Today is Nelson Mandelas 85th Birthday! Yay! Many Happy Returns! But... What happens when Mandela is gone? :-( http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1000592,00.html (Mandela Day should be declared the first official International Public Holiday)76 responses total.
This response has been erased.
who cares about mandela, today is *MY* birthday !
What happened when Franklin died, besides his being put on a dollar bill almost no-one uses? (Which I do realise may have been well after he actually died.)
This response has been erased.
that's what i thought.
Happy Birthday, xi! Ben Franklin? Well, okay then why not. However, that might be a harder sell than Mandela - everybody alive today knows what Mandela is famous *for*.
This response has been erased.
No, but he printed his own.
Re #6: Thank you, Jeff!
Happy Birthday, xi-- may it be a good one.
I hope that communist motherfucker dies soon. He is on Fidel Casto's payroll. He's a racist. He also is a known homosexual and child molester.
Wow. I'd really love to ask for reliable citations on all of those, except the communist one (which might be a fair cop). First, did Mandela actually have sex with his mother, or did he seduce yours?
This response has been erased.
As if the blasted Boers were *any* better. Pah. Communism is not "disturbing". It's idealist. Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism, on the other hand, scare the shit out of me. Almost as much as Dubya.
This response has been erased.
He doesn't hate all whites, he hated the white power structure. Justifiably.
This response has been erased.
If I'd been locked up on Robben Island for 20+ years for the "crime" of being an opponent of the regime, I'd want to tear it down, toss those people so far out of power they wouldn't ever come back, and put my people in charge too. To his credit, he mellowed out very fast and worked to make reconciliation happen.
Re #15: Regardless of what Communism is, if there had never been an implementation of it on a national scale which had not led to mass oppression and worse, a person who still advanced it would be seen as a would-be oppressor. Anyone making excuses for it would be seen as a person of questionable intellect or integrity. Oh, wait...
Hang on. The Soviet Union never actually implemented Communism, even by Marx's own standards. While I personally wouldn't like to see even authentic Communism implemented (I think it's dumb, and ignores some very basic facts about human nature), it isn't fair to assume that American supporters of Communism wanted the Russian strong-oppressive-state-that- damn-well-won't-wither-away kind.
In the item where I originally argued that there were two communisms, we were discussing the 1930's IIRC. Whatever the merits of Russ's argument now, it clearly made no sense in respect to people who were communists in the 1930's, when the world had much less experience with the outcome of attempts to construct communistic governments. In the present discussion, the subject is Nelson Mandela, a different ball of wax entirely. My impression is that communist movements in the third world countries are mostly about the overthrow of oligarchies. In many such nations a small group of very rich and powerful people control nearly everything, while the vast majority are very poor, with virtually no middle class in between. Populist movements in such nations naturally tend to talk about taking the wealth away from the small number of rich people and distributing it among the vast pool of poor. This is an idea that fits quite neatly into the communist philosophy, so such movement are nearly always characterized as "communist" either by the participants or by onlookers. I have sympathy with that desire. Certainly it will never be possible to have a functional democracy in countries like that unless you can make the distribution of wealth more even. As is, if you give the people the vote, they will vote to take the money from the rich, so the rich use their vast power to ensure the poor don't get a real vote. So, if redistribution of wealth is communism, then I don't think a country like this can possibly approach democracy without approaching communism. Apparantly the US government thinks so too, which is why we have such a long track record of supporting totalitarian dictators to keep the communists down. Of course, though communism is the obvious solution grasped at by the poor, it doesn't seem to work in practice. Whoever gets put in charge of redistributing the wealth, is in control of the wealth, and thus becomes the new dictator. So communism fails to actually solve the problem. Still, I can't fault Mandela for wanting to take wealth and power away from the ruling whites and distribute it among the people. That is what somehow has to happen in that country. Communism is likely not an effective vehicle, but then, what's better?
I think communism might work in certain circumstances, like when a place like South Africa needs cooperation from everyone and not having it might mean war or death on a mass scale . . . during a famine for example, it should not be acceptable for the rich to have lots of food while the poor starve. Unfortunately, I don't think communism would work under other circumstances very well. Problem is, once peopel get in power, they want to stay that way. I can't see them handing over the reigns to a new type of government even after the country has outgrown its old type of government.
What you really want is to have the local economies develop in a way that does not just lead to even more money for the rich few. You need a middle class to develop. Here's my plan: three generation US visas. You let half a million or so worthy poor emmigrate to America, where they are treated as full America citizens, as are their children and grandchildren. But their great grandchildren have to move back to their ancestrial country and live there for at least 30 years. That way they get a middle class, and a large number of people who aren't willing to put up with any government any crappier than, say, Bush's. (Everyone is excused from explaining why that idea is stupid. Better ideas are solicited.)
Sometimes it feels like we're steadily moving towards a situation where "a small group of very rich and powerful people control nearly everything" in the U.S., too.
If you've ever seen a network chart of the board members of the Fortune 500, you know we're already there.
That's basically the motivation behind trying to repeal the estate tax.
RE#12 jmsaul just because you fuck your mother doesn't give you the right to insult mine.
re: "#24 (gull): Sometimes it feels like we're steadily moving towards a situation where "a small group of very rich and powerful people control nearly everything" in the U.S., too." Yes. They are called Democratic U.S. Senators.
I think that managers in industry control a lot more than do a bunch of democratic senators.
The US is certainly drifting in the direction of a bigger income gap, but the situation here does not remotely approach the situation in some of the more seriously fucked up third world nations. I'd certainly like to see the Republicans stop pushing so hard to take us further in that direction. klg thinks Democratic U.S. Senators control nearly everything in the U.S.? The mind boggles.
He knows it's true because Mike Savage said so. ;>
This response has been erased.
Huge income gaps cause social problems. Or at least when you have all the wealth in few hands. If the wealth is spread around a lot, things run more smoothly.
It is a problem when the people at the bottom of the scale cannot earn enough working full time to pay for necessary materials and services because the richer people are making so much money for them.
This response has been erased.
If you have wealth..you deserve it. If you are poor it's because you are either stupid or lazy....at least in America.
This response has been erased.
re: "#33 (slynne): Huge income gaps cause social problems. Or at least when you have all the wealth in few hands. If the wealth is spread around a lot, things run more smoothly." And the empirical evidence for this assertion is?????????
This response has been erased.
The parks are paid for by taxes, which are paid by the less than wealthy, and also by parking fees and fees for using the showers and camping fees.
This response has been erased.
Yellowstone was not. Which parks were donated?
Almost none. National and State parks are created from federal and state lands. Sometimes inholdings and adjacent properties are purchased to complete the parks. Some very small parks have been created on donated lands.
Wealth is fundamentally power. Democracy is an attempt to distribute power. The concept of a "right" sets a minimum on amount of power a person can have - for example, every American has the power to speak his or her views freely, or to practice any religion he or she chooses. Voting is a device designed to spread the power to choose leaders widely through the population. If wealth is too unevenly distributed, the leveling influence of democracy is overwhelmed. The constitution may say you have freedom of speech, but I don't like what you're sayihng, so I'll send my personal army to shoot you. You say the police will catch me? Ha, ha. That's what my personal army does for day jobs. This kind of extreme power does not exist in the US, but it does in many parts of the world. Given that kind of thing, it doesn't matter what you put in your constitution. Democracy cannot exist. Capitolism has a strong tendancy to concentrate wealth. The communist ideology was invented to try to spread wealth evenly through society. That has never worked, and it's questionable how desirable it would be. But communism is not entirely a failure. If J. P. Morgan arrived in a time machine and looked at America today, he'd be shocked at how communist we are. Labor Unions! Welfare! Graduate taxes! Horrors! Robbing rich to feed the poor! Communists, all of you! All western democracies have taken substantial steps to counteract Capitalisms tendancy to concentrate wealth excessively. This is essentially communist ideology that has been incorporated into modern capitalism. There is no nation that you could reasonably call democratic that does not work hard to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. America does less than most. Lately we have been steadily cutting back on that. I consider it dangerous. Take J. P. Morgan's time machine back to America a century ago, before capitalism got watered down, and try exercising your constitutional right to free speech. You've a good chance of ending up dead or in jail. Some people want to go back there. I don't.
Well said, Jan.
There are a lot of libraries due to a very wealthy man.
re: "#44 (janc): Wealth is fundamentally power. Democracy is an attempt to distribute power...." This premise of your argument is essentially flawed. Democracy distributes political power to the voters. It's purpose is not to direct other sorts of powers. Likewise, your view of capitalism is, to be kind, "somewhat" flawed. You (generously?) give communism a pass, since it has not "worked," but neither has idealized capitalism worked - so it it to be condemned. Unfortunately, we humans are not "perfect," I suppose, in the minds of those for whom the existence of inequalities in any human endeavor or condition is conclusive proof of failure &/or evil.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I was at fault in #43 for giving such a terse and incomplete response where I wrote, in response to #42 of 49: by Sindi Keesan (keesan) on Wed, Jul 23, 2003 (20:22): Yellowstone was not. Which parks were donated? #43 of 49: by Rane Curl (rcurl) on Wed, Jul 23, 2003 (20:45): Almost none. National and State parks are created from federal and state lands. Sometimes inholdings and adjacent properties are purchased to complete the parks. Some very small parks have been created on donated lands. and I appreciate tod's more complete exposition. However my statement was essentially correct - for example, Muir Woods (cited first in the above) is 295 acres. Yosemite National Park, created from federal land, is 770,000 acres. But while donated parkland is a tiny fraction of the total, I fully support such donations and, in fact, have played a role in this. I was a founder of a non-profit 501(c)3 land trust in Michigan that now owns and manages 520 acres, purchased with (small) public donations. But I would still say that is "almost none" compared to the conversion of federal and state lands to parklands. They all play important roles, however, in saving unique lands for public enjoyment.
This response has been erased.
(It sure is hard to show contrition around here without having to suffer more lumps.....)
This response has been erased.
Re #47: If wealth gets concentrated enough, the wealthy can buy political power. We're in that situation now -- by making a large campaign contribution, you can have vastly more of an affect on what the government does than by voting. In fact, we have a situation right now where the President has stated he's going to veto a bill that a majority of Americans support because it's opposed by some rich business interests. (I refer to the bill that would reverse the FCC's rule change on media ownership.)
And we have read that the President wants to sign Medicare legislation that is opposed by some rich business but appears to have the support of the majority of Americans. So what is your point?
re #53: <lol>
It is not clear that the president's medicare legislation is supported by a majority of Americans. There is strong opposition to it from a number of quarters. In fact, it is even unclear what the Medicare bill will be, with large differences between House and Senate versions, and polarization of the parties. See http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2003/prescriptiondrugs/0705_prescr ipt iondrugs_1.html
If this is in refernce to our post #55, please note that I did not refer to the legislation as "the president's." As with the education bill, he appears to be willing to consider whatever compromise that emerges from Congress. Insofar as what the majority of Americans want, the Gallup Organization reported: "POLL ANALYSES, 7/7/2003 "Public Endorses Need for Medicare Reform, but Is Skeptical of Recent Legislation "Generally oppose putting senior citizens in managed care plans "Most Americans believe major changes to Medicare are necessary and the public strongly endorses adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. However, the public generally opposes a proposal that would enroll senior citizens in private managed care programs . . . ."
That is a far cry from "legislation that is opposed by some rich business but appears to have the support of the majority of Americans".
How, may we ask, does one arrive at that conclusion?
There is no medicare plan that has "the support of the majority of America". If you think otherwise, please tell us what it is - better, tell Congress.
And, precisely, how is it that you know this? Perhaps there is not a majority in favor of any specific "plan"; however, is it not entirely possible that a majority may be supporting a compromise legislative package?
Everyone always supports a "compromise legislative plan" - until they learn the details.
This response has been erased.
From what I've heard of the Batan Death march, the Japs deserved it.
This response has been erased.
I find it difficult to believe that the Japanese thought for even a second that any random POW would know how many atomic bombs the USA had, when their spy network obviously didn't even reveal that they existed. I find it much more likely that the bombing of Nagasaki finally got them to believe us when we told them we could keep doing that until they surrendered, so they might as well surrender right away.
This response has been erased.
Re: #67 I hadn't heard that, that late in the war, the Japanese spy network was performing well enough to inspire much confidence. More likely quite the opposite. If the U.S. had dozens of A-bombs ready to drop and supply ships with 48 more arriving every 3 days at our main bomber base, how much of a secret would we have made of it? By that time, the Japanese were very used to overwhelming-and-them-some American supplies of almost any physical thing which might be useful for war.
For some reason I give the WWII Japs more credit than J. Edgar Ashcroft. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if Ashcroft made it up for his own purposes. Doesn't it strike anyone as *strange* that we have a huge ramp-up in demands for surveillance of the population everywhere, all the time to catch terrorists before they can hijack airplanes, yet the government is cutting the funding for air marshals? The current administration seems to have gone into complete paranoia; it is not trying to protecting us, it is trying to protect itself *from* us, the citizens. That's just wrong. Bush has gotta go.
This response has been erased.
Re #69: Even the Japanese would realize that the USA wouldn't put people with top-secret knowledge on the front lines where they could be captured. That would have been a Stalin trick.
Re: #72 What's so Top Secret about "we have ample quantities of an unstoppable super-weapon that our enemy has no hope of duplicating and we're getting ready to use 'em"??? Shout that news from the hilltops - it'll boost friendly morale and wreck enemy morale - hardly an undesirable effect.
Re #73: If you read about the actual handling of the bombs, you'll realize that the reality was substantially different. The first bomb wasn't even certain to go off, and its shipment and preparation were a very well-kept secret. When you consider how badly things had been going for the Japanese for the previous year or so (and how few POWs they were capturing), the idea of a POW having any information about the Manhattan project isn't realistic. Which isn't to say that a POW wouldn't make up whatever he thought would intimidate the enemy. Read _Wasp_ by Eric Frank Russell.
Russ, please re-read the last dozen or so responses in this item. The actual facts of the U.S.'s A-bomb technology & supply in '45 are not the least bit relevant here, because the Japanese had NO access to that data, so they could NOT have used it in assessing the credibility of any POW's story about same. And Todd did NOT say that the POW said anything about the Manhattan Project, but instead about A-bombs arrived at advanced air bases & ready to be used (perhaps by the POW, on his next mission, had he not been shot down) - a vastly more reasonable story.
Re #75: You're not reading what I said, and such a story from a POW would have to have been made up because it was WRONG; there were only two bombs on that side of the Pacific, and their very existence was a well-kept secret until they were dropped. (The US wasn't sure the bombs would work, and didn't want the Japanese taking them apart for the fissile material if either failed to explode.)
You have several choices: