R.I.P. Margaret Thatcher

[mc ukrneal]

Feeding preconceived prejudices is...

Well, never mind.

I'm sorry, are you referring to me?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I think your implication that journalists have been knocked off by the government is off the mark.   What gets them killed is usually writing about some oligarch/criminal's money.  It ain't good there, but it isn't as bad as you imply.

Absolutely correct. I lived in Russia from 2005 until last year - there is any amount of "opposition press" in the sense of expressing opinions, opposing gov't policies and so on. Nobody cares about that really. What gets you killed is writing about someone else's money.

[springrite]

A reporter may write something, but there are certain things that are formulated to be in the report:

Tiananmen square (whenever mentioned, always "where hundreds, possibly thousands of students....", regardless of what the report is about)
An American deported for spying (criminal act! America NEVER has spies!)
President Xi Jinping (Son of a trusted Mao deputy. What? If Mao had 1000 people who can be called his deputies at one point or another, maybe his father qualified. The point of the reference is to make the reader think negatively. He was famous for his bravery as the biggest critic of Mao)
China, North Korea's ally (What bullshit. China hated DPRK and DPRK considers China to be enemy #1 and biggest threat.)
Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa (Taiwan was never formerly known as Formosa except when it was called so in Japanese when Japan occupied it. Would you say such and such region in Poland once occupied by Germany or Russia as "formerly known as (insert German or Russian name)?)

I was part of an active opposition movement for years. I know how members of my group make up lies and the press is very happy to help mislead:

Every political prisoner "has cancer, refused treatment, lost most of his teeth, hair all grey, can't meet family members" and (after I helped get their release throu working with the politcal pressures abroad) when they came out to the US a few years later they are in super health. Teeth mysteriously appeared, cancer gone, and hair is black again.

Mr. Wei Jingsheng, one of those people, smoking in the Capitol building: "The no smoking sign is for common folks. Would Mao not be allowed to smoke in any building. I am the Mao of the Democratic Movement." -- no one said anything, and no reporters would report it (or was overrulled by the boss).

Another one involved with human trafficing of young girls to be used as prostitutes to fund his "cause" but actually just himself, and was well protected by the US gov and the press that knew about it.

Al Gore fundraising "scandal" allegedly involved "Chinese businessmen and a Chinese monk". But the "Chinese businessmen" were Indonisia if Chinese decent, and the "Chinese monk" was Taiwanese, and none of them have ever been to China or have anything to do with China. But if it is negative press, they are Chinese. The Chinese scientist allegedly stole secrets but later cleared of all charges was likelwise "Chinese" but was second generation Chinese American whose grandparents came from Taiwan. If it is bad press, he is Chinese. If he wins the Nobel Prize, he is American.

Americans are bombarded with all these negative press about China most of which has nothing to do with China.

The Sudan story is one of the worst, making it seems like China started the war and was funding the war. Blatant lies.

No, you are right. They are more free. But free to do what?



Recently a China correspondent resigned and called me. Another one of her stories was edited with these "a peony festival was held in Tiananmen Square where in 1989 hundreds maybe thousands of students..." and she had had enough. She protested to no avail. No she is a happy farmer in the Beijing subburb, helping with green farming.

When it comes to China or Russia or Muslims, you kind of know what will be ignored, what will be reported and how they will twist it.

[springrite]

Sorry if we are derailing the topic. I have said all I wanted to say here and people will believe what they want to believe. So everyone stay where you are. I am going to the music room now. 

[mc ukrneal]

Sorry if we are derailing the topic. I have said all I wanted to say here and people will believe what they want to believe. So everyone stay where you are. I am going to the music room now. 

It is not really a question about belief, but you are right. We are derailing the topic.

[springrite]

R.I.P.

[knight66]

It was a vey interesting discussion and probably better than more yards of my negativity. I won't say much about the press. But from Gov stories I have been close to; even what I think of as the more intelligent newspapers deliberately distort and mislead to make the story fit their concept of what underlying message they want to project about the events. I can't recall even one story being accurate despite factual briefings. It really opened a door I had hoped was not there. If they are so deliberately inaccurate and wrongheaded about the few stories I know from the inside, then why would any of the rest of what they produce be more truthful....what can I believe that I am told?

Well, back on thread duty, parliament will have seven hours today to discuss Thatcher's life and legacy. A pity they could not apply that time to legislation.

I wonder if anyone will specifically point out that when the miners resisted the destruction of their industry, way of life, communities and livelihoods, she branded them as, "The enemy within." How totalitarian is that? Demonising a large group of citizens who will be very badly damaged by your policies.

The miners were badly lead and manipulated, the outcome was unacceptable violence which played into Thatcher's hands. Pits were uneconomic, yet we now import coal at a high price. In Wales we have many second generation unemployed where dependency on state benefits has become a way of life and that is what replaced communities where the men mostly worked hard in a demanding job and supported themselves and their families. This was as much about smashing a union as it was about economics and the people working in the industry got caught between two wrongheaded people and suffered a great deal.

I think wisely her family have decided on cremation as it is unlikely any grave would be left undamaged. Not good, but indicating how divisive she was and how fresh it all remains for many people.

As an aside, I have just read that Thatcher was part of the research team that developed Mr Whippy ice cream.

Mike

[vandermolen]

As an aside, I have just read that Thatcher was part of the research team that developed Mr Whippy ice cream.

Mike

I hope that this is mentioned in the parliamentary tributes 

[Florestan]

.As someone who strongly and actively dislikes most Romanian politicians, from left to right, I certainly understand your feelings, Mike. But Todd is right in pointing out that in democracy politicians don't vote themselves in power: they get themselves elected by the people. If a person we dislike, or one whose policies we find to be detrimental to the society, is elected (sometimes not once, but even twice and thrice --- plenty of cases here in Romania too) then the blame (if blame is the right word) is not on him/her, but on that part of the people that trusted them. Each and every British citizen who voted Conservatives in the 3 elections they won under Thatcher's rule is equally responsible for what she did, good or bad.

[Karl Henning]

Most interesting discussion, indeed, gents.

[Tapio Dimitriyevich Shostakovich]

I prefer a beast like Thatcher over a ghost like Merkel. Well at least from the entertainment point of view

[Karl Henning]

Thatcher VS. Cheney Death-Match! (oh . . . .)

[Karl Henning]

Well, back on thread duty, parliament will have seven hours today to discuss Thatcher's life and legacy. A pity they could not apply that time to legislation.

If it be any consolation (no, I don't expect so), the US Congress cannot be bothered to see to the important — not to say urgent — work which is on their plate, and which they were elected to see to, either.

[mc ukrneal]

Thatcher VS. Cheney Death-Match! (oh . . . .)

Nah, Thatcher would crush him like a bug. One thing I did admire in her was the way she was always able to think quickly on her feet. She was much more entertaining at question time than Major, who followed her.

[Karl Henning]

Nah, Thatcher would crush him like a bug.

That is indeed the plan! ; )

[knight66]

.As someone who strongly and actively dislikes most Romanian politicians, from left to right, I certainly understand your feelings, Mike. But Todd is right in pointing out that in democracy politicians don't vote themselves in power: they get themselves elected by the people. If a person we dislike, or one whose policies we find to be detrimental to the society, is elected (sometimes not once, but even twice and thrice --- plenty of cases here in Romania too) then the blame (if blame is the right word) is not on him/her, but on that part of the people that trusted them. Each and every British citizen who voted Conservatives in the 3 elections they won under Thatcher's rule is equally responsible for what she did, good or bad.

I think that is quite an eccentric point of view. You don't get much choice really and on the basis of one single vote cast about each four years, they do substantially what they like. You write as though they don't want power, but the public thrust it on to them. Obviously not so. They are by and large starving for power then normally very reluctant to put it aside. Leaders get binned by their party when they are seen as an elective liability. It is not just about having a chance to vote them out. The Demos usually has no say in who leads the parties and when the leader gets the shove. For instance no one sensible would have voted Michael Foot in as leader of the Labour party and he was hopeless, mired in the past. His party did that and suffered the consequences, as possibly did the country.

I in part agree that people get the governments they deserve, but there are lots of exceptions to that canard: Zimbabwe for one. That of course is extreme, but with a lot of voters casting their vote tribally and until recently only two possible groups of power holders, the concept of the democracy being government by the people for the people is a joke.

In over 40 years I have only had two votes that contributed towards someone being elected. All the rest of the time I have lived in safe seats where I would not have voted for the party with the stranglehold. So I feel that I have been disenfranchised most of my life. I throw my vote away by casting it and have no effective say in the completion of the government that is elected.

