which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. >James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women. >https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >>Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. >>James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women. >>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books are inappropriate for state funded
pre-college school libraries. That is a choice the State Board of
Education is entitled to make.
Any kids who want a copy can browbeat their parents into buying one,
or find a copy in the adult section of a public library.
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G
<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes
Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G
<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>> with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes
Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books are inappropriate for state funded
pre-college school libraries.
What right does any state have to do that?
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books are inappropriate for state funded
pre-college school libraries. That is a choice the State Board of
Education is entitled to make.
Any kids who want a copy can browbeat their parents into buying one,
or find a copy in the adult section of a public library.
In article <v91654$3gcfg$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G
<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>>> with science.Once again: BS.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes
Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1 >>>>>>
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
That's how public education works.
The ban also applies to Charter Schools.
In article <v91654$3gcfg$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G
<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>> with science.Once again: BS.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes
Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1 >>>>>
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
That's how public education works.
In article <SlTsO.197846$MC82.8819@fx17.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books are inappropriate for state funded
pre-college school libraries.
What right does any state have to do that?
Do you want grammar school libraries to stock The Turner
Diaries, or other racist literature? I sure don't.
And there's the factor of "them that pays the money
makes the rules about what they'll spend it on."
In article <v91f99$3lt0p$2@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/08/24 14:57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <v91654$3gcfg$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else". >>>>
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G
<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>>>> with science.Once again: BS.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes >>>>>>>> Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1 >>>>>>>
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
That's how public education works.
The ban also applies to Charter Schools.
Which are public education.
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
The same as you, their money, their choices.
Do you want grammar school libraries to stock The Turner
Diaries, or other racist literature? I sure don't.
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. >>> James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books are inappropriate for state funded
pre-college school libraries. That is a choice the State Board of
Education is entitled to make.
Any kids who want a copy can browbeat their parents into buying one,
or find a copy in the adult section of a public library.
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>> with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. >>>>> James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. >James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with--
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women. >https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
In article <v91654$3gcfg$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G
<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>> with science.Once again: BS.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes
Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1 >>>>>
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
That's how public education works.
On 8/08/24 16:00, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <v91f99$3lt0p$2@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/08/24 14:57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <v91654$3gcfg$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else". >>>>>
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G
<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>>>>> with science.Once again: BS.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes >>>>>>>>> Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1 >>>>>>>>
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
That's how public education works.
The ban also applies to Charter Schools.
Which are public education.
I know nothing about US charter schools but in Aotearoa they now have
freedom from public school rules and curriculum.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> >>>>> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>> with science.Once again: BS.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. >>>>>> James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1 >>>>>
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
That is basically what politics and democracy is all about. A majority >imposing their choices on a minority, for better and for worse.
In article <SlTsO.197846$MC82.8819@fx17.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books are inappropriate for state funded >>>pre-college school libraries.
What right does any state have to do that?
Do you want grammar school libraries to stock The Turner
Diaries, or other racist literature? I sure don't.
And there's the factor of "them that pays the money
makes the rules about what they'll spend it on."
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. >>>> James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
That is either a very trivial question or a very interesting >philosophical/ideological question!
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 10:40:38 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>>> with science.Once again: BS.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1 >>>>>>
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
That is basically what politics and democracy is all about. A majority
imposing their choices on a minority, for better and for worse.
In a general sense, yes. However, the minority has rights that the
majority cannot infringe by law. There are, IOW, limits. At least, in
the USA there are. YMMV.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 10:38:24 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>> with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. >>>>> James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
That is either a very trivial question or a very interesting
philosophical/ideological question!
And I suspect it has long been litigated and resolved.
In the 50s, I was restricted to the Kiddie Section of the local
library. This is the same as banning the books in the other section(s)
from the Kiddie Section. This sort of thing has a long history in the
USA.
But the question is always: what are the criteria? Are they sensible
or are they ideological? Are the books banned banned for objective
reasons or because somebody doesn't like them (and usually hasn't read
them, as they "just no" they are trash)?
I don't have children, but if I had, I certainly wouldn't mind if >pornographic magazines were banned from the school library (if we're
talking year 1-9).
I would mind however, if Mein Kampf, Maos red book or Das Kapital were >banned. I think those books are pure garbage, but at least it should be >possible for everyone to form his own conclusion, and Das Kapital is also >interesting from a history of philosophy point of view (which I personally >enjoy).
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 10:40:38 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>>> with science.Once again: BS.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1 >>>>>>
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
That is basically what politics and democracy is all about. A majority
imposing their choices on a minority, for better and for worse.
In a general sense, yes. However, the minority has rights that the
majority cannot infringe by law.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I don't have children, but if I had, I certainly wouldn't mind if
pornographic magazines were banned from the school library (if we're
talking year 1-9).
Agreed, but the thing is all of those kids have seen hardcore porn already, at least by the time they are 7 or 8 and have used the internet. They don't know what it is, they don't find it attractive, but they have seen it and they know it exists. So it's not worth putting a huge amount of effort into keeping it out of libraries.
I would mind however, if Mein Kampf, Maos red book or Das Kapital were
banned. I think those books are pure garbage, but at least it should be
possible for everyone to form his own conclusion, and Das Kapital is also
interesting from a history of philosophy point of view (which I personally >> enjoy).
Agreed, but i'd also want librarians to explain the context behind it.
The same as they should do with any other book.
--scott
I would mind however, if Mein Kampf, Maos red book or Das Kapital were
banned. I think those books are pure garbage, but at least it should be
possible for everyone to form his own conclusion, and Das Kapital is also >>> interesting from a history of philosophy point of view (which I personally >>> enjoy).
Agreed, but i'd also want librarians to explain the context behind it.
The same as they should do with any other book.
--scott
This is sensitive to me. If I'm in the library I would definitely not
have someone review and tell me what to think about what I read. I
would like to reach my own conclusions.
How is this context explaining done in todays libraries in the US?
When I last visited a library to borrow a book, several decades ago,
the process was:
1. Find book.
2. Take book to check out counter.
3. Take book home and read.
No lecturing, in fact, no one even cared. On the other hand... if the
library had a service where I could go and discuss the book, that
would actually be quite nice!
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Agreed, but the thing is all of those kids have seen hardcore porn already, >> at least by the time they are 7 or 8 and have used the internet. They don't >> know what it is, they don't find it attractive, but they have seen it and
they know it exists. So it's not worth putting a huge amount of effort into >> keeping it out of libraries.
Is this true? Granted, I'm a technologist, so perhaps it would be easier
for me not to give any potential future children smart phones and
computers. In fact, if I had children, I would not.
On the other hand, I have read that many parents, instead of raising their >children, just give them a smart phone and off you go without supervision.
If that is true (I have seen a few examples myself) I can imagine that
what you say is true.
Agreed, but i'd also want librarians to explain the context behind it.
The same as they should do with any other book.
This is sensitive to me. If I'm in the library I would definitely not have >someone review and tell me what to think about what I read. I would like
to reach my own conclusions.
How is this context explaining done in todays libraries in the US? When I >last visited a library to borrow a book, several decades ago, the process >was:
No lecturing, in fact, no one even cared. On the other hand... if the
library had a service where I could go and discuss the book, that would >actually be quite nice!
On 8/8/2024 10:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 10:40:38 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/7/2024 6:23 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else". >>>>
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>>>> with science.Once again: BS.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/
e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-
BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1 >>>>>>>
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
The same as you, their money, their choices.
That is basically what politics and democracy is all about. A majority
imposing their choices on a minority, for better and for worse.
In a general sense, yes. However, the minority has rights that the
majority cannot infringe by law.
For the moment....
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 10:38:24 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>> with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. >>>>>> James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
That is either a very trivial question or a very interesting
philosophical/ideological question!
And I suspect it has long been litigated and resolved.
True... but thing can chance. Just look at the abortion question. Wasn't >that litigated and resolved, only to be "un-solved"?
In the 50s, I was restricted to the Kiddie Section of the local
library. This is the same as banning the books in the other section(s)
from the Kiddie Section. This sort of thing has a long history in the
USA.
I don't have children, but if I had, I certainly wouldn't mind if >pornographic magazines were banned from the school library (if we're
talking year 1-9).
I would mind however, if Mein Kampf, Maos red book or Das Kapital were >banned. I think those books are pure garbage, but at least it should be >possible for everyone to form his own conclusion, and Das Kapital is also >interesting from a history of philosophy point of view (which I personally >enjoy).
But the question is always: what are the criteria? Are they sensible
or are they ideological? Are the books banned banned for objective
reasons or because somebody doesn't like them (and usually hasn't read
them, as they "just no" they are trash)?
Yes! These are the interesting questions! =)
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I don't have children, but if I had, I certainly wouldn't mind if >>pornographic magazines were banned from the school library (if we're >>talking year 1-9).
Agreed, but the thing is all of those kids have seen hardcore porn already, >at least by the time they are 7 or 8 and have used the internet. They don't >know what it is, they don't find it attractive, but they have seen it and >they know it exists. So it's not worth putting a huge amount of effort into >keeping it out of libraries.
I would mind however, if Mein Kampf, Maos red book or Das Kapital were >>banned. I think those books are pure garbage, but at least it should be >>possible for everyone to form his own conclusion, and Das Kapital is also >>interesting from a history of philosophy point of view (which I personally >>enjoy).
Agreed, but i'd also want librarians to explain the context behind it.
The same as they should do with any other book.
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
I would mind however, if Mein Kampf, Maos red book or Das Kapital were >>>> banned. I think those books are pure garbage, but at least it should be >>>> possible for everyone to form his own conclusion, and Das Kapital is also >>>> interesting from a history of philosophy point of view (which I personally >>>> enjoy).
Agreed, but i'd also want librarians to explain the context behind it.
The same as they should do with any other book.
--scott
This is sensitive to me. If I'm in the library I would definitely not
have someone review and tell me what to think about what I read. I
would like to reach my own conclusions.
How is this context explaining done in todays libraries in the US?
When I last visited a library to borrow a book, several decades ago,
the process was:
1. Find book.
2. Take book to check out counter.
3. Take book home and read.
No lecturing, in fact, no one even cared. On the other hand... if the
library had a service where I could go and discuss the book, that
would actually be quite nice!
When I was growing up in Woodbury NJ I got my science fiction books at
the local library. I don't recall any specific "children's section" but
I did have to go to the librarian at the desk to check out books, and
they could theoretically have told me the book was too "mature" for me
and prevented me checking it out, or given me some context. None ever
did, as I recall.
In my local library here in Arizona, you pick your book from the
shelves, walk over to a computer terminal, scan your card, scan the
book's bar code, and walk out. No vetting, no discussion.
-Don-
Agreed, but i'd also want librarians to explain the context behind it.
The same as they should do with any other book.
This is sensitive to me. If I'm in the library I would definitely not have >> someone review and tell me what to think about what I read. I would like
to reach my own conclusions.
If you're eight or nine years old, I think that is appropriate. If you are in college or beyond, it probably isn't.
No lecturing, in fact, no one even cared. On the other hand... if the
library had a service where I could go and discuss the book, that would
actually be quite nice!
Oh, go to the reference desk.... there will be someone there that wants to talk about SF and if there isn't they can probably find you someone! Librariens are the best. It's better in the evenings when they are not busy. --scott
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 22:17:01 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 10:38:24 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
In article <v90pgc$3clah$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood >>>>>>> which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted >>>>>>> with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with >>>>>>> twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Once again: BS.
Utah has decided those books
What right does any state have to do that?
That is either a very trivial question or a very interesting
philosophical/ideological question!
And I suspect it has long been litigated and resolved.
True... but thing can chance. Just look at the abortion question. Wasn't
that litigated and resolved, only to be "un-solved"?
In the 50s, I was restricted to the Kiddie Section of the local
library. This is the same as banning the books in the other section(s)
from the Kiddie Section. This sort of thing has a long history in the
USA.
I don't have children, but if I had, I certainly wouldn't mind if
pornographic magazines were banned from the school library (if we're
talking year 1-9).
I would mind however, if Mein Kampf, Maos red book or Das Kapital were
banned. I think those books are pure garbage, but at least it should be
possible for everyone to form his own conclusion, and Das Kapital is also
interesting from a history of philosophy point of view (which I personally >> enjoy).
Banned from the Kiddie Section? Or banned altogether?
One of the criteria for being /in/ the Kiddie Section involves reading
level. A lot of books are not in the Kiddie Section because of it.
This, of course, depends on the age of the Kiddies for whom the
Section is designed.
But the question is always: what are the criteria? Are they sensible
or are they ideological? Are the books banned banned for objective
reasons or because somebody doesn't like them (and usually hasn't read
them, as they "just no" they are trash)?
Yes! These are the interesting questions! =)
That last "no" should, of course, have been "know". Typos ...
On 2024-08-07, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
Thanks for posting that message.
The responses are why I, and others, no longer participate here.
If I want to read far-right bigotry, I'll open a Heinlein.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 03:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no trouble
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
Could it be because they are ... Republicans?
Probably the problem is solved naturally, since at that age, you seldom
(I imagine) visit the library yourself but are taken there by your
teacher or parents. I think I was perhaps 12 or 13 when I started to
visit myself and perhaps 16 or 17 when I stopped. At the end I mostly >borrowed programming books.
Paul S Person wrote:
And we still don't know why some kid tried to assassinate Trump. And
without knowing /that/ we can't say what form of wing-nuttery he was
expressing, and how many others share it.
If, indeed, there was any reason at all.
The assassin of Elizabeth of Austria killed her because he didn't have
the train fare to get close to anyone else whose death would make the news.
If that rally had been held elsewhere, the would-be assassin might now
be in the news for shooting the local mayor.
Or not, of course.
William Hyde
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV- HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy. James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Probably the problem is solved naturally, since at that age, you seldom
(I imagine) visit the library yourself but are taken there by your
teacher or parents. I think I was perhaps 12 or 13 when I started to
visit myself and perhaps 16 or 17 when I stopped. At the end I mostly
borrowed programming books.
My mother forbade me from reading Ben Bova and Heinlein because they
were not books for nice people. Were it not for friendly librarians and
the ability to walk to the library I might be a very different person today. --scott
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
My mother forbade me from reading Ben Bova and Heinlein because they
were not books for nice people. Were it not for friendly librarians and
the ability to walk to the library I might be a very different person today.
Did you grow up in a very ideological home with politically active
parents?
On 8/9/24 13:00, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
And we still don't know why some kid tried to assassinate Trump. And
without knowing /that/ we can't say what form of wing-nuttery he was
expressing, and how many others share it.
If, indeed, there was any reason at all.
The assassin of Elizabeth of Austria killed her because he didn't have
the train fare to get close to anyone else whose death would make the news. >>
If that rally had been held elsewhere, the would-be assassin might now
be in the news for shooting the local mayor.
Or not, of course.
William Hyde
He just wanted fame for assassination and Biden would have
done if he had been closer to hand. He was looking for information about
both parties and their rallies.
On 2024-08-07, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
Thanks for posting that message.
The responses are why I, and others, no longer participate here.
If I want to read far-right bigotry, I'll open a Heinlein.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:38:20 +1200, Titus G wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/ >2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV- >HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Is nobody simply curious as to why different books have different
sets of school boards banning them? And how many school districts
are there in Utah, anyway? How can we be sure that this isn't a publicity >stunt for Sarah J Maas?
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
My mother forbade me from reading Ben Bova and Heinlein because they
were not books for nice people. Were it not for friendly librarians and >>> the ability to walk to the library I might be a very different person today.
Did you grow up in a very ideological home with politically active
parents?
Not at all. They just believed that science fiction was all trash that respectable people did not read. This was a widespread belief in the
age before Star Wars. I had a Kornbluth collection confiscated by my
English teacher at school too.
--scott
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no trouble
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
In article <ru0abj1olq90jisctg39rem8clbrkplj5s@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no trouble
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
With that lying slander, I could equally accuse you of being one
with Stalin and Pol Pot if I were into lying slander.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:55:11 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:38:20 +1200, Titus G wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes
Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/ >>2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV- >>HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Is nobody simply curious as to why different books have different sets
of school boards banning them? And how many school districts are there
in Utah, anyway? How can we be sure that this isn't a publicity stunt
for Sarah J Maas?
Different school boards have different values. That's the problem with
"local values" -- they are /local/. Go over the ridge to the next school district and the values may differ. Hence the endless attempts to
elevate /my/ local values to apply /universally/. Well, not mine
personally, of course; I am indicating the state of mind of the
individual(s) doing the banning.
I saw an article recently that claimed that most book banning efforts
were being done, country-wide, by at most 11 distinct people. I wonder
how many distinct people were responsible for the thousands of voicemails/emails to election workers who had the gall to insist that
the vote count determined the winner -- one? two? three?.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 08:46:03 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:55:11 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer
<mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:38:20 +1200, Titus G wrote:
Utah has banned 13 books, including Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood2PACX-1vQc_7uakPh4eRXrq0iVq-L2g-BwcnRWyfc7E0QOdrThoUEtPHQaDvJM4JwNFXV-
which basically claims that large corporations are not to be trusted
with science.
I do not know any of the other authors but Sarah J. Maas writes
Fantasy.
James Nichol will be delighted that women are being recognised with
twelve of the thirteen books being written by women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/
HZQok4L-fDh_P9jt/pubhtml?pli=1
Is nobody simply curious as to why different books have different sets
of school boards banning them? And how many school districts are there
in Utah, anyway? How can we be sure that this isn't a publicity stunt
for Sarah J Maas?
Different school boards have different values. That's the problem with
"local values" -- they are /local/. Go over the ridge to the next school
district and the values may differ. Hence the endless attempts to
elevate /my/ local values to apply /universally/. Well, not mine
personally, of course; I am indicating the state of mind of the
individual(s) doing the banning.
I saw an article recently that claimed that most book banning efforts
were being done, country-wide, by at most 11 distinct people. I wonder
how many distinct people were responsible for the thousands of
voicemails/emails to election workers who had the gall to insist that
the vote count determined the winner -- one? two? three?.
Subsequently the New York Times ran a story that resolved my
puzzlement over the structure of the list. If at least three
school districts decide to ban a book, all school districts
in the state are required to remove it from their libraries.
I looked up the locations of each of the five districts
appearing in the list and they're all in small towns.
Fun fact: Utah spends the least of any state on its public
schools, on a per pupil basis.
In article <ru0abj1olq90jisctg39rem8clbrkplj5s@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no trouble
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
With that lying slander, I could equally accuse you of being one
with Stalin and Pol Pot if I were into lying slander.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024, Charles Packer wrote:
What are their results per pupil? Money does not equal results as is
Subsequently the New York Times ran a story that resolved my puzzlement
over the structure of the list. If at least three school districts
decide to ban a book, all school districts in the state are required to
remove it from their libraries.
I looked up the locations of each of the five districts appearing in
the list and they're all in small towns.
Fun fact: Utah spends the least of any state on its public schools, on
a per pupil basis.
often so painfully felt in sweden.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:25:41 +0200, D wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024, Charles Packer wrote:
What are their results per pupil? Money does not equal results as is
Subsequently the New York Times ran a story that resolved my puzzlement
over the structure of the list. If at least three school districts
decide to ban a book, all school districts in the state are required to
remove it from their libraries.
I looked up the locations of each of the five districts appearing in
the list and they're all in small towns.
Fun fact: Utah spends the least of any state on its public schools, on
a per pupil basis.
often so painfully felt in sweden.
According to this website,
"New York has the highest per-pupil spending of all of the 50
states. New York currently spends $24,040 per pupil,
approximately 90% above the national average. Utah has the
lowest per-pupil spending of $7,628 per student. "
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-spending-by-
state
population. Reading and books get a lot of attention. Note that Utah
is almost all public school education, it ranks 49th in private school >percentage (3% versus 9% nationally), so it's not because of the
Mormon equivalent of parochial schools.
Your arguments, with these additional fun facts, seem to imply that we
should be trying to emulate Utah. They get a lot of bang for their
buck!
(I personally don't believe we should emulate Utah's rather
silly state ban law. Ability to ban books in grade school libraries is >necessary, but it should only be done at the local level, not any
higher level, IMO.)
On 2024-08-12, Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:25:41 +0200, D wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024, Charles Packer wrote:
What are their results per pupil? Money does not equal results as is
Subsequently the New York Times ran a story that resolved my puzzlement >>>> over the structure of the list. If at least three school districts
decide to ban a book, all school districts in the state are required to >>>> remove it from their libraries.
I looked up the locations of each of the five districts appearing in
the list and they're all in small towns.
Fun fact: Utah spends the least of any state on its public schools, on >>>> a per pupil basis.
often so painfully felt in sweden.
According to this website,
"New York has the highest per-pupil spending of all of the 50
states. New York currently spends $24,040 per pupil,
approximately 90% above the national average. Utah has the
lowest per-pupil spending of $7,628 per student. "
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-spending-by-
state
And???? What exactly are you trying to imply?
Other "fun facts": On the 2022 NAEP (National Assessment of
Educational Progress), which looks at 4th and 8th graders, Utah was the
7th best and 3rd best state in reading, respectively. In math, it was
5th and tied for 1st (with Massachusetts, with spending more than twice Utah)!
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-08-12, Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:25:41 +0200, D wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024, Charles Packer wrote:
What are their results per pupil? Money does not equal results as is
Subsequently the New York Times ran a story that resolved my puzzlement >>>>> over the structure of the list. If at least three school districts
decide to ban a book, all school districts in the state are required to >>>>> remove it from their libraries.
I looked up the locations of each of the five districts appearing in >>>>> the list and they're all in small towns.
Fun fact: Utah spends the least of any state on its public schools, on >>>>> a per pupil basis.
often so painfully felt in sweden.
According to this website,
"New York has the highest per-pupil spending of all of the 50
states. New York currently spends $24,040 per pupil,
approximately 90% above the national average. Utah has the
lowest per-pupil spending of $7,628 per student. "
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-spending-by-
state
And???? What exactly are you trying to imply?
Other "fun facts": On the 2022 NAEP (National Assessment of
Educational Progress), which looks at 4th and 8th graders, Utah was the
7th best and 3rd best state in reading, respectively. In math, it was
5th and tied for 1st (with Massachusetts, with spending more than twice Utah)!
Other "fun fact"; The cost of living in NY state is 2x the cost of
living in Utah which narrows the spending gap somewhat.
Your arguments, with these additional fun facts, seem to imply that we
should be trying to emulate Utah. They get a lot of bang for their
buck! (I personally don't believe we should emulate Utah's rather
silly state ban law. Ability to ban books in grade school libraries is
necessary, but it should only be done at the local level, not any
higher level, IMO.)
Chris
That's what I wanted to know. It does seem like Utahs model should be
copied by other states, since they could perhaps achieve more with less,
and put that money to better use or return it to the tax payers.
On 2024-08-12, Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:25:41 +0200, D wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024, Charles Packer wrote:
What are their results per pupil? Money does not equal results as is
Subsequently the New York Times ran a story that resolved my puzzlement >>>> over the structure of the list. If at least three school districts
decide to ban a book, all school districts in the state are required to >>>> remove it from their libraries.
I looked up the locations of each of the five districts appearing in
the list and they're all in small towns.
Fun fact: Utah spends the least of any state on its public schools, on >>>> a per pupil basis.
often so painfully felt in sweden.
According to this website,
"New York has the highest per-pupil spending of all of the 50
states. New York currently spends $24,040 per pupil,
approximately 90% above the national average. Utah has the
lowest per-pupil spending of $7,628 per student. "
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-spending-by-
state
And???? What exactly are you trying to imply?
Other "fun facts": On the 2022 NAEP (National Assessment of
Educational Progress), which looks at 4th and 8th graders, Utah was the
7th best and 3rd best state in reading, respectively. In math, it was
5th and tied for 1st (with Massachusetts, with spending more than twice Utah)!
Education is highly valued in Utah, with its large Mormon
population. Reading and books get a lot of attention. Note that Utah
is almost all public school education, it ranks 49th in private school percentage (3% versus 9% nationally), so it's not because of the
Mormon equivalent of parochial schools.
Your arguments, with these additional fun facts, seem to imply that we
should be trying to emulate Utah. They get a lot of bang for their
buck! (I personally don't believe we should emulate Utah's rather
silly state ban law. Ability to ban books in grade school libraries is necessary, but it should only be done at the local level, not any
higher level, IMO.)
Chris
On 2024-08-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Other "fun fact"; The cost of living in NY state is 2x the cost of
living in Utah which narrows the spending gap somewhat.
Once again you are making claims without the evidence to back them up.
Please give the citations to support your overblown claim.
Yes, COL in New York *City* is easily twice that of any city in Utah.
