think there wouldn't be a translation?

No no. Instead, we get a documentary segment on the Jewish Settlers (why not choose our nuttiest representatives and villify us wholesale?) - ALL of them speaking their craziness in crisp English... just so the world can get a fair idea of how crazy the Jews really are.

Fuck.

I can't turn it off either!

20225. Uzmakk - 6/10/2001 5:42:07 PM

My Dear Pike:

I was going to make this a private e-mail, but have decided that posting it on the Mote will lose me nothing. Now ever since you kidded that you did macrame, the reality being, ofcourse , that you were a far more serious fellow than that, I have had this image, this phrase in my mind that you are the Lord High Macramist of the State of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth, ofcourse. Nevertheless, the phrase endures. Now, I attended the PA Renaissanse Festival last summer and I was attracted to a band (I tell you, I could be walking the barren waste of North Dakota, the man I would meet would be a Jew, and I would like him) called Gypsophia. Ofcourse, they called themselves Gypsophilia so that they can play the music that they like. I complimented the brother who played a squeeze box with his head placed directly between the violin played by one sister and the cello played by the other. I mentioned Gypsy music, I mentioned Bela Babai, I mentioned the soulfull sound that his sister played from the violin. They were all very pleased. I got all the jokes. A Jewish Connection. Oh, yes. Often, while they played , between songs, he would shout out, "More Chewisih Music". At any rate, Pike, I had quite a good time.

Show some interest and ask me to go on.

20226. sakonige - 6/10/2001 10:22:52 PM

In all the videos I've seen of Khatami's re-election, he wears a black robe with only his right arm through the sleeve.



Does anyone know, is that an Iranian custom or is it just him? Does the robe even have a left sleeve?

Another Iranian fashion I noticed in Iranian video journalism is the same kind of black-and-white checked scarfs I've never seen anyone but Palestinians wear.

20227. Andonly - 6/10/2001 11:50:49 PM

What were they chanting? "Itbah el Yahud" Kill the Jews.

Yeah, and every discussion forum and half the letters to editors here in The Great Satan are also full of the wisdom of righteously liberal anglos unencumbered by any knowledge of Arab language, and completely incurious about the content of their preferential victims' speech.

Back at the ranch, an Arab MK, one Dr. Bishara, has just returned from Syria, where at a memorial for the Butcher of Hama he stood proudly with Hizzy's Hassan Nasrullah, Syrian officials, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives, and urged enemy Arab nations to oppose HIS OWN COUNTRY's efforts toward a settlement.

Sheik Nasrullah obligingly pledged to keep up Hizbullah's resistance and said jihad warriors would pray to regain ALL OF JERUSALEM. Then Bishara returned home to his constituency... and the long overdue threat of legal action for his treachery.

I say, deport the fucker.

20228. Andonly - 6/10/2001 11:53:51 PM

"is that an Iranian custom or is it just him? Does the robe even have a left sleeve?"

Did Michael Jackson even have another glove?

It's a conundrum.

20229. khaval alazman - 6/11/2001 12:12:33 AM

How cute is Khatami? He looks awful happy. Mazal tov to him.

20230. RustlerPike - 6/11/2001 3:32:42 AM

Uzmakk:

Now, I attended the PA Renaissanse Festival last summer

Did you get to see Arafat? I didn't know the Palestinian Authority even had a Renaissance Festival.

Did Abu Ala play the lyre? Did Rajoub read some of his poetry? Did Ashrawi finish her tapestry?

OK, go on please. You are one of the more mysterious Moties out there, Uzmakk of the Steppes. It was awful, seeing this Aussie upstart fresh out of HS Debate Club mock your scrotum and other privates in the Inferno.

20231. RustlerPike - 6/11/2001 3:46:05 AM

When was it I asked for a terror attack on Mey Ami?

This comes pretty close (about 1 or 2 km., I'd say).

(08:10) Bomb blast near Border Police patrol in Umm el-Fahm

A large explosive device blew up alongside a road in the Wadi Ara town of Umm el-Fahm earlier this morning shortly after a border police patrol passed by.

There were no injuries in the incident.

The patrol was on the lookout for Palestinian workers illegally entering Israel.

The Israeli Arab community sits adjacent to the Green Line.

Police sappers are at the scene looking for other bombs and attempting to clarify the circumstances behind the blast, Israel Radio said.

Thanks guys. Though I was hoping you'd knife someone. Maybe next time.

20232. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 4:51:00 AM

jexster

You said:

It being a political science course we naturally discussed political and social difference between the US and you Norsemen leaving me ever more convinced that when Condo Rice yaps about there being no "values gap" between the US and its increasingly estranged Euro friends, that she is either very dumb or very disingenuous.

How say you about this emerging rift?

This is a tall order. I think that on things like democratic values, human rights and the rule of law there are very few differences.

In international politics Europeans are upset by what they see as US arrogance and fear that it will break away from the Atlantic alliance, the web of international treaties and the UN system to go into an orbit of its own guided solely by its perceived self-interest. I would guess Americans are upset by what they perceive as European cultural arrogance and are tired of the constant harping about the dangers of the spread of American pop culture and the American lifestyle.

When it comes to domestic politics there are some things to take note of. The political spectra are skewed. The centre of European politics lies somewhere left of centre in the American Democratic party. Europeans have certain difficulties in understanding Republican politics, possibly because the conflict between states' rights and the federal government has no real equivalent here. In Europe the term "liberal" means a middle-of-the-road bourgeois person who admires John Stuart Mill, not a dangerous left-winger. Finally, Europeans are far more ready to accept - and desire - that the government plays a big role in providing education, health care, day care and other societal services, not only by putting up the money, but also by running them.

20233. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 4:51:38 AM

As I'm sure you understand these are very broad generalisations. There are plenty of exceptions if you care to look for them. Europe is far less homogeneous than many Americans seem to think (and vice versa, I guess).

20234. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 4:52:40 AM

When re-reading the above I feel the need to apologise for the sloppy English.

20235. ScottLoar - 6/11/2001 4:55:27 AM

I find no evidence of "sloppy English" and can only conclude you're fishing for compliments.

And your English prose deserves compliment.

20236. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 5:02:24 AM

Thank you. I was thinking about "... Europeans are upset by what they see as US arrogance and fear that..." It feels un-English in some undefinable way. Maybe "fearing that" would be better than "and fear that".

20237. ScottLoar - 6/11/2001 5:04:56 AM

It may seem un-English to you but the construction is most American to me.

20238. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 5:06:31 AM

possibly because the conflict between states' rights and the federal government has no real equivalent here.

Disagree... once Europe gets some sort of common defence and foreign policy sorted out, we'll have a federal system largely equivalent to that of the US. At first look, the diversity among UE members in terms of legislation, social and fiscal policy, etc is not greater than the diversity among US states. And they are tending to converge in the US, less so the USA.

Though it's true that we have nothing resembling pan-European political parties, equivalent to the Dems/Reps. Long may it remain so.

20239. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 5:08:08 AM

Gaag... EU (European Union), not UE. EU, not US, following sentence.

20240. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 5:17:40 AM

It seems unlikely that we will have anything "largely equivalent" to the US in the short or medium term. That would require a big transformation from what we have now: an unelected commission and a parliament without any real teeth.

Perhaps the nearest current equivalent to the US is Spain?

20241. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 5:54:12 AM

In practical terms, with respect to the integration of political organs and powers, Pelle, my point of view is that the degree of integration between the members of the EU is pretty much equivalent to the federation of US states. With the exception I noted of defence and foreign policy.

What you are talking about is the political space. The problem of the unelected commission and the toothless parliament, is the result of obfuscation by national governments, who prefer to preserve the completely unaccountable Council of ministers as the real centre of political power. Hence, the relative absence of conflict between the European and national levels.

20242. stostosto - 6/11/2001 8:03:02 AM

What a GOAL!

F.C. København Danish Champions!

I am wearing my F.C.K. jersey to work today.

Raaahhh!

20243. stostosto - 6/11/2001 10:43:52 AM

Pelle, that greater arms of Sweden or whatever is suspiciously like the Danish one:



And I believe our to great nations once fought a war over it - particularly the right to fly the three crowns. (Cue Pelle).

20244. pseudoerasmus - 6/11/2001 11:05:02 AM

Message # 20241

In practical terms, with respect to the integration of political organs and powers, Pelle, my point of view is that the degree of integration between the members of the EU is pretty much equivalent to the federation of US states. With the exception I noted of defence and foreign policy.

Rubbish.

It's nonsensical to suggest that the EU member states are as integrated as American states are except in defence & foreign policies.

EU member states still lack the "full faith & credit" system (where a law regnant in one country is fully recognised in another). And there is substantial de jure hindrance to mobility: a citizen of EU member states resident in an EU country not of his own, must still register with the local police and still obtain work permits. (The only exception to this rule is the UK.) And that person still does not qualify for healthcare and welfare benefits in his country of resident -- unless of course you're married to a national.

20245. pseudoerasmus - 6/11/2001 11:08:28 AM

Message # 22166 in thread 85

Quiz : in which of the two countries can civilisation be said to have advanced since 1981? And which one has regressed?

Naturally, as a supporter of capital punishment, I think the one regressing is France.

It's nice to know Alistair thinks 4-5 billion are uncivilised. Puts a new twist on old virtues.

20246. pseudoerasmus - 6/11/2001 11:25:56 AM

Correction: not work permit, but residence permit.

For example, if a UK citizen wishes to reside and work in France, he can't go there and begin working just like that. Except (I believe) in the case of Belgians in France, no citizen of an EU member state can obtain employment legally in a member state not his own, just by showing the national ID card from his home country.

In France he must first apply for something called a "carte de séjour de ressortissant de l'UE" at the local police station. And this is issued once you have provided a mountain of documents, including the "fiche d'état civil", which itself is issued once you have filed your birth certificate with the local prefecture of police and have also shown evidence that you physically reside at a fixed address (as opposed to being a vagrant).

And this residence permit must be renewed every few years.

20247. sakonige - 6/11/2001 11:31:12 AM

stostosto -

I'm kind of curious about the significance of the two cavemen wearing leaves and carrying clubs in the Danish state insignia. Do you know what they are supposed to stand for?

20248. sakonige - 6/11/2001 11:39:29 AM

I guess the coolest looking crown award goes to Nepal.

20249. arkymalarky - 6/11/2001 11:55:48 AM

somehow it's made even more comical by the guy underneath it.

20250. sakonige - 6/11/2001 12:11:37 PM

The plume is long, reaching his waistline. The crown makes quite a fashion statement.

20251. sakonige - 6/11/2001 12:15:37 PM

This morning I read that a Hindu ceremony to dispel ghosts was conducted at the palace in Kathmandu. A vegetarian Hindu priest riturally ate food containing bone marrow to absord the ghosts, then rode away into exile on an elephant taking the ghosts with him.

20252. sakonige - 6/11/2001 12:21:10 PM

I read that when the elephant ridden by the Hindu priest into exile was being brought to the palace, a silly woman in the crowd tried to walk under it, and the elephant grabbed her with its trunk and smashed her on the pavement, killing her.

20253. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 1:24:07 PM

sto

The alleged Danish arms of state is a joke, right? These cavemen (as Sakonige rightly calls them) are most un-heraldic.

The three crowns were a major irritant between Denamrk and Sweden. They were originally the arms of Mecklenburg and brought to the Nordic union by Albrecht of Mecklenburg. They now make up the lesser arms of Sweden.



They are carried by uniformed agents of state such as the police and the customs, and also by the Swedish ice hockey team (known as "Three Crowns") which will win the Olympics next year.

20254. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 2:21:14 PM

I just read the Economist's obituary over Faysal Husseini. I actually met him once, probably in 1987. We had gone over to Jerusalem to spend a few days. The Swedish Consul General there had been posted to Beirut 15 years earlier. We used to play bridge so I looked him up. It turned out that there was to be a reception for some visiting Swedish dignitary and he kindly invited us. As people queued up for the gravlax and the meatballs I found myself next to Husseini and we chatted along for a while as one does on these occassions. He struck me as the perfect Arab gentleman, a member of the aristocracy who was so confident of his own authority that he didn't need to display it.

20255. robertjayb - 6/11/2001 2:49:11 PM

PelleNilsson,

For lessons in sloppy English, wait until Thursday and the visit by the leader of the world's only superpower.

20256. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 4:39:07 PM

We are looking forward to hear Bushspeak directly from the horse's mouth.

20257. arkymalarky - 6/11/2001 4:42:30 PM

Wrong end.

20258. ScottLoar - 6/11/2001 5:06:50 PM

Richard M. Daley, Mayor of the city of Chicago is, like his father His Honor before him, notoriously inept at public speaking and his gaffes, mispronunciations and malapropisms range from the ridiculous to the sublime, and yet this guy is one hell of a mayor to the third largest city in the US. Bush senior was a poor speaker as is his son, but I do present the most Reverend Jesse Jackson as one very accomplished and persuasive public speaker.

All of which trash reminds me of the calligraphy test for high officials in Imperial Japan and China. Well, at least they didn't have to answer to the public.

20259. ScottLoar - 6/11/2001 5:08:30 PM

Richard M. Daley, Mayor of the city of Chicago is, like his father His Honor before him, notoriously inept at public speaking and his gaffes, mispronunciations and malapropisms range from the ridiculous to the sublime, and yet this guy is one hell of a mayor to the third largest city in the US. Bush senior was a poor speaker as is his son, but I do present the most Reverend Jesse Jackson as one very accomplished and persuasive public speaker.

All of which trash reminds me of the calligraphy test for high officials in Imperial Japan and China. Well, at least they didn't have to answer to the public.

20260. ScottLoar - 6/11/2001 5:09:35 PM

The second post is for those who didn't quite grasp the first.

20261. PsychProf - 6/11/2001 5:13:47 PM

It is far less sloppy.

20262. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 5:36:46 PM

Message # 20246 pseudoerasmus, I have been told that professional qualifications in the US are recognised, as a rule, only in their state of origin, i.e. that a registered engineer or architect, for example, must re-register when he changes states. Perhaps this is a myth.

As for the fiche d'état civil, that has been abolished, so presumably with your German citizenship or whatever, you can now work in France with less hindrance.

20263. CalGal - 6/11/2001 6:07:04 PM

No, it's not professional qualifications per se, it's anything that requires state licensing. Law, medicine--in the case of engineering it would probably only be in construction? Not sure about architects, but it's probably the same.

I've heard that admission to some state bars is then admitted everywhere (California, I think, but am not sure).

It's certainly not anything like PE's description. I work in other states quite often, and consultants in many areas travel constantly from job to job.

20264. LohrM - 6/11/2001 6:57:44 PM

Certain qualifications travel-- academic degrees, for example. But not state licensing. I'll take the Bar where I graduated in late July, but because we're a civil law state, while I could practice is federal courts, I'd have to take the Bar for whatever state I move to. Some states have reciprocal recognition arrangements, and there's a Multi-State Bar Exam that's good for a number of states, but my own state treasures its anomalous status...so while I *could* get recognition from the Paris Bar with reasonably little effort, I'd have to jump through numerous hoops to be admitted to the Bar in, say,Texas or California...

The difficulties politicians have with public speaking rarely bothers me. Very damn' few people can be eloquent or witty in front of microphones. I seem to recall the factoid that more people are afraid of public speaking than of sudden, violent death.

20265. Rama - 6/11/2001 7:00:04 PM

Do we have more than one civil law state?

20266. LohrM - 6/11/2001 7:06:51 PM

nope... just the one...plus Puerto Rico.

20267. jexster - 6/11/2001 7:39:27 PM

Yes Pelle, that makes some sense. I also got a heavy dose from Ms. Copenhagen about Euros being abit baffled by American religiosity and sex fixation in their moral values.

You give voice or strokes to much of what I have noticed that there is a disconnect, perhaps greater than we have ever witnessed post war between Euro politics and US on substance. These are "domestic" issue gaps with the Germans, Brits, French and I suppose the Norsemen being far more comfortable with the views of the Democratic Party than the Republican.

However, because Euro and the US are so close culturally, politically, militarily the international/domestic lines blur somewhat. Thus a great deal of interest in McVeigh, in the environmental debates, in US drug policies, stuff like that, issues that say an African state could care less about....

20268. ilyavinarsky - 6/11/2001 9:18:49 PM

Is our resident Pinochetisto reading this? A recent Russian magazine has an article claiming that Pinochet's rule ruined the economy and destroyed the social fabric in Chile. You read Russian; don't you? Is the gist of the article true or false?

20269. pseudoerasmus - 6/12/2001 1:19:49 AM

The word is Pinochetista.

It's basically a worthless article. I'll focus on the first part, which deals with the economics. The second part is the usual boring litany of charges about executions and tortures, although the charge that the Pinochet regime persecuted Jews is a novel one.

Basically, the article mistakes the assertion that Pinochet is largely responsible for the Chilean economic miracle of the 1990s, for an assertion that his actual tenure (1973-89) was characterised by a booming economy.

Pinochet's rule was characterised by a savage and painful economic restructuring. Allende had saddled Chile with 600% inflation and fiscal imbalances equivalent to 30% of GDP. I don't think there was much that could be done but deliberately plunge Chile into a depression -- which Pinochet rather callously did. One could argue that Pinochet made many mistakes along the way and was callous about the social consequences of his actions, but it's difficult to question that he had to do what he did.

The 1982-83 recession was international and you could hardly blame Pinochet (or anyone else, other than Paul Volcker) for it.

In sum, Pinochet did what was necessary, even if he spent 5-8 years longer doing it than what it might, in retrospect, be deemed necessary.

20270. pseudoerasmus - 6/12/2001 1:21:38 AM

And the results are good. It was Pinochet who wrung the hyperinflation and hyperinflationary expectations out of the Chilean economy. It was Pinochet which returned Chile to sound finance, fiscal and external. It was Pinochet which returned Chile to exchange rate stability. It was Pinochet who took Chile from being a net importer of agricultural goods to a net exporter. It was Pinochet who transformed Chile from an exporter of unrefined copper to a diversified exporter of refined and unrefined copper, agricultural goods and light-manufactured products. It was under Pinochet that the private savings rate rose from a mere 3-4% in the late 1960s and early 1970s, to almost East Asian-levels (11-12%) by the end of the 1980s.

I'd say he laid the foundations for the economic boom of the 1990s and this decade.

20271. pseudoerasmus - 6/12/2001 1:25:14 AM

Now, to some of the specific points in the article:

"....shto on eschyo v aprele 1972 g. byl poctavlen TsRU CShA v izvectnoct' ob osyschestvlenin plana po 'sozdaniyu nepreodolimykh ekonomycheskikh trudnostey' dlya pravitel'stva Allende....."

Jesus, not this again. It was hyperinflation which destroyed Allende's regime. I wonder how the CIA is supposed to have created hyperinflation. Maybe they had safehouses all over Chile which printed counterfeit banknotes.

"Odnako posle voennogo oerevorota 11 sentyabrya 1973 g. ekonomika Chili prosto stala razvalivat'cya."

And then he goes on and on about sky-high unemployment rates, fall income, wages, etc. But it was all deliberate!!!

"S 1976-go nachal bystro rasti vneshniy dolg -- pytayas' kak-to spasti ekonomiku, khunta pribegla massipovanniym bneshnim zaimstvovaniyam.

This is true, but the country also became better able to service those debts (unlike other Latin American countries) because the country's export capacity rose.

30-protsentnaya bezrabotitsa davala vozmozhnost' zarubezhnomy rabotodatelyu polychat' kvalifitsirobannuyu i ochen' deshevuyu rabochuyu silu.

This article is like a catalogue of myths. Yes, I suppose falling wages could be thought a boon for multinationals interested in cheap labour, but Chile's export industries remain largely Chilean, not foreign-owned. And wages returned to pre-recession levels with each recovery, such that the average wage level under Pinochet was actually higher than under Allende. Finally, ITT owned hotels and the telephone company in Chile. Does anyone seriously think that a major recession was good for the hotel and telephone businesses?

20272. pseudoerasmus - 6/12/2001 1:26:44 AM

There are several mentions of infant mortality and life expectancy in the article. They are simply wrong. All throughout Pinochet's regime, infant mortality rates kept falling and life expectancy kept rising. This has probably nothing to do with Pinochet, and is rather a function of technology.

Also, the destruction of the middle class that the author talks about several times is just hysterical. Chile's economy during Pinochet twice had savage and profound but very brief busts. In 1974-75, the economy collapsed and unemployment soared to 30%, but the rest of the decade until 1981-2 was spent recovering rapidly and regaining lost ground. The pattern was repeated after 1981-82. (See here: www.geocities.com/bucephalus/tablesgraphs/chile_bus_cycle.JPG.)

All the same, the middle-class did not suffer from long-term immiseration, and this is borne out in the income distribution data on Chile. The middle classes suffered the most, but their share of national income has not shrunk all that much.

20273. ilyavinarsky - 6/12/2001 2:13:35 AM

So the article is lying when it comes to vital statistics such as infant mortality (it says that Chilean infant mortality in 1977 was twice the 1973 level). I wonder whether its other claims are true: that in 1973 anti-government terrorists were destroying Chile's infrastructure: bridges, oil pipelines, power substation etc. to the tune of 30-50 diversions a day, thus ruining 50% of the fruit and vegetable harvest, among other things; that in 1989 22.6% of the population lived in "absolute poverty" vs. 8.4% in 1969, that the average economic growth in 1973-1989 was negative 3.9% etc.

20274. pseudoerasmus - 6/12/2001 3:00:08 AM

It would take forever to go through all the nonsensical allegations in that article. But the specific claims you mention are hallucinated -- except for the poverty figures. There was a rapid and sustained rise in poverty in Chile, but not in "absolute" poverty. At no time were the poor in Chile as destitute as the poor in other Latin American countries.

20275. stostosto - 6/12/2001 4:36:57 AM

It's funny how much of a focal point Pinochet is in the Russian debate. The Russians seem to use the Chilean experience as a framework for their own debates and policy deliberations. I wonder why that is.

From the top of my head I can remember Alexander Lebed (who is now defunct in Russian politics I think) launched himself as an admirer of Pinochet; chess champion Garry Kasparov authored an article of adulation (actually drawing parallels to Russia very directly); and some months ago I linked an article from Foreign Affairs calling for a "Chilean" solution to Russia's economic problems (written by a Chilean economist who had worked in Pinochet's reform team and now serves as an adviser to or on Russia, I think).

To what degree are Chile's and Russia's situations and experiences really parallel, I wonder?

I don't think Chile is referenced nearly as much in any other country's political debate (possibly bar some other Latian American countries).

20276. pseudoerasmus - 6/12/2001 4:48:16 AM

The author makes references to that.

To what degree are Chile's and Russia's situations and experiences really parallel, I wonder?

Very little. The two are incomparable, in fact.

20277. stostosto - 6/12/2001 5:01:32 AM

Pelle:

The alleged Danish arms of state is a joke, right? These cavemen (as Sakonige rightly calls them) are most un-heraldic.

It's not a joke. This is the official Danish greater arms of state or roalty or kingdom, or soemthing. It was officially re-drawn to look like that in 1972, presumably after some older version. (That's about all a hasty research threw up).

I don't know what the cavemen are about. Perhaps a freakish whim on the part of some royal illustrator way back when.

I have often wondered about the ubiquitous in European heraldic. Why sport an African animal in Danish or Swedish (or English, or Bulgarian) arms of state? The Greenlandic polar bear and the Faroese ram (which may be difficult to discern on the image I copied in) at least appear to have some modicum of logic in their favour. But lions?

In Denmark we even have a frigging elephant featured in one of the highest decorations awarded by the queen. It's actually called "The Elephant Order". (The only foreigner ever to receive it, incidentally, was Nicolae Ceaucescu, that formidable shining knight of great statesmanship).

Whoever imported that poor animal into such humiliating circumstances?

20278. stostosto - 6/12/2001 5:04:49 AM

Pseud,

then why are the Russian so obsessed with Chile and Pinochet?

20279. stostosto - 6/12/2001 5:12:39 AM

I just made a google-search for documents containing the words 'Russia' and 'Pinochet'. It yielded some 26,900 results.

20280. pseudoerasmus - 6/12/2001 5:13:59 AM

Because the question has usually been framed in the context of whether democracy should be developed in tandem with the economy, or whether the latter should come before. Russians also make comparisons with China.

Russia went for the double solution but got neither. All pain, no gain.

All the same, the two are incomparable. Chile had had a 130-year tradition of democracy and a mixed market economy.

20281. stostosto - 6/12/2001 5:16:48 AM

Correction to 20277:

It should have said:

"I have often wondered about the ubiquitous lions in European heraldic."

(They may be ubiquitous in European heraldic but they apparently have a way of absenting themselves from my Mote posts...)

20282. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2001 5:21:18 AM

I think it's simply because the lion (like the equally ubiquitous eagle) is a symbol of strength.

20283. stostosto - 6/12/2001 5:22:43 AM

Russia went for the double solution but got neither. All pain, no gain.

It sure is a sad and depressing sight. Upthread Indiana Jones linked an article titled "Russia is finished". Very readable, if a bit too long for my attention span (I did read it, though). And very depressing.

20284. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2001 5:31:40 AM

The net holds all kinds of amazing information:

Tim Brown explains the Danish Order of the White Elephant:

"It may be a product of Denmark's especially close historical relation with - of all places - Thailand. The white, or albino elephant is the Thai Royal family's most sacred emblem. In the colonial period, the Thais, understanding that they could not permanently fend off western penetrationand efforts at colonization, avoided being swallowed up either by the British from the West or French from the East by cozying up to the one European country they felt least likely to try to colonize them so it could act as their sole window to the West and a deterrent to the voracious imperial powers of the period. That was Denmark. Danish, but no other, traders were invited to set up shop in the province of Vung Kak across the Phao Phya river from the Thai royal city of Krung Thep. The ploy worked, Thailand alone escaped colonization, and lhe link lasted over the centuries. A Danish-origin family, the Seidenfadens, were the King's closest foreign advisors."

20285. stostosto - 6/12/2001 5:44:23 AM

Hey, Pelle!

That's fascinating, I didn't know that. To think that being allied with Denmark worked as a deterrent!

One of last century's biggest and most politically influential Danish companies (which has shrunk to relative insignificance over the last couple decades) The East Asiatic Company (Ø.K. in Danish) was founded on a Thai teak plantation concession. I was aware that this owed to some special ties between the Thai king and H. N. Andersen, the Danish entrepreneur, but I had no idea there was such a background to it.

Intriguing.

20286. RustlerPike - 6/12/2001 6:07:07 AM

There were some shots fired on Katzir Friday it seems. They had a wild wedding celebration in the nearby village and someone decided to rain a few bullets on us too. There have been hundreds of weddings in the past but no one remembers bullets reaching Katzir. My guess is someone was sending us a message.

20287. RustlerPike - 6/12/2001 6:10:25 AM

Could have been CalGal, come to think of it.

20288. ScottLoar - 6/12/2001 6:37:44 AM

re Message # 20277: Animals real, fabulous, exotic or common figure in later European heraldry for the qualities attributed to them or to the places they're associated with. Obviously lions do not memorialize Africa but symbolize courage; kangaroos, emus and the Faroese ram memorialize place and do not symbolize constancy, wit and loyalty.

Frankly, I don't think the animals much care. It is humans who'd rather belong to the Elephant rather than Squid Order.

20289. stostosto - 6/12/2001 6:41:02 AM

Rustler,

a while ago you said we don't appreciate you enough around here. I'd like to say that I, personally, appreciate you very much. In fact much more than I can really explain.

20290. ScottLoar - 6/12/2001 6:46:28 AM

As cold balance to Sto3's effusive appreciation quite frankly I can't stand you RustlerPike.

20291. ScottLoar - 6/12/2001 6:52:17 AM

re Message # 20288: Or, rather, to memorialize the source of origin.

20292. stostosto - 6/12/2001 7:21:30 AM

Loar,

Rest assured, I appreciate you too, in an equally inexplicable fashion.

20293. ScottLoar - 6/12/2001 7:22:57 AM

My Dear Sto3, I wish I could reciprocate the sentiment.

20294. stostosto - 6/12/2001 7:24:07 AM

Scott

That's the kindest thing anyone has said to me in a long time.

20295. marjoribanks - 6/12/2001 10:58:51 AM

Fine hosting job you're doing here, Sto!

20296. Jenerator - 6/12/2001 11:05:28 AM

Sto,

I appreciate you AND your good looks.

Rustler,

You are appreciated here and it wouldn't be the same without you.

ScottLoar,

You have that certian je ne sais quoi that is entirely intoxicating.

Marj,

You're a stud.

Pelle,

You have a chainsaw and you wear hats like no other.


Now, will all of you men please stay in here and continue to make this thread an interesting place to lurk??!!

20297. marjoribanks - 6/12/2001 11:08:55 AM

There are several ironies in the situation that India and Pakistan find themselves in today. The atmosphere between the two countries is guardedly hopeful, the Pak leader has confirmed he will be visiting India for "open" talks on Kashmir, and a kind of ceasefire has been called by all parties involved in Kashmir.

Just a few years ago, every major political move in the subcontinent was treated with woeful hand-wringing by the nebulous international community. The situation between the rival subcontinental nations is rapidly deteriorating, said the media and government commentators from abroad. The victory of the Hindu rightist BJP was a terrible thing for peace, they said. The death of democracy when the Musharraf era started was another bad sign.

Turns out, the possibility of a real rapprochement has never been nearer. No Indian government has been in a better position to make overtures. And the first overture (the famous ride to Lahore by Vajpayee) failed precisely because there wasn't a Pak leader strong enough to reciprocate.

So, today, we hear this startling news. Musharraf has slapped at the hardliners and mullahs in Pakistan who have been spewing "unconstructive" rhetoric. This, of course, was unthinkable a short while ago. Furthermore, the Pak media has followed suit.

So, in the end, it has taken a de facto dictator and a Hindu rightist government to actually grapple with the possibility of peace. Nobody is breaking out flocks of doves, but the facts on the ground are quite remarkable in and of themselves. The Musharraf/Vajpayee meeting, in Delhi, will happen - and only good can come of it.

The trick will be selling the results to the Pak masses, and to the hardline Indian fringe. The first being much more important than the last. Can it happen?

20298. marjoribanks - 6/12/2001 11:49:12 AM

On the UK front, the inevitable has happened after the Tory defeat and the resignation of Hague. Portillo is running for leadership.

The politics part doesn't interest me, what is gossip-worthy is the whole gay politicians thing. See, just a while ago, we were discussing the phenomenon of openly gay politicians in the context of Mandelson (now resigned in disgrace) who was as far as we could tell the seniormost "out" politician anywhere.

The scuttlebut in London for the past few months was that Hague is closeted himself. Now, we have the rather unique case of Portillo, who has admitted (under severe pressure) that he had a 8-yr gay relationship from roughly the age of 19. However, he rather unbelievably states unequivocally that he has not "indulged" in homesexual activity for about 25 years or since entering public life. More controversially (and startlingly) he has voted a fairly hardcore Tory line on gay rights including moving the age of consent back a couple of years. meanwhile, of course, he has admitted to breaking the law himself since at the time he "was" gay the age of consent was 21.

I think Portillo stands even less chance of seizing Downing Street than the godawful Hague. But the prospect of what the Sun calls a "known buggerer" in the PM's offices is likely to severely hurt his chances especially given the kind of political opinion in his own party.

What is also interesting is the fact that both Portillo and Hague are Maggie Thatcher's babies, coddled into politics by the Iron Lady (in the case of Hague literally since puberty). Kind of curious, eh?

Anyway, a political campaign featuring Portillo as PM candidate should be amusing indeed. Oh, sign off the Tories for another decade or so. They ain't coming back very soon.

20299. Uzmakk - 6/12/2001 1:11:22 PM

Message # 20225Now, ofcourse, I am referring to the Pennsylvania Renaissance Festival. But I can see that I am going to have a hard time with you. You will recall that in order to go on the quest on which I intend to send you you must banish Yassar et.al. from your mind. DAMMIT PIKE, PAY ATTENTION -- Yassar is gone. He possesses not a bazooka nor plays a bazuki(sp). The only way that we would possibly let him into the faire is if he headed up a band featuring a camel gut fiddler and piper.

You know, Pike, I am having second thoughts about you. I don't know if you can handle this.

Yours truly,
Uzmakk of the Steppe, Head of Tactical Operations

20300. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2001 1:43:49 PM

marj

I sincerely hope somthing good will come out of the latest India-Pak opening. But over the years the talk of "unconditional talks" (on both sides) has always carried an unspoken proviso "provided that ..".

20301. marjoribanks - 6/12/2001 1:48:52 PM

Pelle,

Just having Musharraf and Vajpayee together, in Delhi, shaking hands, will go some distance in the opinion war. But what is truly interesting and constructive is the tenor of comments from Pak and its media. Nothing like it has ever been voiced before. Nothing like it was ever likely from a PM with a political base to worry about. It had to be a general, and a dictator. It cannot be overstressed that this is an unheard-of phenomenon. Normally Pak leaders stoke and milk anti-India rhetoric.

20302. marjoribanks - 6/12/2001 1:52:19 PM

Also, internationalists, I have just posted at length in the Sports thread about an experience that can be filed under "International Sports'. Or 'immature tomfoolery', I suppose. But International it is, at least.

20303. RustlerPike - 6/12/2001 4:08:57 PM

Sto:

I'd like to say that I, personally, appreciate you very much. In fact much more than I can really explain.

What a great heartwarming compliment. I'll remind you of it next time you call me a crybaby... :-)

Jen:

Were you always making peace between the guys? Does this go back to the sandbox days? What were you like in the sandbox days, I wonder?

Uzmakk:

I am the right man for the job. I can feel it. But how can I leave my family behind and go on this holy mission when danger lurks so close by?

20304. stostosto - 6/12/2001 4:36:12 PM

Well, Rustler, one shouldn't hit on a cry baby. And, even crybabies sometimes have good reason to cry.

20305. stostosto - 6/12/2001 4:40:50 PM

Jen,

you know the reason we men are doing our damnest to make this thread an interesting place is because we imagine you are lurking.

20306. LohrM - 6/12/2001 7:14:44 PM

that's right-- hence our scintillating discussion of the Evil Mordvins and their relationship with the Martian Basques.

20307. LohrM - 6/12/2001 7:18:52 PM

Gay British politicians? Why, I'm...shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

The victory of that moron Blair is one more nail in the coffin of England-as-England. I'm all in favor of the EU and the Euro, but Blair and all his 'modernizing' is erasing the essence of England. England should be part of the EU, certainly. But England needs the hereditary peerage, needs foxhunting, needs Oxbridge and 'good' regiments and *doesn't* need the vaporings of 'multiculturalists' and the 'sensitive'. Why would anyone give a damn about an England that doesn't look or feel *English*?

20308. robertjayb - 6/13/2001 12:08:31 AM

An Irving sighting has been reported in the Cafe.

20309. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/13/2001 12:55:40 AM

Don't believe everything you read, Robert...

20310. PelleNilsson - 6/13/2001 1:55:41 AM

The anecdote I posted the other day about meeting Faysal Husseini at a reception reminds me of another another such, this time in Amman. The occasion was a visit by the Swedish archbishop.

When we arrived we spotted the archbishop and the ambassador on the porch to welcome the guests. But they were not alone: there were also the Grand Mufti of Jordan and the local Armenian and Greek-Orthodox patriarchs in full regalia. The latter used to ride around Amman in a stretched Volvo limousine where the back seat had been ripped out and replaced with a gilded throne-like contraption. The former was a big impressive fellow with a matching beard. Think about blowing up Rustler to double size.

"My God", I said, "what's the ceremonial here? Are we supposed to kiss their rings?"

"And what about the Mufti", said my wife, "does he shake hands with women?"

As it turned out normal rules applied.

20311. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 10:26:15 AM

Irva!

So good to see you. You were much-missed around here. Hope you and yours are doing well.

Before you get caught up in something else, I insist you give us a brief on the Indonesian political turmoil situation. Is the old man finished for good? What's the general mood?

20312. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/13/2001 10:45:28 AM

Marj:

Missed you too.

In brief, Indonesia is a mess. Gus Dur, a wise and good man, has turned out to be a disastrous leader. Waiting in the wings when he gets forced out is Megawati, who promises to be even worse. The country is torn by political confusion and civil unrest and an economy which seems to find ways to sink lower each month.

On top of all that, the local supermarket is out of all but sugared breakfast cereals. Will it never end?

For some strange reason, tourist arrivals in Bali are up this year. Smart tourists -- Bali remains a paradise, unaffected by turmoil elsewhere, and prices are laughably low (I recently found a dinner tab of $10 for five people (including drinks) rather expensive... till I thought about it). I thank my lucky stars that I decided to get a dollar income three years ago.

20313. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 10:48:09 AM

No cocoa puffs, Irv? You poor poor fellow.

Thanks for what I hope is the first of a series of posts on Indonesia.

Those Bali prices have me thinking, perhaps only dreaming....

20314. Jenerator - 6/13/2001 10:50:51 AM

Sto,

You are too kind.


Irv,

Marshame and I both send our greetings. We've been wondering about you!

20315. DanDillon - 6/13/2001 10:58:37 AM

For some strange reason, tourist arrivals in Bali are up this year.

They likely booked their trips well in advance (smart tourists, like you said), when the tension in Indonesia had settled somewhat. Of course, these things ebb and flow.... In any case, I'm glad money is still coming in on that end. Not every SE Asian destination can say the same.

Great to see you.

20316. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/13/2001 11:05:18 AM

Marj:
Plenty of Cocoa Puffs... It's the stuff like Corn Flakes and Rice Krispies which has gone missing...

Jen:
Thanks!

Dan:
The political situation has been a mess for three years... it's not like it's gotten worse recently. I assume that the intelligent tourists can spot a bargain...

Good to see you, too... I look forward to linguistic discussions again.

20317. Ronski - 6/13/2001 11:09:43 AM

Irving,

Please don't be such a stranger as we say in New York. Good to see you here.

20318. DanDillon - 6/13/2001 11:18:05 AM

...when the tension in Indonesia had settled somewhat.

Perhaps a better way to say it would have been that people's perceptions of the tension had improved, since the western press largely ignored all things Indonesions for several months at a stretch.

20319. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/13/2001 12:07:27 PM

Ronski! Good to be seen...

Dan:
Perhaps... but tourist arrivals were declining for two years, and started picking up again this year.

20320. pseudoerasmus - 6/13/2001 12:49:06 PM

Hello, snodgrass, welcome back, did you see the extended discussion starting in Message # 18486?

20321. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/13/2001 12:53:42 PM

Not yet, PE... but I'll have a look. Good to see you again.

20322. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/13/2001 1:19:37 PM

PE:
I started reading it, but between the repeated blank pages, a slow connection and my bedtime, I gave up... it's great stuff, and I love this topic, as you know... so I look forward to continuing. I have long been a fan of Cavalli-Sforza.

Who are the Kerala Kadar, and why is their genetic code so different from the rest of the sub-continent? I assume they are an isolated Austro-Asiatic-speaking community.

20323. LohrM - 6/13/2001 7:06:01 PM

Pelle-- I saw a piece on BBC this morning about anti-immigrant politicians in Denmark. I hadn't thought that such feelings had made it to the land of the Danes...

20324. ScottLoar - 6/13/2001 9:26:24 PM

Then where do "such feelings" originate? "Such feelings" migrate or must be imported, or that heretofore Denmark had some sort of natural immunity to "such feelings"?

20325. CalGal - 6/13/2001 9:35:32 PM

Pelle is Swedish, and although I am a woefully ignorant Californian, I am pretty sure that Swedes aren't from Denmark. (or did Pelle make a comment about immigration and I missed it?)

We've actually discussed the immigrant problems in Denmark more than once in this thread; were you around then? I remember them because my attention was caught by the phrase "second generation immigrants".

20326. PelleNilsson - 6/14/2001 3:40:09 AM

Lohr

sto3 is the resident expert on Danish (and Goan) domestic politics. However, there is a strain of latent xenophobia in all the Scandie countries (as in Europe as a whole, cf. Le Pen, Haidar). The difference between Denmark and Sweden is that in the former there is a political party which attempts (and apparently succeeds) in making political capital out of it. The situation is different in Sweden, partly because we had such a party ten years ago which failed to make it for more than one election period and none of the other parties have picked up the xenophobia theme. Also, in recent years, we have had some ugly racial crimes which have turned people away (for the time being?) from the undervegatation of racist and aryan" organisations which do exist.

20327. PelleNilsson - 6/14/2001 3:49:31 AM

The historic moment we have been waiting for since the dawn of history is less than two hours away when the esteemed feet of The American President will touch the sacred tarmac of our venerable nation.

He will be greeted by a manifestation of European sophistication, elegance and wit; one of the protest groups will go for a mooning world record outside his hotel.

20328. stostosto - 6/14/2001 4:15:51 AM

Pelle:

Here is my prediction of the Presidential reaction:

Bush: "Europeans are assholes."
Cheney: "Major league".
Bush: "Ooops -- is this one on?"

20329. stostosto - 6/14/2001 4:16:47 AM

Gus Irv has returned. All is well.

20330. stostosto - 6/14/2001 4:25:59 AM

Lohr and Loar:

I think Danish xenophobia is 100% homegrown. It's the bloody foreigners that are imported. If something is different in the Danish variety of xenophobia it's probably that having significant numbers of foreigners here in this otherwise ethnically exceedingly homogenous place is a very recent phenomenon. This makes for some adjusting.

The rabid xenophobic party has around 10% of the vote, but at times it has been polled at almost 20%.

It's becoming more and more nakedly xenophobic, by the way. They used to have some other issues on their agenda, but they seem to have dropped all pretense and decided that throwing out the Muslims is what gets the vote anyway, so why bother.

20331. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 5:55:49 AM

Of course. I never assumed a Danish antigen for xenophobia other than quarantine.

20332. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 5:57:03 AM

Or, more exactly, I already understood the quarantine was breached.

20333. stostosto - 6/14/2001 6:52:49 AM

OK, now that the Argentinian theme has been thoroughly exhausted, I bring to you:



Spectacular Slovakia.

20334. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 6:55:29 AM

Grass, people, an inlet, trees. A blue sky. Spectacular? Doesn't take much to get you breathin' hard, eh?

20335. stostosto - 6/14/2001 6:56:28 AM

Latest news from PLAVECKÝ ŠTVRTOK is dreadful. Rival bands of Roma (aka Gypsies) clash violently and uncontrollably.

Read all about in The Slovak Spectator

(We ought to have something similar to that online mag in Denmark, actually).

20336. stostosto - 6/14/2001 6:57:45 AM

Hey, Loar, it's not me, but the link that presents the place as "spectacular". I thought it a bit amusing.

20337. jexster - 6/14/2001 8:45:01 AM

thousands of protesters were gathering in Sweden's second largest city to demonstrate their hostility to a man dubbed the "Toxic Texan"

20338. jexster - 6/14/2001 8:52:31 AM

U.S. officials have painted Bush's five-nation, five-day trip...as a chance for Europe to get to know a man often the butt of jokes in the continent's press.

And from the looks of things those god damned Swedians are the ring leaders!

20339. stostosto - 6/14/2001 8:57:19 AM

Hey, jex

I am gracious to see you here.

20340. jexster - 6/14/2001 9:19:37 AM

I am glad at least one of you appreciates an American patriot!

After all we did save you from the Ruskies!

20341. stostosto - 6/14/2001 10:09:36 AM

Yes, and I for one am gracious that we are no longer locked into a Cold War mentality that says we keep the peace by blowing each other up. In my attitude, that's old, that's tired, that's stale.

20342. marjoribanks - 6/14/2001 10:29:18 AM

One-note Rajeev Sreenivasan continues ranting on about China, India and the USA.

20343. marjoribanks - 6/14/2001 11:04:27 AM

As he prepares for the fairly historic and portentous meeting in Delhi, Musharraf is travelling around Pakistan meeting with a broad spectrum of organizations and leaders in order to garner what he calls a "national consensus" to bring to the table.

This is again a new thing for Pakistan, and I think Musharraf is doing the right thing both in terms of sowing the seeds for a strong decision in Delhi and to combat the Indian fears that he (as an unelected leader) will be unable to implement whatever is decided.

There appears to be fairly broad support for the general at this point, with the dissenters being a core of mullahs and medrassahs who stand to lose their main source of income and power if tensions are indeed reduced with India.

Here, for instance, is one of many positive signs coming from one of the parties with a lot at stake at the conference. Much of this is completely unprecedented and there are growing grounds for wary optimism.

20344. marjoribanks - 6/14/2001 11:06:44 AM

For the heck of it, here's Outlook's illustration accompanying its reports on the imminent talks:

20345. marjoribanks - 6/14/2001 11:43:00 AM

hey, Lohr, there's another yank who apparently feels the way you do about Britain. But his past is probably a bit more colorful than yours.

20346. marjoribanks - 6/14/2001 11:43:03 AM

hey, Lohr, there's another yank who apparently feels the way you do about Britain. But his past is probably a bit more colorful than yours.

20347. marjoribanks - 6/14/2001 11:43:32 AM

That's odd. I only pressed post once, and never refreshed.

20348. jexster - 6/14/2001 1:37:27 PM

UR welcome Sto....now where is Pelle?

Is he on the streets of Gothenberg demonstrating or what?

20349. PelleNilsson - 6/14/2001 2:37:15 PM

I'm mooning frantically.

20350. jexster - 6/14/2001 2:40:19 PM

Pelle STAY HOME!
Pelle STAY HOME!
Pelle STAY HOME!
Pelle STAY HOME!
Pelle STAY HOME!
Pelle STAY HOME!
Pelle STAY HOME!
Pelle STAY HOME!

DEATH TO SWEDIANS!

20351. jexster - 6/14/2001 2:41:54 PM

or RU Swabian?

I confuse the 2

20352. PelleNilsson - 6/14/2001 2:45:04 PM

Actually I'm Switzian.

20353. jexster - 6/14/2001 2:48:20 PM

Whatever, whoever penned that Tired and Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free Krap should have his body disinterred and stuck atop the flag pole at the Crawford Ranch.....

This is war Pelle...We will not stand for this from EuroTrash!

20354. jexster - 6/14/2001 2:53:32 PM

Bush Unifies Europe

Come get some! Its Final Conflict Time!

20355. robertjayb - 6/14/2001 3:54:51 PM

Humorless Swedes...

20356. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 4:00:46 PM

Gee, I know the Europeans are upset that the Americans in the form of their President and Senate have not ratified the Kyoto protocol for reason it would require the US to spend billions reducing industrial emissions even as others like China and India continue manufacturing scot-free but, say, what EU members have ratified the protocol?

20357. PelleNilsson - 6/14/2001 4:12:57 PM

Don't be daft Scott. The ratification process takes time. The US has said it won't ratify. No EU-member has said that and none will.

20358. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 5:24:16 PM

To PelleNilsson Posing as Nostradamus;

The US has said it won't ratify exactly for the reasons I recounted. You confirm that no EU member has ratifed the protocol. So, let them ratify independently of the US and rant as they choose - but they will not willingly place themselves at an economic disadvantage against other industrialized or industrializing nations despite bare-assed sentiments on the streets.

20359. Andonly - 6/14/2001 5:31:18 PM

Loar is right.

20360. LohrM - 6/14/2001 7:01:04 PM

Kyoto is only likely to achieve wide ratification if China and other industrializing states are made to conform as well. I support the ideas behind the treaty, but no state will put itself at a competitive disadvantage while allowing special breaks for competitors.

20361. Uzmakk - 6/14/2001 7:15:38 PM

From verbal descriptions, I believe that that is Bubaette's ass.

20362. Uzmakk - 6/14/2001 7:21:38 PM

Pike:

Hang tight. We're going to have a good time.

20363. LohrM - 6/14/2001 7:22:05 PM

I didn't vote for the younger Bush, but I do have to wonder... In six months in office he's irritated me a few times but done nothing truly appalling so far. Other than the small numbers of anarchistas and remnant leftistas, what exactly has he done to so infuriate the Euros? Is it merely an excuse to be out in the streets on a Spring day...and pick up art-school girls by being a "revolutionary"? Is it reflexive anti-US sentiment?

20364. jexster - 6/14/2001 7:47:48 PM

The cunning Swediates are at it again.

On the eve of Our Fuerher's meeting with Putin, the self same Ruskie is being photographed with the Chinese Prime Minister.

I detect the slimy hand of Gustav in all this I do.

PS Pelle - You Swedian bois have purty butts!

20365. jexster - 6/14/2001 8:41:07 PM

omme les fils de la grande bourgeoisie au début du XXe siècle, W. (alias George Bush junior) a entamé hier son «grand tour» d'Europe. Le but premier de ce genre de voyage est de déniaiser le jeune homme en l'exposant aux étrangetés du Vieux Continent. Le choix de l'Europe pour cette première véritable sortie à l'étranger (après un saut de puce au Mexique) du 43e président des Etats-Unis se veut aussi symbolique. Il vise à calmer ceux qui s'inquiètent d'entendre certains experts américains déclarer que la fin de la guerre froide a diminué de beaucoup l'importance de l'Europe vue de Washington et par des stratèges qui voient la «menace» davantage du côté de Pékin que de Moscou. Mais les Européens ne savent pas trop qu'attendre de l'«ami sincère» qui débarque chez eux. Faut-il davantage s'inquiéter de sa propension aux gaffes verbales dès qu'il évoque des contrées pour lui exotiques ou de ses plaidoyers en faveur de la peine capitale? De son apparente irresponsabilité face au réchauffement de la planète ou de sa précipitation à vouloir mettre en place un système antimissile? De ses tendances protectionnistes ou de ses penchants à l'unilatéralisme en matière de politique étrangère?

En quelques mois de pouvoir, George W. Bush a certes appris à rengainer sa rhétorique de cow-boy pour tenir compte de réalités internationales qui se plient rarement aux nécessités de la politique américaine, notamment au Proche-Orient. On peut parier qu'il aura à cœur de prouver aux Européens sa capacité d'écoute et sa volonté de les «consulter». La démonstration ne sera pas inutile, venant d'un Texan connu pour ne pas accorder grande importance au Vieux Continent. Son intérêt, après tout, n'est pas que l'Union européenne se définisse uniquement en contrepoids de l'«hyperpuissance» américaine, voire en concurrence La Liberation

20366. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 6:57:20 AM

From today's Jordan Times:

AMMAN - The government on Thursday began implementing new regulations that will restrict the entry into Jordan of Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, a statement by Minister of Interior Awad Khleifat said.

The statement came three days after Khleifat announced the new rules, which he described as temporary were aimed at preventing the Israeli government from achieving its objective, namely to force Palestinians to leave their homeland.

The new rules were "aimed at enhancing the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and to enable them to remain in their homeland, protect and hold on to the religious shrines [in Palestine] and their national rights," Khleifat said in the statement carried by the Jordan News Agency, Petra.

The Jordanians are afraid, very afraid.

20367. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 7:02:08 AM

I take it you mean the Jordanians are afraid, very afraid of the Palestinians usurping Jordan.

20368. Dusty - 6/15/2001 7:19:58 AM

Loar
Your factual comment is correct as I noted in Message # 22503 in thread 85 (Not that this is any surprise to you, but in case anyone is skeptical.)

Do I interpret Message # 20358 as predicting that the EU countries will not ratify, even those that claim they are in favor of it? If so, how will this process take place? Will it be put up for ratification, and fail the vote? Or will various countries use procedural approaches to avoid putting it to a vote? Or something else?

20369. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 7:28:52 AM

Dusty,

Unlike Nostradamus I cannot make predictions but if any EU countries ratify the motive would, it seems to me, be for domestic considerations and by countries who can afford so, in other words Scandanavia. I do not expect EU compliance. The means to avoid ratification are more ingenious than I can imagine.

20370. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 7:30:18 AM

My apologies, Scandinavia.

20371. stostosto - 6/15/2001 8:14:38 AM

I just made a small internet search on Denmark, the EU and Kyoto.

The EU is in fact planning a joint ratification pending a negotiated distribution of its joint Kyoto quota between its member countries. This will allow poorer EU countries to increase their emissions while richer ones will have to cut theirs by more than the average EU requirement. The EU is due to ratify in 2002.

Of course, now that the USA has dropped out, European ratification and compliance seems more difficult to achieve given that it will resemble nothing more than a self-inflicted restriction which doesn't even achieve anything much in terms of global warming since the USA (and everybody else) will just continue to emit greenhouse gases into our common atmosphere. Hence, all bets are off. (And if anyone suggest that this probably suits some EU leaders just fine, I won't protest...)

Denmark, I can proudly and earnestly note, is among the countries that have agreed to the largest relative reduction of its emissions.


Stipulated EU burden sharing. The Kyoto objective is to reduce EU's combined greenhouse gas emissions by 8% compared to the 1990 level by 2008-2012.

20372. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 8:21:46 AM

Message # 20371 and especially its chart confirms Message # 20369

20373. stostosto - 6/15/2001 8:38:57 AM

Interesting that you would include Germany (Tyskland) in Scandinavia...

20374. stostosto - 6/15/2001 8:39:42 AM

As well as Italy, UK, Luxembourg, and Austria...

20375. stostosto - 6/15/2001 8:43:21 AM

Actually, as far as I can see the size of those reductions are primarily correlated with the prominence of coal firing in those countries' power production. Coal emits much more CO2 per kilowatt produced than either oil, or gas or, of course, nuclear power.

20376. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 9:13:16 AM

You mean Germany is not part of Scandinavia? Neither yet Italy, the UK, Luxembourg, Austria?

Then how am I to explain myself to you?

20377. alistairconnor - 6/15/2001 9:51:55 AM

ScottLoar is constitutionally incapable of recognising the existence of altruism in any form. There has to be a catch, a trick.

Those Europeans are being very sneaky, somehow.

Look at it this way, Scott, if it makes you feel happier : Europeans are very stupid.

20378. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 10:43:02 AM

AlistairBenightedConnor;

1) I do recognize selflessness and have actually seen it practiced; you?
2) "Those Europeans" are no different from any others and perhaps more practical than most; they will not alone shoulder responsibility for preventing what they regard as "global warming" but, again, we'll know in the near future how they act, yes?
3) Your stupidity does not make me happier.

20379. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 10:44:09 AM

Oh yes,

4)How came you this intimacy with my constitution?

20380. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 11:15:04 AM

Scott, in the Future thread, did you intimate that you might be coming to my part of the world?

20381. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 11:32:24 AM

My Dear Khaval Alazman;

Yes! In August most likely, Sydney or Melbourne, maybe both, and so my offer to act as proxy for anyone who wins the prize of two hours in public with a foil-wrapped Khaval (suitably bizarre).

I myself read through today's paper and found nothing of import to predict.

20382. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 11:40:25 AM

Scott, wow! How exciting! You simply cannot come to Oz and not see Melbourne. It is this county's most beautiful (and civilised) city. And let us not for a moment forget, that its charms are only compounded by my presence.

While I might not don the entire foil body-suit, I would certainly oblige by wearing a small, elegant foil armband.

20383. jexster - 6/15/2001 11:59:38 AM

Bush To Outline Vision for Europe

Sounds absurd, comical from this side of The Pond. How say you EuroTrash?

20384. jexster - 6/15/2001 12:04:58 PM

Great photo Robert. Kinda detracts from my purty butt remark tho...

mmmmm....

Pelle...find us one of those blond boy butts with a "Toxic Texan" inscription?

20385. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 12:49:42 PM

Melbourne. Been there, done that. But, I allow your enthusiasm is infectious.

I've even been to Alice Springs in the summer; how about that?

20386. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:16:40 PM

Scott:
I've even been to Alice Springs in the summer; how about that?

How about such a trip's requiring a lobotomy prior to travel? :)

What a stooooopid thing to do, sir!

Mind you: Melbourne in the summer is pretty vile, too.

So... do you actually know Melbourne, or did you have an hour's stop-over?

20387. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 1:23:35 PM

Khaval;

I learned the Australian salute in Alice Springs.

I've been in Melbourne spring, summer, winter and fall over the course of the last 20 years. I've stayed in St. Kilda's (nice little street fair next to the old amusement park there) but now favour Little Burke (sp?) Street for the last three years. I love to watch the legal aids pushing their overladen trolleys of documents up the street. Melbourne's Chinatown is inferior to that of Sydney but it's older and I suspect more steady; Melbourne's waterfront which was once a shambles of deserted docks is being cleaned up; and in general Melbourne itself has cleaned up greatly in the last 10 years.

I've actually dated girls in Melbourne, Khaval, which would be no mean thing if it were but an hour's stop-over for me.

20388. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 1:25:34 PM

Yes, and I've avoided possum poo while crossing your public parks even as the Japanese tourists were hand-feeding the little wretches.

20389. Andonly - 6/15/2001 1:27:36 PM

The US-based journalist Raghida Dergham (who I guess is Lebanese but I always thought was Egyptian) is or was to be tried in absentia by a military court in Beirut for having appeared on the same program as an Israeli official and having "responded" to his arguments (a.k.a. "lies").

See "Lebanese military puts US-based reporter on trial" at: http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-23/methaus.htm

You've surely all seen this woman on TV. She's usually quite convincing and moderate, although I did witness her enagage in a spate of silly rationalizing of Arafat's Camp David walk-away which, on a talk show, Fouad Adjami gently rendered laughable.

20390. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 1:29:30 PM

Khaval, I've even read A Favoured Life which should get me some high school credits.

20391. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:30:55 PM

My God, Loar! It sounds as though you know the city better than I do.

Now tell me, what is it that has brought you to Melbourne so often?

(btw, the best of Melbourne is in the alley streets of the CBD and Brunswick/Nth Melbourne/Fitzroy/Carlton)

20392. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 1:33:11 PM

Business sends me to Melbourne and about 23 other cities in the Asia-Pacific region. I've been doing this an awfully long while.

20393. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:35:42 PM

Hokay. I was just shocked that you knew Melbourne so well. I despise Australia in general and AUstralians in particular, but there is something quite beguiling about certain bits of Melbourne (those alleys are intoxicating... literally). It really is the only city in this entire country in which I could survive.

20394. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 1:38:07 PM

Odd sentiment coming from someone so young as though most deny it they covertly yearn to become Sydneysiders, Melbourne being known as the place of the staid as witness the crowd at the Melbourne Cup.

20395. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 1:40:30 PM

I agree with you about the alleys although - admit it - most are boutiques and coffee shops.

20396. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:46:07 PM

Huh? Whatcha talkin' about, Scott? Most Melbornians become Sydneysiders only because of employment reasons.

Sydney beaches are better, for sure - but I am NOT a beach girl, and I DESPISE the Antipodean sun.

But beyond Sydney's natural attractions, it is pretty much consensus among my generation, that melbourne life is far superior for young people.

Apart from cheaper rent and other costs of living, melbourne is the high culture capital of O, the fringe culture cpital, the live music capital, the comedy capital, the fashion/style capital, the bars/pubs capital and the city in which it is easiest to navigate without a car (assuming you don't live out in Shit Creek with no public transport).

Our club/rave culture is also apparently vastly superior, but I have always hated that scene.

The one rave to which I was dragged along was in the forrests about an hour and a half outside Melbourne. It was magnificent in a surreal way, but I couldn't help wondering what the kangaroos and other fauna was making of the D&B and other techno thumpery.

20397. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:49:24 PM

20395. ScottLoar - 6/15/01 6:40:30 PM

I agree with you about the alleys although - admit it - most are boutiques and coffee shops.

*Giggle* Yeahhhh... but there are also tiny galleries, other design/display places, and incredible nightlife/jazz joints.

Also, my funkier friends would NEVER EVER consider living ANYWHERE but in those alleys, in vast wareshouse-cum-studios. My funkiest pals live at the end of an alley off an alley. They are so cool, it's impossible to find them :)

20398. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:51:48 PM

And apart from my girly fascination with the cutting edge deigners that populate the alleys, you must remember I seek out the stinkier, danker, more marketsome places in a city to feel truly comfy and at home. Melbourne will always be too refined and sterile for me, but the alleys are a good pacifier until I can get out.

20399. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 2:09:24 PM

Yes, of course. I never doubted Melbourne's superiority in all things spiritual and material.

20400. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 2:11:08 PM

Incidentally, my daughter hates clubs but is a die-hard afficionado of raves, a not too subtle difference between the two.

20401. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 2:12:59 PM

ScottLoar Message # 20367

Yes, absolutely. It will be the end of the Hashemite dynasty and the "real Jordanians" (descendents of the Beduin in the east and farmers in the west) who dominate poltics, the army and the security forces although, by most accounts, they are a minority of the population, will lose their status.

20402. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 2:15:36 PM

RE: #20399, don't be a sarky bastard, Loar!

And while I can understand where your daughter's coming from (mainstream clubs are repulsive), I personally cannot stand the raver scene. So boring, monotonous and drug infested.

I really love those tiny little bars inhto which you squeaze with friends. At the back, there might be a minute dancefloor. The people are all-sorts, some looking like they've just stepped off a Gay Pride float, others looking like they've just left the law firm for the day. These places (all in the city alleys) are some of the best night spots I've seen anywhere.

20403. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 2:17:19 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Palestinians are usually regarded by their neighbors other than Israelis as grasping, ambitious, clever, dynamic and so a threat.

20404. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 2:19:07 PM

I am an uncommonly sarky bastard but my sympathies lie in the right places.

20405. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 2:21:19 PM

Sooner or later somebody will see sto's table and slam me because Sweden will increase CO2 output by 4% while Denmark will decreas by 21%. This is because were are decommissioning nuclear power plants which account for 50% of electricity production, while hydrolelectric power, which accounts for the other half is fully exploited.*

Personally I'm against the phasing out of nuclear, also in a global context (maybe a subject for your thread, khaval, when the current weighty issue has been dispensed with).

*There are still four untouched rivers in the north but there is massive opposition across the political spectrum against exploiting them.

20406. stostosto - 6/15/2001 7:15:46 PM

Sooner or later somebody will see sto's table and slam me because Sweden will increase CO2 output by 4%

Who here, do you imagine, would care enough about that to comment on it, let alone "slam" you over it?

But since you mention slam-deserving Swedish energy practices, I guess I, as a good Copenhagener, should "slam" you for not closing down the Barsebäck nuclear power plant fast enough, that is, now.

Personally, I am not really capable of getting all that worked up about it, though. Perhaps I am not such a good Copenhagener after all...

20407. stostosto - 6/15/2001 7:22:17 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Palestinians are usually regarded by their neighbors other than Israelis as grasping, ambitious, clever, dynamic and so a threat.

Er... Are you sure you aren't confusing them with another stereotype?

If not: The Palestinians actually have been demonstrated to hail from the very same breeding stock as the Jews, if I haven't completely misread Pseuder's autistic renderings of Cavalli-Sforza.

20408. stostosto - 6/15/2001 7:25:51 PM

I am an uncommonly sarky bastard

You have been known to be an uncommonly stuffed sark.

20409. jexster - 6/15/2001 7:30:55 PM

With fresh stone bruises on his crowned head, Moron I heads for Ljubljana, Slobonia....


Moscow Times
June 14, 2001
Setting the Stage for Failure
By Pavel Felgenhauer

"Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin will meet for the first time on Saturday in the Slovenian capital, Ljubljana, to discuss missile defense and the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, as well as cooperation on regional conflicts, Russia's acceptance into the World Trade Organization, Russian nuclear technology transfers and weapons sales to Iran, NATO expansion, and maybe even the war in Chechnya -- if there's enough time left.

But there surely will be no time. The Ljubljana summit is scheduled to last just two hours. It's surely impossible to settle the issues that divide Moscow and Washington in two hours or less, since the presidents will be speaking through an interpreter. There will be time only to state positions and then politely bow out of the conference room for a photo op and a short noncommittal news conference."

More (or less depending on your view)

Probably won't get mooned. Ex-Commies are still too conditioned to respect authority, even bogus authority, or maybe especially bogus authority.

20410. Jürgen Huber - 6/16/2001 4:56:38 AM

"In Europe the term "liberal" means a middle-of-the-road bourgeois person who admires John Stuart Mill, not a dangerous left-winger. Finally, Europeans are far more ready to accept - and desire - that the government plays a big role in providing education, health care, day care and other societal services, not only by putting up the money, but also by running them. " Pelle Nilsson, June 11, 2001

Very good job of summing up the differences while stressing the common ground on democracy, liberty and the law, Pelle.

Really, I missed you guys.

"It's becoming more and more nakedly xenophobic, by the way. They used to have some other issues on their agenda, but they seem to have dropped all pretense and decided that throwing out the Muslims is what gets the vote anyway, so why bother." stostosto, June 14, 2001

And in particular Stostosto's irony.

"ScottLoar is constitutionally incapable of recognising the existence of altruism in any form." Alistair Connor, June 15, 2001

Isn't that due to an American gene?

Just trying to be sneaky.

"if I haven't completely misread Pseuder's autistic renderings of Cavalli-Sforza"

Man, it seems I really MISSED something.

20411. ScottLoar - 6/16/2001 5:09:58 AM

People miss many things, as well as the difference betweee altruism and selflessness.

20412. ScottLoar - 6/16/2001 5:11:09 AM

Excuse me, I don't want to be a sarky bastard...

Your comments are most welcomed here.

20413. robertjayb - 6/16/2001 5:32:02 AM

Bummer...I was expecting better bottoms...

20414. PelleNilsson - 6/16/2001 5:57:26 AM

Good to see you here Jürgen.

20415. dusty - 6/16/2001 1:36:44 PM

Welcome back, Jürgen

20416. sakonige - 6/16/2001 2:01:11 PM

It's powwow season! In my neighborhood this weekend the Lummi Nation, a group of Coast Salish tribes, are having their powwow. Along with the usual music, dancing and food, the main event at Coast Salish powwows is the war canoe races. Teams compete in several divisions, from eleven- man ocean-going craft to one-man canoes long and sharp as needles. The canoes are each beautiful, individual works of art. Some are carved and painted with Northwest Coast designs; others are polished natural cedar. The shoreline along the racecourse will be filled with hundreds of beautiful canoes, and American Indian families camping out.

I've made some friends in this particular native community tutoring Indian kids during the last year. This is going to be a fun day.

20417. sakonige - 6/16/2001 2:03:21 PM

I still don't have a digital camera. I don't really like screwing around with cameras. My pictures are disappointing and the camera gets in the way.

This North Vancouver canoe club's webpage has a few good pictures of these kinds of canoes.

20418. PelleNilsson - 6/16/2001 3:12:38 PM

The Gothenburg police yesterday suspended the Schengen agreement in order to block an invasion of hard-core Danish activists. It is ironic and tragic that an EU summit forces a restriction of the free movement of EU citizens, one of the essential features of the union.

20419. jexster - 6/16/2001 3:39:09 PM

Robert...was that the Royal Swedian 21 Butt Salute?


Pelle...Dates back to Charles XII does it not? The last shot of Swediate arms at Poltava?

20420. jexster - 6/16/2001 3:44:33 PM

Peter The Great Receiving Royal 21 Butt Salute @ Poltava Marking THE END of Swedian Hegemony in Europa

20421. jexster - 6/16/2001 5:10:22 PM

WRT those "hard-core Danish activists", be gracious you HAVE a right to suspend the Shenanigans Agreement.

Back in ma day, we had similar problems with "outside agitators" as we used to call 'em (they styled themselves "freedom riders"). Damn Yankee jew troublemakers that's what dey were. Stirred up our nigras somethin awful!

The South, at that time of course, was occupied by a ferrin power. Happily though those days have past as a genuwine Son of the South now reigns in Glory in the former Yankee Capital.

But back then, we couldn't suspend shit!

20422. mrsOckO - 6/17/2001 7:02:53 AM

Ms. Alazman:

Might you have an email address at which I can contact you?

20423. mrsOckO - 6/17/2001 7:02:56 AM

Ms. Alazman:

Might you have an email address at which I can contact you?

20424. mrsOckO - 6/17/2001 7:03:27 AM

Aaaaaagrh!

20425. khaval alazman - 6/17/2001 7:39:34 AM

Because you asked so sweetly, and because you asked twice, I shall give you two addresses, and you can choose whichever appeals to you more. But I do check the first more frequently:

alex75@austarmetro.com.au

goatherder75@hotmail.com

20426. mrsOckO - 6/17/2001 7:53:23 AM

Thanks.

20427. RustlerPike - 6/17/2001 7:59:09 AM

Re: Message # 20425

Now - which moniker sounds like it belongs to a winner to you guys, and which like it belongs to a bleating fool: goatherder... or Rustler?

20428. RustlerPike - 6/17/2001 8:58:04 AM

Most important thing I've ever done in my life. And I've done some important things, I reckon.

20429. alistairconnor - 6/17/2001 9:00:33 AM

I am awaiting the translation with dread.

20430. ScottLoar - 6/17/2001 9:03:31 AM

Message # 20427 betrays the fool, Message # 20428 is its bleat.

20431. RustlerPike - 6/17/2001 9:03:45 AM

This be page 2:

20432. RustlerPike - 6/17/2001 9:04:40 AM

Ahhh, Loar, you stinker. Alistair: why dread?

20433. RustlerPike - 6/17/2001 9:05:58 AM

I must say, The Mote is not shaping up into being quite the support group I was hoping for.

20434. ScottLoar - 6/17/2001 9:06:02 AM

I'm almost moved to counterpost Sun-tze's Art of War in the original.

20435. khaval alazman - 6/17/2001 9:21:35 AM

It's a leaflet detailing the possibility on an attack on Katzir and best responses.

20436. ScottLoar - 6/17/2001 9:24:49 AM

I divined as much knowing RustlerPike and reading the diagram, thus my counter offer of Sun-tze.

20437. RustlerPike - 6/17/2001 9:26:38 AM

Goatherdess is right, but I don't discuss 'responses' so much as preventive security measures.

20438. RustlerPike - 6/17/2001 10:44:55 AM

These include a preventive incineration of the neighboring villages with napalm.

20439. RustlerPike - 6/17/2001 10:45:13 AM

Heh heh.

20440. ScottLoar - 6/17/2001 3:02:42 PM

Well, RustlerPike, the evidence of napalm is always easy to spot - it crackles and splits the skin just like pork cracklings, leaving the skin forever crusted, just like a carapace.

"Heh heh."

20441. RustlerPike - 6/18/2001 1:39:03 AM

Ah, the ironies one encounters on international fora: like - an American lecturing a non-American on the evils of napalm.

Heh heh.

20442. RustlerPike - 6/18/2001 1:40:39 AM

Spent the early morning stapling up notices, only to find most had been torn off the bulletin boards an hour later.

20443. RustlerPike - 6/18/2001 2:05:27 AM

Who needs napalm when you have the Phalange?

20444. sakonige - 6/18/2001 11:15:20 AM

One of the coolest things about Rustler Pike is that you can watch him get killed without feeling regret. That's a rare quality.

20445. angel-five - 6/18/2001 3:13:19 PM

I wonder if this means there's hope for the Stuarts.

20446. marjoribanks - 6/18/2001 3:34:36 PM

Good story, Five.

It's a curious thing, this kind of latent yearning for the good old days of monarchy and pomp. In India, it was well-known that elections always got thousands of write-in votes for "The British" as recently as a decade ago. Hell, if it were put to the test in Goa, I'd say a good 30% of the electorate would vote for a return to colonialism even if it involved engaging again with European second-rater Portugal.

20447. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:39:30 PM

The party of ex-king Simeon II handily won Sunday's elections in Bulgaria. It was formed two months ago.

20448. LohrM - 6/18/2001 5:45:47 PM

Being a Portuguese colony has its cool sides...and it would be a way to keep the hippies out of Goa.

20449. LohrM - 6/18/2001 5:54:39 PM

Pike-- surely it would be cheaper and more effective just to change all the signs around Katzir to indicate that it wasn't Katzir but was in fact New Zealand. No one attacks New Zealand; they just feel vaguely sorry for the sheep. (South Dakota works, too)

20450. ScottLoar - 6/18/2001 5:59:36 PM

30% of the electorate in any third-world country may very well vote or pine for the return of the previous colonial administration but the greater half of the remaining 70% or so is nationalistic and in power. Bulgaria's situation is different; theirs is a quest for any alternative and so monarchists there and some few other places think it a return to monarchy when in fact it is the conclusion of a desperate search for any functioning government, not a quest for nostalgia. Think you Iran is eager for the return of the Pahlavis? Think you the UK pines for direct rule by Charles and The Rottweiler? Will the Romanovs return? Not likely.

20451. LohrM - 6/18/2001 6:49:36 PM

Colonialism allowed for lots of cool things that have been lost-- coolies, rickshaws, white linen suits, pink gins, Legion forts, leggy mysterious Eurasian girls in cheongsams, frontier regiments, adventures.

Face it-- an English government based on pre-Reform Bill principles would be a hell of a lot better than Tony Blair's "new" Britain.

20452. marjoribanks - 6/18/2001 7:04:54 PM

Ha.

Lohr, your contrarian posts are a trifle dogged, but quite amusing.

Anyway, it should be noted that everything you ruminate about in 20451 is still extremely available in many parts of the world including modern India. Well, save the cheongsams which are easily imported.

Also, by the way, the hippies (except for a diehard core) are not the ones littering North Goa's beaches and casuarina groves. It's ravers, trance-music freaks, psychedelic itinerants, the pierced and tattooed alienated youth of Israel, Germany and the rest of North Europe. Here is one of their websites.

20453. LohrM - 6/18/2001 7:25:43 PM

They're still hippies. No self-respecting US clubkid would be anywhere with as much sunlight and heat as India. India just isn't a country that fits well with darkness.

Ever since the moment when the phrase "the only thing a native should have in his hands is a broom or a tray with drinks" fell out of favor, there's been no point in going outside the civilized world.

20454. marjoribanks - 6/18/2001 7:44:23 PM

Lohr,

You're in your mid-forties at the least aren't you? Tell the truth.

Trance parties, obviously, take place at night. In Goa, they're usually held in groves of trees alongside a secluded beach, or sometimes in a paddy field near a river. I don't know what you mean about India and darkness, but the nights in trance season (nov, dec, jan) are beautiful and quite cool.

Oddly enough, your crack about the native bearers isn't too far off from the trance scene in Goa since no self-respecting local wants to stay up past his bedtime to cavort on the beach. It's too "chilly" outside for Goans anyway. Those that do stay awake are either selling drugs or serving drinks or trying to get laid.

20455. marjoribanks - 6/18/2001 7:49:35 PM

Oh, every city in the USA that has a trance subculture has a group of so-called "Goans" whose reason for being is to scrape up enough money to head to India (and Thailand) for the trance season. I've met several, they're on the whole less scary than the Germans of their ilk, but then who isn't.

20456. angel-five - 6/18/2001 9:21:01 PM

Ya, we are nihilists! And then we cut off your johnson, Lebowski!!

20457. khaval alazman - 6/18/2001 11:19:59 PM

Angel, I am beginning to suspect that you are a Jewish Australian male! Tooo strange.

20458. angel-five - 6/19/2001 12:37:32 AM

No doubt it is just some strange endogamous instinct at work in your mind.

20459. khaval alazman - 6/19/2001 12:41:11 AM

Heh heh. Dirty boy! It was the Bigh Lebowski reference, Angel. Just seemed so... Oz-Jew.

20460. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 11:30:40 AM

Oz-Jew? All right thinking young men adore the Big Lebowski. John Goodman in that movie was just classic.

20461. khaval alazman - 6/19/2001 11:39:02 AM

Fuuuck! Is this a pan-manhood business? In Australia, I noticed only the Jewish men going bonkers over TBL.

Marji, maybe you are really an Oz-Jew yourself.

20462. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 11:41:24 AM

From outlookindia.com:


General.Musharraf tonight said in Islamabad that he's going to India with "an open mind" to " change history" and hopes the Indian leaders would respond with an equal measure of openness in their discussions on the Kashmir issue.


"Kashmir is my agenda. Discussions on eight other points without Kashmir is not acceptable."

"There are other issues. We are prepared to discuss them. Since they have invited me, they know my stand. Kashmir is the issue".

"It is true that historically Kashmir issue was not moving forward. I hope this time it is not going to happen. I am going there with an open mind. I hope my counterparts in India, Indian leadership and Indian government also have an open-minded approach." "This time we must change history. I am going there to change history and if we get cooperation we can make a new beginning," Musharraf said.

(cont'd)

20463. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 11:42:44 AM

Emphasising the centrality of Kashmir issue in the talks, Musharraf said "I have no doubt Kashmir issue is the core issue."

Before going to Delhi he said he would meet representatives of political parties, Kashmiris and religious groups. "I want to talk to Kashmiris so that they are on board and their rights are protected''. 

Asked to define his 'flexible approach' that he's talked about now and again, and how far he was prepared to go, he said no line could be drawn on the expression he had used.

"I suppose the word flexibility is creating confusion. Let me say that my openness of mind in talks with the Indian Prime Minister would be directly proportionate to the openness the other side shows. So it is not possible to clearly lay down the line on flexibility.''

On the Indo-Iranian pipeline:

"If they want the pipeline, we are prepared. Pakistan is willing to permit laying of the pipeline through its territory".

"If they don't want to buy gas cheaply, it is their problem. But if they want the pipeline, we are prepared".

On the invite to Delhi:

"This is the first time that the Indian government referred to Kashmir in an invitation letter to the head of state of Pakistan."



All pretty unprecedented stuff. Again, it took an unelected coup leader and a Hindu rightist to finally get this far towards entente, an irony keenly felt in the subcontinent.

20464. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 11:48:13 AM

Khaval,

You're a hell of a lot more likely subcon than I am an Oz jew.

Now, internationalists, I'm off to a compulsory look at a photo exhibition by one Pamela Singh. Used to be known as Pamela Bordes. Can any of you tell me why this woman is notorious without search-engining an answer? Will check back to see in a few hours.

20465. PelleNilsson - 6/19/2001 12:16:56 PM

marj

I'm very sceptical about this. What Musharraf says is that "I'm going to be flexible if they are flexible". What this could very well mean is "I may be willing to accept concessions that fall somewhat short of Pakistan's maximalist position", ie the whole thing is premised on India making unilateral concessions, which it won't. Or will it?

20466. khaval alazman - 6/19/2001 12:25:41 PM

Marji, I coouldn't help taking a peek in Google, because I'd never heard of her. But I won't give anything away. To tell the truth, she seems mind-numbingly boring. A real "flavour of the moment", exotic fetish-focus.

As for the supposed "irony" of hard right and military govts' being able to achieve what could not be achieved by the supposedly more concilliatry inclined - rubbish!

It is far far easier for an unelected executive such as Musharraf to make unpopular concessions. He faces no elections and little opprobrium from any other power bases. While he needs to maintain a basic legitimacy to prevent break-down in authority in Pak, he has latitude beyond the wildest dreams of a PM who was dependent upon the electorate for his/her office.

As for the elected rightist - again: much easier to make concessions when known as a hard-liner and are not regularly suspected or accused of compromising nation's integrity. It is the old Begin syndrome.

How did that ultra-rightist, Begin, manage to achieve the first genuine peace withj an Arab country, with Egypt's Sadat, against whom he had faught (not literally, obviously) during Yom Kippur War? Begin's mandate came precisely from his reputation as a hard liner and his people's attendant trust in him.

Same applied to Rabin. He was the man who declared that Arab bones must be broken during the first intifada. He had the legitimacy to engage in and sign Oslo because his reputation positioned him as a military man and not a peacenik.

20467. PelleNilsson - 6/19/2001 12:32:26 PM

You might add Nixon's Chinese policy to that list, but I'm not sure the theory holds up to scrutiny.

20468. khaval alazman - 6/19/2001 12:37:06 PM

Pelle, look: I wouldn't claim it as a universal that all rightist or militarist leaders are good peace-makers. I only say that they all have a greater latitude for action than their more moderate counterparts because they do not have to answer to accusations of weakness or treason.

20469. pseudoerasmus - 6/19/2001 12:57:56 PM

There is possibly nothing more boring than news of the rumours of attempts at inter-subcon rapprochement, particularly if this is the 1837th round.

From my Turkish-learning reading exercises, the news item of the day:

Saparmurad Niyazov, president of Turkmenistan and self-proclaimed the Great Turkmenbashi, has decreed that all male Turkmen must henceforth don the national headdress, the telpek, which can be seen here:

20470. PelleNilsson - 6/19/2001 1:01:26 PM

You can't be serious. All Turkmens are going to look like Central Asian Rastafaris?

20471. pseudoerasmus - 6/19/2001 1:03:28 PM

I forgot to add, .......all male Turkmen at schools and universities.....

20472. rubberducky - 6/19/2001 1:03:38 PM

looks great

good for spills too

20473. pseudoerasmus - 6/19/2001 1:05:30 PM

And this is irrespective of nationality....so Russian, Uzbek, Tatar and Tajik minorities must also comply....

It's a wacky country, Turkmenistan. At the Ashgabad airport, there are shops selling the telpek, but there also signs at customs saying it is illegal to take the telpek out of the country.

20474. PelleNilsson - 6/19/2001 1:08:58 PM

If you have the time give us a brief brief on Turkmenistan. It is not a country much in the news.

20475. Ronski - 6/19/2001 1:29:57 PM

The telpek looks like it was once on a sheep. Is that so?

I think they're quite smart. Something Marlene Dietrich would have looked good in.

20476. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 2:56:24 PM

Wow. That is both a weird-ass hat and story. Turkmenistan sounds like a bizarre place.

---

Pamela Singh's photographs were moderately skillful. What is more skillful is her rehabilitation in the public eye. She first came to attention as a call-girl/mistress who was involved with a slew of Brit MP's and newspapermen. She's not particularly good-looking but obviously ambitious and a toiler, as Harayanavis often are.

20477. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 2:59:32 PM

"I only say that they all have a greater latitude for action than their more moderate counterparts because they do not have to answer to accusations of weakness or treason."

But I do not disagree at all with this. The events right now are merely somewhat ironic because the majority of Western observers and a significant minority of subcon pundits bemoaned the rise of the rightist and the general, assuming that relations across the border would markedly deteriorate.

I also pretty much agree that the increasing fanfare is boring, it is just that I am compelled to watch and comment due to incurable optimism and a certain amount of eternal hope.

20478. Ms. No - 6/19/2001 3:55:39 PM

Banks,

I recently viewed the Indian film Bandit Queen about Phoolan Devi. Not knowing much at all about Indian politics I was very confused by much of the film. I understood the social issues for the most part, but the rival gangs which I at first assumed to be just criminals actually seem to be somewhat legitimized by the government or military.

It was also difficult to figure out exactly Devi's gang was popular other than the fact that they opposed the high caste gangs.

I have probably asked for a complete history of Indian politics here, but could you point me in the direction of perhaps an "Indian Politics for Dummies" or something?

20479. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 4:07:48 PM

Ms. No.

The movie should not be read for any authenticity in its portrayal of politics or anything like it.

However, the actual phenomenon embodied in Phoolan Devi did illustrate neatly some broader political movements and issues. It should be noted that her experience is a window into the happenings only in one part of India, a particularly poor and lawless section (the Chambal) of India's 'cow belt' - a region distinguished in its poverty and lack of human development.

India varies very greatly from region to region.

Anyway, you can read this decent article for context and I'll be happy to answer any further questions you have.

20480. Ms. No - 6/19/2001 4:14:39 PM

Thanks, Banks. I figured the film was only good for broad pictures or as a reminder to those who actually knew what the real history was.

I'll check out your link.

20481. pseudoerasmus - 6/19/2001 5:25:33 PM

The poorest states in India (in per capita income terms) are Bihar, Orissa and Tripura.

The richest states are Goa (which is hardly a real state) and Punjab.

The much vaunted southern states of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnatka have slightly lower than average per capita incomes.

20482. Ms. No - 6/19/2001 5:44:11 PM

Much light shed by that article and reading Devi's comments I can easily see why she would've hated the film.

I agree with her that the bulk of what the film-Phoolan did was get raped, cry and cower. Then out of nowhere you see her toting a gun and ordering men around but you never get any understanding of why anyone would follow her.

A fascinating subject for a film, but not a particularly good film. Glad I saw it if only because it led me to seek more information.

20483. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 6:10:27 PM

Hmm, re #20481, everyone knows about Bihar (a fourth world country all by itself) but I'm surprised by the fact that Rajasthan (for instance) isn't at the very top of the list. Let alone UP, where the Chambal is and where Phoolan Devi comes from.

What source are you relying on? No dispute, just curiosity.

And yes, the southern states do feature a surprisingly low average income considering the level of literacy and other human development indicators.

But why is Goa "hardly a real state"? I'm considering working myself up over this slight. If Rhode Island can be a state in this country, surely distinct little Goa can be righfully recognized as such. To tell the truth, however, i'd be happy (as would 90% of Goans) if statehood were taken away and the territory reverted to President's rule. Elections are a bad thing in Goa, state politics are worse. democracy has failed. If there were a vote on the matter, a vast majority would beg to have democracy rescinded. I'm not joking.

20484. Ms. No - 6/19/2001 6:16:54 PM

Why? Too much "tyranny of the minority" going on or what?

20485. pseudoerasmus - 6/19/2001 6:19:31 PM

source is dept. of statistics, government of India.

Rajasthan is poor, but less poor than Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh. In fact Rajasthan is only slightly below Andhra Pradesh, the site of Hindooostan's IT purring.

20486. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 6:34:22 PM

Hmm. Interesting.

AP was always pretty badly off, by the way, at least since Independence. The IT purring you mention is barely getting underway, as Hyderabad tries to supplant or at least mirror Bangalore. The latter city is still rather booming, and Karnataka as a result has become relatively prosperous.

---

Ms. No, Goa has the most bumbling, least efficent, most ludicrously inept set of politicians in India. There are only some 40 seats in the parliament, and between 12 and 20 ministers at any given time. The same buffoons have been in politics forever, they switch parties and allegiances as often as other people change their underwear. Governments topple as surely and as often as the seasons change.

Yet, believe it or not, the average Goan is unconcerned, since the price of fish, the quality of caju feni and the length of his daily siesta are far more pressing matters.

But he would be stirred to ask for benevolent despotism, I feel, if such a choice were offered him in the form of President's Rule.

20487. marjoribanks - 6/19/2001 6:35:18 PM

But ask Sto. He'll tell you all about it.

20488. Ms. No - 6/19/2001 6:44:40 PM

Thanks again!

20489. Ms. No - 6/19/2001 6:48:15 PM

I would imagine that most people are like that. If you are eating well, raising your family in the manner you wish, able to exercise your freedoms and rights why in the world would you care about politics?

Humans are for the most part selfish in these aspects. Yes, there are those who will rail about the injustices that others suffer, but for the most part if we are content in our own lives we tend not to want to make waves.

Not exactly admirable but a fact of life nonetheless.

20490. Raskolnikov - 6/19/2001 9:14:33 PM

solution to ethnic strife?

20491. stostosto - 6/20/2001 5:17:24 AM

Rask,

I think that's solid cause for optimism. As these two quotes illustrate:

Former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, now presiding over a Serb settlement near the Jordanian border, was optimistic about the future. "All Muslim scum must die," he said. "Death to all enemies of Serbian purity!"

Hutu leader Kagabo Ndadaye, who between 1994 and 1996 personally oversaw the machete deaths of more than 10,000 Tutsi Rwandans, echoed the positive outlook. "The glorious Hutu are the one pure race," said Ndadaye, speaking from a Hutu settlement near Hebron while eyeing a nearby Kurdish settlement. "All inferior mongrel peoples shall be put to the blade."

---
The laughter does have a grim aftertaste, though. Shit! That's how exceedingly earnest and humourless I am.

20492. stostosto - 6/20/2001 5:22:54 AM

Ms. No-a
wants to know a-
bout Goa?

Whoa!
Just ask sto-a.
He owns that show-a.

20493. stostosto - 6/20/2001 5:33:37 AM

Goa’s new diet is last supper for frogs

Unsurprisingly it has caused a stir in France, the Indian ambassador has been called to Chirac, and the French parliament is looking into the matter.

20494. mrsOckO - 6/20/2001 5:44:29 AM

Mr. Banks:

Blessed sahib, does your extensive knowledge of all things subcon extend to the issue of religious authorities in Malaysia attempting to ban Bollywood movies? Might you have any snazzy news links? Some Malays say that Bollywood corrupts so-called Malay sensitivities but a little bird tells me that the menfolk are in fact more pissed off with their women marrying Shah Rukh Khan lookalikes from Bangladesh.

I'd be interested in your comments. On the face of it, this seems like one of those Malaysian issues that is both risible and kind of frightening, in a low-key kind of way.

20495. stostosto - 6/20/2001 5:45:32 AM

Police in Goa to compile foreign paedophile blacklist

This story was actually in the radio news here this morning, for some reason...

20496. stostosto - 6/20/2001 6:17:11 AM

(I like the name of the policeman quoted in that story, btw.: Nolosco Raposo).

Last Goan bit of today:

Dealing with the mounting Goan umbrella problem - some sensible proposals

Scroll down to the "Rules for umbrella users" piece by Robert Clemens.

20497. concerned - 6/20/2001 9:12:21 AM

From Inside China Today:

Taiwan Test-fires U.S.-made Patriot Missiles for First Time

TAIPEI, Jun 20, 2001 -- (dpa) Taiwan on Wednesday began test-firing U.S.-made Patriot missiles, the first time the island's military has tested the advanced weapon since it acquired the system from the U.S. eight years ago.

The surface-to-air missiles were tested at the Chiupeng military base in the southern part of the island and successfully struck their targets, local media reported.

Local TV showed the missiles being launched near the coast. Reports say the missiles were fired at dummy targets launched from Green Island.

U.S. advisors were also present to monitor the exercises, reports said. Some local media said it was the first time the missiles had been tested in Asia.

Further test-firings are expected to take place on June 21, 22 and 26.

The long-range, high-altitude air and missile defense system made by Raytheon Company is used to overcome advanced threats, such as aircraft and cruise missiles.

The U.S. sold three batteries of Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-2 plus missiles to the island in 1993. They are currently deployed in northern Taiwan to protect the greater Taipei area.

The missile system is an upgraded version of the Patriot missiles used by American troops in the Gulf War in 1991 against Iraqi Scud missiles.

Taiwan has also previously expressed an interest in acquiring the newer PAC-3 system when it becomes operational.

The U.S. does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but is obliged to sell defensive weapons to the island under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979.

Such arms sales meet with strong opposition from China, which has regarded the island as part of its territory since the two split in 1949 after a civil war and has vowed to bring about reunification, by force if necessary.

20498. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 10:23:05 AM

Psocks, I know very little about the Malaysia-Bollywood connection beyond the bare facts as commented onhere and brief reports in every Indian newspaper a couple of months ago which stated that the Mahathir gov't has decided not to act on the call for bans.

I do know that the Indian movie industry has made quite a lot of movies in Malaysia over the past couple of years, this being a cheap alternative to the desired Western European locales. And Bollywood flicks are huge in Malaysia, as they are in the rest of the region. Regular masala shows featuring the actors and musicians raise huge sums for producers. Even the very good A.R. Rahman has had a concert there.

But any ban on Bollywood movies would fail for sure. Hell, the Taliban has gone so far as to ban TV's in order to stop this "menace" but a thriving underground keeps Afghans supplied anyway. If you're willing to risk your life and limb for a look at Sridevi cavorting around a tree in the rain, surely a tame TV ban isn't going to stop anything.

20499. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 10:26:28 AM

Sto,

As always, your breadth of knowledge on Goan affairs is awe-inspiring. But no link to the venerable newspaper O Heraldo? As you know, the transplanted South Indian editor, Rajan Narayan, is the foremost voice of Goan pride and independence. His editorials are at once frenzied, hilarious and singlemindedly tough.

20500. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 10:29:40 AM

That link should be O Heraldo.

20501. stostosto - 6/20/2001 10:30:20 AM

The O Heraldo link is a no-Goa.

20502. stostosto - 6/20/2001 10:30:49 AM

x-post

20503. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 10:35:56 AM

The link confusion results from the (news to me) name change. Obviously, the owners have dropped the Portuguese name this late in the day for some unknown reason.

Rajan Narayan's screeds are not available on the net for some reason. 'Tis a pity. But maybe it's just for today, his stuff is always extremely entertaining.

20504. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 10:42:10 AM

Sto, there is also Goa's best publication, Goa Today. Typically, the name is misleading. Goa Today is a monthly.

It is partly available on the net. Read this paean to the "national" drink, feni. Lest you be led to think the reverent tone is in jest, do not be misled. It is deadly serious. I particularly like the snippet at the end from great Goan cartoonist Mario de Miranda. It is also deadly serious - feni is used to treat every imaginable ailment in Goa.

20505. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 10:45:39 AM

From my feet to your lips.

20506. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 12:40:26 PM

Are there any Brits lurking? Could someone not banned invite that fairly elderly Brit from TT's International folder to visit here? I think his name is David Watkins and though prickly he is a straight-thinker.

Basically, I want to discuss, at length, the fairly shocking Oldham riots and the questions they have raised about multiculturalism in the UK, the reawakening of the BNP, unemployment and several other Brit matters. Watkins would be ideal, I think, to discuss this matter with since we are likely to have opposing reasonable stances.

Yes, Lohr, i know what you think (in cryptic terms) about Brit multiculturalism.

20507. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 12:41:20 PM

If someone can get me his e-mail address, I'll write him myself. I can't access that part of TT.

20508. Raskolnikov - 6/20/2001 12:45:38 PM

You got banned from TT?

20509. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 12:49:31 PM

My third ID was disabled summarily. I got no message regarding this. It is probably because I was openly inviting people here, and also partly because I used a tricky Indian freemail address. Anyway, it's not worth the hassle to get on again, I haven't read much there of interest in a very long time.

---

The Oldham riots opened up a very messy can of worms, by the way. By way of limited introduction, you can read this limited report from a very decent Guardian series on race matters in the UK.

I think the issues involved would make for a very interesting and comprehensive discussion. All we need is an appropriate Brit.

20510. stostosto - 6/20/2001 12:53:26 PM

how about tmachine? Whatever became of her anyway? Perhaps she went on to bigger things...

20511. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 12:58:20 PM

Yes, what happened to tmac. But she may well be on the same side as me on this. Watkins is pretty much guaranteed to take the old school, Tory, distilled Enoch Powell, line. This would be better, especially since he struck me as not unreasonable.

Also speaking of absent Motards, what happened to Hooligan, our solitary contributor from Africa?

And Nerdo, that proudest of nerds? Where'd he disappear to again?

Anyway, this thread needs a mega-discussion. I propose the Oldham Riots and what they mean or signify or portend. Fetch me a Brit, hosts.

20512. stostosto - 6/20/2001 1:00:52 PM

There was also that sharp economist guy, cdm1110 or something.

But he also may be sadly ungiven to prolonged ill-tempered arguments.

20513. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 1:03:47 PM

I don't think it will be ill-tempered, sto.

20514. stostosto - 6/20/2001 1:42:42 PM

Knowing you it certainly will, you hotheaded Goan devil.

20515. PelleNilsson - 6/20/2001 3:26:08 PM

I lurk fairly regularly in TT. I don't recognize Davis Watkins. Are you sure he's around?

20516. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 4:12:49 PM

Pelle,

Not sure. It's David Watkins, and he started a thread months ago about wanting to be born Swiss in his next life.

He's crochety, but would be an excellent duellist in a discussion such as I propose above.

20517. Raskolnikov - 6/20/2001 4:17:33 PM

Watkins is indeed a TT International regular. While I recognize the name as a frequent poster, I can't recall ever having read anything particularly interesting or obnoxious from him, so I can't say much about him.

20518. Raskolnikov - 6/20/2001 4:18:52 PM

But his e-mail address is Ieuantiriarll@aol.com. I found the swiss thread you mentioned.

20519. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 4:20:53 PM

Thanks Rask. i'll e-mail the feller, it may be nice for one of the hosts to reinforce the formal invitation.

20520. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 4:30:10 PM

I've done my bit. Hosts please do yours.

20521. CalGal - 6/20/2001 4:32:55 PM

Proudnerd posted for the first time in a while a few weeks ago. He said he'd been very busy.

Is David Watkins the English guy who also posts in Movies, Rask?

20522. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 4:44:09 PM

I just went looking for Amitav Ghosh's 'Countdown' on the Internet. A slim little volume, no more than an expanded essay, I re-read it today on two commuter rides and was struck by how superb a work of journalism and analysis it is.

It's nominally about the nuclear testing in the subcontinent, and becomes a telling portrait of both India and Pakistan and their ruling classes and politics. In it, he spends time with people like the Indian defence minister and the great Pakistani activist Asma Jahangir. It's quite simply a brilliant, endlessly sobering, carefully drawn, book and essential reading if you're even peripherally interested in any of the themes. Particularly, it 50 million times better than Arundhati Roy's shrill hectoring on nukes.

Anyway, while I did not find the essay but only woeful and incoherent excerpts, I'm very glad I looked because the search turned up this lovely essay. Wonderfully evocative piece on books, and reading and writing.

Ghosh is such a talent, such a gift to readers.

20523. PelleNilsson - 6/20/2001 4:53:07 PM

marj has this typical sub-con obsession with formalities. By all means, if you get a reasonably positive answer forward it to me and I'll do my bit. Or maybe we should raise it to the wabbit level? I mean David Watkins, not an everyday thing, is it?. Weighty matter and all that, what, what, don't you say, old sport?.

20524. robertjayb - 6/20/2001 4:58:31 PM

heh-heh-heh

20525. marjoribanks - 6/20/2001 5:02:12 PM

Scandinavian lassitude on display.

Pelle, these "formalities" are no more than common politesse. And would be recognized as such by persons of a certain bearing.

20526. Raskolnikov - 6/20/2001 5:07:24 PM

Cal:"Is David Watkins the English guy who also posts in Movies, Rask?"

I don't recall.

20527. LohrM - 6/20/2001 6:58:43 PM

Marj-- I'm certainly "of a certain age", but at least in the clubs I've frequented in the last decade, the standard color is still black and no one seriously considers sunlight a good thing.

Pelle-- you might look at David Denby's "Great Books" for a wonderful discussion of just how the reading of the classics has changed. (Funny-- explaining the world of the Iliad to undergraduates and to US Army officers was easy; explaining the assumptions underlying Jane Austen's world to undergraduates was frustrating)

20528. marjoribanks - 6/21/2001 10:57:24 AM

Well, is it a clever move or merely hubris? Musharraf has assumed the constitutional role of President of Pakistan as one of the precursors on the road to Agra next month.



A full report is here.

It includes this meaningful tidbit:

"By taking over as the President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf has only followed the tradition of three previous army Generals to assume the country's highest constitutional post today after being its chief executive for 20 months following a military coup. Pakistan has been ruled by the military for 26 of its 53 years of existence. "

20529. marjoribanks - 6/21/2001 11:03:50 AM

If anyone is interested, Musharraf has a kind of home page on the WWW.

You can send him mail, or read tidbits about him including the facts that he was born in Delhi, is fluent in Turkish, and is a "natural sportsman."

His house in Delhi still stands, I am told. Wonder if he'll visit.

In an interesting twist, by the way, Musharraf was a classmate in Karachi's St. Patrick's school of BJP honcho (and Home Minister) L.K. Advani.

I also have a connection there. One whole male line of my own family (mothers side) also went to that school, and my great-grandfather was a prominent patron whose portrait hangs somewhere in its halls.

20530. marjoribanks - 6/21/2001 11:06:55 AM

Lohr,

I wasn't trying to slam you in any way. the fact is that raves, and Goa-trance is all about the rave experience, often take place outdoors at night. As I mentioned, the trance-heads who come to the Konkan coast occupy casuarina groves by the Northern beaches of Goa and their parties start at midnight and extend usually until dawn.

Even in India, there is no sunlight at night.

20531. marjoribanks - 6/21/2001 12:16:31 PM

You know, there are some things that have to be catalogued in an 'Only in India' file.

As politics in India has become rapidly sectionalized and all about 'vote banks', you've seen the rapid rise to power of once-mistreated castes and communities that are charmingly officially classified as "backward". Trouble is, when rural and small town politics and voting lines become stratified purely on communal lines, there is often a deadlock or complete stalemate.

An intriguing phenomenon has very recently started showing itself in areas of the north. A class of people has been putting itself forward much as G.W. Bush as "unifiers, not dividers." Who are these political cousins of the U.S. President? Well, they're eunuchs. Not eunuchs in the way jexster and ace would use the world. real eunuchs.

So, 1500 eunuchs are gathering in India, and they'll likely launch a political party. And mark my words, they'll win many more seats than they currently hold. Could this be a useful trend to emulate wherever political deadlock exists? Is Jeffords actually a eunuch? I leave you to ponder this weighty issue.

20532. jexster - 6/21/2001 12:35:46 PM

Royal Swediate 21 Moon Salute Is Hard to Beat

Domestic critics of national missile defense have little chance of attracting as much attention as their European counterparts -- mass mooning is hard to beat. But at least they can hope that President Bush's saunter through Europe, which ended with the surprise Slovenian soul scrape with former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, could lead to a long delayed public debate on the whole subject of arming outer space.. Mary McCrory...

Long Live Gustav the Great!

20533. jexster - 6/21/2001 12:37:16 PM

India...what a mess.

I never understood why the Brits were so proud of their Raj.

20534. jexster - 6/21/2001 12:37:44 PM

Good food tho

20535. marjoribanks - 6/21/2001 12:39:55 PM

Jexster,

Why is India a mess? Because eunuchs are launching a political party? Frankly, I'm kind of proud of this fact.

20536. marjoribanks - 6/21/2001 12:41:10 PM

And, the Brits were proud of their Raj because (a) they tore shitloads of money out of it and (b) its ludicrous pomp and ceremony reinforced their notions of themselves.

20537. jexster - 6/21/2001 12:49:23 PM

Because its a sad, impoverished, overpopulated place with good food and I suspect the answer is (b)....Perhaps some historian has done a cost accouting of the British experience in India, I sure would like to see it....bet that balance sheet is hell in the red....

20538. marjoribanks - 6/21/2001 12:53:20 PM

Jexster,

You are a silly man. India may be impoverished in parts and overpopulated everywhere, but it is not sad.

And you are right, partly, about the cost accounting. The Raj became highly unsustainable at the end, but be assured it was profitable, extremely so, for most of its existence.

Anyway, stick to slapping around Dubya. You're more on target there. I'm off to eat some of that "good food".

20539. jexster - 6/21/2001 1:03:50 PM

Its saddens me that such a fine people, and I have worked with many Indians, an intelligent, enterprising, kind people IMO, who have such excellent food, in their home country live in such squalor, Untouchables, filth etc....that is what is sad to me.

20540. PelleNilsson - 6/21/2001 1:06:48 PM

Jexster

Point one.
It is my sad (in your view) duty to report that Bush made a largely positive impression in Europe. No doubt that's because Europeans are politically naive idiots.

Point two.
India is an impressive country.

20541. jexster - 6/21/2001 1:16:43 PM

Point One....Bush made the same impression he did in his foreign policy debate with Gore, ie the opinion elites concluded that he wasn't as big a moron as they had thought.


But Offensive Charm wears thin as today's NYT poll shows....

Euro pols know now more than ever that Bush is someone they can ignore....play kissy face and then kick his ass.

Putin did just that!

20542. jexster - 6/21/2001 1:17:39 PM

As for how impressive a culture which has been 2000 years dead can be....go to Calcutta

20543. jexster - 6/21/2001 1:19:03 PM

God Save Gustav the Great!

And a One Moon Salute to you Peter

20544. pseudoerasmus - 6/21/2001 1:26:12 PM

The Raj became highly unsustainable at the end, but be assured it was profitable, extremely so, for most of its existence.

Depends what you mean by this. Did individual British businesses make profits in India? Yes. Did the possession of India by the British Crown add to or subtract from national income? The answer is not clear, but there are many economic & financial cost-benefit studies of empire, and they usually look like losers. Floud and McCloskey for example concluded that in the 18th century British national income would have been higher if the British government had simply given away its (political) possessions in the West Indies. This was both because the maintenance of the empire was prohibitively expensive, and because the mercantilist relationship raised the price of goods in the UK.

Empire-building was typically an enterprise in which private commercial interests influenced the state to create conditions in which they could make profits for them usually in spite of the national economic interest.

20545. Andonly - 6/21/2001 1:28:36 PM

A little blast from the past:

RustlerPike - Nov. 18, 1998:

"When I say this is going to explode, it's not because I want it to, or think it should. Just that I think it will. The Palestinians should have a state of their own, deserve to, etc. Sure they do. But with Arafat making speeches like the one he made the other day, exhorting Palestinians to keep their guns handy for the liberation of Jerusalem, it doesn't look like we're going toward peace here. ... I don't begrudge the Palestinians a state. I just think they woke up from their fantasy of violent annihilation of Israel 50 years too late - and some of them are still fantasizing about it, even now."

20546. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 1:31:02 PM

Pelle calling Europeans naive political idiots??

I thought that only Europeans were capable of rational political thinking.

A change in Pelle has occurred!

20547. PelleNilsson - 6/21/2001 1:38:11 PM

jexster

Euro pols know now more than ever that Bush is someone they can ignore

Perhaps on a personal level. But Bush speaks for America and America cannot be ignored.

20548. marjoribanks - 6/21/2001 3:24:25 PM

Pseuder,

Your #20544 is basic, though nicely worded.

It's clear, however, that the Raj is a very different case in economic history than the West Indies, or other equivalent posessions like Fiji or Mauritius. These all were solely plantation economies, as such, largely devoted to a single agricultural monoculture - sugar. As such, the economic relationship between colonizer and plantation colony was skewed perpetually, and often in the favor of the plantation colony.

India, and the Raj, featured a far more complex economic relationship, and there is no one (that I know of) who even posits that the empire was not extremely profitable to the British exchecquer until pretty much the advent of the 20th century.

Interestingly, the mercantalist relationship you mention not only heavily influenced prices between the plantation colonies and the colonizers then - it still has a weight on trade today. Witness the endless flap over bananas.

20549. stostosto - 6/21/2001 5:04:01 PM

Pelle,

Bush made a largely positive impression in Europe

That's news to me. He certainly didn't impress me, and I also haven't detected much media commentary to that effect.

Bush struck me as a complete doofus with no ideas or even thoughts of his own, a man infinitely too small to fill his suit.

This is not because I disagree with him politically, though I do for the most part. But he is just not able. He is a totally talentless dummy.

And, yes, I actually agree with jexster on this.

I am absolutely astounded that the Murcans couldn't dig up a guy with just a modicum of gravitas to represent them instead of this parodic figure. In-fucking-credible.

20550. LohrM - 6/21/2001 5:13:24 PM

I'm not sure about that, Marj... The costs of maintaining British rule in India-- especially figuring in the costs of holding the sea routes and garrisoning places to secure the sea routes --would seem high indeed.

20551. pseudoerasmus - 6/21/2001 5:16:39 PM

Message # 20548

It's clear, however, that the Raj is a very different case in economic history than the West Indies....

The analysis has been applied not only to the West Indies, but also to the American colonies, the 19th century colonies in Africa, to Malaya, and to parts of India, particularly before 1857.

It is simply wrong to say it is "clear...that the Raj" was a "very different case in economic history".

India, and the Raj, featured a far more complex economic relationship, and there is no one (that I know of) who even posits that the empire was not extremely profitable to the British exchecquer until pretty much the advent of the 20th century.

There are many many many such people. Try, for starters, Percival Griffiths or Corelli Barnett.

Besides, it's not a question of profitability to the Exchequer per se. It's a question of whether holding India raised or lowered British national income.

20552. LohrM - 6/21/2001 5:19:56 PM

PE is right that Corelli Barnett's discussion of the costs of Empire is quite compelling...

20553. pseudoerasmus - 6/21/2001 5:29:48 PM

At any rate, I don't want to assert definitively that Britain did not benefit from owning the red bits on the map. My point is simply that it is not at all clear that the British economy grew or developed faster as a result of possessing a formal empire. Not at all clear.

It's not even clear that a possession like India was worth more than trading with and investing in Yankistan.

The studies on such questions typically involve all kinds of complex assumptions, such as the level of trade between Britain and a hypothetically free India, or the elasticity of supply curves, or to what extent capital and labour deployed in empire-related activities would have been redeployd elsewhere in the absence of a formal empire, etc.

20554. jexster - 6/21/2001 5:36:08 PM

Thanks Psuedo..that's something I have really and truly wondered about for a very long time...I am not sure that economic historical analysis is sophisticated enough to answer the question but as I said it pops into my head with some regularity....

But I was KIDDIN MB (sort of) about India...never been there and most all I know of actual life there comes from ex-pats whose testimony may not be fully reliable as they no longer live there.

20555. pseudoerasmus - 6/21/2001 5:47:27 PM

It's not a question of sophistication; any amount of sophisticated reasoning would have to involve many assumptions about counterfactual scenarios.

20556. LohrM - 6/21/2001 6:32:07 PM

My own recollection is that a fair number of modern (meaning post-1970) historians/economic historians would argue that empire 'rationally' paid less than trade with other developed partners. But empire-building was never about 'rational' pay-offs. Even in the 15-16th centuries, the desire for loot was hardly 'rationally' organized (though the Portuguese came close), and empires have always been built for 'non-rational' ends as much as a desire for simple profit.

20557. transient1a - 6/21/2001 7:10:24 PM

pseudoerasmus,

Message # 20555 … would have to involve many assumptions about counterfactual scenarios.

From Trade to Colonization - Historic Dynamics of the East India Companies
Which ends:

> Hence, for almost 200 years, there was a systematic transfer of wealth from India to Europe. Although Britain may have been the primary benefeciary, it's allies in Europe and the new world benefited no less. British Banks used their Indian capital to fund industry in the US, Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The industrial revolution and the development of modern capitalism was based on the colonization of India and the rest of the world. It was the forced pauperization of the colonized world that allowed nations such as Britain, or the US to industrialize and "modernize". Any serious analysis of modern captialism must take this into account.<

A counterfactual scenario?

20558. pseudoerasmus - 6/21/2001 8:30:20 PM

Hence, for almost 200 years, there was a systematic transfer of wealth from India to Europe. British Banks used their Indian capital to fund industry in the US, Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The industrial revolution and the development of modern capitalism was based on the colonization of India and the rest of the world. It was the forced pauperization of the colonized world that allowed nations such as Britain, or the US to industrialize and "modernize". Any serious analysis of modern captialism must take this into account.

That can be dismissed as nonsense immediately. Cumulative profits from British investments in India just weren't large enough to fund anyone's industrialisation, let alone the combined industrialisation of Yankistan, Germany and "elsewhere in Europe".

I'm not going to respond to the remarks of every subacademic crank that Transient1a finds randomly on the internet. But if anyone does take such things seriously, I will respond.

I recommend anyone interested in this subject to take a look at M. Edelstein's article "Foreign investment and empire 1860-1914", which appears in The Economic History of Britain since 1700, volume 2, edited by Roderick Floud and Donald McCloskey.

20559. ScottLoar - 6/21/2001 10:07:15 PM

One thinks Bush made a largely positive impression in Europe and another thinks Bush a doofus, which is pretty much the text of the commentary in the US: Yes, he did better than most Europeans or Americans expected as most did not expect much and, yes, those holding a very low opinion of the man were not moved at all. But, tell me Europeans, in what way are Bush's policies to Europe different from Clinton's on, say, the Kyoto protocol which single issue seems to define those who like Clinton and despise Bush? Or volunteer an issue dear to your hearts and explain to me, an "Murican", how the substance between the two differs.

20560. ScottLoar - 6/21/2001 10:07:56 PM

Corrigendum: Murcan

20561. jexster - 6/21/2001 10:08:38 PM

Thanks again PE...I have a little free time about now and that looks like a good way to spend it....


In the early 1920's, Anna Karlsson, like every Swedish grandmother, baked her own ginger cookies at Christmas time. They proved so popular that not only did Anna begin baking them all year round, but by 1929 she had opened a small bakery in Stockholm

Pelle...sitting here in SF munching an Anna's Chocolate Mint Thin and contemplating the great Swedian contributions to culture...the Royal 21 Moon Salute...Anna's Ginger and Mint and Almond and Orange and Lemon Thins..Acqua Restaurant in NYC......

Thanks!

20562. jexster - 6/21/2001 10:17:42 PM

The coverage of Bush in Europe, by US papers is one thing but that of the coverage by EURO papers at least as digested in Slate and summarized by Felix Rohatyn (fmr US ambassador to France) on CNN Money Line paints a decidedly schizoid picture beginning immediately and suspiciously after the appearance at EU summit.

Its obvious what is going on. The Euros realized that they had done enough or even overdone their insults which had gone on for months building up to a 21 moon crescendo in Gothenberg.

Having neutered Bush, why add insult to injury?

Putin positively fucked him. Euro Pols aren't stupid. They know that they accomplished their mission of turning the Toxic Texan into a crushing irrelevancy.

Putin is positively beside himself.

20563. stostosto - 6/22/2001 4:50:12 AM

Loar:

tell me Europeans, in what way are Bush's policies to Europe different from Clinton's on, say, the Kyoto protocol which single issue seems to define those who like Clinton and despise Bush?

First of all, I said my personal take on Bush (doofus) has nothing to do with his politics. I disagree with his politics, but those are not what I took issue with in my comment above. It's the fact that Bush, as a man, is an empty vessel.

Second, Kyoto and all that. You may argue that there is not much difference in Bush's foreign policy from that of Clinton. The two issues that have played loudest since Bush took office are NMS and Kyoto. NMS was supported by Clinton, and Gore, too, included it in his platform (presumably to look "tough on defense"). And Kyoto was unlikely to be ratified by the US even under Clinton given the massive opposition in Congress.

It's also true that Clinton was absolutely no political "liberal" (Euro style or not), which, incidentally, makes the howling choir of the AceOfSpaders and the loony right even more ridiculous.

But there is little doubt that Clinton handled these issues very differently from the way Bush has done. Also reflecting different world views. I think Clinton would have put NMS in a benign deep freeze, whereas he would have done his damnest (which wasn't all that bad) to hammer out a feasible course of continuation for the Kyoto process.

(cont.)

20564. stostosto - 6/22/2001 4:50:31 AM

>>>

Bush, by contrast, is a puppet of the NMS lobby which has an irrational love affair to that concept, he cans Kyoto without explanation or proposals for what next, and he generally endorses a rogue state attitude for the USA. Which is not only bad for the world, imo, but is also shows an exaggerated idea of American power.

But while American arrogance isn't exactly a new concept to the rest of us, its promotion by a fathomlessly dense President is. (OK, Reagan -- but at least he seemed to believe in his own grandstanding. Bush is just a parrot). And highly off-pissing if you ask me.

20565. ScottLoar - 6/22/2001 7:02:23 AM

I think, forgive me, that you voice the main objection of many in Europe to "an exaggerated idea of American power"; the seemingly common sense of "American arrogance" is what really rankles you. I can't answer to that but better public relations by a slicker US President supposedly can.

20566. stostosto - 6/22/2001 7:12:33 AM

the seemingly common sense of "American arrogance" is what really rankles you

No, what really "rankles" me is that we are treated to such by a fumbling, bumbling mediocrity who should have stayed in his country club schmoozing with his oil and baseball business chums.

And tell me, Loar: Doesn't it embarrass you in the least to be represented by such a goofy styleless character?

You seem otherwise to put great weight on style and demeanour.

20567. ScottLoar - 6/22/2001 7:20:34 AM

I seem to put great weight on style and demeanour? No, I think content more important and act so.

So, am I embarrassed "to be represented by such a goofy styless character?" No, I live a good and full life independent of other's perceptions of America and its elected officials, and on those rare occasions overseas when challenged about being an American it doesn't take me too long to convince my accuser that, yes, I'm an American and they've picked on the wrong guy.

You seem to put great weight on scrambling to the top of the mound and shouting loudly.

20568. stostosto - 6/22/2001 7:27:24 AM

No, but Bush has that effect on me. A know-nothing and care-even-less at the helm of the only superpower.

Jaysus. I don't understand how you can't be embarrassed as an American. But good for you.

20569. ScottLoar - 6/22/2001 7:29:05 AM

Thanks for the blessing; any exchange with Sto3 is always my pleasure.

20570. stostosto - 6/22/2001 7:30:36 AM

Loar,

you're welcome.

20571. pseudoerasmus - 6/22/2001 9:26:59 AM

Marzipranks, do you know of a good summary article on the politics of economic liberalisation in India? That is, how and why Indian political elites came slowly to the decision that India needed to liberalise its economy.

20572. marjoribanks - 6/22/2001 11:16:58 AM

Pseuder,

The short answer: No.

There are some books out on Manmohan Singh and Narasimha Rao (who are the two most associated with liberalization) but the one's I've seen aren't particularly worthy. The much-awaited book on his experience by Singh himself is likely to be more promising.

There is also this article -
Shastri, Vanita. The Politics of Economic Liberalization in India.

Contemporary South Asia 6:27-56 Mar '97

---

My own snap summary:


The political elites in India were high on liberalization when it was touted by Rajiv Gandhi, then soured as his promises failed to come about, then had it rammed down their throat by Rao and Singh when India's economic plight was obviously great. After Rao and Singh's efforts, liberalization became unstoppable, something with its own momentum and all the major political parties in India simply had to adapt to it rather than the other way around.

20573. jexster - 6/22/2001 11:43:56 AM

Bush can be ignored Pelle and Europe is doing a fine job.

Keep up the good work!

20574. jexster - 6/22/2001 11:47:25 AM

Take NMD For Starters

Then might I suggest Kyoto as a main course?

For thanks in part to European outcry and the ham handed way Bush handled a treaty the USS already said sucked 95-0, the CBS/NYT poll now says 55% of Americans supprot!

(not sure I am one of the 55% but don't tell Ace!)

20575. jexster - 6/22/2001 11:48:50 AM

supprot is Swedian for support right?

20576. Andonly - 6/22/2001 11:49:26 AM

Sto: "I am absolutely astounded that the Murcans couldn't dig up a guy with just a modicum of gravitas to represent them instead of this parodic figure."

But we could and did unearth a less parodic figure of Murcaninity. Unfortunately, there were irregularities in Florida, and our Supreme Court is stacked, and we have this electoral college problem.

What I find hilarious is that police shot rioters in Sweden.

20577. stostosto - 6/22/2001 11:57:23 AM

pseud, marj

Have you seen Brad de Long's account of India since independence - an Analytic Growth Narrative

Quite succinct and informative.

(It's in PDF)

20578. stostosto - 6/22/2001 12:04:04 PM

Until 1990 India's growth was "ordinary" - that is, not miserable, rather spot in the middle of the distribution. No sign of a particularly disastrous effect of Nehru socialism. After that India has accelerated markedly, if not quite at a Chinese rate. Interestingly enough this began before the liberalising reforms.