Politics is often based on a cult of personality, so pardon me if I turn round and denigrate an exceptionally defective one who I believe damaged swathes of the people she was supposed to be governing.

Mike

[springrite]

That is indeed the plan! ; )

I like your plan. If only it came a few years, say a decade or so earlier...

[knight66]

If it be any consolation (no, I don't expect so), the US Congress cannot be bothered to see to the important — not to say urgent — work which is on their plate, and which they were elected to see to, either.

Yes, I do watch all of that and I would despair if I was over in the US. No doubt starting with good intent; how do countries end up with the governmental porridge we experience? (Rhetorical one that.)

Mike

[Todd]

I throw my vote away by casting it and have no effective say in the completion of the government that is elected.

Well, that's intrinsic to democracy of pretty much any practical form.  You and I - or anyone on this board - have an inconsequential voice in politics.  Ideally, everyone would have an equally inconsequential individual voice.  It's the mass of voters that decides, or ought to decide. 

Yes, I get it, moneyed interests and others sway the electorate through devious trickery and outright corruption, and so on, but sometimes that may not be the case.  I mean, here in the US, after Citizens United, we, the unwashed masses, were warned, warned again, and warned some more by the left about how money would determine everything – until it didn't.  Several extremely rich candidates burned through millions to lose.  Super PACs raised hundreds of millions, spent freely, yet some of their pet candidates and measures failed.  None of this is to say that the current situation in the US isn't in need of reform, but it does point out that the left may have misjudged a few things.  Now, perhaps in the UK's system, where the head of government is not elected by the people (and technically, the President is not, either), things are more dire and the people are steamrolled all the time.

Now, you are indeed correct that politicians are power hungry and usually not keen on giving it up.  But at the same time, reelection means delivering for the electorate.  Often that just takes the form of government largesse delivered with a pretty bow, but sometimes that isn't enough.  Here in the States we have had people at the pinnacle of power lose their seats – Tom Foley and Tom Daschle come to mind, and Bush Sr after his big war victory – which, while not common, or at least not common enough, at least restores faith in the electorate to an extent. 

It also helps to have a decentralized federal structure.  There's much more to vote on here than specific parties or presidential candidates.  I get to vote on everything from President down to school board, and various measures, some actually sponsored by citizens' groups.  I've got a slightly more than inconsequential voice on these.  (Maybe.)  Sometimes on issues I couldn't care less about.

(In your somewhat glum mood regarding democracy, you may want to stay away from Kenneth Arrow's work.) 

[vandermolen]

I think that is quite an eccentric point of view. You don't get much choice really and on the basis of one single vote cast about each four years, they do substantially what they like. You write as though they don't want power, but the public thrust it on to them. Obviously not so. They are by and large starving for power then normally very reluctant to put it aside. Leaders get binned by their party when they are seen as an elective liability. It is not just about having a chance to vote them out. The Demos usually has no say in who leads the parties and when the leader gets the shove. For instance no one sensible would have voted Michael Foot in as leader of the Labour party and he was hopeless, mired in the past. His party did that and suffered the consequences, as possibly did the country.

I in part agree that people get the governments they deserve, but there are lots of exceptions to that canard: Zimbabwe for one. That of course is extreme, but with a lot of voters casting their vote tribally and until recently only two possible groups of power holders, the concept of the democracy being government by the people for the people is a joke.

In over 40 years I have only had two votes that contributed towards someone being elected. All the rest of the time I have lived in safe seats where I would not have voted for the party with the stranglehold. So I feel that I have been disenfranchised most of my life. I throw my vote away by casting it and have no effective say in the completion of the government that is elected.

Politics is often based on a cult of personality, so pardon me if I turn round and denigrate an exceptionally defective one who I believe damaged swathes of the people she was supposed to be governing.

Mike

I largely agree. I'm pleased to say that I haver never yet voted for the party which was actually elected or for the MP who was elected in my constituency either. Had a dilemma last time as the existing MP (a Conservative) got me off an unfair parking ticket! The main parties in the UK are now virtually indestinguishable anyway. Labour have moved to the Right, the Conservatives to the Left (a bit) and the Lib-Dems remain at the Centre.