But that's not the whole state; I lived most of my life in upstate
New York (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Watertown, Ithaca) and the
COL there is quite reasonable.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Your arguments, with these additional fun facts, seem to imply that we
should be trying to emulate Utah. They get a lot of bang for their
buck! (I personally don't believe we should emulate Utah's rather
silly state ban law. Ability to ban books in grade school libraries is
necessary, but it should only be done at the local level, not any
higher level, IMO.)
Chris
That's what I wanted to know. It does seem like Utahs model should be >>copied by other states, since they could perhaps achieve more with less,
Actually, the primary reason that Utah spends less is that
the cost of living is half that of NY state. If you just
look at Manhattan and Long Island, the cost of living in
Utah is about 25%. Which, after adjusting for that, puts
NY and Utah almost at parity for per-student spending.
and put that money to better use or return it to the tax payers.
Another factor to consider is the results of that spending;
college entrance exam scores, et alia. There are no doubt
several other factors that should be taken into account.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-08-12, Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:25:41 +0200, D wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024, Charles Packer wrote:
What are their results per pupil? Money does not equal results as is
Subsequently the New York Times ran a story that resolved my puzzlement >>>>> over the structure of the list. If at least three school districts
decide to ban a book, all school districts in the state are required to >>>>> remove it from their libraries.
I looked up the locations of each of the five districts appearing in >>>>> the list and they're all in small towns.
Fun fact: Utah spends the least of any state on its public schools, on >>>>> a per pupil basis.
often so painfully felt in sweden.
According to this website,
"New York has the highest per-pupil spending of all of the 50
states. New York currently spends $24,040 per pupil,
approximately 90% above the national average. Utah has the
lowest per-pupil spending of $7,628 per student. "
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-spending-by-
state
And???? What exactly are you trying to imply?
Other "fun facts": On the 2022 NAEP (National Assessment of
Educational Progress), which looks at 4th and 8th graders, Utah was the
7th best and 3rd best state in reading, respectively. In math, it was
5th and tied for 1st (with Massachusetts, with spending more than twice Utah)!
Other "fun fact"; The cost of living in NY state is 2x the cost of
living in Utah which narrows the spending gap somewhat.
On 2024-08-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Your arguments, with these additional fun facts, seem to imply that we >>>> should be trying to emulate Utah. They get a lot of bang for their
buck! (I personally don't believe we should emulate Utah's rather
silly state ban law. Ability to ban books in grade school libraries is >>>> necessary, but it should only be done at the local level, not any
higher level, IMO.)
Chris
That's what I wanted to know. It does seem like Utahs model should be
copied by other states, since they could perhaps achieve more with less,
Actually, the primary reason that Utah spends less is that
the cost of living is half that of NY state. If you just
look at Manhattan and Long Island, the cost of living in
Utah is about 25%. Which, after adjusting for that, puts
NY and Utah almost at parity for per-student spending.
Once again, complete nonsense. See my other response for the citations.
New York State spends 355% of Utah's per student spending and the cost of living is ~130% of Utah's. Why do you consider that "almost at parity"?
and put that money to better use or return it to the tax payers.
Another factor to consider is the results of that spending;
college entrance exam scores, et alia. There are no doubt
several other factors that should be taken into account.
Once again you deleted my argument! Please explain why you feel
Utah being the top state in the country in 8th grade math and the
3rd state in the country in 8th grade reading according to the NAEP
is not good and sufficient evidence that Utah does very well in
public school education.
Chris
Any kids who want a copy can browbeat their parents into buying one,
or find a copy in the adult section of a public library.
What makes you think kids are _allowed_ into the adult section of a
public library in Utah?
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no trouble
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
Could it be because they are ... Republicans?
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Do you want grammar school libraries to stock The Turner
Diaries, or other racist literature? I sure don't.
This is what librarians are for. They provide context to books.
--scott
You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
In my local library here in Arizona, you pick your book from the
shelves, walk over to a computer terminal, scan your card, scan the
book's bar code, and walk out. No vetting, no discussion.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 03:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no trouble
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
Could it be because they are ... Republicans?
They are Mormon Republicans. A very atypical version in some ways.
--scott
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:13:29 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Any kids who want a copy can browbeat their parents into buying one,
or find a copy in the adult section of a public library.
What makes you think kids are _allowed_ into the adult section of a
public library in Utah?
Har har har ..... starting when I was 8 years old I regularly hung
around the adult section of the public library though it was mostly
for (a) science fiction (mostly Heinlein at that age, I didn't
discover Asimov and Poul Anderson till later) and Asimov science
books.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 10:49:41 -0700, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no troubleNot even the most hardcore right winger would want those in a school
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
Could it be because they are ... Republicans?
library. (I've actually read some of the 'Protcols' but gave it up
after 10 pages of tedium....
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:20:01 -0700, Don_from_AZ <djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> wrote:
In my local library here in Arizona, you pick your book from the
shelves, walk over to a computer terminal, scan your card, scan the
book's bar code, and walk out. No vetting, no discussion.
We have a similar system - the only time I've 'had a conversation'
with library staff is the time I returned a couple of overdue books,
handed them my card and said 'I've got a couple of deep overdue books
as you'll see by my card. They're in the returned books slot - I will probably be wanting to take out books today so I'd appreciate it if
you could check these in before I get to checkout so nobody tries to
block me!"
On 8 Aug 2024 08:11:01 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Do you want grammar school libraries to stock The Turner
Diaries, or other racist literature? I sure don't.
This is what librarians are for. They provide context to books.
--scott
Given our librarians' choices of late in our local library I think
I'll trust my own instincts thank you very much.
Though to their credit they did get a couple of interesting books on
COVID. I'm currently reading "What REALLY happened in Wuhan"
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:20:01 -0700, Don_from_AZ
<djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> wrote:
In my local library here in Arizona, you pick your book from the
shelves, walk over to a computer terminal, scan your card, scan the
book's bar code, and walk out. No vetting, no discussion.
We have a similar system - the only time I've 'had a conversation'
with library staff is the time I returned a couple of overdue books,
handed them my card and said 'I've got a couple of deep overdue books
as you'll see by my card. They're in the returned books slot - I will
probably be wanting to take out books today so I'd appreciate it if
you could check these in before I get to checkout so nobody tries to
block me!"
Don't keep us in suspense... what happened?
Once again you deleted my argument! Please explain why you feel
Utah being the top state in the country in 8th grade math and the
3rd state in the country in 8th grade reading according to the NAEP
is not good and sufficient evidence that Utah does very well in
public school education.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:13:29 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Any kids who want a copy can browbeat their parents into buying one,
or find a copy in the adult section of a public library.
What makes you think kids are _allowed_ into the adult section of a
public library in Utah?
Har har har ..... starting when I was 8 years old I regularly hung
around the adult section of the public library though it was mostly
for (a) science fiction (mostly Heinlein at that age, I didn't
discover Asimov and Poul Anderson till later) and Asimov science
books.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On 8 Aug 2024 08:11:01 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Do you want grammar school libraries to stock The Turner
Diaries, or other racist literature? I sure don't.
This is what librarians are for. They provide context to books.
--scott
Given our librarians' choices of late in our local library I think
I'll trust my own instincts thank you very much.
Though to their credit they did get a couple of interesting books on
COVID. I'm currently reading "What REALLY happened in Wuhan"
China blocked WHO from investigating for 3 weeks, I do wonder what
_really_ happened there!
On 9 Aug 2024 20:58:14 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 03:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no trouble
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
Could it be because they are ... Republicans?
They are Mormon Republicans. A very atypical version in some ways.
--scott
Hmmm that never stopped me from reading most of Orson Scott Card's
books...
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Do you want grammar school libraries to stock The Turner
Diaries, or other racist literature? I sure don't.
This is what librarians are for. They provide context to books.
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 10:49:41 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no troubleNot even the most hardcore right winger would want those in a school
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
Could it be because they are ... Republicans?
library. (I've actually read some of the 'Protcols' but gave it up
after 10 pages of tedium....
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:14:14 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
Sounds like my public library now though many of their 'choices' are
DEI and woke writers.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Once again you deleted my argument! Please explain why you feel
Utah being the top state in the country in 8th grade math and the
3rd state in the country in 8th grade reading according to the NAEP
is not good and sufficient evidence that Utah does very well in
public school education.
I actually never said anything about the quality of the education
in either state. All I did was point out the difference in cost
of living, and thus educational costs, between the two states.
In article <pe1mbjpl9qlen8vudkj6gc21k73abqsnmh@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:13:29 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Any kids who want a copy can browbeat their parents into buying one,
or find a copy in the adult section of a public library.
What makes you think kids are _allowed_ into the adult section of a >>>public library in Utah?
Har har har ..... starting when I was 8 years old I regularly hung
around the adult section of the public library though it was mostly
for (a) science fiction (mostly Heinlein at that age, I didn't
discover Asimov and Poul Anderson till later) and Asimov science
books.
Waterloo Public Library had a kids section and an adult section,
but some librarians could not be bothered to police kids wandering
upstairs. As well, nobody on staff read SF and their working
assumption seemed to be that if an author wrote some kids books,
they only wrote kids books. So Left Hand of Darkness and I Will
Fear No Evil were in the kids section.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt ><usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <ru0abj1olq90jisctg39rem8clbrkplj5s@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no trouble
with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/,
for that matter?
With that lying slander, I could equally accuse you of being one
with Stalin and Pol Pot if I were into lying slander.
You're the one who brought up /The Turner Diaries/. I merely added
another well-known work along the same lines.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:31:45 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On 8 Aug 2024 08:11:01 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Do you want grammar school libraries to stock The Turner
Diaries, or other racist literature? I sure don't.
This is what librarians are for. They provide context to books.
--scott
Given our librarians' choices of late in our local library I think
I'll trust my own instincts thank you very much.
Though to their credit they did get a couple of interesting books on
COVID. I'm currently reading "What REALLY happened in Wuhan"
China blocked WHO from investigating for 3 weeks, I do wonder what
_really_ happened there!
Developing drugs for their swimmers that could easily be fobbed off as something they ate locally at the Olympics? It's worked fine so far.
In article <84269296-beb3-fc01-84f5-f4d9b1720bd2@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:20:01 -0700, Don_from_AZ
<djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> wrote:
In my local library here in Arizona, you pick your book from the
shelves, walk over to a computer terminal, scan your card, scan the
book's bar code, and walk out. No vetting, no discussion.
We have a similar system - the only time I've 'had a conversation'
with library staff is the time I returned a couple of overdue books,
handed them my card and said 'I've got a couple of deep overdue books
as you'll see by my card. They're in the returned books slot - I will
probably be wanting to take out books today so I'd appreciate it if
you could check these in before I get to checkout so nobody tries to
block me!"
Don't keep us in suspense... what happened?
My aunt sent the Sheriff out after overdue books a few times.
On 8 Aug 2024 08:11:01 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Do you want grammar school libraries to stock The Turner
Diaries, or other racist literature? I sure don't.
This is what librarians are for. They provide context to books.
I'm not sure what is meant by "provide context". I suggest that making choices, providing clues to where a particular book might be, and
keeping order is closer to what librarians are for.
A well-curated, well-maintained, and easily navigated library is a
thing of beauty.
But what "context"? Posters? Pamphlets? Lecture series? Nattering at
patrons about the books they are checking out? Sounds pretty intrusive
to me.
And what /conceivable/ "context" could make, say, /Lady Chatterley's
Lover/ acceptable to 4th graders? Apart from putting it in the Adult
Section and keeping the kids confined to the Kiddie Section, of
course.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <84269296-beb3-fc01-84f5-f4d9b1720bd2@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:20:01 -0700, Don_from_AZ
<djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> wrote:
In my local library here in Arizona, you pick your book from the
shelves, walk over to a computer terminal, scan your card, scan the
book's bar code, and walk out. No vetting, no discussion.
We have a similar system - the only time I've 'had a conversation'
with library staff is the time I returned a couple of overdue books,
handed them my card and said 'I've got a couple of deep overdue books
as you'll see by my card. They're in the returned books slot - I will
probably be wanting to take out books today so I'd appreciate it if
you could check these in before I get to checkout so nobody tries to
block me!"
Don't keep us in suspense... what happened?
My aunt sent the Sheriff out after overdue books a few times.
Wow! I could imagine that things could end pretty badly in case he had to >retrieve overdue books from the local druglords!
In article <90f047e5-aeb9-9523-b178-9bc8b1c3dbaa@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <84269296-beb3-fc01-84f5-f4d9b1720bd2@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:20:01 -0700, Don_from_AZ
<djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> wrote:
In my local library here in Arizona, you pick your book from the
shelves, walk over to a computer terminal, scan your card, scan the >>>>>> book's bar code, and walk out. No vetting, no discussion.
We have a similar system - the only time I've 'had a conversation'
with library staff is the time I returned a couple of overdue books, >>>>> handed them my card and said 'I've got a couple of deep overdue books >>>>> as you'll see by my card. They're in the returned books slot - I will >>>>> probably be wanting to take out books today so I'd appreciate it if
you could check these in before I get to checkout so nobody tries to >>>>> block me!"
Don't keep us in suspense... what happened?
My aunt sent the Sheriff out after overdue books a few times.
Wow! I could imagine that things could end pretty badly in case he had to
retrieve overdue books from the local druglords!
Hey, they got Capone for tax evasion!
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
Education is highly valued in Utah, with its large Mormon
population. Reading and books get a lot of attention. Note that Utah
is almost all public school education, it ranks 49th in private school >>percentage (3% versus 9% nationally), so it's not because of the
Mormon equivalent of parochial schools.
This is true, but it should be pointed out that curriculum in Utah is a little bit different than what you might expect in the rest of the country.
Your arguments, with these additional fun facts, seem to imply that we >>should be trying to emulate Utah. They get a lot of bang for their
buck!
This is true and it basically shows that the value of education has more
to do with what students put into it than what the institution puts into
it. This is as true in grade school as in college.
(I personally don't believe we should emulate Utah's rather
silly state ban law. Ability to ban books in grade school libraries is >>necessary, but it should only be done at the local level, not any
higher level, IMO.)
It should be done by librarians. Not by the school board, not by the PTA, not by the city council. Selection of books should be done by librarians because that is their job.
--scott
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-08-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Other "fun fact"; The cost of living in NY state is 2x the cost of
living in Utah which narrows the spending gap somewhat.
Once again you are making claims without the evidence to back them up. >>Please give the citations to support your overblown claim.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=Salt+Lake+City%2C+UT&country2=United+States&city2=New+York%2C+NY
yes, it's NYC. And yes, a large percentage of the student population
is in NYC and burroughs.
Yes, COL in New York *City* is easily twice that of any city in Utah.
But that's not the whole state; I lived most of my life in upstate
New York (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Watertown, Ithaca) and the
COL there is quite reasonable.
And half the population live in the NYC region.
"According to population estimates from the 2020 US Census,
New York State is the fourth most populous state in the country,
housing more than 20 million people (20,201,249). Within the state,
approximately 45% of the population, or almost 9 million people
(8,804,190), reside in New York City."
Add Long Island and Westchester county and that's significant majority of
the states population.
On 2024-08-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-08-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Other "fun fact"; The cost of living in NY state is 2x the cost of
living in Utah which narrows the spending gap somewhat.
Once again you are making claims without the evidence to back them up.
Please give the citations to support your overblown claim.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=Salt+Lake+City%2C+UT&country2=United+States&city2=New+York%2C+NY
yes, it's NYC. And yes, a large percentage of the student population
is in NYC and burroughs.
Yes, COL in New York *City* is easily twice that of any city in Utah.
But that's not the whole state; I lived most of my life in upstate
New York (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Watertown, Ithaca) and the
COL there is quite reasonable.
And half the population live in the NYC region.
"According to population estimates from the 2020 US Census,
New York State is the fourth most populous state in the country,
housing more than 20 million people (20,201,249). Within the state,
approximately 45% of the population, or almost 9 million people
(8,804,190), reside in New York City."
Add Long Island and Westchester county and that's significant majority of
the states population.
I don't see the purpose of this post of yours. It doesn't support your
claim. It doesn't change the fact that the COL in New York *State* (which includes the huge COL in New York City) is about 130% that of Utah, and
the student cost per pupil of New York *State* is 355% that of Utah.
You seem to be the only one who thinks 130% is almost 355%. I view them
as quite different.
Chris
In article <jtmhbj9orggi70sh6289gqp4r1d1fj5is6@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt >><usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <ru0abj1olq90jisctg39rem8clbrkplj5s@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Why do I suspect that the Utah Education Dept would have no trouble >>>>with /The Turner Diaries/. Or /The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/, >>>>for that matter?
With that lying slander, I could equally accuse you of being one
with Stalin and Pol Pot if I were into lying slander.
You're the one who brought up /The Turner Diaries/. I merely added
another well-known work along the same lines.
You are the one who asserted that the Utah Education Department
would be fine with "The Turner Diaries" or "The Protocols of
the Elders of Zion."
Regarding that Nazi screed, in fact, as demonstrated pretty
blatantly by recent events, it is the left that is the home
of neo-Nazi hatred of Jews, with the usual student radicals
marching to demand a *Judenrein* Middle East, and attacking
Jewish students, not for any support of Israel or current
Israeli policies, but *merely because they are Jewish*.
Not to mention applauding the biggest massacre of Jews
since the unlamented demise of Adolph Hitler.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:09:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:14:14 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
You mean, "their money, their imposing their choices on everyone else".
Sounds like my public library now though many of their 'choices' are
DEI and woke writers.
I wasn't aware that either was a genre.
Given our librarians' choices of late in our local library I think
I'll trust my own instincts thank you very much.
Though to their credit they did get a couple of interesting books on
COVID. I'm currently reading "What REALLY happened in Wuhan"
China blocked WHO from investigating for 3 weeks, I do wonder what
_really_ happened there!
Even the /very/ Mormon ones. In fact, I found /Saints/ to be quite >interesting.
I haven't read either of them. Some things you don't have to sample to
know they are trash.
You are the one who asserted that the Utah Education Department
would be fine with "The Turner Diaries" or "The Protocols of
the Elders of Zion."
Have they banned either of them? Didn't think so.
I have long noted that wing-nuts exist on all sides. But only the
Republicans have actually nominated two of them for President/VP.
Note: this is pre-Democratic convention, which means that the
Democrats haven't nominated /anybody/ yet. And, if you think Kamala is >written in stone, well, Joe was written in the same stone up until
quite recently. Seeing the Republican reaction to changing the
probable candidate might tempt the Democrats to change it once again
just to torment Trump, who can say?
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:29:33 -0700, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Given our librarians' choices of late in our local library I think
I'll trust my own instincts thank you very much.
Though to their credit they did get a couple of interesting books on
COVID. I'm currently reading "What REALLY happened in Wuhan"
China blocked WHO from investigating for 3 weeks, I do wonder what
_really_ happened there!
I'm now about 2/3 of the way through that book and it seems that the
Chinese were doing 'gain of function research' (which translates into
'how can we make this coronavirus MORE infectious and thus more
dangerous' research) with a fair amount of cooperation from US
researchers despite numerous broken Chinese promises on lab access.
The author is making a fairly strong case for the 'lab leak' theory
rather than deliberate release - thus culpable manslaughter not
murder.
And what /conceivable/ "context" could make, say, /Lady Chatterley's
Lover/ acceptable to 4th graders? Apart from putting it in the Adult
Section and keeping the kids confined to the Kiddie Section, of
course.
I think that now that we've established that money does not equal quality, >even adjusted for cost of living, the next question is... why does Utah >perform so well?
Is it the culture, the religion, the political leadership?
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I think that now that we've established that money does not equal quality, >> even adjusted for cost of living, the next question is... why does Utah
perform so well?
Is it the culture, the religion, the political leadership?
I suspect it has more to do with the culture than anything else, bearing
in mind the fact that kids get educated out of school as much as they do
in school.
--scott
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
And what /conceivable/ "context" could make, say, /Lady Chatterley's
Lover/ acceptable to 4th graders? Apart from putting it in the Adult >>Section and keeping the kids confined to the Kiddie Section, of
course.
I read it in fifth grade and I liked it personally. I would never have
read it, though, if it hadn't been locked up. Sex stuff aside, it's a good >story with interesting characters.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:43:28 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I haven't read either of them. Some things you don't have to sample to
know they are trash.
I dunno - I gave up on Mein Kampf only after 150-200 pages, completed
the Communist Manifesto and never attempted Das Kapital as it was too
long.
40 years ago I mentioned in passing that I regularly took a 2 block--
detour in my walk home from work to visit the Communist party
bookstore and she panicked though I only went for the chess books many
of which were extremely high quality and relatively low cost.
(I've been playing since childhood and am on the national board of the >Canadian chess federation)
In article <t1kpbjp3p5sf25daro2vph7in7vg211mgt@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
You are the one who asserted that the Utah Education Department
would be fine with "The Turner Diaries" or "The Protocols of
the Elders of Zion."
Have they banned either of them? Didn't think so.
Are either of them in any public school library? Or any
public library at all? There are a lot of things that
nobody has bothered banning because no one has attempted
to perpetrate it.
I have long noted that wing-nuts exist on all sides. But only the >>Republicans have actually nominated two of them for President/VP.
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
They said Nixon was a Nazi, but for all his flaws, Nixon was
no Nazi.
They said Reagan was a Nazi, but for all his flaws, Reagan
was no Nazi.
They said Bush I and II were Nazis, but for all their flaws,
neither one of them were Nazis.
They say Trump is a Nazi, but for all his glaring, egregious
flaws, Trump is no Nazi.
So, the "Nazi" accusations say a whole lot about the accuser,
and nothing whatsoever about the target of the accusation.
(Unless the target is David Duke, of course.)
Note: this is pre-Democratic convention, which means that the
Democrats haven't nominated /anybody/ yet. And, if you think Kamala is >>written in stone, well, Joe was written in the same stone up until
quite recently. Seeing the Republican reaction to changing the
probable candidate might tempt the Democrats to change it once again
just to torment Trump, who can say?
Heh. That would be amusing. Policies aside, Kamala, as San
Francisco DA, turned loose the mugger who shot a friend of
mine, so I'd write in Cthulhu before I'd vote for her.
I'm happy to say that, so far, at least, I've never voted for
Trump either. Maybe the stars are right to write in Cthulhu.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 19:04:35 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <t1kpbjp3p5sf25daro2vph7in7vg211mgt@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
You are the one who asserted that the Utah Education Department
would be fine with "The Turner Diaries" or "The Protocols of
the Elders of Zion."
Have they banned either of them? Didn't think so.
Are either of them in any public school library? Or any
public library at all? There are a lot of things that
nobody has bothered banning because no one has attempted
to perpetrate it.
I have long noted that wing-nuts exist on all sides. But only the >>Republicans have actually nominated two of them for President/VP.
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Republicans survive assassination attempts.
Democrats don't.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I think that now that we've established that money does not equal quality, >>> even adjusted for cost of living, the next question is... why does Utah
perform so well?
Is it the culture, the religion, the political leadership?
I suspect it has more to do with the culture than anything else, bearing
in mind the fact that kids get educated out of school as much as they do
in school.
--scott
Yes... culture is a strong factor. I think that Jews and Iranians have a
very pro-education culture and do well in school.
On 15 Aug 2024 00:13:27 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
And what /conceivable/ "context" could make, say, /Lady Chatterley's >>>Lover/ acceptable to 4th graders? Apart from putting it in the Adult >>>Section and keeping the kids confined to the Kiddie Section, of
course.
I read it in fifth grade and I liked it personally. I would never have >>read it, though, if it hadn't been locked up. Sex stuff aside, it's a = >good
story with interesting characters.
And when you turned it in, did you have
'a brief chat along the lines of... "did you enjoy the=20
book? Ah, great, if so, check out these guys some time"' ?=20
That is, was context (as defined by Scott Dorsey) provided?
Is there /any/ "context", other than being locked up, that would make
it appropriate to fifth graders?
In article <3sasbj98eu1j1s954e1vnbshkht3uiu84j@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 19:04:35 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <t1kpbjp3p5sf25daro2vph7in7vg211mgt@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
You are the one who asserted that the Utah Education Department
would be fine with "The Turner Diaries" or "The Protocols of
the Elders of Zion."
Have they banned either of them? Didn't think so.
Are either of them in any public school library? Or any
public library at all? There are a lot of things that
nobody has bothered banning because no one has attempted
to perpetrate it.
I have long noted that wing-nuts exist on all sides. But only the
Republicans have actually nominated two of them for President/VP.
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Republicans survive assassination attempts.
Democrats don't.
Only since 1902. I know of 4 presidential assassination attempts before
then (3 dead Republicans and 1 surviving Democrat - pistol misfired,
twice).
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
40 years ago I mentioned in passing that I regularly took a 2 block
detour in my walk home from work to visit the Communist party
bookstore and she panicked though I only went for the chess books many
of which were extremely high quality and relatively low cost.
