Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group Thursday 12-07-2000 9:00 P.M. EST Take Back Your Government

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group

Thursday 12-07-2000 9:00 P.M. EST

Take Back Your Government

Click Here to Return to Index

Here Begin The A.F.H. postings
The Robert A. Heinlein Reading Group

Notice of Meeting

 

Date: Thursday, December 7, 2000, 9 PM to midnight, EST, and Saturday, December 9, 2000, 5 to 8 PM, EST.

Topic: A *continued* consideration of Robert A. Heinlein’s _”Take Back Your Government!”_ aka “How To Be A Politician: A Practical Handbook for the Private Citizen Who Wants Democracy to Work” (Baen, ©1992, by Mrs. Virginia Heinlein, ISBN 0-671-72157-7) *together with* his novels, _Double Star_, 1956, _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ 1966, and the 1946 short story “A Bathroom of Her Own,” reprinted in _Expanded Universe_ 1980.

It’s been suggested that a good deal of the practical politics of the 1946 “Take Back …” [Jerry Pournelle’s title, not Robert’s] finds expression in both these two Hugo award-winning novels, written ten and twenty years after Robert’s “Practical Handbook.” Moreover, something of Robert’s actual politics themselves might be discernible, some say, from the novels. Be that as it may, the 1946 short story plainly contains what may be ‘war stories’ of the machinations of political campaigns Robert himself participated in.

While the saga of the 2000 Florida ballots spins onward into the courts, appealling or unappealling as you may find it, a continued considered of politics seems altogether appropriate; and with the American Thanksgiving Holiday out of the way perhaps more of us may attend our next two chats if we also consider these fiction works, which include two of Heinlein’s most honored novels, together with his practical handbook on what he described as the “greatest sport of all,” the “greatest and most adult joy of all,” participatory politics, the “continuous and sustained knowledge that you have broken with childish ways and come at last into your full heritage as a free citizen, integrated into the life of the land of your birth or your choice, and carrying your share of adult responsibility for the future thereof!”

Please remember to help out with your thoughts in posts before the meetings. As always, there is more than just the reading to talk about. Note: check the social science or political science of your local bookstores for copies of “Take Back” (there’s usually one or two in large stores) before you order this one, which is in stock that should be received within two or three days.

For information on how to participate in the chats, download AIM software fromand read the directions on David Wright’s website:If that doesn’t work, drop me ( ) [I use a Macintosh] or Dave Wright () [he uses one of the other thingies that run DOS and Windoze] an e mail and we’ll try to help further.

Until next week, or unless I see you on this thread, good reading, good eating, good living and good loving … all possible if you make time enough; and remember, smile while the talking heads pontificate over their failure to achieve instant gratification. “Waiting is … .”

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

———————————————————————————–

In this set of meetings’ leadoff post I noted that Robert Heinlein actually wrote that:

Participatory politics are:

(1) the “greatest sport of all,”

(2) the “greatest and most adult joy of all,” and,

(3) afford the “continuous and sustained knowledge that you have broken with childish ways and come at last into your full heritage as a free citizen, integrated into the life of the land of your birth or your choice, and carrying your share of adult responsibility for the future thereof!”

It’s true enough that he said that, but how true are the statements? He wrote them in the final sentences of Chapter 2, “How to Start” of his Practical Handbook that we know as “Take Back Your Government!”

Heinlein spent about four years after his forced medical retirement from the Navy deeply involved in local and state California politics, attended a national convention that nominated Franklin Delano Roosevelt (that “traitor to his class”) for an unprecedented third term as President of the United States, and ran for office once himself, as State Assemblyman in a district that included the Hollywood portion of Los Angeles. His opponent was a man named Sam Yorty. Yorty cross-filed in the primaries of both the Republican and Democratic parties, winning the Republican primary handily and unopposed, and beating Heinlein who had declined to cross-file as a Republican in the Democratic primary by about 400 votes, sufficient to be unopposed in the general election. Yorty went on, after his terms in the Assembly, to be a United States Congressman for several terms, the Mayor of Los Angeles for three terms, and launched a strong but abortive bid for election as Governor of the State of California. Sam switched party registration back and forth a couple times during his lifetime, and wound up a registered Republican, as did Heinlein, eventually.

Sam, during his terms as Mayor of Los Angeles (Los Angeles has a weak mayor-strong city council type of urban government, so Sam spent most of his time junketing around supposedly drumming up trade and such), was considered an affable sort most of the time; but some, notably the L.A. Times editorial cartoonist Herbert Block, portrayed him as not too bright. Some consider the manner in which Yorty maintained office in his third term as Mayor despicable–on election eve he mailed out race-baiting literature supposedly from his opponent to the predominately Jewish and liberal West Side, implying his opponent, a Negro L.A. Councilman and former Police Officer was an anti-Semite bigot. Sam lost the next election to this same man in part because of outrage against him when it was disclosed after that election the literature came from his campaign organization. Perhaps “dirty tricks” aren’t always effective in the long run; but Sam did get a third term out of it.

Thus, although some may consider tactics employed in the ‘greatest sport of all’ not necessarily a break from ‘childish ways,’ it is appropriate to comment that it certainly is played for “keeps.” Yorty retired to obscurity, while no newspaper ever portrayed his successor Mayor Bradley as anything less than bright. You might say Yorty taught Bradley to play for keeps.

I suggest that politics is often viewed by out-of-office politicians much as the equivalent of *revolution* in a democracy.

Accordingly, all tactics are therefore allowed adherents of the party out-of-power. If the ‘downtrodden’ and occupied former Confederated Southern States in 1876 were ever to regain the lost ideals of the society that Mark Twain implied in _Pudd’nhead Wilson_ all FFV’s wanted restored, then their only recourse was ‘politics.’ They weren’t about to get it by ‘rising again,’ unless they wanted Billy Sherman coming out of retirement to truly give them another, far more caustic, potion of the Hell that is War. So they made alliances with city, mainly working-class, voters in the North (Tilden, the democratic candidate in 1876, was a New York lawyer) dissatisfied with Republican rule; and Tilden won the election, or so it appeared before machinations before the vote in the electoral college took place. Southern Democrats had threatened, so it has been pointed out in another thread, to refuse to approve the Department of the Army’s budget unless troops were removed from occupation in the remaining two (or three, don’t forget Texas) states still occupied. Revisionists would have us believe, as was argued in that other thread, that Republican candidate Hayes really had no choice but to accept the offer made him to keep the Grand Old Party (the Republicans call themselves the “GOP”) in office; but other historians might suggest Hayes could have gone to the bully pulpit against what may well have been an empty threat in a year which saw general outrage when a major part of Custer’s command, along with its colonel, was wiped out at Little Big Horn by the Lakota Nation. We all know what happened these last few years to the Gingrich threats to shut down the government by refusing to approve budgets in a far less critically perceived national defense situation. In any event, it’s clear Hayes took the ‘deal’ offered by Florida democrats who showed their New York ally how good they were at selling down the river and the party that had trumpeted itself the savior of American society from the barbarism of slavery, tucked in its horns, acquiesced in separatism and segregation, and went on with the dispensing of patronage and cultivation of its political base that had become its two major, if not only, goals.

What does this have to do with Take Back Your Government, or the two novels and stories we’re reading this week?

I’d suggest a behind doors ‘political’ deal like this forms the basis of absolute disrespect for the law of a nation, and either of revolution or national stagnation. Here’s how: look at what is described by Heinlein as the formative situation for revolution in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_.

The “Loonies” are oppressed, specifically they are forced by “Authority” that controls their ‘trade’ to maintain their intensive capacity for growing crops to the exclusion of virtually any other industry, or starve to death in the cold dark, under circumstances close to, if not, actual bankruptcy, perennially short of water, in near real trade peonage to the “Authority” that controls their markets and transportation to markets completely. Allied trades, the miners who seek the ice, are caught in the same economic vise. And all others: the small merchant economy, the little shops, the creche schools, all the rest, including technicians who ‘contract’ with Authority, will follow. None of them have anywhere else to go. It’s not a question of hitching up the few mules left to the wagon and changing the sign from “California or Bust” to “Oregon and busted” and heading back. They cannot ever leave the Moon, because irreversibly physiological changes prevent this. Even their immediate oppressors are permanent exiles, failed politicians like “Mort the Wart,” and his Yellow Jackets.

Does that sound at all familiar with anything history teaches? If not, kindly take a look at what was then and continued to be happening after the Hayes election of 1876. Southern and western farmers and ranchers were forced to continue to attempt to grow their bountiful crops and husband their huge herds of stock in circumstances close to, if not in, actual bankruptcy in arid lands and conditions of cyclic drought, by rail, banking, and commodity trading trusts and monopolies. They had nowhere else to go, except fail. Many if not most of those in the most arid lands were recent immigrants. Further, eastern factory workers, largely also recent immigrants, were told the high protective tariffs imposed on European imports was the government’s way of “helping them” by protecting their output and jobs against foreign competition. In fact, tariffs helped keep their wages down by reducing incentive to compete for skilled labor or improve the manufacturing processes employed by factory owners. Farmer and manufacturing trade unrest continued throughout the end of the Nineteenth Century, as trusts, monopolies, and combinations continued to grow. Bloody labor strikes occurred, notably the Pullman Strike but, among others, also a strike that shut down over half of the nation’s coal production contemporaneous with the election of 1896. The Granges formed and made their own attempts to fight for better crop and transportation prices, largely unsuccessful as well. Garfield, Hayes’ successor, was assassinated. So too was McKinley, elected after that mid-1890s strike, as he began his second term in 1900 amid the boom in prosperity brought on by a war. A cycle of booms and depressions occurred between 1876 and 1900. Throughout, farmers were forced to sell off or forfeit their farms to foreclosure and became tenants, sharecroppers in the South, or moved to cities. The Spanish-American War of 1898 finally resulted in an economic boom–which lasted long enough for some policy changes over the next two decades; but some may suggest, including revisionists, that Hanna and McKinley and Hearst orchestrated that war to fend off another cycle of depression.

Let’s take a look at an out-of-office politician in one of the two fiction novels we’re reading. Listen to what he says, in vino veritas:

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame … as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place within human beings singly and _nowhere else_. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world … aware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.

* * * * *

“My point is that one person _is_ responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist–and they do–some _man_ controls them. In terms of morals, _there_ _is_ _no_ _such_ _thing_ _as_ ‘_state_.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”

An unstated corollary is, of course, that those blameworthy must pay the piper if the tune goes on long enough.

In 1900 William McKinley, successful politician, newly twice elected President, stood greeting visitors to an exposition. A professed anarchist, who deemed himself rational, walked up to the politician’s glad hand and put a bullet in him. McKinley died within a week. Anarchists in 1900 held a lot of folk blameworthy and many did their level best to hold them ultimately responsible for whatever they deemed them guilty of in exactly this manner.

So my first question is: What makes Professor Bernardo de la Paz any different from the fellow who put the bullet in McKinley or the fellow responsible for mailing out the election eve misleading pamphlets attributing anti-Semitism to candidate Bradley?

And my second question is: Is the author telling us that political tactics are the same as revolutionary tactics–i.e., all’s fair in love, war and politics?

And my third question is: What makes a ‘rational anarchist’s’ solution any different from the group in the novel _Friday_ that threaten to assassinate those who are causing the problem (you know who you are), i.e., those who would develop success by eliminating the blameworthy until somehow non-blameworthy take office?

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

———————————————————————————–

AGplusone wrote:

>In this set of meetings’ leadoff post I noted that Robert Heinlein actually

>wrote that:

>

>Participatory politics are:

>(1) the “greatest sport of all,”

>(2) the “greatest and most adult joy of all,” and,

>(3) afford the “continuous and sustained knowledge that you have broken with

>childish ways and come at last into your full heritage as a free citizen,

>integrated into the life of the land of your birth or your choice, and carrying

>your share of adult responsibility for the future thereof!”

He also said that if someone really, really wants to be elected to high public office, it’s very important to prevent him.

I keep saying that over and over these days when I look at Al Gore’s naked greed for the Presidency.

Phebe

———————————————————————————–

Phebe wrote, referring to Robert Heinlein:

>He also said that if someone really, really wants to be elected to high

>public office, it’s very

>important to prevent him.

He may have, Phebe, written that somewhere, but I cannot find anything exactly on that point in _Take Back_, although he writes a lot about selecting a suitable candidate. Perhaps he put that statement in the mouth of a character; but if he did, or if it’s in an essay elsewhere, I’d appreciate knowing where.

In any event, the only thing close to that is this in an abbreviated statement he made in Take Back:

“A suitable, available, and electable man is unlikely to want the job — you must seek him out and convince him that his sacrifice could be worth-while, through the reasonableness of your plans and budget, by your analysis of the district, and by the strength of your precinct organization.”

–from the Summary of Operational

Chapters, CHAPTER VII, District

Spadework. etc., at 258

The basic chapter goes on in detail on each of the summarized points, ie., “suitablity,” “availability,” “electability” and so on … but it’s written from the standpoint of managing a campaign of a candidate you select as a precinct club manager.

>I keep saying that over and over these days when I look at Al Gore’s naked

>greed for the Presidency.

I suppose those who voted for Gore see the same thing when they look at George W. Or those who opposed Bill Clinton, George P.W. Bush, Ronnie Reagan, Jimmie Carter, even Jerry Ford, certainly Richard Nixon, and Jack Kennedy. I did, of some, as I only voted for three of those.

Regardless, a candidate for President, or Prime Minister, or any top executive position, without a real passionate desire for the office would be someone who’d truly worry me. We’re told traditionally that they had to “force” the office on Washington, who took it, reluctantly, and then after a second term, retired. A certain reluctance I suppose existed in his case; but the only man I know to whom it was offered who stood an excellent chance to be elected who was truly reluctant was Billy Sherman … and you know what a “Sherman” is, certainly: “If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I shall not serve!” I cannot think of anyone during my lifetime who served as President who didn’t want the job.

It seems to me that Bonforte, in _Double Star_, passionately wishes the office, to effectuate what his platform is. Count the number of times he served as Prime Minister. Both in his original persona and in the Larry Smythe continuation, Heinlein doesn’t seem to criticize that character. Mannie, in Moon, gets drafted sort of like Washington … but a lot of Moon is based on historical precedent.

There’s a bit about how the “reformer” type of politician usually doesn’t do too well in Take Back; but Heinlein observes, of course, that he was a reformer type himself and therefore very interested in determining why. His conclusions are noted in the chapter about reformer politicians.

But I’d really be interested in where exactly you found that quote. Please let me know …

Regards,

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

———————————————————————————–

AGplusone wrote:

>Phebe wrote, referring to Robert Heinlein:

>

>>He also said that if someone really, really wants to be elected to high

>>public office, it’s very

>>important to prevent him.

>

>He may have, Phebe, written that somewhere, but I cannot find anything exactly

>on that point in _Take Back_, although he writes a lot about selecting a

>suitable candidate. Perhaps he put that statement in the mouth of a character;

>but if he did, or if it’s in an essay elsewhere, I’d appreciate knowing where.

>

Drat, I can’t recall which. I remember it well and have kept it in mind for years, but can’t prove it till I come up with the cite, I know. It was a novel, though. I THINK one of the Lazarus Long lot. If I run across it again, and I’ll keep my eyes open, I’ll try to remember to post it.

>

>

>

>It seems to me that Bonforte, in _Double Star_, passionately wishes the office,

>to effectuate what his platform is. Count the number of times he served as

>Prime Minister. Both in his original persona and in the Larry Smythe

>continuation, Heinlein doesn’t seem to criticize that character.

Yes, you are right about that one, I agree.

Phebe

———————————————————————————–

“AGplusone” >ha scritto:

>Topic: A *contined* consideration of Robert A. Heinlein’s _”Take Back Your

>Government!”_ aka “How To Be A Politician: A Practical Handbook for the Private

>Citizen Who Wants Democracy to Work” (Baen, ©1992, by Mrs. Virginia Heinlein,

>ISBN 0-671-72157-7) *together with* his novels, _Double Star_, 1956,_The Moon

>Is A Harsh Mistress_ 1966, and the 1946 short story “A Bathroom of Her Own,”

>reprinted in _Expanded Universe_ 1980.

I have to attach my message here because my server doesn’t have anymore the original thread in which we “strangers” said that TBYG was somewhat obscure in some points. I had said I would have questions after finishing reading the book, so here I am. These will sound *very* normal matters to you, as if I were asking which side the sun sets, but, well, rememember I’m not American! 🙂

– What is the primary election? I used to think that it was the presidential, but at a certain point of the book it is clear that it is not. I assuemd that to be an election in which local representative are elected for the Congress… but it’s just a thought.

– What is a caucus? It’s a group of people gathered together for politcal matters, ok, but what is it exactly? Why this exotic (so it sounds to me) name?

– What’s an incumbent? I’d already found that word while I was translating Jim Gifford’s FAQ some time ago… I translated it literally with “incombente”, that means… uh… “waiting and ready to fall on you”, but we don’t use such word here in political matters and I can’t see what it’s about.

– What is a “registered voter? I heard this term for the forst time a long ago in a movie (Ghostbusters: Bill Murray said “Lenny — you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters”) and they translated it with “potential voters”. That’s wrong of course, and I assume that a person, to be able to vote, has to register somewhere, and that some people don’t. But why this registering stuff? Isn’t being born enough? You sure get registered somewhere when you’re born, and here, that’s enough to make you able to vote 18 years later.

I think that’s all… there were some other minor terms but a good dictionary was enough for those.

Francesco

– RAH in Italian

———————————————————————————–

reillocnl wrote:

It’s good you didn’t put a lot on the table to consider or pose any tough questions, Dave.

>[Intro. stuff.]

>So my first question is: What makes Professor Bernardo de la Paz any different

>from the fellow who put the bullet in McKinley or the fellow responsible for

>mailing out the election eve misleading pamphlets attributing anti-Semitism to

>candidate Bradley?

If I remember correctly from one of my sociology classes, way back when, there’s only one thing that’s taboo in all cultures and this is it. The answer to the question is, obviously, that there’s no difference, then, between the Prof. and Czolgosz. Sam, the guy who beat Bradley is completely different, though. The former committed treason, the latter merely some lesser moral wrong. Sure, you let enough of these lesser wrongs go untended and you’ve got a big moral mess but it’s still within the system rather than trying kill it outright.

>

>And my second question is: Is the author telling us that political tactics are

>the same as revolutionary tactics–i.e., all’s fair in love, war and politics?

No. All’s not fair in politics and he’d never say that. He’d say that it’s happened but not that it’s fair. In war, you’re out to kill and you shouldn’t be there if you had another reason for coming. In love…well, screw that. I dont’ even want to talk about it. It’s trite and cutesy anyway. Politics isn’t war. If it’s hardball it’s full contact but it’s not politics if it crosses the line between permanently putting the opposition out of the game and killing it.

>

>And my third question is: What makes a ‘rational anarchist’s’ solution any

>different from the group in the novel _Friday_ that threaten to assassinate

>those who are causing the problem (you know who you are), i.e., those who would

>develop success by eliminating the blameworthy until somehow non-blameworthy

>take office?

If:

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame … as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place within human beings singly and _nowhere else_. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world … aware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.

* * * * *

“My point is that one person _is_ responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist–and they do–some _man_ controls them. In terms of morals, _there_ _is_ _no_ _such_ _thing_ _as_ ‘_state_.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”

Then, he’s not an anarchist at all. He’s not even a revolutionary. He’s a self-appointed societal superego, a sublime moralist, a judge without a bench other than the one he erects for himself and looks down his nose at the rest of the world. He’s old Bob: lotsa words that look pretty but don’t always hold water.

That there’s the definition of some kind of guy who’s above society because he knows better. He also knows better, apparently, than to rock the boat, how to work the system to his advantage and only if he gets pushed into a corner and pushed hard will he suddenly whip out his keen intellect and fighting spirit. Then, it’s not good enough to just be in the revolution, he has to lead it. I’ll tell you this, though, if you don’t think he’s got his escape route planned from the beginning there’s acreage on the moon I’ll let you have, cheap.

The question’s academic, then. It’s comparing apples and kiwi fruit. The group in Friday were revolutionaries. (I still don’t think “anarchist” is the right term; that means bringing down all government.) Maybe, and it’s been a couple of years since I read the book, but maybe if what they were after is complete societal collapse with an eye to raising something completely new from the rubble, that would decide itself and not be government, per se, maybe they’d be anarchists. I don’t think that’s what you said, though.

It’s late. More later.

>–

>David M. Silver

>

>”I expect your names to shine!”

LNC

———————————————————————————–

Francesco Spreafico wrote:snip questions to which I’d like answers too 🙂

>

>I think that’s all… there were some other minor terms but a good

>dictionary was enough for those.

>

>

I can add one; what’s a sample ballot?

Jane

———————————————————————————–

“ddavitt” >wrote in message

>Francesco Spreafico wrote:snip questions to which I’d like answers too 🙂

>

>>

>>I think that’s all… there were some other minor terms but a good

>>dictionary was enough for those.

>>

>>

>

>I can add one; what’s a sample ballot?

A ballot mailed to the voters, or published in the local paper, before the election.

NW

———————————————————————————–

Jim replied to Jane:

>>I can add one; what’s a sample ballot?

>

>A ballot mailed to the voters, or published in the local paper, before the

>election.

The ‘sample’ is not used to cast a vote, however; and, depending on the laws in some states which put referenda (direct law making by voters) on the ballot, it may contain pro and con arguments on referenda, an “impartial analysis” prepared by a state or local official charged with the duty to prepare one, an estimate of the financial impact, etc., or even print the statutes affected, with changes, in full. It usually comes in the form of a booklet (sometimes

more than one) in such cases.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

———————————————————————————–

ddavitt wrote:

>Francesco Spreafico wrote:snip questions to which I’d like answers too 🙂

>

>>

>>I think that’s all… there were some other minor terms but a good

>>dictionary was enough for those.

>>

>>

>

>I can add one; what’s a sample ballot?

>

>Jane

Simply one that isn’t for voting, that lets people see what the ballot is like. They send around facimilies by mail in my county…don’t seem to have done that or even printed it correctly in the local newspaper in Palm Beach County, which seems to have caused a little problem.

Also a sample ballot can be a real but unvoted ballot such as the chairman of Miami-Dade’s Canvassing Board was carrying in his pocket to show someone when the group of young Republicans jumped him and accused him of stealing a vote for Bush.

Phebe

———————————————————————————–

“Francesco Spreafico” >wrote in message

>

>- What is the primary election? I used to think that it was the

>presidential, but at a certain point of the book it is clear that it is

>not. I assuemd that to be an election in which local representative are

>elected for the Congress… but it’s just a thought.

Partisan (usually) elections in which each state chooses Presidential

candidates. The winner of the primaries is the Candidate for that party.

>

>- What is a caucus? It’s a group of people gathered together for politcal

>matters, ok, but what is it exactly? Why this exotic (so it sounds to me)

>name?

Usually a caucus is a closed party meeting dealing with policy matters for the party. (Such as agenda, picking of candidates etc.)

>

>- What’s an incumbent? I’d already found that word while I was translating

>Jim Gifford’s FAQ some time ago… I translated it literally with

>”incombente”, that means… uh… “waiting and ready to fall on you”, but

>we don’t use such word here in political matters and I can’t see what it’s

>about.

An incumbent candidate is the candidate the currently holds the office.

>

>- What is a “registered voter? I heard this term for the forst time a long

>ago in a movie (Ghostbusters: Bill Murray said “Lenny — you will have

>saved the lives of millions of registered voters”) and they translated it

>with “potential voters”. That’s wrong of course, and I assume that a

>person, to be able to vote, has to register somewhere, and that some

>people don’t. But why this registering stuff? Isn’t being born enough? You

>sure get registered somewhere when you’re born, and here, that’s enough to

>make you able to vote 18 years later.

Given the area and population of the country, and our peculiar setup from state to state, each voter must be registered in the place he lives to vote. Each state has different guidelines as to the amount of time you must be registered for before the election. (Where I live, in Minnesota, you can register at the polling place on the day of the election.)

NW

———————————————————————————–

Jim replied to one of Francesco’s questions thus:

>Partisan (usually) elections in which each state chooses Presidential

>candidates. The winner of the primaries is the Candidate for that party.

A little addition: A primary election may also take place for other offices, both partisan and non-partisan, and may also occur in non-Presidential election years. For example, a few months back before November, we had a primary election here in Los Angeles County. This year was a little unusual, although I won’t get into that unusual aspect; but we voted ballots in which candidates of the same party (in some cases) competed for the same office. The winner for each party in the primary ran along (for each party) in the final election held in November (which coincided with the Presidential election). We also voted for offices which are officially non-partisan, e.g., in Los Angeles County, the District Attorney’s office (the chief prosecutor for crimes) is non-partisan. Three candidates appeared on the ballot. None of them garnered more than 50% of the vote; and so, accordingly, in the final November election the two highest ran against each other in what we call a run-off. Had one of the three garnered more than 50% in the primary, there would not have been a run-off election and the office of District Attorney would not have appeared in the selections for my County’s November ballot.

Jim went on:

>Each state has different guidelines as to the amount of time you must be

>registered for before the election. (Where I live, in Minnesota, you can

>register at the polling place on the day of the election.)

In California, in contrast, you must register to vote in the County in which you intend to vote, at least 30 days before the election, which they computed as October 10, 2000.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

———————————————————————————–

On reading “Bathroom’ again just to refresh my memory I notice that the heroine is called Frances X Nelson. Strangely enough, the very next story in EU features a Francis X Hughes. Hmm….oh well, enough of the trivia 🙂

I like Bathroom but I can see how some of the tactics used would cause a sharp intake of breath, clever though they are. I don’t recall Heinlein mentioning this sort of behaviour in TBYG but in view of the foreword I wonder if any of them were from memory rather than imagination?

It seems to me that this story has tenuous links with Delilah and the Space Rigger; the heroine of that story is called G B McNye and there is an Alfred McNye in Bathroom, as one of the candidates. There is also the similar plot of having a woman mistaken for a man because of an ambiguous name and ending up marrying one of the main characters (the narrator in Delilah and his friend in Bathroom). In view of Heinlein’s negative comments on some political women in TBYG, it’s interesting that he doesn’t feature any in this story; the older lady who gives up seeing her new grandchild to work on the campaign and the heroine herself are portrayed very sympathetically.

Jane

———————————————————————————–

I’d like to say that I will not be attending this meeting simply because if I have to either listen to or participate in one more discussion about politics, I think I might just snap. I work in a JAG office, and I think I am the most non-political person in the office, and I used to think that I was pretty interested in politics. It doesn’t help much that I’m the only democrat in the office, too.

>>[Heinlein] also said that if someone really, really wants to be elected

>>>to high public office, it’s very important to prevent him.

I observed and inquired:

>>He may have, Phebe, written that somewhere, but I cannot find anything

>>exactly on that point in _Take Back_, although he writes a lot about

>>selecting a suitable candidate. Perhaps he put that statement in the

>>mouth of a character; but if he did, or if it’s in an essay elsewhere, I’d

>>appreciate knowing where.

Phebe replied:

>Drat, I can’t recall which. I remember it well and have kept it in mind for years,

>but [snip] If I run across it again, and I’ll keep my eyes open, I’ll try to remember

>to post it.

Perhaps I’ve found another quotation which is what you recall, Phebe. It’s near the end of Chapter 22 in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ [pp. 243-4 of the Berkeley Medallion paperback edition, the copy I own which sold for 95 cents].

Setting the context, Professor de la Paz, as President of the Lunar Republic, addresses the unicameral legislature whose composition he and Mike fixed by tampering with the ballot so that 85% of the elected members are party members approved by them, but which has gotten out of their control and unilaterally turned itself into a Constitutional Convention. He suggests a goodly number of experiments they might enact, all obviously designed by him to render any government at cross purposes with other elements of itself–all designed to keep any government that might result weak, unobtrusive and “down in size to its indispensable functions whatever they may be.” He warns especially against “involuntary taxation,” later equated by him as “compulsory taxation,” and when a question is posed by one of his lieutenants in the Congress suggesting that his caution flies in the face of “Tanstaafl” tells the legislators that it’s their problem to figure a way out of that. Maybe they should pay for expenditures of government out of their own pockets, he opines. He then retires with Manny and Stu, his ruling clique, to a private apartment.

Manny carries on the debate, pointing out his hypocrisy, noting that the financial machinations they are contemporaneously carrying on to provide for defense against the expected FN attack are going to require that the citizens of the republic, someday, pay the piper. Inflation is already being felt. De la Paz admits the hypocrisy of his putative anarchistic philosophy, going further to say that Manny has put his finger on the dilemma facing all government, that the “power to tax, once conceded has no limit; it contains until it destroys.”

He rationalizes that the stealing that they are engaged in (and its inflationary effect) is not, at least, sez he, “taxation.”

An aside: The parallels of issuance by the American Continental Congress of bales of paper money, other incidences of indebtedness by it, and like incidence of debt by the various states making up the rebelling Thirteen Colonies during the American Revolution, should be pretty obvious here. “Not worth a Continental Dollar,” was a phrase current following the 1780s and, for the benefit of our British cousins, meant the same as ‘not worth a tinker’s damn.’ It took Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury and the Federalists all of the period under the Articles of Confederation and the better part of three Presidential terms under the Constitution, and cost the Federalists much in popular support, to retire that debt, by various excise and other indirect taxes, including that hated whisky tax that some sing in some parts of this Country “we ain’t paid … since 1792.”