20579. LohrM - 6/22/2001 5:39:53 PM

Hmmm... just a note: technically, only Foreigners can be a 'rogue state'. Not Americans.

20580. angel-five - 6/22/2001 10:58:40 PM

It is with some smugness that I note the Serbs are about to turn over Milosevic and several of his cronies to the international Tribunal.

I predicted they would do that, shortly after the bombs stopped falling, and my post was promptly met with howls of how the Serbs will never admit they committed war crimes or let Westerners dictate sentences to them.

20581. PelleNilsson - 6/23/2001 6:41:57 AM

andonly

What I find hilarious is that police shot rioters in Sweden.

Hilarious? How interesting.

20582. stostosto - 6/23/2001 9:53:39 AM

Pelle,

Allow me:

It's hilarious because Andonly feels the Swedes are always hectoring, well, others, about excessively violent riot controls. She has you Swedes pegged down, you know. And now that your police have shot on rioters, you have been exposed as laughable hypocrites. Just like Andonly always suspected you were.

Hilarious as a fart at the dinner table.

20583. robertjayb - 6/23/2001 11:55:12 AM

It seems apparent that Detective Inspector Martin Beck is no longer on the job in Stockholm.

20584. LohrM - 6/23/2001 12:29:03 PM

Perhaps these are Swedish security troops traumatized by the long, cruel campaign against reindeer rustlers in Finnmark.

20585. LohrM - 6/23/2001 12:32:18 PM

Actually, Martin Beck was translated to San Francisco and played by Walter Matthau in "The Laughing Policeman".

20586. PelleNilsson - 6/23/2001 12:45:42 PM

Finnmark (Land of Finns) is, curiously enough, in Norway.

20587. LohrM - 6/23/2001 1:06:11 PM

Just where the Swedish special forces parachute into, looking for the evil reindeer gangs and their Mordvin backers.

20588. jexster - 6/23/2001 9:25:03 PM

I am now officially declaring my total affection and support for the European Union. I love the E.U. I wish there were two. May it go from strength to strength.

E.Uber Alles!

One summitt and they de-nutted King Moron I....all power to Europa!

20589. Andonly - 6/23/2001 9:51:42 PM

"Hilarious as a fart at the dinner table."

Hilarious as a Swedish fart at the dinner table.

You know, I think perhaps the mideast situation could be ironed out. What we need is not Tenet or Aznavar or Powell. What we need are a notable representative of The Real IRA and his counterpart among the Ulster Unionists to go talk to Sharon and Arafat about the possibilities for peace. Them and someone with a sound grasp of the absurd, like, say, Salman Rushdie (and if he gets shot, oh well).

20590. Andonly - 6/23/2001 10:14:54 PM

Incidentally, Sto, it isn't just Swedishkeit that I find amusing but the overblown outage of Euros in general i response to our Idiot in Chief. Especially now that the WTO is going to make us quit giving our exporters that ridiculous tax break, European leftists' reactions to Bush sound something like the barking of dogs whipped into a frenzy by the scent of blood. (Like, does your press talk about anything other than child-killer Timothy McVeigh and how grave a human rights violation it was to execute him?)

I'm not so sanguine as Tom Friedman. It concerns me a little that we'll soon be drawn into such a close and nerve-wracking economic relationship with you guys that our libertarian quotient will backlash on us. In which case, it may be 8 years before we dig up the Shrub, instead of 4.

Maybe if you all take him a little less seriously, he'll go away sooner. Kyoto wouldn't have fixed global warming in 4 years anyway, and NMD will take longer than that to get off the chalk board. As things stand, all your fussin' sounds to patriotic Murcans like you guys are pumping up the Bash-USA bandwagon just because our president can't express himself like a grownup and has many moronic policy objectives.

We don't like it that you kick us when we're down, you sanctimonious know-it-alls without portfolio.

20591. Andonly - 6/23/2001 10:17:13 PM

...but the overblown outrage of Euros in general in response to our Idiot...

20592. Andonly - 6/23/2001 10:23:54 PM

Ach! Down boldface, down.

Anyone who thinks it's time to quit sanctions against Iraq might oughta take this into consideration.

20593. jexster - 6/24/2001 11:29:53 AM

Bye Bye Slobo!

20594. stostosto - 6/24/2001 6:12:14 PM

it isn't just Swedishkeit that I find amusing but the overblown outrage of Euros in general in response to our Idiot in Chief.

Personally, I think it was rather underblown. Euros in general were indifferent to compliant. The protests in Gothenburg were seen much more as an internal EU problem.

Say, did you know that there was actually an EU summit going on there with all the EU heads of state present? Bush was little more than a welcome diversion from the internal EU bickering over enlargement, budgets, agricultural and regional subsidies - plus the awkward and completely unforeseen Irish problem.

Irish problem? you say. What has the IRA now done? Well, nothing. The Irish voters rejected the Nice Treaty in a referendum, thus in principle preventing it from going into effect, since it must be ratified by all 15 member countries.

So the EU has enough problems of its own, not least with the thorny issue of its own precarious political legitimacy, an issue which isn't supposed to be there at all, but keeps cropping up at the most inconvenient times.

Hence, the Bush protesters were largely just smiled at, while the bulk of media coverage and commentage concerned itself with the protesters' message to the EU, frequently interpretated as "You will not listen to the people."

(Like, does your press talk about anything other than child-killer Timothy McVeigh and how grave a human rights violation it was to execute him?)

Actually, this has been largely a non-issue. We accept that you Murcans are, well, fond of different things.

What is truly overblown are US press reports on the Euro press when a few criticisms of the US are detected here and there.

"US bashing! US bashing! They don't like us, that's for sure! Why do they have to be like that when all we do is just give them money all the time! Why can't they just be nice and like us. Waaaaaah! It's not fair!"

20595. jexster - 6/24/2001 8:00:04 PM

More power to ya Sto!

You want compliant? Try the good ole USA...your sheep look like wolves compared to us.

20596. marjoribanks - 6/24/2001 9:14:00 PM

I just took a whirl around TT's International Folder after quite a long while. The usual stuff. But there is one remarkable thing to comment on -

Pseuder's coined term 'Yankistan' and its derivatives is has completely taken root in the lexicon over there. The word is used by literally dozens of people, it seems like. Over here too, it has become fairly common usage - but there it is almost ubiquitous.

Kudos to the originator. I like the word, though have not used it yet, and may start. It has the benefit of somehow putting the USA into some perspective for Americans, it's a kind of none-too-affectionate diminutive, and its spread is healthy.

It's the most spectacular example I can think of a coined flip term taking root in a forum and beyond.

Of course, the word 'Pseuder' itself is one such, though not near as successful.

20597. marjoribanks - 6/24/2001 9:19:14 PM

You know, I quite liked the series of photographs reproduced here now and then by some Israeli photographer. Libak, I think it was. Quirky, intelligent shots.

One, more pedestrian but amusing, from India.

20598. marjoribanks - 6/24/2001 9:24:35 PM

The photos, of course, were linked here by Pike. I hope he will reconsider his precipitous and unilateral withdrawal from the Mote. He is missed in this thread, for sure.

20599. Andonly - 6/24/2001 11:34:27 PM

"Irish problem? you say. What has the IRA now done?"

Please, Sto. I have a subscription to the FT.

(And I don't subscribe to the NY Times.)

"What is truly overblown are US press reports on the Euro press when a few criticisms of the US are detected here and there."

Bullshit. I subscribe to a bleeding liberal non-Murcan list that has been completely dominated for more than a week by the McVeigh execution and the evils of capital punishment. When European liberals (and many on this list are journalists) have nothing better to talk about, that surely says something about a significant part of European sentiment, or at least a portion of the population that aims to influence. Meanwhile, you guys are putting the kibosh on our mergers, and making a great fuss about our stupid president, and sucking Saddam's dick.

I also listen to the BBC World News every evening (with Daljit Dhaliwal!) and am perfectly able to discern its reporters' obsession with the US's policy on capital punishment. Everyone is. But maybe it's just background noise to you, so it never occurs to you to wonder why Europeans should concern themselves with American capital punishment at all.

Face it, Europeans would like to take the US down a peg.

20600. stostosto - 6/25/2001 4:01:04 AM

Wow, andon

FT, a "bleeding liberal non-Murcan list", and BBC World News. I am impressed. That's really all you need to know about Yarrup.

Just out of curiosity: When did the FT critisise the American death penalty?

Regarding the "kibosh" on your mergers (are you seriously concerned about that?): I haven't been following it at all, but here is a word from a Murcan commentator in that awfully Murcanocentric rag the New York Times, which you being the blissful sophisticada that you are, don't subscribe to because you'd rather indulge in the Financial Times, and, oh yes, "liberal non-Murcan" email lists.

Face it, Europeans would like to take the US down a peg.

Duh, when have I said otherwise? It's just not high on the priority list -- to put it mildly.

(And if you think that's behind the merger thingy, go read Krugman, he has a different take.)

20601. mrsOckO - 6/25/2001 7:49:45 AM

Can any of our resident Fraaaaankaphones translate the following, the abstract to an article about Science Po and its new quotas that appeared recently in le Monde.:

Sciences-Po : le débat autour des "conventions ZEP"
M. Richard Descoings, directeur de l'Institut d'études politiques de Paris, annonçait le 26 février dernier, la mise en place d'une nouvelle voie d'entrée à "Sciences-Po", par le biais de conventions passées avec sept lycées situés en zone d'éducation prioritaire ou zone sensible. L'école souhaite en effet s'ouvrir aux lycéens méritants des milieux les plus défavorisés, en les dispensant du concours d'entrée. Les réactions ne se sont pas faites attendre, chacun donnant sa vision de la méritocratie, de l'égalité des chances ou de de l'élistisme.

20602. mrsOckO - 6/25/2001 7:49:50 AM

Can any of our resident Fraaaaankaphones translate the following, the abstract to an article about Science Po and its new quotas that appeared recently in le Monde.:

Sciences-Po : le débat autour des "conventions ZEP"
M. Richard Descoings, directeur de l'Institut d'études politiques de Paris, annonçait le 26 février dernier, la mise en place d'une nouvelle voie d'entrée à "Sciences-Po", par le biais de conventions passées avec sept lycées situés en zone d'éducation prioritaire ou zone sensible. L'école souhaite en effet s'ouvrir aux lycéens méritants des milieux les plus défavorisés, en les dispensant du concours d'entrée. Les réactions ne se sont pas faites attendre, chacun donnant sa vision de la méritocratie, de l'égalité des chances ou de de l'élistisme.

20603. mrsOckO - 6/25/2001 7:51:10 AM

That's FraaaaankOphones, of course...

20604. mrsOckO - 6/25/2001 7:56:37 AM

Sahib Banks: If "Dr." Erasmus coined the term Yankistan, how come I can find a reference to it, from 1999, by following this link:

http://tomstreeter.com/kosovo.htm

20605. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 9:07:31 AM

Sciences-Po (school which is a training ground for the top tier of the civil service, and for politics), has opened up a quota for direct entry, bypassing the entry exams, for young folks from under-achieving socio-economic circumstances. They are doing this by working with high schools from the wrong side of the tracks (ZEP are areas in which schools get extra resources because they have problematic populations.)

Various people have reacted to this news by giving their views on meritocracy, equality of opportunity, and elitism.

20606. mrsOckO - 6/25/2001 9:24:03 AM

Thanks. I thought Sciences Po had already sorted this issue out, but seems I wuz wrong...

20607. mrsOckO - 6/25/2001 9:25:05 AM

BTW, the HTML links link doesn't seem to be working.

20608. mrsOckO - 6/25/2001 9:25:32 AM

the HINTS link, that is.

20609. jexster - 6/25/2001 10:05:15 AM

GW Bush -A SOUL Man!

20610. marjoribanks - 6/25/2001 10:05:21 AM

Hmm. You're right, Psocks. Three out of the five references to the word that pop up through Google are traceable to Pseuder. There are two others which most likely do not. It's entirely possible he borrowed the word, though in this case I think not (it was preceded by Herringistan). Pseuder must come in and clarify matters on this pressing issue.

On another note on another word, Psocks, I noted with interest the discussion of Homer Simpson's signature 'Doh' when it was recently included in the OED. Turns out, the first recorded use of it was in one of those Jennings books that you so cherish. No doubt, before Homer, there was Derbyshire.

20611. Andonly - 6/25/2001 11:39:24 AM

"FT, a "bleeding liberal non-Murcan list", and BBC World News. I am impressed. That's really all you need to know about Yarrup."

That's Yurp, you ignorant savage.

But, pray tell, what do think you need to read to "know about" Murca?

"Just out of curiosity: When did the FT critisise the American death penalty?"

The FT is admirably circumspect in its reporting and one doesn't usually expect it to browbeat readers with an overt opinion, but there have been numerous articles that trotted out the standard European elites' line clearly enough. Usually, the technique is simply to reiterate that someone somewhere in the US opposes the death penalty. (One article, for instance, ostensibly reports on the status of Mcveigh's appeal, but concludes with the comment, "Outside the prison, death penalty advocates and opponents have begun to gather for what will be the first federal execution in 38 years. 16 states have outlawed the death penalty.")

But I guess you're enough of a naif that it must be patiently explained to you that the fact that a newspaper reports about an event at all is itself a commentary on the supposed importance of the event. Thus, when Timothy McVeigh is scheduled to be executed shortly and the FT runs (in addition to at least 3 other articles specifically about McVeigh and several more about other criminals due to be executed in the US) a piece on how the US Supreme Court has just ruled that some convicted retardate murderer in Texas (whom no one at the FT has ever heard of or worried about before) cannot lawfully be executed, one gets the message quite clearly: ordinary Americans must be stopped from acting on their evil impulses, just as we have been.

20612. Andonly - 6/25/2001 11:40:00 AM

"Regarding the "kibosh" on your mergers... I haven't been following it at all,"

Oh, well, good, then it must not be important to anyone, or suggest anything about anything. What a relief.

"being the blissful sophisticada that you are, ...you'd rather indulge in the Financial Times, and, oh yes, "liberal non-Murcan" email lists."

Just what the fuck is your problem? Do you not grasp the fact that sentiment doesn't have to be ubiquitous to be powerful?

"Duh, when have I said otherwise? It's just not high on the priority list -- to put it mildly."

So what? I'm sure the Israeli occupation of the West Bank & Gaza does not occupy your average resident of southern England's every waking moment, nor the pages of their local tabloids. But the fact that there's a strong current of anti-colonialism/anti-Zionism among some very vocal souls in the British media has a major effect on international politics nonetheless. Who cares what you think is "high on the priority list"? Your Wise Prole opinion counts about as much as this blissful sofisticada's does--that is, much less than that of reporters.

You know, Sto, your reflexive posturing about American ignorance of the outside world aside, I wonder whether you have any idea what American politics is like, or whether you take any more account of it than Americans take of the debacle surounding the Treaty of Nice.

20613. Andonly - 6/25/2001 11:40:15 AM

Distant countries ordinarily communicate with each other almost exclusively through their media, the US and Yurp are no exceptions. Under those circumstances, whoever makes the most noise gets his message heard. Can you not see the point that transparent media expressions of the desire to undermine US power can have a backlash effect among libertarian-minded Republicans, who are at this moment doing everything in their power to regain control of the entire US government? If we don't have at least the ghost of bipartisanship here, you guys can expect to have more and more to kvetch about. Is there something so offensive about this observation that you can't admit it's true?

"(And if you think that's behind the merger thingy, go read Krugman, he has a different take.)"

I'm always interested to read Krugman. Link?

20614. Andonly - 6/25/2001 11:45:26 AM

Oh and I forgot, in my blanket indictment of "your" media, Sto, to reiterate my concern about hysterical activists who get themselves shot by hypocritical Swedes.

20615. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 11:58:49 AM

Lordy. I certainly hope US media are suitably censored when they dare to express opinions on human rights violations (a very relative notion) in China or Africa.

20616. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 12:05:49 PM

Incompetent Swedes, not hypocritical Swedes.

I don't actually think any police force, even in Europe, subscribes to a pacifist credo; all will use force, and firearms, in self defence. That particular group of cops should never have got themselves into the position of fearing for their lives.

20617. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 12:08:03 PM

Oh sorry Andonly, I missed the point. European media should exercise self-censorship in order to favour the return to power by the Democrats, is that it?

Sounds like foreign interference to me.

20618. PelleNilsson - 6/25/2001 1:16:42 PM

"MegaWords" Andonly strikes again using the time-honoured recipe: weak argument - increase volume.

20619. Andonly - 6/25/2001 1:53:46 PM

So Pelle offers his usual seething but oh-so-reserved utterances in order to remind us that it is desirable to be a man of strictly limited emotion, few words, and fewer ideas.

20620. Andonly - 6/25/2001 2:13:00 PM

Alastair,

I point out the plain fact that Europe's press and noisy demonstrators have an axe to grind, that their gyrations could contribute to consequences neither you nor I will like, and you claim I'm calling for censorship.

Who knows, maybe it makes sense for a socialist to assume that moderate opinion can't possibly prevail among moderates unless one resorts to censorship. And anyway, one should excuse the noisemakers, maybe even cheer them on, as you do, because it's more pleasant to remain content with your conviction of moral superiority than to consider the political implications of advertising it to us dumb, violent Children of the Shrub.

20621. Andonly - 6/25/2001 2:34:18 PM

"Sounds like foreign interference to me."

Yes! And your politicos should get a fucking clue about this country, the better to interfere effectively. But I would think you of all people--who, if memory serves, indulged in your share of hand-wringing over whether the EU should risk pissing off populists in Austria over the election of Jeorg Haider--should comprehend this.

But wait, I forget, the US isn't really that important to Europeans. If Sto will just tell me that again and again, I'll eventually just give up and believe.

20622. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 3:23:52 PM

Well, coach us a bit, Andonut. Let's see : Capital punishment is OK really, because it has cross-party support in the USA. Global warming is a good thing; we should learn to like it, because it's good for General Motors, so it's good for the US, so it's good for the world... How'm I doing so far?

20623. PelleNilsson - 6/25/2001 4:08:02 PM

Thomas L. Friedman opines about Europe:

In a Messy World, the European Union Is America's Ideal Ally

Excerpts:

I am now officially declaring my total affection and support for the European Union. I love the EU. I wish there were two. May it go from strength to strength.

Indeed, the EU is the ideal U.S. ally today, because it is economically strong enough to help stabilize messy states in Western Europe, Russia, Central Europe and even North Africa, by nurturing these regions toward democracy and capitalism. But it is politically divided enough, particularly on foreign policy, not to pose any serious challenge to U.S. global leadership. Such a deal. What's not to like?

Hahaha!

20624. stostosto - 6/25/2001 6:01:33 PM

Andonly,

that Krugman link was put in my last message Message # 20600 to you.

You seem to have the impression that Europe is raging furious with Bush and The United States. I am just telling you that that's not what I see or hear; not that I have conducted a certified media review or anything (but perhaps I am going to have to do that if we are to continue this debate).

My impression is that Bush was taken very seriously by journalists and politicians, who all saw fit to comment on his appearances with a straight face (which impressed me rather a lot, personally). They also considered his proposals wrt NMD and Kyoto. They didn't all agree, but the language and tone was one of "we will have to talk with the Americans about these things. They have their view, we have ours". No rage, no fury, no overblown anything.

The protesters seem to have impressed you a lot, what with "Go home Bush" written on their butts.

Those protests didn't enter into serious commentary, they were only what's expected from some fringe lunatics. The thing that made som splash with the commentariat were the protests against the EU summit. A protest which actually does have some resonance, as I was trying to convey to you with my remarks on the Irish vote.

Pelle,

I too find Friedman's column amusing. The Americans (Friedman in particular) have a much better grasp of what the EU ought to be than what the EU does itself. He just confuses this with what it actually is, which is a much more precarious construction.

It's also amusing that if one of our politicians dared deliver such a ringing endorsement for the EU as a concept, he'd be dismissed as a loony.

20625. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 6:21:26 PM

Andonut, who is outraged that Europeans should presume to be interested in the fact that the US executes its citizens, may be mollified to note that Europe is pissed off with Japan too. Both countries risk losing their observer status with the Council of Europe if they don't make progress toward abolition of the death penalty by 2003.

Russia, if it re-introduces the death penalty, will have to be expelled from this august if rather toothless assembly.

20626. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 6:27:24 PM

31 countries executed people last year.
In 2000, at least 1457 prisoners were executed, two thirds of them in China.

20627. stostosto - 6/25/2001 6:36:38 PM

alistair,

The European Council also recently critisised
Denmark for racist tendencies. I must say European elites do have a penchant for lecturing people on what to think rather than actually taking their voiced concerns seriously.

Now, I fully agree with the content and expressed opinion on the Danish debate climate. But the European Council doesn't win any "racists" over by issuing declarations, just hardens their xenophobia.

We saw something similar at work regarding the Austrian sanctions, imo.

Btw, alistair, are you aware that most, if not all, European electorates have a majority favouring death penalty?

Another case of Euro elites telling people what they ought to think, or, equally misguided, taking their opinion for granted.

20628. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 6:43:07 PM

Sto, are you advocating government by referendum?

You'd probably get an easy majority in favour of lower taxes, too, in most European countries.

So how come France abolished the death penalty, eh? Must have been undemocratic, there has possibly never been a majority against it.

Well, a presidential candidate pledged to abolish it. And he was elected. Sounds like democracy to me.

20629. stostosto - 6/25/2001 6:47:22 PM

All I am saying is that we can't claim that having abolished death penalty is somehow an expression of deep-seated "European values" that set us apart from them simple-minded Murcan bloodhounds.

And, yes, European opinonaters who get on the high horse on this issue do lay themselves open to this line of criticism.

20630. stostosto - 6/25/2001 6:50:28 PM

I am off to bed now, it's far too late.

Oh, and btw: We are very much looking forward to seeing you, and you will be very welcome to stop by on July 14th. My parents may be there also, but they would also like to meet you - my father was very interested to hear that you are active in local politics.

20631. jexster - 6/25/2001 6:53:04 PM

With the Fierce Norsemen from Swedia and Norpath leading the way, an Islamic resolution to exclude gays from the UN General Assembly Debate on AIDS was beaten back!

A Royal Swediate 21 Moon Salute to the Crescent Creeps.

20632. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 6:54:10 PM

All I am saying is that we can't claim that having abolished death penalty is somehow an expression of deep-seated "European values

I never claimed any such thing. Simply, why did the USA go back to executing people, after a hiatus? I would say : for lack of a statesman, a person capable of leading, rather than following public opinion.

20633. alistairconnor - 6/25/2001 6:55:13 PM

OK, I echo the sentiments expressed in 20630.

20634. mrsOckO - 6/25/2001 7:03:11 PM

Message # 20625:

Well -- hem! -- I'm outraged that Europeans should presume to be interested in the fact that the US executes its worst criminals. When have the Europeans ever turned out en masse to demonstrate the killing of innocents within their own region? Huh? The fact is, it's oh-so-much easier -- so much more comfortable -- to demonstrate against George Bush and "the death penalty" than anything more problematic that might lie a little closer to home.

Since I don't own a TV I can't say for sure what these self-satisfied protesters would have looked like, but I can just imagine their collective chant: "Out death! Out death! Out death!" A future social historian, with a sense of humor, will find this very much to his fancy.

As for the two-bit Council of Europe threatening to drop this or that nation's observer status if it doesn't follow the European prescription for what constitutes acceptable law. This is a joke, right? Good Lord, can you imagine the squeals of outrage if America started inisisting that Europe nations adhere to US federal law, at the threat, say, of losing their trade status if they refused to comply!

20635. mrsOckO - 6/25/2001 7:11:33 PM

Message # 20610 marjoribanks:

Kind Sahib. I missed the discussion on the ejaculation Doh! If memory serves, it was the schoolmaster Wilkins (the gut who was always throwing tantrums) who used to use it. Then again, I never much cared for Jennings, who always struck me a bit of a wuss. (Come to think of it, I'm sure that as a child you were a perfectly Goan version of young Derbyshire.) Like you, I enjoyed the William books -- I was amazed to learn as a teenager that they were written by a woman -- and, of course, the great Bunter titles. I still have about 100 or so of them strewn around my house in various corners.

20636. Andonly - 6/25/2001 7:26:38 PM

Lester: "Let's see : Capital punishment is OK really, because it has cross-party support in the USA."

No, capital punishment is OK because the majority desires appropriate revenge, just as it desires revenge for non-capital crimes; and this is right and proper. We should however sentence people to death less often and we should modify our legal system, at whatever cost it takes, so that the possibility of executing innocents is practically nonexistent.

"Global warming is a good thing; we should learn to like it, because it's good for General Motors, so it's good for the US, so it's good for the world... How'm I doing so far?"

Bumfuck awful, Lester. You've demonstrated only that you're not listening. So I'll shout: THE PEOPLE YOU'D LIKE TO INFLUENCE WON'T BE IMPRESSED BY PRESS HECTORING OR DEMONSTRATIONS. Meanwhile, USA-bashing doesn't much help the cause of liberals in the USA, because they and moderates will find it that much harder to sell their cause to the presently strong libertarian-conservative faction that occupies half this land.

20637. marjoribanks - 6/25/2001 7:53:37 PM

This thing about 'european values' is quite a commonplace nowadays, particularly among the smug youth and a solid section of academics. I have been lectured on them just a couple of days ago, by a grubby but passionate German self-styled "intellectual". So even if sto and AC are carfully avoiding throwing themselves behind the concept, it exists and is talked about a lot. And the death penalty difference is seen as a cornerstone of this delineation.

20638. marjoribanks - 6/25/2001 7:54:32 PM

It's a superiority complex, whichever way you slice it. And, like all such neuroses, a blatantly fraudulent one.

20639. marjoribanks - 6/25/2001 7:57:49 PM

Psocks,

I knew I could count on you for both the exact source of the word and a geeky slam understood by probably only us both. In truth, let it be known, I was quite like Jennings himself, back in my schooldays and a bevy of sidekicks slipped in and out of the Derbyshire roles.

I envy you your schoolboy-days book collection. I had probably as many as you (100) but time and the depradations of a myriad younger cousins and relatives has left me with none. Such are the bittersweet joys of close extended families.

I will regroup, and reamass, as my son grows, it's one of the aspects of fatherhood I most look forward to.

20640. marjoribanks - 6/25/2001 8:16:50 PM

My personal observation is that any people from any number of largely homogenous countries get off on feeling superior to Americans, and the USA. The Scandies and Germans are high up on the list, but you'll find even Brits being snooty for no reason. The last, of course, have even less excuse than the others, since the UK is pretty much a run-of-the-mill Third World set-up these days.

The Scandies do in fact have the high ground, but how relevant are the experiences of Denmark in setting public policy in a giant diverse country like the US?

And don't forget the lectures pointed this way every now and then by Japanese politicos. Those are always amusing.

20641. Andonly - 6/25/2001 8:54:56 PM

"You seem to have the impression that Europe is raging furious with Bush and The United States. I am just telling you that that's not what I see or hear..."

Good, that's nice to hear, but I'm not under the impression All of Europe is raging furious with the US. I'm under the impression certain European elites and activists smell blood and are rushing to take advantage. I think--and coincidentally there's a letter in the New Republic today which expresses this point nicely--that there are anti-American portions of the EU which milk every opportunity to slam the US. Chief among these seems to be France, least are Germany and the UK (government).

The letter, incidentally, concerns the fact that the US was recently kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission. It observed that "Among Western countries, France was the winner of the balloting for the commission: It got 52 votes, with Austria and Sweden second and third. This means that all those human rights violators like Cuba, Libya, and Sudan, and so on voted for France..." I don't consider this encouraging in a world where the US and parts of Europe are quietly at loggerheads over who will have the most access to Arab resources in the Middle East, and who will fight which wars in the Balkans.

(Of course, a guy like Lester would stand up and squeal that 'human rights is a relative term', and I guess he'd be right. So he should go live in Libya, the sooner the better.)

20642. Andonly - 6/25/2001 8:57:50 PM

Banks: "The Scandies do in fact have the high ground, but how relevant are the experiences of Denmark in setting public policy in a giant diverse country like the US?"

Exactly.

20643. Andonly - 6/25/2001 9:02:38 PM

Sto, I agree with your 20627. And I did check out the Krugman link, thanks. It was actually reassuring; there are few commentators I trust more than Krugman. But it's interesting he should feel moved to publish such an analysis, I think. Let's assume he's right and Monti is absolutely unmotivated politically concerning the GE-Honeywell deal. Can you see the political capital that will nevertheless be extracted from this situation by US business moguls, given the context of sniping at the US's domestic policies on capital punishment, the deliberate European undermining of US-led UN sanctions against Iraq, the gradual positioning of the EU as Yassir Arafat's ally against Israel-US, the ouster of the US from the Human Rights Commission, the anti-Bush protests at the summit...?

Here in Murca, all that stuff tends to get translated, in a significant part of the population's political conciousness, about the way it does in Austria. And even liberals here know that when a hypocrite accuses you of hypocrisy and gross immorality and so forth, he isn't your buddy. So you know who we'll all be depending on then to smooth the waters?

George Bush, Jr.

20644. robertjayb - 6/26/2001 3:42:46 AM

Rainforests hit by paper trail to UK...The Guardian

Cheap paper made from cutting down Indonesian rainforest, an industry which is endangering some of the world's rarest animals, is flooding into Britain, a Guardian investigation has revealed.
Public bodies are among those using the paper produced by Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), despite government calls that only products from sustainable sources should be used.

20645. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 3:54:05 AM

Andro, for someone I had mistaken for an intelligent internationalist, your paranoia and US-obsession really know no bounds. And that's got me thinking hard about the points you've raised.

If someone like you, who is not the dumbest fuck on the block, can be so carried away with a defensive "he may be a fool but he's our fool" reaction when Bush is attacked, then maybe the European press, and European public opinion, has a far, far greater influence on American public opinion than I ever dreamed. That's a rather encouraging thought.

So now, not only European politicos and press, but European technocrats need to roll out the red carpet to US interests on all occasions... in order to reinforce moderate opinion in the US?

Have you considered the option that Europeans actually have other things on their agendas, than influencing the domestic US political balance? And that there are probably limits to the extent that they are prepared to sacrifice their own principles and interests in order to do so, should they so wish?

20646. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 4:07:34 AM

No, capital punishment is OK because the majority desires appropriate revenge, just as it desires revenge for non-capital crimes; and this is right and proper.

Well Marj, I couldn't have caricatured it better. Yes, the cultural divide exists.

Sure, the desire for revenge is a very human (even animal) thing; sure, you can probably find a majority for capital punishment in most European countries, in a casual opinion poll; but very few Europeans will advocate the idea that a desire for revenge is right and proper, in the context of a national justice system.

An example : the US is ahead of most of Europe with respect to attitudes towards homosexuals. Did this come about because a clear majority of Americans decided it was time to stop beating up queers? Did they demand that discriminatory laws be changed?

No, I rather think that leaders of public opinion decided that it was time to educate and civilise America in this respect.

I used to think the same thing would happen, eventually, with respect to the death penalty. Now I think that the People of the Book - i.e. the USA and the Arabian peninsula -are stuck with it for a long, long time.

20647. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2001 4:25:43 AM

Good posts, Alistair.

20648. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 4:32:15 AM

Message # 20641 I guess it's Europe's fault, too, probably a calculated insult, if the rest of the world looks to European countries, rather than the US, to give leadership on human rights issues.

Only 31 countries still execute people. Difficult to get a majority at the UN with them.

It really hurts Americans, it seems, that the death penalty should be seen as a human rights issue. But that's the way most of the world sees it.

20649. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 4:42:22 AM

But back to the substance of your thesis, Andro.

As it happens, I am dimly aware (most Europeans undoubtedly aren't) of the capital importance of the next few months, in determining whether Bush will be able to impose his reactionary agenda in the US, or whether his program will be neutralised by lack of a parliamentary majority, just as Clinton's progressive tendencies were neutered in the first year or so of his presidency. I somewhat share your evident anguish over this.

However, I do not share your view that bowing and scraping to US business interests, aping US foreign policy, and pretending we don't care about human rights, are a useful way of influencing this. You'll have to give us specifics, if you want help.

On the contrary, the deference you seem to demand for Bush would have the effect of amplifying his world audience and influence, and would set a bad precedent for the rest of his presidency. I don't want to see him do to the USA what he did to Texas; nor do I want him to do to the world what he's doing to the USA.

20650. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 9:41:34 AM

AC,

Your #20646 is addressed to me but the quote heading it is not mine.

I do find it interesting, however, particularly this - " the US is ahead of most of Europe with respect to attitudes towards homosexuals. Did this come about because a clear majority of Americans decided it was time to stop beating up queers? "

In fact, the advances did come about pretty much in that manner. The homosexual community in the USA has been in virtually a perpetual state of activism since the late 60's/early 70's. There has been a concurrent radical shift in the attitude of most Americans towards homosexuals, to the point today where backing gay rights is virtually essential for a politician's viability. On this matter, I don't think the "leaders of public opinion" had very much to do on the matter.

But in any case, this country is slightly differently built than France, say. "Leaders of public opinion" have a lot less clout than you'd imagine here, and certainly the politicians included do a lot more following of their poll results and constituent demands than the other way around. Any number of issues reflect this.

20651. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 9:44:34 AM

Finally, you vastly overestimate Dubya's ability to wreak damage on a national scale. He is relatively hamstrung by the delicately balanced Congress, and by a wavering court of public opinion.

Besides, all that "he" did in Texas isn't that bad. I support his Education Bill, even without the dilutions imposed by the Senate, and if it passed it would be a very good thing for the USA. And that was both his main plank, and his main achievement in Texas.

20652. Wombat - 6/26/2001 9:44:45 AM

Some European countries have had a long tradition of abusing capital punishment for political crimes. I suspect it was revulsion at these excesses that powered its abolition in Europe. The United States does not have this tradition to contend with.

20653. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 9:45:55 AM

Great article on the Education Bill in this month's New Yorker, by the way. Excellent insight into policy compromise, Washington-style.

20654. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 9:46:51 AM

Connor:

"The US is ahead of most of Europe with respect to attitudes towards homosexuals. Did this come about because a clear majority of Americans decided it was time to stop beating up queers? "

But has it come about at all? Many, if not most, US states still have savage laws designed, if not terribly often enforced, to punish consenting adult homosexual behavior. I hardly think this makes the States an enlightened state for the world to marvel at.

Sahib Banks:

Are you aware that there are a number of British online outlets that specialize in the types of boy's books that you might be collecting for your son's edification?

BTW, the spelling of Jennings' sidekick is "Darbishire." Just so you know. I really don't think Buckridge's stories were a patch on those of Frank Richards or some of the earlier ones.

20655. Wombat - 6/26/2001 9:53:51 AM

I prefer the Flashman stories. Orwell on Frank Richards was entertaining

20656. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 9:56:31 AM

Ah, Wombat, but did you ever read Richards' splendid reply to Orwell, published in the now long defunct Horizon magazine? Much as I like Orwell, I do think he played the Etonian snot on the subject of boy's weeklies. His arguments were snide and lightweight.

20657. Wombat - 6/26/2001 10:04:45 AM

Socko:

Yes I did. I am always hesitant to criticize well-told tales regardless of intellectual provenance or ideological subtexts (I adored Tom Sharpe novels).

Orwell's criticism of Richards in terms of what it said was about 50 years ahead of its time, fitting in well with the puerile and shallow critiques that one reads about in "politically correct" academic departments. I hope Orwell would have been embarrassed by that.

20658. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 10:05:44 AM

Marge, Message # 20650 is addressed to you in reply to your Message # 20637. I thought that Andonly's reaction summed up the cultural divide quite nicely. I doubt if even the far right would get much mileage out of the revenge theme, in western Europe.

Though she will persist in vastly overestimating the extent to which there are anti-American portions of the EU which milk every opportunity to slam the US. Chief among these seems to be France, least are Germany and the UK (government).

I think the problem is that she implicitly believes all non-American behaviour to be anti-American. I honestly can't think of instances of anti-Americanism in mainstream French culture. Apart from members of the Communist Party (who are rapidly losing any influence), and possibly some elements of the far right, I can't see who the anti-americans are.

I guess, for example, that she rejects the idea that France could have valid political, historical and cultural reasons for having a pro-Arab foreign policy, so she automatically ascribes it to anti-Americanism. That's absurdly self-obsessive.

20659. Ronski - 6/26/2001 10:07:43 AM

Belgium is moving towards legalization of gay marriage, which will make it the second nation to accomplish this.

Carry on.

20660. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 10:09:19 AM

Psocks,

I do know about Brit boosktores specializing in the stuff. I'm not quite at the point where I'm going to go a-hunting (we're still on Dr. Seuss and will be for a while) but I did purchase a lovely and appropriately-luridly-covered Biggles in India a couple of years ago.

The moment my offspring shows an inkling of an interest, though, it's William and Jennings and all the others in large doses for him. Also those Dr. Doolittle books I loved so much.

I'm in two minds about the Enid Blyton stuff after re-reading some a few years ago.

Dare I ask if you've read the Harry Potter books? Most satisfactory, I found them.

20661. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 10:13:40 AM

Wombat:

You're a chap after my own heart.

Connor:

Don't you find France's rather silly attitude toward the American language to be an example of mainstream anti-Americanism? (Given your high regard for government departments in New Zealand employing people to invent "Maori" words that nobody ever subsequently uses, I suppose you'd probably be in favor of France's officially sanctioned linguistic timidity.)

20662. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 10:22:45 AM

Sahib Banks:

Yes, I can see you liking Biggles -- and really, those covers to the early hardbacks *are* pretty good.

As somebody with a deep- and long-seated dislike of fantastical writing, even for kids, I don't much care for the Potter books. My oldest son likes them, however. As for Enid Blyton: I respected her much more than I read her as a child.

There were some pretty good US stories for kids too. The Brains Benton mysteries were terrific, as were (and still are) S. E. Hinton's little gangland epics as well.

I recently read ... was forced to read, really ... the latest book by Harold Bloom on "what and how to read." Complete piffle. He recalled how, as an eight-year-old child, he used to read -- aloud, yet -- the works of Dante and Blake. I thought, What a depressing little man. His book turned out to be pretty bloody awful too.

20663. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 10:22:54 AM

AC,

Actually, those are good questions. I don't see very much anti-Americanism ,as such, in Western Europe either, but quite a lot of smugness and self-conscious preening.

However, I think your implicit questions in...58 are interesting, and I'd like to see what Ando says.

20664. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 10:30:16 AM

Hmm. I've never even heard of Brains Benton.

I read thousands of US comics while growing up in India, but the books were limited to the Hardy Boy/Nancy Drew stuff and the Alfred Hitchcock series.

Psocks, maybe you can help me. When I was about ten, someone gave me a book, written for kids, about Byzantium and its fall. Its main characters were a boy and his bear and then there was a mystic who'd descended from his pillar.

It was really good stuff, I remember bits of it vividly and fondly. But I've had zero luck either remembering the name or tracking it down. Any clue?

Also, Psocks, if you have a favorite (and not too exorbitant) online place to buy the schoolboy books we've talked about - kindly link it in for me.

20665. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 10:33:36 AM

Well OK, I withdraw my remarks about the US being in advance of Europe on gay rights.

Though the French parliament fudged the gay marriage issue hopelessly. And Paris just elected a gay mayor, which would seem to indicate that society is ahead of its "leaders" on this.

20666. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 10:40:06 AM

Why withdraw them? I had a running argument with Elliot in the Fray about this - the USA is (according to me) the world's safest and most comfortable place for a homosexual to be born and live, in history.

Some of the cities in Northern Europe are equally friendly, and a couple of legislatures have taken superior legal positions. But overall, this is the place to be if you want to live an openly homosexual life. Unless you're in sports or in politics, it seems.

20667. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 10:48:31 AM

Sahib Banks: This link takes you to a veritable treasure trove containign everything you could possibly want or need. Observe, too, the photo of the gent who runs this ship. He looks utterly mad, although the service he provides is definitely legit.

20668. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 10:51:33 AM

If the US is such a great place for gays, how come Tom Hanks feels the need to sue for zillions if it's suggested that he might be a homosexual?

I would suppose that countries such as New Zealand and those in Northern Europe are better disposed toward gays. Perhaps it's something to do with the weather.

20669. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 10:58:34 AM

Tom Cruise, Psocks.

And I think it's because he is (a) paranoid and (b) quite clear on the fact that he makes truckfulls of cash by perpetuating the idea that he is some sort of sex-symbol to female moviegoers. The fear, I'd imagine, comes from being rendered off-limits to said gals.

How many "out" movie stars are there in NZ, Psocks? Or in sports? Or in senior politics? Bit of a universal problem, really.

20670. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 10:59:01 AM

Thanks for the links, old bean. Quite topping.

20671. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 10:59:07 AM

Thanks for the link, old bean. Quite topping.

20672. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 11:03:06 AM

Sahib Banks:

Are you thinking of Peter Dickinson's The Dancing Bear? Tis indeed the story of a boy, a bear and a saint who go on a quest to save a girl from the Huns.

20673. Andonly - 6/26/2001 11:04:25 AM

"I think the problem is that she implicitly believes all non-American behaviour to be anti-American."

Idiot.

20674. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 11:06:05 AM

Whoa!!

Psocks, that is it. That is it. Dear Psocks, I take back at least half the beatings I've administered you.

A thousand thank you's. I will now find it somewhere, the book has been sorely missed since I lost it somewhere in the Western Ghats.

Have you read it? No doubt my memory has been embellished over the years, but at the time I thought it fantastic.

20675. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 11:06:24 AM

Gay NZers:

Movie stars don't count -- the country has none. Sports --dunno, since I don't follow them? Senior politics? Oh, plenty. One government MP has even had a complete sex change, and there are a good number of others (at least five out of a 120-seat parliament) who are out.

20676. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 11:09:36 AM

Ocko : Don't you find France's rather silly attitude toward the American language to be an example of mainstream anti-Americanism?

The language is generally called English, not American. Sadly, when labelled as such, the idea of "anti-americanism" rather flies out the window a bit.

The French, who are a more than averagely literary people, are very attached to their language, and are rather resistant to linguistic change. The fact that English is the vehicular language of the modern world makes it the prime vector for introducing new vocabulary into French. Were it German rather than English, for example, I expect the resistance would be stronger rather than weaker.

20677. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 11:10:22 AM

Sahib Banks:

Such books are seldom as we remember them. But they're good to have around all the same. It can be fun hunting them down, for one thing, and there's a value in passing them between generations. On the other hand, I still find Frank Richards a terrific wit, and read his books a fair bit, especially when I just can't be fagged with anything too overbearing.

As you will no doubt now handsomely acknowledge, I'm something of a gun when it comes to children's literature.

20678. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 11:13:30 AM

Mark Whatsisname the horse-riding champion came out a couple of years ago. There are some other high-profile ones, whose names I've forgotten.

20679. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 11:14:34 AM

Connor: There really is no good reason to keep on calling the language English. It belongs to the Americans, who most certainly appear to possess the most impressive vocabs when it comes to the vernacular.

20680. mrsOckO - 6/26/2001 11:16:30 AM

That's Mark Todd. He was caught in a sting operation in London by a British tabloid -- the Mirror, I think. I doubt if there are many sportsmen anywhere who admit to being gay -- it just doesn't go with the turf, and I say that as an avowed sports hater.

20681. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 11:17:11 AM

Certainly, Psocks. My hat sits permanently tipped to you wrt schoolboy wheezes.

I have looked up the Dickinson, it's out of print but the scant reviews available indicate that my ten-yr-old self was quite discerning. Again, thank you for solving one of those nagging questions I have carried with me over the decades.

I must now go earn some dosh to pay for my children's book collection, which has visibly and outlandishly grown in my imagination since we started this conversation.

Yours, most faithfully,

Marjoribanks

20682. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 11:24:39 AM

"English" is the name of the vehicular language of most of the world. The fact that there are more English speakers in the USA than in England (and that the English speak the world's worst English) can't change that.

If there is to be a language called American, Spanish seems a better candidate.

20683. alistairconnor - 6/26/2001 11:27:31 AM

Message # 20673 OK, OK I confess that I'm groping, because don't have a clue what you are talking about when you say there are "anti-American portions of the EU which milk every opportunity to slam the US." Perhaps you could illustrate with some examples.

20684. Andonly - 6/26/2001 12:00:22 PM

"I guess, for example, that she rejects the idea that France could have valid political, historical and cultural reasons for having a pro-Arab foreign policy, so she automatically ascribes it to anti-Americanism."

No, dummy, I think France's reasons for what you call "pro-Arab foreign policy" (which every Arab fearful of Saddam's ambitions know are pro-French, not "pro-Arab") have to do with money and not "political, historical and cultural" factors. Of course, so do the US's pro-Saudi and pro-Israeli policies (although the latter have a strong ideological component as well); I'm not saying economic goals are always invalid.

But this begs an obvious question: if a member of the EU competes with its supposed international and economic ally, the US, to obtain access to oil and market influence in the Arab world, fine. But why should it be necessary for that EU state to undermine plainly crucial security measures, taken in agreement with its ally, against a dictator who has had an extremely destabilizing effect among Arab countries? A country that, with the exception of the establishment of the oil pipeline with Syria (!), has been unable to come to peaceful terms with those countries despite their most energetic efforts? You could perhaps argue about "valid political, historical and cultural reasons" if you were talking about France's attitude toward Israel and the Palestinians. But Iraq? No.

20685. Andonly - 6/26/2001 12:00:38 PM

Let me also try to get it through your thick skull, Lester, that I'm hardly uncritical of the US. In fact I am not inclined to want to defend a single action George Bush is likely to take in any arena. But as Marjoribanks has pointed out, honesty requires that we evaluate Bush's administration's achievements and failures one by one.

But it seems Leftist Euros scarcely make a distinction in their rhetoric betweeen Bush and Clinton, Reagan and Carter. It's all about The Hegemonic US Which is Ruled by Corporations. Bush, being an evil corporation man, can do no right, just as the WTO can do no right, and capitalism can achieve no good, etc.

But this is shoddy thinking, and the more of it that comes to subtly underlie European popular reaction to US actions and policies, the less reasoned or effective will be your responses to the things moderates agree ought to be achieved. You won't wind up with a progressive world revolution, Lester. You'll wind up helping to marginalize New York and San Francisco and legitimizing Texas and Oklahoma, because when you're busily showing your ass to those states' elected leader, and at the same time infringing on their sense of holy US sovereignty by (properly) making us quit protecting our exporters, and not allowing our corporations to merge, and when your members states are undermining collective Euro-US foreign policies most Americans consider righteous, I gotta tell ya, no one's going to take seriously any more the complaint American death penalty foes have voiced for years: that European states are more civilized than we are.

I, for one, am beginning to have my doubts.

20686. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 12:09:23 PM

Message # 20646

What a foolish and mind-numblingly conventional post this is.

(1) Yankistan has got the death penalty not because its people are culturally more inclined toward revenge than other peoples, but because there are more violent crimes in Yankistan than in other countries, on a per 1000 basis. The difference in the level of crime induces a greater desire for revenge, and makes the death penalty a higher-priority issue, for Yankistanis (regardless of whether there is a deterrent effect).

Therefore, it's really comparing apples and lentils to contrast American and European popular attitudes toward the death penalty, given the different levels of violent crime. I wager three of my fingers that the countries which retain and use the death penalty, generally have high rates of violent crime; and I also wager that if European crime rates were as high as Yankistani crime rates, the death penalty would be re-instituted in many countries.

In some European countries, the majority may very well support the death penalty even now, but the political elites (who oppose it) can safely ban it because it is not a priority issue for the populace. It is uninformative to say that a particular policy is supported or not supported by the majority, because the majority may support a proposition with a higher or lower intensity / priority than another proposition.

(2) I believe only 20 out of 50 states in Yankistan have got the death penalty. Which means that another important reason that Yankistan has the death penalty and Europe hasn't, is that the former permits regional autonomy on the question. I would imagine that if Corsica or Navarra or Pella (that's a Greek province in the north) had the option, they might very well have the death penalty.

20687. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 12:10:12 PM

(2) Of course some countries which have "banned" the death penalty still execute criminals extrajudicially, such as Brazil and Russia.

20688. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 12:18:16 PM

Message # 20648

".....the rest of the world looks to European countries, rather than the US, to give leadership on human rights issues."

I think that's awfully naive. The "rest of the world" no more looks to Europe than to Yankistan for human rights. Yankistan just happens to be the most visible and vocal sanctimonist on the issue on the world stage. Russia does not care one whit whether it's Europe or Yankistan which criticises it for Chechnya. Nor would China. (*) Likewise, India would never accept as legitimate, external criticism of human rights in Kashmir or in the Northeast whether by the USA or Europe.

(*) China, of course, appreciates that the European countries do not even make a pretence of supporting democratic Taiwan.

20689. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/26/2001 12:22:59 PM

PE:
I wager three of my fingers that the countries which retain and use the death penalty, generally have high rates of violent crime

One exception was Indonesia during the Suharto years. Violent crime was practically non-existent (I recall Indonesian cities such as Jakarta and Bandung making a top ten "most liveable" cities list because that factor was heavily weighted), yet the death penalty was still retained, and used chiefly for political crimes. So, an exception would seem to be states which are strictly controlled by a ruler or ruling elite. Singapore, of course, is another such exception.

20690. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 12:25:05 PM

"I wager three of my fingers
that the countries which retain and use the death penalty, generally
have high rates of violent crime; and I also wager that if European
crime rates were as high as Yankistani crime rates, the death penalty
would be re-instituted in many countries."


You owe me at least those three, and I'll take a thumb as well.

The country which most flamboyantly uses the death penalty as part of it regular penal code is China. The vast majority of offenses so penalized have nothing to do with any conventional sense of retribution for violent crime. Furthermore, a goodly number of other world citizens who lose their life due to the death penalty come from places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In these instances, also, the crimes involved cannot be shoehorned into any "violent crime" category.

What we need is a breakdown of all the people executed legally around the world in a given year. I think you'll find that the US is in small minority of nations exacting "revenge" for violent crimes. The majority will turn out to be executing as an example, or a deterrent for what are interpreted as antisocial or seditious activities.

20691. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 12:26:50 PM

Drug trafickers are executed in Malaysia, by the way.

20692. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 12:29:08 PM

In any case, I don't think too many places in the world consider the North European countries more civilized somehow over the death penalty issue.

The typicial reaction of a developing world leader or man on the street would be quite different. I think the abolition of the death penalty is seen as a kind of luxury that most cannot afford, and worse as perhaps a kind of naivete.

20693. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 12:30:12 PM

Well, yes, I meant countries where popular preferences tend to get reflected in the laws.

20694. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 12:33:09 PM

The rub is, though, that the death penalty is undoubtedly very enthusiastically supported by the masses in China, Iraq, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia et al despite the way it is commonly used. Even Indonesia.

20695. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 12:33:10 PM

Irving and Spanks:

My wager naturally implied (since I was talking about the popular desire for revenge) that I was talking about democratic or semi-democratic countries where popular preferences can in theory be reflected in the law.

China, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are not such places.

20696. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/26/2001 12:37:02 PM

PE:
I assumed that... and was merely pointing out the exception. But it leads me to wonder how many of those 31 countries are democratic or semi-democratic nations... a handful, I would assume.

20697. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 12:37:26 PM

But Marzipranks is right, of course. In many countries, the death penalty would be popular regardless of the crime rate.

So I slightly modify my original hypothesis --

most countries without the death penalty, are low-crime-rate countries; and most high-crime rate countries have the death penalty.

20698. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 12:44:01 PM

Not very earth-shattering a hypothesis, pseuder, but perhaps workable.

We need some info to refute or prove it, anyway.

Does South Africa execute? It has a relatively high crime rate for sure. India does execute and its crime rate has to be average at best. What about Peru and Colombia and Venezuela? They're all pretty violent societies.

---

After an instant rethink, I think your hypothesis falls apart because of the perception of the gravity of a particular crime. Drug trafficking, for instance, is seen as a very grave offense worth the ultimate penalty in very many societies. Whereas, in the US and the squeamish North European nations it is seen as a nonviolent affair and quite different from even a single murder.

In any case, I think where

20699. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 12:47:27 PM

Ignore the last sentence fragment.

Here's some statistical fodder.

Executions worldwide in 1998

20700. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 12:51:51 PM

The Taiwan figure is rather shocking to me, and so is the relatively high number for Singapore.

The latter is much-advertized as having minimal criminal activity, and I seriously doubt that Taiwan is very much different. Hence, the Pseuder hypothesis, such as it is, stands further weakened.

As I pointed out above, I think the fundamental flaw in the hypothesis, as it stands, is the problem of how to classify drug trafficking.

20701. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 12:51:53 PM

India's crime rate is average at best? The world average? or European average? India's (official) homicide rate is double western Europe's and eight times Japan's.

20702. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/26/2001 12:54:12 PM

Marj:
Singapore doesn't count under PE's definition, since the people have no say.

20703. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 12:54:37 PM

I didn't know Indian crime figures, and was guessing.

But, in any case, India offed nobody in 1998. Maybe the death penalty is in hiatus, I have seen pristine and well-maintained gallows in more than one prison so I'm 99% sure it hasn't been abolished.

But murder-free Japan offed 6 people in 1998. Quite high, wouldn't you say?

20704. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 12:54:49 PM

The latter is much-advertized as having minimal criminal activity, and I seriously doubt that Taiwan is very much different. Hence, the Pseuder hypothesis, such as it is, stands further weakened.

No. Read #20697 again. I have modified the original hypothesis.

Most countries with high violent crime rates, have the death penalty.

Most countries without the death penalty, have low violent crime rates.

Taiwan and Singapore are not included in either statement.

20705. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 12:57:08 PM

Ooh, convenient. This makes the hypothesis even less useful.

More later on the death penalty, all this talk of death has made me hungry for a resolutely non-vegetarian meal. So, barbecued ribs here I come.

20706. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/26/2001 12:57:21 PM

What we need is a list of those nations which retain the death penalty.

20707. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 12:58:58 PM

Irving and Spanks: pay close attention to 20697 and 20704. Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore are all irrelevant.

20708. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/26/2001 1:04:39 PM

I'd like to see that list, because, if you allow non-democracies like Singapore in the equation, I would guess that most countries with the death penalty have relatively low crime rates (Arab nations, Indonesia, etc.).

20709. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 1:07:17 PM

The restricted hypothesis is not useless -- because it suggests the reason for the difference between Europe and Yankistan.

20710. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/26/2001 1:08:06 PM

Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore are all irrelevant.

They aren't irrelevant... they are exceptions. Get enough exceptions, and the hypothesis is disproved.

20711. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/26/2001 1:09:08 PM

The restricted hypothesis is not useless -- because it suggests the reason for the difference between Europe and Yankistan.

I agree with this basic hypothesis... I merely have quibbles with expanding it.

20712. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 1:09:40 PM

I would guess that most countries with the death penalty have relatively low crime rates (Arab nations, Indonesia, etc.)

which is not the same proposition as any of mine.

20713. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/26/2001 1:13:19 PM

which is not the same proposition as any of mine.

OK... got your point.

20714. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 1:17:47 PM

Message # 20710

Read again.

Japan, Taiwan and Singapore are not exceptions at all to the following statements:

"countries with high violent crime rates, have the death penalty".

"countries without the death penalty, have low violent crime rates".

Japan, Taiwan and Singapore would contradict the statement:

"countries with the death penalty, have high crime rates".

Anyway, the first two statements are more restricted than the last, but are not useless. You have enough countries in the world with high violent crimes, and enough countries in the world without capital punishment, that both statements are testable.

20715. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 1:26:06 PM

The most important predictor for the death penalty, as Irving has suggested, does appear to be authoritarian governments.

But that doesn't explain the difference between USA and Europe, which is what interests me at the moment.

20716. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 1:40:06 PM

Well, dead (pig) ribs is tasty.

Anyway, the Pseuder hypothesis is largely unworkable except when narrowly applied to the US and Europe. And even when looked at through that narrow prism, the high-crime factor is a bit arbitrary and over-convenient. One could easily pick something even more arbitrary (such as cheese consumption) or perhaps less arbitrary (such as explicit criminalization of drug use) and find a working hypothesis.

The European nations that have banned executions have undertaken a somewhat unnatural experiment. The death penalty is far from the only such case. What I find unseemly is the smugness over this matter, and the assumption of some moral superiority mantle. They don't execute - big deal. I'm not one to hand out very many brownie points on the matter.

Having said all of this, I find the hypothesis more interesting, even the revised one, and more worthy of debate and discussion. Now, i'll look for some facts regarding S. Africa and the narco-states I cited above.

20717. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 1:49:19 PM

South Africa appears to have abolished the death penalty. This would be a fairly large blow to the Pseuder hypothesis since it has to have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world.

The stats are all allegedlyhere. I say allegedly because I can't get the first file (on countries which retain the penalty) to open. If anyone else can please share the info here.

20718. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 1:50:12 PM

Message # 20716

....the high-crime factor is a bit arbitrary and over-convenient. One could easily pick something even more arbitrary (such as cheese consumption).....

Ridiculous and stupid. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether high crime rates result in greater popular pressure for the death penalty. Given that the popular blood lust runs high after notorious crimes whether in Yankistan or Europe (e.g., after that Belgian child porno ring was exposed, many alls were heard for the death penalty), it's actually a very reasonable thing to hypothesise, and totally non-arbitrary to boot.

...or perhaps less arbitrary (such as explicit criminalization of drug use) and find a working hypothesis.

That's a legitimate question too. Why does this delegitimise the other?

20719. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 1:53:24 PM

Yes, South Africa does contradict my hypothesis, since it has 68 intentional homicides per 100 000. But I wonder is there a movement to restore the death penalty? And how many such contradictions are there? If you have to look at all the high-crime-rate countries.

20720. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 1:57:52 PM

Russia has also stopped using the death penalty.

---

What are the high crime-rate countries anyway? I must say I miss the days when we in this thread merely argued and Pseuder very decently provided all the relevant data. It's distasteful for a man of my position to be scurrying around the Internet looking for mere statistics.

20721. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 2:02:49 PM

Russia, like Brazil, is notorious for extrajudicial killings.

Unfortunately, I only have data on crime rates for a handful of countries.

But I'm sure this question has been studied by someone already.

20722. CalGal - 6/26/2001 2:03:15 PM

How do Europeans poll on the death penalty?

20723. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 2:04:10 PM

this question being whether there is a significant correlation between violent crime rate and execution rates, controlling for authoritarian governments.

20724. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 2:08:23 PM

How about within Yankistan? Is it the high-crime states which have the death penalty and which the low-crime states which don't?

20725. CalGal - 6/26/2001 2:10:38 PM

No, New York was one of the last states to give into the death penalty, I think, and it always had a fair amount of crime.

The reason I asked about polling was because I wondered if the polls in death penalty countries vs. non death penalty countries on DP support were all that different.

20726. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 2:15:31 PM

Here's an abrupt change in topic.

The per capita income of selected countries in 1890, in relation to the per capita income of the People's Republic of China in 1992 (China in 1992 = 100):

Australia 154
UK 132
New Zealand 122
Belgium 118
USA 110
Switzerland 101
Netherlands 100
Austria 94
Germany 82
Denmark 78
France 76
Canada 73
Sweden 67
Spain 60
Italy 53
Norway 52
Finland 43
Japan 31
Russia 30
China 20.

20727. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:16:03 PM

Well, I can't find good enough stats on homicides in Europe. Plus, I got distracted reading this bizarre, but entertaining debate on India and the US.

--

Whether Russia offs people extra-judiciously or not, the fact is that policy bars execution. I consider this another blow to the hypothesis because whenever we do find the homicide stats Russia will likely rank high on the list.

Plus, there is the EU acting as a browbeater on the issue. It has coerced (apparently) holdouts like Poland to forego executions and is currently squeezing Turkey. I don't think this kind of action accurately reflects the terms of your hypothesis since it subverts the attitude of the country's people as well as any variation in homicide statistics.

20728. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 2:16:46 PM

Message # 20725

But weren't most crimes always concentrated in New York City, rather than in the rest of the state of New York?

20729. CalGal - 6/26/2001 2:18:43 PM

Yes, I was thinking that. On the other hand, New York City, with its high crime rate, is also the bastion of Dem support in the state--and Dems are generally more anti-dp.

20730. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:21:12 PM

Is it the high-crime states which have the death penalty and which the low-crime states which don't?

Yes, and this fact is always used by anti-DP advocates to "prove" that the DP does not deter murder.

Most states in the US with the DP are high murder rate states. Most states without it are low murder rate states.

Cal cites NY, but that's just one state, and furthermore NY now does in fact have the DP.

Texas has one of the highest murder rates in the nation; it has the DP. Ditto Louisianna.

New Hampshire has one of the lowest murder rates; it doesn't have the DP. Ditto most of NE.

20731. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:21:35 PM

The District of Columbia does not level the death penalty, and it has one of the highest rates of violent crimes of any city in the world.

20732. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:22:16 PM

Further, you can't look at total murders. You have to look at murders per capita.

NY leads the nation in many crime categories, but then again, it leads the nation in population (well, it's third now).

Per capita, new york's crime rates are not bad.

20733. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:23:37 PM

Though the other states that don't are clearly low-crime areas - Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.


Actually, come to think of it I'd bet Michigan is on the higher end of the violent crime scale.

20734. Andonly - 6/26/2001 2:24:45 PM

"How about within Yankistan? Is it the high-crime states which have the death penalty and which the low-crime states which don't?"

Probably not across the board, but it might support your thesis if there were exceptionally low violent crime rates in non-DP states and very mixed rates in pro-DP states. But the calculation of this ought to be longitudinal since crime rates in any given state must vary over time, and probably more rapidly than the laws permitting capital punishment do.

I have been waiting for someone anti-DP here to speak up and claim that high violent crime rates are a consequence of the death penalty. This is a bit of rhetoric sometimes offered by the anti-DP faction in the US, but I think it may have originated in Europe. The usual formulation is, the death penalty brutalizes society, therefore society is brutal. Take American society for example... (and then there follow comparisons of murder rates in New York with murder rates in LDCs, contrasted with murder rates in Belgium).

20735. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:24:59 PM

I'd bet Michigan is on the higher end of the violent crime scale.

I wouldn't. Detroit has led the nation in murders in several years but Michigan is not Detroit. It's a fairly populous state even minus its biggest city.

20736. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:26:51 PM

Andoly,

The thesis is offered here in America as well. "Texas has the death penalty and Texas also has the highest murder rate..."

The two may or may not be interrelated; if they are interrelated, causation may flow in the OPPOSITE direction, as PE suggests.

20737. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:30:39 PM

I'm pretty sure that Southern states take up most of the slots on the highest-per-capita-murder-rate list.

There are surely a few non-southern states in the mix; but I'm pretty sure the DP-lovin' south dominates it.

20738. jexster - 6/26/2001 2:32:28 PM

Sharon is meeting with King Moron I today. B4 the meeting he openly announced two non-negotiable items

1. No stop settlements
2. No peace unless the Palestinians guarantee ZERO violence

Yea right when the Imbecile guarantees ZERO murders in his Yahoo State.....



What kind of idiot does he think Bush is?


OOOPS silly me.

20739. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:32:35 PM

I think we're all skipping carefully around the issue we don't want to confront - do "european values" exist.

In sum, on this matter they may well exist. There is something very much apparent in American society that seeks eye-for-an-eye retribution for violent crime. Whether it's innate in some deep root of the culture or whether it's socialized I have no real idea - but it exists.

Look at that (horrific, to me) fricking TELEVISED frying of McVeigh just a few weeks ago. People were raring themselves up for it like it was the Super Bowl. Absolutely primitive display of a kind of naked justice cloaked in bullshit psychobabble (eg "closure").

Would that happen in Western Europe? Even if it were of an equivalently bad man, I don't think so. I genuinely believe that it would also not be the case in India.

20740. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:35:25 PM

Well, it is absolutely clear Ace that the DP is in no way a deterrent. If only you and other proponents didn't try to cloak your advocacy in obfuscatory language.

Come right out and say it - "I, Ace, am a primitive and I want to exact primitive vengeance just as my ancestors have since we started emerging from our caves".

20741. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:37:00 PM

Look at that (horrific, to me) fricking TELEVISED frying of McVeigh just a few weeks ago.

Ummm, what fucking country do you live in?

The McVeigh execution was not "televised" and no one got to see it. EXCEPT for the relatives of McVeigh's victims, who have a legal right to witness it; and since they couldn't all fit into the execution room (since there were 1000 relatives of McVeigh's 137 victims), a closed circuit tv was set up to accomodate them.

That's not really "televised." And it was only shown on closed-circuit at all because McVeigh killed so many fucking people, and the legally-entitled witnesses to his execution simply couldn't fit in the room.

20742. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 2:38:18 PM

Who could believe there wouldn't be a mass audience in India for public executions?

20743. Andonly - 6/26/2001 2:39:24 PM

"The two may or may not be interrelated; if they are interrelated, causation may flow in the OPPOSITE direction, as PE suggests."

I don't subscribe to the theory that executions result in high murder rates.

Texas has the death penalty for primarily cultural reasons. If the rate of violent crime dropped there substantially (as I think it did in Dallas following 1985, when Dallas had the highest murder rate of any major city in the nation), Texans would say that the death penalty and harsher sentencing were responsible for the decline. If the murder rate were to stay low for 20 years, Texans would only grow surer that the DP deters murders.

20744. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:40:04 PM

"Well, it is absolutely clear Ace that the DP is in no way a deterrent."

Has Tim McVeigh been successfully "deterred," Pussy-Pants?

" If only you and other proponents didn't try to cloak your advocacy in obfuscatory language."

generally we don't. You do, Nancy.

"Come right out and say it - "I, Ace, am a primitive and I want to exact primitive vengeance just as my ancestors have since we started emerging from our caves"."

Okay. I'll say a modified version:

"I, Ace, am enlightened enough to understand that a profoundly violent act must be met with a profoundly violent response, and yest I *do* indeed want 'vengeance' for crimes, for vengeance is the only true justification for criminal punishment at all (note the word 'punishment' there, Nigel), and all the panty-bunching talk of 'rehabilitation' is just a bunch of obfuscation for the 'fur is murder' fairies."

20745. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:41:37 PM

Who could believe there wouldn't be a mass audience in India for public executions?

Jesus, they practically sell tickets whenever they throw a widow on the funeral pyre.

We can learn something from the Indians.

Stuff about burning widows, fakirs drinking their own piss, living in pestilent squalor and drinking from rivers you shit in, etc.

You know-- enlightened stuff.

20746. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:41:41 PM

Spades, I know the details, the fact that these people were legally entitled to watch the execution is barbaric and hearkens back to the most primitive concepts of justice. According to me, of course. I stand with the Europeans on this one.

20747. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:42:57 PM

Oh yeah:

We can also adopt India's "enlightened" caste system too.

I'm sure MajoriSahib doesn't mind the caste system.

20748. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:43:55 PM

Spades,

I am convinced that you would benefit from urine therapy. Not just from drinking your own, but mine too.

Mind you don't order takeout ever again, the apb is out.

20749. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:44:35 PM

"the fact that these people were legally entitled to watch the execution is barbaric"

Well everything's "barbaric" to you people, isn't it?

Anything to prove your own cultural superiority. Having no tangible superiority in any field, you put all your eggs in the 'cultural superiority' basket, and anything different than your enlightened culture (you know-- the piss-drinking culture) is "barbaric."

Eh. Go back to your copy of Le Monde.

20750. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:45:34 PM

Spades here displays the typical (of some Yanks) baboon-like reaction when faced with any, slightly-pointed, criticism of their country. He scoops up his own warm shit and hurls it at the bars of his cage.

20751. jexster - 6/26/2001 2:45:51 PM

In 1988 Williams and Flewelling conducted a study of murder rates in a random sample of US Cities.

The study found a moderate positive relation (r square = .26) between homicide rate and poverty rate. Across the cities studied, regression analysis predicted a rise of .944 in homicide rate for every 1% increase in poverty.

The correlations would have been even stronger, in fact they would have been strongly positive were it not for one residual outlier - Dallas TX....

There a culture of death exists....

Yahoo!

In Tejas Death gurneys and Bloody Bush Bubbas rule!

20752. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:45:58 PM

Ahem.

People who are generally superior in all tangible, meaningful endeavors don't need to sweat "cultural superiority."

Cultural superiority is for the French. And, apparently, the piss-drinkers.

20753. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:46:52 PM

ooh-oooh aah-aah, spades. Here, have a banana.

20754. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:46:57 PM

Majori,

I'm just saying it's barbaric to cook bereaved widows like they were fucking spareribs.

I don't know why you can't take a little pointed criticism without throwing warm shit.

20755. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 2:47:55 PM

One society identifies a suspected murderer, incarcerates that suspected murderer, affords that suspected murderer a trial, and gives the suspected murderer a chance at acquittal. If convicted, the murderer receives at least seven years of appeals, and, after all appeals are exhausted and only after a last plea for clemency is denied, that murderer is executed, never to murder again, either in or out of prison.

Another society goes through all of the above steps, but cannot bring itself to execute the murderer. Instead, the society houses, feeds, and otherwise maintains the murderer at taxpayer expense, and that murderer often spends his subsidized 35 years committing acts of violence in prison. The murderer may kill again in prison. He may escape and kill again. He may kill a prison guard. He will cost upwards of $50,0000 per year for the 35 years, significantly more commensurate to the level of security at the facility wherein he is housed.

Yet, for the urban sophisticate, the second society is non-primative.

20756. pseudoerasmus - 6/26/2001 2:48:32 PM

Values are contingent and malleable. If there was a long-term rise in European murder rates from 0.5 - 1.5 per 100 000, as it is now, to 9 - 12 per 100 000 (depending on the state) as was the case in the USA in the 1980s, then I'm sure many European governments would face pressure to reinstitute the death penalty. Remember, the French were guillotining people until 1981. Are French values in 2001 so radically different from those in 1981?

The European ethical rhetoric, like most people's rhetoric, is situational. As I think Butterfieldswire pointed out, the European support for a ban on land mines did not emerge until after the Cold War. During the Cold War, Germany depended on land mines as part of its defence against the Warsaw Pact. Now that the Cold War is over and the European countries are no longer threatened, they, especially German, can afford to be moralistic about land mines and in fact act so. Never mind that South Korea still depends on them as vitally as Germany had depended on them.

20757. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:48:37 PM

It's cold in here. Throw another crying widow on the fucking fire.

And then, once its warm, we can discuss our "cultural superiority" over those damned Great-Satan Yanks.

Oh? Are you going out for a shit in the river? Bring me back a pail of drinking water while you're out there, okay?

20758. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 2:51:19 PM

Spades, our simian correspondent, feels it necessary to invent arguments so that he can spray his hand-molded feces in all directions.

He should stick to bananas and jacking off monotonously, as is his simian wont.

20759. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:53:31 PM

I am simply pointing out the fact that inferior cultures -- and persons from those inferior cultures, who have major-league inferiority complexes -- take a great deal of solace in forever nattering on about their own supposed "cultural superiority."

In between cooking widows like they were ballpark franks, I mean.

20760. Andonly - 6/26/2001 2:56:03 PM

Jexster, is -51 serious? I ask because, hailing from Dallas as I do, I'm inclined to take it at face value, i.e., as gospel.

20761. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 2:56:45 PM

American: We have the highest standard of living. We're a military, economic, and technological juggernaut. We've been to the Moon. So many fucking times that people didn't even bother watching it on TV. They got bored of it.

Indian: We play cricket, the most "enlightened" of sports, and we enjoy horrific Indian musical films.

American: Ummmmm...

Indian: We are superior, in other words.

American: Did I mention: The Moon?

Indian: Did *I* mention: Cricket?

20762. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 2:57:00 PM

What is barbaric about televising and/or watching an execution?

It seems honest.

We execute murderers.

See.

In fact, I'd think that someone who espouses that executions are barbaric would welcome the publicity so that, once faced with the cruelty of the process, Americans would run madly to institute some sort of moratorium.

Except, most Americans would say "Well, the man got was coming to him."

20763. jexster - 6/26/2001 3:00:18 PM

Ace do you have a complete set of salad bowls with Cool Whip on the side?

20764. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 3:00:44 PM

Eh. What do you expect from a nation that lived for 100 years under the dominion of a far-away island-nation half its population?

India was only liberated after they cried and whined about it for ten or twenty years.

Us? We bitch-slapped England.

The Indians prefered basking the "cultural superiority" of being a colonized people.

20765. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 3:03:46 PM

Monkey-boy, the only person jibbering about "cultural superiority" is you. Kindly remove the tip of your tufted tail from your multicolored anus and try to pay attention to the admittedly human discussion as it takes place here.

Or, jack off more quietly.

20766. Ronski - 6/26/2001 3:04:12 PM

Well, they did give us the Vedas and the Upanishads, Buddha and Asoka. I suppose that doesn't count for much these days.

20767. Ronski - 6/26/2001 3:05:01 PM

And Gandharan art.

20768. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 3:05:18 PM

For the record, Urquhart, I do not think executions themselves are necessarily barbaric or even unnecessary.

20769. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 3:07:49 PM

I have also not talked about cultural superiority or India at all except to share my view that public executions would not be popular in India.

However, it is becoming rapidly clear to me that there is evident( and vast) cultural superiority inherent in me when compared to one American ape-boy.

20770. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 3:10:01 PM

the only person jibbering about "cultural superiority" is you.

Is that right, Nawab? Funny, but when someone begins pompously decreeing this culture to be "primative" and that culture to be "barbaric," and uses those words five or six times in a post, I generally take that to mean the poster in question in stroking his own egotistical cock about his own comparative enlightment... and "cultural superiority."

I didn't realize that one culture could be "barbaric" and "primative" without another, by necessity, being "enlightened," "advanced," and yes, "superior."

I thought that it was a necessary implication that IF this room is said to be "cold," that implies, necessarily, that there are other rooms which are, comparatively, not-cold or "warm." Or "superior in terms of temperature."

That's what I thought. But now my piss-swilling, widow-barbecuing, colonized-but-arrogant friend tells me I'm wrong.

What do you expect from me? After all, I'm born of an "inferior culture."

20771. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 3:11:38 PM

You know-- one of those inferior cultures that *don't* slather barbecue sauce onto a greiving widow and cook her up like she was a sparerib.

20772. Ronski - 6/26/2001 3:13:32 PM

Speaking of cultures, the Vatican and some Moslem countries are seeking to prevent the one U.N.-authorized gay group from participating in the big U.N. AIDS conference coming up. Canada and Sweden have expressed appropriate displeasure.

20773. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 3:14:23 PM

If India drops six nuclear bombs on Pakistan, killing three million Pakistanis, and the Pakistanis drop eight nuclear bombs on India, killing five million Indians, who wins?


A: We all do, friend. We all do.

20774. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 3:17:02 PM

Dress a monkey up and give him a computer and he still can't read or do much more than play with his own shit. Can it scroll back?

One wonders.

20775. Wombat - 6/26/2001 3:21:12 PM

I think widow burning (suttee) went out in the 19th Century. Dowry killings, though...

20776. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 3:22:06 PM

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

A man walks into a bar owned by an Indian. The Indian, tending bar, gives him a glass of yellow liquid. "Taste this," the Indian says, "And tell me what you think."

The man drinks, then immediately spits the stuff out. "Oh, god! That tastes like human piss!"

"Thank you," the Indian says, smiling happily. "I was afraid I'd gotten the recipe wrong."


Ba-dum-dum.

"Cultural superiority." Mm-hm.

20777. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2001 3:29:18 PM

What Ace has unexplicably forgotten is how the Americans gallantly came to our rescue in two world wars and how much money they gave us after the second one. But then history has never been his strong side.

20778. Andonly - 6/26/2001 5:07:00 PM

Banks: "the fact that these people were legally entitled to watch the execution is barbaric and hearkens back to the most primitive concepts of justice."

So I take it you think it's a bad idea.

If primitive justice is bad, then into what exactly would you like to see justice ultimately progress?

20779. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 5:24:28 PM

Ando,

There is definitely a primitive element at work in exacting the death penalty for a particular crime.

I, personally, think such a penalty is justified even in a society such as we live in. But, in keeping with my own personal morality and etics, it should be meted out only in certain outstanding cases. McVeigh's case would be one such, for example. A common-or-garden husband-killer would not. Life imprisonment is enough and worthy punishment for such murderers.

In any case, I think these matters would best be dealt with by a military firing squad, solemnly witnessed by the governor who signs the death warrant. That would be a sober carrying-out of the highest penalty in the land.

Electric chairs are sideshowish, by my reckoning. And this "closure" bullshit for the relatives of the murdered is grotesque, in my opinion. The accused may not deserve any dignity, but the state which exacts this ultimate penalty should comport itself with some.

---

This, above, will no doubt stir the baboon into another hooting fit of jackanapes.

20780. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 5:26:41 PM

jackanapery.

20781. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 5:41:02 PM

It is like rattling a stick against the baboon's cage bars, I know, but I must say that the whole ruckus surrounding the last few weeks of McVeigh's life did expose a certain ugly barbarity in the levelling of the death penalty.

There was the widespread dismay that it wasn't going to happen on the day originally planned. Then the AG actually went to the point of establishing another date, by which - no matter what- he would be offed. And there was the reams of outrage from the witnesses-to-be as to how this phantom "closure" was being delayed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, it was a public (limited, of course) baying for blood and on cue, disappointed that the spectacle was put off even for a short time.

It is viewing things like this, and reading accounts such as that in the NYorker about the store owner across from the jail laying in extra supplies of jerky and chips, that no doubt prompt some of the insufferably smug attitudes you see so apparent across the water.

20782. jexster - 6/26/2001 6:11:36 PM

Get 'em Pelle!

20783. Andonly - 6/26/2001 6:19:49 PM

"There is definitely a primitive element at work in exacting the death penalty for a particular crime."

Surely there's a "primitive" element in exacting any punishment for any crime.

"I, personally, think such a penalty is justified even in a society such as we live in. But, in keeping with my own personal morality and etics, it should be meted out only in certain outstanding cases."

I agree with you here.

"And this "closure" bullshit for the relatives of the murdered is grotesque, in my opinion."

Why grotesque? If "closure" (which I interpret to mean the satisfaction of the desire for revenge) can bring the living victims of capital crimes any peace at all, then why shouldn't they (as opposed to the general public) be able to witness executions of those on whom the state exacts revenge?

20784. jexster - 6/26/2001 6:37:56 PM

Don't fret folks...Ace is an UGLY American on this side of the ocean too.

And fat.....

And psychotic....

20785. marjoribanks - 6/26/2001 9:13:44 PM

"If "closure" (which I interpret to mean the satisfaction of the desire for revenge) can bring the living victims of capital crimes any peace at all, then why shouldn't they (as opposed to the general public) be able to witness executions of those on whom the state exacts revenge?"

Because, according to me, this execution-as-spectacle is uncivilized and not part of the duties of a state. The state is not there to exact revenge, per se, but to punish crimes against society and deter further crimes. Public spectacles ( and any way you slice it these kinds of proceedings are exactly that) tarnish the business of soberly meting out justice.

This is my own personal take, and I don't expect you or anyone to agree completely.

20786. Andonly - 6/26/2001 9:25:46 PM

"The state is not there to exact revenge, per se, but to punish crimes against society..."

That's sort of like saying, "The state is not there to exact revenge, but to exact revenge..."

Unless you think incarceration all by itself, or executions, actually correct criminals in some way.

I'm all for rehabilitation, by the way, but I'm under the impression that, with the exception of programs that allow convicts to obtain education, criminal rehab isn't very effective.

20787. Andonly - 6/26/2001 9:31:57 PM

"Because, according to me, this execution-as-spectacle is uncivilized and not part of the duties of a state."

I disagree that allowing those most affected by a murderer to view his execution constitutes spectacle.

The condemned man's family is usually allowed to be present; is granting that also not part of the duties of the state? Is it spectacle?

20788. arkymalarky - 6/26/2001 9:34:04 PM

In AR there was a celebrated rape case involving a distant teenage cousin of Clinton's in which the accused was castrated and his testicles supposedly placed in a jar which sat on the sheriff's desk for a long time. There was a big stink and he was very persistent and he was finally paroled, though they never were able to determine who castrated him and the "evidence" disappeared once an investigation began. Talk about getting revenge for the victim (although that was done outside the law, it was still done by the law).

Unrelated to the issue (or maybe not unrelated), it was just on the state news today that the guy, Wayne Dumond, was arrested in Missouri for murdering a woman after being released from an AR prison not terribly long ago.

20789. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 4:51:05 AM

Jex's post about poverty and murder rates in the US has got me thinking.

My answer to Pseud's hypothesis :

If Western Europe had pockets of poverty like those found in the US, and matching handgun availability, it would have murder rates to match. Whether or not the death penalty would be re-established in that case, would be an interesting test of civilisation.


But here's another, probably more fundamental cultural difference between western Europe and the US :
you know why you have the high murder rate; you have the means to fix the problems (poverty, gun availability) and yet you do nothing.

20790. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 4:54:22 AM

No-one in Europe, not since the Yugoslav wars, can have any illusions about how much more "civilised" we are than Americans, Colombians, Rwandese or what have you. Just let the structures break down, and we're all fuckin' cave men. Civilisation isn't about individuals. It's about the values that we accept as the basis for society, and the means we use to enforce these.

20791. stostosto - 6/27/2001 4:57:35 AM

One-Andonly:

it seems Leftist Euros scarcely make a distinction in their rhetoric betweeen Bush and Clinton, Reagan and Carter. It's all about The Hegemonic US Which is Ruled by Corporations. Bush, being an evil corporation man, can do no right, just as the WTO can do no right, and capitalism can achieve no good, etc.

It seems you scarcely make a distinction between that type of Leftist Euros - which undeniably exists and which apparently gets an awful lot of American media attention - and other types of Leftist Euros some of whom are even capable of thought. Not to mention the distinction between Leftist Euros and Euros in general, or even European politicians, governments, heads of state and, yes, media commentators.

It's really weird. You see a picture of four people displaying their flaccid pale butts to Bush and you extrapolate from this all sorts of wild and wily things.

As far as I know there are also "Leftist Americans" who accurately fit the description you give here; in fact, the latest round of activist bashing of globalisation and capitalism was instigated at the WTO meeting in Seattle. I wasn't aware that all the activists there were Europeans. I assume at least some of them were American -- but I don't tend to infer from that that these energetic fantasticistas somehow have conquered the entire political agenda in the USA.

20792. stostosto - 6/27/2001 4:57:50 AM

Regarding Iraq: Yes, European business is eager to clinch some deals, no doubt. The difference between your and the Euro perspective on Saddam is that here Saddam is regarded as a dud. He is finished. It's only hysteric and paranoid people and American presidents who want to look tough to their electorate who consider him a threat to anyone anymore.

This may be delusional, I'm not saying I share this view. But it's definitely the prevailing one in Europe, far as I can tell. I recently heard a reportage from a Danish industry delegation to Iraq. No mention of any danger in aiding Saddam. Only concern voiced: We will be overtaken by French and Germans and Swedes and Italians if we don't move fast to sell some merchandise. All done in the best possible taste, of course: We are talking pharmaceuticals, dairy equipment, etc.

20793. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 5:27:37 AM

Oh give it up Sto, she's seen through us. She must have seen the videos of you and me heaving bricks at cops in Sweden.

See you in Genoa, brudda. No pasaran!

20794. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 5:45:19 AM

Social cohesion is what keeps crime rates low. Cops, judges, screws and hangmen are minor contributors.

If the crime rate is low, it's easy to moralise about it.

However, it seems to me that a just system of enforcement is crucial in maintaining (or building) social cohesion. Justice must be blind and impartial; it obviously has to have a deterrent role, and a rehabilitative role. Although the rights of victims are important, this must be kept separate from the social regulation job of the justice system. Crucially, we must consider that it is the wrong to society, not to the individual, that the justice system is dealing with. The notion of revenge is therefore completely out of order (it conceptually legitimizes lynching), and so is the notion of execution (it legitimises our instinctive blood lust).

20795. joezan - 6/27/2001 7:03:37 AM

Social cohesion is what keeps crime rates low. Cops, judges, screws and hangmen are minor contributors.

And the more we focus on individual rights, the less social cohesion there is.

I've never been to one, but I've read that nothing brings folks together like a good, ol'fashioned hangin'.

20796. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 7:09:39 AM

I partly agree with your first sentence, Joe. If we focus obsessively on individual rights and neglect, or proscribe, collective rights, that weakens social cohesion. Balance, moderation, and judgement, as in all things, is of the essence.

Social workers are, of course, of prime importance for social cohesion. But they can't do it alone.

20797. stostosto - 6/27/2001 7:42:44 AM

Criminal justice generally bores me for some reason. The Americans have their odd ways, the Saudis have theirs, we have ours. Nobody is ever satisfied, and whenever some hideous crime is committed and publicised, the public cries out for revenge and justice and toughness on crimes. (I haven't detected any public outcries in the other direction).

One often mentioned reason for tough sentences and DP is the regard for the victims and their wanting to see justice be done. They often have a natural urge to hit back, and most people can empathise with that.

So, I thought it very interesting to follow the reactions of the victims of the most publicised crime here for many years.

A certified psychopath by the name of Peter Lundin killed his girlfriend and her two minor kids with his bare hands, cut them in pieces and removed them little by little from the scene of the crime.

He had formerly lived in the US where he had a criminal record and was convicted of violent crimes plus was suspected of having offed a girlfriend, if I remember correctly. (If not more people).

He is youthful and athletic and the image he projects has been frequently compared to that of a rock star. (Perhaps I can dig up a photo). A TV documentary detailed his horrific life and crimes and - not least -personality. "The most cold-blooded, cynical, pure psychopath I have ever encountered", as some prison psychiatrist (quoted after memory) testified.

All this resulted in a popular wish for exacting severe punishment on Lundin. There was even an association established with the object of reinstating death penalty and using it on Lundin.

The trial -- though not allowed to be televised --was a natural media hit.

Peter Lundin was duly sentenced the severest punishment under the Danish criminal code: Life imprisonment.

>>>

20798. stostosto - 6/27/2001 7:43:08 AM

>>>

So, I was curious to see the reaction of the relatives to the victim of the crime. It was one of relief: They had feared that Lundin would get away with a sentence milder than maximum, and they clearly felt satisfaction that he didn't. They didn't express anything other than that, neither in words, nor in other ways.

This made me think that maybe the most important thing for the victims is to see society act to the max within its given rules; i.e. that society agrees with the victims on the severity of the crime. Not that the criminal could be even more severely punished if the rules were different.

20799. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2001 7:54:20 AM

That's a good observation, sto. When I think back on some spectacular cases here I recall the same reaction.

20800. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2001 7:57:34 AM

BTW have you seen the chart I made of the political test results? Link at top left on the front page. You and I and Holly W. make up an extreme centrist non-authoritarian group.

20801. stostosto - 6/27/2001 8:12:51 AM

Peter Lundin, convicted killer of four people

The case in USA was actually his killing of his own mother, for which crime he spent seven years in a North Carolina prison. There are press reports saying he has bragged about killing four-five other people after he did his mother and until the FBI got hold of him.

--
Pelle, yes, I see you have me labelled an "extreme centrist".

It's a neat chart.

20802. pseudoerasmus - 6/27/2001 9:00:08 AM

stostosto, was it you who were arguing that the collapse in output in the former Soviet Union was (somewhat) overstated because an enormous fraction of GDP had been devoted to military expenditure?

20803. pseudoerasmus - 6/27/2001 9:01:29 AM

let me repeat, with corrections:

stostosto, was it you who were arguing that the collapse in output in the former Soviet Union is (somewhat) overstated because an enormous fraction of Soviet GDP had been devoted to military expenditure?

20804. Ronski - 6/27/2001 9:17:36 AM

I think we must not obsess about wrongs done to society at large at the expense of protecting the rights of the individual.

Revenge is an ugly word, but equating it with lynching is preposterous.

20805. stostosto - 6/27/2001 9:30:50 AM

Pseud,

I don't remember that. I can't see why that would be, really -military production enters GDP as any other type of production. Would the argument concern the secrecy and/or unknowability surrounding the exact size of military expenditure, therefore it would have been counted one way (when they were falling) but weren't the other (when they were large but secret)? Just speculating, I have never made this argument before myself, and wouldn't think it would wash. After all I think there were ways of gauging military output reasonably well -- and the CIA, for one, would probably tend to overstate it...






(Ack, I wonder what I am in for now...)

20806. Francis Urquhart - 6/27/2001 9:43:15 AM

marj

"It is viewing things like this, and reading accounts such as that in the NYorker about the store owner across from the jail laying in extra supplies of jerky and chips, that no doubt prompt some of the insufferably smug attitudes you see so apparent across the water."

The death penalty, as practiced here, can really only be understood by knowing the violent spectacle that is the United States and getting into the crevices of each of the jurisdictions that practice the death penalty. I don't expect the literati at the New Yorker to understand (the kind of people that would snigger at the perfectly reasonable steps of a merchant who knows that the media and pro- and anti-death penalty protestors alike get hungry and thirsty).

I certainly don't expect representatives from tiny, homogenous enclaves to understand, especially when those representatives are weighted down by an inferiority complex. If the death penalty is a way in which Europeans can blithely assert some superiority over the United States, even if based on an ignorant and ill-thought out generalization as to what is "civilized" and what is "barbaric", that is fine. We all know the score.

But when you, or anyone, for that matter, throws about the word "barbaric", the counterpunch is effortless.

20807. Francis Urquhart - 6/27/2001 9:45:33 AM

Ronksi

Why is "revenge" and ugly word? I understand "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord", but as a society, we seem perfectly willing to "modify" some of the Lord's other proscriptions as we go along.

20808. pseudoerasmus - 6/27/2001 9:56:27 AM

well, Stostosto, I should have said collapse in living standard, not GDP, was overstated. But since GDP does have something to do with the standard of living, an excessively high level of military spending at the expense of consumption would imply a lower standard of living.

Take two countries, each with a per capita income of $10 000. Country X devotes 40% of its GDP to military spending, and country Y only 5%. Assuming for the moment that the military spending in X is done not for a 'good' reason, but for self-aggrandisement which brings no benefits (say, as with Iraq), and assuming also that this 40% results in no more positive externalities in terms of technical knowledge than the 5% spending -- which country has got a higher standard of living?

I think it's pretty obvious that people in Y have a higher standard of living.

20809. Ronski - 6/27/2001 10:02:02 AM

FU,

I'm afraid it's taken that meaning. It has become pejorative in common usage.

20810. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 10:05:27 AM

I certainly don't expect representatives from tiny, homogenous enclaves to understand

Well, F.U, you underestimate the extent to which furriners understand the USA. All over the world, people are watching "Sex and the City" (random example). You are an open book. The incomprehension is mostly in the other direction.

20811. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 10:08:25 AM

Message # 2804 I think we must not obsess about wrongs done to society at large at the expense of protecting the rights of the individual.

Ronski, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but would it be fair to say that a high crime rate, and in particular a high murder rate, are part of the price you are prepared to pay in order to uphold individual freedoms?

(Though I wish someone would lecture us about the individual freedoms we Europeans presumably forego
in order to maintain social cohesion.)

20812. marjoribanks - 6/27/2001 10:17:57 AM

Urquhart,

I'm inclined to argue back reflexively, but the soothing cadences in your prose lull me into a feel-good place and I rock back gently with a non-confrontational smile on my lips.

You should give verbal massage therapy.

Seriously.

20813. stostosto - 6/27/2001 10:26:23 AM

Hahahaha!

Well said, majoba!

20814. Francis Urquhart - 6/27/2001 10:29:49 AM

alistair

Most Americans never reach the obstacle of comprehension with regard to Europe, as they are stymied by disinterest.

20815. Francis Urquhart - 6/27/2001 10:30:29 AM

marj

That will be $75.

20816. stostosto - 6/27/2001 10:30:41 AM

Pseud,

I agree.

I actually think I tried to make a similar argument against you in the Great Cuban Polemique way back. (That you should really count Cuba's extranormal military spending as a cost of being in the Soviet camp, thus partly offsetting the massive Soviet subsidies (something similar goes of course for the American embargo though you didn't consider that as a significant cost at all as I remember).

20817. Ronski - 6/27/2001 10:30:55 AM

alistair,

No. I think it is possible to have a liberal (in the classical sense) government and a low crime rate. A strong but small state focusing on crime reduction can theoretically accomplish this.

I look to the changes in NYC in the Giuliani years as a kind of example. Despite the mayor's authoritarian personality, and despite the squawking by some over the loss of supposed rights of squeegee men, the city's crime rate was dramatically reduced without any essential civil liberties being abridged in any meaningful way.

I'll pass on the offer to lecture Europeans.

20818. MsIvoryTower - 6/27/2001 10:34:11 AM

The state is not there to exact revenge, per se, but to punish crimes against society and deter further crimes.

I disagree, Marj. I'd argue that part of the role of a state that requires its citizens to follow the rule of law is to exact retribution and revenge for crimes against both society and the individual citizen. Elsewise citizens would find state law inadequate to protect them and their interests, which includes retribution for injustice against them.

I think a state cannot be successful if it does not ensure its citizenry that it will punish wrongdoers as a form of retribution and justice.

20819. stostosto - 6/27/2001 10:38:27 AM

By the way:

Wouldn't you just love to kill that guy? (Message # 20801)

20820. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:38:51 AM

"The state is not there to exact revenge, per se, but to punish "

On what planet is "punishment" not synonymous with "retribution"?

20821. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:44:08 AM

The famous hypothetical:

A man kills his wife. We know for a fact (let us say, God TELLS us in his booming God-voice) that the man will never kill again; the murder of his wife was an aberration. Not that he's insane; but the killing was a one-time thing. It will never happen again. And there's no need to rehabilitate or "correct" him; he knows full well what he did was wrong, is overcome by both remorse and a desire to "make things right," and we do not need to give him any moral corrective.

Further, we know that punishing the man will not deter any other murders (again, God tells us so); and we know that NOT punishing him will not encourage other murders.

So:

1) He won't kill again; there is no need to incapacitate him

2) There is no deterrent benefit to punishing him

3) He does not need to be rehabilitated


Question:

Should we punish this man or let him go?

If you say we should punish him anyway for the murder, despite the lack of an incapacitation, deterrence, or rehabilitation justification for punishment, that means you are punishing him based on the only remaining justification for punishment: pure, simple retribution.

So, anti-DP people, please answer: Do we follow your logic to its conclusion and let this man go free without any punishment at all, or do we punish him out of a "barbaric" desire to exact pure retribution for his misdeed?

20822. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:47:21 AM

Many rehabilitation-fairies claim they only want to punish for some "nice" utilitarian goal, like rehabilitation or deterrence.

This hypothetical puts the lie to that.

The rehabilitation-fairies will all simply avoid the hypothetical, claiming "Oh, we can't KNOW all that," and thus seek to avoid answering. Because they know what their answer must be, and they don't want to give that answer.

20823. Andonly - 6/27/2001 10:48:08 AM

"Well, F.U, you underestimate the extent to which furriners understand the USA. All over the world, people are watching "Sex and the City" (random example). You are an open book."

That's right, Lester. Life in the US is just exactly like on TV. Why, I myself have lunch with my girlfriends at least once a day to discuss the latest advances in the manufacture of sex toys.

20824. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 10:49:04 AM

Well, Ace, when I punish my daughter for messing up the house, is that revenge?

To my mind, there are two components to it : deterrence, and rehabilitation. If revenge comes into it, then I'm fucking up big time as a parent.

20825. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:50:06 AM

And I fight crime driving around in my Cylon-eyed KITT 2000 black Trans-Am, in my guise as the Knight Rider.

20826. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 10:50:16 AM

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but would it be fair to say that a high crime rate, and in particular a high murder rate, are part of the price you are prepared to pay in order to uphold individual freedoms?

Yes.

20827. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 10:50:59 AM

(And remember, I'm the authoritarian in this group.)

20828. Francis Urquhart - 6/27/2001 10:51:29 AM

alistair

To the extent you feel the need to keep child-rearing aligned with criminal justice procedures, the specifics with regard to your daughter are the least of your worries.

20829. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 10:55:53 AM

So, anti-DP people, please answer: Do we follow your logic to its conclusion and let this man go free without any punishment at all, or do we punish him out of a "barbaric" desire to exact pure retribution for his misdeed?

A justice system needs to be reasonably consistent in application. You murder someone, you go to jail. It certainly isn't unjust to send this guy to jail, even if it's completely useless. Take the prisoner away.

20830. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:55:54 AM

AC:

I concede that retribution will probably never enter into the mix where a loved one is concerned.

If your daughter killed another child, I'd bet good money you'd argue for no punishment at all (we all would). In fact, you'd probably confess to the murder yourself to spare your child.

Given the fact that our sense of "justice" breaks down when dealing with a child or spouse or parent or brother -- given, in fact, that we don't want our loved ones to be on the punishment end of "justice" at all -- I'm not quite sure what your daughter proves or disproves about criminal justice in justice.

20831. Francis Urquhart - 6/27/2001 10:56:44 AM

It makes sense that Europeans would consider certain aspects of American culture barbaric. Global inferiority and jealousy play a part. The fact that many aspects of American society are barbaric plays a part.

But the death penalty, a perfectly civilized response to barbarism, seems a foolish thing to choose over greased-pig hunts, Jerry Springer, and collagen injections.

20832. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 10:58:49 AM

The justice system needs to love all of us as we love our children. (Didn't Jesus say that? Well he should have. Anyway, I said it, and that's good enough.)

20833. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:59:03 AM

Ah. AC has proposed a new criterion: Consistency.

Well, AC, it is "consistent" to NOT punish people where no other utilitarian benefit can be realized. Just as it is "consistent" to not punish the legally-insane for murder. We *consistently* punish those who ARE sane, and we *consistently* don't punish who were insane at the time of their crimes.

So, this is just the typical dodge of someone who wants to avoid the hypothetical.

It is "consistent" to punish someone only when we realize a utilitatrian benefit from punishment, as you urge.

Answer the question. Stop avoiding it.

20834. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:04:20 AM

Or, if you like, I can add a fourth stipulation:

4) My hypothetical criminal justice system CONSISTENTLY does not punish criminals when punishment cannot realize one or more of the permissible goals of deterrence, incapacitation, or moral correction. It CONSISTENTLY does punish criminals when a permissible goal *can* be achieved.

Thus, to punish our hypothetical murderer would be "inconsistent" with our criminal justice system; to not punish him would be, yes, "consistent."


There. Answer again. Stop dodging.

This is the mark of an inferior mind: They simply refuse to answer hypotheticals. When confronted with a difficult hypothetical, they simply begin changing the terms of the question, adding new terms, subtracting others, etc.

20835. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 11:05:35 AM

May I point out Ace, that we don't know that the guy won't offend again (God's testimony has been struck out, he's not a reliable witness).

And justice is not exclusively about utilitarian benefit. It's also about justice.

There's nothing unjust about sending the guy to jail. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

20836. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:05:57 AM

The justice system needs to love all of us as we love our children.

Idiotic. Most parents would absolve their children even for MURDER.

Are you claiming, Moron, that our nation's criminal justice system should likewise absolve all murderers as each of us would absolve our own children?

Are you stupid or just drinking a lot?

20837. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 11:08:10 AM

Ace: I think if you have God available to answer questions as in your scenario, you ask him what he would do.

As someone who is (somewhat) anti-DP, though, I have no problem with the concept that punishment is part retribution. People likely think I'm joking, but I'm serious about floggings. Personally, if a judge gave me a choice between six months in prison and a flogging guaranteed (or at least reasonably guaranteed) not to cause permanent damage or death, I'd take the flogging.

I think a lot of non-violent crimes ought to come with the option of choosing a flogging over prison time.

20838. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:09:42 AM

Ace:

The rehabilitation-fairies will all simply avoid the hypothetical, claiming "Oh, we can't KNOW all that," and thus seek to avoid answering. Because they know what their answer must be, and they don't want to give that answer.

Alistair:

May I point out Ace, that we don't know that the guy won't offend again (God's testimony has been struck out, he's not a reliable witness).

Heh, heh, heh. Gee, that was hard to predict, wasn't it?

Again, a cheap dodge. We can postulate that psychology has advanced to the point where we can "scan someone's mind" to get a perfect understanding of its contents.

What a child.

And justice is not exclusively about utilitarian benefit. It's also about justice.

Oh? It's also about justice? So "justice" includes non-utilitarian justifications?

Such as what?

Such as the desire/need to punish JUST TO PUNISH?

Such as the desire/need to punish just because someone did wrong?

What's another word for that, AC?

Could it be... RETRIBUTION?

20839. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 11:10:06 AM

To use the family analogy : my daughter does something stupid. She knows it's wrong. But she says she's sorry, she smiles sweetly and in my heart, I know she'll never do it again.

I punish her anyway. Consistency is important.

20840. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 11:11:58 AM

In case it wasn't clear from the previous, I see nothing wrong with punishing someone partly out of retribution. But the problem with the hypothetical is that our inate sense of the need for retribution is based in the belief that without retribution the act will be committed again. It's ingrained in us that retribution = deterrence.

Look at MAD.

20841. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:13:16 AM

Indy:

"God told us" is just a synonym for a clause frequently encountered in law-school hypotheticals: "We know this for a fact, based on the testimony of twenty bishops."

The point of saying "twenty bishops swear it" isn't to LITERALLY suggest that twenty bishops have precognitive and telepathic powers, or are perfectly honest; it's just to establish that a fact is true, and keep morons like AC from asking "Well, how do we KNOW...?"

It's a thought experiment, Indy. When Einstein conducted thought experiments with motorcycles racing at the speed of light, he wasn't really suggesting that motorcycles could travel at light speed.

The hypothetical is based on the premise that we KNOW x, y, z. How do we know? Who knows? It doesn't matter; but if we DID know, what would be the answer?

20842. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:17:13 AM

But the problem with the hypothetical is that our inate sense of the need for retribution is based in the belief that without retribution the act will be committed again.

No, it's not. If (as the hypothetical postulates) we can achieve NO deterrent effect, you would STILL urge punishment.

Because ultimately you don't justify punishment on deterrence. You justify it on "something else."

That "something else" is retribution.

It is true that the two are often to be found together, which is why it is easy to claim that you want to punish only to achieve deterrence: a deterrent effect will almost always be be present.

But WHAT IF no deterrent effect exists in a particular case, as the hypothetical postulates? Do you then say "Well, let him go"?

No, you don't. You say: "Punish him anyway."

Which is proof that you're not justifying punishment on deterrent grounds. True, deterrence is OFTEN a nice by-product. But where a deterrent function is absent, you STILL urge punishment.

Were you actually basing your notions of "justice" on deterrence, you wouldn't seek to punish absent a deterrent effect. By definition.

20843. MsIvoryTower - 6/27/2001 11:17:59 AM

But the problem with the hypothetical is that our inate sense of the need for retribution is based in the belief that without retribution the act will be committed again.

I don't think so. I think it's based on the innate sense that we demand retribution for an evil act. Most people know that evil acts will continue, regardless of how hard we try to prevent them. There are truly whacked out people in the world, and there's no perfect way to predict where and when they'll pop out.

Our innate need for retribution is based on our need for justice. That is all.

20844. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 11:19:03 AM

Retribution, as human instinct, is nothing other than deterrence. Caveman A hits Caveman B with a club. B comes back at night and strangles the sonofabitch. Revenge! Result : B is recognised as the meanest motherfucker in the valley, and nobody hits him with a club any more.

As civilised beings, and as a civilisation, we need to sublimate our instincts and keep only the useful part. In the case of revenge, that's the deterrence aspect.

20845. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:19:32 AM

Einstein: "Imagine two motorcycles, racing apart from one another at the speed of light..."

AC: "Motorcycles can't travel at the speed of light. Their is no engine small enough to fit inside a motorcylce that can accelerate the vehicle to that speed."

Einstein: "Yeah, I know. But suppose there were..."

AC: "But there isn't."

Einstein: "Oh, for god's sakes. Okay, imagine two space-ships..."

AC: "Space-ships can't travel that fast yet, either."

20846. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:20:20 AM

You know, MsIT, someone sure hit you fucking HARD with a smart-stick.

20847. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:23:23 AM

Or maybe it's just a case of: You can take a girl out of Texas, but you can't take Texas out of the girl.

20848. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 11:28:15 AM

No, Ace, I have answered your hypothetical. You can stop worrying that particular bone now.

Let me remind you :
Yes, send him to prison, because it's important to be consistent in sentencing (in fact, that's part of deterrence)
One of the most important jobs of a justice system is to avoid perpetrating injustice. There's no injustice here.

20849. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 11:30:40 AM

Ace,

I do think in this case the ability to respond to the hypothetical is limited by our ingrained mental prejudices. I'm not a good test case for it because the concept of retribution is fine with me. But if I could literally divorce retribution from deterrence mentally, then my answer might not be the same (that it's okay to punish the guy).

I'm not sure (regardless of how you posit the question) that my mind really does that. I think retribution is okay--but it's likely I think retribution is okay because I associate it with deterrence.

Now there is also a part of me (and maybe that's what you're getting at) who just wants to see people suffer who have caused harm to me or mine--regardless if any good comes of it. But I think that is where Francis's biblical quotation comes in. If I'm just motivated by sheer bloodlust to see equal evil done to those who have done evil to me, that is wrong, per Christian teachings.

20850. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:30:52 AM

AC:

Your "consistency" dodge is ludicrous and transparent.

Imagine an if-then clause:

If X then Y

Suppose "X" were "a crime is committed with a gun." And y were "add ten years to the punishment."

Then our If-then clause reads:

If a crime is committed with a gun, then add ten years to the punishment.

Okay. So if a crime is NOT committed with a gun, should we add on ten years ANYWAY out of "consistency"?

This is the nonsense you propose. Your If-then clause reads:

If a utilitarian goal such as deterrence, incapacitation, or rehabilitation can be realised, then punish.

But when no such goal can be realized, you say "Punish ANYWAY," out of "consistency"!

It's ludicrous. Obviously your if-then clause does not, as you claim, read "Only punish IF some 'nice,' non-retributive goal can be realized" as you claim.

When I leave you with no justification to punish EXCEPT retribution, you demand punishment anyway.

Hence, retribution is your ultimate justification; the others are just window-dressing and frequently-realized by-products of retribution.

20851. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:34:07 AM

AC:

You keep saying we should also punish to achieve "justice."

But justice, as we have seen, does not necessarily include rehabilitation, incapacitation, or deterrence. It contains some "X factor."

What is this x factor, AC?

20852. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:35:30 AM

"No, Ace, I have answered your hypothetical"

No, you haven't. You have answered a DIFFERENT hypothetical, one of your own construction, which you created by deleting certain premises of MY hypothetical and adding other premises of your own invention.

20853. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:36:41 AM

AC's modified claim:

We should punish to achieve deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, or justice.

AC, I know what the first three words mean; but what does "justice" mean? Please define.

20854. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:41:21 AM

Incidentally, since the entire point of the discussion, and the hypothetical, is to determine what "justice" might mean, it's pretty silly to keep claiming we should punish to "achieve justice."

We don't know what "justice" means. That's what we're trying to define. We're trying to figure out if "justice" includes a retributive component.

So please stop using the term-to-be-defined in your attempts to define the term itself. I agree that "we should achieve justice by promoting justice," as you keep saying, but, alas, that hardly forwards the inquiry.

Use some other word. Say precisely what you mean. If you mean we should punish for reasons of "rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, or ________," say what "________" is SPECIFICALLY.

Stop calling "_______" justice, because we're trying to define "justice." You keep defining "justice" tautologically, as in "Justice means rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, or JUSTICE."

Well, yeah. Duh. Justice does mean justice, and two does equal two.

20855. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 11:41:23 AM

OK, here's a completely arbitrary algorythm that disposes of your 20850.

If murder, then P = 5 years.
If gun used, then P = P + 10.
If risk of re-offending, then P = P + 10.
If an extra deterrent is desired, then P = P + 10.
And so on.

This is absurdly simplistic, but it's consistent with what I've said. So your client gets five years. Or fifteen if he used a gun.

20856. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:43:00 AM

What else might justice mean, apart from "justice"?

Two equals one plus one is interesting; two equals negative one plus three is interesting. Two equals two is NOT interesting, and tells us nothing at all.

And "Justice equals justice," while inarguably true, doesn't tell us much, either.

20857. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:45:26 AM

"If murder, then P = 5 years.
If gun used, then P = P + 10.
If risk of re-offending, then P = P + 10.
If an extra deterrent is desired, then P = P + 10.
"

So you get five years for murder if there is NO deterrent effect?

What, precisely, is the justification for the 5 years, AC? It's obviously not "deterrence"; you get an additional ten years for deterrence. But you get five years WITHOUT deterrence.

So what is the justification for the five years when no deterrent effect can be realized?

Do not say "justice." We're trying to define "justice," and apparently we now know "justice" is equal to "deterrence plus something else."

What is the "something else"?

20858. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 11:46:58 AM

Our innate need for retribution is based on our need for justice.

MsIT: I think it's the other way around. We want to get back at someone who did something to us. Originally, we'd probably kill them for just about anything: Cain kills Abel because God likes Abel better (meaing Abel's personal responsibility and offense were minor).

Then later to cut down on the bloodshed, we adopted the "eye for an eye" code that you get back exactly what you do. This at least minimizes the escalation.

Still later, we have the idea of justice occasionally tempered with mercy (turn the other cheek, etc.).

But I think justice was a much later concept than retribution. And I think early retribution wasn't entirely about deterrence, but now we should fight that impulse if we wish to act "justly."

20859. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:47:09 AM

BTW,

In case it's not clear, I accept your "algorythm." It is consistent and we can work with it.

Now please tell me what the 5 year base penalty is based upon.

20860. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 11:47:26 AM

No, you haven't. You have answered a DIFFERENT hypothetical, one of your own construction, which you created by deleting certain premises of MY hypothetical and adding other premises of your own invention.

I have answered your hypothetical. You don't like my answer : that's your problem. I have deleted nothing from your hypothetical. We arrive at a completely arbitrary, non-utilitarian sentence of five years, and I'm perfectly happy with that. I can't help it if you're not.

In fact, the five-year sentence has a utilitarian function of deterrence. The only way you can take the deterrence away, that I can think of, would be to postulate that all proceedings are secret. And you didn't include that in your hypothetical, so, um, er, fuck you Ace.

20861. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 11:49:47 AM

Ace: I think without moving outside the realm of the senses (materialism) you cannot define an immaterial concept like justice. It has no meaning.

Even when a woman bites off the testicles of a rapist, that doesn't undo the rape.

20862. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:51:47 AM

"The only way you can take the deterrence away, that I can think of, would be to postulate that all proceedings are secret"

What a moron. I postulated there would be no deterrent effect to punishment. That ABSTRACT condition can be achieved via various CONCRETE routes, such as secrecy of the trial (and, in fact, that's a typical way this hypothetical is framed). But there are other concrete routes to get there.

Fine, though. The trial is secret. Whatever.

Answer now.

And no, you haven't answered the hypothetical. You keep changing it. You keep insisting there IS a deterrent effect, though the hypothetical postulates there is none. You refuse to accept this premise and you then answer a "hypothetical" which no one asked about which does NOT include this premise.

But that is the premise of the hypothetical. If you delete the premise, you are answering some other hypothetical, but you're not answering the one actually asked about.

Because you're a moron, basically.

20863. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 11:53:26 AM

MsIT, I am of the persuasion that our instincts are utilitarian (in the context of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, at least; and not always appropriate to the modern world). Your postulate that the desire for revenge is simply innate, sounds like a religious belief to me.

And if we accept the separation of the church and the state, then we shouldn't be basing a justice system on religious beliefs, but on rationality.

20864. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:54:51 AM

AC,

If you want to answer the hypothetical, just say "set him free" or "punish him." Those are the only two answers.

You can't give such a simple answer, though. Every answer is more "complicated," because you insist on changing the premises rather than simply accepting the "what-if" and answering.

20865. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 11:56:24 AM

As long as we're dealing with hypotheticals, suppose this. Suppose the standard sentence for purse snatching is six months.

A purse snatcher is brought before the magistrate and is found guilty. The money and purse are restored to the victim. Now suppose a drug exists that will make the woman forget she was ever accosted. Another drug exists that will make the criminal never want to snatch purses again.

As judge you can assign either the drugs or the prison term. Which do you assign?

20866. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:57:07 AM

AC:

Stripping the hypo down:

If there is no deterrent, incapacitory, or rehabilitative effect that can be achieved by punishing a criminal for a murder, should we punish him anyway?


Yes or No.

Yes or No.

yes or no.

Very simple: Yes or no.

There are two answers: Yes or No. Any other answer, like "there IS a deterrent effect," fights the hypothetical by stubbornly refusing to accept the premises.

If you cannot accept the premises, that proves that you do not REALLY believe that punishment is based only on utilitarian justifications.

20867. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 11:57:12 AM

On the other hand, I believe we have an instinct for justice, probably weaker than the instinct for revenge, and of more recent appearance. Because we can't live in society for long without getting past the revenge stuff. People simply can't succeed in uniting their efforts towards common goals (for long), in a society based on fear and revenge.

20868. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:59:32 AM

"Your postulate that the desire for revenge is simply innate, sounds like a religious belief to me. "

Given that AC cannot answer a simple hypoethetical without fighting and deleting premises, it sounds like AC is the one who has a religious committment to an belief which he cannot logically justify.

He ASSERTS that punishment is based on deterrence et al, but when given a SIMPLE hypothetical to test this assertion, he is neither capable of answering nor is he capable of honesty.

20869. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 11:59:59 AM

AC:

Yes or No?

Why are you unable to simply answer?

20870. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 12:03:49 PM

Ace :
Yes.

Happy now? Think you've proved something?

What a clever chimp.

And I have already explicitly stated, SEVERAL FUCKING TIMES, that punishment does not have to be based only on utilitarian justifications. Consistency is a virtue in itself; Justice is allowed to be non-utilitarian, as long as it isn't unjust. Take the prisoner away. He has exhausted all the avenues of appeal.

20871. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 12:05:38 PM

I believe we have an instinct for justice, probably weaker than the instinct for revenge, and of more recent appearance. Because we can't live in society for long without getting past the revenge stuff. People simply can't succeed in uniting their efforts towards common goals (for long), in a society based on fear and revenge.

Something like this came up when mandolin was posting in the Religion thread. Question: If we do have an instinct for "justice," why should it be obeyed by the individual?

That is, once an individual of the species realizes that justice doesn't really exist but is a species-wide convention created for society's sake, wouldn't it be to the advantage of the individual who has discovered that fact to use it to his or her advantage?

Of course, such a person should still (usually) follow the letter of the law because in most situations that would be advantageous, but shouldn't an intelligent person also realize that homilies about "justice" were just that? We might all give lip service to "justice," but in our hearts as aware beings we should know that we really intend to do what is to our own personal advantage. (Assuming we don't value "the human species" over our own personal comfort--and there's really no good reason to do so.)

Correct?

20872. alistairconnor - 6/27/2001 12:12:15 PM

Um, is that a description of the legal profession you've written there, Indy?

Yup, some people are cynics. So what?

20873. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 12:20:36 PM

AC:

Good. What "non-utilitarian" basis do you assert for punishment?

I call it "retribution." What do you call it? Do not say "Justice"; that is the term we seek to define, and you cannot define a word in terms of itself.

Let's put it this way:

William Bennet, Ace, FU, and MsIT all believe in "retribution," and we will punish if there is a utilitarian goal to be realized, and we will punish when there is NOT.

AC, on the other hand, does not believe in retribution. However, he will punish if there IS a utilitarian goal to be realized, and, just like those who believe in "retirbution," he will punish when there is NOT.

Now, please explain:

How is it that one set of persons is "barbaric" when they do the exact same things as the "non-barbaric" persons?

Or, to put it another way: We "thirst for vengeance," and that, you say, is wrong. And yet our "thirst for vengeance" causes us to do PRECISELY what you would do, when NOT "thirsting for vengeance." So in what TANGIBLE way is your system any different than ours? Do you merely object to the terminology? If so, that's a pretty trivial complaint.

Or, do put one last spin on it: Is there ANY case in which you -- who does not "thirst for vengeance" like we barbarians -- would NOT punish, when we barbarians who "thirst for vengeance" would?

If there is NO SUCH SITUATION in which NOT thirsting for vengeance leads to a different result than thirsting for vengeance, there is no practical difference between them.

Do you admit this or contest this? If you contest this, please tell me in what situation our responses might be different. Because it sure LOOKS like you are "thirsting for vengeance" but just calling it by a different name, like "justice" or "consistency."

20874. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 12:27:56 PM

I will punish without a utilitarian benefit. I base my desire to punish on the fact that someone did wrong and deserves to be punished. I call this "retribution."

AC will ALSO punish without a utilitarian benefit. He bases his desire to punish on the fact that someone did wrong and deserves to be punished. He refuses to give this a name, but sometimes he suggests it is justified by "consistency" or, tautologically, a sense of "justice."

It looks like we're punishing based upon the same concept, AC-- that wrongs deserve to be punished, even absent a utilitarian benefit.

However, *I* use the proper word for it: retribution. You insist on using incorrect words for it.

Apart from childish quibbling over terminology, is there any SUBSTANTIVE complaint you have with the notion of punishing just because wrongs deserve to be punished?

20875. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/27/2001 12:28:31 PM

I'd really like to post on this topic, and I think I have some unique insights, but I have absolutely no interest in being called names because of my ideas.

20876. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 12:28:56 PM

Irving:

Who cares?

20877. Francis Urquhart - 6/27/2001 12:32:07 PM

Irving

I won't call you names.

20878. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 12:32:36 PM

Incidentally, I really doubt you have "unique insights" into a discussion that's been going on for at least 100 years and has been well-explicated by just about every single top legal and philosophical mind on the fucking planet.

20879. Francis Urquhart - 6/27/2001 12:32:48 PM

But I may use the word "jacknapery."

20880. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 12:34:03 PM

Eh. This fucking kid. Fag-bat city.

20881. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/27/2001 12:34:56 PM

I rest my case. The topic is all yours.

20882. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 12:36:24 PM

20873-74 contain no "name-calling" and pose fair questions.

I'm interested in any answers.

Let us stop using the loaded words "retribution" and "vengeance." Let us instead address the concept: We should punish, utilitarian benefit or NOT, because wrongs *deserve* to be punished, and should be punished.

Anyone disagree with that?

if so, in what situations?

20883. Francis Urquhart - 6/27/2001 12:36:59 PM

Irving

I didn't call you a name. I didn't even get the chance to say jacknapery.

20884. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 12:37:59 PM

Irving:

Shit. I'm not going to hear your "unique insights"?

Damn. I've been salivating at the prospect of hearing "unique insights" that haven't been argued and counter-argued six bazillion times already, by minds far superior than your own. Or even mine. But now I guess I won't get to hear them at all.

I guess that's "justice" for me, huh?

20885. Dusty - 6/27/2001 1:05:56 PM

AceofSpades

Again, a cheap dodge. We can postulate that psychology has advanced to the point where we can "scan someone's mind" to get a perfect understanding of its contents.

Too easy.
If we really can do this (questionable, but I'll accept arguendo), then do the scan before the murder, and stop it.

(Now, you aren't really going to postulate that advanced psychology is unable to identify when someone is going to murder, but is able to identify whether they will murder again, are you?)

20886. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 1:06:23 PM

alistair: Cynicism would be perfectly rational, under the circumstances (i.e., justice is an instinct DNA has foisted upon us, along with fear of fire).

20887. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 1:12:22 PM

If we really can do this (questionable, but I'll accept arguendo), then do the scan before the murder, and stop it.

For god's sakes. One, this isn't true at all (for example, we fingerprint suspects AFTER a murder, but we do not fingerprint the entire poplulation just in case a murder gets committed), and Two, it's a fucking hypothetical. It is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.

It doesn't matter how we know the man won't kill again, or needs no moral correction; you can propose any of a thousand silly predicates (God says so, a dozen bishops swear to it, we have mind-scanning machines, we've used Asimov's "psychohistory" to determine it, etc.) to get to the premise.


The important question is: IF (IF: if means "assume that") there is no utilitarian benefit to be gained (and how do we know that? Well, we're ASSUMING it for the purposes of the question), would you punish anyway?

That's just the naked hypothetical. The rest of it (assume we have mind-scanning machines) is just dressing the naked hypothetical up.

When we say, in a hypothetical, "ASSUME FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS QUESTION THAT...", it doesn't matter how we "know" the assumption is true: We're assuming it's true. The stuff about "mindscanning machines" is just for the children among us who will inevitably ask, "But how do we KNOW...?"

20888. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 1:18:59 PM

If I say:

Assume that x and y are consecutive even integers; what is the remainder when the AVERAGE of x and y are divided by 2?

... do you ask: how do we KNOW x and y are consecutive even integers?

Of course bloody not. How do we know they're consecutive even integers? Because the bloody hypothetical says they are. We assume it for the purposes of the question. x and y might NOT be consecutive even integers; hell, they MIGHT be pi and e squared. But the question doesn't ask about that. It asks us IF they ARE consecutive even integers. Any answer that postulates they are NOT consecutive even integers is irrelevant and does not address the question posed.

I'd like to see AC & Company take a math test where they're asked

If y is a prime number greater than 2, and x is defined as y + 1, is the sum x and y even or odd?

...and answer each question by objecting, "But how do we KNOW that y is a prime number? What if it ISN'T a prime number? I think y will be a non-prime number, so I reject the question."

20889. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 1:21:24 PM

addendum to 20886: The obvious conclusion being that if both the desire for vengeance and the desire for justice are products of evolution and DNA, neither is "morally superior" to the other.

A person choosing retribution or a person practicing "justice" are both just following genetically encoded instructional "instincts."

20890. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 1:22:44 PM

Or:

Well, geepers, I think that y is not a prime number at all, but is rather 6, and does not equal y +1 at all, but rather equals fourteen (or y+8), and so the sum of x and y is 20, and that sum is EVEN, so the answer is even.


Ummmm.

Yeah.

That's all well and good, but the question said y was prime and x equals y+1. Your nattering about y NOT being prime and x NOT being equal to x+1 might answer a DIFFERENT question, but it sure the hell doesn't answer mine.

20891. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 1:23:50 PM

The obvious conclusion being that if both the desire for vengeance and the desire for justice are products of evolution and DNA,

What is "justice"? That's the term we seek to define.

20892. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 1:27:26 PM

I find it rather hilarious that AC & Company will change the premises of a non-mathematical hypothetical, but yet claim they're "answering the question posed," and yet it should be rather obvious that if you change the premises of a mathematical hypothetical you're not answering the question at all.

Why do they imagine it's okay to change the premises of a non-mathematical hypothetical and yet changing the premises of a mathematic hypoethetical is obviously silly and simply avoiding the question?

What accounts for the difference? That one features numbers and the other does not?

20893. Ronski - 6/27/2001 1:28:06 PM

So, Internationalists, Is SMOM a Country or Not?

20894. Dusty - 6/27/2001 1:29:28 PM

AceofSpades
I understand your point, but we may have to deal with the fact that necessary consequences of the hypothetical might affect the problem. if we can know whether a person will commit a future crime with certainty, why on earth should we trouble ourselves with minor questions like punishment for those that commit murder? We can stop murders.

Also, one doesn't get to make up any ol' hypothetical.

Cinder a slight modification to your hypothetical:
Assume that x and y are consecutive integers, both even; what is the remainder when the AVERAGE of x and y are divided by 2?

You cannot do this. You can't simply say, it's a fucking hypothetical, just assume it for the purposes of the problem.

20895. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 1:40:47 PM

Dusty,

You're wrong, and you're being an ass.

Once again, we do not now fingerprint the entire population or take DNA samples, though doing so would help us solve murders in the future.

Likewise, we would not necessarily mindscan the entire population looking for POTENTIAL future crimes. There is the notion of "privacy" and the fourth fucking amendment to consider. What is justifiable when you have one suspect is NOT necessarily justifiable when done to the population at large.

I am allowed to breathalyze someone whom I suspect (with "probable cause") might be intoxicated. I am not allowed to do a breathalyze dragnet for any and all persons, looking for those few persons who may be intoxicated. I have no "probable cause."

And likewise, given a "mindscan" machine, I might be allowed to mindscan a suspect whom I have probable cause to suspect, whereas I could not mindscan the entire neighboring community.

20896. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 1:40:55 PM

Further:

While it is true that the terms of a hypothetical are FREQUENTLY contrary to fact, we can note this while answering the hypo. In my justice hypo, AC could have said, "I dispute that such condidtions could ever be satisfied, but assuming they could be, as you asked, my answer would be ______."

Einstein proved special relativity by imagining motorcycles moving at the speed of light. Motorcycles, however, CANNOT move at the speed of light, even with super-duper engines, for nothing with mass can move at the speed of light. However, assuming the hypothetical shed light on special relativity.


Finally, the last hypothetical you pose is a very special case. It is simply impossible to answer within the confines of the accepted laws of mathematics, for two consecutive integers cannot ever be even. However, we COULD pose it if we were seeking to deduce something about alternative laws of mathematics.

Further, several mathematical proofs specifically rely on assuming something impossible. The proof that the square root of two is not a rational number, for example, begins with:

Assume that the square root of two can be expressed in terms of a ratio of two rational numbers, such as p/q....

...and then proceeds from there, to ultimately prove that the starting premise (sq rt of 2 = p/q) is false. This is called reductio ad absurdum.

Thus, it often fruitful to suppose things that aren't true. The classic proof that sq rt 2 is irrational begins with just such a suppostion, and that supposition is in fact the key to the proof.

20897. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 1:44:19 PM

"Assume a mindscan machine" might be impossible in practice, but it's not impossible in theory.

"Assume we can know both the position and momentum of a particle with perfect accuracy, simultaneously" is not merely impossible in practice, it is impossible in theory as well.

Although it might be useful to make that assumption for the purposes of a particular question.

20898. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 1:49:43 PM

And since you're focused, like a child with ADD, on the trivium of the predicate for my premise, HERE:

"Assume we have a mindscan machine which the US Constitution only permits to be used on those persons suspected, with probable cause, of committing a crime."

Now please tell me why that's "impossible." Why it's "impossible" we'd ever have such a stipulation. And bear in mind that police cannot currently take your fingerprints unless you're suspected, with probable cause, of committing a crime, and cannot breathalyze you, and cannot take a DNA sample, etc.

20899. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2001 1:57:33 PM

I see that Ace again set his usual trap and several people who should have known better walked into it.

20900. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:03:06 PM

Pelle,

Yes, I've set my "trap" -- the hypothetical question --the chief method of testing philosophical and mathematical propositions for the past 3000 years.


I'm so villainous. Using tricky "traps" like the hypothetical question.

It is funny, though: Soft-thinkers hate hypotheticals, and DO consider them "traps," because their thinking, inevitably, falls apart when exposed to hypothetical questions. Soft-thinkers haven't bothered testing their own propositions via the self-hypothetical (which most strong thinkers do); each hypothetical posed to them is new and frightening, because they've never bothered to self-examine their cherished bromides and their religiously-clung-to axioms.

Whereas most strong thinkers have bothered testing their own beliefs against hypotheticals, and so tend to have "seen" the hypotheticals before in their own mind. Someone who's tested his own beliefs by self-critique has little to fear from hypotheticals.

20901. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:04:59 PM

I'm sorry, Pelle, to have frightened you by introducing such unfair "traps." Better to leave your delicate-but-disordered thoughts in a pristine state, never challenged, never examined, never tested.

20902. MsIvoryTower - 6/27/2001 2:08:45 PM

Your postulate that the desire for revenge is simply innate, sounds like a religious belief to me.

Alistair

Don't be ridiculous. I was responding to Indiana Jone's comment regarding the innate desire for revenge really being some belief that revenge equals deterrence.

I disagree that to the extent we have some innate desire for revenge (to me this is a desire for retribution), that it equates in our minds as a form of deterrence. If I want revenge, I couldn't care less whether it causes someone else to question whether they should do a similar act, I want retribution for the injustice against me. Plain and simple.

Nothing religious about it.

20903. CalGal - 6/27/2001 2:10:03 PM

Well, I oppose the death penalty but I have no issue with retribution. So my answer to the hypothetical is yes, throw him in jail.

Indy,

Another drug exists that will make the criminal never want to snatch purses again.


That is a punishment, you realize. The problem is that giving the victim a forgetful drug is also a punishment. Very authoritarian of you, dishing out brain damage to victim and criminal alike.

She can opt whether or not to take the drug. He does time and takes the drug.

20904. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:11:48 PM

The hypothetical is the only way to advance an argument. When AC and I clash over whether "retribution" is a permissible objective of justice, we can either:

1) simply say yes it is/no it's not all day; or

2) I can ask a hypothetical, in which I seek to narrow our debate.

Upthread, AC conceded that there were non-utilitarian justifications for criminal justice; that actually advanced the discussion a bit. For now we can examine what this nameless "X factor" of justice might be, and how it might, or might not, differ from "retribution."


But to AC and Pelle: It is (hissss!) a "trap."

It is a "trap" to compel someone, via a hypothetical question, to admit something they'd rather not admit.

Funny. I thought that was just argumentation.

But no-- it's a "trap" to be avoided. If the honest answer to a question would hurt your proposition, you should REFUSE TO ANSWER. Never forget, the point of argument is not to arrive at truth, but to WIN, and if winning means withholding honest-but-inconvenient answers, well, that's just what you have to do. You can't make an omlette without breaking a few rules about honest intellectual exchange.

20905. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:12:51 PM

Well, I oppose the death penalty but I have no issue with retribution. So my answer to the hypothetical is yes, throw him in jail.

Fair enough, of course. Retribution doesn't necessarily compel a DP, just as it doesn't compel torture or a literal "eye for an eye."

20906. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 2:13:36 PM

What is "justice"? That's the term we seek to define.

Ace: I've already said it's undefineable in "real" terms. It's an ideal. Probably the closest we can get at it in purely human terms is "tit for tat."

But to me that's unsatisfactory because no such equivalence exists in almost all situations.

BTW, as judge would you choose the drugs or the prison sentence in post 20865?

20907. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:16:51 PM

I've already said it's undefineable in "real" terms. It's an ideal. Probably the closest we can get at it in purely human terms is "tit for tat."

To say it is "undefinable" is no response at all.

If it is "tit for tat," what you're talkign about is retribution. You hurt someone, we hurt you.

The term is useless in this discussion because it hides what we seek to illuminate. We want to know WHY we're punishing. You can't say we're punishing "for justice," for that's the very question to be answered.

As to drug or prison:

I refuse to answer hypotheticals. They're "traps," and answering might hurt my position.

Further, there is no drug that will do whatever it is you postulate it would do. In fact, I think the drug you postulate would in fact give someone the power of flight, and hence they'd become an even more threatening criminal. They'd be like Electro or something.

20908. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:19:18 PM

"The money and purse are restored to the victim. Now suppose a drug exists that will make the woman forget she was ever accosted. Another drug exists that will make the criminal never want to snatch purses again.

As judge you can assign either the drugs or the prison term. Which do you assign?"

Prison.

Simple enough.

I'm interested in punishing wrongs, not wiping them away via a magic blackboard-eraser.

20909. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 2:19:25 PM

Cal: The woman is under no compulsion to take the drug. It's existence in the hypothetical is only to discount the possibility that someone will argue "But the victim still lives with the memory," etc.

The point is to have a situation in which 1) the original crime is for all intensive purposes undone; 2) further crimes by the same individual are deterred; or the perpetrator is punished.

Which is preferable?

20910. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:21:49 PM

I think it's a silly hypothetical, by the way. Not because its premises are silly (hypothetical premises are often silly), but because it doesn't advance the discussion much.

Perhaps it would advance the discussion if AC deigned to answer it. But since I'm a retribution-man, the answer is obvious. I don't care about utilitarian solutions like the pill would offer. I don't believe that justice is predicated upon such utilitarian concerns and it never has been.

20911. CalGal - 6/27/2001 2:24:14 PM

Indy,

The perpetrator is punished in both cases. How it is that you don't see elimination of free will as punishment is more than I can figure.

20912. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2001 2:25:35 PM

Well Ace, I really shouldn't because I don't have the time for any extended slugfeast tonight. But here is my critique of your hypothetical problem.

You introduce an entity, which you call "God", but which could be any authority (A) known to be infallible in the matter at hand. A tells the judges (J) that it will serve no purpose to punish the man.

The question arises: Is A's infallibility accepted by society at large and is J accepted as A's interlocutor? If yes on both, the man need not be punished. If no on any, he must be because of the deterrence effect.

So, your "problem" is a problem only because it's incompletely stated. On examination it breaks down into sophistry. I suppose it's the lawyer's training.

20913. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:25:53 PM

Actually, let me change that answer a little bit:

You propose either-or. You claim that the pill will make the snatch-purser NEVER snatch another purse again.

Now, if that's the case, the utilitarian benefits of the pill so far outweigh the moral need for retribution I'd be inclined to go with the pill.

Like Cal, I'd prefer BOTH (I want the perpetrator to pay for his crimes), but if the utilitarian benefit of the pill (no law-breaking again, EVER) is so vast, then at some point it will become far preferable to punishment without the guarantee of no further lawbreaking.

Now, if you modified the hypothetical to say that both prison AND the pill will result in no further lawbreaking, I'd choose prison again. But as you've framed the question, the pill's benefits simply overwhelm the benefits of pure punishment.

20914. CalGal - 6/27/2001 2:27:48 PM

Sorry to repeat myself here, but a pill that wipes out your free will is punishment. It's just not imprisonment.

20915. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:30:05 PM

Pelle,

You're beyond stupid.

Yes, A's authority is accepted by everyone. Yes to whatever the hell else you said.

The question does not "break down." If it does, a thousand law-professors would be thrilled to know it, because they ask the hypo the first week of every criminal justice class.

If you need additional information, there it is: Yes to the idiotic questions you posed, as if you couldn't guess that the answers would be "yes."

So fucking stupid it hurts my teeth.

20916. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 2:30:33 PM

Ace: Fair enough. That's an honest answer, but it's obvious then that you see punishment--the infliction of suffering upon the criminal--as having its own utility (an observation which I don't think you'll dispute). In fact, you are willing to sacrifice alternative "goods" (rehabilitation and restitution) because you find this punishment the highest "good."

Is this just something you think based on personal preference, or do you have a rationale as to why making criminals suffer is the most important function of a justice system? (If I'm stating that too strongly, please correct my characterization.)

20917. CalGal - 6/27/2001 2:32:58 PM

why making criminals suffer is the most important function of a justice system

Most important, or key component? It's certainly a key component.

20918. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:34:21 PM

Pelle,

By the way, here are the answers to the other questions you could have posed:

YES, God DOES speak English, or a language which is understood by the judges;

YES, he tells the truth, so when he says "no utilitarian benefit can be gained by punishment" that DOES NOT MEAN "yes, a utilitarian benefit can be gained here,"

YES, the judges are sitting in judgement of the criminal we're discussing, and not in a midemeanor-traffic court;

YES, God's words do NOT cause the Judge's heads to explode from the Holy Power of His Voice, rendering the whole communciation moot;

YES, God knows the answer; he isn't "just guessing";

and YES YES YES to all the other idiotic questions you could pose.

As a general rule, the answer is YES to anything necessary to the hypothetical, and NO to anything which would undermine/render moot the hypothetical.

20919. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:37:34 PM

YES, when God speaks, the judges realize it's god, and don't think it's some sweet-sounding thunder,

etc.

Get it, Pelle?

Have I sufficiently corrected my "sophistry" and my "incomplete hypothetical"?



Well, gee whiz, you still haven't stated whether or not Judges will believe God, or if they hate God, and will do the opposite of whatever he says....

Assume they don't hate God, Pelle.

20920. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:40:27 PM

but what if there are TWO Gods, the Christian God and Odin, and the Gods disagree?

Assume there's only one God, Pelle. Or, if you insist on assuming a plethora, assume that only "God Prime" is omnicient and omniveritas, and only "God Prime's" word will be accepted by the judges, and "God Prime" says "no utilitarian benefit."

Are there any more idiotic questions you have?

20921. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2001 2:40:48 PM

Ace

The question does not "break down." If it does, a thousand law-professors would be thrilled to know it, because they ask the hypo the first week of every criminal justice class.

Perhaps that's part of the problem?

I rest my case.

20922. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:41:32 PM

I just want to make sure my hypothetical is "sufficently complete" for you, Pelle. I understand you have lots and lots of questions, and you don't feel comfortable assuming such things as "God speaks English" and so forth.

20923. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:43:31 PM

Pelle,

God speaks English, and this question is not posed in Bizarro-world, where everyone is dyslexic, and therefore when "GOD" says something it's really a DOG saying something (and yes, Dogs can speak in this dyslexic Bizzaro-world, but that's irrelevant, because that's not where the question takes place).



"I rest my case."

equals

"I'm a fucking buffoon and I have no response."

20924. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:59:00 PM

SOCRATES AND THE FABLE OF THE SHADOW

SOCRATES: "Assume that we stand, alone, in a cave; assume we have all the senses and perceptions a man typically has; assume we stand in this darkened cave, watching our shadow dance on the wall..."

PELLE: Is this a trap? This sounds like a trap to me.

SOCRATES: No it's not a trap. It's a hypothetical. I'm trying to say something about the relationship to our senses and to truth itself.

PELLE: Still, it sounds like a trap.

SOCRATES: Well it's not. Let me continue: And so we stand in this cave, watching our shadow on the wall:

Alistair: How do we know it's a shadow?

Pelle: How do we know it's OUR shadow?

Alistair: Good question. I was just going to ask that.

SOCRATES: You know it's your shadow because you're the only fucking person in the cave.

Alistair: It could be shadow of a rock that looks like a human being.

SOCRATES: Rocks don't move.

Pelle: But you didn't specify that in your hypothetical. Your hypothetical was "incomplete" and therefore "sophistic."

Alistair: Rocks move during an earthquake.

Pelle: Oh yeah! That's right. How about that: Is there an earthquake going on?

20925. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 2:59:10 PM

Socrates: No. There's no fucking earthquake. And rocks don't move otherwise. And when they DO move, they sure the hell don't look like a human being.

Pelle: A statue does.

SOCRATES: IT'S NOT A STATUE!! The rock is not a statue!

Pelle: So you admit: There IS a rock.

SOCRATES: No, there's no rock, there's no statue, there's no earthquake. It's just YOUR shadow, dancing on the wall.

Alistair: How do we know it's a wall?

Pelle: Maybe it's a truck.

Socrates: THERE ARE NO TRUCKS! It's 500 BC!

Pelle: There are carts.

Socrates: Look, ASSUME for the purpose of this fable that it's YOUR shadow, there is no rock, there is no earthquake, and your shadow falls on the wall of the cave.

Pelle: You should have specified all that.

Socrates: I did.

Pelle: No you didn't. And this still sounds like a "trap."

Socrates: Can I continue? And assume further that the light which shines your shadow onto the cave wall represents the air or ether which conducts the properties of the natural world to your senses, so that they can be perceived...

Alistair: Wait a minute! You just said it was a light! Now it's "air" or "ether"!

Pelle: I *told* you this was a trap. Oh, and I just wondered: Maybe there's no earthquake, but is there a volcano exploding? *That* could cause the statue to move.

SOCRATES: THERE IS NO STATUE!!!

Alistair: And if the statue moves, maybe the truck moves, too.

Pelle: I *knew* this was a trap.

SOCRATES: Oh, I give up.

20926. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 3:06:19 PM

(I'm having very poor network performance right now and may lose connection entirely at any moment. I assume it's just me and not the Mote.)

Cal: If both outcomes are punishments (as you say), then why do you choose to administer both? If you think the drug equals the loss of free will, do you really think it necessary also to put the man in jail for six months?

Or if both are punishments, why not go with the punishment that is also more useful (the drug)?

Ace: My previous post was before your change of mind after contemplating the extra utility of the person's never commiting the crime again. That was the point: to judge whether a person thinks punishment is even more valuable than restitution and rehabilitation. As far as advancing the discussion, I was clear you valued punishment but wanted to understand which outcome you valued the most.

Your latter post (20910) may lessen the validity of some of 20916.

20927. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 3:08:14 PM

SOCRATES: Look, do you want to hear "The Fable of the Shadow" or not?

Alistair: Sure. Why not.

Pelle: I guess. If it's not a "trap."

SOCRATES: It's not a trap! It's a thought experiment. Look, I'm describing a hypothetical situation. Then I will pose questions. And in that way we will have an orderly discussion. Stop changing the premieses of the hypothetical.

Alistair: I'm not changing the hypothetical. I'm just saying the shadow isn't a shadow of you, it's a shadow of the statue, and the shadow doesn't fall on the wall of a cave, it falls on the side of a truck. Oh, and it's not even a shadow. That's all I'm saying.

SOCRATES: That's changing the hypothetical.

Alistair: No it's not.

SOCRATES: Yes it is. OF course it is. If I said assume x = 5, and you say x does not equal five, that's changing the hypothetical, isn't it?

Alistair: Well, assume I DIDN'T say x does not equal five.

SOCRATES: NOW you're changing the hypothetical about changing the hypothetical!

Alistair: No I'm not.

Pelle: I swear, this sound more and more like a "trap."

SOCRATES: It's not a trap! It's just a fable about a shadow on a cave wall!

Pelle: Have we established how we know we're inside a cave?

Alistair: We could be inside a truck.

Pelle: We could be microscopic, and inside the intestine of gnat.

SOCRATES: There are no trucks. You are not microscopic. You are in a cave.

Alistair: How do you know?

SOCRATES: Because it looks like a cave! It's made of ROCK!

Alistair: But you said there WAS no rock!

Pelle: I *knew* this was a trap.

SOCRATES: Um. I'm ready for that hemlock now.

20928. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 3:11:57 PM

(Pretty good ad lib, BTW.)

20929. Dusty - 6/27/2001 3:19:21 PM

Umm
Nitpicking alert
It was Plato and the cave.

20930. Dusty - 6/27/2001 3:21:07 PM

Seriously Ace, that was some of the funniest stuff I've read in some time. I have people walking by office, wondering why I am spenching Diet Coke all over the place.

That said, I don't know how calling me an ass and Pelle stupid helps.

20931. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 3:22:16 PM

Nitpicking right back: Was Plato not narrating a conversation between Socrates and his students?

Or was it the other way around?

20932. CalGal - 6/27/2001 3:23:27 PM

If both outcomes are punishments (as you say), then why do you choose to administer both? If you think the drug equals the loss of free will, do you really think it necessary also to put the man in jail for six months?


Because it would otherwise give everyone a chance to commit one crime for free. It would also give people who were on the drug--people who had done something wrong--a significant hiring advantage in certain lowlevel jobs, which would be wrong.

In telling you it was a punishment, I was just correcting your presentation. In any event, I've reconsidered and the drug is a very bad idea. Under no circumstance would I use it. Jail is fine.

20933. Dusty - 6/27/2001 3:24:37 PM

Ace
I understand hypotheticals.
I like, nay lover, hypotheticals.
I get incensed at people who misunderstand the point of a hypothetical.
So I am inclined to support you when you want to use hypotheticals in your argument. However, you don't get carte blanche in hypotheticals. I wanted to explore that. I understand you want to discuss something else, which is fine, but that doesn't make me an ass.
Carry on.

20934. Dusty - 6/27/2001 3:25:55 PM

Ace

Ooops
Your nitpick trumps mine.
Sorry.

20935. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 3:26:49 PM

It would also give people who were on the drug--people who had done something wrong--a significant hiring advantage in certain lowlevel jobs, which would be wrong.

If you mean this as a joke, it's pretty funny.

If you mean it seriously, it's even funnier.

But be glad it's not Ace positing this hypothetical.

20936. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 3:29:13 PM

"However, you don't get carte blanche in hypotheticals. I wanted to explore that."

You get carte blanche to the extent you do not stipulate something impossible in theory and/or stipulate facts in contradiction.

Yes, you're right, I cannot begin a hypothetical by saying: "Assume it is raining. Assume it is not raining."

That nit aside, what's your point?

"I understand you want to discuss something else, which is fine, but that doesn't make me an ass. "

It makes you an ass to assert that, given a mindscan machine, it MUST be the case we can use it on every citizen to check for future lawbreaking, as this is quite simply not the case now with breathalyzers, fingerprints, and DNA samples.

It is not true that, given a mindscan device, the Constitution is necessarily suspended. Could be, not must be. And since it is not a "must be" situation, I am free to stipulate in my hypothetical that we don't use the mindscan on everybody "just to make sure."

But what if it's not a mindscan machine? What if it's a truck?

It's not a truck, Dusty. End of story.

20937. CalGal - 6/27/2001 3:30:54 PM

Indy,

Well, I thought it amusingly ironic, but I am serious. It's one of many problems I would have with your hypothetical drug--starting with civil liberties and moving upwards. If you don't see that it would be an advantage, I'm not sure what you're missing.

You were trying to come up with a non-punishment that would also deter future crime. But your non-punishment is a punishment, it also would be disastrous from any number of standpoints, and it's just plain dumb.

I'd go with jail time anyway, but upon review I realize that I'd never administer the drug.

20938. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 3:32:05 PM

Granted, we COULD treasure safety over privacy so that we WOULD use the mindscan machine on everyone.

But assume a world in which we still care about privacy, and in which we don't routinely mindscan every Joe on the street checking for criminal thoughts.

Okay?

If you want to assume a world in which safety trumps privacy, fair enough, but that's not the world I'm asking about.

20939. Dusty - 6/27/2001 3:49:28 PM

AceofSpades

It makes you an ass to assert that, given a mindscan machine, it MUST be the case we can use it on every citizen to check for future lawbreaking, as this is quite simply not the case now with breathalyzers, fingerprints, and DNA samples.
I'm happy to let you carry on your discussion, rather than this diversion. But you asked.
We don't obtain DNA samples to determine whether future crimes will be committed, we obtain them for evidence in existing cases. Ditto breathalyzers. They aren't examples of your point.
Fingerprints are a better example, but not perfect. Are you saying we no longer gather fingerprints on everyone? When I was in 6th grade, the police came in and fingerprinted everyone. I assume this was routine. I won't be surprised if it was stopped on privacy grounds, but, for some time, every student was routinely fingerprinted (unless there was some reason to believe southern Maine students were likely future criminals.

(Pelle, as an aside, I trust you received my email?)

20940. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 3:59:15 PM

We don't obtain DNA samples to determine whether future crimes will be committed, we obtain them for evidence in existing cases. Ditto breathalyzers. They aren't examples of your point.

Yes they are. Having DNA samples of everyone would be helpful to solving future crimes, but we do not do it, for we value privacy over the law-enforcement value (and there is a high value) to having all DNA samples on file.

We do not do dragnet breathalyzers, even though that would certainly help us catch all people intoxicated in public (and that is a crime in most jurisdictions; even where it's not, doing dragnet breathalyzers all drivers would help us catch every single DWI offender). Again, why? Because we value privacy over the law-enforcement value of such tactics.

You are postulating that, suddenly given a mindscan machine, we would suddenly reverse our preference for privacy and become an authoritarian safety-state which mindscans EVERYONE in order to prevent future crime. Well, perhaps. But I find it unlikely, and it is certainly not INEVITABLE, even if likely. If it is not inevitable -- if the contrary situation is not IMPOSSIBLE -- I am free to stipulate the contrary situation.

You are being like Pelle, who asked, "Gee, does everyone accept God's/the mindscan machine's word as authoritative?" The question gets a "duh" response: Of course. And for you: Your question gets a "duh" response too. Crime has not been eliminated by the mindscan machine. Full stop; end sentence. The Mindscan Machine is not used on every citizen in large-scale psychoanalytic dragnet. Again: Full stop.

That simple.

You can argue "Gee, wouldn't we...?" My hypothetical says: Maybe we would, but we're not in the hypothetical.

20941. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 3:59:32 PM

Fingerprints are a better example, but not perfect. Are you saying we no longer gather fingerprints on everyone?

Yes, we don't. I have never been fingerprinted, nor has anyone even ASKED that I be fingerprinted, except for specific purposes (such as identity-checking on the bar exam, etc.) And I was only fingerprinted in those circumnstances because I was applying for bar membership; had I not so applied, I'd've never been fingerprinted.

When I was in 6th grade, the police came in and fingerprinted everyone. I assume this was routine.

It's not. Further, the police probably had your parents' permission. Your prints were taken to identify you if you went missing, not as a law-enforcement tool. Sometimes we do things to protect children that we don't do generally to adults.

20942. ElliottRW - 6/27/2001 4:09:18 PM

Punishment is not justified simply by the satisfaction it provokes. Is punishment more justified when the victim is angry than when the victim is willing to forgive? No. Punishment is justified mainly by its effectiveness at preventing antisocial behavior. Punishment that goes beyond the goal of preventing antisocial behavior is of dubious benefit and obvious harm.

20943. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 4:17:05 PM

Oh?

Assume we know for a fact (for whatever reason) that punishing a recidivist criminal, who has killed time and time again, will not dissuade him from killing further. If we put him in jail, he will kill prison guards. If we put him in exile, he will escape and kill people who live near the exiled community.

So we know for a fact that punishing him will not decrease the number of murders of innocents he will commit.

Are you saying that, in this case, we should therefore not punish him at all?


Or, to reverse the hypothetical:

Assume that a man snaps and kills his wife. We know for a fact this was an aberrent event and he has never before engaged in antisocial behavior and NEVER WILL engage in antisocial behavior again.

Furthermore, punishing him will not deter other criminals nor will it deter the man himself (he already is deterred: we know he will not offend again), and he is contrite and in no need of rehabilitation.

Should we punish this man or just let him go? Bear in mind, punishing him serves no corrective purpose, no deterrent purpose, no incapacitative purpose. So, you're saying we should just let him go since no punishment we could mete out would do anything except punish him for the mere sake of punishment?




(And here we go again. I can't wait to see a whole new round of hypothetical-fighting and premise-changing.)

20944. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 4:20:30 PM

But we can't KNOW he won't kill again...

But we don't KNOW our recidivist murderer will definitely kill again...

Yes you do: The hypothetical says so. Assume these things are true; the hypothetical is designed your assertion that you ONLY wish to punish in order to correct/incapacitate/deter/cure. If you ONLY wish to accomplish these goals, then you will surely let the one-time-only wife-killer go, for you cannot accomplish any permissible purpose by punishing him, and you will have no need to punish the recidivist criminal, for he will not mend his ways in response to your punishment and will kill the same number of people.

20945. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 4:22:53 PM

The only we-can't-be-vengeful whiner who has forthrightly answered this question so far is Angel-5, who ultimately said "well let him go, then."

(albeit only after rejecting the hypothetical and changing its premises and adding in his own premises for 48 hours; but ultimately he did answer. But, unlike most here, he actually DID answer, eventually.)

20946. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 4:35:39 PM

Oh: And yes, Allistair did ultimately say "Punish him anyway," though he has not yet been able to say precisely upon what grounds the person should be punished.

Sometimes he claims "consistency" as his rationale, though it isn't clear why it's "consistent" to punish without a rationale, simply because you punish when you DO have a rationale. One would think that "consistency" dictates that you punish when you DO have justification, and you don't punish when you DON'T have justification; but no, Alistair assures us that "consistency" means you punish WITH justification and you punish WITHOUT justification. It's a strange definition of consistency, and he hasn't yet fully explained it. But of course I have high hopes.


Sometimes he claims "justice" demands punishment, and he is unwilling or unable to explain what this elastic term might possibly mean. Again, I have high hopes that perhaps, one day in the far future, he will define "justice" in concrete terms.

And sometimes he says "I'll lose no sleep sending him to jail," which SEEMS to admit he wants to send the man to jail because he DESERVES it, which is the concept of "retribution," but he claims that yes, he wants the guy punished just because he deserves to be punished, and yes, perhaps that is what is described as "retribution," but retribution is bad and he doesn't believe in retribution. So in other words he believes in the concept of retribution but not the word "retribution" itself. Again, we'll see what he means.

Maybe. If he feels like answering. Given his pattern so far, he won't.

20947. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 4:48:37 PM

Ace: The only way I can answer your hypotheticals is if you answer an additional question. In your system is there a God, or not?

Now in the first you had God answering all these questions, so I assume that means there is a God. In that case, my statement about asking him wasn't in jest. If we have God, then we do our best to find out what he wants (we will then have a definition of justice: what God says it is), and act accordingly.

If no God, then no justice. So we can do whatever the hell we feel like. In that case, all definitions of justice are equally arbitrary and personal. You want retribution as part of justice. Fine, that's your definition of it. Alistair doesn't. Fine, that's his definition of it. Or choose the definition that most people find acceptable.

Since justice is a nebulous, fanciful construct in such a scenario, either of you can pursue it however you want and neither is morally superior to the other. One of you may be able to find more utility in one definition over the other, but even utility is going to have to rest somewhere on a values system.

And without God all such values systems are equally subjective. (Generalization to which I'm sure exceptions can be found, but works for most cases.)

Without God, I think a fairly rational values system is doing whatever makes me feel good.

20948. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 4:57:14 PM

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You know for a fact the hypothetical murderer will never kill again and that there is no deterrent effect to punishing him and there is no need for moral correction/rehabilitation.

It's that simple. Whether "God" tells you all this or whether 100 psychologists with PERFECT powers of insight and analysis and prediction or whether a mindscan machine tells you: It's up to you. Take whatever blessed premise you find most felicitous; it doesn't matter.

The fact remains: You know what the hypothetical tells you to a 100% certainty.

20949. vonKreedon - 6/27/2001 4:59:38 PM

Ace - Given the assumption that we can know that a serial murderer will kill again, that even sending the murderer to solitary confinement will eventually lead to another murder, given that we know this then we should kill the murderer.

Given the assumption that we know that a wife murderer will not ever kill again and that we can know that jail time will have no benefit for anyone, including relations of the victim, then do not send the murderer to jail. Hard for me to imagine that there would be no benefit to sentencing the murderer to therapy.

20950. vonKreedon - 6/27/2001 5:02:10 PM

On the subject of hypothetical arguments and traps; of course it's a trap, Ace (or nearly anyone else in this thread) would not be positing the hypothetical if they did not see a gain to their argument in getting a response. That is not noteworthy and I wonder at Pelle's taking note of it.

20951. vonKreedon - 6/27/2001 5:03:55 PM

I mean, it's like running a half-court trap in basketball, or an off-sides trap in soccer, the question is how well is the trap run, not whether or not such traps are fair or anything.

20952. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 5:06:37 PM

"If no God, then no justice. So we can do whatever the hell we feel like. In that case, all definitions of justice are equally arbitrary and personal. You want retribution as part of justice. Fine, that's your definition of it. Alistair doesn't. Fine, that's his definition of it. Or choose the definition that most people find acceptable. "

I'm not asking about OBJECTIVE justice. I am inquiring into each person's SUBJECTIVE definition of justice.

In case this isn't clear, it is believed (by me and others) that those who CLAIM they don't believe in retribution really do.

The hypothetical is meant to illuminate the disconnect between what is claimed and what is actually believed.

You are asking about "What is objectively right?"

I am NOT asking "What is objectively right?" I am asking: What do you REALLY believe is SUBJECTIVELY right?

Those who claim that punishment can ONLY be justified on the utilitiarian grounds of deterrence, incapacitation, and/or moral correction/rehabilitation SHOULD say that where those ends cannot be achieved, no punishment is warranted, and the hypothetical murderer should go free.

But they *DON'T* say that.

Why?

Because although they mouth the words "We cannot punish based on a desire for vengeance or out of some moral conviction that the person deserves to be punished," when push comes to shove -- and when all "enlightened" justifications for punishment are absent -- they still want to see the person punished.

Why?

Because they want retribution.

So all your talk of God and what justice "really means" is inapposite. We are speaking here of subjective beliefs.

20953. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 5:06:51 PM

And I assert, and no one has even come close to contradicting me, that those who deny a desire for retribution actually DO desire it. They're just not willing to admit it, either to me or to themselves.


Alistair gave the game away when he admitted, as he put it, an additional "non-utilitarian" justification for punishment. Well, as I learned it, there were three utilitarian justifications -- deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation --and one non-utilitarian justification -- retribution. Punishment for the sake of punishment, punishment because the person deserves it irregardless of any utilitarian benefits might be realized, or not realized, by his punishment.

Alistair speaks vaguely of a "non-utilitarian" justification for punishment which is NOT retribution. I know of none; neither do the theorists I have read know of such a mystery justification. I do not deny, absolutely, that one might exist; but I sure would like to know what this non-utilitarian justification might be. It sure sounds like "retribution" going by a different name.

20954. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 5:13:12 PM

If something is "non-utilitarian," it means, by definition (look it up), that there are no practical benefits to doing it. If you punish someone for "non-utilitarian" reasons, you punish JUST TO PUNISH.

Again: This is what retribution is. Retribution says we do not punish just for the sake of the utilitarian benefits which might be gained; we punish because it is right to punish, and that the offender deserves to be punished. He has transgressed morally; it is a moral necessity that we punish him for that, even if punishing him secures us no additional practical benefits.

So, Alistair claims he supports punishing for "non utilitarian" reasons; he also says he is against punishing for purposes of retribution. Fair enough. But I anxiously await learning what on earth this novel justification might be -- a non-utilitarian justification which is NOT plain old vanilla retribution.

Even if he comes up with a new name for it -- like "Sugary Happy Punishment Fun-Justification" -- that name seems to describe PRECISELY what everyone else on planet earth calls "retribution."

20955. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 5:15:01 PM

Ace: Well, I no longer no what you're asking then. I thought the premise you kept getting at was "what is justice?"

20956. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 5:15:28 PM

second no = know

20957. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 5:16:41 PM

20955 is a crosspost. Still reading your later posts.

20958. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 5:17:23 PM

"Given the assumption that we know that a wife murderer will not ever kill again and that we can know that jail time will have no benefit for anyone, including relations of the victim, then do not send the murderer to jail"

Oh, you can't possibly be serious. You're just saying this because you know that logical consistency absolutely requires you to say it.

"and that we can know that jail time will have no benefit for anyone, including relations of the victim"

I find this curious. Why did you stipulate this? I didn't.

Are you suggesting that while society may not punish out of its OWN sense of a need for retribution, it may punish in order to satisfy specific citizens' need for retribution?

That's fine, but that is such a fine distinction I cannot for the life of me see any room between "real retribution" and your proposed "retribution on behalf of the victims' relations, although not society's retribution, which is impermissible."

The number of cases in which one would apply but not the other are minute.

Again, you can't be serious.

Or could you?

20959. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 5:23:16 PM

This is a bit like saying that a restaurant cannot discriminate against blacks, but may make a valid and permissible business decision to not serve blacks IF its clientele doesn't like blacks.

It says we cannot do x out of our own desire to do x, but we can do x in order to appease a client's desire for x.

This IS a distinction, but an extraodinarily fine one, and one with few real actual effects in the real world.

If society CAN secure retribution for relatives of the victim, then it's going to be securing retribution in 99% of all possible cases; retribution won't be a justification in the 1% of cases where a loner/drifter/familyless bum is killed.

If you want to give me 99% while denying me 1%, I'll take it, every time, without argument. Stipulated: We won't seek vengeance when there is no citizen to demand it. Let's shake on it.

20960. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 5:30:20 PM

"I thought the premise you kept getting at was "what is justice?""

No, the question I ask is "What justifications do you propose for punishment?"

I rule out "justice" as a justification because

1) the word has no good meaning

2) the word is ultimately what we seek to define and

3) people are using the word "justice" to avoid saying "retribution." When I ask Alistair on what other basis would you punish, if NOT for deterrence, incapacitation, or rehabilitation, he says "JUSTICE," which is cute and all, but he's using a deliberately-vague and meaningless word to avoid using the proper word: Retribution.

20961. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 5:34:15 PM

If Alistair wants to say that we can punish "for justice" -- in addition to the utilitarian bases -- and by "justice" he means "just to punish, because they deserve it," then we are in 100% agreement.

Except what he calls "justice" I call "retribution." (Well, I call it "justice" too, as a matter of fact. But specifically it's "justice" born out of retribution.)

So, if everyone agrees on that: There is no argument at all, except for the trivial semantic one. The liberals will call it "justice," seeking to obscure what they really mean; the conservatives will call it "retribution," just to rub in what we all really mean.

And if that's the extent of our differences, great! We have no differences at all!

Just don't climb up on a high horse to say "Well I don't believe in retribution." You DO believe in retribution; you just insist on calling it "justice." You don't believe in the WORD "retribution," which is fine. But you DO believe in the concept it describes.

20962. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 5:35:34 PM

Ace: Personally and subjectively, I just don't have much of a desire for retribution. Tim McVeigh's death didn't give me any satisfaction (nor would have sparing him for that matter).

If I didn't believe in God and an objective definition of justice, then maybe that would change (maybe it's only fear of God that prevents me from delighting in punishing others). There are times when I feel vengeful, but deliberating on a message board isn't one of those times.

As I told FU about Oklahoma City, a mob seeing McVeigh while firemen were pulling babies from the rubble would be more justified in attacking him and flaying him alive. Years later in the cool reason of civilization, it's harder for me to work up that much hate.

I don't say that to appear more "civilized." It's just difficult for me when dealing with real people to hate them that much. You know we really are a frail, pitiful bunch.

20963. ElliottRW - 6/27/2001 5:36:47 PM

Ace

Your first hypothetical seems implausible. Surely there is some mechanism that will prevent this criminal from killing again. Perhaps you can give me an actual case to discuss which illustrates your hypothetical. Since I assume that you cannot, I will give you a silly answer to your silly question: I prefer to punish the criminal (presumably through incarceration) because the death of prison guards is preferable to the death of random citizens in the same way that the deaths of paid soldiers are preferable to the deaths of civilians.

As for your second hypothetical, it too is a bit implausible--how can we know the things you suppose?--but if the facts you suppose were knowable, then yes, I say let the husband go.

20964. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 5:41:17 PM

You assume, incorrectly, that "retribution" is synonymous with "acting out of passion." It is not.

I *feel* nothing from Tim McVeigh's death. My demand for retribution is not animated by passion, but the opposite: Cold detachment. We need retribution, we need vengeance; I have no particular "feeling" about it, and I gain no joy from killing him.

Nevertheless, it is right to put him to death because he deserves it. That's all "retribution" means.

I think perhaps the liberals (and others) get visions of wild-eyed mobs waving pitchforks and torches when we speak of retribution. That's not what the word means. (It CAN mean that, of course; but it's not what it generally means in this discussion.)

It simply means we punish not to secure a practical benefit like deterrence but simply because the offender deserves punishment and should be punished.

Everyone who reads my hypothetical and feels it's just not right that a murderer should go free even if there were no utilitarian benefits to punishment is feeling the need for retribution: Punishment just because you committed a crime.

Not to make the world safer.

Not to put a smile on a child's face.

Not to do the criminal a favor, by teaching him the error of his ways.

But simply to punish him for doing wrong, because he deserves it, and because it is wrong NOT to punish him.

That's all the word means, and all it has ever meant.

20965. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 6:09:52 PM

Adapting Indy's hypothetical:

Assume that we can insert, into the brain, a monitor which can detect when violent action is imminent. (Not terribly implausible.)

Assume further this monitor can inject a debilitating drug into the body when violent action is imminent. The drug causes a near-immediate loss of consciousness. Obviously, no one fitted with this device will be allowed to drive.

Assume further that, while the device is not especially painful, it's just not the kind of thing ANYONE wants stuck in their head; there is, then, a deterrent effect to the threat of being installed with such a device.

Assume further that, once the device has done this, it sends out a high-priority signal to the cops.

And assume finally it cannot be removed -- if someone attempts to remove it, it immediately injects the body with the debilitating drug and alerts the cops.

So.

A murderer kills your spouse and children.

The state outfits the murderer with this brain-insert. Never again will he be able to commit violence.

And then he goes back to his normal life, pretty much without paying a penalty. Sure, he doesn't like this thing stuck in his head. Sure, he is angry he can no longer drive or operate heavy machinery.

But otherwise: He is unscathed. And he's paid as light a penalty for murdering your family as is conceivably possible.

Has justice been done?

Or does justice demand something more than a mere guarantee the murderer won't commit murder again, and that other murderers will be deterred?

Is there some accounting sheet that needs to be balanced? Does he need to suffer in proximate measure to the suffering he's caused?

Or not?

20966. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 6:10:04 PM

Is the device itself enough? Is it fair that this man who has taken the lives of three or four people can now return to his own without anything but a bit of inconvenience?

If you think it's fair: Congratulations, you really *don't* believe in retribution.

If you don't think it's fair: Bad news. You *do* believe in retribution, though you might cringe at the term.

20967. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 6:12:39 PM

Is the device itself enough? Is it fair that this man who has taken the lives of three or four people can now return to his own without anything but a bit of inconvenience?

If you think it's fair: Congratulations, you really *don't* believe in retribution.

If you don't think it's fair: Bad news. You *do* believe in retribution, though you might cringe at the term.

20968. ElliottRW - 6/27/2001 6:35:30 PM

Ace,

Before I address your hypothetical, it's only fair that you first address one of mine, no?

Mine may sound familiar, but I suspect it will be beyond your grasp, since it requires you to imagine that your are not who you are. Do you think you can do that?

If you can, then suppose that you are about to come to life and you do not know what you will be, or who you will be, only that you will be intelligent. You do have a single choice to make: you have a choice of the system of justice of the planet on which you will be born. Some planets have justice systems based upon principles of retribution ("an eye for an eye") and other planets have justice systems based upon a concept of social welfare ("the best interests of society") and still other planets have justice systems based upon other principles ("the will of the king," "might makes right," etc.) Every conceivable system is available.

What system would you choose?

20969. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 6:42:54 PM

Retribution. Next?

20970. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 6:44:07 PM

Although not literally an "eye for an eye." An extreme, literal brand of retibutive justice might call for that, but no retributive systems of justice which are actually contemplated today.

Our current criminal code is largely retributive, for example. It ought to be more so.

20971. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 6:49:07 PM

Your hypothetical is impossible in principle, by the way.

First you ask that I pretend I am not who I am; then you ask, "Which would *you* want...?"

Well, if I'm me, I want retribution. If I'm someone else, it's hard to say what I'd want. If I were someone LIKE me, I'd want retribution. If I were a liberal fairy of some sort, I'd want some sort of Sugary-Sweet Happy-Time Fun-Justice.

You simultaneously ask me to "be someone else" then you ask me to use my own mind and preferences and logic and thoughts to make a choice.

I've no problem attempting such a task; but I'm not quite sure it's possible. It's like asking me: "Forget you like pizza. Pretend you're someone else, who doesn't necessarily like the taste of pizza. Now, forgetting your own desire to eat pizza, and pretending you don't necessarily like it, let me ask you: Would you like some pizza?"

Well, yes, EliotRW: I would like some pizza. Next question?

20972. ElliottRW - 6/27/2001 7:06:19 PM

Ace,

I don't think you took my hypothetical seriously. It was no more implausible than yours.

Tsk tsk.

The simple truth is that you have an irrational preference for retributive justice. There is no reason to prefer retribution as a principle over maximal social welfare. In fact, retributive justice can by definition only be inferior.

The fact that you (or anyone else) may have feelings of satisfaction when witnessing or engaging in retribution does not make retribution right or wrong.

What makes something right or wrong is whether or not there is a better choice; that is, a choice that results in less suffering and more happiness. If so, then the course contemplated is wrong. If not, then the course may reasonably claim to be right.

I encourage you to make the case, if you are willing, that retributive justice is the best choice, right now, for us. That is, I encourage you to make case that every other system of justice, of which you are aware, results in more suffering and less happiness.

You have not done so with your hypotheticals. All you have shown is that some people want revenge. On that point, I concede agreement.

20973. Rama - 6/27/2001 7:07:28 PM

I read a science fiction story along those lines once. As a punishment, surgery was performed so that the murderer would have an epileptic seizure whenever he contemplated any violent behavior. And then he was allowed to roam free.

Oh, except for one other thing. At the same time they fiddled with his brain, they fiddled with his body chemistry so that he stank, always, like a rotten cadaver. And everybody in the society knew that that was the smell of a murderer.

During the course of the story, he manages to flirt, briefly, with a young woman who he meets while scuba diving, but once the mask is off, her reaction sends him into grand mal.

20974. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 7:09:54 PM

I don't think you took my hypothetical seriously. It was no more implausible than yours.

It's not a question of "implausibility." It's a question of futility.

You cannot tell someone "Pretend you're someone else who has an entirely different brain and different set of preferences and tell me what you'd prefer in this situation."

I can try to do so, but it's still my brain speculating about what I'd prefer with someone else's brain, no?

Elliot, pretend you're someone else who doesn't necessarily like pizza. Are you pretending? Good. Here's the question: Does this imaginary person you're pretending to be want to eat some pizza?

20975. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 7:11:26 PM

Do you like opera?

Now pretend you're someone else who doesn't necessarily like or dislike opera. Does this imaginary person you're pretending to be like opera?

You see the problem here, son?

20976. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 7:18:13 PM

The problem isn't that I object to your premise. Your premise is fine. The problem is that you then ask me to take an action I am incapable of, i.e., telling you what I'd prefer if I weren't me.


By the way:

If a kid robs a liquor store as a thrill-crime, but he comes from a very good family, will likely go on to be wealthy and therefore a very low threat of repeat offending, and there isn't much deterrent effect because his peer group isn't likely to rob liquor storesetc., should he be punished more leniently?

Hee, hee, hee. Now all the liberals have to reverse themselves and say "Good god, NO! He should be punished MORE severely because he committed a crime without a NEED to do so! We have to teach this rich little (white!) bastard a FUCKING LESSON, POSTHASTE!!!"

Ah ha ha ha.


When it's a white rich kid, suddenly we need to "teach lessons." Suddenly retribution is the suhhh-weetest fucking theory anyone ever heard of.

20977. LohrM - 6/27/2001 7:19:29 PM

What's the point of being from a wealthy class/family if you can't do a few thrill-crimes and walk away from them unscathed?

20978. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 7:23:41 PM

Rich white liquor store robber:

-- unlikely to repeat-offend

-- unlikely to NEED to repeat-offend

-- father promises to cut off his trust fund should he ever commit another crime

-- father also agrees to pay liquor store owner to drop charges; liquor store owner will agree to NEVER again mention that this rich white kid robbed him; hence a low (perhaps nonexistent) deterrent function to punishing the kid, as no one will even know the crime even occurred


Poor black kid liquor store robber:

-- likely to NEED to rob again

-- likely WILL rob again

-- has no family to vouch for him; no family to pay off liquor store owner

-- since everyone knows about the robbery (and no one can pay off the liquor store owner to stay quiet), there IS a deterrent effect to punishing him



Now, all you "we should only punish for utilitarian reasons" bullshit artists:

WHO here should be punished the worse?

Gentlemen, start your engines. You have 24 hours to concoct the most rididulous, convoluted reasons why the rich white kid should be punished more severely and yet claim you're not basing this assertion on the requirement of retribution.

20979. Uzmakk - 6/27/2001 7:24:05 PM

You're good Ace. Retribution? Absolutely. Living on the retribution planet would give me a warm feeling, but I don't know whether that's because the retribution planet has two suns, or 'cause its the retribution planet. Moties in Plato's cave was laugh out loud.

20980. Uzmakk - 6/27/2001 7:25:32 PM

Man things are hot on this thread. 25 posts in the time it took me to pen my little compliment.

20981. ElliottRW - 6/27/2001 7:27:54 PM

Ace,

I have no problem with my hypothetical. But then, I like math. All you have to do is treat preferences as abstractions. When applied to you, happiness means pizza, suffering means realizing that you're going to die lonely. For me, happiness means seeing my children's smiles, suffering is being tired and hot. But in both cases, happiness and suffering.

The simple answer to my hypothetical is this: any reasonable person whose only preference is to be happy and avoid suffering would choose a system for which no other system would result in both more happiness and less suffering.

But let's set aside my hypothetical for a second, it's obviously not working for you.

My point is that retributive justice is just another system, which you prefer for no particular reason than it makes you happy.

20982. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 7:28:06 PM

Retribution posits the white kid should be punished more severely: the greater the transgression, the greater the penalty, regardless of any utilitarian benefits which might, or might NOT, exist.

I can't wait to hear the hypothetical-resistors start claiming that we have to punish the white kid, because if we don't we'll have riots and teach that justice is not blind, etc.

Trouble is: The liquor store owner is willing to accept $5,000 to say nothing about the robbery. No one except the kid, his father, the DA, and the judge need to know about it.

Are we *still* only concerned with deterrence and such?

Or now that we're talking about a white kid (boo! hiss!), are our moral feathers all ruffled?

Are we suddenly filled with blood-lust?

Hee, hee, hee.

20983. Rama - 6/27/2001 7:29:32 PM

What are the other acceptable reasons for preference?

20984. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 7:56:35 PM

Tightening up the hypo:

Both kids wore masks. The liquor store owner cannot identify them. If they are to be identified, it will be through physical evidence or statements made to friends.

The rich white kid's father discovered he'd done the crime (he found the kid's stash of loot); the father dragged the kid to a friendly DA. No cops know the kid was involved.

Further, assume it is legal for the judge to take into account the kid's likelihood of repeat-offending (low) and the fact that the kid's father will make ammends with the liquor store owner. You can assume this is true because it IS true. It's not a payoff; neither the DA or judge is being bribed. But they will consider the crime mitigated if the complaining witness is well-compensated, which he will be.

So:

Rich white kid does a thrill-crime robbery. No deterrent effect to punishing him, since no one need know about the crime. No incapacitation benefit, since the kid won't offend again, and if he does he's going to lose a substantial trust fund.

Black kid does a robbery out of pure need. As this need will not likely go away in the near future, he will likely rob more stores unless punished.

Question: Who deserves a greater penalty?

20985. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 7:59:49 PM

Ace: We're just going round and round because on the one hand you want to talk about subjective justice, but then you talk about it as though it were objective. Once more: If justice is an objective thing (God-given truth or just a quality like the Force that flows through the universe), then that's what it is. Either it comprises retribution or it doesn't. My personal belief is that God defines justice and because we cannot personally live up to pure justice, we have to dispense mercy at times and hope that we will receive mercy in the future as well.

It's apparent that your idea of objective justice is tit for tat. Yet I don't see how that ever really works, hence how it exists objectively. The only way for such justice to in fact exist would be if all of us lived life as every other being in the cosmos via reincarnation or some such. That way, everything we ever did to something else would come back on us. It is impossible otherwise to make a criminal suffer the same way he makes his victim suffer.

Timothy McVeigh in no way suffered comparably to the suffering he inflicted--at least not because of lethal injection. Nothing you could do to any of the great monsters of history would punish them commensurately with their evil.

If you want to talk subjectively, then it's all bullshit anyway because evil is also subjective.

20986. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 7:59:51 PM

The "utilitarian benefits" of punishing the poor black kid are far greater than such benefits for punishing the white kid. Much, much greater. Thrill crimes don't happen too often at all, so it's silly to say we need to "send a message about thrill crimes." Maybe we do, but we need to send a more urgent about economically-motivated crime, which occurs about 10,000 times more frequently.

The poor black kid is much more likely to repeat-offend, as he has an actual economic need to do so; and the peer group likely to be deterred by his punishment will ALSO be more likely to rob liquor stores than the rich white kid's peer group.


Should the kids get an equal penalty?

Or should the white kid get a stiffer penalty?

If so, on what possible basis do you justify this?

Do you want to send a message that rich white kids will be punished more severely? Fine, but only rich white kids will therefore be deterred by the prospect of a stiffer-than-customary penalty; poor black kids know that such an increased penalty wouldn't apply to them. Don't claim that a special penalty carved out specifically for rich white brats will be incorrectly perceived to be genuinely applicable. If it's a special penalty, it will be regarded as such, and no one not in the rich white kid's circumstance will erroneously believe the enhanced penalty will be applicable to him.**

Let me suggest: Perhaps it's just that the rich white brat deserves a harsher penalty, deterrence and rehabilitation be damned.



** If you have to start hypothesizing that people are stupid and don't understand it's a special penalty, perhaps you're being a tad more ridiculous than humanly acceptable.

20987. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 8:03:00 PM

"We're just going round and round because on the one hand you want to talk about subjective justice, but then you talk about it as though it were objective"

Not really. I'm not particularly interested in proving that retribution is objectively superior.

I believe that, of course, but I haven't been arguing it.

By and large I've limited myself to a single claim about SUBJECTIVE notions of justice: That 99% of those who claim they are against retribution are lying to themselves.

20988. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 8:06:17 PM

As far as your hypothetical about the punishment device, I have said previously in the DP discussion that I *did* have a loved one murdered and the murderer never served a prison sentence. Now did I at anytime want retribution, yes, but not ever did I want to see the person tortured or killed. (I did think at times it was my duty to kill the murderer, however--that I was obligated as a man not to let this person go free and unscathed.)

But as you say, this wasn't any feeling of glee. Nor did I think of it as "justice," but just plain old vengeance: that the victim expected me to avenge the crime.

I don't feel that way anymore.

20989. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2001 8:08:59 PM

First you ask that I pretend I am not who I am; then you ask, "Which would *you* want...?"

And this is what I've been trying to tell you from the beginning. To accept your hypothetical, I have to believe that justice is not an objective truth--when I in fact think it is.

And yes, I think objectively, retribution is involved, but I think that the retribution is best dispensed by God (sometimes human beings may act as God's agent, but one must have an extremely clear heart in doing so).

20990. CalGal - 6/27/2001 9:48:36 PM

In Elliot's hypothetical, I would choose retribution every time. In Ace's hypothetical, the guy goes to jail anyway, then afterwards gets the device--if he's allowed out.

One thing that Ace touched on tangentially (although I don't know his opinion on this) is the relative value of the victim. To my mind, it is the state and only the state who seeks retribution. I don't think that victims should have any say in the outcome, or that prosecutors should seek their input.

20991. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 9:55:26 PM

vK suggested that, not me.

20992. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 9:56:33 PM

"In Ace's hypothetical, the guy goes to jail anyway, then afterwards gets the device--if he's allowed out. "

No, in my hypothetical, he doesn't go to jail at all.

20993. CalGal - 6/27/2001 10:02:09 PM

No, I was giving you my answer. In Elliot's hypothetical, I'd say this. In Ace's, I'd do that--namely, he goes to jail. But I like the device for additional penalty. After X years of more expensive punishment, we can prolong it by a cheaper method.

20994. arkymalarky - 6/27/2001 10:30:29 PM

Dadgum, the Americans have invaded and apparently conquered the International thread. Go team!

20995. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:34:02 PM

I know. It's pretty funny.

20996. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:34:42 PM

I like it here. A lot of short people. Makes me feel good to tower over these tiny foreigners.

I may stay a while. Maybe visit a cathouse.

20997. arkymalarky - 6/27/2001 10:38:04 PM

Y'no, what would really be tasteless American behavior would to be to race for a millennial in here.

20998. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:38:38 PM

oh shit

20999. arkymalarky - 6/27/2001 10:38:41 PM

Y'know, I mean.

21000. AceofSpades - 6/27/2001 10:38:52 PM

now

21001. arkymalarky - 6/27/2001 10:39:44 PM

Rats. My ISP's creeping again.

21002. vonKreedon - 6/28/2001 1:17:46 AM

Ace says to me in Message # 20958:
"Given the assumption that we know that a wife murderer will not ever kill again and that we can know that jail time will have no benefit for anyone, including relations of the victim, then do not send the murderer to jail"

Oh, you can't possibly be serious. You're just saying this because you know that logical consistency absolutely requires you to say it.

I can be quite serious, and consistency has little to do with it. I'm a relativist, so my only point of consistency is that my answer depends on the context. In this context I am quite comfortable with my answer.

Ace also says:
"and that we can know that jail time will have no benefit for anyone, including relations of the victim"

I find this curious. Why did you stipulate this? I didn't.

Are you suggesting that while society may not punish out of its OWN sense of a need for retribution, it may punish in order to satisfy specific citizens' need for retribution?

I am saying that it is possible that punishment has a utilitarian value in providing those involved, including the perpetrator, with a closure or other release that enables them to better continue with their lives. I don't know if this is so; if you would like to propose another absured hypothetical in which no such value exists then I can withdraw the caveat.

In Message # 20959 Ace says:
This IS a distinction, but an extraodinarily fine one, and one with few real actual effects in the real world.

Well yes, but then the proposed hypothetical is even more out of bounds with the real world, so what do you expect from the answers?

21003. Stumbo - 6/28/2001 3:27:04 AM

I have to agree with the above compliments. That was probably the funniest skit involving a philosopher since Monty Python went out of business.

21004. stostosto - 6/28/2001 4:45:31 AM

I don't see anything controversial in Ace's point of view: That justice has an element of retribution. In this country, whenever these questions are debated, the concept of the population's "sense of justice" is invoked, and accepted by all as a valid concept which must be reckoned with. And when I say all, I mean even by the leftiest of leftists (at least in the part of the political spectrum which engages in such debates at all and not veil their heads while unveiling their butts).

I am interested in hearing whether this concept figures in America: Is the "population's (or people's) sense of justice" a universally accepted term? (Or is there a different term with similar content?)

Because this is by necessity a mushy term which can't be defined logically, and which we can discuss ad infinitum given our varying preferences and "senses of justice". But at some level it's also real. A consensus that it's fair that people who hurt other people should be hurt themselves in order to, well, "get even".

The remaining question of course is whether you think getting even involves cutting off hands, poking out eyes, flogging, imprisonment, fines, or simply being told "now, now"; as well as which particular crimes corresponds to which particular kinds of retribution.

I think Ace's hypothetical does demonstrate the point that retribution is a valid concern in the way society administers justice.

21005. stostosto - 6/28/2001 5:09:23 AM

One way to counter a hypothetical is to offer an alternative hypothetical.

In Ace's case, I think he has demonstrated that retribution has some inherent value, defers to people's sense of justice. So far, so good.

But can we conclude then that we should necessarily punish the guy? Consider:

Suppose there are costs to punishing the guy? (Administering DP or prison is costly in money terms; it risks diminish the value (sanctity) of life; the logic of fierce retribution might spill into spheres of society where we'd rather like to keep them out; it risks brutalising society).

Suppose there are other alternatives? (Society could spend money on things that would make life better, perhaps, specifically, for the relatives to the dead wife).

In fact, Ace:

What if the costs are enormous?

What if the alternatives to punishment would better society?

Say what if God came along and told us these things were sure consequences of the proposed act of punishing the man for his deeds.

Would you still favour retribution?


---
This hypothetical is different in nature, of course, because Ace's hypothetical only concerned itself with demonstrating that retribution is part of most people's sense of justice, i.e. it has some inherent value in and of itself. This hypothetical is to say that the alternatives to punishment might also have some value -- i.e. even if you grant Ace's point (which as I said is hardly controversial), that's not the end of the discussion. Not even close.

21006. PelleNilsson - 6/28/2001 5:37:12 AM

Of course retribution is a factor. But I think Alistair argued, and I agree, that society punishes a culprit because he or she has broken its norms, the "social contract" if you want. Society does not act as an agent who delivers revenge on behalf of the victim or relatives.

Ace, it seems, wants to conflate the concepts "retribution" and "revenge". I don't agree to that.

21007. stostosto - 6/28/2001 7:32:18 AM

Pelle,

Crimes have individual victims, and these have a personal urge to get even -- get revenge if you will. Now, if society wants to prevent people from vigilance, victims have to feel that whatever punishment society meters out is at least partly an acceptable proxy for personal revenge. That's a basis for their accepting that society acts on their behalf.

The concept of a "social contract" in itself is too abstract to carry much appeal as opposed to the personal pain of crime victims.

Therefore I think it's inevitable that "retribution" embodies an element of "revenge".

21008. alistairconnor - 6/28/2001 9:04:03 AM

Message # 20902 MsIvoryTower, instinct is a very blunt instrument. It's nature's way of getting us to do something which will be, more often than not, advantageous to us. In the case of the revenge instinct, it is hard to think of any evolutionary justification for it, other than its deterrent effect.

For example, men have a rape instinct (you may not like to envisage that idea, most men don't like it, but it's a simple fact.) We don't glorify or admire this instinct (except perhaps in certain sub-cultures), nor codify it as a basis for law or morality. That's an extreme example, but I want to illustrate that instincts must be questioned, analysed, and understood, in order to extract the rational principles, especially where justice is concerned.

As for my "religious" crack, well, I just wanted to express my view that justice should be rational and dispassionate, unless religion comes into it somewhere.

21009. MsIvoryTower - 6/28/2001 9:10:23 AM

Alistair

Oh, I'm with you. We should try to weed out instincts that are counter to a "civil society". However, that the state takes on the role of being the avenger of injustice against its citizens is a good thing in my view. It's the only reason that vigilente justice can be stamped out, IMHO.

In a civil society, the state dispenses retribution for individuals, and does so according to some agreed upon principles and standards. Granted that those are not always consistently applied, for a number of reasons, but the idea that the state has an obligation to act as the avenger in place of individual judgment and actions is part and parcel of maintaining such a society.

21010. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 9:12:54 AM

Society does not act as an agent who delivers revenge on behalf of the victim or relatives.

Pelle: This is another thing that we may think now and try to distance ourselves from but is likely not how it developed. It was beneficial to society to have "damage control," and one way to keep family feuds from continuing on and on was for society to step in and issue a verdict.

Hence, rather than the retribution spiral on indefinitely, society became the agent of revenge--like a referee calling a foul rather than letting two basketball players settle it mano y mano.

21011. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 9:14:59 AM

For example, men have a rape instinct (you may not like to envisage that idea, most men don't like it, but it's a simple fact.)

Whoa! Now there's a discussion likely to draw some heat.

21012. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 9:17:58 AM

We should try to weed out instincts that are counter to a "civil society".

Ms IT: By "we," do you mean society--or the individual?

Because I think there's a good argument can be made that for the conscious, aware individual, society's aims are not always the same as his (or her) own. Nor is there any inherent reason that they should be--especially if that individual chooses not to procreate.

21013. MsIvoryTower - 6/28/2001 9:20:37 AM

Indiana

I suppose I was referring to we as a society. I can't imagine an instance where an entire society can reflect each individual's aims. I'd say that's impossible, if not downright creepy.

21014. alistairconnor - 6/28/2001 9:27:07 AM

Hey, I learned something today. I understand why I'm not a mathematician or a lawyer. I hate hypotheticals. Just can't see the point in my poor little holistic pragmatic brain.

Having said that...

There is one more premise I should have changed. OK, so the verdict is top secret, so there is no deterrence. BUT, you will also have to wipe all record of the verdict, INCLUDING THE MEMORY OF THOSE INVOLVED IN THE JUDGEMENT. That way, you get rid of the consistency argument, which was in fact my principled reason for sentencing.

With that proviso, yeah, you can let the fucker go. OR lock him up. No problem with either one. Toss a coin if you can't decide.

21015. alistairconnor - 6/28/2001 9:29:56 AM

I confess I only skimmed the liquor store hypothetical, but I think the consistency argument blows that one out of the water too. Your judicial system will quickly get into the habit of letting off rich white kids, and giving long sentences to poor black kids, in practice pre-judging the outcome irrespective of the merits of the case.

21016. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 9:30:29 AM

Ms. IT: What I was referring to was the weeding out--whether you thought an individual should try to act only in conformity with society's good and seek to eliminate any impulses that value the "one over the many." Or whether only society was the "we" that should act to eliminate impulses contrary to what the society (collectively) decides is "good."

I can't imagine an instance where an entire society can reflect each individual's aims.

Hmmm...well I think all societies are sums of their parts. A prison even is a product of conflicting social aims. That is, one part of society aims that there be no violation of its rules, not that there be prisons. Another part aims to break those rules--not that the people adhering to this subset go to prison. Hence, the prison is a product of both (and yet neither).

I'd say that's impossible, if not downright creepy.

I don't understand the "creepy" comment.

21017. MsIvoryTower - 6/28/2001 9:38:51 AM

What I was referring to was the weeding out--whether you thought an individual should try to act only in conformity with society's good and seek to eliminate any impulses that value the "one over the many." Or whether only society was the "we" that should act to eliminate impulses contrary to what the society (collectively) decides is "good."

I fail to see the distinction you attempt here. However, to answer what I now think was your point, we as a society should not incorporate instincts that undermine the stated values and aims of the society itself.

For instance, if we argue that all men and women are equal under the law, and if men have an instinct for rape, then incorporating laws that allow rape without any legal recourse for women would undermine the state, I believe. It delegitimizes it.

And it would be a very creepy society, IMHO, in which every individual had the same goals and aims, in which each individual was expected to have the exact goals and aims of the collective. This is what I meant by my comment.

21018. CalGal - 6/28/2001 9:46:39 AM

then incorporating laws that allow rape without any legal recourse for women would undermine the state, I believe. It delegitimizes it

We had laws like this until recently (ie, statutory rape) and functionally, our legal system does this sort of incorporation all the time.

21019. MsIvoryTower - 6/28/2001 9:49:07 AM

Huh?

Statutory rape laws are certainly not an example of what I suggested. They are, in fact, the opposite.

21020. CalGal - 6/28/2001 10:05:29 AM

Lazy quotes. I meant the delegitimizing part, sorry. I agree with you on this (as I think you know).

21021. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 10:12:04 AM

I fail to see the distinction you attempt here.

I think it's pretty clear. If I as an individual want to embezzle money and know that I can get away with it, should I personally "weed out" that desire because it's bad for society--versus should society send me to jail? Or on another level, if I like to use drugs, same thing. Or if I like to watch porno movies. Or if I like to think evil thoughts, etc.

I was just curious as to whether you thought human beings should weed out antisocial impulses they notice occurring in their own personalities or society should weed out nonconformist human beings (or at least those nonconformist impules) or both.

As I keep saying, I cannot see any purely rational reason for an aware, conscious individual to adhere to society's conventions that conflict with his or her own desires if society lacks the ability to enforce such conformity and the person's awareness frees him from any feelings of guilt. (mandolin would have argued that human beings cannot free themselves of guilt because such feelings are ingrained. But we're supposing these antisocial behaviors are instinctive and ingrained as well.)

To use your example, you think its society's obligation to protect women. But assume a man is in a situation in which he knows he can rape a woman and get away with it. Assuming that Alistair is right about every man having a rape instinct, what argument would you make that the man should "weed out" this instinct for society's betterment, i.e. go against his own self interest?

21022. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 10:14:13 AM

And it would be a very creepy society, IMHO, in which every individual had the same goals and aims, in which each individual was expected to have the exact goals and aims of the collective. This is what I meant by my comment.

Okay. I thought you meant the opposite (or at least something somewhat different) because the "this" referred to a society that reflected every individual's aims--not all individuals adhering to the same set of aims.

21023. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 10:16:31 AM

(I apologize to the International Folks. I think the discussion the last couple of days is really good and the hosts haven't complained, but it is a bit of a thread hijacking.)

21024. MsIvoryTower - 6/28/2001 10:21:22 AM

Indiana

I did get your point after I read it again. Neither of them speak to what I meant, as I think I made clear.

This isn't my line of discussion, it's Alistairs, so I'm not going to spend time running with it. I don't think society should "weed out" anything. It's role is to implement a rule of law that serves its stated aims and goals. The example of man's rape instincts comes from Alistair, and was used only to illustrate the point that the laws a society adopts should not, when feasible, be contradictory or undermine the legitimacy of the state itself.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society that can't tolerate some differentiation between its aims or values, and the aims or values of its citizens. There should be no need for the state to "weed out" other then when it acts to implement the law. That is, individual differences should be able to co-exist as long as laws are followed.

And no, I don't believe the state should be made to be the moral compass of a society. This is, perhaps, my most vigorous dispute with the intersection of religion and politics.

21025. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 10:54:55 AM

This isn't my line of discussion, it's Alistairs, so I'm not going to spend time running with it.

MsIT: That's cool. Have enjoyed the esoteric debate the last couple of days, but perhaps we should return to regularly scheduled programming.

21026. stostosto - 6/28/2001 11:03:40 AM

Indy

I don't know why Pelle hasn't intervened, perhaps he has been cowed by the frequent criticism of him when he has done so in the past... (and perhaps I have monkeys flying out my ass).

But, please posters: Feel free to come up with international angles on this seemingly very hot topic.

The obvious one is trying to rank countries, say according to their judicial systems' degree of "retributiveness". Is the Saudi penal code more retributive than that of, say, Papua New Guinea?


(Ho hum).

21027. CalGal - 6/28/2001 11:06:57 AM

What about accuracy? Do the Saudis make an attempt to get it right, or do they figure swiftness is more important?

21028. marjoribanks - 6/28/2001 11:17:22 AM

One can relate, now, to the inhabitants of this famous neighborhood in Panama City, back in december 1989.

21029. marjoribanks - 6/28/2001 11:21:41 AM

Without much warning, munitions rained down on them. Uncomprehendingly, they watched as overwhelming forces overran their turf, as missile whipped by their ears to slam repeatedly into the place they called home.

Beyond any possible need, beyond human understanding, beyond the point where any possible reasonable outcome could be achieved, to the point where all meaning was lost.

When the dust settled, they were left with a ruin, and only time in their hands to rebuild their home.

21030. alistairconnor - 6/28/2001 11:24:56 AM

I was just curious as to whether you thought human beings should weed out antisocial impulses they notice occurring in their own personalities or society should weed out nonconformist human beings (or at least those nonconformist impules) or both.

OK indy, just one more comment before we go back to scheduled transmissions.

I think (this will probably put me in a small minority around here) that yes indeed, people should attempt to weed out their own antisocial tendencies. You don't seem to see any advantage to the individual to that; but if you are arguing from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, then you are ignoring the value to the individual (or to his gene pool) of altruistic behaviour.

Of course, it can be argued that in the modern world, for an individual isolated from their family (a Chinese immigrant in Europe, or vice versa) this is meaningless in terms of advantaging their genes. But this is where my theme of sublimating our instincts comes in. We know instinctively that altruism is good (insofar as it is likely to benefit our tribe); take away the narrow tribal restriction, and you have a useful universal human value.

I also happen to think that society should reinforce these positive universal values, rather than weaken them or be neutral. How's that for an unpopular view?

21031. stostosto - 6/28/2001 11:52:09 AM

alistair

I think Indy is an avowed Christian, and there is a strong moral imperative embodied in the Christian dictum "do unto others...". Jesus himself didn't much favour retribution, I think. "Turn the other cheek", "Forgive them, for they know not what they are doing", etc.

In fact, Jesus was rather strange that way. Almost unnatural; almost superhuman...

But didn't he believe in the betterment of humans? Preach it, even?

(Look who is now derailing the discussion -- this veers towards religion and philosophy. I quite like it...)

21032. stostosto - 6/28/2001 11:54:34 AM

marj

What was that all about..? Noriega I take it?

You're being uncharacteristically esoteric here.

21033. stostosto - 6/28/2001 11:59:07 AM

Pelle

How about a link to Ace's cave fable?

21034. marjoribanks - 6/28/2001 12:01:43 PM

Noriega, sto.

The operation 'Just Cause' wreaked havoc all over the city, destroyed completely several heavily populated neighborhoods, and permanently changed some of panama's steps towards a kind of independence.

I'm not being esoteric, I think, merely perhaps a bit mindlessly ironic.

21035. stostosto - 6/28/2001 12:09:33 PM

marj,

But what? As in so what?

Are you saying that it isn't USA's god given right to act in its capacity as the authority of last resort, if not globally then certainly in its own American backyard?

The judicial, legislating, and executive powers all rest safely with the President of the United States as far as Panama is concerned.

Why?, you may ask. Well, because.

21036. marjoribanks - 6/28/2001 12:26:16 PM

Heh.

Sto, panama was minding its own business (as were we in this thread) , then because of "just cause" it got invaded, pounded the shit out of, and left in ruins in a whirld of munitions and swaggering. I'm drawing a sorrowful analogy, dear sto, shaking my head knowingly.

Anyway, the Panama incident is (as far as I'm concerned) one of the outstanding extrajudicial acts of the past decades. A crime of quite epic proportions.

21037. stostosto - 6/28/2001 12:35:31 PM

Here is an international angle on the topic - and sprightly fresh to boot:

International Court of Justice, the Hague, June 27th.

LaGrand Case
(Germany v. United States of America)

The Court finds that the United States has breached its obligations to Germany and to the LaGrand brothers under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

21038. stostosto - 6/28/2001 12:37:49 PM

marj,

you are one subtle subcon.

21039. Jenerator - 6/28/2001 12:44:18 PM

Sto,

Jesus didn't care for the majority of Pharisees, he loathed the pride of man. He's even been known to call them white-washed sepulchres.

21040. marjoribanks - 6/28/2001 12:47:31 PM

This thread reminds me a bit of that one little village in Gaul holding out against...

Alistair gets to be Asterix, he has the right deportment and stature.

21041. marjoribanks - 6/28/2001 12:52:24 PM

Alistair:




And the following can only be Pelle:




I choose the wise alchemist for myself:




And then there is Psocko:

21042. marjoribanks - 6/28/2001 12:53:50 PM

Sto can be whoever he likes, I think Obelix would be a decent fit.

21043. stostosto - 6/28/2001 12:57:29 PM

marj,

you can't be serious!

Obelix is you, no doubt.


Marjobelix