Lucky you. All I can recall along that line is a twenty two volume >collection of Lenin's writings, priced very affordably. A decade and a
half of exile left him plenty of time to research and write (or as a
British Library worker said many years later "Whatever happened to that
nice Mr Ulyanov"?).
It was well printed and bound, but I left it there.
I got many of my chess books from Batsford, well printed but definitely
not well bound. Appallingly bound, in fact. I still have a pile of loose >pages calling itself the collected games of Mikhail Tal.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:29:33 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Given our librarians' choices of late in our local library I think
I'll trust my own instincts thank you very much.
Though to their credit they did get a couple of interesting books on >>>>> COVID. I'm currently reading "What REALLY happened in Wuhan"
China blocked WHO from investigating for 3 weeks, I do wonder what
_really_ happened there!
I'm now about 2/3 of the way through that book and it seems that the
Chinese were doing 'gain of function research' (which translates into
'how can we make this coronavirus MORE infectious and thus more
dangerous' research) with a fair amount of cooperation from US
researchers despite numerous broken Chinese promises on lab access.
The author is making a fairly strong case for the 'lab leak' theory
rather than deliberate release - thus culpable manslaughter not
murder.
Interesting! Thank you for the 2/3 review. As someone said in some random >interview I vaguely remember... "the clue is in the name" (of the lab). ;)
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 23:06:17 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:29:33 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Given our librarians' choices of late in our local library I think >>>>>> I'll trust my own instincts thank you very much.
Though to their credit they did get a couple of interesting books on >>>>>> COVID. I'm currently reading "What REALLY happened in Wuhan"
China blocked WHO from investigating for 3 weeks, I do wonder what
_really_ happened there!
I'm now about 2/3 of the way through that book and it seems that the
Chinese were doing 'gain of function research' (which translates into
'how can we make this coronavirus MORE infectious and thus more
dangerous' research) with a fair amount of cooperation from US
researchers despite numerous broken Chinese promises on lab access.
The author is making a fairly strong case for the 'lab leak' theory
rather than deliberate release - thus culpable manslaughter not
murder.
Interesting! Thank you for the 2/3 review. As someone said in some random
interview I vaguely remember... "the clue is in the name" (of the lab). ;)
Having now finished the book the author clearly favored an accidental
lab leak due to poor security procedures followed by a Beijing
cover-up.
One thing for sure - Beijing definitely knew what was going on before
North America or Europe and bought up all the surgical quality rubber
for masks they could before the word got out - and sold quite a bit of
it as a big profit. That much is proven beyond doubt.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45
should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard.
Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman
was a WW1 artilleryman)
Kids are heavily influenced by what their peers are doing. They need to
have at least some classmates who want to do well. If not, the only >motivation for doing well will have to be their families/culture,
and that's not enough to have a well-performing school district.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45
should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard.
Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman
was a WW1 artilleryman)
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:54:14 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45 >>should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard.
The "since" /could/ be interpreted as excluding Ike,
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 23:06:17 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Having now finished the book the author clearly favored an accidental
lab leak due to poor security procedures followed by a Beijing
cover-up.
One thing for sure - Beijing definitely knew what was going on before
North America or Europe and bought up all the surgical quality rubber
for masks they could before the word got out - and sold quite a bit of
it as a big profit. That much is proven beyond doubt.
On 8/20/2024 12:18 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45
should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard.
Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman
was a WW1 artilleryman)
     Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies.
He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret.
[...]
     Republican Reagan was not a NAZI but he was a tool of the
Monied Interests with his Trickle Down economics which have never
worked for the people at the end of the trickle down stream as it
is too weak when it gets to the bottom to support the recipients
in good health.
[...]
Lets not forget that when Reagan was President of the Screen
Actors Guild, he cooperated enthusiastically with the FBI and
the House Un-American Activities Committee to root out
Communists, real and supposed, in the film industry. I'm
sure that looked fascist to some.
pt
On 09/08/2024 21:00, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
And we still don't know why some kid tried to assassinate Trump. And
without knowing /that/ we can't say what form of wing-nuttery he was
expressing, and how many others share it.
If, indeed, there was any reason at all.
The assassin of Elizabeth of Austria killed her because he didn't have
the train fare to get close to anyone else whose death would make the news. >>
If that rally had been held elsewhere, the would-be assassin might now
be in the news for shooting the local mayor.
Or not, of course.
William Hyde
Donald Trump has sworn to hold another rally
at the same venue. I wonder if he will, because
I gather that most places he's gone to be
celebrated, he hasn't paid the bill for the event.
That gets you not asked back.
I am excited that the Secret Service are going
to seal Mr Trump in a bulletproof and airtight
box for any such occasion henceforth, but part
of this may be my wishful thinking.
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45
should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard.
Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman
was a WW1 artilleryman)
Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies.
He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret.
Republican Eisenhower was only fascist toward gays and Communists
Democrat JFK was left in pain from his wartime injuries.
Lyndon Baines Johnson served like Nixon in the USN which
allowed him a lot of time in Hollywood getting lessons.
Republican Nixon only technically served in Combat but did
work important to the War Effort. He succumbed to the idea of power
as the president which lead to Watergate and his resignation.
But for wartime ><https://thepurcellchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/05/commander-richard-m-nixon-and-world-war.html>
No one ever called these men NAZIs except maybe extreme pacifists.
Same for Republican Gerald Ford. Saved by a Gay man from
assassination. Gay Man's life was ruined by the publicity.
and Democrat Jimmy Carter, victim of Republican chicanery.
Republican Reagan was not a NAZI but he was a tool of the
Monied Interests with his Trickle Down economics which have never
worked for the people at the end of the trickle down stream as it
is too weak when it gets to the bottom to support the recipients
in good health.
Republican Bush I was never accused of Fascist leaning but
his Father was and maybe with some justice. So was good old Joe
Kennedy. Lots of American elite were Fascist and Isolationists.
It was the mood of the time lea\d by heroic but naive Charles
Lindbergh.
Democrat Clinton played some cool jazz which is assumed
to be anti-Fascist. However he loosened the rules on Investment
banking which gave us 2008 severe recession.
Republican Bush II was never accused of Fascism but he
was in the press accused of gross stupidity and took us into
the idea that Iraq was a Terrorist state with weapons of Mass
Destruction and got rid of an anti-terrorist dictator.
Democrat Obama of course was convicted of being black
by Moscow Mike McConnell who swore that Obama would not have
a second term but Obama was good enough that a majority of
the American People re-elected him.
Alleged Republican Trump proved that we could do
much worse than Bush II. He wants the powers of an autocrat
but mainly to avoid prosecution for his many derelictions of
presidential duties and laws governing the President. He
adopted pre-WW II ideas of isolationism and elite fascism.
In the outline by the so-called Christian Dominionists called
2025 these Fascist slugs claims they will institute a Theocracy
ruled by very un-Christian and equally un-American ideas.
Democrat Biden is the best since FDR. If only he had
a majority in the Congress for a longer time those monied
interests might be a bit less monied.
The reason presidents are restricted to only two terms
is because the Republicans feared a Democratic-led dictatorship
but of course in the 1930s the monied interests tried to
overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a retired Marine General
exposed them for their plotting. 1932,1936,1940 & 1944 he was
re-elected for leading the nation through the Depression and of
course for successfully leading the nation during WW II. By the
time the WW II ended he was dead He had been crippled by Polio
years before he became president and while with braces he could
stand he had strong young men around to support him. But being
in charge of a nation and a war left him with few physical
resources and he died in the service of his nation at 63 YOA.
Thank heaven he picked Truman as VP.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:18:51 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45
should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard.
Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman
was a WW1 artilleryman)
Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies.
He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret.
Republican Eisenhower was only fascist toward gays and Communists
Democrat JFK was left in pain from his wartime injuries.
Lyndon Baines Johnson served like Nixon in the USN which
allowed him a lot of time in Hollywood getting lessons.
Republican Nixon only technically served in Combat but did
work important to the War Effort. He succumbed to the idea of power
as the president which lead to Watergate and his resignation.
But for wartime
<https://thepurcellchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/05/commander-richard-m-nixon-and-world-war.html>
No one ever called these men NAZIs except maybe extreme pacifists.
Same for Republican Gerald Ford. Saved by a Gay man from
assassination. Gay Man's life was ruined by the publicity.
and Democrat Jimmy Carter, victim of Republican chicanery.
If it is true that Bush I cut a deal with Iran to not free the
hostages until Reagan was elected, then for "chicanery" we should read "treason".
Republican Reagan was not a NAZI but he was a tool of the
Monied Interests with his Trickle Down economics which have never
worked for the people at the end of the trickle down stream as it
is too weak when it gets to the bottom to support the recipients
in good health.
Republican Bush I was never accused of Fascist leaning but
his Father was and maybe with some justice. So was good old Joe
Kennedy. Lots of American elite were Fascist and Isolationists.
It was the mood of the time lea\d by heroic but naive Charles
Lindbergh.
Democrat Clinton played some cool jazz which is assumed
to be anti-Fascist. However he loosened the rules on Investment
banking which gave us 2008 severe recession.
Republican Bush II was never accused of Fascism but he
was in the press accused of gross stupidity and took us into
the idea that Iraq was a Terrorist state with weapons of Mass
Destruction and got rid of an anti-terrorist dictator.
Democrat Obama of course was convicted of being black
by Moscow Mike McConnell who swore that Obama would not have
a second term but Obama was good enough that a majority of
the American People re-elected him.
Alleged Republican Trump proved that we could do
much worse than Bush II. He wants the powers of an autocrat
but mainly to avoid prosecution for his many derelictions of
presidential duties and laws governing the President. He
adopted pre-WW II ideas of isolationism and elite fascism.
In the outline by the so-called Christian Dominionists called
2025 these Fascist slugs claims they will institute a Theocracy
ruled by very un-Christian and equally un-American ideas.
Democrat Biden is the best since FDR. If only he had
a majority in the Congress for a longer time those monied
interests might be a bit less monied.
The reason presidents are restricted to only two terms
is because the Republicans feared a Democratic-led dictatorship
but of course in the 1930s the monied interests tried to
overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a retired Marine General
exposed them for their plotting. 1932,1936,1940 & 1944 he was
re-elected for leading the nation through the Depression and of
course for successfully leading the nation during WW II. By the
time the WW II ended he was dead He had been crippled by Polio
years before he became president and while with braces he could
stand he had strong young men around to support him. But being
in charge of a nation and a war left him with few physical
resources and he died in the service of his nation at 63 YOA.
Thank heaven he picked Truman as VP.
Back in the 80's, my mother (a knee-jerk Republican: mention "Kennedy"
and her right knee would jerk and she'd say "Chappaquiddick") confided
in me that the only reason FDR served four terms was because the Dems
had /suspended the two term limit/ so he could do so. The reality, of
course, is that the two-term limit came later, mostly to prevent a
recurrence of a four-term Presidency.
As I've said before about the Republican Party: the rot runs deep,
very deep indeed.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:18:51 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45
should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard.
Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman
was a WW1 artilleryman)
Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies.
He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret.
Republican Eisenhower was only fascist toward gays and Communists
Democrat JFK was left in pain from his wartime injuries.
Lyndon Baines Johnson served like Nixon in the USN which
allowed him a lot of time in Hollywood getting lessons.
Republican Nixon only technically served in Combat but did
work important to the War Effort. He succumbed to the idea of power
as the president which lead to Watergate and his resignation.
But for wartime
<https://thepurcellchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/05/commander-richard-m-nixon-and-world-war.html>
No one ever called these men NAZIs except maybe extreme pacifists.
Same for Republican Gerald Ford. Saved by a Gay man from
assassination. Gay Man's life was ruined by the publicity.
and Democrat Jimmy Carter, victim of Republican chicanery.
If it is true that Bush I cut a deal with Iran to not free the
hostages until Reagan was elected, then for "chicanery" we should read "treason".
Republican Reagan was not a NAZI but he was a tool of the
Monied Interests with his Trickle Down economics which have never
worked for the people at the end of the trickle down stream as it
is too weak when it gets to the bottom to support the recipients
in good health.
Republican Bush I was never accused of Fascist leaning but
his Father was and maybe with some justice. So was good old Joe
Kennedy. Lots of American elite were Fascist and Isolationists.
It was the mood of the time lea\d by heroic but naive Charles
Lindbergh.
Democrat Clinton played some cool jazz which is assumed
to be anti-Fascist. However he loosened the rules on Investment
banking which gave us 2008 severe recession.
Republican Bush II was never accused of Fascism but he
was in the press accused of gross stupidity and took us into
the idea that Iraq was a Terrorist state with weapons of Mass
Destruction and got rid of an anti-terrorist dictator.
Democrat Obama of course was convicted of being black
by Moscow Mike McConnell who swore that Obama would not have
a second term but Obama was good enough that a majority of
the American People re-elected him.
Alleged Republican Trump proved that we could do
much worse than Bush II. He wants the powers of an autocrat
but mainly to avoid prosecution for his many derelictions of
presidential duties and laws governing the President. He
adopted pre-WW II ideas of isolationism and elite fascism.
In the outline by the so-called Christian Dominionists called
2025 these Fascist slugs claims they will institute a Theocracy
ruled by very un-Christian and equally un-American ideas.
Democrat Biden is the best since FDR. If only he had
a majority in the Congress for a longer time those monied
interests might be a bit less monied.
The reason presidents are restricted to only two terms
is because the Republicans feared a Democratic-led dictatorship
but of course in the 1930s the monied interests tried to
overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a retired Marine General
exposed them for their plotting. 1932,1936,1940 & 1944 he was
re-elected for leading the nation through the Depression and of
course for successfully leading the nation during WW II. By the
time the WW II ended he was dead He had been crippled by Polio
years before he became president and while with braces he could
stand he had strong young men around to support him. But being
in charge of a nation and a war left him with few physical
resources and he died in the service of his nation at 63 YOA.
Thank heaven he picked Truman as VP.
Back in the 80's, my mother (a knee-jerk Republican: mention "Kennedy"
and her right knee would jerk and she'd say "Chappaquiddick") confided
in me that the only reason FDR served four terms was because the Dems
had /suspended the two term limit/ so he could do so. The reality, of
course, is that the two-term limit came later, mostly to prevent a
recurrence of a four-term Presidency.
As I've said before about the Republican Party: the rot runs deep,
very deep indeed.
On 8/21/2024 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:18:51 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45 >>>> should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard.
Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman >>>> was a WW1 artilleryman)
Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies.
He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret.
Republican Eisenhower was only fascist toward gays and Communists
Democrat JFK was left in pain from his wartime injuries.
Lyndon Baines Johnson served like Nixon in the USN which
allowed him a lot of time in Hollywood getting lessons.
Republican Nixon only technically served in Combat but did
work important to the War Effort. He succumbed to the idea of power
as the president which lead to Watergate and his resignation.
But for wartime
<https://thepurcellchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/05/commander-richard-m-nixon-and-world-war.html>
No one ever called these men NAZIs except maybe extreme pacifists.
Same for Republican Gerald Ford. Saved by a Gay man from
assassination. Gay Man's life was ruined by the publicity.
and Democrat Jimmy Carter, victim of Republican chicanery.
If it is true that Bush I cut a deal with Iran to not free the
hostages until Reagan was elected, then for "chicanery" we should read
"treason".
Deals have two sides. What quid pro quo did Bush offer?
I've always been under the impression that it was just
Iran giving Clinton a final 'fuck you in particular'.
I know there is an 'October Surprise' theory, but again,
what did Iran get out of it?
On 8/21/2024 6:10 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:18:51 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for >>>>>>>> some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45 >>>>>> should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard. >>>>>> Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman >>>>>> was a WW1 artilleryman)
Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies.
He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret. >>>>>
Republican Eisenhower was only fascist toward gays and Communists
Democrat JFK was left in pain from his wartime injuries.
Lyndon Baines Johnson served like Nixon in the USN which
allowed him a lot of time in Hollywood getting lessons.
Republican Nixon only technically served in Combat but did
work important to the War Effort. He succumbed to the idea of power
as the president which lead to Watergate and his resignation.
But for wartime
<https://thepurcellchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/05/commander-richard-m-nixon-and-world-war.html>No one ever called these men NAZIs except maybe extreme pacifists. >>>>>
Same for Republican Gerald Ford. Saved by a Gay man from
assassination. Gay Man's life was ruined by the publicity.
and Democrat Jimmy Carter, victim of Republican chicanery.
If it is true that Bush I cut a deal with Iran to not free the
hostages until Reagan was elected, then for "chicanery" we should read >>>> "treason".
Deals have two sides. What quid pro quo did Bush offer?
I've always been under the impression that it was just
Iran giving Clinton a final 'fuck you in particular'.
I know there is an 'October Surprise' theory, but again,
what did Iran get out of it?
I think you two are talking different Bush Eras. It's not
difficult to believe that someone in Reagan's orbit influenced
the Iranians in order to smooth the path to a Reagan presidency.
Especially when one considers the subsequent Iran-Contra affair.
As for Ms. Clinton, the GOP has been attacking her personally
and continuously since 1992, trying pretty much every dirty
politcal trick in the book.
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
On 8/21/2024 6:10 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:18:51 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican >>>>>>>> president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for >>>>>>>> some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities
1942-45
should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard. >>>>>> Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well
Truman
was a WW1 artilleryman)
    Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies. >>>>> He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret. >>>>>
    Republican Eisenhower was only fascist toward gays and Communists >>>>>
    Democrat JFK was left in pain from his wartime injuries.
    Lyndon Baines Johnson served like Nixon in the USN which
allowed him a lot of time in Hollywood getting lessons.
    Republican Nixon only technically served in Combat but did
work important to the War Effort. He succumbed to the idea of power
as the president which lead to Watergate and his resignation.
But for wartime
<https://thepurcellchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/05/commander-richard-m-nixon-and-world-war.html>
    No one ever called these men NAZIs except maybe extreme pacifists.
    Same for Republican Gerald Ford. Saved by a Gay man from
assassination. Gay Man's life was ruined by the publicity.
    and Democrat Jimmy Carter, victim of Republican chicanery.
If it is true that Bush I cut a deal with Iran to not free the
hostages until Reagan was elected, then for "chicanery" we should read >>>> "treason".
Deals have two sides. What quid pro quo did Bush offer?
I've always been under the impression that it was just
Iran giving Clinton a final 'fuck you in particular'.
I know there is an 'October Surprise' theory, but again,
what did Iran get out of it?
I think you two are talking different Bush Eras.  It's not
difficult to believe that someone in Reagan's orbit influenced
the Iranians in order to smooth the path to a Reagan presidency.
Especially when one considers the subsequent Iran-Contra affair.
As for Ms. Clinton, the GOP has been attacking her personally
and continuously since 1992, trying pretty much every dirty
politcal trick in the book.
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.You have flunked your history exam!
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
pt
On 8/21/2024 6:10 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:18:51 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for >>>>>>>> some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45 >>>>>> should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard. >>>>>> Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman >>>>>> was a WW1 artilleryman)
Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies.
He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret. >>>>>
Republican Eisenhower was only fascist toward gays and Communists
Democrat JFK was left in pain from his wartime injuries.
Lyndon Baines Johnson served like Nixon in the USN which
allowed him a lot of time in Hollywood getting lessons.
Republican Nixon only technically served in Combat but did
work important to the War Effort. He succumbed to the idea of power
as the president which lead to Watergate and his resignation.
But for wartime
<https://thepurcellchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/05/commander-richard-m-nixon-and-world-war.html>
No one ever called these men NAZIs except maybe extreme pacifists. >>>>>
Same for Republican Gerald Ford. Saved by a Gay man from
assassination. Gay Man's life was ruined by the publicity.
and Democrat Jimmy Carter, victim of Republican chicanery.
If it is true that Bush I cut a deal with Iran to not free the
hostages until Reagan was elected, then for "chicanery" we should read >>>> "treason".
Deals have two sides. What quid pro quo did Bush offer?
I've always been under the impression that it was just
Iran giving Clinton a final 'fuck you in particular'.
I know there is an 'October Surprise' theory, but again,
what did Iran get out of it?
I think you two are talking different Bush Eras. It's not
difficult to believe that someone in Reagan's orbit influenced
the Iranians in order to smooth the path to a Reagan presidency.
Especially when one considers the subsequent Iran-Contra affair.
As for Ms. Clinton, the GOP has been attacking her personally
and continuously since 1992, trying pretty much every dirty
politcal trick in the book.
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
On 8/21/2024 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:18:51 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican
president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for
some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45 >>>> should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard.
Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman >>>> was a WW1 artilleryman)
Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies.
He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret.
Republican Eisenhower was only fascist toward gays and Communists
Democrat JFK was left in pain from his wartime injuries.
Lyndon Baines Johnson served like Nixon in the USN which
allowed him a lot of time in Hollywood getting lessons.
Republican Nixon only technically served in Combat but did
work important to the War Effort. He succumbed to the idea of power
as the president which lead to Watergate and his resignation.
But for wartime
<https://thepurcellchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/05/commander-richard-m-nixon-and-world-war.html>
No one ever called these men NAZIs except maybe extreme pacifists.
Same for Republican Gerald Ford. Saved by a Gay man from
assassination. Gay Man's life was ruined by the publicity.
and Democrat Jimmy Carter, victim of Republican chicanery.
If it is true that Bush I cut a deal with Iran to not free the
hostages until Reagan was elected, then for "chicanery" we should read
"treason".
Deals have two sides. What quid pro quo did Bush offer?
I've always been under the impression that it was just
Iran giving Clinton a final 'fuck you in particular'.
I know there is an 'October Surprise' theory, but again,
what did Iran get out of it?
Back in the 80's, my mother (a knee-jerk Republican: mention "Kennedy"
and her right knee would jerk and she'd say "Chappaquiddick") confided
in me that the only reason FDR served four terms was because the Dems
had /suspended the two term limit/ so he could do so. The reality, of
course, is that the two-term limit came later, mostly to prevent a
recurrence of a four-term Presidency.
As I've said before about the Republican Party: the rot runs deep,
very deep indeed.
I think I have covered that.
But the Democratic Party was racist until Kennedy Time.
He was the only president I ever bothered to gaze upon in
San Diego not long before I got kicked out and he got murdered.
My friends in Sacramento were absolutely destroyed by the
assassination but I was too intent on surviving with a UD. And
so once more I was out of step with the mood of the time. I
am really good at that.
Ford was in San Francisco and I did not get up to catch--
a look at him because it was 5 blocks away. I thought of what I
would see and it would be mostly the backs of other proles and
police which sights I could see without crowding ever day of
the week.
On 8/21/2024 11:27 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <va68qr$6u1l$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/2024 6:10 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:<https://thepurcellchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/05/commander-richard-m-nixon-and-world-war.html>
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:18:51 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 8/19/24 23:54, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:29:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Which ones? The usual suspects have accused every Republican >>>>>>>>>> president since Eisenhower of being a Nazi. (Except Ford, for >>>>>>>>>> some reason; him, they just tried to assassinate. Twice.)
Tried and, as with Reagan and Trump failed.
Did Ike ever get accused of being a Nazi? Seems his activities 1942-45 >>>>>>>> should have forever inoculated him against that particular canard. >>>>>>>> Ditto Truman, JFK and Nixon all of whom served in combat. (Well Truman >>>>>>>> was a WW1 artilleryman)
Democrat Truman was never accused of dictatorial tendencies. >>>>>>> He could threaten violence for bad reviews of his daughter Margaret. >>>>>>>
Republican Eisenhower was only fascist toward gays and Communists
Democrat JFK was left in pain from his wartime injuries. >>>>>>>
Lyndon Baines Johnson served like Nixon in the USN which >>>>>>> allowed him a lot of time in Hollywood getting lessons.
Republican Nixon only technically served in Combat but did >>>>>>> work important to the War Effort. He succumbed to the idea of power >>>>>>> as the president which lead to Watergate and his resignation.
But for wartime
No one ever called these men NAZIs except maybe extreme pacifists.If it is true that Bush I cut a deal with Iran to not free the
Same for Republican Gerald Ford. Saved by a Gay man from >>>>>>> assassination. Gay Man's life was ruined by the publicity.
and Democrat Jimmy Carter, victim of Republican chicanery. >>>>>>
hostages until Reagan was elected, then for "chicanery" we should read >>>>>> "treason".
Deals have two sides. What quid pro quo did Bush offer?
I've always been under the impression that it was just
Iran giving Clinton a final 'fuck you in particular'.
I know there is an 'October Surprise' theory, but again,
what did Iran get out of it?
I think you two are talking different Bush Eras. It's not
difficult to believe that someone in Reagan's orbit influenced
the Iranians in order to smooth the path to a Reagan presidency.
Especially when one considers the subsequent Iran-Contra affair.
As for Ms. Clinton, the GOP has been attacking her personally
and continuously since 1992, trying pretty much every dirty
politcal trick in the book.
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
I believe you may have confused Bill Clinton (POTUS 1993 - 2000)
Jimmy Carter (POTUS 1977 to 1980).
Yup. Major brain fart.
But it doesn't change the point. How do you get Bush I (who
did a lot of diplomatic work when the GOP were in power),
negotiating with Iran over the hostage deal, when he was
a private citizen? What quid pro quo could he offer to the
Iranians?
Substituting Clinton for Carter doesn't affect the question.
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
In article <va7orb$o8c$1@panix3.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
This would make a GREAT alternate history novel! I'd read it!
--scott
Clinton is very slightly too young. He was born August 1946.
A relevant clause says "(...) neither shall any person be eligible to that >Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years".
Clinton did not hit 35 until August 1981.
Maybe there's wiggle room if the candidate will turn 35 after the election >but before taking office but I think six months into a four year
term is not workable.
Of course, Clinton's a Democratic President, so perhaps Carter would
agree to stay on until August, 1981? But I don't know that he can.
On 8/21/2024 11:27 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <va68qr$6u1l$1@dont-email.me>,
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
I believe you may have confused Bill Clinton (POTUS 1993 - 2000)
Jimmy Carter (POTUS 1977 to 1980).
Yup. Major brain fart.
But it doesn't change the point. How do you get Bush I (who
did a lot of diplomatic work when the GOP were in power),
negotiating with Iran over the hostage deal, when he was
a private citizen? What quid pro quo could he offer to the
Iranians?
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
This would make a GREAT alternate history novel! I'd read it!
--scott
In article <va7orb$o8c$1@panix3.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
This would make a GREAT alternate history novel! I'd read it!
Clinton is very slightly too young. He was born August 1946.
He (GHWB) had been the director of the Central Intelligence Agency
during the previous (Ford) republican administration.
On 8/22/2024 12:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
This would make a GREAT alternate history novel! I'd read it!
--scott
Mea Culpa
pt
On 8/22/2024 1:58 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 11:27 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <va68qr$6u1l$1@dont-email.me>,
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
I believe you may have confused Bill Clinton (POTUS 1993 - 2000)
Jimmy Carter (POTUS 1977 to 1980).
Yup. Major brain fart.
But it doesn't change the point. How do you get Bush I (who
did a lot of diplomatic work when the GOP were in power),
negotiating with Iran over the hostage deal, when he was
a private citizen? What quid pro quo could he offer to the
Iranians?
He (GHWB) had been the director of the Central Intelligence Agency
during the previous (Ford) republican administration.
...which means that he certainly aware of the Logan Act, which
forbids private citizens from negotiating like that. Prior to
Reagan's inauguration, Bush was a private citizen.
On 8/22/2024 1:58 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 11:27 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <va68qr$6u1l$1@dont-email.me>,
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
I believe you may have confused Bill Clinton (POTUS 1993 - 2000)
Jimmy Carter (POTUS 1977 to 1980).
Yup. Major brain fart.
But it doesn't change the point. How do you get Bush I (who
did a lot of diplomatic work when the GOP were in power),
negotiating with Iran over the hostage deal, when he was
a private citizen? What quid pro quo could he offer to the
Iranians?
He (GHWB) had been the director of the Central Intelligence Agency
during the previous (Ford) republican administration.
...which means that he certainly aware of the Logan Act, which
forbids private citizens from negotiating like that. Prior to
Reagan's inauguration, Bush was a private citizen.
In article <va7orb$o8c$1@panix3.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
This would make a GREAT alternate history novel! I'd read it!
--scott
Clinton is very slightly too young. He was born August 1946.
A relevant clause says "(...) neither shall any person be eligible to that >Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years".
Clinton did not hit 35 until August 1981.
Maybe there's wiggle room if the candidate will turn 35 after the election >but before taking office but I think six months into a four year
term is not workable.
Of course, Clinton's a Democratic President, so perhaps Carter would
agree to stay on until August, 1981? But I don't know that he can.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:32:41 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
<snippo>
Back in the 80's, my mother (a knee-jerk Republican: mention "Kennedy" >>>> and her right knee would jerk and she'd say "Chappaquiddick") confided >>>> in me that the only reason FDR served four terms was because the Dems
had /suspended the two term limit/ so he could do so. The reality, of
course, is that the two-term limit came later, mostly to prevent a
recurrence of a four-term Presidency.
As I've said before about the Republican Party: the rot runs deep,
very deep indeed.
I think I have covered that.
But the Democratic Party was racist until Kennedy Time.
He was the only president I ever bothered to gaze upon in
San Diego not long before I got kicked out and he got murdered.
My friends in Sacramento were absolutely destroyed by the
assassination but I was too intent on surviving with a UD. And
so once more I was out of step with the mood of the time. I
am really good at that.
The Southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") were. How badly that tinged the
rest of the party I have no idea.
As Caro describes it in "Master of the Senate" the Southern Democratic >Caucus was segregationist, with (IIRC) twenty two votes, with at the
time two southern democratic senators being against segregation.
That was not enough to avoid cloture of a filibuster. But they cut a
deal with western (but not west coast) republicans. In return for
southern support of federal funding for western infrastructure, the
western and midwest republican senators would not support a cloture
vote, thus giving the south the power to filibuster anything.
It was this alliance that killed, e.g. the original 1957 civil rights
bill, though it was supported by east and west coast republicans,
northern democrats, by Eisenhower and Nixon.
Humphrey, Jackson, and other liberal senators were glad to get something >called "civil rights" passed, and LBJ needed it for his presidential >ambitions, but in actual fact the act achieved nothing.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:34:03 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/22/2024 1:58 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 11:27 PM, James Nicoll wrote:=20
In article <va68qr$6u1l$1@dont-email.me>,
=20
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
I believe you may have confused Bill Clinton (POTUS 1993 - 2000)
Jimmy Carter (POTUS 1977 to 1980).
Yup. Major brain fart.
But it doesn't change the point. How do you get Bush I (who
did a lot of diplomatic work when the GOP were in power),
negotiating with Iran over the hostage deal, when he was
a private citizen? What quid pro quo could he offer to the
Iranians?
He (GHWB) had been the director of the Central Intelligence Agency
during the previous (Ford) republican administration.
=20
...which means that he certainly aware of the Logan Act, which
forbids private citizens from negotiating like that. Prior to
Reagan's inauguration, Bush was a private citizen.
IIRC, he was the Republican Candidate for Vice-President. Not quite
what the term "private citizen" calls to mind. OTOH, this was
pre-election, so the term would apply unless he was doing it
officially.
Does anything /really/ leave the CIA? Could the CIA have approved the >(entirely hypothetical) mission?
=46rankly, I think this more tantalizing than likely, as he would have
to either ditch his Secret Service detail or take them with him on a >clandestine operation, both rather unlikely.
In article <va83rb$i1pu$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/22/2024 1:58 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:But he was head of the CIA, so used to treating laws as an optional
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 11:27 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <va68qr$6u1l$1@dont-email.me>,
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
I believe you may have confused Bill Clinton (POTUS 1993 - 2000)
Jimmy Carter (POTUS 1977 to 1980).
Yup. Major brain fart.
But it doesn't change the point. How do you get Bush I (who
did a lot of diplomatic work when the GOP were in power),
negotiating with Iran over the hostage deal, when he was
a private citizen? What quid pro quo could he offer to the
Iranians?
He (GHWB) had been the director of the Central Intelligence Agency
during the previous (Ford) republican administration.
...which means that he certainly aware of the Logan Act, which
forbids private citizens from negotiating like that. Prior to
Reagan's inauguration, Bush was a private citizen.
extra.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 8/22/2024 12:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
This would make a GREAT alternate history novel! I'd read it!
--scott
Mea Culpa
pt
Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:34:03 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/22/2024 1:58 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 11:27 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <va68qr$6u1l$1@dont-email.me>,
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
I believe you may have confused Bill Clinton (POTUS 1993 - 2000)
Jimmy Carter (POTUS 1977 to 1980).
Yup. Major brain fart.
But it doesn't change the point. How do you get Bush I (who
did a lot of diplomatic work when the GOP were in power),
negotiating with Iran over the hostage deal, when he was
a private citizen? What quid pro quo could he offer to the
Iranians?
He (GHWB) had been the director of the Central Intelligence Agency
during the previous (Ford) republican administration.
...which means that he certainly aware of the Logan Act, which
forbids private citizens from negotiating like that. Prior to
Reagan's inauguration, Bush was a private citizen.
IIRC, he was the Republican Candidate for Vice-President. Not quite
what the term "private citizen" calls to mind. OTOH, this was
pre-election, so the term would apply unless he was doing it
officially.
Does anything /really/ leave the CIA? Could the CIA have approved the (entirely hypothetical) mission?
Frankly, I think this more tantalizing than likely, as he would have
to either ditch his Secret Service detail or take them with him on a clandestine operation, both rather unlikely.
On 8/23/24 06:40, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <va83rb$i1pu$1@dont-email.me>,That is the case indeed. The Land-n-Order Republican President
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/22/2024 1:58 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:But he was head of the CIA, so used to treating laws as an optional
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/21/2024 11:27 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <va68qr$6u1l$1@dont-email.me>,
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
I believe you may have confused Bill Clinton (POTUS 1993 - 2000)
Jimmy Carter (POTUS 1977 to 1980).
Yup. Major brain fart.
But it doesn't change the point. How do you get Bush I (who
did a lot of diplomatic work when the GOP were in power),
negotiating with Iran over the hostage deal, when he was
a private citizen? What quid pro quo could he offer to the
Iranians?
He (GHWB) had been the director of the Central Intelligence Agency
during the previous (Ford) republican administration.
...which means that he certainly aware of the Logan Act, which
forbids private citizens from negotiating like that. Prior to
Reagan's inauguration, Bush was a private citizen.
extra.
though broke laws himself dealing with Nicaragua. He really should have
been impeached but of course Presidential Immunity saved him for
dementia. He was just a front for the rich and largely unknow people
who pay little tax but made large contributions to the Congress persons
of their choice who support the anti-tax movement.
And he is sainted by the GOP since he took down the Soviet Union by
the simple expedienent of outspending the USSR. Alos they
seem to think he followed their line on taxation of the most highly >remunerated.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:57:51 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:32:41 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
<snippo>
Back in the 80's, my mother (a knee-jerk Republican: mention "Kennedy" >>>>>> and her right knee would jerk and she'd say "Chappaquiddick") confided >>>>>> in me that the only reason FDR served four terms was because the Dems >>>>>> had /suspended the two term limit/ so he could do so. The reality, of >>>>>> course, is that the two-term limit came later, mostly to prevent a >>>>>> recurrence of a four-term Presidency.
As I've said before about the Republican Party: the rot runs deep, >>>>>> very deep indeed.
I think I have covered that.
But the Democratic Party was racist until Kennedy Time.
He was the only president I ever bothered to gaze upon in
San Diego not long before I got kicked out and he got murdered.
My friends in Sacramento were absolutely destroyed by the
assassination but I was too intent on surviving with a UD. And
so once more I was out of step with the mood of the time. I
am really good at that.
The Southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") were. How badly that tinged the
rest of the party I have no idea.
As Caro describes it in "Master of the Senate" the Southern Democratic
Caucus was segregationist, with (IIRC) twenty two votes, with at the
time two southern democratic senators being against segregation.
That was not enough to avoid cloture of a filibuster. But they cut a
deal with western (but not west coast) republicans. In return for
southern support of federal funding for western infrastructure, the
western and midwest republican senators would not support a cloture
vote, thus giving the south the power to filibuster anything.
It was this alliance that killed, e.g. the original 1957 civil rights
bill, though it was supported by east and west coast republicans,
northern democrats, by Eisenhower and Nixon.
Humphrey, Jackson, and other liberal senators were glad to get something >>> called "civil rights" passed, and LBJ needed it for his presidential
ambitions, but in actual fact the act achieved nothing.
Actually, I read an article (how long ago and in what source I do not
know) that LBJ fought to get the provisions on voting tried in
/Federal/ courts rather than /State/ courts. The jury pools were
different, and the Federal juries were less likely to side with the
accused when African-American voters were being suppressed.
IOW, he (and others) ensured that the law had some /teeth/.
LBJ was in a tough situation. He owed everything, even his senate seat,
to deeply conservative democrats. He had the strong support of the >segregationist caucus. To be president he needed some liberal
credentials, and this bill was a major part of that. But 90% of the >original bill had to be discarded to gain the acquiescence of the
southern democratic caucus.
It failed, though. Liberals and moderates did not take to him. He
never understood that when you destroy people as he did Leland Olds, for >example, other people actually remember. So he had zero chance of the >nomination in 1960.
Caro was not able to find a record of any prosecutions under this law. >Certainly there weren't many.
On 8/23/24 03:01, D wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 8/22/2024 12:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
This would make a GREAT alternate history novel! I'd read it!
--scott
Mea Culpa
pt
Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus
Sancti.
Now prescribe a penance appropriate for the mistatement of history in
the 20th Century. I would send him to study History
of the 20th Century and recite a rosary every 10 years that he
completes. :^)
Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:11:16 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:57:51 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:32:41 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
<snippo>
Back in the 80's, my mother (a knee-jerk Republican: mention "Kennedy" >>>>>>>> and her right knee would jerk and she'd say "Chappaquiddick") confided >>>>>>>> in me that the only reason FDR served four terms was because the Dems >>>>>>>> had /suspended the two term limit/ so he could do so. The reality, of >>>>>>>> course, is that the two-term limit came later, mostly to prevent a >>>>>>>> recurrence of a four-term Presidency.
As I've said before about the Republican Party: the rot runs deep, >>>>>>>> very deep indeed.
I think I have covered that.
But the Democratic Party was racist until Kennedy Time.
He was the only president I ever bothered to gaze upon in
San Diego not long before I got kicked out and he got murdered.
My friends in Sacramento were absolutely destroyed by the
assassination but I was too intent on surviving with a UD. And
so once more I was out of step with the mood of the time. I
am really good at that.
The Southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") were. How badly that tinged the >>>>>> rest of the party I have no idea.
As Caro describes it in "Master of the Senate" the Southern Democratic >>>>> Caucus was segregationist, with (IIRC) twenty two votes, with at the >>>>> time two southern democratic senators being against segregation.
That was not enough to avoid cloture of a filibuster. But they cut a >>>>> deal with western (but not west coast) republicans. In return for
southern support of federal funding for western infrastructure, the
western and midwest republican senators would not support a cloture
vote, thus giving the south the power to filibuster anything.
It was this alliance that killed, e.g. the original 1957 civil rights >>>>> bill, though it was supported by east and west coast republicans,
northern democrats, by Eisenhower and Nixon.
Humphrey, Jackson, and other liberal senators were glad to get something >>>>> called "civil rights" passed, and LBJ needed it for his presidential >>>>> ambitions, but in actual fact the act achieved nothing.
Actually, I read an article (how long ago and in what source I do not
know) that LBJ fought to get the provisions on voting tried in
/Federal/ courts rather than /State/ courts. The jury pools were
different, and the Federal juries were less likely to side with the
accused when African-American voters were being suppressed.
IOW, he (and others) ensured that the law had some /teeth/.
LBJ was in a tough situation. He owed everything, even his senate seat, >>> to deeply conservative democrats. He had the strong support of the
segregationist caucus. To be president he needed some liberal
credentials, and this bill was a major part of that. But 90% of the
original bill had to be discarded to gain the acquiescence of the
southern democratic caucus.
It failed, though. Liberals and moderates did not take to him. He
never understood that when you destroy people as he did Leland Olds, for >>> example, other people actually remember. So he had zero chance of the
nomination in 1960.
Caro was not able to find a record of any prosecutions under this law.
Certainly there weren't many.
I wouldn't have been able to comment on it if someone else hadn't
brought it up. Bing was obsessed with the Civil Rights Act of 1965
(which, IIRC, LBJ was also instrumental in getting passed, this time
as President).
The article considered the 1957 bill to be an important step. I don't
recall if it discussed how it was used.
It was an important step indeed. First, because powerless as it was in >application, it was the first civil rights act passed since 1875. The >segregationists would never have let it pass did they not think that LBJ
was one of their own.
And while its provisions may never have been enforced, they were now
there in law, which made their expansion a possibility. It may well be
that simply by existing it had some effect on potential malefactors. I >don't know.
Also, the original 1957 bill formed much of the material of the 65 bill.
LBJ would have liked to pass the 57 bill as it was originally written -
and that would have gone a long way to repair his reputation among
moderates and liberals - but that was quite impossible then.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 18:32:03 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:11:16 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:57:51 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:32:41 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
<snippo>
Back in the 80's, my mother (a knee-jerk Republican: mention "Kennedy"
and her right knee would jerk and she'd say "Chappaquiddick") confided
in me that the only reason FDR served four terms was because the Dems >>>>>>>>> had /suspended the two term limit/ so he could do so. The reality, of >>>>>>>>> course, is that the two-term limit came later, mostly to prevent a >>>>>>>>> recurrence of a four-term Presidency.
As I've said before about the Republican Party: the rot runs deep, >>>>>>>>> very deep indeed.
I think I have covered that.
But the Democratic Party was racist until Kennedy Time. >>>>>>>> He was the only president I ever bothered to gaze upon in
San Diego not long before I got kicked out and he got murdered. >>>>>>>> My friends in Sacramento were absolutely destroyed by the
assassination but I was too intent on surviving with a UD. And >>>>>>>> so once more I was out of step with the mood of the time. I
am really good at that.
The Southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") were. How badly that tinged the >>>>>>> rest of the party I have no idea.
As Caro describes it in "Master of the Senate" the Southern Democratic >>>>>> Caucus was segregationist, with (IIRC) twenty two votes, with at the >>>>>> time two southern democratic senators being against segregation.
That was not enough to avoid cloture of a filibuster. But they cut a >>>>>> deal with western (but not west coast) republicans. In return for >>>>>> southern support of federal funding for western infrastructure, the >>>>>> western and midwest republican senators would not support a cloture >>>>>> vote, thus giving the south the power to filibuster anything.
It was this alliance that killed, e.g. the original 1957 civil rights >>>>>> bill, though it was supported by east and west coast republicans,
northern democrats, by Eisenhower and Nixon.
Humphrey, Jackson, and other liberal senators were glad to get something >>>>>> called "civil rights" passed, and LBJ needed it for his presidential >>>>>> ambitions, but in actual fact the act achieved nothing.
Actually, I read an article (how long ago and in what source I do not >>>>> know) that LBJ fought to get the provisions on voting tried in
/Federal/ courts rather than /State/ courts. The jury pools were
different, and the Federal juries were less likely to side with the
accused when African-American voters were being suppressed.
IOW, he (and others) ensured that the law had some /teeth/.
LBJ was in a tough situation. He owed everything, even his senate seat, >>>> to deeply conservative democrats. He had the strong support of the
segregationist caucus. To be president he needed some liberal
credentials, and this bill was a major part of that. But 90% of the
original bill had to be discarded to gain the acquiescence of the
southern democratic caucus.
It failed, though. Liberals and moderates did not take to him. He
never understood that when you destroy people as he did Leland Olds, for >>>> example, other people actually remember. So he had zero chance of the
nomination in 1960.
Caro was not able to find a record of any prosecutions under this law. >>>> Certainly there weren't many.
I wouldn't have been able to comment on it if someone else hadn't
brought it up. Bing was obsessed with the Civil Rights Act of 1965
(which, IIRC, LBJ was also instrumental in getting passed, this time
as President).
The article considered the 1957 bill to be an important step. I don't
recall if it discussed how it was used.
It was an important step indeed. First, because powerless as it was in
application, it was the first civil rights act passed since 1875. The
segregationists would never have let it pass did they not think that LBJ
was one of their own.
And while its provisions may never have been enforced, they were now
there in law, which made their expansion a possibility. It may well be
that simply by existing it had some effect on potential malefactors. I
don't know.
Also, the original 1957 bill formed much of the material of the 65 bill.
LBJ would have liked to pass the 57 bill as it was originally written -
and that would have gone a long way to repair his reputation among
moderates and liberals - but that was quite impossible then.
All this is very interesting.
1957 was, of course, back when politics was the art of the possible.
Now it is the art of screaming, yelling, and holding-my-breath-till-my-face-turns-blue.
I hate to sound like every other ancient curmudgeon, but that appears
to be where I am.
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
I think you two are talking different Bush Eras. It's not
difficult to believe that someone in Reagan's orbit influenced
the Iranians in order to smooth the path to a Reagan presidency.
Especially when one considers the subsequent Iran-Contra affair.
As for Ms. Clinton, the GOP has been attacking her personally
and continuously since 1992, trying pretty much every dirty
politcal trick in the book.
On 8/30/2024 1:00 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 22:46:51 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
The Iran hostage crisis was 1980 or thereabouts. Clinton was POTUS
1993-2001.
Get thee to a library!
I think you're the fourth person to point this out, and very late
to the party.
Yes, I had a serious brain fart - the hostage crisis was under Carter.
However, the detail is irrelevant to the point. At the time Paul S
claimed Bush was negotiating with Iran, he was a private citizen,
and as such subject to the Logan Act, which outlaws such activity.
Similarly, Trump would be subject to it if he contacted Putin or
Netanyahu.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 22:10:59 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
I think you two are talking different Bush Eras. It's not
difficult to believe that someone in Reagan's orbit influenced
the Iranians in order to smooth the path to a Reagan presidency.
Especially when one considers the subsequent Iran-Contra affair.
As for Ms. Clinton, the GOP has been attacking her personally
and continuously since 1992, trying pretty much every dirty
politcal trick in the book.
The version I heard had the Iranians not wanting to release the
hostages till Carter was out of power with the end result being that
they were airborne hours before the inauguration but only landed after
Reagan was scheduled to be sworn in.
Certainly I remember the old 'joke' 'What is dark, flat and VERY
quiet?' with the answer being "Teheran 5 minutes after Reagan is sworn
in"
The "since" /could/ be interpreted as excluding Ike, but I agree thatCould be me mis-clipping or could be Agent - I have from time to time
the statement is most likely a Putin/Trump Talking Point (PTTP would
make a nice substitute for the phrase). (Note that someone has snipped >whoever I was responding to, so your response is directed to ...
someone unknown, not me).
--
In article <vattpg$rchv$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/30/2024 1:00 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 22:46:51 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, no. Paul S claimed that Bush I cut a deal with Iran.
The Clinton I referred to was Bill Clinton, who was president
during the Iran Hostage crisis. The final group of hostages
was released Jan 20, 1981, mere hours after Clinton had
handed over power to Reagan.
Bush I was a private citizen during Clinton's presidency,
and could not legally engage in diplomacy.
The Iran hostage crisis was 1980 or thereabouts. Clinton was POTUS
1993-2001.
Get thee to a library!
I think you're the fourth person to point this out, and very late
to the party.
Yes, I had a serious brain fart - the hostage crisis was under Carter.
However, the detail is irrelevant to the point. At the time Paul S
claimed Bush was negotiating with Iran, he was a private citizen,
and as such subject to the Logan Act, which outlaws such activity.
Similarly, Trump would be subject to it if he contacted Putin or
Netanyahu.
That would only be an issue if the Logan Act was ever enforced.
Similarly, Trump would be subject to it if he contacted Putin or >>>Netanyahu.
That would only be an issue if the Logan Act was ever enforced.
And GHWB had been caught in the act. It's far more likely that
he would have worked through several intermediaries.
The version I heard had the Iranians not wanting to release the
hostages till Carter was out of power with the end result being that
they were airborne hours before the inauguration but only landed after
Reagan was scheduled to be sworn in.
In article <8du3dj5ugangf7klhupc5rmpqgt8tplqf1@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
The version I heard had the Iranians not wanting to release the
hostages till Carter was out of power with the end result being that
they were airborne hours before the inauguration but only landed after >>Reagan was scheduled to be sworn in.
The Ayatollas had a very serious hate on for Carter because
he wouldn't extradite the Shah to them when he came to the
US for medical treatment. The failed hostage rescue just put
the cherry on the top of that.
It was clear to me all along that they would never release
the hostages while Carter was President. They waited until
Reagan inaugurated because (1) he was Not Carter, and (2)
they had serious misgivinges about what he would do.
In article <8du3dj5ugangf7klhupc5rmpqgt8tplqf1@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
The version I heard had the Iranians not wanting to release the
hostages till Carter was out of power with the end result being that
they were airborne hours before the inauguration but only landed after >>Reagan was scheduled to be sworn in.
The Ayatollas had a very serious hate on for Carter because
he wouldn't extradite the Shah to them when he came to the
US for medical treatment. The failed hostage rescue just put
the cherry on the top of that.
It was clear to me all along that they would never release
the hostages while Carter was President. They waited until
Reagan inaugurated because (1) he was Not Carter, and (2)
they had serious misgivinges about what he would do.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:03:40 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,944 |