De la Paz concludes by stating he is most eager to step down as President of the Congress.

Here, finally, may be where your quotation may be found, Phebe. Stu pops up with the comment he’s glad to hear this, that stealing doesn’t bother him as much as it bothers the Loonies, he having benefit of the background of wealth and aristocratic birth. In fact, he intends to attend the Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of nominating Bernardo de la Paz as King, because it might be the only way for de la Paz to get the Constitution he wants, and because:

“A king is the people’s only protection against tyranny … especially against the worst of all tyrants, themselves. Prof will be ideal for the job … because he does not want the job. His only shortcoming [snip] no heir. We’ll fix that. … ”

He tells Manny he intends to nominate Manny as the Prof’s heir. This doesn’t happen. The attack intervenes.

Again, this isn’t the direct statement you recall; but the implication is very like it. Here it is that a sovereign who doesn’t wish to be sovereign is desirable. Perhaps so. Washington did not wish to be sovereign. That much is beyond dispute. He stopped a planned coup among his own officers following Yorktown even though they planned to offer him the Crown by forming the Order of Cincinnatus. He didn’t propose to be George I, of the House of Washington, succeeding George III, of the House of Hanover, if Hanover was the correct name. It is also said that he didn’t wish to be President, later, when it was “thrust” unanimously upon him. That took place, however, only after this “unwilling” President had presided over the Convention that gave us the Constitution authorizing a strong central government. Perhaps the unwillingness was so. Much said, however, about Washington is as mythical as the cherry tree he didn’t chop down. He voluntarily ran for a second term; and, as Beard observed, he decided to not run for a third mainly because he was distressed by attacks on his policies and pained by assaults on his character despite his long public service. Washington never considered himself to be a sovereign, although an ever-growing number of political opponents took many opportunities to criticize him for accepting the habiliments of one. One of the sillier I’ve read was he allowed his carriage to the pulled by four horses instead of a democratic two.

About sovereigns, I cannot speak to whatever it is that Elizabeth Windsor says to the Prime Minister privately. Nor do I have any idea what Juan Carlos, or any other European monarch does to deter policies they deem self-tyranny by the people, or even whether they have any such intention. The one possible example we are given in _Double Star_ when Larry Smyth, acting as Bonforte, takes the list of caretaker appointments in to the Emperor, seems rather mild in context, a nudge to keep a “too affable” politician out of a cabinet. Perhaps it stifled a budding tyrant. Wilheim gives lip service to the notion he, too, would rather have been a mechanic.

Stu’s notion, and the House of Stewart contained some mighty autocratic sovereigns–one of whom started a Civil War and gave up his head on the block, may merely be that, a notion subject to proof. But let’s see if we can find another quote that better supports your recollection … 😉

This is fun.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

———————————————————————————–

AGplusone wrote:

>that hated whisky tax that some sing in some parts of this

>Country “we ain’t paid … since 1792.”

>

>

Right, Joan Baez, “My granddaddy made whiskey, my daddy did too/

We ain’t never paid no whiskey tax/

Since seventeen ninety-two….”

“Get me a copper kettle, get me some copper coil/

Cover with new-made corn mash/

And never more I’ll toil…….”

Been thinking of that song again since we started wine-making three years ago. But so far we haven’t strayed into forbidden federal territory, despite my having grown up in East Tennessee.

>

>”A king is the people’s only protection against tyranny … especially against

>the worst of all tyrants, themselves. Prof will be ideal for the job …

>because he does not want the job.

>

>Again, this isn’t the direct statement you recall; but the implication is very

>like it. Here it is that a sovereign who doesn’t wish to be sovereign is

>desirable. Perhaps so. Washington did not wish to be sovereign. That much is

>beyond dispute. He stopped a planned coup among his own officers following

>Yorktown even though they planned to offer him the Crown by forming the Order

>of Cincinnatus. He didn’t propose to be George I, of the House of Washington,

>succeeding George III, of the House of Hanover, if Hanover was the correct

>name. It is also said that he didn’t wish to be President, later, when it was

>”thrust” unanimously upon him. That took place, however, only after this

>”unwilling” President had presided over the Convention that gave us the

>Constitution authorizing a strong central government. Perhaps the unwillingness

>was so.

This isn’t the one, which was a more general pronouncement about how the only politicians safe to trust are those who don’t want the job, but indeed it is the same sentiment. Very interesting that you’ve traced this back to Washington’s famous supposed reluctance for “the job.” It is certain, at least, that Washington was opposed to taking a crown, because he refused it. Thus preserving our democracy at a delicate time. I expect you are right that Heinlein had all this in the background of his sentiments about politicians who do or don’t want the job.

Phebe

———————————————————————————–

>This isn’t the one, which was a more general pronouncement about how the only

>politicians safe to trust are those who don’t want the job, but indeed it is >the same sentiment.

It was a while back that I read Imperial Earth by Arthur C. Clarke, but it had a similar sentiment as part of the background. It is set several centuries in the future, and assumes much better psychological testing and evaluation than we have today (“magic” – any science sufficiently advanced is magic). The president of the U. S. was not elected. Instead, psychological testing was used to find an appropriate person. Among other requirements, the person selected must hate the job. They still did the best they could, though, because they were given time off for good behavior.

Don’t see any real world application for this, though, because our psychological testing and evaluation capabilities simply do not approach this level

.

Back to Stu, Mannie, and Prof. Stu may have had a point when he said that Prof would be ideal because he did not want the job. Mannie would have made the ideal successor for the same reasons. But…who comes next? Hereditary monarchies have not had all that good of a record when it comes to long term success over the generations. At what point in the succession do we get Henry VIII or Ivan the Terrible? What then?

I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy was a terrible way to run a government, but still a lot better than anything else we have come up with.

As for where I am going with the above ramblings, the best I can see is to keep government small and limited. Then it can do the least damage no matter how terrible the person we pick as president (or king, prime minister, galactic overlord, whatever). We have not been notably successful at that so far. Many people favor cutting back government until their favorite program is the one facing the budget ax. I would assume and hope that this is not the case on this NG, but we are a rather small portion of the general population. Don’t have any glib answer for that.

LV_POKER

———————————————————————————–

LV Poker Player wrote:

>

>It was a while back that I read Imperial Earth by Arthur C. Clarke, but it had

>a similar sentiment as part of the background. It is set several centuries in

>the future, and assumes much better psychological testing and evaluation than

>we have today (“magic” – any science sufficiently advanced is magic). The

>president of the U. S. was not elected. Instead, psychological testing was

>used to find an appropriate person. Among other requirements, the person

>selected must hate the job. They still did the best they could, though,

>because they were given time off for good behavior.

>

I love this. Sounds very familiar, so I must have read it early on. Sounds like the early scifi writers were on the same wavelength about this issue — they didn’t care for the naked greed for the office and its perks shown by some politicians.

Phebe

———————————————————————————–

Phebe:

>Right, Joan Baez, “My granddaddy made whiskey, my daddy did too/

>We ain’t never paid no whiskey tax/

>Since seventeen ninety-two….”

>

>”Get me a copper kettle, get me some copper coil/

>Cover with new-made corn mash/

>And never more I’ll toil…….”

I remember Joan’s version quite well. Think, however, I heard another a bit earlier by a black lady artist named Odeta. Words were a little different.

“Mah granddaddy made moonshine/

‘n HIS granddaddy did too!/

‘n WE ain’t paid NO whisky tax/

Since Seventeen-ninety-two!/”

Can’t remember what Joan titled it when she covered it, but Odeta (if that is who it was) called it “Under the Juniper.”

“You j’st lay thar under the Juniper/

As the sun grows high/

Lay thar under the Juniper/

Until the day you die!”

“Get you a copper kettle … etc.”

Sorry about the off-topic, but the two “whisky rebellions” were very important to our Constitution, the one led by Daniel Shays, formerly Captain of the Massachusetts Line, (who really did have leadership thrust upon him by his friends, neighbors, and former comrades in arms, and died an exile in poverty as a result) in Vermont before the Convention, and the one in Western Pennsylvania, eastern Kentucky, et al., during Washington’s first term. The song is one of my favorites.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

———————————————————————————–

On December 1, I posted one of my ‘brief’ notes, asking three major questions, designed to invite some consideration of aspects of the self-styled “rational anarchist” of the novel _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_. Regrettably, except for Mr. Collier, no one has stepped into my parlor (okay, I admit it: ’tis intended to be a minefield) to discuss rational anarchy or, really, what has come to be known as Heinlein’s supposed brand of “Libertarianism.”

Let me attempt to restart the ‘discussion’ in the direction I hoped it would move. Heinlein novels are sometimes harshly criticized because of a perceived didacticism on the part of the author.

Some even perceive a stereotypical ‘Heinlein’ triad of characters in many stories: call them “wisdom, strength and beauty” or what you will, you get the idea, if you consider that frequently one character can be described as the older or wiser mentor, one the major actor upon whom the wisdom is lavished who develops and pushes the plot, and one upon whom his affection falls. E.g., in _Moon_, Prof, Manny and Wyoh, those who favor this form would have it.

Perhaps this formula works in some novels or stories better than others. John Lyle in _”‘If This Goes On …'”_ might be strength, Zeb, his older and wiser roommate, wisdom (at least until Huxley takes over), and Judith originally, then Magdalene as rewritten, beauty. It gets a little sticky when novels such as _Stranger In A Strange Land_ are considered, i.e., is Jubal wisdom to Mike or visa versa? Exactly what role is Jill’s?

Except for one major point I believe to be true I might buy this simplification: Heinlein as I keep pointing out loved satire and irony. All sorts of teachers are the objects of satire in his stories, from inception. Consider the academicians in “Life-line” his very first published work. That academy of scientists and teachers, led by “America’s Most Handsome University President” absolutely refused to consider empirical evidence pertaining to Pinero’s magic machine. In fact, their leader is a lovely satire of an actual person, as I pointed out some time back, the then Chancellor of the University of Southern California, a fellow actually named Rufus von Kleinschmidt, who had the poor taste to publicly denigrate a new public university Heinlein had

attended in order to profit his own private university.

Satire, as early as the late 1940s, are present in the short stories. For example, note the “sharp satirical blade” that “separates Harriman’s grandiose goals (far beyond a mere moon landing) from the mundane realities of selling people” to support space exploration that none of them really want. Not my words, but those of David Samuelson, a critic some consider harsh to Heinlein. Jack Williamson points out that satire is plainly present in some of the later juveniles, most notably in _The Star Beast_, and he concludes that the whole mad situation enabled RAH to satirize the faults of follies of every level of human society encountered, including politicians and most emphatically including the final jest: when it turns out that the actual pet isn’t Lummox, but John Thomases being raised by Lummie.

Okay, I’ve noted that point before; but while reading _Take Back Your Government_ I noted to my amusement the following description in the penultimate chapter of an individual Heinlein found who fit a criticism made of Americans:

“I know a man who seems to me a case in point. He is native born, well and expensively educated, possessed of a good job, married and a father. He has both ample time and ample money with which to take an interest in politics–and he takes an intense interest.

“But interest is all he takes! His activity is limited to an occasional vote. “He is anti-Jew, anti-Negro, anti-immigrant. He thinks the public schools should be segregated not only by racial groups but by economic class, so that his children would not have to brush shoulders with the ‘lower classes.’ He is in business but he does not believe in free enterprise; he wants the rules rigged to favor his particular enterprise against free competition from other businessmen. The government to him is ‘They’ and ‘They’ are always doing something that he does not like.

“‘They’ have worried him so much that he has at last figured out an answer which pleases him. He believes that the trouble with government is government itself; we should abolish it. Then would come the millennium when men like himself would make their own rules and everybody would live happily ever after, free from the oppression of ‘They’.”

Now let’s take another look at what Professor: de la Paz thinks:

>”A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’

>and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts

>of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift

>blame, share blame, distribute blame … as blame, guilt, responsibility are

>matters taking place within human beings singly and _nowhere else_. But being

>rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries

>to live perfectly in an imperfect world … aware that his efforts will be less

>than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.

>* * * * *

>”My point is that one person _is_ responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist–and

>they do–some _man_ controls them. In terms of morals, _there_ _is_ _no__such_

>_thing_ _as_ ‘_state_.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”

>

But that’s not the end of it. The Professor goes a bit further. While he doesn’t appear to adhere to the bigotry Heinlein’s ‘example’ harbors, De la Paz mimics him in one critical area: he insists on the right to ‘make his own rules.’ Even unto the definition of treason, concerning which Mr. Collier in the one reply we got observed:

>If I remember correctly from one of my sociology classes, way back

>when, there’s only one thing that’s taboo in all cultures and this is

>it. The answer to the question is, obviously, that there’s no

>difference, then, between the Prof. and Czolgosz. Sam, the guy who beat

>Bradley is completely different, though. The former committed treason,

>the latter merely some lesser moral wrong. Sure, you let enough of

>these lesser wrongs go untended and you’ve got a big moral mess but

>it’s still within the system rather than trying kill it outright.

>

In another thread, I observed regarding de la Paz that perhaps we ought to consider whether Manny actually ever buys the pills de la Paz peddles. I suggest he never did. Even if you consider that Manny steals from authority as ‘all loonies’ do, that’s not a political philosophy of a free citizen, that’s the mindset of a slave who is yet to free himself. Consider Memtone and those others in _Farnham’s Freehold_, consider the butler in IWFNE, and consider Thorby before Baslim works his mentoring on the slave boy. Maureen is too damned proud to steal! She’s a free citizen and proud of it, even if she lacks suffrage in her time in the 1890s.

So I am naturally suspicious of this ‘mentor,’ this voice of Wisdom, Professor Bernardo de la Paz, who is so far from a Man of Peace that he describes himself as an “Anarchist.” Heinlein is always tricky with names.

Consider this further point: the term “Anarchist” bore considerable baggage in Heinlein’s time, plainly at least as much as “Communist” ever bore in 1966 or before or after. They didn’t just kill one President, and they didn’t go away afterwards for some time. If you were born in 1970, seven years after Lee Harvey Oswald (acting “alone” as we have been told by the Warren Commission or in some combination out of Oliver Stoned’s dreams, take your pick) put the bullet in John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s head, you might understand what I suggest Heinlein, born in 1907, may have intended us to understand when he put that self-label into the Professor’s mouth. Satire isn’t always slapstick or a “whole mad situation” as Williamson described it portrayed in _The Star Beast_. Not everything nor everyone in _Tom Jones_ is satire. Such madness might merely be the state of mind and conduct of one self-incriminating actor. The media portrayed Czolgosz in 1900 as mad, not rational. He considered himself as rational as you or I. I suggest de la Paz fits that category, as well. What do you think?

Looking forward to seeing a few of you this evening and Saturday. In so doing, I must insist on one thing in our chats. I want no ad homs, nor vulgarities, from anyone. We have a very valued guest who considers such so offensive that she has informed me that she is considering going off line, permanently. Forget about the little game I sometimes play, that good cop-bad cop routine between nice dumb ineffectual AGplusone and Zim. I won’t play it in the event of violation of my little rule. Further, I will be the sole judge of whether this little rule is violated. I don’t need any help. Please do not require David to effect his ultimate solution to the problem.

Regards to all,

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

———————————————————————————–

In article, lt;mailto:>(AGplusone) wrote: >On December 1, I posted one of my ‘brief’ notes, asking three major questions,

And, of course, I’ve duly checked each day since my response, anticipating an 11:55th hour reply since the rules of procedure are not just uncodified but noncodified here. It’s downright anarchy.

>designed to invite some consideration of aspects of the self-styled “rational

>anarchist” of the novel _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_. Regrettably, except for

>Mr. Collier, no one has stepped into my parlor (okay, I admit it: ’tis intended

>to be a minefield) to discuss rational anarchy or, really, what has come to be

>known as Heinlein’s supposed brand of “Libertarianism.”

>

>Let me attempt to restart the ‘discussion’ in the direction I hoped it would

>move. Heinlein novels are sometimes harshly criticized because of a perceived

>didacticism on the part of the author.

I’ve seen this criticism and would urge that’s it’s not merely perceived but actual and intended. Further, it’s part of the old boy’s charm, to my way of thinking.

I remember high school English lit and reading Blake’s “The Tyger.” The teacher, the ever so sensitive Mr. Meyers, passed out a mimeographed sheaf of papers to us on which was copied an analysis of the “first eight levels of meaning” of the poem. Mr. Meyers announced that true students of the engraver turned poet could delve down to the 20th level of meaning on one of their slow days and deeper if they fell into a trance and started to foam at the mouth.

Not so with RAH. He didn’t believe in hiding the ball. He always told you, as the reader, what to think, what he was thinking. There’s a kind of uncomfortableness with image of yourself that you have when, as a writer, you need to control things to the extent that you have to come out and tell readers what they’re supposed to be getting out of the fiction. Naturally, and anybody who’s done any fiction writing will tell you, that doesn’t stop people from coming up to you and telling you about something they saw in the piece or got out of the work that you didn’t put in it intentionally. That’s really a lot of fun when it happens and, in talking with other writers, I’ve heard it urged that you don’t think you intended it to be there but maybe (and they use that word that my old behaviorist comrades and I hated) subconsciously, you meant it to be there.

Maybe yes, maybe no but I’m figuring Bob was somewhat shocked at the attraction SIASL had for some of the hippies. I’m figuring he envisioned a somewhat more frequently bathed class of fans, somewhat more conventional in lifestyle class of fans, and hoped that those would be the people to whom his lectures (informed by Harshaw) would appeal.

>

>Some even perceive a stereotypical ‘Heinlein’ triad of characters in many

>stories: call them “wisdom, strength and beauty” or what you will, you get the

>idea, if you consider that frequently one character can be described as the

>older or wiser mentor, one the major actor upon whom the wisdom is lavished who

>develops and pushes the plot, and one upon whom his affection falls. E.g., in

>_Moon_, Prof, Manny and Wyoh, those who favor this form would have it.

>

>Perhaps this formula works in some novels or stories better than others. John

>Lyle in _”‘If This Goes On …'”_ might be strength, Zeb, his older and wiser

>roommate, wisdom (at least until Huxley takes over), and Judith originally,

>then Magdalene as rewritten, beauty. It gets a little sticky when novels such

>as _Stranger In A Strange Land_ are considered, i.e., is Jubal wisdom to Mike

>or visa versa? Exactly what role is Jill’s?

>

Arguendo, since I don’t concede the formulaic analysis is the single solution to unraveling the style, Jill’s strength. Surrogate strength for Mike who needs an interpreter until he gets to know the lay of the land, no pun intended.

>Except for one major point I believe to be true I might buy this

>simplification: Heinlein as I keep pointing out loved satire and irony. All

>sorts of teachers are the objects of satire in his stories, from inception.

>Consider the academicians in “Life-line” his very first published work. That

>academy of scientists and teachers, led by “America’s Most Handsome University

>President” absolutely refused to consider empirical evidence pertaining to

>Pinero’s magic machine. In fact, their leader is a lovely satire of an actual

>person, as I pointed out some time back, the then Chancellor of the University

>of Southern California, a fellow actually named Rufus von Kleinschmidt, who had

>the poor taste to publicly denigrate a new public university Heinlein had

>attended in order to profit his own private university.

>

Noted, for the record: you introduce, here, the premise that satire and irony are the cornerstone(s) on which you’re going to build your argument, culminating in implicitly refuting that Bob didn’t need to be a lexicographer when he used the term “anarchist” and, as I suggest, got it wrong; all he needed to be was in control of the writing and could make the rules any way he saw fit. If he wanted to write about a tea kettle and call it a steamship, he could because he was creating the fictional environment in which an iceberg sank something shorter and stouter with a cognizable handle and spout. The introduction of this underpinning of your argument is pointed out to pare from it the remainder of the paragraph which serves to cloak the premise. I would contend that you’re doing here what Heinlein did as a writer: taking a term with an accepted meaning and changing it to suit the purpose of, in his case, fiction, in yours analysis of the same writer’s intent.

I would, then, take exception to “satire” and “irony” to the extent that the example you provided is more ridicule than satire, more heavy- handed obvious than irony.

>Satire, as early as the late 1940s, are present in the short stories. For

>example, note the “sharp satirical blade” that “separates Harriman’s grandiose

>goals (far beyond a mere moon landing) from the mundane realities of selling

>people” to support space exploration that none of them really want. Not my

>words, but those of David Samuelson, a critic some consider harsh to Heinlein

.

Your respond received too late for me to read the case. Noted, in passing, that my recollection is of the device of irony more than satire. All that time, effort and expense just to get one old man to the moon where he dies.

>Jack Williamson points out that satire is plainly present in some of the later

>juveniles, most notably in _The Star Beast_, and he concludes that the whole

>mad situation enabled RAH to satirize the faults of follies of every level of

>human society encountered, including politicians and most emphatically

>including the final jest: when it turns out that the actual pet isn’t Lummox,

>but John Thomases being raised by Lummie.

I think I can go along with you here if you’re saying that satire is a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn. If you’re not saying that, go argue with Merriam-Webster.

>Okay, I’ve noted that point before; but while reading _Take Back Your

>Government_ I noted to my amusement the following description in the

>penultimate chapter of an individual Heinlein found who fit a

>criticism made of Americans:

>

>”I know a man who seems to me a case in point. He is native born, well and

>expensively educated, possessed of a good job, married and a father. He has

>both ample time and ample money with which to take an interest in politics–and

>he takes an intense interest.

>”But interest is all he takes! His activity is limited to an occasional vote.

>”He is anti-Jew, anti-Negro, anti-immigrant. He thinks the public schools

>should be segregated not only by racial groups but by economic class, so that

>his children would not have to brush shoulders with the ‘lower classes.’ He is

>in business but he does not believe in free enterprise; he wants the rules

>rigged to favor his particular enterprise against free competition from other

>businessmen. The government to him is ‘They’ and ‘They’ are always doing

>something that he does not like.

>”‘They’ have worried him so much that he has at last figured out an answer

>which pleases him. He believes that the trouble with government is government

>itself; we should abolish it. Then would come the millennium when men like

>himself would make their own rules and everybody would live happily

>ever after, free from the oppression of ‘They’.”

>

>Now let’s take another look at what Professor: de la Paz thinks:

>”A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’

>and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts >of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift

>blame, share blame, distribute blame … as blame, guilt, responsibility are

>matters taking place within human beings singly and _nowhere else_. But being

>rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries

>to live perfectly in an imperfect world … aware that his efforts will be less

>than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.

>* * * * *

>”My point is that one person _is_ responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist–and

>they do–some _man_ controls them. In terms of morals, _there_ _is_ _no_ _such_

>_thing_ _as_ ‘_state_.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”

>

>But that’s not the end of it. The Professor goes a bit further. While he

>doesn’t appear to adhere to the bigotry Heinlein’s ‘example’ harbors, De la Paz

>mimics him in one critical area: he insists on the right to ‘make his own

>rules.’ Even unto the definition of treason, concerning which Mr. Collier in

>the one reply we got observed:

>

>>If I remember correctly from one of my sociology classes, way back

>>when, there’s only one thing that’s taboo in all cultures and this is

>>it. The answer to the question is, obviously, that there’s no

>>difference, then, between the Prof. and Czolgosz. Sam, the guy who beat

>>Bradley is completely different, though. The former committed treason,

>>the latter merely some lesser moral wrong. Sure, you let enough of

>>these lesser wrongs go untended and you’ve got a big moral mess but

>>it’s still within the system rather than trying kill it outright.

>>

No. Can’t buy it. Can’t support it. Doesn’t wash as merely the Prof’s whimsical, ad hoc definition since he said “anarchy” not “treason.” Do you suppose if Bob had used the right term, “rational traitor,” he’d have stuck with the same definition? I do. I’d call what he’s defined less a traitor than patriot to a higher moral code. The problem is, whose code? You say it’s the code of the society in which the individual lives? Can’t be. The individual, under the definition, is called upon to judge the behaviors of others in the absolute. Whose code, then? Why, the writer’s, of course. That’s what the lecture’s all about

.

I also note that there’s a connotative problem with using the right term, “traitor.” Anarchy advocated never seems to get the reaction traitor does–and for good reason. Nobody can take seriously anybody who advocates anarchy. Would you live next door to a guy willing to overthrow, with his own hands, all government? Hell, he wouldn’t borrow the lawnmower, he’d have you cutting grass at gunpoint. These people are fruitcakes. Traitors, though, are a different animal. The do what they do for a variety of reasons and lots of times those reasons have been for personal gain. They’re real people because it’s not hard to believe that somebody’s treasonous enough to sell us up the river to the bad guys for a tidy sum; it’s happened to many times and they aren’t crazy, not that kind. They’re just stupid, lazy and greedy, mostly

.

>In another thread, I observed regarding de la Paz that perhaps we ought to

>consider whether Manny actually ever buys the pills de la Paz peddles. I

>suggest he never did. Even if you consider that Manny steals from authority as

>’all loonies’ do, that’s not a political philosophy of a free citizen, that’s

>the mindset of a slave who is yet to free himself. Consider Memtone and those

>others in _Farnham’s Freehold_, consider the butler in IWFNE, and consider

>Thorby before Baslim works his mentoring on the slave boy. Maureen is too

>damned proud to steal! She’s a free citizen and proud of it, even if she lacks

>suffrage in her time in the 1890s.

I’m missing the connection here between whether Manny swallows what the Prof’s pushing and whether Manny steals. In the society the writer sets up in TMIAHM, everyone steals because they have to steal. Here, everyone goes faster than 55 or 70 from time to time but it’s not because we’re slaves. As for the rest, Maureen’s the worst example although none of them support the premise. She says she’s too proud to steal but she’s not too proud to benefit much more handsomely from insider trading. Now, if the SEC knew, Dave, what would they say Maureen had done?

>So I am naturally suspicious of this ‘mentor,’ this voice of Wisdom, Professor

>Bernardo de la Paz, who is so far from a Man of Peace that he describes himself

>as an “Anarchist.” Heinlein is always tricky with names.

I think he makes a body uncomfortable because he’s another Heinlein control freak. The “wisdom” factor or character in the formula you recite, above, should be called the “omniscent” factor. That’s always the character who knows the plot; everyone else is either just carrying a spear or waiting to receive the deification he was going to get all along. You want irony, there’s irony in a thing like Harshaw’s attraction to the “Karytid Fallen Under Her Burden” piece. I really do think he saw her as him. Brave little expression of determination on her face while some ten-ton lentel was crushing her guts out paralleled with the chin up after all these years of the crushing weight of envious detractors, I still not only deliver to the publisher but my message is getting clearer all the time. Right. Some mothers’ day card

>Consider this further point: the term “Anarchist” bore considerable baggage in

>Heinlein’s time, plainly at least as much as “Communist” ever bore in 1966 or

>before or after. They didn’t just kill one President, and they didn’t go away

>afterwards for some time. If you were born in 1970, seven years after Lee

>Harvey Oswald (acting “alone” as we have been told by the Warren Commission or

>in some combination out of Oliver Stoned’s dreams, take your pick) put the

>bullet in John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s head, you might understand what I suggest

>Heinlein, born in 1907, may have intended us to understand when he put that

>self-label into the Professor’s mouth. Satire isn’t always slapstick or a

>”whole mad situation” as Williamson described it portrayed in _The Star Beast_.

>Not everything nor everyone in _Tom Jones_ is satire. Such madness might merely

>be the state of mind and conduct of one self-incriminating actor. The media

>portrayed Czolgosz in 1900 as mad, not rational. He considered himself as

>rational as you or I. I suggest de la Paz fits that category, as well. What do

>you think?

Too vague to rebut. What’s “Heinlein’s time”(?) If it’s the “Heinlein’s time” of TMIAHM, no. Nobody was talking anarchy as a bugaboo in the early-60’s. We were in Viet Nam not because of the fear the anarchists would take over; it was domino theory time and the commies who’d already set up governments (not anarchies) in Russia, China, Cuba and elsewhere. If it’s the “Heinlein’s time” of TBYG, which is a little before my time, no. He lays out that satirical description of “politically interested” man to make the point, what an anarchist exactly isn’t. They aren’t guys with vested interests in the perpetuation and continuation of the societies in which all their capital investments are bound. They’re like me, furtive, unstable, “self-employed,” disgruntled, wild-eyed, unkempt, prone to nervousness, loners who’d gladly see it all go up in smoke for the chance to give something a try that nobody’s tried before: no government of any kind. Well, you know me–or at least the me, here.

>Looking forward to seeing a few of you this evening and Saturday. In so doing,

>I must insist on one thing in our chats. I want no ad homs, nor vulgarities,

>from anyone. We have a very valued guest who considers such so offensive that

>she has informed me that she is considering going off line, permanently. Forget

>about the little game I sometimes play, that good cop-bad cop routine between

>nice dumb ineffectual AGplusone and Zim. I won’t play it in the event of

>violation of my little rule. Further, I will be the sole judge of whether this

>little rule is violated. I don’t need any help. Please do not require David to

>effect his ultimate solution to the problem.

There’s going to be a guest? Why, I may drop by, then. Naturally, in

contrast to my sometimes-demeanor here, I’m the soul of decorum live

. I’m interested in seeing who the guest will be. Someone fitting for

Pearl Harbor Day?

>Regards to all,

>

>–

>David M. Silver

>

>”I expect your names to shine!”

LNC

———————————————————————————–

Maybe I should try for this discussion, though AIM has twice chronically crashed two computers, so I keep taking it off.

I just started rereading The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. I knew I had read it only once, when it came out, and was surprised everyone always says how great it is, because I only recalled that I hadn’t liked it. Looked at the copyright date: 1966.

Uh-oh

.

Okay, it’s been a while since I read it, then.

I remembered it as soon as Mike says, “Hi, Man.” Saw part of the problem at once, too. Nowadays, since talking to a lot of Serbs on the Internet, God help me, I realize that the Cyrillic languages don’t have articles and that this is what Heinlein is doing here, emphasizing through the use of language that the lunar culture is basically Russian. Hardly anyone would have understood that language thing in 1966; I certainly didn’t despite having as good an education as a woman could hope for then, and the writing style was very intrusive to me for that reason. It was hard to identify with a character who talks so funny (this could be part of the problem the Serbs have, come to think of it…). Still is, but at least I understand the point, finally.

Additionally, the Russian bear has its teeth pulled now, but it sure didn’t in 1966! That was near the time I’d spent a very unpleasant evening weeping in fear of nuclear holocaust during the Cuban missile crisis, Mutual Assured Destruction was the dominant method for si vis pacem para bellum, Dr. Strangelove hadn’t even been made yet and everyone lived in a constant soup of fear of the end of the world. Our president had recently been assassinated, there were trouble spots everywhere, and a lot of us spent a lot of time out on the streets waving signs trying to get the U.S. out of a jungle in southeast Asia. Russia was a real, live, serious enemy, and ———–

God love him, here comes Heinlein with his patented technique of aggravating everyone maximally, and makes his protagonists a bunch of damn Russkies.

And about anarchism: I’ve just passed the town talk-talk part on reread, but anarchism was rather an issue in those days, you know, that’s of course exactly why Heinlein wrote about it! We lived, breathed, and marched the constant danger of anarchism, and in the end we did reject it, but it was a near thing, frankly. The leaders of the Vietnam Peace Movement were true revolutionaries, mostly communists or socialists, including one from my own school whom I knew well. Their followers (me) weren’t. Eventually we vanished like the dew from grass as the sun rises, much to their surprise, because we didn’t want revolution: we just wanted peace in Vietnam! But it was definitely a dicey issue then, and here tromps in Heinlein, of course, just as he did with other changes during the 60s with Stranger in a Strange Land. I can still feel echoes of the tension between the fictional elements and the time it was written as I reread it.

Phebe

AGplusone wrote:

>On December 1, I posted one of my ‘brief’ notes, asking three major questions,

>designed to invite some consideration of aspects of the self-styled “rational

>anarchist” of the novel _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_. Regrettably, except for

>Mr. Collier, no one has stepped into my parlor (okay, I admit it: ’tis intended

>to be a minefield) to discuss rational anarchy or, really, what has come to be

>known as Heinlein’s supposed brand of “Libertarianism.”

>

>Let me attempt to restart the ‘discussion’ in the direction I hoped it would

>move. Heinlein novels are sometimes harshly criticized because of a perceived

>didacticism on the part of the author.

>

———————————————————————————–

Here Begins The Discussion Log

Go To Postings

You have just entered room “Heinlein Readers Group chat.”

AGplusone has entered the room.

AGplusone: How are you doing, ghost of the room?

AGplusone: I’ll be AFK. Got in here very early in case we have sign-on or stay-on problems out here. Going to eat so I’ll won’t be overly grumpy.

DavidWrightSr: Hi David. I’m watching tv at the moment, but I’ll be ready to go at 9:00

AGplusone: 🙂 me too. Watching TV and ready to go at 9. Enjoy the programs.

DavidWrightSr: Wanted to get here early myself, so I don’t miss anything. I’ve got the pre-discussion posts all ready to go and should be able to get the log out in a real short while.

AGplusone: Okay. Thank you.

AGplusone has left the room.

AGplusone has entered the room.

AGplusone has left the room.

ddavitt has entered the room.

AGplusone has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi davidW

ddavitt: And Ag:-)

AGplusone: 🙂

AGplusone: Just got back from a boot.

AGplusone: Dave’s still watching TV … afk

ddavitt: I may be typing one hand and rocking with the other so i might be slow until David emerges from the bath

AGplusone: I forgot. What’s her name?

ddavitt: Lauren

AGplusone: Nice name.

ddavitt: compromise; i wanted laura, David din’t like it but didn’t mind lauren

AGplusone: That’s okay. You have gone mad if you knew what name I planned to drop on my son, if we’d ever had one.

ddavitt: can’t be worse than galadriel

ddavitt: ga, tell me

AGplusone: Maybe not. Try Berel David …

ddavitt: hmm…

ddavitt: why?

AGplusone: My father’s real name.

ddavitt: ahh…

ddavitt: ok

ddavitt: like PM huh?

ddavitt: elihu

AGplusone: They called him Bennie, or Ben … and he used Benjamin.

AGplusone: Somewhat like that.

AGplusone: It’s a mittle European name.

ddavitt: we were paranoid about a name that couldn’t be ridiculed and initials that don’t spell somethiung silly

AGplusone: Many are.

ddavitt: or shortened for that matter

ddavitt: one person called eleanoe ellie and i freaked :-)\

AGplusone: B.S. means something in American English that can be derrogatory. My father had his ways of discouraging that.

ddavitt: sorry; one handed, can’t get to caps key

AGplusone: Don’t worry.

ddavitt: not many posts; ytoo much rl politics i think

AGplusone: Could be … I also think people are a little tired this side of the St. Lawrence

AGplusone: ‘drained’ might be the word

ddavitt: I feel for you; very frustrating to have it drag on this long. not dignified either…

ddavitt: sorry for the winner in some ways, Not a nice way to get to the white house

AGplusone: Dignified isn’t the problem. What I worry is some tinpot dictator telling our President no matter who he turns out to be that he has no moral stature, that’s he’s not lawfully elected.

ddavitt: we’ve had similar problems in uk on a smaller scale when the cons party tried to elect a new leader; three ballots, much hard feelings

AGplusone: In other words, Liz, you’re an usurper … there should be a Stewart on the throne.

ddavitt: well once he’s inaugarated he’s the man, yes?

ddavitt: We’ve had that too 🙂

AGplusone: Absolutely … but the record is hamstrung for all after Jefferson who’ve wound up in this situation.

ddavitt: could be good to get the problems in the system sorted out tho; maybe this was a disaster waiting to happen?

AGplusone: Quincy Adams, Hayes, etc., … all one term and all hindered.

ddavitt: or is this close a tie unusual?

AGplusone: It will be … incredibly unusual.

DavidWrightSr: Hi everyone

AGplusone: Hi, Dave, again.

ddavitt: for it to hinge on one state i mean

ddavitt: hi dave

AGplusone: Did in Hayes-Tilden in 1876.

AGplusone: Anyone of three could have changed the result. Did in Jefferson, Adams, Burr. New York could have changed the result.

ddavitt: trouble is also the sheer size of the electorate nowadays; lots of votes…

AGplusone: Absolutely.

ddavitt: oh well, should be sorted one way or tother soon

AGplusone: Well, as we sit here. Did anyone enjoy the substance (not the procedural rules) of my last post?

geeairmoe2 has entered the room.

ddavitt: yes, sorry i hsvent

AGplusone: Hi, Will, just starting.

bisaacz has entered the room.

bisaacz has left the room.

ddavitt: t posted much back; your posts are long:-)

ddavitt: hi will

AGplusone: Good evening, bisaascz, welcome back.

geeairmoe2: Hi, all.

AGplusone: We’re just starting ….

AGplusone: I suggest we might start about Professor Bernardo de la Paz, if anyone’s interested?

ddavitt: Do you think he had to die the same way mannie did? Wouldn’t fit in?

DavidWrightSr: Mannie? or Mike?

ddavitt: If your premise is right and H didn’t approve of him, despite making him so cuddly

ddavitt: Mike Duh!! Sorry

DavidWrightSr: I have a comment about ‘rational anarchy’.

ddavitt: ga

AGplusone: I think that’s exactly a point. Too evil to last. Pays the piper. Mike is simply withdrawn … found out the humans really were flesh and blood … not radar images. Go, Dave

DavidWrightSr: I got real irritated with LNC’s comment about the ‘ration

AGplusone: Don’t understand the irritation … what about ‘rational’?

DavidWrightSr: Sorry, having trouble getting my thoughts together. Let me get back in a few minutes

ddavitt: Can there be a rational anarchist? ontradiction in terms?

DavidWrightSr: I don’t believe so.

ddavitt: I tend to associate with Conrad’s Secret Agent and the Sex Pistols….neither seem very rational…

DavidWrightSr: I mean I don’t agree that it is a contadiction

AGplusone: They believe they are perfectly rational … but perhaps you’re correct … they’re about as rational as any person who believes with all his heart in something the rest of us don’t believe in. “What’s wrong with that nice carpenter … ?”

ddavitt: But isn’t anarchy unstable at best? Chaoitic at worst..how can wanting that be rational?

AGplusone: Their theory is government is the problem and without government some new beginning that is not government will arise for the ashes.

ddavitt: has there ever been an anarchy in history?

AGplusone: I don’t agree, but thousands of ‘perfectly rational’ people in the Nineteenth Century seemed to think so.

ddavitt: a leader always rises; wolf takes over the flock of sheep…bingo, from anarchy to tyranny in one quick step.

AGplusone: Some claim there has been …

AGplusone: e.g., the French Revolution before Nappy.

DavidWrightSr: Not my night. I wrote up some stuff in response to LNC’s characterization of the RA and now I can’t find it. What LNC saw was a person who ‘knew’ better than anyone. What I saw was that all decisions *do* come down to the individual, whether he is acting out of his own personal ego or following moral concepts or ideas of duties, I took what prof said as literal not the way LNC saw it.

ddavitt: anarachy is just ripe for the strong to dominate. Govt protects the weak; may be it’s main purpose

ddavitt: French rev..hmm…maybe…

ddavitt: But shortlived and look; nap + wolf

ddavitt: Should be =

AGplusone: I think LNC is correct in characterizing Prof as a knowing hypocrite … or simply a false prophet … or a speaker who is intended to mislead.

ddavitt: But I don’t like the idea of people choosing what rules to obey. deety does it…arrogant to my mind

ddavitt: If you are in a society should obey the rules; part of a democracy

ddavitt: If the maority vote for it and you’re in the minority; tough!

AGplusone: If you stay in the society. You can always move West if you don’t like it …

ddavitt: That’s the way the cookie crumbles, can’t say, i didn’t vote for it and disobey

ddavitt: deety stayed put but disobeyed

AGplusone: like the Girtys … until Wetzel catches up with you.

ddavitt: Thought she knew better than the govt. probably did but that’s not the point

AGplusone: But Deety is another person designed to float balloons …

ddavitt: Maybe…we all do it to an extent every time we speed…

AGplusone: see whether anyone salutes them, to mix a metaphore like Sam Roberts.

DavidWrightSr: My point is that *everyone* does choose to obey or not. Maybe it’s preferable for everyone to obey, but when push comes to shove, they decide. Sometimes they have to pay the consequence themselves, sometimes others pay for their mistakes, sometimes what they do is the right thing. All kinds of outcomes, but the *individual* makes the decisions.

ddavitt: Its a common theme in H though; people quietly disobeying but not making a big deal out of it

ddavitt: I agree with that DaveW

ddavitt: Lazarus is a prime example

AGplusone: You’re right, David, but LNC’s point is that Prof knows what he does is a repudiation of his ‘covenant’ with the society that he is part of … which is why he calls it treason.

DavidWrightSr: That’s why I think that Prof’s description actually describes reality.

ddavitt: So au fond, all socities are formed of anarchists who don’t realise it?

AGplusone: So far as the description of individual responsibility, or all of his description and rationale for his conduct?

DavidWrightSr: Description of individual action. Sometimes ‘responsible’, sometimes not. It depends on the ‘duty’ the individual feels towards himself and society.

AGplusone: Treason is waging war against your own society … of course if you’re a slave it can be argued you have no society in which you belong … but Prof doesn’t limit his position to only the status of slave.

geeairmoe2: What is “individual responsibility” but another way of choosing to maintain a stable societal structure? I’ll be responsible so we ALL can get along.

AGplusone: I will decide on every individual law, sez Prof … every one. Absolute right, he sez.

ddavitt: yet he helped overthrow warden with no expectation of anarchy follwing the revolution…or did he?

AGplusone: But Prof is unwilling to make that promise under any condition…

ddavitt: But the loonies opted to go for the traditional route of democracy…because that’s what H preferred?

AGplusone: More of a dream, and more of an inconsistency … but what if Stu had proposed him to be King, was accepted and Prof got the non-government he wanted.

AGplusone: Or would Prof have started another cabal, simply, the first time he decided he didn’t like a law they passed?

ddavitt: He was not to be trusted you mean?

AGplusone: Why he had to die.

ddavitt: shades of Bouncer in animal Farm

AGplusone: Just as Mike couldn’t be trusted … he might have been infected by Prof …

ddavitt: The horse…it was Bouncer wasn’t it? Been a long time

ddavitt: mannie always trusted Mike tho I’m sure

AGplusone: all that time Mike spent talking with Prof … cooking up ways to falsify the ballot …

ddavitt: dangerous route to travel being the puppet masters..may not want to cut the strings later on

AGplusone: That too … “I don’t want to be King” … hate to tell you what the last person I heard say something like that did.

ddavitt: Tell, tell,

ddavitt: 🙂

DavidWrightSr: The point of the rational anarchist was not that ‘Anarchy’ was a preferable form of government, but that no matter what the form of government, *all* decisions come down to being made by an individual. Even when you have a committee or small group, one individual has to say go or no go. Sometime, ‘no go’ means he is replaced and another individual is put in that position.

AGplusone: Cut everyone’s throat when he took over … used the organization, a veterans fraternity, for his own advancement and dropped it … let it die.

ddavitt: oh, that’s bad…

AGplusone: So far as individual responsibility I have no quarrel with you, Dave. It’s just that what follows responsibility doesn’t compute … contradicts it.

AGplusone: “Society” does exist. A “state” does exist. IRL

AGplusone: You either belong to a society or have every man’s hand against you. You cannot ride both horses.

DavidWrightSr: Certainly societies exist and states exist, but all decisions are made by individuals, some who put the welfare of those states and societies before themselves, and some who don’t.

AGplusone: If you’re free to choose, of course.

ddavitt: talking about tricks; what about those in Bathroom? are they illegal? or just not cricket?

AGplusone: A slave has no obligation to any society.

AGplusone: Not cricket

ddavitt: quite clever tho…

ddavitt: good reverse psychology

AGplusone: Probably illegal under some ordinances. For example, in California, you commit a misdemeanor by pulling up signs on private property.

Reilloc has entered the room.

AGplusone: Caught one Representative doing it. Evenin’ LC.

ddavitt: the car stickers you mean?

Reilloc: Evening AG

ddavitt: hi lnc

Reilloc: Hi, dda

AGplusone: We’re talking about ‘dirty tricks’ in Bathroom. Jane asked whether they were illegal, the ones described by Heinlein.

ddavitt: if the public found out would be costly…

AGplusone: That’s true. Just like Bradley’s trick.

ddavitt: but they were despearate in ths story

AGplusone: Or rather Yorty’s trick against Bradley.

ddavitt: ?

DavidWrightSr: What was that?

AGplusone: The pamphlet mailed out by Yorty on election eve, purporting to be a pamphlet intended to go to the black vote, talking about dirty Jews, that went to Jews instead.

Reilloc: I read about the one where you go put the opposition’s campaign stickers on the windshields of cars but the glue’s almost impossible to remove. They never forget your opponent for that.

AGplusone: I even got one in Santa Monica, and it was an LA city election.

AGplusone: That’s the one RAH described Jane was asking about.

ddavitt: i liked the garlic breathing tramps…

Reilloc: those were some of my relatives..

ddavitt: and the defacing of their own posters…

ddavitt: sneaky!

Reilloc: No, just inbred.

ddavitt: like miahm tho, they thought they were justified to save the public…slippery slope again

AGplusone: My mother was involved in a union organizing drive once … and the union pulled a very dirty trick one Sunday morning in a restaurant filled with families sitting down to dinner. Very much like that.

geeairmoe2: My theory of Mike’s withdrawal was the conflict between realizing his superiority to Man, thus his obligation to “guide” them for “their own good”, coming up against the deep human need to possess individual rights. He takes an agnostic withdrawal because he understands humanity’s inherent inability to achieve true happiness without a certain level of freedom.

ddavitt: i presume most of the voters, well, some, knew about the machine and may not have cared

Reilloc: where’s that come from?

ddavitt: moon

Reilloc: No, the SIASL thing

Reilloc: Oh, that mike.

Reilloc: sorry

ddavitt: mike is fron moon; mycroft the computer

AGplusone: Referring to the “machine” that Prof, Mannie, and Mike ran … it was, wasn’t it?

ddavitt: yep

geeairmoe2: I guess my comment could apply to siasl, come to think of it.

AGplusone: I’m not sure. I think Manny may have been the only one in a position to perceive that Mike and Prof had stuffed the ballot.

AGplusone: Maybe Wyoh, too …

ddavitt: maybe will.

Reilloc: this “deep human need for individual freedom,” where do you get that?

AGplusone: Yes, please explain, Will.

DavidWrightSr: ?

geeairmoe2: We fight wars over how we should allow ourselves to be governed. You’d think after a few thousand years we wold have come up with one that worked. We hjaven’t because governments are about setting limits. Make lists of what we can and cannot do.

Reilloc: Okay….

geeairmoe2: Every “limit” runs up against a desire to be free.

Reilloc: How about the realization that he, the machine, is better than the people. Where do you get that?

geeairmoe2: That’s what is so appealing about the ‘libertarian’ view of no rules.

Reilloc: In the rest of the works, the machines want more than anything else to be people.

ddavitt: He can think better; H’s definition of superiority maybe?

Reilloc: Somebody change his mind or what?

ddavitt: Well he ends up human in Sail..or does he? Never been quite sure

Reilloc: No, I think he wanted to be a woman, not a machine.

AGplusone: My thought went along the lines of, if Mike fully realized what he was dealing with (humans trying to free themselves from slavery on their minds) he conceivably could have decided to withdraw to let them instead of enslaving them himself … perhaps Mike realizes he’s in a position to do so whether they realize it or not. All he has to do is nullify Mannie and Wyoh …

geeairmoe2: People need his help. He would assume because he has superior qualities to them.

Reilloc: Nullify Manne and Y? Why?

ddavitt: He was running the whole society, vital to the success of the revolution..not surprising he thought he was superior

geeairmoe2: He was getting things done flesh and blood people were incapable of doing.

AGplusone: They might eventually realize what he’s doing, if he’s controlling everything, including the Loonies, which is within his potential.

ddavitt: They knew who he was; get rid of them and Adam selene was safe

ddavitt: For a while at least…

Reilloc: I still don’t get it.

Reilloc: He withdrewn

Reilloc: drew

AGplusone: Mannie never tells Mike or Prof he suspects they’ve stuffed the ballot they stuffed.

ddavitt: frankenstein’s monster parallels?

Reilloc: He didn’t take charge.

DavidWrightSr: There were limits to what he could do physically, He would have had to have people to carry out some things.

AGplusone: He decided not to … he can always replay his memories.

ddavitt: He was hurt, damaged but he would have repaired…mannie is talking years later when the book opens and mike still hasn’t come back

Reilloc: That puts us, where? He’s lurking or he’s gone?

AGplusone: Simply use phones as he did when Mannie was out of contact during the attack.

AGplusone: Lurking, I think. That’s why Campbell goes back to get him.

ddavitt: tho, saying that, in Cat it’s implied that he is still hurt and scared; when Gwen and Colin visit. Maybe he didn’t withdraw on purpose?

Reilloc: He’s lurking for a reason or he’s “psychically” damaged?

DavidWrightSr: Phones have to connect to *some one*

AGplusone: Either/or … surety isn’t possible.

geeairmoe2: Suicide, perhaps.

AGplusone: Perhaps … or he simply took a sleeping pill 🙂

Reilloc: I forget what raised the question now and why it’s significant.

ddavitt: 🙂

AGplusone: Will was arguing it was a volitional act by Mike …

ddavitt: scroll back

Reilloc: Maybe he was disgusted with the whole political business.

AGplusone: Could be. Been there, done that …

ddavitt: It was all a joke to him remember.

Reilloc: You or him?

AGplusone: Him

Reilloc: I have.

Reilloc: It’s fun

DavidWrightSr: Frankly, that’s one of the things I admire most about Heinlein. He leaves it up to us to decide on so many things even though some people think that he is spouting *his* opinions.

ddavitt: Until he killed people. I’;m back at frankenstein again

AGplusone: That was the problem. It seems expedient to crash the ship …

AGplusone: Prof’s influence …

AGplusone: Prof manipulates the attack by the Federation … could possibily been a Canada here … absent the starvation coming up …

ddavitt: In some ways, larry of DS is like Mike; innocent, naive, drawn into politics , loses his life

geeairmoe2: Mike has the Prof expounding on personal freedom on one hand, then the Prof using him to foist the Prof’s view of an appropiate government on the ignorant masses.

geeairmoe2: Mike may have reached the point of: You know, most of these jerks really don’t give a rat’s ass about our efforts to improve their lives, so screw it.

Reilloc: Lives?

Reilloc: He’s a machine.

ddavitt: Was a machine; he wakes up

AGplusone: Mike helps Prof with that manipulation. If we assume that Mike develops a conscience, then … he’s responsible for Ludmilla’s unnecessary death, among many, many others … maybe he’s ashamed of himself, or annoyed that he was gulled into a game that was played for keeps. True, he’s a machine … man’s creation …

geeairmoe2: He’s programmed to make things easier for humans.

Reilloc: didn’t walk around

ddavitt: Not a prerequisite

Reilloc: Really?

Reilloc: Could he reproduce then?

ddavitt: But Ludmilla would’ve died of starvation in 7 years anyway

AGplusone: Just possibly Mike’s the one who develops character here?

AGplusone: If Mike was correct …

ddavitt: Walking is needed to be alive? So my baby isn’t alive?

Reilloc: Or my father your baby

ddavitt: Or a quadraplegic?

DavidWrightSr: FDR?

Reilloc: Or my braindead brother somewhere else.

AGplusone: Mannie’s character is already formed. Who’s the other candidate to develop character, which RAH said was the novel he wrote.

ddavitt: Sentience may not requite DNA

ddavitt: require..

geeairmoe2: I think you’re right about Mike developing.

Reilloc: May

ddavitt: Till we get to that stage in computers, we just don’t know..and it is science FICTION

Reilloc: I keep saying that

AGplusone: I agree. ’tis.

Reilloc: Other character?

DavidWrightSr: Other candidate David?

Reilloc: The prof, obviously.

ddavitt: Personally, i can’t see why the computers want bodies…

Reilloc: He was a mass of theories until necessity made him human.

ddavitt: but that’s a different thread !:-)

AGplusone: Prof doesn’t … I think. But one way of looking at it is that he develops character, ‘spose.

Reilloc: doesn’t what?

ddavitt: Develop character

AGplusone: Or he compromises himself. develop character

ddavitt: Stu I would say

Reilloc: From adacemic to revolutionary and that’s not a development?

ddavitt: Anarchist to revolutionary isn’t a step at all

Reilloc: okay

Reilloc: wrong but okay

AGplusone: But he was exiled because he was a revolutionary … learned that nasty assassin’s trick back on earth in his younger days.

DavidWrightSr: He was a revolutionary as a young man. Remember his ‘bomb throwing days’

AGplusone: The twist of the neck … to make sure they’re dead.

ddavitt: Seems like a cute little man…but don’t get him angry…

Reilloc: Harmless enough unless crossed and then threatens all kinds of bad stuff..

AGplusone: Interesting, btw, Mannie says we Loonies didn’t have firearms … yet he (Prof) pulls one at first opportunity …

ddavitt: Was there a point at which H stopped writing about politics? seems to be less of it in later books; because he was no longer involved maybe?

DavidWrightSr: Prof was resourceful !

ddavitt: mannie had laser in arm didn’t he?

AGplusone: I’d watch my back …

Reilloc: same place Minerva kept hers?

geeairmoe2: H got fed up with ‘world saving’.

ddavitt: Not allowed them not the same as not having them

DavidWrightSr: I think that you can find some kind of political comment in virtually everything he wrote. Be a nice project to check it out.

ddavitt: Just finished one article; need a break 🙂

AGplusone: no, not originally … LOL, or where Alurquere (Mary in Puppet Masters) had hers.

DavidWrightSr: And a lot of them would contridict others 🙂

DavidWrightSr: contradict

ddavitt: Very probably…

Reilloc: Is that allowed

AGplusone: Great idea … ’tis 7 PM, my time. Please break for ten until 10 after the hour.

AGplusone: Coffee, wind the cat, all that …

ddavitt: OK

DavidWrightSr: Space Cadet. Red Planet Tunnel, Time for the Stars, Between Planets off the top of my head

ddavitt: But they’;re all early stuff.

AGplusone: There’s political comment in To Sail …

ddavitt: true.

AGplusone: Remember when Maureen moves into Arizona or New Mexico …

DavidWrightSr: NOTB, To Sail, TMIAH (of course), SIASL, Farnham’s Freehold

ddavitt: NOTB?

ddavitt: Not sure there’s much in there.

DavidWrightSr: Number of the Beast

AGplusone: Number deals with colonial policies?

ddavitt: I mean as a main theme, like Double star

Reilloc: Yeah?

AGplusone: No, they’re incidentals in most later.

ddavitt: Tiny bit I suppose, on mars 10

DavidWrightSr: I didn’t say main theme. I said that he made political comments.

Reilloc: I got the impression from NOTB that the old boy didn’t like the British system a lot.

AGplusone: Friday deals more directly than any of the later ones.

AGplusone: So did I.

ddavitt: Oh yes but it stopped being the backbone.

ddavitt: So did I 🙂

ddavitt: Find the British and we’ll be safe….

ddavitt: Remember Opium wars

Reilloc: Not personally

DavidWrightSr: Not like those ‘nasty rooskies’

ddavitt: Then bertie double crosses them.

AGplusone: Knew they marked the trees they planned to cut for the Royal Navy with the broad arrow, never knew they tatooed prisoners …

ddavitt: That was deety and jake respectively LNC

Reilloc: what was, dda

AGplusone: Did they do that in Australia?

ddavitt: those two comments

Reilloc: Oh, quotes.

Reilloc: Missed the ”

ddavitt: I am typing one handed

AGplusone: baby on board … literally in lap. 🙂

ddavitt: hang on….I will see if david will take her…brb

geeairmoe2: Then we will read one-eyed.

DavidWrightSr: I missed that about a break. BRB.

Reilloc: Break’s over, Dave

Reilloc: Let’s get to work.

AGplusone: I’ll hold down the conn … no, my time is 6 after, but chat with me if you wish.

Reilloc: California?

AGplusone: Santa Monica

Reilloc: Close enough.\

ddavitt: I’m back..snowing outside (again)

AGplusone: Were you surprised the Supremes went out the back door?

Reilloc: Back door?

Reilloc: The came in through the bathroom window.

AGplusone: that too …

Reilloc: Per curiam

ddavitt: What state are you LNC?

ddavitt: North, south, middle?

Reilloc: Mr. Restrictive Covenant, I didn’t know about that, was buying time for Shrub

Reilloc: Kansas

ddavitt: I’ve only been to Florida for a week…and Buffalo for a day

ddavitt: Not a whole lot to go by 🙂

Reilloc: The agony and the humid agony

ddavitt: It was May for Florida; not too bad. And it was free…

ddavitt: Piggybacked one of my husband’s business trips.

Reilloc: I used to go to Panama City every summer.

ddavitt: Why/

Reilloc: The seafood was great.

Reilloc: vacation

ddavitt: Don’t mind fish don’t like the shellfish bit

DavidWrightSr: ‘Where the Girls Are’

AGplusone: Atlantic Beach once, on a three day from Benning

Reilloc: Sandra Dee?

Reilloc: I’ve got a negative somewhere of my son on the beach when he was two…

DavidWrightSr: Connie Francis. ‘Where the Boys Are’, I believe. But I preferred Girls

Reilloc: I remember looking at it and trying to remember where he was in the snow without a shirt.

Reilloc: The sand’s that white.

ddavitt: It is in the Hebrides too…like icing sugar

Reilloc: So, who did “Where the Girls Are?”

ddavitt: Dunno..I’m a rocker myself

Reilloc: That would almost count.

DavidWrightSr: This is 50’s stuff.

AGplusone: Never did. Wrong coast … we went to Balboa

ddavitt: 🙂

Reilloc: 1959 or thereabouts.

AGplusone: Or even Palm Springs

Reilloc: You’ll never hear about the beaches in Kansas.

Reilloc: Not in this geologic era.

ddavitt: ypou are sort of inland in a big way aren’t you? ,g>

Reilloc: I’m about 75 miles from the exact center of the continent

AGplusone: Not now … Ozarks split off from the Appalachians? Way back …

ddavitt: i miss England…hard to get very far from the sea there.

AGplusone: When Florida drifted up and hit the coast …

Reilloc: Interesting theory….

ddavitt: Sharyn mcCrumb had the Appallachians being part of Scotland IIRC

Reilloc: Does it explain the butterfly ballot?

ddavitt: LONG time ago

ddavitt: What is that? I meant to ask and forgot

AGplusone: Go to NYTimes.com … they have a graphic that explains it exactly

Reilloc: candidates listed on boths sides of the sheet, pick one by punching in the middle somewhere.

AGplusone: Very nice graphic

ddavitt: You must have intelligent voters to have such complex ballots.

ddavitt: :-):-):-)

Reilloc: Right…

ddavitt: We have four boxes and a pencil on a string.

AGplusone: Okay, back on … Let’s look at another aspect of Take Back and Moon ….

Reilloc: do you get to keep the pencil?

ddavitt: That’s why its on a string silly

Reilloc: damn

ddavitt: it’s attached to the voting booth

Reilloc: do you get to keep the booth?

ddavitt: No, sorry

Reilloc: Pardon me, carry on.

AGplusone: Did anyone read the business in Take Back about how to maintain control of (1) meetings, and (2) an organization that you infiltrate.

ddavitt: They don’t grow on trees…damn.

Reilloc: Nope

ddavitt: How far in was it david?

AGplusone: Okay … about half way in … then some more at the end

ddavitt: I cannot get past the middle no matter how many times I try

Reilloc: How about the part at the beginning that says “don’t take the money”(?)

AGplusone: Actually, I thought that perceptive.

Reilloc: What’s it mean?

ddavitt: Oh, if you do, you’ll lose all your credibility? is that still valid?

Reilloc: That’s almost what he said.

AGplusone: You don’t accept pay … his theory, eventually you make policy … hired men never make policy … Pournelle disagrees.

ddavitt: Same as a wife versus a prostitute?

Reilloc: If you don’t take the money, the marks won’t think you’re worth anything.

AGplusone: Very possibly …

Reilloc: I’d never thought of that, Jane.

Reilloc: Expand?

AGplusone: Me or Jane?

ddavitt: If you take the money, you lose the respect

Reilloc: Her.

Reilloc: and…?

ddavitt: You can be bought. Today it’;s the dems, tomorrow may be the Republicans…

Reilloc: Oh…

ddavitt: You can’t be trusted.

Reilloc: I thought you were going somewhere else.

AGplusone: Bill Corpsman in Double Star?

ddavitt: That’s what i think it means. not sure if i agree 100%; some people can’t afford to volunteer

Major oz has entered the room.

AGplusone: Where would you go, LN? Welcome Oz

ddavitt: Where diid you think I was going?

ddavitt: Hi oz

Major oz: aha,,,,,,,,I made it

Reilloc: The wife/hooker comment…

ddavitt: Bill, yes, he turns traitor

Major oz:

Reilloc: I was wondering what sentiment that evoked in the commenter…

ddavitt: ?

AGplusone: We’re talking about Heinlein’s view that you don’t take money as a volunteer if you want to eventually make policy and be trusted in inner councils of a party.

Reilloc: In me, I felt like it was saying something about the quality of the commodity you get from either.

ddavitt: I’ve been a voluntter in local politics and its not a problem cos there ain’t no money!

Major oz: That’s in TBYG ?

AGplusone: Yes.

ddavitt: Could be LNC

Reilloc: Just LN

AGplusone: Pournelle disagreed with him.

ddavitt: faked enthusiasm against the real thing 🙂

Reilloc: Who’s faking, Jane?

ddavitt: You pays your money and you takes your choice LNC…

Reilloc: One way or the other.

Reilloc: So, the analogy’s no good.

ddavitt: Don’t read too much into it; just a passing thought of mine.

AGplusone: Heinlein seemed to believe you hire ‘pros’ but you don’t let them make policy … is that true today

AGplusone: ?

Reilloc: You hire pro’s to make policy.

Major oz: …..confusing……..if you takes money, you ain’t a volunteer, hein?

Reilloc: They know, you don’t

AGplusone: But what’s policy?

ddavitt: Consulatants…very highly paid but no one likes them.

Reilloc: Is policy the duty to apply the law?

ddavitt: Grass roots people resent them.

Reilloc: If it’s a duty, it’s not delegable.

AGplusone: tactics … or is the policy they make an abberation … the mushy in the middle politics everyone adheres to …

Reilloc: But political policy doesn’t arise from duty to adhere to a code.

AGplusone: Unless the policy is “all’s fair” …

Reilloc: Political policy is a committee business.

Major oz: right….only a passion to win

Reilloc: Jaded, Ozzie

Major oz: It’s like poker

AGplusone: And you don’t have hired guns in the caucuses if you have them…

Major oz: If you aren’t ready to cut out the other guy’s heart, don’t play

Reilloc: for money

Reilloc: I’ve played for M&M’s before.

Reilloc: Loser has to eat them all.

AGplusone: Even the green ones?

Reilloc: All is all.

geeairmoe2: Plain or peanut?

Reilloc: All

ddavitt: smarties are nicer…especially the orange ones

Reilloc: Peanuts were ten spots

Major oz: Point of order: ozzie is a body pierced hydrocephalic idiot. I am oz

AGplusone: I used to plan for dimes … that was enough.

Reilloc: You Missouri guys have a way with words.

ddavitt: Hey, I’ve paid to see him…or are we talking about different Ozzies?

AGplusone: My face tells too much.

Major oz: different strokes………

Major oz: that’s him, Jane

ddavitt: Ozzy osbourne from black sabbath I mean

Reilloc: The Randy Rhodes, no you can’t fly my plane, Ozzie?

Major oz: JaWohl

ddavitt: Yes but he has a y not an ie IIRC

Reilloc: I.e, you’re Ozzie.

Major oz: hokay,,,,,,I go by sound

Reilloc: Call for the question.

Major oz: aye

Reilloc: Move unanimous.

AGplusone: Back to the [a] point, please … if you read the parlimentary procedures used by Prof in Moon, they are merely ones he suggests to maintain control in TBYG … including the ones that aren’t in Roberts, or authorized by Roberts. So ordered. What did I order?

ddavitt: In DS how convincing is Dak as a political animal?

Reilloc: Somewhat.

Reilloc: A pretty boy on the fringes.

ddavitt: He seems a rather 2D character to me.

ddavitt: despite the poetry

AGplusone: I think so too. Reminds me of a Business Agent I knew who got into it, big time.

Major oz: tequila, straight up……

Reilloc: Business Agents…talk about political animals.

ddavitt: But he has, on the surface, all the Heinlein hero characteristics.

AGplusone: There are those guys that people love to follow.

ddavitt: Good looking, strong, man of action…but in this he’s not the hero, nowhere near

Reilloc: Maybe, Jane, but he only knows so much and everybody knows it.

AGplusone: ‘course they rarely admit to writing poety under the name “Acey Wheelwright”

Reilloc: He’s inside but he’ll never be all the way inside.

ddavitt: Even when the book starts, he doesn’t die to save themm from the martian

AGplusone: Probably. This guy I knew was the perfect lieutenant

ddavitt: Though if he did and he was the hero it would be a short book..

Reilloc: Good horsetrader?

ddavitt: yes, that suits him i think

AGplusone: Dak or the guy I knew?

Reilloc: Your guy

ddavitt: Dak as loot

AGplusone: Good trader …

Reilloc: He would be.

ddavitt: He sold lorenzo..or was that penny and the Jungle lust?

ddavitt: someday i’m going to collate all the perfume refs in heinlein…

ddavitt: Quite a few!

AGplusone: Lorenzo’s pride sold Lorenzo …

Reilloc: White Shoulders?

AGplusone: so Dak’s insult to Lorenzo sold Lorenzo …

ddavitt: Not pride; duty to his profession.

geeairmoe2: Pride or vanity?

ddavitt: Drummed into him by his father’s fists

AGplusone: No! Lorenzo is too vain.

ddavitt: “Show must go on’

Reilloc: Who’s done theater here?

ddavitt: Not me.

AGplusone: Not I, sister has.

ddavitt: Leave him alone! i like him1 🙂

AGplusone: Hardly miss in this town.

Reilloc: I was married to a great actress once.

Major oz: married once or great actress once?

Reilloc: Outside the marriage, she was on the stage.

Reilloc: Married twice.

Reilloc: It’s very strange seeing that transformation happen in front of you.

ddavitt: Was that exagerated in the book? Weary Willy I mean?

Reilloc: Yes.

Major oz: I was once married to a great actress also. but she was never so employed.

Reilloc: Bennie Grey.

ddavitt: Shame..liked that bit..

Reilloc: Nobody I ever knew, and I knew a lot of them, ever did that.

ddavitt: Bennie the physcho, yes

AGplusone: Maybe someone like Alec Guiness (sp?) …

ddavitt: kind Hearts…

ddavitt: could be.

Reilloc: He turned me down flat

Reilloc: I’ll never know.

Major oz: Whenever I read DS, I always see AG as Lorenzo.

ddavitt: For a minute I thought you meant…

Reilloc: Nah, couldn’t be.

AGplusone: Thenk you very much …

Major oz: nooooooooooo

ddavitt: 🙂

ddavitt: He’s too old tho

Major oz: “everyman”

AGplusone: Daddy din’ spake me that much

ddavitt: isn’t lorenzo in his thirties?

ddavitt: Ag always seemed older than that in his best roles

Major oz: Our man in Havana

AGplusone: Might be even younger …

geeairmoe2: In the 1880’s, when Jack the Ripper was prowling London, an American actor came under suspicion because he transformed himself so convincingly from Dr. Jykle to Mr. Hyde on stage with almost no make-up.

ddavitt: brb

AGplusone: ‘kay …

Reilloc: Some people can do that, take my ex-wife, please.

Major oz: A lost art today

Major oz: No demand for it.

Reilloc: Indeed.

geeairmoe2: Don’t remember his name, but Armand Assante played him in a mini-series.

ddavitt: back to one hand…

Reilloc: stewardesses

ddavitt: well, one finger

Reilloc: there’s a one-hand word

Major oz: ….new baby in the other?

AGplusone: We have one-man shows here in little theatre … Equity exemption stuff …

ddavitt: yep,

Reilloc: You getting together that one-man RAH show, Dave?

Reilloc: Holbrook’s not credible.

AGplusone: That would be a chore ….

Reilloc: It’s all excerpted

Major oz: I see Lorenzo as being an actor in the last throes of Vaudeville, when his evident talents could be used.

AGplusone: What I’d really like to see is a play of The Long Watch …

Major oz: They are of little use in what we think of today as “theatre”

ddavitt: still don’t think it could stretch that long

Reilloc: I don’t get you , Ozzie

geeairmoe2: Re-reading “Hoag” I thought that would make a great Twilight Zone or Outer Limits.

ddavitt: Ok I have to go now..nice chatting, see you Sat maybe

Reilloc: I never saw him as vaudeville at all.

Major oz: ‘twould be a short play, David

Reilloc: Later, Jane.

AGplusone: See you, Jane. Best to David and baby.

geeairmoe2: bye.

ddavitt has left the room.

AGplusone: I see Oz’s point … all the variety his father trained him to do …

Reilloc: Lorenzo’s a rep guy if there ever was one.

AGplusone: What is a “rep guy”?

Reilloc: Ask him to do a soft shoe and he’d ask for a rag and polish

Reilloc: Repretory theatre.

AGplusone: Ah …

DavidWrightSr: Maybe in the DS universe Vaudeville had made a comeback

AGplusone: Might be … are you familiar with the play Wilheim admired …

Reilloc: And big bands.

Reilloc: What play was it?

AGplusone: One by the author of Cyrano … one I don’t know.

AGplusone: Have to look

Reilloc: I can’t remember either.

Major oz: Wilheim ?

AGplusone: Wilheim the Emperor

Major oz: hokay

DavidWrightSr: Wilhelm

AGplusone: ooops …

AGplusone: yet another Will …

Major oz: ……as in the kaiser (not frazer) of the same name?

Reilloc: if another won’t, someone else will

AGplusone: Yes, but this one is from the House of Orange

Reilloc: So, take the money or not?

Reilloc: Still sound advice or was it ever?

Reilloc: Sound for a volunteer but no good for a pro?

AGplusone: I think it could be …

Reilloc: Don’t take the money unless you really know your shit.

AGplusone: but you’d have to not need the money … or be very self-sacrificing …

Major oz: …..the definition of volunteer

Reilloc: Point was, take the money and it’s never going to be enough to not make you look like a mere hireling without cachet.

Reilloc: Currency, rather.

Reilloc: Cachet was another purfume.

AGplusone: That was his point … example: Babyface the ABC commentator …

Reilloc: Who the what?

Reilloc: Toad the wet sprocket?

Major oz: ……you mean the Greek whore who used to work for slick willie?

AGplusone: Can’t remember his name (for the mo’) yes, him.

geeairmoe2: Stepanopolis?

Major oz: ya

Reilloc: Now, what’s wrong with him?

DavidWrightSr: George Stephanopolis

Reilloc: He knows what he’s talking about.

AGplusone: He accepted his hirling status finally …

AGplusone: sure he does

Reilloc: He’s not some volunteer, he was a trained and seasoned pro

AGplusone: seriously

Reilloc: Might look like your grandson’s straightest friend but he’s savvy

AGplusone: Exactly like Didi Myers

Major oz: and Himler

AGplusone: She ran the city for Tom Bradley his last term.

AGplusone: day-to-day

Reilloc: I watched Mary Mattelan, or however you spell it, on CNN election night. She could never stop trash talking the Democrats and I’d eat it all up.

Reilloc: Mind you, I’m no republican

Reilloc: She’s got a patter that won’t quit, though.

AGplusone: I feel the same way and I’d love to be a fly on the wall with her and Carville

DavidWrightSr: GMTA

DavidWrightSr: LOL

Reilloc: Where’s the attraction there?

AGplusone: I think they keep each other sharp

geeairmoe2: That thin line between love and hate?

Reilloc: I think they do.

Reilloc: I wonder how much they tell each other.

AGplusone: Nuthin’

Reilloc: Just enough disinformation to be true.

AGplusone: I miss Carville

Reilloc: Why didn’t someone slap dummy and tell him it was still the economy, stupid?

AGplusone: I know … I know …

Reilloc: Moron.

AGplusone: agreed

Reilloc: Bradley–not yours out there, NJ’s

Reilloc: We missed a good deal.

Major oz: so does he

AGplusone: Well, it woulda been different …

geeairmoe2: Bradley was too nice. He should have ripped Gore-on a new one.

Major oz: precisely why he would be a p-poor prez

Reilloc: Clinton in ’08.

AGplusone: Chelsea the One!

Reilloc: Will she be 35 then?

Major oz: Carter by any other name is (surprise) Bradely

AGplusone: No, she’ll run for assembly … earn her spurs

Reilloc: Wrong as the day is long, Oz

Reilloc: For one thing, Carter won.

AGplusone: Carter lost when Desert One went down

Reilloc: Ronnie cut a deal with the Ayatollah to hold the hostages past Nov. 8

AGplusone: And some day Oliver will produce that one too …

Reilloc: I won’t go.

Major oz has left the room.

Major oz has entered the room.

AGplusone: Break two … ten minutes. To ten after the hour. Play nice,

please. AFK

Major oz: test

Major oz: test

Reilloc: pass

Reilloc: pass

Major oz: Something is wrong

DavidWrightSr: Get your propane tanks changed, Oz?

Reilloc: I can see what you’re saying Oz

Reilloc: You see me?

Major oz: wasn’t registering

Major oz: again

Major oz: I can’t see my posts

Major oz: I see you

Major oz: then they all jumped in together

Reilloc: Sounds like a local echo problem

Major oz: ??????

geeairmoe2: I see you, Oz

Major oz: echo,echo

Major oz: peekaboo

AGplusone: Go out and come back in …

Major oz: ok

Major oz: I think it is working.

geeairmoe2: eha;nag[ piumav asp[?

DavidWrightSr: Chto?

Major oz: Bolshemoi

Major oz: chto eta?

AGplusone: Can you see yourself now, Oz?

Reilloc: gallia est omnes divisa in partes tres

Major oz: yes

Major oz: no

Major oz: sometimes

AGplusone: I can’t remember the full second sentence …

Major oz: I’m jumping off and getting back on.

Major oz: maybe not

Reilloc: quarum unum incholant Belgae

DavidWrightSr: You might need a complete reboot

Major oz: Parta prima est …….

Reilloc: La plume de ma tante est sur le table.

AGplusone: I thought that was the last clause, about the Belgians …

Major oz: Yes, David, and probably my computer also.

Major oz: and that didn’t come up on my screen

AGplusone: Only been forty-five years

Reilloc: alia Aquitanii, tertium, qui in ipsorum linguam appentur Celtae, in nosti “homies.”

Reilloc: I made up that last part.

Major oz: grrrrrrrr

Major oz has left the room.

AGplusone: Yes

DavidWrightSr: zdes besobrasiye, kak pozhar v bardakye vo vremya zemlytreseneye

AGplusone: what did he use for allies, amici?

Major oz has entered the room.

Major oz: test

Major oz: back

Reilloc: It’s been, let’s see…’68…32 years.

geeairmoe2: tube

AGplusone: Working now?

AGplusone: Always loved the delicious irony of Caesar’s beginning … talking about telegraphing the punch and entire story.

Major oz: mine was 53-55

Major oz: grrrrrrrrr

Reilloc: Nobody’s that old.

Major oz: there was about 90 seconds delay

Major oz: on that message

DavidWrightSr: Probably your isp

AGplusone: You must have sludge … heavy sludge on your ISP

Major oz: Oh, yea…..Creighton Prep, Omaha

Reilloc: Ozzie, who’s your ISP?

geeairmoe2: Never studied Latin. Did have 2 years of French in high school 74-75. Retained nothing.

Reilloc: Mes homage au mademoiselle, votre mere, geeairmoe.

geeairmoe2: Ah …. yeah.

DavidWrightSr: Das was er gesagt hat !

AGplusone: Okay … annoucement now … I’m going to be out of town and afk two weeks from now …. suggest that unless someone else wishes to host we take a vacation … any volunteers?

Reilloc: What’s scheduled?

AGplusone: Nada thus far …

geeairmoe2: Would that be Dec 21 & 23? No can do.

AGplusone: We have several proposals … thought I’d try to get more feedback on them over the Christmas holidy

AGplusone: And set forth a schedule for the New Millennium

Reilloc: How about using the rest of the year for something for the new year?

DavidWrightSr: Too much to do over the holidays, Could use the vacation.

Reilloc: Lots of time to prepare.

AGplusone: Beginning o/a Jan 5 or whatever it is …

Major oz has left the room.

AGplusone: Have a suggestion for a topic?

Reilloc: Lemme see….

geeairmoe2: The 4th and 6th are Thursday & Saturday.

AGplusone: Thanks Will

Reilloc: Books?

Reilloc: or book

DavidWrightSr: I won’t be here for the 6th. That’s my Christmas.

Reilloc: hmmm

AGplusone: uh-huh …

AGplusone: But you can make it the Fourth? Orthodox Christmas?

Reilloc: If the NRA sets up shop in the Oval Office, we could do Red Planet

DavidWrightSr: 4th’s ok. Yes

DavidWrightSr: Russian Orthodox

Reilloc: The 8th is Elvis’s birthday, I’ll be in mourning.

geeairmoe2: I’m a card carrying member of the NRA. Heston is my president.

AGplusone: Okay … that’s possible, assuming we focus on gun control there and elsewhere …

Reilloc: Guns, Guts and Glory Road?

DavidWrightSr: Not a single gun in Glory Road, as I recall

AGplusone: It’s been quite some time since we hit gun control face on … of course you know how Zim selects co-hosts?

AGplusone: Yes there are.

Reilloc: If this were Zim’s service it might work, too.

DavidWrightSr: But they wouldn’t work, IIRC

AGplusone: For starters the one Oscar brushes aside when Rufo pulls it.

DavidWrightSr: Right.

AGplusone: And they use laser guns (rifles) when they come out the alternate gate going in …

geeairmoe2: Glory Road was the second paperback I wore out reading; Tunnel in the Sky was the first one.

DavidWrightSr: You got me. Must be getting old. All I could remember was swords.

Reilloc: Mine was “The Randy Milkmaid.”

AGplusone: And then of course there’s the gun that Oscar dropped in the mud when he dreamed all that followed, waiting for that chopper that never came …

geeairmoe2: Wore out “reading” not … never mind.

Major oz has entered the room.

Major oz: …..long ride

AGplusone: Yeah, but you got back …

Major oz: you should see the horse………

AGplusone: Okay, tentatively we’ll go with that … and I’ll repost the selections we’ve been ‘voting upon’ to get a schedule for the next umpity-ump meetings

Major oz: sorry, I missed “that”

AGplusone: Okay, back to work: (gun control Oz, Red Planet et al)

Major oz: GUN CONTROL ??????????????

Reilloc: Gum control, spittin’ chicklets and such

AGplusone: On Jan 4 and 6 … no meeting Christmas week …

Major oz: that is the only issue I know of that doesn’t have a mushy middle

AGplusone: anyone have a point they’d like to argue about politics in heinlein …

AGplusone: we got forty minutes …

Reilloc: You expect a bigger crowd Saturday?

Major oz: His political women are non-existant

Reilloc: Hey, who was the special guest?

AGplusone: Yes, usually … I think the log will help

AGplusone: Discuss it later with me, please.

Reilloc: I don’t think I need to.

AGplusone: ‘kay

AGplusone: Then as the Sergeant used to say: “I have a question … ”

DavidWrightSr: Political Women? Remember Sally in ‘Waldo’?

Major oz: I say that never having read TBYG

geeairmoe2: In light of the butterfly-ballot confusion, I was reminded of

RAH’s idea to require potential voters to solve a math problem before being allowed to cast a ballot.

Reilloc: Listen up! Sarge is talkin;

AGplusone: Think he proposed that seriously, Will?

geeairmoe2: I don’t know. It could never get passed into law.

Major oz: Refresh my memory, David……..cant ‘member Sally

Reilloc: You don’t know, maybe nobody does, what do you think?

Reilloc: Should it be a law?

DavidWrightSr: She was the friend of Jed? who was the governor’s right-hand person.

Major oz: It is just the grousing that the franchise requires only a pulse (except in Chicago)

AGplusone: Neither, honestly, do I … don’t recall much about politics in Waldo

Major oz: Sally was a wall-hanging, strictly decoration.

Major oz: …..as I ‘member

Reilloc: Women wound up at the top of the game in Heinleinian politics.

Reilloc: Hazel ruled.

DavidWrightSr: Well, I don’t know about that. He seemed to think well of her and the way she worked.

DavidWrightSr: Sally I mean

AGplusone: So did the Honorable Penelop Talliferro whatever her last name was …

AGplusone: eventually Bonforte

Major oz: He ?

Major oz: test

Major oz: damn

Reilloc: nmad

Major oz: feels like my old truck

Reilloc: That’s a great joke.

Reilloc: Was that your question, Sarge?

AGplusone: I’ll have to reread Waldo … I’m completely blank

geeairmoe2: Magic, Inc had some political goings-on, too, IIRC.

Reilloc: Some unions, too. AFL-CIO

AGplusone: My question is: how many read TBYG this time around, and how many think Pournelle was right about any part of it

DavidWrightSr: They went to the capitol to try to get the a bill introduced to offset what the demon was doing, getting control of all the magicians, Sorry,I just realized I said Waldo not Magic Inc.

AGplusone: Okay …

Major oz: Then, of course, R2100

DavidWrightSr: Never did get around to it this time, too busy to try to find a copy and read it.

AGplusone: I thought the classic monopoly technique demonstrated in Magic Inc was lovingly drawn …

Reilloc: I didn’t finish it. I’ll have to reread the intro again. I have the dim recollection that Pournelle was there to make more out of Pournelle than what Heinlein had to say.

Major oz: Have never read it. A big hole in my collection.

geeairmoe2: My copy is somewhere on the mass of confusion I generously refer to as a book shelf.

AGplusone: Wonder whether Pournelle wanted to deliberately provoke a response that “it still can be done”

DavidWrightSr: TBYG has the distinction of being the only book of Heinlein’s that I have read only once.

geeairmoe2: Same here.

Reilloc: Can it still be done?

Major oz: por que, David?

Reilloc: What about Nader?

AGplusone: I think so … someone did it in Santa Monica within the past twenty years …

Reilloc: Will he keep it up or will the Greens?

AGplusone: expect now the reformers are a machine …

DavidWrightSr: Was that ‘por que’ to me or AG?

Major oz: you

AGplusone: sic transit gloria

Reilloc: mundi

Major oz: very sic

geeairmoe2: Gloria’s sick?

Reilloc: on the subway

DavidWrightSr: Because I had my copy stolen and I have never gotten another one yet.

Major oz: hokay

Reilloc: You know, I don’t doubt it can be done.

AGplusone: omnia mundi gloriasque

DavidWrightSr: Tuesday is usually worse

Reilloc: It’s wanting it badly enough.

Reilloc: Can you trust anyone who’d want it that badly?

Major oz: deja-vu

AGplusone: That is the point … sure I could, sla I had them in direct sight

Reilloc: crosby, stills and nash

Reilloc: Can you trust anybody who obtains public office not to be suddenly taken with the gravity of the responsibility and to forget you when you need them the most>?

AGplusone: They’d have to want it badly … I’d never trust someone who said they didn’t.

Major oz: sure

Reilloc: Ain’t that the opposite of what the guy said, though?

Reilloc: Find somebody who doesn’t want it?

DavidWrightSr: It really depends on *Why* they want it, don’t you think?

AGplusone: Sure, and whose mouth did he put it in … someone who wasn’t bothered about theft

Major oz: only in micro, never works in macro

AGplusone: too rich and advantaged to worry about such petty things ….

Reilloc: Are you bothered with a “taking” without the nicelty of “due process” if the public’s welfare’s at stake?

Major oz: say what ?

AGplusone: In time of war?

Reilloc: Exigent circumstances.

AGplusone: Yes unless it’s national defense in an active war or imminent public health and safety

Reilloc: Me too.

Major oz: did I miss a chapter of something here?

Reilloc: Even under those circumstances, of course, there’s just compensation.

DavidWrightSr: Well wouldn’t the circumstances in Moon be considered ‘imminent public health and safety’?

AGplusone: We’re talking about the theft of money by Mike and Prof to finance the defense

Major oz: Who did they steal it from?

AGplusone: massive computer fraud … everyone

Reilloc: Substituting their judgment for everyone elses

Major oz: Thought they just printed some more.

Major oz: And yes, I know the definition of inflation.

AGplusone: Didn’t even go through the motions of printing Continentals …

Major oz: That is what revolutionaries do.

AGplusone: They cooked books and stole it the old fashioned way … from everyone they could get into

Reilloc: Was “tinker’s dam” a apt analogy for non USans?

Major oz: Those who don’t like it are welcomt to foment their own.

AGplusone: It’s English

Reilloc: Sustained.

geeairmoe2: It’s time for me to go. Until next time.

AGplusone: Wat the Tinker from Robin Hood … 🙂

Major oz: see ya, troop

AGplusone: Thanks for coming Will

DavidWrightSr: Night Will

Reilloc: Later, guy.

geeairmoe2 has left the room.

AGplusone: Remember the Howard Pyle versions, anyone?

Major oz: “tinker’s dam” refers to one of the tools a tinker uses. I think it is something like a cold soldering tool.

Reilloc: It’s an actual “dam” to accumulate cooling solder.

AGplusone: No, it’s a build up of material used to hold run off

Reilloc: Use once and throw away

AGplusone: Used to have tinkers come around when I was a little boy in Cleveland. Saw him make it once on my mother’s pot

Reilloc: Your mom did pot?

AGplusone: He told me what it was called … and my dad told me the expression.

Reilloc: It’s nice for a change to be the youngest person in the room.

AGplusone: Actually her grandfather did … cigarettes for his astma ….

Major oz: Who is Howard Pyle and what are his “versions”?

Reilloc: He wrote Robin Hood.

AGplusone: can’t spell that word. Asprodels were the brand name and they were prescribed by a doctor

Reilloc: Ah, the good old days.

Major oz: …..didn’t know it was attributable to any one person.

AGplusone: When she was sixteen in Cicero she was sitting in an after hours club around table and someone toked up … and she innocently inquired whether anyone had astma like her granddad … in the 30s

Reilloc: Bet that caused someone to waste a good lungful.

AGplusone: Sure did … she loved that story

Reilloc: I wish I’d known my grandparents.

Reilloc: Not who they were, known them.

AGplusone: We moved away when I was eight.

AGplusone: All the way to California …

AGplusone: on the Super Chief

Major oz: 3 of my 4 were born in Dakota TERRITORY

Reilloc: Entertain a motion to adjourn?

Reilloc: I need to go beat up the cat.

AGplusone: Chair entertains m/adj

Major oz: Luckily, I knew them all. The last one died at 100

Major oz: so moved

Reilloc: Second.

Major oz: aif

Reilloc: aye

Major oz: aye

DavidWrightSr: aye here also

AGplusone: without obj, carried unanimously

Reilloc: Thanks, guys.

Reilloc: Enjoyed it.

Major oz: happy holidays, see ya

Major oz has left the room.

Reilloc: Next millenium

AGplusone: ‘Good night, all. Thanks for the discussion enjoyed it quite a bit. Happy Holidays

Reilloc has left the room.

AGplusone: David … done for another year!

AGplusone: Good night and good luck from CBS news as Murrow said

DavidWrightSr: Done for the century. Reilloc was right on that one.

DavidWrightSr: Anything you think need editing out?

AGplusone: Absolutely nuthin’

DavidWrightSr: Agreed. See ya

AGplusone: regards to your family

AGplusone: enjoy the holidy

DavidWrightSr: Same to you.

AGplusone: night

AGplusone has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: Log Officially closed at 11:48 P.M.

Final End Of Discussion Log

Click Here to Return to Index


This entry was posted in Updates. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply