Robert Heinlein, Virginia Heinlein, Snowy Heinlein Pay Forward the legacy of Robert A. Heinlein --Contribute to The Heinlein Society today! Join the Heinlein Society in paying forward the legacy of Robert A. Heinlein and Virginia Heinlein. Return Home to the Heinlein Society Heinlein Society Recent Updates Go To Centennial Reader
                       

Home

Robert Heinlein

Ginny Heinlein

Directors

RAH And Me

Join Us

Pay Annual Dues

News

Education

Libraries

Scholastic/Academic

Conventions

Blood Drives

Fundraising

Pirates' Booty

на русском

Links

Contact Us

Membership

Heinlein Prize

Readers Group

Newsletters

Forum

Search

Updates

Concordance

Writing Contest

 

Heinlein Reader's Discussion Group

Saturday 04-20-2002 5:00 P.M.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Click Here to Return to Index

Return to Index

Go To Discussion Chat

Here Begin The A.F.H. postings


Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat

Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

Dates and times: Saturday, 20 Apr, 2002, 5 PM to 8 PM, EST (note the abbreviated time; also, no Thursday chat)

Chat Host: ?

Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group chat"

To attend our chats, and any reasonable person is welcome, you may receive instructions on how to download and use AIM freeware on the website located at

http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html

Email David Silver, ag.plusone@verizon.net or agplusone@aol.com or Dave Wright, Sr, dwrighsr@alltel.net if you require further help getting the freeware or getting into the room.

Are there any Heinlein fans who haven't read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? There are probably a few, so for their benefit - and the hypothetical man from Mars named Smith - here's a short summary:

The book is set in the mid-2070's, and follows the progress of a revolution in a future lunar colony. The story is told in flashback, from the viewpoint of one of the main conspirators - Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis.

His main co-conspirators are Wyoming Knott, a firebrand political activist who starts out trying to foment a popular uprising, before turning to a more covert form of revolution; Professor Bernardo de la Paz, a political exile and professional revolutionary; and Mycroft Holmes, a sentient supercomputer with a sense of humour.

TMiaHM is one of Heinlein's best known and most popular works - it won the Hugo award for best novel of 1966. It also coined the term TANSTAAFL - an acronym for "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" - and introduced the use of kinetic energy weapons (large rocks thrown from orbit, impacting with the energy of small nuclear bombs), as seen more recently in works such as "Footfall", by Niven and Pournelle, and the TV series "Babylon 5".

On the other hand, Alexei Panshin thought its main interest was "as dramatized lecture" on running a revolution.

Some commentators have expressed the opinion that TMiaHM is one of the least complicated of Heinlein's later works, apparently based on its relatively straight-forward plot. In my opinion, it shows Heinlein at his best - it introduces a wide range of concepts so smoothly that the reader doesn't register the sheer volume of ideas being presented, but simply accepts them.

For example, Heinlein doesn't produce a long exposition on the variety of human marriage customs and the multiplicity of possible arrangements - instead, he shows them in practise.

He doesn't preach about the inefficiency of command economies and their potential for corruption - he demonstrates it.

At one point, he throws out nearly a dozen different ideas for different forms of representational government - as (IIRC) Spider Robinson has observed, any one of these could be the basis for a book in its own right.

I also think that the narrator is one of Heinlein's most interesting characters. Manuel doesn't fit into some critics' stereotype of a Heinlein character - he isn't a young, muscular supergenius, who knows how the universe works and why it works. Instead, he is a middle-aged, crippled, bloody-minded computer technician with no interest in politics. He is also compassionate enough to talk to a lonely, bored, self-aware computer, something noone else had done. This is what ensures the success of the revolution, as it had no chance for success without Mike. Without the revolution, the Lunar colonies would have devolved into food riots, cannibalism and mass starvation, as the Moon's very limited resources were exhausted by an uninterested Earth.

Ultimately, the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a small act of compassion.

These are just a few thoughts on a subtly complex book - further points for discussion would include:

What else could be seen in it? What strengths and weaknesses? How does it fit into the development of Heinlein's writing style? What does it say about Heinlein's politics, given overt approval of a near-anarchistic system, yet one which eventually turns into a more conventional form of government?

The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.

See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room.

[Simon Jester]


Simon Jester wrote:
>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>
>Theme:  "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
[snip]
>
>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>

I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date if it alludes to nothing much?

Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S. History.

As to other years:

May 13 -- from the Kiddies' Today in History website 1607:

English colonists led by John Rolfe land near the James River in Virginia. Disease, starvation, and attacks by Native Americans will continually threaten the colony's very existence, but it will survive and eventually thrive.

[That, of course, was the first successful English colony founded in what became the United States.]

1648: Margaret Jones of Plymouth Colony is found guilty of witchcraft and is sentenced to be hanged by the neck.

1846: The U.S. finally declares war on Mexico, some two months after the fighting began.

1821: Samuel Rust of New York City patents the first practical printing press to be built in the U.S.; up 'til now presses were imported from Great Britain, France, or Germany.

1888: Brazil becomes the last New World nation to abolish slavery.

1947: In a setback for the U.S. labor movement, the Senate approves the Taft-Hartley Act, which limits the power of unions.

1968: Peace talks between the U.S. and North Vietnam begin in Paris; they will drag on for years.

Otherwise, in 1864, the first soldier was buried at Arlington -- a Confederate who died a POW, btw; and in 1908, Teddy Roosevelt established a National Parks Act.

But nothing like the Boston Massacre, or anything else to equate to the Warden's goons attacking the political protest, seems to have occurred on that date in 1775. Or am I missing something critical, such as Lexington and Concord? "The shot fired heard 'round the world."

Anyone have any ideas?

--
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:56:13 GMT, David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote:
>Simon Jester wrote:
>
>>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>>
>>Theme:  "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
>[snip]
>>
>>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>>
>
>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of 
>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date 
>if it alludes to nothing much?
>
>Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S. 
>History.
>
>As to other years:
>
>May 13 -- from the Kiddies' Today in History website
>1607:
>English colonists led by John Rolfe land near the James River in 
>Virginia. Disease, starvation, and attacks by Native Americans will 
>continually threaten the colony's very existence, but it will survive 
>and eventually thrive.
>
>[That, of course, was the first successful English colony founded in 
>what became the United States.]
>
>1648: Margaret Jones of Plymouth Colony is found guilty of witchcraft 
>and is sentenced to be hanged by the neck.
>1846: The U.S. finally declares war on Mexico, some two months after the 
>fighting began.
>1821: Samuel Rust of New York City patents the first practical printing 
>press to be built in the U.S.; up 'til now presses were imported from 
>Great Britain, France, or Germany.
>1888: Brazil becomes the last New World nation to abolish slavery.
>1947: In a setback for the U.S. labor movement, the Senate approves the 
>Taft-Hartley Act, which limits the power of unions.
>1968: Peace talks between the U.S. and North Vietnam begin in Paris; 
>they will drag on for years.
>
>Otherwise, in 1864, the first soldier was buried at Arlington -- a 
>Confederate who died a POW, btw; and in 1908, Teddy Roosevelt 
>established a National Parks Act.
>
>But nothing like the Boston Massacre, or anything else to equate to the 
>Warden's goons attacking the political protest, seems to have occurred 
>on that date in 1775. Or am I missing something critical, such as 
>Lexington and Concord? "The shot fired heard 'round the world."
>
>Anyone have any ideas?
>
>--
>David M. Silver
>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
>"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
>Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
>Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>

I am as puzzled as you, David, but here is my historical list. Perhaps you can see something in it that i did not.

1373 - Author Julian of Norwich was miraculously healed after a series of visions. Her works explored the profound mysteries of the Christian faith and are considered, by some, among the most beautiful expressions of mysticism of the Middle Ages.

1501 - Merchant/Navigator Amerigo Vespucci sets sail on his second expedition to the New World.

1637 - The table knife was created by Cardinal Richelieu in France. Until this time, daggers were used to cut meat, as well as to pick one's teeth.

1779 - France abandons Goree, West Africa, to Britain.

1809 - French army under Napoleon Bonaparte takes Vienna.

1835 - Death of John Nash, British architect who developed London’s Regent’s Park and Regent Street.

1842 - Birth of Sir Arthur Sullivan (died 1900), English composer. He is best known for his collaboration with W.S Gilbert in light operas that include HMS Pinafore (1878); The Mikado (1885) and The Gondoliers(1889).

1864 - Battle of Newmarket. 247 cadets of the Virginia Military Academy marched forward and captured Federal artillery suffering 10 killed and 47 wounded.

1871 - The Law of Guarantees in Italy declares the Pope’s person inviolable and allows him possession of the Vatican.

1872 - Mother’s Day, begun by Julia Ward Howe. Originally called Mothers’ Peace Day.

1890 - Nikola Tesla was issued a patent for an electric generator (No. 428,057).

1908 - Navy Nurse Corps established.

1913 - The first four-engine airplane was first built and flown by Igor Sikorsky of Russia.

1917 - Three peasant children near Fatima, Portugal, reported seeing a vision of the Virgin Mary.

1932 - France and Japan sign an agreement on commerce in Indochina, in which some imported products of the two sides receive preferential duties.

1940 - In his first speech as prime minister of Britain, Winston Churchill told the House of Commons, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

1943 - Bureau of Navigation renamed Bureau of Naval Personnel

1945 - Aircraft from fast carrier task force begin 2-day attack on Kyushu airfields, Japan

1955 - The Geneva Agreements on Indochina signed on July 20, 1954 following Viet Nam’s victory over the French in Dien Bien Phu, allows the French in North Viet Nam to re-group to Ben Nghieng Village of Do Son District, Hai Phong, in preparation for their final evacuation from Indochina.

Additionally, here is a large list of scientists' births and deaths - http://www.todayinsci.com/cgi-bin/indexpage.pl?http://todayinsci.tripod.com/5/5_13.htm

Steve
eegle1@exis.net
http://afhpics.mnsdesigns.com/
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/

"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in message news:1017854140.14212.1@eurus.uk.clara.net...
>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>
>Theme:  "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
>Dates and times:  Saturday, 20 Apr, 2002, 5 PM to 8 PM, EST (note the
>abbreviated time; also, no Thursday chat)
>Chat Host:  ?
>Place:  AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group chat"

(snip)

>
>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of
your
>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>
>See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room.
>
>

For a work that is supposed to be as popular as TMIAHM, I am surprised at the lack of postings about it.

In any case, I'll throw out a couple of things.

I have always been somewhat surprised that libertarians considered this such an important work since the end result of the revolution was anything like what libertarians would like, (at least as far as I understand it).

I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/

TMIAHM was a very important step in my finally understanding the fill-in-the blank technique that RAH used. This came about when I finally cleared up a 25 year old misconception about the use of the term 'tanstaafl'. This lead directly to the importance of 'unconscious assumptions' when reading him.

David Wright


In article <3CADBB0A.3090502@verizon.net>, David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>writes:
>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of 
>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date 
>if it alludes to nothing much?
>
>Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S. 
>History.

Given the context, I suspect a Tuckerism. When did RAH meet Ginny?

-- 
Peter Scott

Good afternoon, On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, David Wright wrote:
>TMIAHM was a very important step in my finally understanding the fill-in-the
>blank technique that RAH used. This came about when I finally cleared up a
>25 year old misconception about the use of the term 'tanstaafl'. This lead
>directly to the importance of 'unconscious assumptions' when reading him.

It's easy to misunderstand, just from the spell-out. I've noticed quite a few people who haven't ready RAH's works interpret TANSTAAFL as synonymous with "you get what you pay for". While the words alone may suggest the similarity, there's a much deeper meaning, an implication, of TANSTAAFL.

In my mind, YGWYPF is of limited scope -- you pay $100 for a car, don't expect it to be in mint condition. TANSTAAFL suggests a deeper understanding. YGWYPF is a special-case of TANSTAAFL. Some other aspects of TANSTAAFL that aren't encompassed in YGWYPF:

- Even if you aren't physically paying for goods or services you're using,
    someone is.  And if it isn't cost-beneficial to them to continue to do
    so, they won't pay for them forever.  (dot-bomb, anyone?)
- If it is cost-beneficial for someone else to pay for goods or services
    you're using, it's because you are paying indirectly.  ("...or the
    beer would be cheaper.")
- Recognition of an obligation, of personal responsibility, of
    stewardship.
   -- Debts must be repaid.  If you can't repay the debt, don't take on
        the debt.  Debts need not be repaid monetarily.  (Habitat for
        Humanity comes to mind)
   -- The benefits of society do not come at no cost.  Some can be paid
        for by governmental revenue.  Some require a more personal
        acceptance of stewardship.  Sometimes as simple as encouraging
        good manners by demonstrating them yourself (such as by offering
        your seat on a bus to a lady).  Sometimes with a commitment of
        greater duration, such as the person who becomes a teacher because
        an educated society requires teachers, or the person who becomes a
        police officer because sometimes police officers are needed when
        people forget their obligations to society, or the person who
        becomes a public defender because even those who can't afford a
        lawyer deserve legal representation in court, or the person who
        recognizes that medics are needed even in townships that can't
        afford full-time EMTs and so becomes a volunteer EMT.

        (You may suspect from the preceding paragraph that I'm an advocate
         of public service, and I am.  I strongly encourage everyone to
         pay something back to society, not necessarily as a profession,
         but maybe for a couple years.  I'm equally opposed to mandatory
         public service, because a virtue isn't a virtue if it's
         required, and it is no great demonstration of personal
         responsibility to do something when you'll go to jail if you
         don't do it.)

Hmm. Seemed to have gotten a bit long-winded there, but that's my interpretation of TANSTAAFL. Any other interpretations?

Take care,

cb

--
Christopher A. Bohn                        ____________|____________
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/        ' ** ** " (o) " ** ** '
   "Technology and air power are integrally and synergistically
    related." - P Meilinger, "Ten Propositions Regarding Air Power"

"David Silver" 7LT;ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message news:3CADBB0A.3090502@verizon.net...
>Simon Jester wrote:
>
>>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>>
>>Theme:  "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
>[snip]
>>
>>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>>
>
>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
>if it alludes to nothing much?

The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775 to March 2, 1789.

For the proceedings of that day, go here.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc0028))

Not sure if there is anything to this, have not read it all yet.

Jim


"Nuclear Waste" <babybear@2z.net>wrote in message news:3cadf45c@news.2z.net...
>
>"David Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message
>news:3CADBB0A.3090502@verizon.net...
>>Simon Jester wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>>>
>>>Theme:  "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>>>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>>>
>>
>>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
>>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
>>if it alludes to nothing much?
>
>The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775 to March 2, 1789.
>
>For the proceedings of that day, go here.
>
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc0028))
>Not sure if there is anything to this, have not read it all yet.
>
>Jim
>

It may be stretching it, but the minutes of that day deal with the admission of a Doctor Lyman Hall from the Parish of St. Johns in Savannah. It would appear that St. Johns and Dr. Hall were attending in spite of the fact that Savannah had refused to send delegates. Seems to fit somewhat Profs characteristics or am I looking too hard?

David W


Simon Jester wrote:

[snip]

>
>The book is set in the mid-2070's, and follows the progress of a revolution
>in a future lunar colony.  The story is told in flashback, from the
>viewpoint of one of the main conspirators - Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis.
>
>His main co-conspirators are Wyoming Knott, a firebrand political activist
>who starts out trying to foment a popular uprising, before turning to a more
>covert form of revolution; Professor Bernardo de la Paz, a political exile
>and professional revolutionary; and Mycroft Holmes, a sentient supercomputer
>with a sense of humour.
>

Simon's asked for "strengths and weaknesses." Try these:

I'm reading my copy of TMiaHM for the last time. It cost 95 cents 34 years ago, and it's flaking small pieces of yellow-brown acid-based paper this time. Time enough for a new one; and I'm reading it in a definitely contrarian mood this time: the "firebrand political activist" doesn't appeal to me as much as previously, her beauty and long sad tale of undeserved injury by Authority notwithstanding. Knott is a severely damaged piece of goods, mentally and emotionally. She's obsessed with a personal desire for revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames for a radiation-damaged child born her.

Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm, but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a quarantine period was required on the ground -- four hours, and so emigrants were exposed to excess radiation. Her position is three million people should have been exposed to plague. Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable governmental placements of the individual over society she discusses with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles. Years later her child was born a physical defective. The "monster" as she calls it, "had to be destroyed." In the decades before TMiaHM was written, thousands of children were born physically damaged as a result of the too-early certification of thalidimide. As Manuel quietly points out at first mention of this motivation, she might much more easily tried again for a child as the radiation damaged egg might easily be succeeded next time with a healtthy one. In a population of three million, assuming two males to one female there must have been hundreds of women incapable of conception whatever. Knott instead took the drastic step of having her tubes tied, divorcing both husbands, and sinking herself into a lifetime of plotting injury to Authority.

Knott doesn't particularly care whom she injures in her thirst for revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered into the conspiracy with her, really aren't human to her -- as she's worried about is whether Manuel's 'friend,' the sentient computer, can feel pain. Assured he cannot, she's content to blow the central complex containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To hell with how many 'finks' for authority she kills, disrupting Authority is what counts. Give this woman a bomb to strap to her chest, and she'd walk into a wedding if it would cause sufficient damange to Authority. She's a classic terrorist, safe as fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and her answer to you would be the pun on her name, "Why not."

Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn't simply a romatic figure. Forget the happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite manners, He's not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer. Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: "in my younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you're talking about." In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna at enormous cost? Who knows the "Istanbul twist"? Who first defines the revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle of "terrorism?"Who set the tone? Call them "yellow jackets" all you wish. The simple fact is nine cops out of a police force of twenty-seven in a population of three million attempted to declare an unlawful assembly and arrest its participants, perhaps for sedition. They all died immediately except one, taken wounded. His was murdered, helpless. And their principal murderer -- he accounted for at least three himself -- directed their bodies be ground up and flushed down a sewer. ["Their mates went out on an easy mission. _Nothing_ came back."] No wonder they snatched him up and tossed him in a bag the one day he went for a stroll undisguised in Lima, Peru. He's lucky he wasn't hanged summarily.

Bernardo de la Paz: "Bernard," from Bernhart, Old High German ["bero" meaning bear + "hart" meaning bold or HARD]. Hard Bear of Peace. Peace is a truce. Deacon told Rod Walker to beware the Truce of the Bear, didn't he? This disarmingly named de la Paz has devoted his life to his first profession as devoutly as Yassir Arafat. Even Dub-yah has finally got his number.

This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't it? I'm not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer" and the "blonde bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come in seven years, with cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer Manuel is kind to.

What do you think?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:

Did I say this?

>
>Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable 
>governmental placements of the *individual* over *society* she discusses 
>with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles.  
>

Naw, impossible! It was some unidentified being (probably Mike Holmes) controlling input to this newsgroup that reversed the word "society" with "individual" to make me read like a contrarian idiot. Read it t'other way! Where's that proof reader's advertisement, James?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:

...

>This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't it? I'm
>not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer" and the "blonde
>bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come in seven years, with
>cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer
>Manuel is kind to.
>
>What do you think?
>
>--
>David M. Silver
>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
>"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
>Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
>Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>

OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of "armed violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female type", etc, and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.

Mannie has no qualms about using the central computer - which controlled air, water, humidity, temperature and sewage for several cities - for his personal gain (initially, purely monetary). The computer was already sufficiently overloaded to have started behaving very erratically - having acquired a "sense of humour" - yet rather than try to "fix" it, Mannie encourages it to become still more erratic. He puts several million (?) people at risk purely to boost his consulting fees.

When Mannie attends his first revolution meeting, he is only allowed in because a convicted murderer describes him by saying "He's as mean as they come." The same murderer is last seen killing two cops by smacking their heads together so hard that they "popped like eggs."

Throughout the revolution, Mannie shows no compunction about using either small children or his own family as pawns in the struggle against the Authority.

At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn't kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under many tons of falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water shots"? I don't know about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do more than make a few bridges wet.

In short, Mannie is a violent, vicious, ruthless, self-centred thug.

What a bunch for a decent aristocrat to fall in with...

;-)

Simon

--
tanstaafl

In article <1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net>, Simon Jester <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote:
>OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of
>the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of "armed
>violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female type", etc,
>and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.

But lots of people romanticise ancestors they might not want to be in the same room with, so I don't think this counts as strongly as your other points.

snip

>At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with
>the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn't
>kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under many tons of
>falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water shots"? I don't know
>about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the
>tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do
>more than make a few bridges wet.

Hmmm. Impact physics is different from nuclear weapon physics (less energy goes into light and other EMR and more into kinetic energy so you get bigger holes and fewer fires). Luckily I don't have to guess using _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_ because I have _Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids_ handy.

Says here on page 787 that the depth of the body of water limits the size of the wave and that a larger fraction of the energy of the object ends up driving the tsunami in smaller impacts than in large ones. The Loonies used little ones, right, about Hiroshima sized?

The equation given for the full height h of the terminal wave for an impact Y at distance r in shallow water of depth d is given as

h = 1450 meter (d/r) (Y/gigaton)^0.25

So a 10 kt pop a km away in 10 meter water would result in a wave a bit under a meter tall. If they hit a deep part of the Thames (Well, after the first shot, that bit _will_ be deeper) the wave will be larger. Note that wave height drops linearly with distance from the impact spot (Which is why waves generated by a quake in Chile can kill people in Japan). Also, you can get standing waves which don't drop much with distance if the river/canal is shaped correctly, so although the numbers I get are small, they also may be wrong, under- estimating the damage.

They give a very rough rule of thumb for how far inland such a wave will run which is

X = 1.0 km (h/10 meters)^4/3

So assumimg that's right, the wave will go around 30 meters inland. Annoying but not all that bad, really. Wouldn't surprise me if the original catpult was designed with a maximum payload such that the worst side-effects of a bungle launch were tolerable unless it actually hit a city. Even in MisHM, most of the land surface would be unoccupied.

Of course, maybe the Loonies can pack more energy into the playload (More mass or a higher velocity) than they did. A 1 MT pop in 100 meter water (In the Channel, say) would give you a 25 meter wave a km away, which might run as far as 3.4 km inland. _That_ would be annoying. Focussed by running up a river bed might be worse. Landing it offshore of Bangladesh, where the average land height is low, the slopes shallow and the rule of thumb given above way round on the low side would be very bad. I can't recall, did they hit the subcontinent?

James Nicoll

-- 
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)

James Nicoll wrote:

>In article <1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net>,
>Simon Jester <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote:
>
>
>>OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of
>>the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of
"armed
>>violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female type",
etc,
>>and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.
>
>But lots of people romanticise ancestors they might not want
>to be in the same room with, so I don't think this counts as strongly
>as your other points.
>

True - but the ancestors I was discussing were grandparents, not more distant ancestors. (Mannie did also mention more remote ancestors, such as an "ancestress hanged in Salem for witchcraft, a g'g'g'greatgrandfather broken on wheel for piracy, another ancestress in first shipload to Botany Bay".)

>
>snip
>
>>At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with
>>the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn't
>>kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under many tons of
>>falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water shots"? I don't know
>>about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the
>>tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do
>>more than make a few bridges wet.
>
>Hmmm. Impact physics is different from nuclear weapon physics
>(less energy goes into light and other EMR and more into kinetic
>energy so you get bigger holes and fewer fires). Luckily I don't
>have to guess using _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_ because I have
>_Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids_ handy.
>
>Says here on page 787 that the depth of the body of water
>limits the size of the wave and that a larger fraction of the energy
>of the object ends up driving the tsunami in smaller impacts than
>in large ones. The Loonies used little ones, right, about Hiroshima
>sized?

When the cabal initially start discussing "throwing rocks" (at the start of chapter 8), a mass of 100 tonnes is initially discussed, producing a yield approaching a two-kilotonne detonation. I can't find any other figures for the size of rocks used. IIRC, the Hiroshima bomb was circa 15 kilotonnes.

>
>The equation given for the full height h of the terminal wave
>for an impact Y at distance r in shallow water of depth d is given as
>
>
>h = 1450 meter (d/r) (Y/gigaton)^0.25
>
>So a 10 kt pop a km away in 10 meter water would result in
>a wave a bit under a meter tall. If they hit a deep part of the Thames
>(Well, after the first shot, that bit _will_ be deeper) the wave will
>be larger.

Well, I feel silly.

There's no indication that London would get more than one shot. The only nations likely to receive multiple shots were the seven veto powers, of which Mitteleuropa is the only nation that England would seem likely to join. OTOH, Belgium and Holland are explicitly mentioned as independant nations, so it seems more likely that Britain (or England) is also independant.

The Loonie warnings for the Thames shot stated that the impact would be "north of Dover Straits opposite London Estuary". Looking at the map of England in my atlas, this makes an impact at roughly 1.5 degrees East by 51.5 degrees North seem most probable.

The depth of the water at this point is indicated no more precisely than between 0 and 50m. It is a long way from any deeper water, so probably not much more than 20m.

The closest town to the impact would be Margate, on the Kent coast, which would be roughly 15km away. (Central London would be roughly 110km away, as the pig flies.) The height of the waves at Margate would therefore be circa 7cm high (approx 3 inches), given a 2 kt impact.

OTOH, the Loonies warn that the impact "would cause disturbances far up Thames".

If the impact was significantly further west, it could produce much higher waves, as the shape of the river could "funnel" the disturbances.

>Note that wave height drops linearly with distance from
>the impact spot (Which is why waves generated by a quake in Chile can
>kill people in Japan). Also, you can get standing waves which don't
>drop much with distance if the river/canal is shaped correctly, so
>although the numbers I get are small, they also may be wrong, under-
>estimating the damage.
>
>They give a very rough rule of thumb for how far inland such a
>wave will run which is
>
>X = 1.0 km (h/10 meters)^4/3
>
>So assumimg that's right, the wave will go around 30 meters
>inland. Annoying but not all that bad, really. Wouldn't surprise me
>if the original catpult was designed with a maximum payload such
>that the worst side-effects of a bungle launch were tolerable unless
>it actually hit a city. Even in MisHM, most of the land surface
>would be unoccupied.
>
>Of course,  maybe the Loonies can pack more energy into
>the playload (More mass or a higher velocity) than they did. A
>1 MT pop in 100 meter water (In the Channel, say) would give you
>a 25 meter wave a km away, which might run as far as 3.4 km inland.
>_That_ would be annoying. Focussed by running up a river bed might
>be worse. Landing it offshore of Bangladesh, where the average
>land height is low, the slopes shallow and the rule of thumb given
>above way round on the low side would be very bad. I can't recall,
>did they hit the subcontinent?
>

Both land and sea targets - India was one of the veto powers. It isn't clear whether any of these would have been offshore of (what is currently) Bangladesh - it has a relatively short coastline, compared to India or even Pakistan.

The Indian government was furious over the fish killed.

Simon


"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in news:1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net:
>David Silver wrote:
>...
>>This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't it?
>>I'm not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer" and the
>>"blonde 
>>bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come in seven years,
>>with 
>>cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer
>>Manuel is kind to.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>--
>>David M. Silver
>>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>>http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
>>"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
>>Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
>>Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>>
>
>OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start
>of the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of
>"armed violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female
>type", etc, and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.
>
>Mannie has no qualms about using the central computer - which
>controlled air, water, humidity, temperature and sewage for several
>cities - for his personal gain (initially, purely monetary). The
>computer was already sufficiently overloaded to have started behaving
>very erratically - having acquired a "sense of humour" - yet rather
>than try to "fix" it, Mannie encourages it to become still more
>erratic. He puts several million (?) people at risk purely to boost
>his consulting fees. 
>
>When Mannie attends his first revolution meeting, he is only allowed
>in because a convicted murderer describes him by saying "He's as mean
>as they come." The same murderer is last seen killing two cops by
>smacking their heads together so hard that they "popped like eggs."
>
>Throughout the revolution, Mannie shows no compunction about using
>either small children or his own family as pawns in the struggle
>against the Authority.
>
>At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons
>with the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land
>wouldn't kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under
>many tons of falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water
>shots"? I don't know about American cities, but London has long been
>prone to flooding; the tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in
>the Thames Estuary would do more than make a few bridges wet.
>
>In short, Mannie is a violent, vicious, ruthless, self-centred thug.
>
Wow, he could come to earth and work for Andersen!!  

>What a bunch for a decent aristocrat to fall in with...
>;-)
>
>Simon
>--

Manny seemed to have 'practical' ethics. He looked after himself and his family, Helped out fellow lunies but expected payback. Had no qualms about shoving someone out an airlock if they wouldn't pay a debt.

His word was good enough for the stilyagi to select him as a judge, and to accept his ruling.

So in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen.

In LA or London or Sydney he'd be considered dangerous and unruly, unless he went into politics or corporate management.


djinn wrote:

"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in news:1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net:

>David Silver wrote:

>>[snip comments I wrote concerning "unsavoriness" of character
>>of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz]

>[snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-ness of Manuel O'Kelley Davis]

[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis' "'practical'" ethics 
and fact that "in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen."]

What's most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs we've used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to defend them. These three portrayed by Heinlein don't sound very much like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, do they? Not even much like those more 'radical firebrands' Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry?

The winners write history but, surely, agents of agitprop such as Paine, Samuel Adams, and Henry cannot have been white-washed that much, can they? Or not? What exactly was it that "fiery" Samuel Adams did? He had a lot to do with mobs forming, including the one that provided the victims of the Boston Massacre that Prof de la Paz keeps looking to find.

What surprises me about the plot of TMiaHM is how so little detail is portrayed of the consequences of the agitprop employed between the time the conspiracy is formed between Knott, de la Paz, Davis and Adam Selene and the "rape-murder" of Marie Lyons, the stock control clerk living in the Authority Complex.

That's an odd name evocation, btw. Seems to me, iirc, the collaborating Vichy government permitted the Nazis to ship quite a few suspected marquis along with huge numbers of 'lesser' subhumans out of Lyons to the camps in the East for 'final solution' as resistance to the Nazis grew among the French during World War II.

All we're told in TMiaHM is it became popular to engage in derision further undermining Authority (vicious humor and counterfeiting of passports), and occasional murders of isolated F.N. occupation troops occurred. No bombs exploded in the Authority complex among the 'civil servants,' despite Knott's fiery inclinations and the Prof's youthful murderous bomb-thrower history. A bit of bribery of folk in high places and collection of petitions by the chronic petition signers occurs, but otherwise attempts to generate sympathy for the Loonies on Earth before the Lyons rape-murder seem scanty.

What's really odd is how Heinlein portrayed no immediate reprisals by Mort the Wart and Alvarez. When the French Marquis killed the odd soldier in occupied Vichy, in would wheel a battalion of S.S. and they'd pick one out of ten men from the nearest village and put them up against the wall, execute them along with the mayor, the city council, and leading citizens; and then they'd ship half of the rest of the town East to the "labor camps."

Look at the activities of the Spaniards under General Weyler against the insurgency set off by Marti in Cuba just before the Spanish-American War of 1898. Then take a look at the British under Kitchener against the Boers in Orange and Transvaal and the Americans under Bell against the Filipinos in the Visayas a scant year or four later. They all may not have executed one out of ten, but villages were put to the torch, fields and wealth was laid waste, the first "concentration camps" were employed, refugees starved, and the insurgent populations died in numbers far exceeding dead occupation troops.

Instead Heinlein portrays leadership on both sides as acting very nearly benignly, controlling natural bloody reactions. It simplifies things, of course; and it also evokes reader sympathy for the co-conspirators. There's not even a mild, nearly idealized Tea Party in Boston Harbor.

That's a fairly antiseptic viewpoint of steps leading up to rebellion. By comparison both _Sixth Column_ and _"If This Goes On ..."_ seem a bit more bloody and, possibly, far more a realistic portrayal of insurgency. Heinlein once wrote that his reluctance of writing the true facts necessary to sustain a rebellion was one reason why he never wrote "The Stone Pillow." It's pretty plain to me his reluctance to really portray a rebellion continued to this later effort.

Is this abbreviated reality a weakness of the novel? Or is a strength for the purposes to which Heinlein wrote? Simon noted that one putative critic seems to think TMiaHM is merely a manual on how to conduct a revolution. Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you think Heinlein may have had?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in news:3CB0E7A9.4010905@verizon.net:
>djinn wrote:
>
>"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in
>news:1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net:
>
>>David Silver wrote:
>
>>>[snip comments I wrote concerning "unsavoriness" of character
>>>of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz]
>
>>[snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-
>>ness of Manuel O'Kelley Davis]
>
>[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis' "'practical'" ethics 
>and fact that "in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen."]
>
<snip rather detailed discussion of horrors of rebellion. - for brevity>

I know that history whitewashes quite a bit. I grew up in a part of the US that was mainly Loyalist during the Revolution. Local history is studied in schools there. There was a lot of terror, evening of grudges and uprooting going on. Augusta, Georgia changed hands several times, each change involved getting rid of 'collaborators' with the other side. Local history is quite bloody and not much of it is included in general histories of the Revolution.

And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans' March to the Sea. the history books do describe that.

>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you 
>think Heinlein may have had?
>
>

David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current interest in how limited government economy might work.


djinn wrote:
[snip]
><snip rather detailed discussion of horrors of rebellion. - for brevity>I know that history whitewashes quite a bit. I grew up in a part of the US 
>that was mainly Loyalist during the Revolution. Local history is 
>studied in schools there. There was a lot of terror, evening of grudges and  
>uprooting going on. Augusta, Georgia changed hands several times, each 
>change involved getting rid of 'collaborators' with the other side. Local 
>history is quite bloody and not much of it is included in general histories 
>of the Revolution. 
>

James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of them all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of course, but a number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and Irish following the "troubles" involving the Stuarts.

[The funniest thing, to me (and I am weird), in TMiaHM is Wyoh Knott's knotheaded characterization of the complex 'civil servants' as "finks" for Authority. Most are as much convicts as any of Mannie's ancestors, selected for their skills and assigned 'fink' jobs, rather than to the labor camps where ninety percent will die before they learn to use their P-suits. She distinguishes 'contracting' with from direct slavery to the largest employer available. How kind of her! How knotheaded and simple-minded, also. The "crack" F.N. "peace-keeping" troops are also convicts. What's the difference between convicts? Which end of the gun pointed which way he's on? And the fact that one wears a yellow uniform or regimentals while the other wears a denim jumpsuit? The boy from Shropshire with white belts crossing his scarlet uniform on his chest shoots his Brown Bess at the boy from Concord wearing farming clothing who shoots his squirrel rifle back? Or vice-a-versa?]

>And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans' March to the Sea. >the history books do describe that. >

Or as we beknighted children from the North used to sing gleefully in grammer school: "Tramp, tramp, tramp, the boys are marching . . . " ;-( Rebellion's a tough business to get into, and get out of. Took us more than a century, hasn't it? The reason there were few, if any families of Southern sympathies, in the part of Missouri in which Heinlein was born was the Union Army disposed and cleared the area of everyone during the war. Heinlein's family, just as Maureen Johnson's, moved down and settled it after the war from the Northern States and Union areas.

>
>>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you 
>>think Heinlein may have had?
>>
>>
>>
>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a 
>working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current 
>interest in how limited government economy might work. 
>

"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in news:3CB0F77B.6070603@verizon.net:
>
>
>James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of them
>all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts
>serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of
>course, but a number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and
>Irish following the "troubles" involving the Stuarts.
>
Yes, there were some resemblences. Religious dissenters, convicts, 
political prisoners. Oglethorpe made sure the colony was well-planned and 
supplied though, so there was a difference. The 'Authority' in Georgia was 
fairly well liked. HM government less so, partially because the British 
government had decided slavery was a Bad Thing. 

>[The funniest thing, to me (and I am weird), in TMiaHM is Wyoh Knott's
>knotheaded characterization of the complex 'civil servants' as "finks"
>for Authority. Most are as much convicts as any of Mannie's ancestors,
>selected for their skills and assigned 'fink' jobs, rather than to the
>labor camps where ninety percent will die before they learn to use
>their P-suits. She distinguishes 'contracting' with from direct
>slavery to the largest employer available. How kind of her! How
>knotheaded and simple-minded, also. The "crack" F.N. "peace-keeping"
>troops are also convicts. What's the difference between convicts?
>Which end of the gun pointed which way he's on? And the fact that one
>wears a yellow uniform or regimentals while the other wears a denim
>jumpsuit? The boy from Shropshire with white belts crossing his
>scarlet uniform on his chest shoots his Brown Bess at the boy from
>Concord wearing farming clothing who shoots his squirrel rifle back?
>Or vice-a-versa?] 
>

She probably would have been at home on a Georgia plantation. Damn government might ban slavery! Revolt!. She would have been happy to hang the Militia, which remained loyalist in a large part, and supported the Patriot irregulars.

Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom rather the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see what happens.

The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and grudge resolving.

>
>>And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans' March to the
>>Sea. the history books do describe that. 
>>
>
>
 Heinlein's family, just as Maureen Johnson's,
>moved down and settled it after the war from the Northern States and
>Union areas. 
>

It might be interesting to some here that apparently my family's farm wasn't burned in the MttS because Sherman used the farmhouse as HQ for a day or two. There was a Masonic emblem on the wall of the room, so he ordered that the house be left intact. Widows and orphans, you see... (The major farm animals were hidden in the swamp 'til he was gone - great- great grandma was a Heinlein Woman ).

>
>>
>>>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you 
>>>think Heinlein may have had?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched
>>in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his
>>current interest in how limited government economy might work. 
>>
>
>
>"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave? 
>
It worked in TMIAHM....

Beats me. From what I've read and heard of the early days in Georgia things were somewhat like the Lunar Colony. They haven't stayed that way, although I still know of people who resemble Mannie in some ways. They regarding laws, especially Federal laws, as inconveniences for instance. ( not that I know anything about this of course). Even in Moon, Mannie starts off regretting that things have changed since the early days.

I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes in how much regulation.

[djinn]


djinn wrote:
[snip]


>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he 
>didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an 
>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom 
>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see

>what happens. 

If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is the only justification apparent. Other than the 'slavery' that all seem to 'labor' under -- of course Mannie's family doesn't seem to be doing too badly, except for the limited responsibility they evidence to anyone outside their immediate family. Some might call that a slave mentality. Cf. Mentok in Farnham's Freehold. He probably enjoys a fat choice cut from Ponce's table every once in a while too.

>The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. Everyone hated 
>the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. Real revolts ususally involve a 
>bit of back-stabbing and grudge resolving. 
>

None of the active loyalists survive in TMiaHM, not even the guy who lasted a few months by changing his name and habitat. No Halifax or Bermuda handy to flee to. I wonder if, after the war, there were any "cases on Hunter's Estate" in the Loonie Courts.

>It might be interesting to some here that apparently my family's farm 
>wasn't burned in the MttS because Sherman used the farmhouse as HQ for a 
>day or two. There was a Masonic emblem on the wall of the room, so he 
>ordered that the house be left intact. Widows and orphans, you see...
>(The major farm animals were hidden in the swamp 'til he was gone - great-
>great grandma was a Heinlein Woman ). 
>

I wonder how many folk notice the Square and Compass device "Turkey Creek Jack" whatever'snamewas wore around his neck in Kevin Costner's version of Wyatt Earp? That might have prevented someone from bayoneting or shooting him again in the belly after he'd been shot down during the Civil War, or even during the war between Earps and the Clantons. Or using the Istanbul Twist on him, as the old murderer de la Paz does to the wounded yellow jacket early on.

>>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched
>>>in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his
>>>current interest in how limited government economy might work. 
>>>
>>>
>>
>>"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave? 
>>
>>
>It worked in TMIAHM....
>
>Beats me. From what I've read and heard of the early days in Georgia things 
>were somewhat like the Lunar Colony.  They haven't stayed that way, 
>although I still know of people who resemble Mannie in some ways. They 
>regarding laws, especially Federal laws, as inconveniences for instance. ( 
>not that I know anything about this of course). Even in Moon, Mannie starts 
>off regretting that things have changed since the early days. 
>
>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the 
>opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes in how 
>much regulation.
>

This, of course, is the 'sexy' issue in TMiaHM, today. More on it later. Let's see if we can entice someone else to weigh in here. :) There must be a big-L libertarian out there?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

In article <3CB10FF2.3020803@verizon.net>, David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote:
>djinn wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he 
>>didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an 
>>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom 
>>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see
>
>>what happens. 
>
>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is 
>the only justification apparent. 
It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee, the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.

If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow in an ocean.

-- 
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
[James Nicoll]

James Nicoll wrote:
>In article <3CB10FF2.3020803@verizon.net>,
>David Silver  <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote:
>
>>djinn wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he 
>>>didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an 
>>>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom 
>>>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see
>>>
>>>what happens. 
>>>
>>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is 
>>the only justification apparent. 
>>
>
>It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that
>Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots
>of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on
>the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee,
>the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.  
>
>If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through
>Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's 
>family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow 
>in an ocean.
>

Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with Laz and gang in The Cat, didn't you? A measure of real importance!

That was quite an illuminating discussion of impact physics upthread, James. Thank you for it. :-)

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

In article <3CB11AA5.5070308@verizon.net>, David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote: >James Nicoll wrote:
>
>>In article <3CB10FF2.3020803@verizon.net>,
>>David Silver  <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote:
>>
>>>djinn wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he 
>>>>didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an 
>>>>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom 
>>>>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see
>>>>
>>>>what happens. 
>>>>
>>>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is 
>>>the only justification apparent. 
>>>
>>
>>It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that
>>Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots
>>of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on
>>the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee,
>>the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.  
>>
>>If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through
>>Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's 
>>family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow 
>>in an ocean.
>>
>
>Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who 
>really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with 
>Laz and gang in The Cat, didn't you? A measure of real importance! 

And it explains why Mike became sentient when no other computer of a similar type ever sprouted intelligence. Answer: he didn't, it was all a dwarf in a box moving the chess pieces.

It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though. After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock, accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto the surface...

Mannie seems displeased with how things evolved after the revolution but that is generally the base with revolutions. He's lucky he didn't end up a revered statesman like Lenin did, carefully preserved in a box.

>That was quite an illuminating discussion of impact physics upthread, 
>James. Thank you for it. :-)

No problem. I recommend all of the University of Arizona space series. Lots of crunchy numbers and eqns to play with.

-- 
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
[James Nicoll]

[James Nicoll:]
>>>It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that
>>>Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots
>>>of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on
>>>the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee,
>>>the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.
>>>
>>>If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through
>>>Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's
>>>family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow
>>>in an ocean.
>>>

[David Silver:]
>>Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who
>>really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with
>>Laz and gang in The Cat, didn't you? A measure of real importance! 

[James Nicoll:]
>And it explains why Mike became sentient when no other computer
>of a similar type ever sprouted intelligence. Answer: he didn't, it was
>all a dwarf in a box moving the chess pieces.

Possibly - but I don't think Mannie could successfully have preprogrammed Mike for Mychelle's chats with Wyoh.

(I wish I could think of a pun involving Young Turk revolutionaries.)

>It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though.
>After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which
>suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a
>dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock,
>accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto
>the surface...
...

Even if Wyoh had figured it out, why should it matter? The revolution turned her into a hero and fulfilled her political aims; afterwards, it would not have been in her interest to reveal the deception.

Simon


"David Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message news:3CB0F77B.6070603@verizon.net... >James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of them all >to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts serving >out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of course, but a >number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and Irish following >the "troubles" involving the Stuarts. BTW, the original colony forbade slavery, "papists", and lawyers. None of the prohibitions lasted. --Dee
David Silver wrote:
>djinn wrote:
...
>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in
a
>>working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current
>>interest in how limited government economy might work.
>>
>
>
>"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
>
...

This brings me to an aspect of TMiaHM I've been considering for a while. Most discussion of the book's real life inspiration has centred around the American revolution.

This may be true of some of the characters and the politics involved - but there are certain other aspects which seem quite different.

One aspect is that the Lunar colonies are portrayed as being on the very edge of sustainability, particularly with regards to water. By contrast, the American colonies were not just self-sustaining, but quite rich in resources.

Another aspect is size and position - Prof envisages Luna's future as being the gateway between a rich, much larger planet and the rest of the solar system. By the time of independence, the American colonies were much larger than the Old Country.

Is it just coincidence that one of the largest Lunar colonies is called Hong Kong Luna?

TMiaHM was written in the mid-1960's, pretty close to the historical high water-mark for socialist economics. At the time, Hong Kong had possibly the most limited government interference in its economy anywhere in the world.

Hong Kong also combined minimal government interference and free speech with minimal political power for the inhabitants - Britain imposed a governor and that was that.

I believe Hong Kong was also dependent on mainland China for its fresh water supplies.

Not only that, but the main reason for the colony's existence was to act as a deep water port - IIRC, the name Hong Kong means "Fragrant Harbour". Consequently, given its history and location, it was (and is) ideally placed to act as a gateway for trade between China and the West.

Any comments?

[Simon Jester]


David Wright wrote:
...
>I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational
>anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at
>http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
...

As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying: "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 a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."

There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement: "Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do."

Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small (1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.

Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual. Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is "simply an old murderer". Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?

Simon

--
"There is no such thing as 'Society'; there are only individuals, and their
families."

David Wright wrote:
...
>I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational
>anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at
>http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
...

As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying: "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 a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."

There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement: "Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do."

Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small (1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.

Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual. Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is "simply an old murderer". Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?

Simon

--
"There is no such thing as 'Society'; there are only individuals, and their
families."

Jackie wrote: >"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in message >news:1017854140.14212.1@eurus.uk.clara.net... > snip] >> >>See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room. >> > >I hope I'll have time to be there; I just finished reading The Moon is a >Harsh Mistress very recently. > >~*~Jackie~*~ We really do, too, Jackie. Don't let the fact that some of us are amusing ourselves playing "been there, done that" with weird theories about the novel disuade you. We really are capable of also discussing "straight" questions concerning TMiaHM in these upcoming couple weeks, if you care to pose any. ;-) -- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
In article <1018274058.19026.2@eurus.uk.clara.net>, Simon Jester <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote:
>
snip differences between Luna and the Thirteen Colonies

>Another aspect is size and position - Prof envisages Luna's future as being
>the gateway between a rich, much larger planet and the rest of the solar
>system. By the time of independence, the American colonies were much larger
>than the Old Country.
>
>Is it just coincidence that one of the largest Lunar colonies is called Hong
>Kong Luna?
>
>TMiaHM was written in the mid-1960's, pretty close to the historical high
>water-mark for socialist economics. At the time, Hong Kong had possibly the
>most limited government interference in its economy anywhere in the world.
>
>Hong Kong also combined minimal government interference and free speech with
>minimal political power for the inhabitants - Britain imposed a governor and
>that was that.
>
>I believe Hong Kong was also dependent on mainland China for its fresh water
>supplies.
>
>Not only that, but the main reason for the colony's existence was to act as
>a deep water port - IIRC, the name Hong Kong means "Fragrant Harbour".
>Consequently, given its history and location, it was (and is) ideally placed
>to act as a gateway for trade between China and the West.
>
>Any comments?

If Earth is China, who do you see as the West? What offworld markets are there in MiaHM?

I don't think HK is the right analog. Maybe some historical asshole of the universe frontier town which is unpleasant but which is conveniently situated to send expeditionary missions out from.

Anyone watching _Shackleford_ on A&E? I'm thinking of the various sealing and whaling stations around the Antarctic circle. Nasty places to live but useful as expedition bases. Except there are no Antarctic colonies at present, so maybe not the best analogy.

One long term problem that the Loonies would face is that other places are easier to get to Earth from and can get to Earth easier than the Moon. Some bright fellow may get the idea of building facilities there, to take some of the business away from the Moon.

-- 
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
[James Nicoll]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:43:22 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>quoth:
>djinn wrote:
>
>"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in
>news:1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net:
>
>>David Silver wrote:
>
>>>[snip comments I wrote concerning "unsavoriness" of character
>>>of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz]
>
>>[snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-
>>ness of Manuel O'Kelley Davis]
>
>[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis' "'practical'" ethics 
>and fact that "in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen."]
>
>What's most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs 
>we've used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and 
>Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to 
>defend them. 
It's surprising to me, as well, since I figured I was the only one who felt that way about them. I read Moon with a touch of distaste, every time, because I can't imagine being like these people. Lately, it makes me think of the Middle East crisis, with one side claiming it's putting down terrorism (while at the same time practicing assassination) and the other side claiming it's fighting occupation (while extremists kill innocent people). Neither side has anything beneficial about what they're doing, in my eyes, but then again, I'm not there experiencing it, so who am I to even have an opinion on it???

In that light, thinking of Moon and the characters, I must say that I agree with the assessment of Mannie as greedy, uncaring of his fellow man (with exceptions, but a general uncaring), and pretty ruthless. His rationalization of how to get bigger consulting fees makes me very uncomfortable, and it gets worse from there. I just get caught up in the story, and try to ignore those things. Then comes Wyoh, who is so willing to just kill everyone, very vindictive, not likable at all. The cutesy way she acts with Mannie and Mike just make me want to be sick. Prof is the only one I can be comfortable with, he doesn't seem to make excuses for everything. I don't see him rationalizing his behavior, or his ideals, but I'm also writing from memory--the book is not right here with me! :-)

But I think it's one of those things that RAH did so well, getting us to identify with unsavory characters as "heroes". Think of Alex, how much we dislike his "beliefs", but it's a good story! (IMNSHO) Then there's Hugh, whom a few here dislike, but even so, it's a good story. (once again, IMNSHO)

Every revolution has death, treachery, vindictiveness, all that. At least, so far as I have heard... All stories have at least one more point of view than however many people "witnessed" it...

Okay, enough rambling for now, you know how I go with a tangent (or three) sometimes! :-)

-- 
~teresa~

 ^..^    "Never try to outstubborn a cat."  Robert A. Heinlein    ^..^
  http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/
 "Blert!!!"  quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat.
  email me at pixelmeow at aol dot com or yahoo dot com
  MSN messenger ID = pixelmeow@passport.com
  Yahoo Messenger ID = pixelmeow@yahoo.com
  AIM id = pixelmeow

"David Silver" performs his own form of agitprop:

>What's most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs
>we've used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and
>Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to
>defend them.

Here Fishy,Fishy...:)

Actually I have taken your "vicious slurs" and am using that lens as I read the book over again. As yet I have not formed a complete and intelligent response. My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes, that it makes me and mine "bad people." But, then I am doing what I just stated, looking at characters I have always had respect for and putting the "criminal" focus on them. I have just got to the part when Manny and Prof return to Luna...am off to finish the book (most likely fall asleep) and formulate some rational response.

Elizabeth

(make me think will ya!)


djinn wrote:

>David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote

>>James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of 
>>them all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled 
>>convicts serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic 
>>crimes, of course, but a number of political exiles, including 
>>disposed Scots and Irish following the "troubles" involving the 
>>Stuarts.

>Yes, there were some resemblences. Religious dissenters, convicts, 
>political prisoners. Oglethorpe made sure the colony was well-
>planned and supplied though, so there was a difference. The 
>'Authority' in Georgia was fairly well liked. HM government 
>less so, partially because the British government had decided 
>slavery was a Bad Thing. 

It's a funny thing, but the Technology guy at the top of the heap when I worked for AOL was a guy named Oglethorpe. The first time I mentioned him to my father, he wanted to know if that Oglethorpe was related to the Georgia Aristocracy from the Prison Colony days. I gave him a "how should I know?" type of response, which he found very insufficient. I'm still curious. It would be something if it turned out that burried in the corporate oligarchy is a batch of closet blue bloods....

>The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. 
>Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. 
>Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and 
>grudge resolving. 
That's what all the yammerheads were doing. Mannie avoided that stuff, so we didn't get to read about it.

>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the 
>opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes 
>in how much regulation.

Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think California culture is based on the idea "lets run away as soon as somebody says 'government'."

Tian Harter

--
http://tian.greens.org
Saturday I saw the San Jose EarthQuakes beat the New England 
Revolution 2 to 1 at Spartan Stadium. Going in the gate, they 
gave everyone a #1 FAN ring comemorating their becoming 
2001 MLS Champions on 10/21/01.

>>It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though.
>>After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which
>>suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a
>>dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock,
>>accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto
>>the surface...

Isn't there a mention, in one of the other, later books, by Mannie that Wyoh died years later (although early by Loonie standards) of cancer arising from her enforced stay on the surface when first brought to the Moon?

---Mac


rahfan147@aol.com01913981 (dont be fuelish) wrote in news:20020408150134.10595.00002006@mb-ml.aol.com:
>djinn wrote:
>
>
>It's a funny thing, but the Technology guy at the top of the heap
>when I worked for AOL was a guy named Oglethorpe. The first
>time I mentioned him to my father, he wanted to know if that
>Oglethorpe was related to the Georgia Aristocracy from the Prison
>Colony days. I gave him a "how should I know?" type of response,
>which he found very insufficient. I'm still curious. It would be
>something if it turned out that burried in the corporate oligarchy
>is a batch of closet blue bloods....
>

The General himself didn't stay in GA. Don't believe any of his descendents did.

Georgia was less a prison colony than an experiment by social reformers. Very few of the colonists were violent criminals. There were debtors, the 'homeless' of the day, Scots who were considered political problems back home, etc.

>>The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. 
>>Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. 
>>Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and 
>>grudge resolving. 
>
>That's what all the yammerheads were doing. Mannie
>avoided that stuff, so we didn't get to read about it.
>
>>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the 
>>opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes 
>>in how much regulation.
>
>Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too
>minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think
>California culture is based on the idea "lets run away as soon as 
>somebody says 'government'."
>

Interesting, my observation has been more like, "if there's not a government agency to regulate that, why don't we form one, and our relatives can work in it".

Really CA govn't is annoying to someone from another state.

Its not surprising the Libertarian party was formed here.

For a real-life 'Manny' kind of person, check

http://ngeorgia.com/people/musgrove.html

[djinn]


"Mac" <nur99-NoGreenEggs-AND-SpamPlease@spiritone.com>wrote in message news:ulp3bu0lr3lg0cv9ou67b9hovl2iog28b3@4ax.com...
>
>>>It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though.
>>>After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which
>>>suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a
>>>dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock,
>>>accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto
>>>the surface...
>Isn't there a mention, in one of the other, later books, by
>Mannie that Wyoh died years later (although early by Loonie
>standards) of cancer arising from her enforced stay on the
>surface when first brought to the Moon?
>---Mac

Hazel told Colin about it in _Cat_.

Bryan


Simon's asked for "strengths and weaknesses." Try these:
I'm reading my copy of TMiaHM for the last time. It cost 95 cents
34 years ago, and it's flaking small pieces of yellow-brown
acid-based paper this time.  Time enough for a new one; and I'm
reading it in a definitely contrarian mood this time:  the
"firebrand political activist" doesn't appeal to me as much as
previously, her beauty and long sad tale of undeserved injury by
Authority notwithstanding.  Knott is a severely damaged piece of
goods, mentally and emotionally. She's obsessed with a 
personal desire for revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she
blames for a radiation-damaged child born her.

Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's
vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a
quarantine period was required on the ground -- four hours, and
so emigrants were exposed to excess radiation. Her position is
three million people should have been exposed to plague.
Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable 
governmental placements of the individual over society she
discusses with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles.

REPLY:

If LunarAuthority is receiving shipments of convicts on a regular basis then why was no "Quarantine" constructed to house and shelter during this period of time rather than having everyone wait within a cramped ship, on Lunar soil, exposed to anything and everything in the way of radiation?

Perhaps the anger Wyoh has is quite justified. She must not have been the only young female so treated, so exposed.

On that vessel there must have been quite a few other females. If "Authority" is shipping people up, then why not prepare some cavern, divide it into male/female quarters, put in some bunks and while the New Chums are there, begin (via Screen) some orientation.

How long would "Quarantine" be?

Twelve hours? Three days? A week; a fortnight?

Authority, in this instance, might well have done more to "protect their investment". They chose not to do so.

*******

DAVID SILVER:
Years later her child was born a physical defective. The
"monster" as she calls it, "had to be destroyed."   In the
decades before TMiaHM was written, thousands of 
children were born physically damaged as a result of the
too-early certification of thalidimide.  As Manuel quietly points
out at first mention of this motivation, she might much more
easily tried again for a child as the radiation damaged egg might
easily be succeeded next time with a healtthy one.   In a
population of three million, assuming two males to one female
there must have been hundreds of women incapable of conception
whatever. Knott instead took the drastic step of having her 
tubes tied, divorcing both husbands, and sinking herself into a
lifetime of plotting injury to Authority.

REPLY:

Well, fortunately, there is not a description of the "monster". No idea of the exact damage that was done. And it is later that, with help from Mannie's co-wives, that Wyoh has the tubal ligation reversed. Depending exactly upon the extent of the genetic abnormality, can we really understand the position of Wyoh who is depicted as being a full-bodied woman and carrying such a terribly distorted child within her for all those months? From such outstanding beauty, to have a "monster" come forth?

Traumatizing?

At least, with the help of the women in Mannie's family, a beginning was made on that particular healing.

********* ********

Knott doesn't particularly care whom she injures in her thirst
for revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered
into the conspiracy with her, really aren't human to her -- as
she's worried about is whether Manuel's 'friend,' the sentient
computer, can feel pain. Assured he cannot, she's content to blow
the central complex containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To
hell with how many 'finks' for authority she kills, disrupting
Authority is what counts. Give this woman a bomb to strap to her
chest, and she'd walk into a wedding if it would cause sufficient
damage to Authority.  She's a classic terrorist, safe as
fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent 
bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and
her answer to you would be the pun on her name, "Why not."

REPLY: Yes, at the stage wherein she is introduced, Wyoh is definitely damaged goods and a danger to any and all --- including Mycroft!!

Slowly, strangely, within the parameters of the revolution, does she begin to become human once more.

*********** **********

Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn't simply a romantic figure.
Forget the  happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite
manners, He's not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer.
Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: "in my
younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to
something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of
which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you're
talking about." 
In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who
pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna  at enormous
cost? Who knows the "Istanbul twist"?  Who first defines the
revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle
of "terrorism?" 

REPLY:

Yes, I am having some trouble with this.

Some.

There is no indication that the Professor was an indiscriminate terrorist bombing women and children.

Is he a murderer?

Yes; here in Luna. And certainly against Authority.

Before that?

I don't know.

Yes, he states he used to throw bombs ------- what were the targets? Dictators? Repressive military? Babies in carriages.?

As for his actions on Luna it is Authority who has the weapons and imposes rule and dictates terms. A populace without redress, without arms, could not negotiate better terms; could not battle forthrightly. How the Professor got the weapon is amazing but will have to consider that he is resourceful. And is it a crime? Yes, to an Authority that does not want the serfs to be armed and able to resist whatever is dictated to them.

******** ********

Who set the tone? Call them "yellow jackets" all you wish. 
The simple fact is nine cops out of a police force of
twenty-seven in a population of three million attempted to
declare an unlawful assembly and arrest its participants, perhaps
for sedition. They all died immediately except one, taken
wounded. His was murdered, helpless. And their principal murderer
-- he accounted for at least three himself -- directed their
bodies be ground up and flushed down a sewer. ["Their 
mates went out on an easy mission. _Nothing_ came back."] No
wonder they snatched him up and tossed him in a bag the one day
he went for a stroll undisguised in Lima, Peru. He's lucky he
wasn't hanged summarily.

REPLY:

Well, in that battle with maybe a handful of potential Revolutionaries against Authority, an Authority backed by weapons and a planet of resources, some action had to be taken to strike fear and ensure some degree of trepidation. Was it the correct action --------- what might have been reported back if they had been allowed to live? Whose lives would then have been in danger? Maybe a dozen or so in attendance, if not more. And, is it sedition to become aware of danger so overwhelming as to threaten a society? And discuss possibilities, especially if there is then no law banning Assembly?

And exactly when and where did these convicts and former convicts consent to be governed and by whom?

******** ********

This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't
it? I'm not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer"
and the "blonde bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come
in seven years, with cannibalism to come two years later,
according to the bored computer Manuel is kind to.
What do you think?

REPLY:

Well, I do not find them as unsavory as you do. And, as the novel progresses, they "grow into" their roles of aiding Luna be free.

And, once again, Mr. Heinlein begins with a character with flaws and advances them into the challenge and resolution.

-- 
   David M. Silver

On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in message <r665bucaqd9ge9cp204c61ld8n7m35oarq@4ax.com>Mac wrote:
>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's
>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a
>quarantine period was required on the ground

How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame lies with them.

--

Pete LaGrange


TreetopAngel wrote:
...
>My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory
>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes,
>that it makes me and mine "bad people."
...

Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents, but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.

Simon


James Nicoll wrote:
>In article <1018274058.19026.2@eurus.uk.clara.net>,
>Simon Jester <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote:
.Snip contention that Luna is partially inspired by Hong Kong.
>
>If Earth is China, who do you see as the West? What offworld
>markets are there in MiaHM?
>

Potentially, the rest of the Solar System. In Prof's words: "Luna's future lies in her unique position at the top of a gravity well over a rich planet, and in her cheap power and plentiful real estate. If we Loonies have sense enough in the centuries ahead to remain a free port and to stay out of entangling alliances, we will become the crossroads for two planets, three planets, the entire Solar System."

>I don't think HK is the right analog. Maybe some historical asshole
>of the universe frontier town which is unpleasant but which is conveniently
>situated to send expeditionary missions out from.
>
>Anyone watching _Shackleford_ on A&E? I'm thinking of the various
>sealing and whaling stations around the Antarctic circle. Nasty places
>to live but useful as expedition bases. Except there are no Antarctic
>colonies at present, so maybe not the best analogy.
>
>One long term problem that the Loonies would face is that
>other places are easier to get to Earth from and can get to Earth
>easier than the Moon. Some bright fellow may get the idea of building
>facilities there, to take some of the business away from the Moon.
>
...

- although those facilities have not been built at the time of TMiaHM. Using the Moon would be more convenient than going direct between the Earth and the rest of the Solar System. Building more convenient facilities (eg. at Lagrange points) might be more economical in the long term - but Lunar facilities already existed, and Loonies were experts in spacial logistics.

[Simon Jester]


Peter Scott wrote:
>In article <3CADBB0A.3090502@verizon.net>,
>David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>writes:
>
>>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of 
>>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date 
>>if it alludes to nothing much?
>>
>>Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S. 
>>History.
>>
>
>Given the context, I suspect a Tuckerism.  When did RAH meet Ginny?
>
>

Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12, 1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies, still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we memorized as children in Grammar School.

Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement of English-speaking colonists in what was "the New World." That was another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National Holiday.

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

"Simon Jester" says:
>TreetopAngel wrote:
>...
>>My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>>grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory
>>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes,
>>that it makes me and mine "bad people."
>...
>
>Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents,
>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>
>Simon
>

But, I only know about my nefarious Grandparents and their generation. Who knows what lies and schemes THEIR ancestors used to get into the US. I assume, since there are no anecdotes, that they were just as bad or maybe worse than Mannie's ancestors. OR maybe they were all hard-working, good people who never did anything of import and thus never had stories told about them. One whole side of my family (paternal grandfather) has no history, because my Grandfather never spoke of it and would tell anyone who asked, it was none of their business. My Dad even suspects his name is false, the man had no history, that we can find before he met my Grandmother.

Elizabeth


"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in message news:1018349671.19585.0@eurus.uk.clara.net...
>TreetopAngel wrote:
>...
>>My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>>grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory
>>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes,
>>that it makes me and mine "bad people."
>...
>
>Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents,
>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.

Sort of like Americans being proud of criminal ancestors who revolted against their rightful English government for insufficient reasons?

NW


Mac wrote:
>Knott is a severely damaged piece of goods, mentally and 
>emotionally. She's obsessed with a personal desire for 
>revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames 
>for a radiation-damaged child born her.

Everybody that makes real change in this world is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. That seems to be the way the world we live in works. All the normal people are busy raising their normal children and suffering through all the same conflicts as each other.

It wasn't until I saw Brin's Postman movie that I realized that it isn't just these leaders, it is the way people work with them that makes a difference. If the guy hadn't had an idea they wanted implamented, he would have starved in the woods. They wanted mail delivery, so they encouraged him to make it happen.

In a similar way, she wanted revolution, and bit by bit the people that could make it happen as a win-win crawled out of the woodwork. They shared her desire for change, and that was it.

If she hadn't been in the right place at the right time, it wouldn't have been a story worthy of Heinlein's time. Instead, maybe she would have just been an idea that crossed his mind in the shower one day, or something like that, if anything.

Tian Harter

--
http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will 
clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.

>Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM
>turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to
>land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12,
>1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies,
>still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
>memorized as children in Grammar School.

Considering that he personally started the slave trade, this ought to be a day of mourning.

>Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing
>of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement
>of English-speaking colonists in what was "the New World." That was
>another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National
>Holiday.

Do we know the date the lost Roanoke group landed? I've heard one of their log books was recovered.


>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a
>>working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current
>>interest in how limited government economy might work.

>"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?

It worked in Iceland for 350 years. Friedman discusses this in "The Machinery of Freedom." I have a hunch that most of these ideas were not Heinlein's own but were suggested by Robert LeFevre (Prof).


>>Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too
>>minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think
>>California culture is based on the idea "lets run away as soon as
>>somebody says 'government'."

>Interesting, my observation has been more like, "if there's not a
>government agency to regulate that, why don't we form one, and our
>relatives can work in it".
>
>Really CA govn't is annoying to someone from another state.
>
>Its not surprising the Libertarian party was formed here.

Sorry, that was in Colorado.

But you're sure right about the over-regulation here. California's urban areas are so infested with socialists they might as well be on the east coast. Our rural areas are saner, but don't have the votes to split the state.

But I sure wish we could deport Hanoi Jane and her ilk to New York.


David Silver wrote:
>Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM 
>turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to 
>land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12, 
>1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies, 
>still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
>memorized as children in Grammar School.

I would never have thought of Heinlein as a member of the "500 years of resistance" crowd. At least attacking the moon, they really were going to an uninhabited world. At least I think it's uninhabited.

>Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing
>of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement
>of English-speaking colonists in what was "the New World." That was 
>another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National 
>Holiday.

Thank you. All I knew about was the 1607 part. Although what "high mountains and limited fertility" have to do with Virginia is beyond me. When I think of Virginia, I think of roads that have been used for a thousand years to trade tobacco that are now superhighways.

Tian Harter

--
http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will 
clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.

"dont be fuelish">Tian Harter
>--
>http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
>Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
>clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.

It was me...I hit the counter! :)

The Number Of The Beast!

Elizabeth/TreetopAngel

(the things I will do for entertainment)


TreetopAngel wrote:
>
>"dont be fuelish">Tian Harter
>>--
>>http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
>>Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
>>clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.
>
>It was me...I  hit the counter!  :)
>
>The Number Of The Beast!
>
>Elizabeth/TreetopAngel
>(the things I will do for entertainment)

I have updated my sig for your entertainment.

Tian Harter

--
http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
TreetopAngel, AKA Elizabeth, is TheBeast.

"Simon Jester" wrote:
>As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
>"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
>a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
>
>There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement:
>"Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do."
>
>Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small
>(1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.
>
>Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual.
>Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is "simply an
>old murderer". Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational
>Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this
>a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?

I don't regard Prof (or LeFevre) as a dubious source at all. And I see Prof's statement as a universal truth, one of the cardinal axioms of libertarianism.

And from there, one quickly realizes that governments are not sources of legitimacy at all: they are merely organizations whose members use force, and claim a monopoly on force, and which the well-connected and the politically skillful can use as a means of bullying other people. And in any given set of circumstances, using the government to compel someone is morally exactly the same as doing the same bullying yourself (it is just a means of doing so). If I have injured you and you are entitled to use the courts to collect damages, you would be equally justified (but probably less safe because of public opinion) to just collect the payment yourself. Conversely, if I have not done anything to justify you forcing a payment from me, then lobbying for a tax is just as wrong as robbing me yourself.

This view does not necessarily deny the concept in "Starship Troopers" that each of us owes something to his society. But it does mean that that obligation is "between you and God" and not enforceable, since government and society are both abstract entities, and only individuals exist for the purpose of moral law.

In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as "Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the US as it appears in "Coventry". But there would also be substantial ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.


---------- Mac wrote:
[snip]

>Knott doesn't particularly care whom she injures in her thirst
>for revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered
>into the conspiracy with her, really aren't human to her -- as
>she's worried about is whether Manuel's 'friend,' the sentient
>computer, can feel pain. Assured he cannot, she's content to blow
>the central complex containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To
>hell with how many 'finks' for authority she kills, disrupting
>Authority is what counts. Give this woman a bomb to strap to her
>chest, and she'd walk into a wedding if it would cause sufficient
>damage to Authority.  She's a classic terrorist, safe as
>fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent
>bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and
>her answer to you would be the pun on her name, "Why not."

I fail to see how this is an unlikable feature of Wyo's personality.

I see where we will use the word "terrorist" to condemn without bothering to examine from now on. Terrorism is not what some think it is. A Tomahawk missile is terrorism in its most pristine form. So is an F-22. So is a 155mm Howitzer. Given just a few circumstances, you could be a terrorist too.

In the story of her tragic pregnancy, Heinlein has merely expressed his view of authority. People are patently inadequate at deciding issues for other human beings. The pilot, as authority, is disinterested in anything much beyond procedure. Procedure is how the PRC remains in power. Procedure is how the the US Government collects over $2 Trillion a year from families forced to raise their children by proxy in order to pay it. Procedure is the bane of mankind--but it is the root of authority--even the most benign authority. Heinlein had his nose rubbed in it enough to hate it.

It is abysmally shallow, if understandable, to condemn terrorism qua terrorism. There is no basis for equating Wyo to someone who would willingly blow up grandmas and children at a Passover feast. This is a viewpoint of someone raised in an extremely maternal and protective society--which tends to make all acts of violence equally reprehensible--despite mitigation and motivation. This makes Israeli's equal to the Hammas. An opinion all too common these days.

Perhaps we want to live among sheep. Perhaps we only find sheep likeable. Wyo, being violent, makes her "not a sheep" and so, sadly, she is equal to a member of Hezbollah in sheep's eyes.

Bah. Her ability to shoot a soldier in the back raises her quite high in my estimation. If I saw her cut the throat of an unsuspecting guard, the blood over her clothes would make her more admirably human to me than a chest full of Nobel Peace Prizes. My Dad blew the living guts out of two German soldiers who didn't realize he had survived the hundred yard dash to their position. He was a terrorist and I am proud of him because of it.

Violence can be differentiated. Killing unarmed pilots on an airbus and crashing that plane full of Soccer Mom's and Accountants into a Tower filled with Secretaries and Accountants is cowardly and insane. The people killed were a threat to no one, and not part of any authority repressing anyone. Taking suicide as insurance against defeat is also cowardly and insane. Only people who have always had a wealth of choices in their lives would think of a suicide bomber as anything but a yellow bellied, lily livered coward.

Cowardice and insanity are what make "terrorism" unacceptable.

I cannot imagine Wyo allowing babies or grandmas to be killed, even in her most savage blood lust. She would, instead, lay herself over a grenade about to blow up a pre-school.

The importance of this distinction is the difference that would make a conviction or an acquittal at Nuremberg.

>***********   **********
>Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn't simply a romantic figure.
>Forget the  happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite
>manners, He's not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer.
>Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: "in my
>younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to
>something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of
>which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you're
>talking about."
>In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who
>pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna  at enormous
>cost? Who knows the "Istanbul twist"?  Who first defines the
>revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle
>of "terrorism?"
>REPLY:
>Yes, I am having some trouble with this.
>Some.
>There is no indication that the Professor was an indiscriminate
>terrorist bombing women and children.
>Is he a murderer?
>Yes;  here in Luna.  And certainly against Authority.
>Before that?
>I don't know.

Savagery qua savagery doesn't give me pause. Assassination is a valid act--even a Christian act; it can save countless lives. Those among us with dirty hands may deserve general condemnation, but they might also deserve our praise. Dirty hands by themselves do not condemn.

De la Paz is the ultimate romantic figure. The fact that we don't trust he always threw bombs at those deserving it, shows more about our own faults than his.

---

Art


"dont be fuelish"
>Thank you. All I knew about was the 1607 part. Although what "high
>mountains and limited fertility" have to do with Virginia is beyond
>me. When I think of Virginia, I think of roads that have been used for
>a thousand years to trade tobacco that are now superhighways.

A thousand years of tobacco trade? I may start smoking again just to celebrate. Which tribes traded which brands?

NW


"dont be fuelish"
>TreetopAngel wrote:
>
>>
>>"dont be fuelish">Tian Harter
>>>--
>>>http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
>>>Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
>>>clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.
>>
>>It was me...I  hit the counter!  :)
>>
>>The Number Of The Beast!
>>
>>Elizabeth/TreetopAngel
>>(the things I will do for entertainment)
>
>I have updated my sig for your entertainment.
>
>Tian Harter
>--
>http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
>TreetopAngel, AKA Elizabeth, is TheBeast.

Thanks, I think! :)

Actually I just got lucky, happened to read your post and hit the link at the right time. I wonder how 665 and 667 feel right now...

Elizabeth, The Beast

(hubby likes that sig and agrees wholeheartedly)


TreetopAngel wrote:
>
>"Simon Jester" says:
>
>>TreetopAngel wrote:
>>...
>>>My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>>>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>>>grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory
>>>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by
>>vigilantes,
>>>that it makes me and mine "bad people."
>>...
>>
>>Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents,
>>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>>
>>Simon
>>
>But, I only know about my nefarious Grandparents and their generation.
...

Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or despite it?

Simon


"Simon Jester":
>TreetopAngel wrote:
>>
>>"Simon Jester" says:
>>
>>>TreetopAngel wrote:
>>>...
>>>>My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>>>>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>>>>grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory
>>>>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes,
>>>>that it makes me and mine "bad people."
>>>...
>>>
>>>Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents,
>>>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>>>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>>>
>>>Simon
>>>
>>But, I only know about my nefarious Grandparents and their generation.
>...
>
>Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
>despite it?
>
>Simon
>
>

I never said I thought well of the horse thief, he deserved what he got, which was a long walk with a short rope. My concern is that, just because my ancestors were criminal or otherwise outcasts from society, does not mean that I am. I am NOT my ancestors, heck I am not even my parents. What they (all my ancestors) have done with their lives has no bearing on how I live my life.

Although, I do know the punishment for stealing horses and the rationale behind it at the time. Hence, I don't steal horses, I don't like the consequences if caught. I don't break the law, not because I am so obviously moral and upright, but I don't feel like dealing with the consequences. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Good Advice.

I see the same thing with Mannie, just because his ancestors were criminals, it does not make him a criminal too. Mannie is not a criminal in my eyes as he does nothing against the rules. Yes, he cheats Authority, but Authority has made it easy for him and Mannie is only doing what is normal in his society. Everybody thinks of ways to cheat Authority. In Luna there are no rules, only courtesies. Discourteous people don't last long and Lunar society never misses them.

If Mannie tried the same things on Earth, yes, he would be punished if caught. Difference is...there are rules and laws on Earth. But Mannie is a very courteous person, only finds ways to buck authority figures, same as every other human on this planet. He doesn't kill, at least not until the revolution starts and Authority pushes. I skipped classes while a juvenile, does that put me in the same class of criminal as maternal great uncle? I was breaking truancy laws. I lived with current spouse without benefit of marriage, does this equal social outcast, same as paternal grandfather?

Small rebellions against Authority, Mannie never hurt anybody, until they began hurting him and his family and his fellow Loonies. It is the same with me, roll up parking ticket and throw it away, but don't hurt my family or it will be regretted.

Elizabeth


TreetopAngel wrote:
>
>"Simon Jester":
...
>>Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
>>despite it?
>>
>>Simon
>>
>>
>I never said I thought well of the horse thief, he deserved what he got,
>which was a long walk with a short rope.  My concern is that, just because
>my ancestors were criminal or otherwise outcasts from  society, does not
>mean that I am.  I am NOT my ancestors, heck I am not even my parents. What
>they (all my ancestors) have done with their lives has no bearing on how I
>live my life.
>
...

I agree wholeheartedly; some of my (more distant) ancestors almost certainly did things that would merit capital punishment in any civilised society.

My criticism of Mannie was not that he was descended from criminals (he could hardly help that), but that he was *proud* of their criminality.

Simon


Nuclear Waste wrote:
>
>"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in message
>news:1018349671.19585.0@eurus.uk.clara.net...
...
>>Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury
grandparents,
>>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>
>Sort of like Americans being proud of criminal ancestors who revolted
>against their rightful English government for insufficient reasons?
>

Absolutely! Mannie would fit in quite well among that bunch of foaming-mouthed radicals, class-traitor aristocrats, ex-convicts, turncoat soldiers &c.

;-)

Simon


John David Galt wrote:
>"Simon Jester" wrote:
>
>>As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
>>"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
>>a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
>>
>>There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement:
>>"Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do."
>>
>>Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small
>>(1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.
>>
>>Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual.
>>Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is "simply an
>>old murderer". Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational
>>Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this
>>a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?
>>
>
>I don't regard Prof (or LeFevre) as a dubious source at all.  And I see
>Prof's statement as a universal truth, one of the cardinal axioms of
>libertarianism.
>

But is "libertarianism" any different from the Jeffersonian democracy as Jefferson propounded it. And can it exist in anything other than the idealized agrarian dream, er, society Jefferson hoped would be created? Can it be tolerated to exist in the more heavily-populated urban societies we have today?

And if not, what's the 'solution,' if any exists? Or is "libertarianism" anything different in quality of thought from the ivory tower non-starting dreams of any sterile overly-intellectualized academe?

>And from there, one quickly realizes that governments are not sources of
>legitimacy at all: 

Only if you reject the notion of a quasi-tacit adoption of the compact that exists as you find it or as is created and daily renewed around you. You even get to bitch about it -- free speech is part of the compact you've found [until Ashcroft figures out a way to get around it], limited to no incitement of sedition coupled with the old clear and present imminent danger test; but if you fail to act, fail to start that revolution every generation that Jefferson thought would occur, then the "quasi" part of quasi-tacit takes over, today.

>they are merely organizations whose members use force,
>and claim a monopoly on force, and which the well-connected and the
>politically skillful can use as a means of bullying other people. 

Nuthin' there new. Ask the Stone Gang that Mannie's forebears and Slim belong to, and Hilda later marries into. They didn't consider themselves a "gubmint," did they, do you suppose? Let's go look someplace for the sort of "ungoverned places" you below say are postulated by various writers. How 'bout the Oakwood community in Venice, California, next door to where I now live, after dark, when the LAPD's Pacific Division is busy 'crushing crime' elsewhere? Do the Shoreline Crips and 'V-13' (or whomever their successors are -- I'm a little out of touch with current intelligence by CRASH -- most of my police officer buddies are retired) who emerge whenever the Black & Whites or OD Tac units aren't around to contest for control of the streets and alleys consider themselves governments? Do you consider them governments?

Why not? They're no different than the Stone Gang postulated in TMiaHM, but just as the Stong Gang they "claim a monopoly on force," you'd be amazed at how "politically well-connected" they are, and they certainly do bully other people (especially those who presume to try to stop their selling drugs). They assassinated one community 'activist' who tried just last year. Cops still ain't put away who killed him.

I suppose the only difference between them and the black-and-white-gang that patrols in radio cars is their leaders aren't elected by potentially all the enfranchised community every two years as is Ruth Galanter, the lame-duck (thank God, at last!) councilwoman for that Los Angeles City Council District.

What's the difference between Authority in the postulated libertarian paradise of TMiaHM and the Los Angeles City Council (weak Major system, here), Mr. "Galt"?

I'll tell you: the Authority exercised no legislative powers on behalf of its unfranchised constituency -- the "non-citizen" populace of Luna. "Non-citizen" advisedly, because, it appears as to those no longer convicts (assuming what is reasonable, that the franchise could be restored once a term was served), most had derived citizenship from one or another F.N. member state.

Under the quasi-tacit acceptance of the compact here in Los Angeles County, unless you plan to lead a successful revolution -- maybe a succession from Los Angeles, they're popular lately, if you care to avoid the kind and occasionally violent attentions of the "force" -- your City Council occasionally tries to pass laws to keep the cockroaches belonging to the Crips and V-13 off the streets, so long as Galanter lets the LAPD enforce those laws in her district.

>And in
>any given set of circumstances, using the government to compel someone is
>morally exactly the same as doing the same bullying yourself (it is just a
>means of doing so). 

So say you (or LeFevre). If you don't mind, I'll let the LAPD confront the Crips and V-13. They're, all three of them, a lot better armed and much younger than I am, today. Of course, when I did live in Venice, once upon a time nearly a generation ago, there was that time I held some folk under a shotgun until the LAPD did arrive ... and they were pretty damned quick once the dispatcher understood what my wife on the phone was saying. ["Shots fired. See the man with the shotgun on the roof of the garage overlooking the alley north of Navy Street between Speedway and Pacific . . . " First came the helicopter, then lots of Black & Whites, even some Blue & Whites from Santa Monica.]. I'd rather have sanctioned and trained bullies around wearing dark navy blue uniforms than fight set duels if you don't mind, the contrary situation really scares the hell out of my wife and daughter -- to say nothing of me. Do you really think law enforcement is "bullying" in all cases? Or really in any case?

>If I have injured you and you are entitled to use the
>courts to collect damages, you would be equally justified (but probably
>less safe because of public opinion) to just collect the payment yourself.

Really? Just walk up to you and say: "lemme have my damages," huh? We ain't got any legally-sanctioned bullies to protect me from you around, now, do we? Just like a Shoreline Crip, unless you feels in a Santy Claus mood, you whips out your piece [probably the cheaply made one that L. Neil has whatizname, the kid, in the Prometheus Award novel, invent] and blows me away, right? So what's my wiser course of action: do I lay in wait and shoot you in the back first, then collect from your bank? "Lady, I'm here to make a withdrawal on Mr. Galt's account for my damages. Just fill the bag I'm giving you until I tell you to stop, and nobody will get hurt. I blew his ass away yesterday, so no one will complain, except maybe his wife and children and homeboys; and I'll blow their ass away too, if I have to. Oh, and don't touch that button under the counter, please. Thanks."

Forgive me, or not, as you please, but I resist having to go to this trouble to collect my reasonble damages. Somehow I also think it might be more than merely "less safe because of public opinion." Bankers usually get nasty about trying to make withdrawals on other folks' accounts.

Even the barbarian Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tribes (including medieval Iceland, for that matter) had a "government," usually tribal or clan elders and leaders, that imposed the order you (or Mr. LeFevre) think would flow necessarily in this idealized 'libertarian' society.

>Conversely, if I have not done anything to justify you forcing a payment
>from me, then lobbying for a tax is just as wrong as robbing me yourself.
>

Who decides what is "justify"? You? Or the rest of us? Custom? Or would you rather it be done by force ad hoc? "Wahl, we got us a situation heah . . . them canals is overflowing with sewage that's runnin' inta the crik 'cause none of you libertarians livin' by 'em have put in plumbing or sewage tanks like we axed ya ta, clams is a-dying, peeple is a-gettin' sick, and fish don't swim up or down in Ballona Crik no more -- they jest floats on the top, and it's pizenin' tha fishin' in tha bay. We gotta hire the barge and sum mules from Santy Monica to dredge the crap out. Everyone pony up $1,000 for the kitty, or I, 'Black David,' will send my Crip minions over to yo' houses, one at a time, and hit you on the head, steal 'n burn all yo' stuff, and pleasure yo' wif and daughters until you do pony it up."

[Well, if you don't pay taxes to me for these ad hoc cops, don't you think I'll pay them by giving them the opportunity for loot and rapine just like in the 'good ol' days'?]

The notion that people can get by peacefully without an established government to regulate matters of health and safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.

>This view does not necessarily deny the concept in "Starship Troopers"
>that each of us owes something to his society.  But it does mean that that
>obligation is "between you and God" and not enforceable, since government
>and society are both abstract entities, and only individuals exist for the
>purpose of moral law.
>

What does "God" have to do with it? His Kingdom isn't of this world. What the hell does he care about it? Or is this simply a handy excuse to deny any responsibility whatever? Sound specious to me, John David. Do you have any bridges to sell me, too?

>In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
>privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
>"Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the
>US as it appears in "Coventry".  But there would also be substantial
>ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The
>Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
>

All 'nice' thought experiments fit for folk in ivory towers smoking the same skinny cigarettes they smoke in the Pentagon when they come up with the *real* REMF lunacies. Why do you suppose, in pre-Revolution Luna, Mimi learned all those tricks Mannie doesn't know about, and probably doesn't even want to think about? Didn't the "Golden Rule" habitat wind up with "cheese" in its ventilation system? 'Tisn't a mistake Heinlein called the experimental population of the society in TMiaHM one of 'loonies' and 'lunatics.' The problem with the academic mind is it frequently fails to recognize ironic humor and below-the-radar satire.

But if you'd like to make your case a little more realistically, I'll read it. :-)

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

"Simon Jester" >TreetopAngel wrote:
>>
>>"Simon Jester":
>...
>>>Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
>>>despite it?
>>>
>>>Simon
>>>
>>>
>>I never said I thought well of the horse thief, he deserved what he got,
>>which was a long walk with a short rope.  My concern is that, just because
>>my ancestors were criminal or otherwise outcasts from  society, does not
>>mean that I am.  I am NOT my ancestors, heck I am not even my parents. What
>>they (all my ancestors) have done with their lives has no bearing on how I
>>live my life.
>>
>...
>
>I agree wholeheartedly; some of my (more distant) ancestors almost certainly
>did things that would merit capital punishment in any civilised society.
>
>My criticism of Mannie was not that he was descended from criminals (he
>could hardly help that), but that he was *proud* of their criminality.
>
>Simon
>

But, what else does Mannie have to be *proud* of, it would be boring to hear over and over about his accomplishments. Even in a society of convicts and their heirs, there tends to be a hierarchy of cons. Not many murderers are sentenced to Penal colonies. Debtors, petty thieves and dissidents, people the government doesn't want to deal with, because of overcrowding in prisons. I guess I would even try to dredge up a *Salem Witch* as an ancestor rather than a pickpocket or somebody who couldn't pay their bills. I may even try to throw a murderer or two in there to try to give the impression that I come from tough stock. It's not to a person's benefit to appear weak in a society of lawbreakers.

Elizabeth


"Simon Jester"
>Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
>despite it?

This ignores the social matrix in which Mannie grew up. It was a prison. Have you read _Sixth Column_? If not, I recommend it. If so, I direct your attention to their opening of the temple in Denver, and a short discussion about a young boy. Odd social circumstances lead to odd social conventions. Also note that Mannie is proud of his multi great ancesstress who was killed for being a witch. All of this while NOT BEING CERTAIN WHO HIS FATHER WAS. See also the quote in notebooks about lizards and dinosaurs, and apply it to prisoners.

NW


On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:19:15 GMT, Pete LaGrange <oldman1961@hotmail.com>wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in message
><r665bucaqd9ge9cp204c61ld8n7m35oarq@4ax.com>Mac wrote:
>
>>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's
>>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>>but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a
>>quarantine period was required on the ground

*****************************

PETE:

>How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in
>space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of
>Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship
>should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame
>lies with them.

******************************

MAC:

The above paragraph you attributed to me may well have been uttered by that well-known provocateur, David Silver, in his original message seeking input and comments.

My contention was that "Authority", if there was enough immigration of convicts, that there should have been a far more appropriate "quaranteen", rather than sitting on the surface for any length of time.

Apparently travel time from low Terran orbit while the ship was loaded with it's "cargo" would have been a couple of days. Now, what would the warning time for a solar flare have been? How long would it take for a solar flare to arrive? One day? Two days? Five days???

If on the order of several days then "Authority" might well have taken other steps...

---Mac


Mac wrote:
>Knott is a severely damaged piece of goods, mentally and 
>emotionally. She's obsessed with a personal desire for 
>revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames 
>for a radiation-damaged child born her.

Everybody that makes real change in this world is a square
peg trying to fit into a round hole. That seems to be the
way the world we live in works. All the normal people are
busy raising their normal children and suffering through
all the same conflicts as each other.

It wasn't until I saw Brin's Postman movie 
   (( the book is better!! ))
that I realized that it isn't just these leaders, it is the way
people work with them that makes a difference. If the guy hadn't
had an idea they wanted implamented, he would have starved in the
woods. They wanted mail delivery, so they encouraged him
to make it happen.

In a similar way, she wanted revolution, and bit by bit the
people that could make it happen as a win-win crawled out
of the woodwork. They shared her desire for change, and
that was it.

REPLY:

However, she had nothing but the concept of "revolution" and nothing in a practical manner of doing more than being a pain, nothing more than engaging in the occassional murder. Only when Mannie trusts her enough to let her in on a secret does she begin to consider other possibilities, especially when confronted with the dire promises of the future.

*************

Tian Harter


Mac wrote:
>Mac wrote:
((Did I miss something? I thought it was Dont be fuelish...)

>It wasn't until I saw Brin's Postman movie 
>(( the book is better!! ))
>that I realized that it isn't just these leaders, it is the way
>people work with them that makes a difference. If the guy hadn't
>had an idea they wanted implamented, he would have starved 
>in the woods. They wanted mail delivery, so they encouraged 
>him to make it happen.
>
>In a similar way, she wanted revolution, and bit by bit the
>people that could make it happen as a win-win crawled out
>of the woodwork. They shared her desire for change, and
>that was it.
>REPLY:
>However, she had nothing but the concept of "revolution" and
>nothing in a practical manner of doing more than being a pain,
>nothing more than engaging in the occassional murder.   Only when
>Mannie trusts her enough to let her in on a secret does she begin
>to consider other possibilities, especially when confronted with
>the dire promises of the future.

Yeah, but she had the frontal radar housings, and that was enough to get him interested in making her happy. What more do we need?

Tian Harter

--
http://tian.greens.org/
Last night at the Santa Clara County Green Party
meeting, www.WarnerBloomberg.org and www.votejo.org
both showed up, as well as Michael Borenstein from the
El Dorado County Green Party. More dignitaries than usual.

dont be fuelish wrote:
>David Silver wrote:
>
[snip]
>>The notion that people can get by peacefully without an 
>>established government to regulate matters of health and 
>>safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and 
>>unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.
>>
>
>Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can't buy
>a seat in? I've never managed to get any face time with my 
>assembly member, and it isn't because I never participated
>in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
>in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
>meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
>meeting him. 
>

You infiltrate the establishment, Tian. You form a "non-political" organization, meaning non-partisan, with lots of votes on a single issue. I once had fifteen minutes face time with Cranston. He'd decided to go anti-Vietnam War, but had decided he'd be damned if he'd be labeled anti-veteran. It took some doing, first we organized Vet fraternity chapters at 17 southern California colleges, and somebody knew the right assistant working for him, but he fixed the local VA for us, really.

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:
>dont be fuelish wrote:
>
>>David Silver wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>>The notion that people can get by peacefully without an 
>>>established government to regulate matters of health and 
>>>safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and 
>>>unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can't buy
>>a seat in? I've never managed to get any face time with my 
>>assembly member, and it isn't because I never participated
>>in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
>>in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
>>meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
>>meeting him. 
>>
>
>You infiltrate the establishment, Tian. You form a "non-political" 
>organization, meaning non-partisan, with lots of votes on a single 
>issue. I once had fifteen minutes face time with Cranston. He'd 
>decided to go anti-Vietnam War, but had decided he'd be damned 
>if he'd be labeled anti-veteran. It took some doing, first we organized 
>Vet fraternity chapters at 17 southern California colleges, and 
>somebody knew the right assistant working for him, but he fixed the 
>local VA for us, really.

Maybe it would help if I explain how deeply political I think our problems are, and how deeply political the solutions need to be. First I take a greenback that somebody has given me for one of my stickers, for example the one that John Anderson (the guy that ran as a 3rd Party Presidential Candidate before I started paying much attention to these things) used to pay for one (pulls bill off side of filing cabinet) and point to the GOD on it. Then I say "see that god in green ink on the greenback? Green Party Member."

One time I pulled that routine on a woman that didn't get it, so I explained "If someone agrees with me, that's a 'political position'." "If someone disagrees with me, that's a 'political position'."

I gave that explination to a guy one time down at Shoreline Park, and he said to me "And if they have no opinion, that's also a political position."

Usually I don't get into that kind of thing. I just trade a dollar bill for the MEND YOUR FUELISH WAYS sticker, that being what passes for "non-political organizing" in my world. If you see one of them on a machine, you can be assured that it was put there by somebody that paid cash on the barrelhead for it. That is my way of infiltrating the system. I consider the population of people who have noticed them in passing to be a "non-political" organization, although the truth is probably closer to them being a political non-organization.

Tian Harter

--
http://tian.greens.org/
Last night at the Santa Clara County Green Party
meeting, www.WarnerBloomberg.org and www.votejo.org
both showed up, as well as Michael Borenstein from the
El Dorado County Green Party. More dignitaries than usual.

Mac wrote:
>Mac wrote:
((Did I miss something? I thought it was Dont be fuelish...)


>It wasn't until I saw Brin's Postman movie 
>(( the book is better!! ))
>that I realized that it isn't just these leaders, it is the way
>people work with them that makes a difference. If the guy hadn't
>had an idea they wanted implamented, he would have starved 
>in the woods. They wanted mail delivery, so they encouraged 
>him to make it happen.
>
>In a similar way, she wanted revolution, and bit by bit the
>people that could make it happen as a win-win crawled out
>of the woodwork. They shared her desire for change, and
>that was it.
>REPLY:
>However, she had nothing but the concept of "revolution" and
>nothing in a practical manner of doing more than being a pain,
>nothing more than engaging in the occassional murder.   Only when
>Mannie trusts her enough to let her in on a secret does she begin
>to consider other possibilities, especially when confronted with
>the dire promises of the future.

Yeah, but she had the frontal radar housings, and that was enough to get him interested in making her happy. What more do we need?

Tian Harter

--
http://tian.greens.org/
Last night at the Santa Clara County Green Party
meeting, www.WarnerBloomberg.org and www.votejo.org
both showed up, as well as Michael Borenstein from the
El Dorado County Green Party. More dignitaries than usual.

"Mac" <nur99-NoGreenEggs-AND-SpamPlease@spiritone.com>wrote in message news:ku29bu42ovdbc600a0gras3vj72pbqvibl@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:19:15 GMT, Pete LaGrange
><oldman1961@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in message
>><r665bucaqd9ge9cp204c61ld8n7m35oarq@4ax.com>Mac wrote:
>>
>>>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's
>>>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>>>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>>>but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a
>>>quarantine period was required on the ground
>*****************************
>PETE:
>>How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in
>>space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of
>>Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship
>>should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame
>>lies with them.
>******************************
>MAC:
>The above paragraph you attributed to me may well have been
>uttered by that well-known provocateur, David Silver, in his
>original message seeking input and comments.
>My contention was that  "Authority", if there was enough
>immigration of convicts, that there should have been a far more
>appropriate "quaranteen", rather than sitting on the surface for
>any length of time.
>Apparently travel time from low Terran orbit while the ship was
>loaded with it's "cargo" would have been a couple of days.
>Now, what would the warning time for a solar flare have been?
>How long would it take for a solar flare to arrive?
>One day?   Two days?    Five days???
>If on the order of several days then "Authority" might well have
>taken other steps...
>---Mac

93,000,000miles/186,300 mps yields roughly 8.32 minutes for the first effects to reach earth's orbit. Detection may or may not have been the entire problem. A flare can last for many hours.

NW


On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:01:02 -0500, "Nuclear Waste" <babybear@2z.net>wrote:
>
>"Mac" <nur99-NoGreenEggs-AND-SpamPlease@spiritone.com>wrote in message
>news:ku29bu42ovdbc600a0gras3vj72pbqvibl@4ax.com...
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:19:15 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>><oldman1961@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in message
>>><r665bucaqd9ge9cp204c61ld8n7m35oarq@4ax.com>Mac wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's
>>>>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>>>>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>>>>but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a
>>>>quarantine period was required on the ground
>>*****************************
>>PETE:
>>>How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in
>>>space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of
>>>Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship
>>>should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame
>>>lies with them.
>>******************************
>>MAC:
>>The above paragraph you attributed to me may well have been
>>uttered by that well-known provocateur, David Silver, in his
>>original message seeking input and comments.
>>My contention was that  "Authority", if there was enough
>>immigration of convicts, that there should have been a far more
>>appropriate "quaranteen", rather than sitting on the surface for
>>any length of time.
>>Apparently travel time from low Terran orbit while the ship was
>>loaded with it's "cargo" would have been a couple of days.
>>Now, what would the warning time for a solar flare have been?
>>How long would it take for a solar flare to arrive?
>>One day?   Two days?    Five days???
>>If on the order of several days then "Authority" might well have
>>taken other steps...
>>---Mac
>
>93,000,000miles/186,300 mps yields roughly 8.32 minutes for the first
>effects to reach earth's orbit.  Detection may or may not have been the
>entire problem.  A flare can last for many hours.
>NW

***************************

Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about 500 mps. So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to reach our vicinity. Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light? Or some fraction thereof?

---Mac


"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in message news:1018427671.17838.1@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
>Nuclear Waste wrote:
>>
>>"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in message
>>news:1018349671.19585.0@eurus.uk.clara.net...
>...
>>>Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury
>grandparents,
>>>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>>>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>>
>>Sort of like Americans being proud of criminal ancestors who revolted
>>against their rightful English government for insufficient reasons?
>>
>
>Absolutely! Mannie would fit in quite well among that bunch of
>foaming-mouthed radicals, class-traitor aristocrats, ex-convicts, turncoat
>soldiers &c.
>;-)

You forgot religious nuts and monopolists.

NW


John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>wrote in news:3CB32E02.B3CAD3D8@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us:
>
>Sorry, that was in Colorado.
>

oops.

[djinn]


John David Galt wrote:
>
>>Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM
>>turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to
>>land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12,
>>1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies,
>>still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
>>memorized as children in Grammar School.
>
>Considering that he personally started the slave trade, this ought to be
>a day of mourning.

"The slave trade"? I'm confused.

He did bring Indians back from the Western Hemisphere (as slaves, IIRC). That is not what people have in mind when they refer to the slave trade, in connection with the New World. Usually they mean transporting African slaves (normally purchased from Africans, BTW) from Africa to the Americas or the Caribbean.

I don't recall him bringing any African slaves to the New World. Perhaps I missed that, or learned that and forgot it. I certainly don't know everything there is to know about Columbus. -Eric S.

-- 
E-mail privacy:  http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/E_Privacy.shtml (Perhaps a bit
over-cautious, she is.  Perhaps.)

dont be fuelish wrote:
[snips]

>Anecdotally speaking, I have lots of evedence that tobacco was an imporntant
>trade good in this country long before GIs used cigarettes for money. For
>example, I went to a 4th of July Celebration on Capitol Mall in DC one time,
>and there was an old Native American woman who told some stories and
>played a drum for us. At one point she explained that it was traditional to
>give
>the drummer tobacco to show respect and appreciation for their work.
>
>Come to think of it, I remember lots of smoking in TMIAHM, but no growing
>of tobacco. Does that make sense?

Caught you! Trying to get this back on topic, eh?

Well, you little plan won't work. It won't work, I tell you!

Smoking in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere is OK (aside from the health risks, including things like setting your mattress on fire if you drowse); in a low-pressure oxygen-only atmosphere it's probably a Bad Thing.

Was there nitrogen in the mix in Luna? -Eric

-- 
E-mail privacy:  http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/E_Privacy.shtml (Perhaps a bit
over-cautious, she is.  Perhaps.)

Simon Jester wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>...
>>I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational
>>anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at
>>http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
>...
>
>As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
>"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
>a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."

There's a similar notion expressed in Damon Knight's "Rule Golden". The dialog went something like this: "Who will build the space ships when there are no governments?" "Men build spaceships. Men will still build spaceships."

And some narration, along the lines of: "It no longer made sense to say that 'England announces this' or 'Japan responds with that'. It made you wonder if it ever did."

Although it took me a long time to make the connection [1] it is a very clear illustration of the notion that government is impossible without the ability to use violence against non-aggressive persons. (Well, people who at that moment are not aggressing. You know what I mean.)

When violence becomes impossible, government becomes impossible. (And unnecessary.)

Of course, this WAS science fiction. -Eric S.

[1] I read it before I worked out the inconsistencies in my political views and discovered I had become a libertarian. I may be wrong, but by gum, I'm consistent!

-- 
[The United States] was at war with [bin Laden].  [The United States] had always
been at war with [bin Laden].  -- "1984" (With slight edits to make it fit the
present situation.  The Cold War made strange bedfellows.)

[The United States] was at war with [the Taliban].  [The United States] had
always been at war with [the Taliban].  -- "1984" (With slight edits to make it
fit the present situation.  Drug wars make strange bedfellows.)

E-mail privacy:  http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/E_Privacy.shtml (Perhaps a bit
over-cautious, she is.  Perhaps.)

dont be fuelish wrote:
>
>David Silver wrote:

[snips]

>I have read that in Japan, if an airplane somebody owns
>falls out of the sky with your beloved on it, the CEO of that
>airline will personally track you down and give you lots of
>money.  The reason that system works is because the guy
>really doesn't want to write that kind of check. He doesn't
>want to write those checks so much that he is willing to
>pay professional people to keep him from doing it.
>
>Here you have to sue for damages. I like their response to
>that situation a lot better. I notice they are trying to try it
>with the WTC famalies. I hope it works.

It's a bad precedent, and I notice it's not the approach they took with the Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidian families. The Weavers sued (and settled out of court). I don't know the status of the Davidians' suit, if any. Apparently the unofficial policy that April day was "let it burn, then prosecute the survivors".

>>The notion that people can get by peacefully without an
>>established government to regulate matters of health and
>>safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and
>>unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.

Likewise. But just because anarchism seems unworkable doesn't mean that totalitarianism is the ideal. Or the two varieties of totalitarianism-Lite (tm) hawked by the Ds and Rs. (I can't tell Pepsi from Coke, either.)

>Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can't buy
>a seat in? I've never managed to get any face time with my
>assembly member, and it isn't because I never participated
>in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
>in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
>meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
>meeting him.

It's tough for us "third-party" types. But getting better lately.

Still, I'm considering switching to (or supplementing partisan activity with) a market-based approach: bet the rank and file that their favorite party won't follow through. It'll either open their eyes or empty their pockets. (Or both.) Either way, a win for the White Hats.

If I can find 1000 Republicans who are too proud or too stupid to admit the obvious, I'll never have to work again. Worst case scenario: I have to come up with a million dollars in a hurry, because the Republicans actually DID reduce government. I'd endure the shame of personal bankruptcy to see that happen. (Figure the odds.) -Eric

-- 
E-mail privacy:  http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/E_Privacy.shtml (Perhaps a bit
over-cautious, she is.  Perhaps.)

Simon Jester wrote:
>The Loonie warnings for the Thames shot stated that the impact would be
>"north of Dover Straits opposite London Estuary". Looking at the map of
>England in my atlas, this makes an impact at roughly 1.5 degrees East by
>51.5 degrees North seem most probable.
>
>The depth of the water at this point is indicated no more precisely than
>between 0 and 50m. It is a long way from any deeper water, so probably not
>much more than 20m.
>
>The closest town to the impact would be Margate, on the Kent coast, which
>would be roughly 15km away. (Central London would be roughly 110km away, as
>the pig flies.) The height of the waves at Margate would therefore be circa
>7cm high (approx 3 inches), given a 2 kt impact.
>
>OTOH, the Loonies warn that the impact "would cause disturbances far up
>Thames".

From "Moon": "A maximum of instructive shrecklichkeit with minimum loss of life. None, if possible"--was how Prof summed up doctrine for Operation Hard Rock and was way Mike and I carried it out. Idea was to hit earthworms so hard would convince them--while hitting so gently as not to hurt.

If the Loonies exaggerated the damage in the warning, no huhu. Diminishes credibility only slightly. Big rocks falling from sky scary even if water only gets ankle-high on shore. This time. -Eric


"Mac"
>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>500 mps.  So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>reach our vicinity.
>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>Or some fraction thereof?
>---Mac

Since the flare itself is a product of a magnetic affect it does not travel at anywhere near C, but then again, the flare (hopefully) does not reach us. There are, as you noted, particles that run behind the front of the wave. Since a flare radiates clear acccross the EM spectrum, I would guess there are as many answers to your question as there are types of radiation and particles emitted. Why do you always ask simple question that require a doctoral thesis to answer?

NW


"Eric S. Harris"
>If I can find 1000 Republicans who are too proud or too stupid to admit the
>obvious, I'll never have to work again.  Worst case scenario: I have to come up
>with a million dollars in a hurry, because the Republicans actually DID reduce
>government.  I'd endure the shame of personal bankruptcy to see that happen.
>(Figure the odds.)   -Eric

Why look for 1000 Republicans when 1000 Democrats would be much easier to find, and quite a bit easier to seperate from their money?

NW


Nuclear Waste wrote:
>"Mac"
>>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>>500 mps.  So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>>reach our vicinity.
>>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>>Or some fraction thereof?
>>---Mac
>
>Since the flare itself is a product of a magnetic affect it does not travel
>at anywhere near C, but then again, the flare (hopefully) does not reach
>us. There are, as you noted, particles that run behind the front of the wave.
>Since a flare radiates clear acccross the EM spectrum, I would guess there
>are as many answers to your question as there are types of radiation and
>particles emitted.  Why do you always ask simple question that require a
>doctoral thesis to answer?

Seems to me that all of the stuff that is part of the EM spectrum goes at near the speed of light. I think the slower stuff is much less likely to escape the sun's gravitational pull.

Tian Harter

--
http://tian.greens.org/
Last night I saw Y Tu Mama Tambien, a Mexican movie
with subtitles that explained the title was "And your 
mother to". I have rarely seen a randier movie that
talked about Seattle and the election of Vicente Fox.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 02:40:53 -0700, Mac <nur99-NoGreenEggs-AND-SpamPlease@spiritone.com>wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:01:02 -0500, "Nuclear Waste"
><babybear@2z.net>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mac" <nur99-NoGreenEggs-AND-SpamPlease@spiritone.com>wrote in message
>>news:ku29bu42ovdbc600a0gras3vj72pbqvibl@4ax.com...
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:19:15 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>>><oldman1961@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in message
>>>><r665bucaqd9ge9cp204c61ld8n7m35oarq@4ax.com>Mac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's
>>>>>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>>>>>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>>>>>but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a
>>>>>quarantine period was required on the ground
>>>*****************************
>>>PETE:
>>>>How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in
>>>>space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of
>>>>Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship
>>>>should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame
>>>>lies with them.
>>>******************************
>>>MAC:
>>>The above paragraph you attributed to me may well have been
>>>uttered by that well-known provocateur, David Silver, in his
>>>original message seeking input and comments.
>>>My contention was that  "Authority", if there was enough
>>>immigration of convicts, that there should have been a far more
>>>appropriate "quaranteen", rather than sitting on the surface for
>>>any length of time.
>>>Apparently travel time from low Terran orbit while the ship was
>>>loaded with it's "cargo" would have been a couple of days.
>>>Now, what would the warning time for a solar flare have been?
>>>How long would it take for a solar flare to arrive?
>>>One day?   Two days?    Five days???
>>>If on the order of several days then "Authority" might well have
>>>taken other steps...
>>>---Mac
>>
>>93,000,000miles/186,300 mps yields roughly 8.32 minutes for the first
>>effects to reach earth's orbit.  Detection may or may not have been the
>>entire problem.  A flare can last for many hours.
>>NW
>***************************
>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>500 mps.  So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>reach our vicinity.
>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>Or some fraction thereof?
>---Mac
>

"Solar flare: The Sun frequently spews plumes of energy that are more energetic than the constant solar wind. These solar flares contain gamma rays and X-rays, plus energized particles (protons and electrons). Energy can be equal to a billion megatons of TNT is released in a matter of minutes. Flare activity picks up as sunspots increase.

The magnetic explosion during a solar flare accelerates electrons and atomic nuclei to significant fractions of the speed of light. Unlike much slower atomic particles in the solar wind, which travel straight out from the Sun, the energetic particles from a flare follow curved lines of the Sun's interplanetary magnetic field. The particles slant in toward Earth from the west at about 45 degrees to the direction of the Sun."

(ref. http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_weather_glossary.html )

Steve

eegle1@exis.net
http://afhpics.mnsdesigns.com/
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:08:31 -0500, "Nuclear Waste" <babybear@2z.net>wrote:
>
>"Mac"
>>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>>500 mps.  So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>>reach our vicinity.
>>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>>Or some fraction thereof?
>>---Mac
********************
>Since the flare itself is a product of a magnetic affect it does not travel
>at anywhere near C, but then again, the flare (hopefully) does not reach us.
>There are, as you noted, particles that run behind the front of the wave.
>Since a flare radiates clear acccross the EM spectrum, I would guess there
>are as many answers to your question as there are types of radiation and
>particles emitted.  Why do you always ask simple question that require a
>doctoral thesis to answer?
>NW
*******************

What can I say?

It's a "gift" !!

---Mac


"dont be fuelish" <rahfan147@aol.com.boinks>wrote in message news:20020411133910.19413.00002664@mb-fw.aol.com...
>Nuclear Waste wrote:
>
>>"Mac"
>>>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>>>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>>>500 mps.  So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>>>reach our vicinity.
>>>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>>>Or some fraction thereof?
>>>---Mac
>>
>>Since the flare itself is a product of a magnetic affect it does not travel
>>at anywhere near C, but then again, the flare (hopefully) does not reach
>>us. There are, as you noted, particles that run behind the front of the wave.
>>Since a flare radiates clear acccross the EM spectrum, I would guess there
>>are as many answers to your question as there are types of radiation and
>>particles emitted.  Why do you always ask simple question that require a
>>doctoral thesis to answer?
>
>Seems to me that all of the stuff that is part of the EM spectrum goes
>at near the speed of light. I think the slower stuff is much less likely
>to escape the sun's gravitational pull.

I don't remember what the escape velocity for Sol is, but she is NOT that close to her event horizon.

NW


In article <3cb5fc28@news.2z.net>, Nuclear Waste <babybear@2z.net>wrote:
>
>"James Nicoll" <jdnicoll@panix.com>wrote in message
>news:a94rnt$6cf$1@panix2.panix.com...
>>In article <3cb5e33d@news.2z.net>, Nuclear Waste <babybear@2z.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Seems to me that all of the stuff that is part of the EM spectrum goes
>>>>at near the speed of light. I think the slower stuff is much less likely
>>>>to escape the sun's gravitational pull.
>>
>>If it is EM radiation, then by definition it will travel at the
>>speed of light in the medium in question. The slower stuff is not
>>massless particles and it travels far slower than light.
>
>This part is from Tian, not me.

Sorry, I trimmed too much.

>>>I don't remember what the escape velocity for Sol is, but she is NOT that
>>>close to her event horizon.
>>
>>618 km/s, roughly, or about 0.002 C. However, stuff like protons
>>don't move at anything like the speed of light, at least not in the solar
>>wind. Charged particles in the solar wind can pass by Earth at anything
>>between 300-800 km/s. So we see the flare at the sun and then up to a week
>>later the charged particle components of the flare which were moving fast
>>enough to escape the Sun (and then some!) cross Earth's orbit.
>
>Thanks for the numbers.  You saved me looking them up  (You should note that
>I never said they moved at or even near C.)
>

Yes, you strongly implied that some components did -not- travel at C, because obviously the sun's gravity won't redshift light all that much.

-- 
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)


Greetings,
   Rather than snip and cut and pause to cite references in the original
post, I will deal directly with the subject at hand, to wit, an analysis of
the motivation and character of Manuel's co-conspirators in TMIAHM.
   I have to admit that this is my favorite Heinlein book. I first read it
at the age of 15, my second Heinlein book (first was Starship Troopers).
Thus I am quite fond of the characters, having known them for over twenty
years! This does not mean I cannot see their flaws, however. This makes them
all the more dear to me. I believe one of Heinlein's goals with this book
was to show that revolutions and great historical paradigms were
accomplished, not by storybook heroes, cutting down cherry trees and then
'fessing up, but by real people, ones who erred and blundered up that
tortured and twisted path that leads to understanding and, ultimately,
responsibility.
   That's why, just after Wyoming Knott is introduced, she gives her
firebrand speech, exhorting and exciting the crowd. It's also why Heinlein
immediately has Manny (the simple man) quietly and concisely pick her
position to pieces. As is often the case in anti-authoritarian movements,
people arrive at the same position (throw the bums out!) by quite different
routes, not all of them necessarily valid. This can work fine in disposing
of power, but it can cause real issues in consolidating it afterwards.
That's why so many revolutions are followed by purges. The American
Revolution seems to be an exception to this rule, but it was exceptional in
many ways.
   To Wyoh's credit, she listens calmly when Manny speaks honestly to her.
She eventually realizes the truth in what he says (backed up by Mike) and
joins in the rational revolution. The inception of her aversion to authority
is not important, its terminus is. People don't always starts out in the
right position, they arrive at it. Wyoh does not stay wedded to an untenable
position, but adapts her views to conform to reality. That is as good a
definition of wisdom as I've ever heard.
   Wyoh is important for another reason. She represents the emotional
revolutionary, the one who screams out "Death to all Tyrants!" and charges
the castle and is the first to die. Unfortunately, the ones who survive are
usually the ones who instigate the post revolutionary bloodbaths but they
are essential to successful revolution. Revolutionaries are always the
underdog and they need a Joan of Arc or William Wallace to keep their hearts
in the fight.
   As for Professor Bernado de La Paz, he is the intellectual revolutionary,
a student of history and philosophy. He loves the give and take of debate
and is quite settled into his beliefs, having argued it through the years in
classroom and taproom alike.
   Students are usually a significant portion of a revolutionary movement;
they are at the point in their lives where they've realized that the world
is filled with injustice and they want to change it...now! This gives
educators a great deal of power in these circumstances, a considerable
weapon. This is demonstrated by the Professor's influence upon Manny, who
would certainly not have gotten mixed up in such silliness if it weren't for
the involvement of his respected teacher (Wyoh's figure notwithstanding!)
   As for his "younger bomb-throwing days", such actions can't be judged
since they are cited completely without context. To automatically condemn
bomb-throwing as a terrorist act is simplistic. All war is bomb-throwing and
nobody has been able to beat America at it. Nonetheless, I don't think of
America as a terrorist state. Most of our bomb-throwing has been justified.
In the case of the Professor (I'm sorry, I just flashed on "Gilligan's
Island" and got myself all confused!) we have to judge him on the
information available. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to see him in
his older bomb-throwing days, throwing rocks at the earth.
 Throwing these much larger and potentially deadlier rocks, we see him take
pains to avoid having to throw them at all. He risks his life and fragile
health to take a dangerous dirt-side trip to seek a diplomatic solution,
even though he knew it was doomed to failure. While there, though, he laid
the groundwork for the eventual peace settlement.
   When the time came to actually bomb earth, he directed that the rocks be
placed in such a manner as to cause maximum drama with minimum loss of life.
While giving a political reason for this move, it's clear that he is not
comfortable with the idea of ordering the casual annihilation of millions of
non-combatants whose only fault was living under the wrong regime. This is
further borne out by the fact that he stayed with that policy even when they
were running out of rocks to throw.
   Another idea to consider might be that he was just bullstuffing to
enhance his reputation. It may have been a self-edited portion of his public
persona; the old-hand revolutionary who's been in the rank-and-file and thus
has earned a legitimate claim in the upper ranks of the new movement. He
certainly was capable of a little prevarication, witness his deception of
Manny as to the real purpose of their mission to earth. He was even capable
of a little self-deception ('That fish smells good. Fish? That pink salmon')
so he may have even believed it. Is that a blight on his character? Perhaps,
but I would say a minor one at best. We are the person we show to the world.
Everybody edits that public profile to a greater or lesser degree. If
something is added, I suppose you must look at motives and results to
determine if such is a major or minor transgression. Prof was essentially a
Romantic at heart and he adequately lived up to his truly romantic persona.
He walked the walk.
   Though Manny was not mentioned in the original posting (remember the
original posting?) I feel that I should at least briefly mention him. I see
him as representing the other essential aspect of a successful revolution,
the minuteman. He is the working stiff who puts in his eight hours a day to
feed his kids and have a barbecue on the weekends. Maybe he remembers when
he was young and full of piss and vinegar, but the time wasn't right for
revolution. So he settled down and went to work and strove towards a perfect
life in an imperfect world. Or he was complacent in his youth, but has
learned that tyranny gets in the way of building a comfortable life
(Whaddaya mean I need a permit to build a barbecue pit?!) Either way, when
the time comes he recognizes which is the right path and puts down the tools
of his trade, kisses the wife and children good-bye and heads off to fight
and die. He is the crucial part of any revolution, of any endeavor at all,
for that matter. He is the man who recognizes his responsibility and accepts
it.
   Heinlein seems to have taken pains to draw parallels between the Lunar
Revolution and the American Revolution. I believe he had specific historical
figures in mind when he created the characters in the book. Personally, I've
always considered the professor to be representative of Benjamin Franklin.
He is elder statesman and ambassador who understands all the ins and outs of
diplomacy. Manny represents George Washington, the simple farmer who
nonetheless accepts the burden thrust on him by chance and history. Though
not wanting power, he accepts it when it becomes obvious that he is the man
for the job. As for Wyoh, I suppose she could be likened to Thomas Paine,
the instigator and rabble-rouser who ultimately was not as integrally
involved in the nuts and bolts of the revolution as some of the more
thoughtful revolutionaries.
 So, whaddaya think?

Dan

P.S Apropos absolutely nothing at all, I composed this while listening to Roy Buchanan's two disc set 'Sweet Dreams:The Anthology'. He was another master of his craft who passed away in 1988. It was a tough year for me in regards to my idols. I recommend his work to anyone who appreciates fine blues guitar.


D. Paul Perkins wrote:
>Greetings,
>Rather than snip and cut and pause to cite references in the original
>post, I will deal directly with the subject at hand, to wit, an analysis of
>the motivation and character of Manuel's co-conspirators in TMIAHM.

[snip a lovely balanced analysis]
>So, whaddaya think?
>

Thank you, Dan.

Let me pass for the time being on any quibbles I might have with what you've written to ask this:

What role does Michael Holmes, the Artificial Intelligence, have, other than to avoid the years and years of the never-written Stone Pillow for these folk on Luna?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

James Nicoll wrote:
[Tian:]
...
>>>Seems to me that all of the stuff that is part of the EM spectrum goes
>>>at near the speed of light. I think the slower stuff is much less likely
>>>to escape the sun's gravitational pull.
>
>If it is EM radiation, then by definition it will travel at the
>speed of light in the medium in question.
...

<Nitpick> The speed of EM radiation through a medium (other than a perfect vacuum) varies with its wavelength; this is why a prism splits out a spectrum - the refractive index of the red light is different to that of the violet (and indigo, blue, etc.)

OTOH, space between the Sun and the Moon is close enough to a vacuum for most purposes. </Nitpick>


David Silver wrote in message <3CB6B27D.5030208@verizon.net>...
>Thank you, Dan.

>Let me pass for the time being on any quibbles I might have with what
>you've written to ask this:

>What role does Michael Holmes, the Artificial Intelligence, have, other
>than to avoid the years and years of the never-written Stone Pillow for
>these folk on Luna?

    Mike is there to definitely distinguish this as a 21st century
revolution as opposed to an 18th century one!
    No, really, that's a tough one. That's the problem with analogies,
you're often tempted to stretch them too far and thereby weaken them.
However, if I had to pin it down, I would say that Mike is analogous to John
Adams, who was involved in so many aspects of the American Revolution. He
was a prime philosophical force in its inception, intimately involved in the
construction of the country's new political structure and was also a quite
public cheerleader for the revolution (I just got a visual on that one.Whew,
that's weird!)
   My first inclination was to cite Adams' good friend Thomas Jefferson as
the influence for Mycroft Holmes, but...it just didn't feel right, and
literary analysis is ultimately based on feelings. I think Jefferson was too
private and retiring to be the blueprint of Adam Selene. Adams, on the other
hand, was very popular and was very much the face of the revolution to the
general population, very much as Adam Selene was.
    Let me say that I have a few quibbles with my post as well, at least as
far as these analogies go. While I've felt almost from my first reading of
TMIAHM that the Professor was supposed to resemble Ben Franklin, the other
two comparisons (and this one) were extrapolated from that supposition while
sitting at the keyboard. In other words, I'm winging it! I don't cite that
as an excuse for anything, only to show that I am not wedded to these ideas
and am open to argument.
    One thing I wondered as I wrote was "What was Stu LaJoie's role?" I've
always found him to be one of the more interesting ancillary characters of
the novel. I wanted to stick to the subject of the original question,
though, and let the question fall by the wayside.
    I'm now one post removed from the original so I will go ahead and ask,
"What was Stu LaJoie's role?" I was unable to come up with a satisfactory
answer (although I didn't really dwell on it). Perhaps LaFayette, who was a
foreigner drawn to a prominent role (albeit a primarily military one) in the
revolution half a world away. It might as well have been another planet by
18th century standards. I'm not sure about this one. C'mon! Help me out on
this one.  As long as we're stretching an analogy, let's stretch it to the
breaking point!
Dan

P.S. In proofreading this, I was just struck by Heinlein's use of Adam as the first name of Mikes alter-ego. (Sometimes, I need to be whacked upside the head with the obvious!) Is this significant? I don't know but Heinlein usually chose his characters names carefully and often did so to convey an underlying theme.


Arthur McNutt wrote:

Interesting reply, Art. You'll be pleased to note that two days later, columnist James P. Pinkerton wrote an article that reminds me somewhat of some of the positions you take below. Pinkerton writes for Newsday and is syndicated elsewhere, including local L.A. Times.

I'm not sure you'd agree with him on all points, but as I wrote him, somewhat nastily on one point, and he replied saying he has always been a Heinlein fan (it's that accursed signature I use that tipped him off), he disagreed with some positions I've expressed but welcomed further input.

The article by Pinkerton is at

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ ny-vppin112664149apr11.column?coll=ny%2Dopinion%2Dcolumnists on Newsday's website. Don't forget to paste the whole thing back together in your browser, everyone.

>
>----------
>Mac wrote, quoting me:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>Knott doesn't particularly care whom she injures in her thirst
>>for revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered
>>into the conspiracy with her, really aren't human to her -- as
>>she's worried about is whether Manuel's 'friend,' the sentient
>>computer, can feel pain. Assured he cannot, she's content to blow
>>the central complex containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To
>>hell with how many 'finks' for authority she kills, disrupting
>>Authority is what counts. Give this woman a bomb to strap to her
>>chest, and she'd walk into a wedding if it would cause sufficient
>>damage to Authority.  She's a classic terrorist, safe as
>>fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent
>>bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and
>>her answer to you would be the pun on her name, "Why not."
>>
>
>I fail to see how this is an unlikable feature of Wyo's personality.
>

It would matter one hell of a lot to me, if I were a lag working pushing an idiot stick to keep the floors clean in aisles adjacent to the computer complex, hoping I'd survive until my term of imprisonment was over, the day the bomb goes off. I really don't need a loose cannon killing me. I got this wife you see, and we've got a little seven-year-old girl. My wife can't have anymore kids because we ran into a flare just after we landed; and we hope little Wilma doesn't have serious radiation damage and can have children when she's husband-high, and I'd sorta like a chance to see the wife and the kid don't starve or wind up working in some creche and see them prospective grandchildren. Hey, I know I shouldn't have been poaching deer in Wyoming that winter, but people were paying good bucks for hides and meat, and I couldn't find any other work after they shipped us out of New York City. They didn't need any more computer programmers in Wyoming.

>I see where we will use the word "terrorist" to condemn without bothering to
>examine from now on. Terrorism is not what some think it is. 

Actually, there's a pretty good definition of terrorism. You'll find it in the laws of land warfare. A terrorist is one species of an unlawful combatant. An unlawful combatant is someone who engages in war against a society without a declaration or war (or, what amounts to the same thing, a declaration of independence) or when the state is clearly known and understood by your adversary, or without engaging in certain formalities once a declaration or state of war is deemed to exist. Those formalities are pretty simple, really: you don't fight without wearing a uniform, or at least, some readily identifiable marking -- the tricolor cockades and ribbons the French revolutionaries wore on Bastile Day were intended to comply with that formality. Another requirement is you don't wage war against civilians [i.e., "non-combatants"] directly, terrorists do.

This is why, incidentally, the Dub-yah administration is treating some of those in prison in Cuba as *not* prisoners of war. They weren't lawful combatants in the first place, ergo, they aren't POWs.

If you don't comply with this very basic requirement, then you're an unlawful combatant, a criminal against all mankind. If you're caught you're lucky if they don't execute you summarily. Right then: bang.

The PTB make these rules up; but by the American Civil War, they were pretty well known. Lincoln was a little worried the Confederacy might not followed them. So he had a law professor in New York compile them for him, and published them as his Department of War's AGO 100. He then made sure they were passed over the lines to the Confederacy with the clear message that he expected them to follow those rules; otherwise they certainly could expect to hang when it was over. Mostly, each side tried to follow them, Bedford Forrest notably excepted. Too bad Lincoln granted an unconditional amnesty before Booth put a bullet in his head. Forrest would have looked good dangling . . .

>A Tomahawk
>missile is terrorism in its most pristine form. So is an F-22. So is a 155mm
>Howitzer. 

Too simplistic, if you're worried about reality. I don't happen to agree with the rationale for bombing civilians, "accidentally" (we're really after those machine shops scattered in shacks all over Tokoyo, all over Dresden, all over Coventry, all over London, so those cities are "military targets," etc.), but history has stuck us with it, thus far. I do happen to believe, also, the United States government should declare war, as the Constitution provides, in instances before any such reprisals it takes. But lately, it's been a bit hard to decide who to declare war against ... there's some terrorists who keep attacking us, you see. You'll also recall I want, still want, a Declaration of War, and full mobilization, with a landing at Haifa as soon as sufficient forces are trained, to clean out the middle East.

>Given just a few circumstances, you could be a terrorist too.
>

Be a lot more than a few, Arthur, that I foresee, here and now. And I'd expect to hang if I lost, just as Franklin observed he did in an earlier time.

>In the story of her tragic pregnancy, Heinlein has merely expressed his view
>of authority. People are patently inadequate at deciding issues for other
>human beings. 

I disagree with "merely" and with "patently."

>The pilot, as authority, is disinterested in anything much
>beyond procedure. 

No, the pilot was a wired human being who no longer was a people. Just like Michael Holmes. Dak Broadbent noted the difference. Dak was a people; in fact, Dak was an elected representative of his constituency. Which side of Heinlein do you want? I don't think Heinlein went to bed one night and awoke the next morn to find the Good Fairy had shown up alongside the Sandman to bonk him on his head and turn him into a "libertarian." Of course some human beings are inadequate to decide some things some times. OTOH, do you want to hope 'Black David' decides in your favor when it's time to clean out the canals, or would you rather elect some clown you really know a lot more about.

>Procedure is how the PRC remains in power. Procedure is
>how the the US Government collects over $2 Trillion a year from families
>forced to raise their children by proxy in order to pay it.

Mere rhetoric. Keep your kids home and home school them. Or send them to private schools. TANSTAAFL. I sent mine to private school when I thought she could benefit thereby and paid the same taxes, probably more, than you did. Would I have liked more time to spend raising my child when I was working sixteen hours a day for those "big bucks"? Would I like to go into the LAUSD with fire and a sword and clean out the waste, incompetent, and inefficient? Hell, yes. Or as the Queen said, "Bollocks, if I had two I'd be King." Instead I paid taxes and tried to vote for the lesser of two or more idiots everytime a school board election took place. You wanna do something more direct, go read "How To Be a Politician." But try to do what he suggested, stay within an established party, infiltrate it! Unless you're living in Idaho among retired LAPD cops, in which case, sign 'em all up for your third-party, if you have one. Then you'll run the school board, mebbe.

>Procedure is the
>bane of mankind--but it is the root of authority--even the most benign
>authority. Heinlein had his nose rubbed in it enough to hate it.
>

Hate it? In what circumstances, under what rule, when? He saw its abuse suffiently well to postulate a system, unlikely to exist ordinarily, in which rebellion would be justified, just as histoy has justified rebellion in other like and unlike circumstances. History's justification is just that -- it happened, like stuff.

>It is abysmally shallow, if understandable, to condemn terrorism qua
>terrorism. 

Nonsense. We go with the best definition we have. The American Revolution didn't begin with terrorism, as I am about to define it. It began when a Major was told to go collect some arms in Concord and Lexington, and someone, very probably colonial American, fired a shot. Those local militia Minute Men were wearing blue and buff cockades, those of them who had the brains to know not to pound salt.

>There is no basis for equating Wyo to someone who would willingly
>blow up grandmas and children at a Passover feast. 

No? Did she plan to give Warden a call before she denotated so he could evacuate non-combatants. She didn't say so. How much are you willing to bet? Wannabetchyerlife? Then you go pick up that idiot stick and clean the aisles outside the computer room. Me, I'm calling in sick. They'll probably put me in a work crew outside again, but I'll take my chances outside rather than inside for a while, if you don't mind. Give my regards to her when she next visits with Mannie.

>This is a viewpoint of
>someone raised in an extremely maternal and protective society--which tends
>to make all acts of violence equally reprehensible--despite mitigation and
>motivation. 

I don't recall an extremely maternal and protective society. I recall wearing a green suit for about six years during the 1960s. And I don't believe all acts of violence are equally reprehensible. What motivations are you talking about, exactly? Simply pissed off with what you think is oppression isn't quite enough, all the time. It depends on what I think as well as what you think. What did Manuel think? Until the magic word: starvation, I think he thought Wyo wasn't dealing with a full deck.

>This makes Israeli's equal to the Hammas. An opinion all too
>common these days.
>

That makes any soldier who ever lived equal to Hammas. That's a stupid opinion.

>Perhaps we want to live among sheep. Perhaps we only find sheep likeable.
>Wyo, being violent, makes her "not a sheep" and so, sadly, she is equal to a
>member of Hezbollah in sheep's eyes.
>

Yeah, well, some of us out here rubbing lanolin in our belly buttons aren't exactly sheep, even if we try hard to look like them. Me, I still got a canine or two. Your brush is a bit broad.

>Bah. Her ability to shoot a soldier in the back raises her quite high in my
>estimation. 

Really? Has she (or the cabal she follows) declared war? Is she wearing a uniform, or some clearly identifying item. Is she advancing on him and his position clearly under arms with obvious hostile intent? Or is she carrying her arms hidden in a coffin supposedly carrying her baby to bury peaceably in the church graveyard next door to his post, while she morns. No to the alternates, except the coffin one above? Then she's an unlawful combatant, a murderess. Hang her, unless a bullet's cheaper. No trial. That was one of my troopers who she stabbed, I'll cut her throat with her own knife. [See, Balangiga, Samar, Philippines, 1902].

>If I saw her cut the throat of an unsuspecting guard, the blood
>over her clothes would make her more admirably human to me than a chest full
>of Nobel Peace Prizes.

Different strokes for different folks. Also hyperbole. Weakens your case.

>My Dad blew the living guts out of two German
>soldiers who didn't realize he had survived the hundred yard dash to their
>position.

Was he wearing OD fatigues?

>He was a terrorist and I am proud of him because of it.

I'd be proud of him too, and damned happy he lived to tell the tale, but I doubt he was a terrorist, or would have agree he was. Neither would the pilots of Torpedo 8 at Midway or the soliders of the 69th New York Pinkerton used to think were all there were of the Irish Brigade.

>
>Violence can be differentiated. Killing unarmed pilots on an airbus and
>crashing that plane full of Soccer Mom's and Accountants into a Tower filled
>with Secretaries and Accountants is cowardly and insane.

Whatever else it is, it is contrary to the rules of warfare. Therefore, its perpetrators and those in concert with them are terrorists, but they are also unlawful combatants and, if captured, may be summarily executed. If not, but captured, they may be segregated when identified as such from lawful POWs and continued to be treated as unlawful combatants under whatever rules their captor provides, and it need provide none.

>The people killed
>were a threat to no one, and not part of any authority repressing anyone.

Assassination of authority is also a crime: murder, absent a war declaration. Assassination or other crimes by an un-uniformed spy: ditto, even when there is a declaration of war. Simply being behind the lines to spy or carry dispatches, out of uniform, is a crime. That's why they hanged Nathan Hale, the great uncle of the fellow who wrote "The Man Without a Country." That's why we hanged Major Andre in return. Deliberately killing non-combatants is always against the rules of land warfare. It may not be murder in all cases; but . . . damned few when it's not.

>Taking suicide as insurance against defeat is also cowardly and insane. Only
>people who have always had a wealth of choices in their lives would think of
>a suicide bomber as anything but a yellow bellied, lily livered coward.
>
>Cowardice and insanity are what make "terrorism" unacceptable.
>

No. What makes terrorism unacceptable is when it's directed against non-combatants, in the absence of a declaration of war, or by persons who fail to properly identify themselves as lawful combatants. Nothin' wrong about going out in your uniform at night, as the guy Ross Carter's Devils in Baggy Pants was reported to do, and cutting just one throat of two enemy in their foxhole, if you can get away with it, and leaving the other alive to wake up and see his dead buddy next morning.

>I cannot imagine Wyo allowing babies or grandmas to be killed, even in her
>most savage blood lust. She would, instead, lay herself over a grenade about
>to blow up a pre-school.
>

I don't know what went on in that woman's mind when she met Manuel; neither do you. One would hope she wouldn't. I wouldn't bet on it.

>The importance of this distinction is the difference that would make a
>conviction or an acquittal at Nuremberg.
>

No, it's not. It wasn't, and it didn't. I'm not aware of anyone who was charged as an unlawful combatant at Nuremberg. I am aware of cases where soldiers were charged with murder of POWs and civilians in violation of the rule of war: all contained in the same AGO 100 I've cited here, but not the same thing at all.

>
>>***********   **********
>>Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn't simply a romantic figure.
>>Forget the  happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite
>>manners, He's not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer.
>>Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: "in my
>>younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to
>>something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of
>>which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you're
>>talking about."
>>In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who
>>pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna  at enormous
>>cost? Who knows the "Istanbul twist"?  Who first defines the
>>revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle
>>of "terrorism?"
>>REPLY:
>>Yes, I am having some trouble with this.
>>Some.
>>There is no indication that the Professor was an indiscriminate
>>terrorist bombing women and children.
>>Is he a murderer?
>>Yes;  here in Luna.  And certainly against Authority.
>>Before that?
>>I don't know.
>>
>
>Savagery qua savagery doesn't give me pause. Assassination is a valid
>act--even a Christian act; it can save countless lives.

Machiavelli would agree. Even I might. The rules of warfare do not necessarily. A Japanese Admiral was assassinated during World War II for exactly the reason that it was thought his assassination would save lives. The assassins were flying P-38 Lockheeds, wearing Army Air Corps uniforms. The man who shot the Admiral's plane down was awarded the Medal of Honor. His act wasn't contrary to the laws of land or any other warfare. Because he was a declared, uniformed combatant. Heinrych (sp? and I don't feel like taking the time to look the correct spelling up right now) was assassinated by a guerilla. With a bomb. He may or may not have been acting lawfully. In any event, it didn't matter. No one ever tried him. Instead the Nazis engaged in wholesale reprisals, killing everyone in a city. Some of them may well have been among those tried at Nuremberg -- for killing non-combatants!

>Those among us with
>dirty hands may deserve general condemnation, but they might also deserve
>our praise. Dirty hands by themselves do not condemn.
>

Perhaps in our minds. Then again, the end does justify the means, right?

>De la Paz is the ultimate romantic figure. The fact that we don't trust he
>always threw bombs at those deserving it, shows more about our own faults
>than his.
>

No, it only shows the scepticism Robert Heinlein tried to teach us.

A guerrilla or a terrorist who engages in unlawful acts is not the moral or legal or any other equivalent of any soldier who does his duty; and that duty in civilized nations includes the duty to abide by the laws of warfare.

If you're going to lead a rebellion, those are the rules. Lincoln found them acceptible for his time. I am constrained to agree. They could be improved upon, especially in the area of air warfare; but I'm not in charge of the world. Both the Confederacy and the Union hanged violators of those rules they caught during the Civil War. Perhaps not enough of them were caught. After the war, and then perhaps largely because the Confederacy did abide by them, by and large, Lincoln issued a general pardon, except to former officers of the military establishment and government officials who had resigned to join the Confederacy, thereby betraying their oaths of allegiance. The only persons charged with a tried with a war crime after the war were the assassins and those who allegely gave them aid and confort and the jackass who was in charge of Anderson. He hanged as a murderer. The rest of the oath-betrayers were disbarred from holding office or commissions under the United States, ever again. Even that eventually changed. By the Spanish American War Wheeler was called back, recommissioned a Major General and commanded the cavalry brigade of which the Rough Riders were part at the battle of San Juan Hill. McKinley did that to reconcile the former confederacy.

While you're thinking of your reply, look at Pinkerton's article, please. I'd like to give him some fair feedback from all sides.

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

<snip> David Silver wrote:
>Arthur McNutt wrote:
>I see where we will use the word "terrorist" to condemn without bothering
to examine from now on. Terrorism is not what some think it is.

>Actually, there's a pretty good definition of terrorism. You'll find it
>in the laws of land warfare. A terrorist is one species of an unlawful
>combatant. An unlawful combatant is someone who engages in war against a
>society without a declaration or war (or, what amounts to the same
>thing, a declaration of independence) or when the state is clearly known
>and understood by your adversary, or without engaging in certain
>formalities once a declaration or state of war is deemed to exist.

So, by the above statements, al-Queda, and Taliban are NOT terrorists. (Bin Laden declared war, and notified the US... prior to 9/11)

>Those
>formalities are pretty simple, really: you don't fight without wearing a
>uniform, or at least, some readily identifiable marking -- the tricolor
>cockades and ribbons the French revolutionaries wore on Bastile Day were
>intended to comply with that formality. Another requirement is you don't
>wage war against civilians [i.e., "non-combatants"] directly, terrorists
>do.
>

But, our revolutionary soldiers defied the British & continental European style of warfare, breaking the then established rules, by hiding behind trees, rocks, and attacking from ambush. Sherman and the Red Legs of the Union army during the Civil War attacked noncombatants. The US attacked noncombatants in most of the campaigns against the American Indians, very notably at Wounded Knee. During WWII, I will refer you to Hiroshima & Nagasaki- civilians again. The French underground regularly attacked the Germans (and the noncombatant French with them).

>
>This is why, incidentally, the Dub-yah administration is treating some
>of those in prison in Cuba as *not* prisoners of war. They weren't
>lawful combatants in the first place, ergo, they aren't POWs.
>
>If you don't comply with this very basic requirement, then you're an
>unlawful combatant, a criminal against all mankind. If you're caught
>you're lucky if they don't execute you summarily. Right then: bang.
>

If you lose or are captured, the Authority can pretty much do what it wants- it is, after all, making the "rules". I will grant, however, that the treatment of prisoners captured, and the defeated, are what distinguish a rule of law and justice of a civilized people from barbarians and mobs.

>
>The PTB make these rules up; but by the American Civil War, they were
>pretty well known. Lincoln was a little worried the Confederacy might
>not followed them. So he had a law professor in New York compile them
>for him, and published them as his Department of War's AGO 100. He then
>made sure they were passed over the lines to the Confederacy with the
>clear message that he expected them to follow those rules; otherwise
>they certainly could expect to hang when it was over. Mostly, each side
>tried to follow them, Bedford Forrest notably excepted. Too bad Lincoln
>granted an unconditional amnesty before Booth put a bullet in his head.
>Forrest would have looked good dangling . . .
>

Who or what is the PTB?

It's a shame RE Lee's honor didn't allow the all out destruction of the North such as that which was visited upon the South by those honorable foes, Sherman, Sheridan and Grant.

>
>>A Tomahawk
>>missile is terrorism in its most pristine form. So is an F-22. So is a 155mm
>>Howitzer.
>
>Too simplistic, if you're worried about reality. I don't happen to agree
>with the rationale for bombing civilians, "accidentally" (we're really
>after those machine shops scattered in shacks all over Tokoyo, all over
>Dresden, all over Coventry, all over London, so those cities are
>"military targets," etc.), but history has stuck us with it, thus far. I
>do happen to believe, also, the United States government should declare
>war, as the Constitution provides, in instances before any such
>reprisals it takes. But lately, it's been a bit hard to decide who to
>declare war against ... there's some terrorists who keep attacking us,
>you see. You'll also recall I want, still want, a Declaration of War,
>and full mobilization, with a landing at Haifa as soon as sufficient
>forces are trained, to clean out the middle East.
>

I tend to actually agree here. Formal declarations make things tidy from the rest of the world's point of view. Allows them to asses the blame of aggressor, define "war criminals" and otherwise muddy the waters, or play "spin doctor" to their heart's content.

>
>>Given just a few circumstances, you could be a terrorist too.
>>
>
>Be a lot more than a few, Arthur, that I foresee, here and now. And I'd
>expect to hang if I lost, just as Franklin observed he did in an earlier
>time.

Certainly- Lives, honor & fortune- this was paid by many during the American Revolution, as well as in other conflicts by other peoples. It's the cost of getting "caught" or defeated, and sometimes even if you're on the winning side!

>
>
>>In the story of her tragic pregnancy, Heinlein has merely expressed his view
>>of authority. People are patently inadequate at deciding issues for other
>>human beings.
>
>I disagree with "merely" and with "patently."
>

I disagree with Arthur's premise. Heinlein was providing a background to make the character become more of an individual, with a believable reason behind the "hatred" for Authority and Warden. Considering the extent of detail that he went into about radiation storms, as described by Podkayne, this was not something he lightly tossed in. I have always viewed it as a commentary on the supposed loss of humanity by cybogs, coupled with a commentary on the incapacity of bureaucracy to deal with unplanned emergency situations.

>
>>The pilot, as authority, is disinterested in anything much
>>beyond procedure.
>
>No, the pilot was a wired human being who no longer was a people. Just
>like Michael Holmes. Dak Broadbent noted the difference. Dak was a
>people; in fact, Dak was an elected representative of his constituency.
>Which side of Heinlein do you want? I don't think Heinlein went to bed
>one night and awoke the next morn to find the Good Fairy had shown up
>alongside the Sandman to bonk him on his head and turn him into a
>"libertarian." Of course some human beings are inadequate to decide some
>things some times. OTOH, do you want to hope 'Black David' decides in
>your favor when it's time to clean out the canals, or would you rather
>elect some clown you really know a lot more about.
>

Is Michael Holmes=Mycroft Holmes aka "Mike" aka "Michelle"? As I recall, Wyoh commented that "Michelle" was more of a woman than Mike was a man. Makes one wonder! But in any case, the self aware computer is considered to be "people" by Mannie, Wyoh, and the Prof. I'm pretty sure they considered the cyborg "not-people". (As an aside: an interesting treatment of what defines "human" is Janet Kagan's novel "Hellspark")

>
>>Procedure is how the PRC remains in power. Procedure is
>>how the the US Government collects over $2 Trillion a year from families
>>forced to raise their children by proxy in order to pay it.
>

What or who is PRC?

Peeve Mode On.: I hate the current tendency to use initials for everything. Unless you are VERY steeped in the particular jargon, and dealing with one subject exclusively, it becomes a nightmare to determine which set of initials mean what. Even being a fan, I frequently have to pause, and hunt down a reference to decipher the string of initials for the Heinlein book titles. At least standard procedure as I was trained means that the first time in any communication the initials are used, they are defined. Peeve Mode Off.

>
>Mere rhetoric. Keep your kids home and home school them. Or send them to
>private schools. TANSTAAFL. I sent mine to private school when I thought
>she could benefit thereby and paid the same taxes, probably more, than
>you did. Would I have liked more time to spend raising my child when I
>was working sixteen hours a day for those "big bucks"? Would I like to
>go into the LAUSD with fire and a sword and clean out the waste,
>incompetent, and inefficient? Hell, yes. Or as the Queen said,
>"Bollocks, if I had two I'd be King." Instead I paid taxes and tried to
>vote for the lesser of two or more idiots everytime a school board
>election took place. You wanna do something more direct, go read "How To
>Be a Politician." But try to do what he suggested, stay within an
>established party, infiltrate it! Unless you're living in Idaho among
>retired LAPD cops, in which case, sign 'em all up for your third-party,
>if you have one. Then you'll run the school board, mebbe.
>

>
>>Procedure is the
>>bane of mankind--but it is the root of authority--even the most benign
>>authority. Heinlein had his nose rubbed in it enough to hate it.
>>
>
>Hate it? In what circumstances, under what rule, when? He saw its abuse
>suffiently well to postulate a system, unlikely to exist ordinarily, in
>which rebellion would be justified, just as histoy has justified
>rebellion in other like and unlike circumstances. History's
>justification is just that -- it happened, like stuff.
>

Procedure is the systematic and efficient way of dealing with repetitious situations and information. Unfortunately, everybody thinks their problem is unique. Also unfortunately, those problems or situations that are NOT repetitious, tend to be given the "one size fits most " answer that actually doesn't apply and then must be redealt with by someone with the necessary authority to apply a creative approach. And in these times, those people are either rare, or ham-strung by bureaucratic rules that do not allow "creativity". And unless an emergency has been previously identified as a possibility, the method for dealing with it carefully planned, the procedure drilled into the probable responders, the probability of a successful resolution is nil. I refer you to the example of simple fire drills.

>
>>It is abysmally shallow, if understandable, to condemn terrorism qua
>>terrorism.
>
>Nonsense. We go with the best definition we have. The American
>Revolution didn't begin with terrorism, as I am about to define it. It
>began when a Major was told to go collect some arms in Concord and
>Lexington, and someone, very probably colonial American, fired a shot.
>Those local militia Minute Men were wearing blue and buff cockades,
>those of them who had the brains to know not to pound salt.
>

From my viewpoint, throughout history the difference between "terrorism" and "patriotism" was who won. In the book, we're supposed to be rooting for Mannie & company. Yet, from a strict assessment of the point of view of the governments involved as well as the Warden, they were terrorists, outlaws, and rebels, even if not strictly speaking, (at least in Mannie's case) criminals in prison.

>
>>There is no basis for equating Wyo to someone who would willingly
>>blow up grandmas and children at a Passover feast.
>
>No? Did she plan to give Warden a call before she denotated so he could
>evacuate non-combatants. She didn't say so. How much are you willing to
>bet? Wannabetchyerlife? Then you go pick up that idiot stick and clean
>the aisles outside the computer room. Me, I'm calling in sick. They'll
>probably put me in a work crew outside again, but I'll take my chances
>outside rather than inside for a while, if you don't mind. Give my
>regards to her when she next visits with Mannie.
>

I must agree with David here. Wyoh would have blown up anything that would have put a crimp in Warden & Authority. So if he was attending Passover with Grandma & kiddies, too bad for the bystanders! However, I don't think she would have targeted the Passover feast otherwise, (unless, of course, it could have been made to appear that Warden had ordered it- MAJOR political point.)

>
>>This is a viewpoint of
>>someone raised in an extremely maternal and protective society--which tends
>>to make all acts of violence equally reprehensible--despite mitigation and
>>motivation.
>
>I don't recall an extremely maternal and protective society. I recall
>wearing a green suit for about six years during the 1960s. And I don't
>believe all acts of violence are equally reprehensible. What motivations
>are you talking about, exactly? Simply pissed off with what you think is
>oppression isn't quite enough, all the time. It depends on what I think
>as well as what you think. What did Manuel think? Until the magic word:
>starvation, I think he thought Wyo wasn't dealing with a full deck.
>

Until Mike convinced him that the revolution was Necessary!, he didn't think either Prof or Wyoh were dealing with full decks!

>
>>This makes Israeli's equal to the Hammas. An opinion all too
>>common these days.
>>
>
>That makes any soldier who ever lived equal to Hammas. That's a stupid
>opinion.

Neither one! Hammas is a revolutionary organization with religious zealotism. The Israeli's are reservists with religious zealotism. What BOTH are doing is wrong in my opinion. But neither can be equated to the regular armed forces of other countries or other times.

>
>
>>Perhaps we want to live among sheep. Perhaps we only find sheep likeable.
>>Wyo, being violent, makes her "not a sheep" and so, sadly, she is equal to a
>>member of Hezbollah in sheep's eyes.
>>
>
>Yeah, well, some of us out here rubbing lanolin in our belly buttons
>aren't exactly sheep, even if we try hard to look like them. Me, I still
>got a canine or two. Your brush is a bit broad.
>

I agree with David here, too. Judging from the response of the American people in WWI, WWII, and the number of flags on cars today, our citizens want to live their lives in peace, however, it is not wise to awaken the sleeping dragon.

>
>>Bah. Her ability to shoot a soldier in the back raises her quite high in my
>>estimation.
>
>Really? Has she (or the cabal she follows) declared war? Is she wearing
>a uniform, or some clearly identifying item. Is she advancing on him and
>his position clearly under arms with obvious hostile intent?

Advancing on a position clearly under arms with obvious hostile intent gets you killed, when the intent is to take out the enemy, one does what one can, hopefully surviving to fight another day, as well. Ambush, and fighting from cover is both effective and militarily sound policy.

>Or is she
>carrying her arms hidden in a coffin supposedly carrying her baby to
>bury peaceably in the church graveyard next door to his post, while she
>morns. No to the alternates, except the coffin one above?

Depending on exact circumstances, this, too, could be sound tactics.

>Then she's an
>unlawful combatant, a murderess. Hang her, unless a bullet's cheaper. No
>trial. That was one of my troopers who she stabbed, I'll cut her throat
>with her own knife. [See, Balangiga, Samar, Philippines, 1902].
>

The Germans would have liked to do that to the French underground, I'm sure!

>
>>If I saw her cut the throat of an unsuspecting guard, the blood
>>over her clothes would make her more admirably human to me than a chest full
>>of Nobel Peace Prizes.
>
>Different strokes for different folks. Also hyperbole. Weakens your case.
>
>>My Dad blew the living guts out of two German
>>soldiers who didn't realize he had survived the hundred yard dash to their
>>position.
>
>Was he wearing OD fatigues?

This is the point- in guerrilla and resistance warfare, uniforms are a) not available, b) stupid, if you are a member, c) will get you killed!

>
>
>>He was a terrorist and I am proud of him because of it.
>
>I'd be proud of him too, and damned happy he lived to tell the tale, but
>I doubt he was a terrorist, or would have agree he was. Neither would
>the pilots of Torpedo 8 at Midway or the soliders of the 69th New York
>Pinkerton used to think were all there were of the Irish Brigade.
>
>>
>>Violence can be differentiated. Killing unarmed pilots on an airbus and
>>crashing that plane full of Soccer Mom's and Accountants into a Tower filled
>>with Secretaries and Accountants is cowardly and insane.
>
>Whatever else it is, it is contrary to the rules of warfare.

Have to disagree! There are no "rules of war". However, there are treaties among the various nations. Unfortunately in this case, those that don't sign the treaties (not being recognized as a legitimate political power or entity), are not bound by them. There are also, however, ethical and moral issues, which again, unfortunately in this case, due to the fanatics of the religion involved, are not those of the people of the US. September 11th, 2001, was a malevolent, abhorrent, heinous attack on the foundations of our freedoms, economy, honor, and sovereignty, and was carried out by foreign nationals with NO justification. And, not only was this and attack on the United States, but upon the economy of the world.

>Therefore,
>its perpetrators and those in concert with them are terrorists, but they
>are also unlawful combatants and, if captured, may be summarily
>executed. If not, but captured, they may be segregated when identified
>as such from lawful POWs and continued to be treated as unlawful
>combatants under whatever rules their captor provides, and it need
>provide none.
>
>>The people killed
>>were a threat to no one, and not part of any authority repressing anyone.
>

>
>Assassination of authority is also a crime: murder, absent a war
>declaration. Assassination or other crimes by an un-uniformed spy:
>ditto, even when there is a declaration of war. Simply being behind the
>lines to spy or carry dispatches, out of uniform, is a crime. That's why
>they hanged Nathan Hale, the great uncle of the fellow who wrote "The
>Man Without a Country." That's why we hanged Major Andre in return.
>Deliberately killing non-combatants is always against the rules of land
>warfare. It may not be murder in all cases; but . . . damned few when
>it's not.
>

Generally, the above are against various treaties. However, we, as well as others, have practiced assassination attempts, and non-uniformed spying as general policy. Deliberately killing non-combatants is always bad policy, and ethically questionable, but it is not "against the rules of war" particularly if the actual target is a militarily sound one.

>
>>Taking suicide as insurance against defeat is also cowardly and insane. Only
>>people who have always had a wealth of choices in their lives would think of
>>a suicide bomber as anything but a yellow bellied, lily livered coward.
>>
>>Cowardice and insanity are what make "terrorism" unacceptable.
>>
>
>No. What makes terrorism unacceptable is when it's directed against
>non-combatants, in the absence of a declaration of war, or by persons
>who fail to properly identify themselves as lawful combatants. Nothin'
>wrong about going out in your uniform at night, as the guy Ross Carter's
>Devils in Baggy Pants was reported to do, and cutting just one throat of
>two enemy in their foxhole, if you can get away with it, and leaving the
>other alive to wake up and see his dead buddy next morning.
>

No, what makes terrorism unacceptable is when it's directed at me and mine. What constitutes terrorism is the inability of the people that are involved to realize that this will not bring them closer to their desired goal, but will in fact cause their ultimate destruction. They do not have the political savvy to realize they could only win if, like Prof, Mannie, Wyoh, and Mike, they sucker the Authority into winning the war for them.

>
>>I cannot imagine Wyo allowing babies or grandmas to be killed, even in her
>>most savage blood lust. She would, instead, lay herself over a grenade about
>>to blow up a pre-school.
>>
>
>I don't know what went on in that woman's mind when she met Manuel;
>neither do you. One would hope she wouldn't. I wouldn't bet on it.
>
>>The importance of this distinction is the difference that would make a
>>conviction or an acquittal at Nuremberg.
>>
>
>No, it's not. It wasn't, and it didn't. I'm not aware of anyone who was
>charged as an unlawful combatant at Nuremberg. I am aware of cases where
>soldiers were charged with murder of POWs and civilians in violation of
>the rule of war: all contained in the same AGO 100 I've cited here, but
>not the same thing at all.
>

I must have missed that. What's the AGO 100? I suspect it is a treaty, which, if so, only applies to those who have agreed to abide by it.

>
>>
>>
>>>***********   **********
>>>Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn't simply a romantic figure.
>>>Forget the  happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite
>>>manners, He's not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer.
>>>Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: "in my
>>>younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to
>>>something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of
>>>which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you're
>>>talking about."
>>>In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who
>>>pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna  at enormous
>>>cost? Who knows the "Istanbul twist"?  Who first defines the
>>>revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle
>>>of "terrorism?"
>>>REPLY:
>>>Yes, I am having some trouble with this.
>>>Some.
>>>There is no indication that the Professor was an indiscriminate
>>>terrorist bombing women and children.
>>>Is he a murderer?
>>>Yes;  here in Luna.  And certainly against Authority.
>>>Before that?
>>>I don't know.
>>>
>>
>>Savagery qua savagery doesn't give me pause. Assassination is a valid
>>act--even a Christian act; it can save countless lives.
>
>Machiavelli would agree. Even I might. The rules of warfare do not
>necessarily. A Japanese Admiral was assassinated during World War II for
>exactly the reason that it was thought his assassination would save
>lives. The assassins were flying P-38 Lockheeds, wearing Army Air Corps
>uniforms. The man who shot the Admiral's plane down was awarded the
>Medal of Honor. His act wasn't contrary to the laws of land or any other
>warfare. Because he was a declared, uniformed combatant. Heinrych (sp?
>and I don't feel like taking the time to look the correct spelling up
>right now) was assassinated by a guerilla. With a bomb. He may or may
>not have been acting lawfully. In any event, it didn't matter. No one
>ever tried him. Instead the Nazis engaged in wholesale reprisals,
>killing everyone in a city. Some of them may well have been among those
>tried at Nuremberg -- for killing non-combatants!
>

I'm not old enough to remember Nuremberg. However, my father, (who was in WWII, European theater, w/ 3 battle stars) made the statement that the Allies set a bad precedent in trying the defeated for those acts committed as apart of the war. His opinion was, that due to that precedent, we, someday would regret it, as things are done in war, that would not and cannot be justifiably done otherwise. Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among them. He was also of the opinion that the Allies were wrong in arbitrarily creating Israel by displacing the Palestinians, and that we would also come to regret that, too.

>
>>Those among us with
>>dirty hands may deserve general condemnation, but they might also deserve
>>our praise. Dirty hands by themselves do not condemn.
>>
>
>Perhaps in our minds. Then again, the end does justify the means, right?
>

>
>>De la Paz is the ultimate romantic figure. The fact that we don't trust he
>>always threw bombs at those deserving it, shows more about our own faults
>>than his.
>>
>
>No, it only shows the scepticism Robert Heinlein tried to teach us.
>
>A guerrilla or a terrorist who engages in unlawful acts is not the moral
>or legal or any other equivalent of any soldier who does his duty; and
>that duty in civilized nations includes the duty to abide by the laws of
>warfare.
>

Sorry, but this is entirely subjective! Exactly who decided it was "unlawful"! However proudly I wore the Air Force uniform, and regardless of my pride in the United States, and my belief that it is superior to all other countries, I recognize that members of other countries probably have the same pride and beliefs for theirs, particularly if they are trying to regain their homeland, or win their freedom against those they think have improperly or illegally robbed them of it. (Southerners in particular can identify with this.)

>
>If you're going to lead a rebellion, those are the rules. Lincoln found
>them acceptible for his time.

Lincoln was not leading a rebellion. He was trying to keep the country together. And he still did not force his generals to abide by the established conventions either!

>I am constrained to agree. They could be
>improved upon, especially in the area of air warfare; but I'm not in
>charge of the world. Both the Confederacy and the Union hanged violators
>of those rules they caught during the Civil War. Perhaps not enough of
>them were caught. After the war, and then perhaps largely because the
>Confederacy did abide by them, by and large, Lincoln issued a general
>pardon, except to former officers of the military establishment and
>government officials who had resigned to join the Confederacy, thereby
>betraying their oaths of allegiance. The only persons charged with a
>tried with a war crime after the war were the assassins and those who
>allegely gave them aid and confort and the jackass who was in charge of
>Anderson. He hanged as a murderer. The rest of the oath-betrayers were
>disbarred from holding office or commissions under the United States,
>ever again. Even that eventually changed. By the Spanish American War
>Wheeler was called back, recommissioned a Major General and commanded
>the cavalry brigade of which the Rough Riders were part at the battle of
>San Juan Hill. McKinley did that to reconcile the former confederacy.
>

So, what happened to the Union officers and soldiers who killed noncombatants, stole, raped, pillaged and burned across the South, or those in the Army that stole, tortured, and killed the American Indians, or those that set the policy of destroying the primary food supply of a people with whom we were not at "war"? Why, IIRC, they were promoted! Hailed as heroes!

I believe that given the option between a peaceful settlement of differences, and violence that leads to more violence where a settlement of any kind will, for generations, be bitter, the wise will chose peaceful settlement. But, there are times, when such cannot be, and the Authority will always brand the ones not in Authority as rebels, outlaws, and terrorists. Historically, there must come a time when those so labeled either win their war and become Patriots, or are forced to become (usually somewhat grudgingly) fellow citizens with full equality. Consider the Scots, the Irish, Great Britain, the US, the Tories, the Confederates and the various American Indian tribes as examples.

I have considered The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress one of the best books to study as a general operations manual for revolutionaries, as well as one of the most interesting looks at alternative possibilities for democratic societies. I was sorry that Heinlein did not have the Loonies adopt at least one of Prof. LaPaz's suggestions, and explore it a bit further. I particularly liked the one where one house makes laws on a 2/3s majority, and the other repeals them on a 1/3 minority. Would tend to keep laws to the essentials, as well as limit the conflicts of interest and the "there oughta be a law" syndrome. Roger


"D. Paul Perkins" wrote:
>David Silver wrote in message <3CB6B27D.5030208@verizon.net>...
>>Thank you, Dan.
>
>>Let me pass for the time being on any quibbles I might have with what
>>you've written to ask this:
>
>>What role does Michael Holmes, the Artificial Intelligence, have, other
>>than to avoid the years and years of the never-written Stone Pillow for
>>these folk on Luna?
>
>Mike is there to definitely distinguish this as a 21st century
>revolution as opposed to an 18th century one!
>No, really, that's a tough one. That's the problem with analogies,
>you're often tempted to stretch them too far and thereby weaken them.
>However, if I had to pin it down, I would say that Mike is analogous to John
>Adams, who was involved in so many aspects of the American Revolution. He
>was a prime philosophical force in its inception, intimately involved in the
>construction of the country's new political structure and was also a quite
>public cheerleader for the revolution (I just got a visual on that one.Whew,
>that's weird!)
>My first inclination was to cite Adams' good friend Thomas Jefferson as
>the influence for Mycroft Holmes, but...it just didn't feel right, and
>literary analysis is ultimately based on feelings. I think Jefferson was too
>private and retiring to be the blueprint of Adam Selene. Adams, on the other
>hand, was very popular and was very much the face of the revolution to the
>general population, very much as Adam Selene was.
>Let me say that I have a few quibbles with my post as well, at least as
>far as these analogies go. While I've felt almost from my first reading of
>TMIAHM that the Professor was supposed to resemble Ben Franklin, the other
>two comparisons (and this one) were extrapolated from that supposition while
>sitting at the keyboard. In other words, I'm winging it! I don't cite that
>as an excuse for anything, only to show that I am not wedded to these ideas
>and am open to argument.
>One thing I wondered as I wrote was "What was Stu LaJoie's role?" I've
>always found him to be one of the more interesting ancillary characters of
>the novel. I wanted to stick to the subject of the original question,
>though, and let the question fall by the wayside.
>I'm now one post removed from the original so I will go ahead and ask,
>"What was Stu LaJoie's role?" I was unable to come up with a satisfactory
>answer (although I didn't really dwell on it). Perhaps LaFayette, who was a
>foreigner drawn to a prominent role (albeit a primarily military one) in the
>revolution half a world away. It might as well have been another planet by
>18th century standards. I'm not sure about this one. C'mon! Help me out on
>this one.  As long as we're stretching an analogy, let's stretch it to the
>breaking point!
>
>Dan
>
>P.S. In proofreading this, I was just struck by Heinlein's use of Adam as
>the first name of Mikes alter-ego. (Sometimes, I need to be whacked upside
>the head with the obvious!) Is this significant? I don't know but Heinlein
>usually chose his characters names carefully and often did so to convey an
>underlying theme.

Adam = the first "man"

Selene = another name for moon

ie First Moon Man

As to the John Adams analogy- I'll abstain and listen to commentary! Roger


Roger Connor wrote:

Another interesting series of points. I disagree with some of them; but apologize because I could have been clearer in my original post on a couple points; and I note that our disagreement is because of what is law versus what is deemed practical.

><snip>
>
>David Silver wrote:
>
>
>>Arthur McNutt wrote:
>>I see where we will use the word "terrorist" to condemn without bothering
>>
>to examine from now on. Terrorism is not what some think it is.
>
>
>>Actually, there's a pretty good definition of terrorism. You'll find it
>>in the laws of land warfare 

[which have been around, recognized by European nations, if not always observed, in one form or another since at least the Fifteenth Century]

A terrorist is one species of an unlawful
>>combatant. 

What I should have said here is: "In the first place [and there are additional requirements below] . . .

>>An unlawful combatant is someone who engages in war against a
>>society without a declaration [of] war (or, what amounts to the same
>>thing, a declaration of independence) or when the state is clearly known
>>and understood by your adversary, [*]or[*] without engaging in certain
>>formalities once a declaration or state of war is deemed to exist.
>>

The tricky part is that "or" that I just added the bracketed asterisks to. It means you gotta both declare the war, first, and then do all the things following the "or". I confess I was a little tired and should have reviewed the entire thing for clarity.

>
>So, by the above statements,  al-Queda, and Taliban are NOT terrorists.
>(Bin Laden declared war, and notified the US... prior to 9/11)
>
>

Nope. I should have made it clearer that full compliance with what is stated below is *also* required. Simply acting under a "declaration of war" made by Bin Ladin months earlier in a speech, isn't enough if you then put on your civies, pretend to be students, go behind your enemy's lines, and then deliberately fly planes into a "non-military target" the Trade Towers occupied by non-combatant civilians or compel the pilots to do so. You're in civies, not a uniform, you infiltrated as a unlawful combatant; hence, anything you do, in fact, merely infiltrating behind the lines if you admit your purpose is sabotage, spying or other crimes, including the murder of civilians, is sufficient to result in your lawful, summary execution, as an "unlawful combatant" a criminal against all. Attacking non-combatants, even if you *were* in uninform would be sufficient to reach the same result.

>>Those
>>formalities are pretty simple, really: you don't fight without wearing a
>>uniform, or at least, some readily identifiable marking -- the tricolor
>>cockades and ribbons the French revolutionaries wore on Bastile Day were
>>intended to comply with that formality. Another requirement is you don't
>>wage war against civilians [i.e., "non-combatants"] directly, terrorists
>>do.
>>
>>
>
>But, our revolutionary soldiers defied the British & continental European style of
>warfare, breaking the then established rules, by hiding behind trees, rocks, and
>attacking from ambush.  

Irrelevant. I didn't say anything about using cover and concealment. That's fully lawful. Brits didn't like it. Thought it un-manly or something. Tough. It wasn't sufficient to render the revolutionary armies unlawful combatants, without more.

>Sherman and the Red Legs of the Union army during the
>Civil War attacked noncombatants. 

I agree the Red Legs certainly did, commanded by a bunch of butchers who mostly came out of the border wars of Kansas and Missouri, the North's counterpart of Cantrell and Forrest. They should have been court-martialed and, if murder committed and attributed to them, executed. There was an Attorney General's Order in full force and effect prohibiting that. It should have been enforced. Against all.

I'm not sure the charges against Sherman you would have laid would have stuck, against him personally, anyway. There were other factors there. An occupying army may lawfully, under the rules of war, destroy crops, remove the enemy's civilians for the area, using force if need be, require complete docility, including oaths of allegiance from civilians who remain in the area, etc., and so forth. Marching "down from Georgia to the sea" was a lawful tactic. Not very nice. But absent provable direct *crimes* against the persons (not property, and especially not the property being used to grow crops to supply the Confederate armies and war effort, e.g., "contraband") of unresisting civilians, not illegal. Billy said: "War is hell," and he went on to prove it to the citizenry of the Confederacy which is exactly what he intended to do. I don't mean to suggest that some bummers didn't kill, rob and rape some civilians, there were bummers, deserters, from both sides who followed Billy's army all the way down through Georgia and all the way up to Virginia, raping, robbing and murdering; and they kept the provost marshals on both sides busy wearing out ropes. And, the fact that there may have been soldiers and officers under Billy's command who did not obey their orders doesn't make the campaign objective illegal. It simply made them subject to prosecution themselves; and they should have been.

>The US attacked noncombatants in most of the
>campaigns against the American Indians, very notably at Wounded Knee. 

Yep. Sure did! Violations of the rules of war. "Nits grow into lice." Remember Chivington? Ethnic cleasing. A blot on the honor of the nation. And when they tried to carry on the same tactics in the Filipines, post 1899, it cost some, including a general named Smith, their careers. A slap on the wrist. But violation of the law doesn't vitiate its existence.

>During WWII,
>I will refer you to Hiroshima & Nagasaki- civilians again. 

Different facts and rules apply to air combat and bombing. I don't argue they are correct, simply different. Short sketch: cities contain commmand and control, transportation, communications, manufacturering facilities that support the enemy's war efforts. Therefore there are military targets that may be bombed therein. If you're going for the military targets and nearby civilians are killed, their death is collateral, thus, not unlawful. That's sophistry in my opinion; but I'm not even junior officer in charge of the world, and can't change the fact that this odious camel got its nose under the tent. Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Harry Truman told his generals to find cities with clear military targets. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima had them. But Harry also had those 250,000 US casualties in mind if an invasion was necessary. If Harry's in Hell because of that decision, I'm sure Jerry Farnsworth is showing him a hellish good time. And FWIW, the Japanese Empire didn't even pay lip service to the rules of war embodied in the various Geneva conventions. As you say below, one element of using the rules are whether the other sides subscribed to them.

>The French underground
>regularly attacked the Germans (and the noncombatant French with them).
>

Yes, and members of the Marquis regularly got themselves executed summarily when caught doing it, unlawfully. So did the Russian underground in the Priapet Marshes, Filipinos in Mindanao, etc., and so forth wherever there was an underground. Being a guerrilla is a hard-knock life. We didn't have to treat the VC as POWs when we caught them, unless they were wearing uniforms, clearly bearing arms against us with hostile intent before they attacked, etc., and so forth. The fact that we did is -- to put it mildly -- interesting, but also a matter of expediency for reasons so obvious I'm not going to detail them.

If the Marquis failed to comply with some of the above requirements, they were unlawful combatants.

>>This is why, incidentally, the Dub-yah administration is treating some
>>of those in prison in Cuba as *not* prisoners of war. They weren't
>>lawful combatants in the first place, ergo, they aren't POWs.
>>
>>If you don't comply with this very basic requirement, then you're an
>>unlawful combatant, a criminal against all mankind. If you're caught
>>you're lucky if they don't execute you summarily. Right then: bang.
>>
>>
>
>If you lose or are captured, the Authority can pretty much do what it wants- it
>is, after all, making the "rules". I will grant, however, that the treatment of
>prisoners captured, and the defeated, are what distinguish a rule of law and
>justice of a civilized people from barbarians and mobs.
>
>
>>The PTB make these rules up; but by the American Civil War, they were
>>pretty well known. Lincoln was a little worried the Confederacy might
>>not followed them. So he had a law professor in New York compile them
>>for him, and published them as his Department of War's AGO 100. He then
>>made sure they were passed over the lines to the Confederacy with the
>>clear message that he expected them to follow those rules; otherwise
>>they certainly could expect to hang when it was over. Mostly, each side
>>tried to follow them, Bedford Forrest notably excepted. Too bad Lincoln
>>granted an unconditional amnesty before Booth put a bullet in his head.
>>Forrest would have looked good dangling . . .
>>
>>
>
>Who or what is the PTB?

"Powers That Be." IOW, not guerrillas.

>
>It's a shame RE Lee's honor didn't allow the all out destruction of the North such
>as that which was visited upon the South by those honorable foes, Sherman,
>Sheridan and Grant.
>
>

I don't plan to refight the civil war. Lee's honor allowed him to violate his oath of allegiance as an Army officer and rise in rebellion. That's why his family doesn't own Arlington anymore; instead, it's a graveyard for those who abided by their oaths.

>>>A Tomahawk
>>>missile is terrorism in its most pristine form. So is an F-22. So is a 155mm
>>>Howitzer.
>>>
>>Too simplistic, if you're worried about reality. I don't happen to agree
>>with the rationale for bombing civilians, "accidentally" (we're really
>>after those machine shops scattered in shacks all over Tokoyo, all over
>>Dresden, all over Coventry, all over London, so those cities are
>>"military targets," etc.), but history has stuck us with it, thus far. I
>>do happen to believe, also, the United States government should declare
>>war, as the Constitution provides, in instances before any such
>>reprisals it takes. But lately, it's been a bit hard to decide who to
>>declare war against ... there's some terrorists who keep attacking us,
>>you see. You'll also recall I want, still want, a Declaration of War,
>>and full mobilization, with a landing at Haifa as soon as sufficient
>>forces are trained, to clean out the middle East.
>>
>>
>
>I tend to actually agree here.  Formal declarations make things tidy from the rest
>of the world's point of view.
>Allows them to asses the blame of aggressor, define "war criminals" and otherwise
>muddy the waters, or play "spin doctor" to their heart's content.
>
>
>>>Given just a few circumstances, you could be a terrorist too.
>>>
>>>
>>Be a lot more than a few, Arthur, that I foresee, here and now. And I'd
>>expect to hang if I lost, just as Franklin observed he did in an earlier
>>time.
>>
>
>Certainly- Lives, honor & fortune- this was paid by many during the American
>Revolution, as well as in other conflicts by other peoples. It's the cost of
>getting "caught" or defeated, and sometimes even if you're on the winning side!
>
>
>>
>>>In the story of her tragic pregnancy, Heinlein has merely expressed his view
>>>of authority. People are patently inadequate at deciding issues for other
>>>human beings.
>>>
>>I disagree with "merely" and with "patently."
>>
>>
>
>I disagree with Arthur's premise. Heinlein was providing a background to make the
>character become more of an individual, with a believable reason behind the
>"hatred" for Authority and Warden. Considering the extent of detail that he went
>into about radiation storms, as described by Podkayne, this was not something he
>lightly tossed in. I have always viewed it as a commentary on the supposed loss of
>humanity by cybogs, coupled with a commentary on the incapacity of bureaucracy to
>deal with unplanned emergency situations.
>
>
>>>The pilot, as authority, is disinterested in anything much
>>>beyond procedure.
>>>
>>No, the pilot was a wired human being who no longer was a people. Just
>>like Michael Holmes. Dak Broadbent noted the difference. Dak was a
>>people; in fact, Dak was an elected representative of his constituency.
>>Which side of Heinlein do you want? I don't think Heinlein went to bed
>>one night and awoke the next morn to find the Good Fairy had shown up
>>alongside the Sandman to bonk him on his head and turn him into a
>>"libertarian." Of course some human beings are inadequate to decide some
>>things some times. OTOH, do you want to hope 'Black David' decides in
>>your favor when it's time to clean out the canals, or would you rather
>>elect some clown you really know a lot more about.
>>
>>
>
>Is Michael Holmes=Mycroft Holmes aka "Mike" aka "Michelle"? As I recall, Wyoh
>commented that "Michelle" was more of a woman than Mike was a man. Makes one
>wonder! But in any case, the self aware computer is considered to be "people" by
>Mannie, Wyoh, and the Prof. I'm pretty sure they considered the cyborg
>"not-people". (As an aside: an interesting treatment of what defines "human" is
>Janet Kagan's novel "Hellspark")
>
>
>>>Procedure is how the PRC remains in power. Procedure is
>>>how the the US Government collects over $2 Trillion a year from families
>>>forced to raise their children by proxy in order to pay it.
>>>
>
>What or who is PRC?
>

I wasn't quite sure myself. Ask Art.

>Peeve Mode On.: I hate the current tendency to use initials for everything. Unless
>you are VERY steeped in the particular jargon, and dealing with one subject
>exclusively, it becomes a nightmare to determine which set of initials mean what.
>Even being a fan, I frequently have to pause, and hunt down a reference to
>decipher the string of initials for the Heinlein book titles. At least standard
>procedure as I was trained means that the first time in any communication the
>initials are used, they are defined.  Peeve Mode Off.
>
>
>>Mere rhetoric. Keep your kids home and home school them. Or send them to
>>private schools. TANSTAAFL. I sent mine to private school when I thought
>>she could benefit thereby and paid the same taxes, probably more, than
>>you did. Would I have liked more time to spend raising my child when I
>>was working sixteen hours a day for those "big bucks"? Would I like to
>>go into the LAUSD with fire and a sword and clean out the waste,
>>incompetent, and inefficient? Hell, yes. Or as the Queen said,
>>"Bollocks, if I had two I'd be King." Instead I paid taxes and tried to
>>vote for the lesser of two or more idiots everytime a school board
>>election took place. You wanna do something more direct, go read "How To
>>Be a Politician." But try to do what he suggested, stay within an
>>established party, infiltrate it! Unless you're living in Idaho among
>>retired LAPD cops, in which case, sign 'em all up for your third-party,
>>if you have one. Then you'll run the school board, mebbe.
>>
>>
>
>>>Procedure is the
>>>bane of mankind--but it is the root of authority--even the most benign
>>>authority. Heinlein had his nose rubbed in it enough to hate it.
>>>
>>>
>>Hate it? In what circumstances, under what rule, when? He saw its abuse
>>suffiently well to postulate a system, unlikely to exist ordinarily, in
>>which rebellion would be justified, just as histoy has justified
>>rebellion in other like and unlike circumstances. History's
>>justification is just that -- it happened, like stuff.
>>
>>
>
>Procedure is the systematic and efficient way of dealing with repetitious
>situations and information. Unfortunately, everybody thinks their problem is
>unique. Also unfortunately, those problems or situations that are NOT repetitious,
>tend to be given the "one size fits most " answer that actually doesn't apply and
>then must be redealt with by someone with the necessary authority to apply a
>creative approach. And in these times, those people are either rare, or ham-strung
>by bureaucratic rules that do not allow "creativity". And unless an emergency has
>been previously identified as a possibility, the method for dealing with it
>carefully planned, the procedure drilled into the probable responders, the
>probability of a successful resolution is nil. I refer you to the example of
>simple fire drills.
>
>
>>>It is abysmally shallow, if understandable, to condemn terrorism qua
>>>terrorism.
>>>
>>Nonsense. We go with the best definition we have. The American
>>Revolution didn't begin with terrorism, as I am about to define it. It
>>began when a Major was told to go collect some arms in Concord and
>>Lexington, and someone, very probably colonial American, fired a shot.
>>Those local militia Minute Men were wearing blue and buff cockades,
>>those of them who had the brains to know not to pound salt.
>>
>>
>
>From my viewpoint, throughout history the difference between "terrorism" and
>"patriotism" was who won.

I don't disagree that the winners write the history books and whitewash their own activies.

>In the book, we're supposed to be rooting for Mannie & company. Yet, from a strict
>assessment of the point of view of the governments involved as well as the Warden,
>they were terrorists, outlaws, and rebels, even if not strictly speaking, (at
>least in Mannie's case) criminals in prison.
>
>

There's even a heavyweight point to the argument that the Federated Nations must hold the Moon in trust for the Nation's of Earth and, therefore, cannot allow its independence. See, "The Long Watch." Also, did you have occasion to think why the Emperor has his seat on Luna in Double Star?

>>>There is no basis for equating Wyo to someone who would willingly
>>>blow up grandmas and children at a Passover feast.
>>>
>>No? Did she plan to give Warden a call before she de[t]o[n]ated so he could
>>evacuate non-combatants. She didn't say so. How much are you willing to
>>bet? Wannabetchyerlife? Then you go pick up that idiot stick and clean
>>the aisles outside the computer room. Me, I'm calling in sick. They'll
>>probably put me in a work crew outside again, but I'll take my chances
>>outside rather than inside for a while, if you don't mind. Give my
>>regards to her when she next visits with Mannie.
>>
>>
>
>I must agree with David here. Wyoh would have blown up anything that would have
>put a crimp in Warden & Authority. So if he was attending Passover with Grandma &
>kiddies, too bad for the bystanders! However, I don't think she would have
>targeted the Passover feast otherwise, (unless, of course, it could have been made
>to appear that Warden had ordered it- MAJOR political point.)
>
>
>>>This is a viewpoint of
>>>someone raised in an extremely maternal and protective society--which tends
>>>to make all acts of violence equally reprehensible--despite mitigation and
>>>motivation.
>>>
>>I don't recall an extremely maternal and protective society. I recall
>>wearing a green suit for about six years during the 1960s. And I don't
>>believe all acts of violence are equally reprehensible. What motivations
>>are you talking about, exactly? Simply pissed off with what you think is
>>oppression isn't quite enough, all the time. It depends on what I think
>>as well as what you think. What did Manuel think? Until the magic word:
>>starvation, I think he thought Wyo wasn't dealing with a full deck.
>>
>>
>
>Until Mike convinced him that the revolution was Necessary!, he didn't think
>either Prof or Wyoh were dealing with full decks!
>
>
>>>This makes Israeli's equal to the Hammas. An opinion all too
>>>common these days.
>>>
>>>
>>That makes any soldier who ever lived equal to Hammas. That's a stupid
>>opinion.
>>
>
>Neither one! Hammas is a revolutionary organization with religious zealotism. The
>Israeli's are reservists with religious zealotism. What BOTH are doing is wrong in
>my opinion. But neither can be equated to the regular armed forces of other
>countries or other times.
>

Some Israelis are quite secular. Some of them serve careers in the military. I agree that the zealots, since at least the time of the Macabees have caused a lot of trouble. What else is new?

>>
>>>Perhaps we want to live among sheep. Perhaps we only find sheep likeable.
>>>Wyo, being violent, makes her "not a sheep" and so, sadly, she is equal to a
>>>member of Hezbollah in sheep's eyes.
>>>
>>>
>>Yeah, well, some of us out here rubbing lanolin in our belly buttons
>>aren't exactly sheep, even if we try hard to look like them. Me, I still
>>got a canine or two. Your brush is a bit broad.
>>
>>
>
>I agree with David here, too. Judging from the response of the American people in
>WWI, WWII, and the number of flags on cars today, our citizens want to live their
>lives in peace, however, it is not wise to awaken the sleeping dragon.
>
>
>>>Bah. Her ability to shoot a soldier in the back raises her quite high in my
>>>estimation.
>>>
>>Really? Has she (or the cabal she follows) declared war? Is she wearing
>>a uniform, or some clearly identifying item. Is she advancing on him and
>>his position clearly under arms with obvious hostile intent?
>>
>
>Advancing on a position clearly under arms with obvious hostile intent gets you
>killed, when the intent is to take out the enemy, one does what one can, hopefully
>surviving to fight another day, as well. Ambush, and fighting from cover is both
>effective and militarily sound policy.
>

Then wear a uniform. Or a significant part of one. Or a cockade. Or a colored ribbon or [alliterating expletive deleted] fire fight bandana on your upper right arm. I'm flexible. I'll shoot you anyway, unless you surrender, but I'll accept your surrender only if you're wearing the uniform, etc.

>
>>Or is she
>>carrying her arms hidden in a coffin supposedly carrying her baby to
>>bury peaceably in the church graveyard next door to his post, while she
>>morns. No to the alternates, except the coffin one above?
>>
>
>Depending on exact circumstances, this, too, could be sound tactics.
>
>

Violating the rules are war are sound tactics. Don't lose, though, if you do. Remember machine gunning the POWs at Malmendy? They stood trial at Nuremberg. Some hanged. Check out what happened to Samar after the Balangiga massacre of C Company, 9th Infantry. The Filipinos are still screaming about it. They got a taste of Sherman, adminstered in large part by a Tidewater bred aristocrat who was brother of the man who married J.E.B. Stuart's orphaned daughter.

>>Then she's an
>>unlawful combatant, a murderess. Hang her, unless a bullet's cheaper. No
>>trial. That was one of my troopers who she stabbed, I'll cut her throat
>>with her own knife. [See, Balangiga, Samar, Philippines, 1902].
>>
>>
>
>The Germans would have liked to do that to the French underground, I'm sure!
>

The Germans did "it" to the French underground. We did "it" to the Filipino underground in their Insurrection against us. Was it lawful? Depends on what was done. Waller (the Tidewater aristocrat) was acquited of all charges. Of course he was passed over twice to become Commandant for lesser men, because of his reputation as the "Butcher of Samar," despite the fact he refused to follow unlawful orders given him by General Smith. Smith was convicted and forced to retire, reduced in rank, because he gave the sort of unlawful orders he'd been accustomed to seeing issued in the Indian Wars. "I want you to kill and burn. Kill and burn. Kill all men above the age of ten." Cf. "Rusty" Calley: "Waste them."

>
>>>If I saw her cut the throat of an unsuspecting guard, the blood
>>>over her clothes would make her more admirably human to me than a chest full
>>>of Nobel Peace Prizes.
>>>
>>Different strokes for different folks. Also hyperbole. Weakens your case.
>>
>>
>>>My Dad blew the living guts out of two German
>>>soldiers who didn't realize he had survived the hundred yard dash to their
>>>position.
>>>
>>Was he wearing OD fatigues?
>>
>
>This is the point- in guerrilla and resistance warfare, uniforms are a) not
>available, b) stupid, if you are a member, c) will get you killed!
>
>

Uh-huh. And if I catches you out of one shooting at me or mine, you better not plan on me accepting your surrender for much longer than the time it takes to see if you have any intelligence sufficiently useful to extend your life.

I agree uniforms are sometimes unavailable. Didn't stop the evil, dishonorable and oppressive Union Army from recognizing butternut as a valid substitute after gray cloth became unavailable, did it? And a couple ribbons or even scraps to make a cockade can usually be found. That inherent "stupidity" is precisely the point. If you're going to be a revolutionary and fight a guerrilla war as a guerrilla, know exactly what the chance is that you'll be killed out of hand if captured, and know what little you can do to give yourself a slight chance that you won't be. Know exactly what's going to happen to friends and neighbors who remain where you are fighting ("Tramp, tramp, tramp the boys are marching ... "), know exactly what you and they all face. It's not a facile choice, never to be made without most serious consideration.

>>
>>>He was a terrorist and I am proud of him because of it.
>>>
>>I'd be proud of him too, and damned happy he lived to tell the tale, but
>>I doubt he was a terrorist, or would have agree he was. Neither would
>>the pilots of Torpedo 8 at Midway or the soliders of the 69th New York
>>Pinkerton used to think were all there were of the Irish Brigade.
>>
>>
>>>Violence can be differentiated. Killing unarmed pilots on an airbus and
>>>crashing that plane full of Soccer Mom's and Accountants into a Tower filled
>>>with Secretaries and Accountants is cowardly and insane.
>>>
>>Whatever else it is, it is contrary to the rules of warfare.
>>
>
>Have to disagree! There are no "rules of war". However, there are treaties among
>the various nations. Unfortunately in this case, those that don't sign the
>treaties (not being recognized as a legitimate political power or entity), are not
>bound by them. There are also, however, ethical and moral issues, which again,
>unfortunately in this case, due to the fanatics of the religion involved, are not
>those of the people of the US. September 11th, 2001, was a malevolent, abhorrent,
>heinous attack on the foundations of our freedoms, economy, honor, and
>sovereignty, and was carried out by foreign nationals with NO justification. And,
>not only was this and attack on the United States, but upon the economy of the
>world.
>

Yes, there are rules. They derive from customs that go back ages. Go look at the Air Force Regulations. Whether or not we are party to any treaty, they apply to all airmen and officers of the Air Force. Every service has the same regulations that apply. Other nations have the same rules, their version. The French probably claim they, as the first truly civilized nation, invented them. Lincoln caused their codification by the issuance of AGO 100 long before we were party to any Geneva or other convention. That's what's called unilateral adoption. Civilized nations do it. Terrorists don't.

>
>>Therefore,
>>its perpetrators and those in concert with them are terrorists, but they
>>are also unlawful combatants and, if captured, may be summarily
>>executed. If not, but captured, they may be segregated when identified
>>as such from lawful POWs and continued to be treated as unlawful
>>combatants under whatever rules their captor provides, and it need
>>provide none.
>>
>>
>>>The people killed
>>>were a threat to no one, and not part of any authority repressing anyone.
>>>
>
>>Assassination of authority is also a crime: murder, absent a war
>>declaration. Assassination or other crimes by an un-uniformed spy:
>>ditto, even when there is a declaration of war. Simply being behind the
>>lines to spy or carry dispatches, out of uniform, is a crime. That's why
>>they hanged Nathan Hale, the great uncle of the fellow who wrote "The
>>Man Without a Country." That's why we hanged Major Andre in return.
>>Deliberately killing non-combatants is always against the rules of land
>>warfare. It may not be murder in all cases; but . . . damned few when
>>it's not.
>>
>>
>
>Generally, the above are against various treaties. However, we, as well as others,
>have practiced assassination attempts, and non-uniformed spying as general policy.

Knowing full well that if our spies were caught, they might well hang. Nathan Hale, great uncle of the fellow who wrote "The Man Without a Country" did. So we hanged Andre. Then there was a tacit agreement that hanging would cease and we'd see what happened after the war ended. Unlawful assassinations attempts? Name one "we" practiced. "we" ain't J.W. Booth acting on behalf of the defeated and surrendered Confederacy. You recall what happened to him. Hadn't burned in that fire, they'd have hanged him, and probably drawn and quartered him afterwards. Nothing against the rules of war, during a declared war, in dispatching six P-38s to shoot down a transport carrying a Japanese Admiral you find by an intercept he will be en route on a certain day in a certain place.

>Deliberately killing non-combatants is always bad policy, and ethically
>questionable, but it is not "against the rules of war" particularly if the actual
>target is a militarily sound one.
>
>

Not true. Under certain circumstances, i.e., a proven pretext, it easily could be found to be unlawful even if there was claimed to be a military target present. That's up to the court, if there's a trial, even if it's a kangaroo court, or a "drumhead" courts martial. "Your defense based on the presence of an Army recruiting office on the bottom floor of building four of the Towers is specious. By order of this Court, you are hereby found guilty as charged . . . and it is the sentence of this Court . . . "

>>>Taking suicide as insurance against defeat is also cowardly and insane. Only
>>>people who have always had a wealth of choices in their lives would think of
>>>a suicide bomber as anything but a yellow bellied, lily livered coward.
>>>
>>>Cowardice and insanity are what make "terrorism" unacceptable.
>>>
>>>

>>No. What makes terrorism unacceptable is when it's directed against
>>non-combatants, in the absence of a declaration of war, or by persons
>>who fail to properly identify themselves as lawful combatants. Nothin'
>>wrong about going out in your uniform at night, as the guy Ross Carter's
>>Devils in Baggy Pants was reported to do, and cutting just one throat of
>>two enemy in their foxhole, if you can get away with it, and leaving the
>>other alive to wake up and see his dead buddy next morning.
>>
>>
>
>No, what makes terrorism unacceptable is when it's directed at me and mine. 

On a personal level, yes, of course.

>What
>constitutes terrorism is the inability of the people that are involved to realize
>that this will not bring them closer to their desired goal, but will in fact cause
>their ultimate destruction. They do not have the political savvy to realize they
>could only win if, like Prof, Mannie, Wyoh, and Mike, they sucker the Authority
>into winning the war for them.
>
>
>>>I cannot imagine Wyo allowing babies or grandmas to be killed, even in her
>>>most savage blood lust. She would, instead, lay herself over a grenade about
>>>to blow up a pre-school.
>>>
>>>
>>I don't know what went on in that woman's mind when she met Manuel;
>>neither do you. One would hope she wouldn't. I wouldn't bet on it.
>>
>>
>>>The importance of this distinction is the difference that would make a
>>>conviction or an acquittal at Nuremberg.
>>>
>>>
>>No, it's not. It wasn't, and it didn't. I'm not aware of anyone who was
>>charged as an unlawful combatant at Nuremberg. I am aware of cases where
>>soldiers were charged with murder of POWs and civilians in violation of
>>the rule of war: all contained in the same AGO 100 I've cited here, but
>>not the same thing at all.
>>
>>
>
>I must have missed that. What's the AGO 100?

The US Attorney General's Order Number 100, issued 1861, folowing orders to him by the President to do so. It remained in force, as an unilateral order, not any sort of treaty, at least through the agreement of the U.S. to ratify Geneva Conventions sometime in the early twentieth century, when it was superceded by what have now become DOD and various branch regulations. Durn! Didn't they give you classes on this stuff in the Air Scouts? <eg>

>I suspect it is a treaty, which, if so, only applies to those who have agreed to
>abide by it.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>***********   **********
>>>>Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn't simply a romantic figure.
>>>>Forget the  happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite
>>>>manners, He's not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer.
>>>>Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: "in my
>>>>younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to
>>>>something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of
>>>>which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you're
>>>>talking about."
>>>>In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who
>>>>pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna  at enormous
>>>>cost? Who knows the "Istanbul twist"?  Who first defines the
>>>>revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle
>>>>of "terrorism?"
>>>>REPLY:
>>>>Yes, I am having some trouble with this.
>>>>Some.
>>>>There is no indication that the Professor was an indiscriminate
>>>>terrorist bombing women and children.
>>>>Is he a murderer?
>>>>Yes;  here in Luna.  And certainly against Authority.
>>>>Before that?
>>>>I don't know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Savagery qua savagery doesn't give me pause. Assassination is a valid
>>>act--even a Christian act; it can save countless lives.
>>>
>>Machiavelli would agree. Even I might. The rules of warfare do not
>>necessarily. A Japanese Admiral was assassinated during World War II for
>>exactly the reason that it was thought his assassination would save
>>lives. The assassins were flying P-38 Lockheeds, wearing Army Air Corps
>>uniforms. The man who shot the Admiral's plane down was awarded the
>>Medal of Honor. His act wasn't contrary to the laws of land or any other
>>warfare. Because he was a declared, uniformed combatant. Heinrych (sp?
>>and I don't feel like taking the time to look the correct spelling up
>>right now) was assassinated by a guerilla. With a bomb. He may or may
>>not have been acting lawfully. In any event, it didn't matter. No one
>>ever tried him. Instead the Nazis engaged in wholesale reprisals,
>>killing everyone in a city. Some of them may well have been among those
>>tried at Nuremberg -- for killing non-combatants!
>>
>>
>
>I'm not old enough to remember Nuremberg. However, my father, (who was in WWII,
>European theater, w/ 3 battle stars) made the statement that the Allies set a bad
>precedent in trying the defeated for those acts committed as apart of the war. His
>opinion was, that due to that precedent, we, someday would regret it, as things
>are done in war, that would not and cannot be justifiably done otherwise.
>Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among them. He  was also of the opinion that the
>Allies were wrong in arbitrarily creating Israel by displacing the Palestinians,
>and that we would also come to regret that, too.
>
>
>>>Those among us with
>>>dirty hands may deserve general condemnation, but they might also deserve
>>>our praise. Dirty hands by themselves do not condemn.
>>>
>>>
>>Perhaps in our minds. Then again, the end does justify the means, right?
>>
>>
>
>>>De la Paz is the ultimate romantic figure. The fact that we don't trust he
>>>always threw bombs at those deserving it, shows more about our own faults
>>>than his.
>>>
>>>
>>No, it only shows the scepticism Robert Heinlein tried to teach us.
>>
>>A guerrilla or a terrorist who engages in unlawful acts is not the moral
>>or legal or any other equivalent of any soldier who does his duty; and
>>that duty in civilized nations includes the duty to abide by the laws of
>>warfare.
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, but this is entirely subjective! Exactly who decided it was "unlawful"!

For starters, perhaps President Lincoln; but he only caused codification of what was then generally understood and taught at the service academies and elsewhere. Been around a long time, these 'customs' that evolved into what is called the "land of land warfare." Washington and the British recognized them. It was part of the education they got as professional officers.

>However proudly I wore the Air Force uniform, and regardless of my pride in the
>United States, and my belief that it is superior to all other countries, I
>recognize that members of other countries probably have the same pride and beliefs
>for theirs, particularly if they are trying to regain their homeland, or win their
>freedom against those they think have improperly or illegally robbed them of it.
>(Southerners in particular can identify with this.)
>
>
>>If you're going to lead a rebellion, those are the rules. Lincoln found
>>them acceptible for his time.
>>
>
>Lincoln was not leading a rebellion. He was trying to keep the country together.
>And he still did not force his generals to abide by the established conventions
>either!
>

No. He just ordered them to. Some of them probably got away with not following those orders. Sherman, contrary to your assertions, very probably did follow them, against the Confederacy. Neither you nor I were there, but neither of us is so naive as to accept all the tales we're told. But I'm not here to refight that war.

>
>>I am constrained to agree. They could be
>>improved upon, especially in the area of air warfare; but I'm not in
>>charge of the world. Both the Confederacy and the Union hanged violators
>>of those rules they caught during the Civil War. Perhaps not enough of
>>them were caught. After the war, and then perhaps largely because the
>>Confederacy did abide by them, by and large, Lincoln issued a general
>>pardon, except to former officers of the military establishment and
>>government officials who had resigned to join the Confederacy, thereby
>>betraying their oaths of allegiance. The only persons charged with a
>>tried with a war crime after the war were the assassins and those who
>>allegely gave them aid and confort and the jackass who was in charge of
>>Anderson. He hanged as a murderer. The rest of the oath-betrayers were
>>disbarred from holding office or commissions under the United States,
>>ever again. Even that eventually changed. By the Spanish American War
>>Wheeler was called back, recommissioned a Major General and commanded
>>the cavalry brigade of which the Rough Riders were part at the battle of
>>San Juan Hill. McKinley did that to reconcile the former confederacy.
>>
>>
>
>So, what happened to the Union officers and soldiers who killed noncombatants,
>stole, raped, pillaged and burned across the South, or those in the Army that
>stole, tortured, and killed the American Indians, or those that set the policy of
>destroying the primary food supply of a people with whom we were not at "war"?
>Why, IIRC, they were promoted! Hailed as heroes!
>

My goodness! You've found liars and hypocrites in history! What's your point? :-) Some parts of the country Bedford Forrest is still hailed a hero. Quantrell, the James brothers, the officers who commanded the Kansas redlegs, and John Brown, who single-handedly before he was killed by Marines did more to start the Civil War than any other. All bloody murderers. Along with the asshole who commanded at Andersonville. He's the only one who hanged. Why? Because a President who was assassinated, first declared a general amnesty. Capice? "General" amnesty?

>I believe that given the option between a peaceful settlement of differences, and
>violence that leads to more violence where a settlement of any kind will, for
>generations, be bitter, the wise will chose peaceful settlement. But, there are
>times, when such cannot be, and the Authority will always brand the ones not in
>Authority as rebels, outlaws, and terrorists. Historically, there must come a time
>when those so labeled either win their war and become Patriots, or are forced to
>become (usually somewhat grudgingly) fellow citizens with full equality. Consider
>the Scots, the Irish, Great Britain, the US,  the Tories,  the Confederates and
>the various American Indian tribes as examples.
>
>I have considered The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress one of the best books to study as a
>general operations manual for revolutionaries, as well as one of the most
>interesting looks at alternative possibilities for democratic societies. 

There are lots better operating manuals available if that is what you want. Look for one called Schoolbooks and Krags. It's about "little brown brother." It might lead you to others.

>I was
>sorry that Heinlein did not have the Loonies adopt at least one of Prof. LaPaz's
>suggestions, and explore it a bit further. I particularly liked the one where one
>house makes laws on a 2/3s majority, and the other repeals them on a 1/3 minority.

So did I. Talk about gridlock! Wow! ;-)

>Would tend to keep laws to the essentials, as well as limit the conflicts of
>interest and the "there oughta be a law" syndrome.


-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:
...
>Or as the Queen said,
>"Bollocks, if I had two I'd be King."
...

I love this quote! Which queen, when, what source?

[Simon Jester]


Roger Connor wrote:
...
>Who or what is the PTB?
...

The Powers That Be. (Have you been watching "Angel", David?)

...
>What or who is PRC?

The People's Republic of China - ie. communist China. (Anytime a country's name includes "People's Republic" or "Democratic Republic", it's a communist dictatorship.)

>Peeve Mode On.: I hate the current tendency to use initials for everything. Unless
>you are VERY steeped in the particular jargon, and dealing with one subject
>exclusively, it becomes a nightmare to determine which set of initials mean what.
>Even being a fan, I frequently have to pause, and hunt down a reference to
>decipher the string of initials for the Heinlein book titles. At least standard
>procedure as I was trained means that the first time in any communication the
>initials are used, they are defined.  Peeve Mode Off.
...

IKWYM! LOL. Sometimes you can guess the meaning of a set of initials from context, sometimes not. I originally read _Friday_ before I read TMiaHM, and I wondered about the meaning of the Dutch word "tanstaafl" that RAH kept using...

Simon


David Silver wrote:
...
>What role does Michael Holmes, the Artificial Intelligence, have, other
>than to avoid the years and years of the never-written Stone Pillow for
>these folk on Luna?
...

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think the comparisons with the American revolution can be taken too far.

OTOH, (as a number of other posters have pointed out,) religion was a major factor in the colonies.

Mycroft has nearly god-like powers - he is almost omniscient in Luna (thanks to microphones, Library facilities, communications technology, etc) and pretty close to omnipotent - as Mannie observes, it really isn't a good idea to put the controls for everything through a single computer.

There's also the question of names - Michael means "who is like god", while his first friend and key conspirator has the name Manuel, meaning "god is with us".

So perhaps these revolutionaries really did have God on their side.

[Simon Jester]


"David Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message news:3CB7F98F.30505@verizon.net...
>Yes, and members of the Marquis regularly got themselves executed summarily when
>caught doing it, unlawfully.
<Nitpick mode on>You mean Maquis, David. No "r". Threw me for just a moment the first time the Marquis was mentioned in this context--I wondered which one. De Sade? Another? Then I picked up form context. <Nitpick off> --Dee
Simon Jester wrote in message <1018700217.8016.2@eurus.uk.clara.net>...
>As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think the comparisons with the American
>revolution can be taken too far.
>
>OTOH, (as a number of other posters have pointed out,) religion was a major
>factor in the colonies.
>
>Mycroft has nearly god-like powers - he is almost omniscient in Luna (thanks
>to microphones, Library facilities, communications technology, etc) and
>pretty close to omnipotent - as Mannie observes, it really isn't a good idea
>to put the controls for everything through a single computer.
>
>There's also the question of names - Michael means "who is like god", while
>his first friend and key conspirator has the name Manuel, meaning "god is
>with us".
>
>So perhaps these revolutionaries really did have God on their side.
>

I agree that the comparisons with the American Revolution can be taken too far. That's why I warned that I was forcing the analogy. It's a meaningless little mind exercise and hook for debate. Likewise, the analysis of names can be taken too far. Sometimes a name is just a name. I'm Daniel. Does that mean I.m literally 'the judge of God' (well, actually...). No, it just means I'm one of the countless millions whose name derives from the Bible. While Heinlein may have been commenting on omniscience in his creation of Mike, that is essentially a matter which is pertinent only within the story of the inner circle of the revolution. His immense power, while indispensable to the success of the uprising, is only incidental to it's story.

So I don't see that religion is a factor at all in this book. The only reference to religion at all is Manny's brother Greg's church, which is basically brushed off as harmless fluff by Manny. Furthermore, I don't see that religion was a major factor in the American Revolution. It certainly played a role in the settlement of the continent, but was tangential at best in the uprising.

Dan


Simon Jester wrote:
>
>David Silver wrote:
>...
>>Or as the Queen said,
>>"Bollocks, if I had two I'd be King."
>...
>
>I love this quote! Which queen, when, what source?

The "quote" was rife in the miltary in the '60s; the "queen" is purely generic:

"Balls," roared the King; "if I had any, I'd have the Cong [or any "them"] out of the country!"

"Balls," roared the Queen; "if I had any, I'd be the King!"

-- 
------(m+
  ~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
 except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

Simon Jester wrote:
>
>David Silver wrote:
>...
>>What role does Michael Holmes, the Artificial Intelligence, have, other
>>than to avoid the years and years of the never-written Stone Pillow for
>>these folk on Luna?
>...
>
>As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think the comparisons with the American
>revolution can be taken too far.
>
>OTOH, (as a number of other posters have pointed out,) religion was a major
>factor in the colonies.
>
>Mycroft has nearly god-like powers - he is almost omniscient in Luna (thanks
>to microphones, Library facilities, communications technology, etc) and
>pretty close to omnipotent - as Mannie observes, it really isn't a good idea
>to put the controls for everything through a single computer.
>
>There's also the question of names - Michael means "who is like god", while
>his first friend and key conspirator has the name Manuel, meaning "god is
>with us".
>
>So perhaps these revolutionaries really did have God on their side.

Manny and Mike both make this point, variously.

-- 
------(m+
  ~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
 except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

BPRAL22169 wrote:
>
>I just ran across the following quotation, and its relevance to The Moon Is a
>Harsh Mistress struck me immediately:
>
>". . . revolutionary movements in general . . . are incited by abuses and
>misfeasances, more or less specific and always secondary, and are carried on
>with no idea beyond getting them rectified or avenged, usually by the sacrifice
>of conspicuous scapegoats.  The philosophy of the institution that gives play
>to these misfeasances is never examined and hence they recur promptly under
>another form or other auspices, or else their place is taken  by others which
>are in character precisely like them.  Thus the notorious failure of reforming
>and revolutionary movements in the long run may as a rule be found due to their
>incorrigible superficiality."
>Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy the State (1935)
>Fox & Wilkes ed., 1973, 1994, p. 53
>
>It's quite possible -- though not particularly likely -- that Heinlein might
>have read OETS when it first came out, as he was keeping abreast of the various
>radical reform movements that were circulating at the time, and Nock was a
>relatively well-known literary figure and social critic
>Bill

I swear Mr. Heinlein discusses this book somewhere, but I may be soldering de-serial-numbered things together again.

-- 
------(m+
  ~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
 except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

Dee wrote:
>"David Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message
>news:3CB7F98F.30505@verizon.net...
>
>
>>Yes, and members of the Marquis regularly got themselves executed
>>
>summarily when
>
>>caught doing it, unlawfully.
>>
>
><Nitpick mode on>You mean Maquis, David.  No "r".  Threw me for just a
>moment the first time the Marquis was mentioned in this context--I wondered
>which one.  De Sade?  Another?  Then I picked up form context.  <Nitpick
>off>
>
>--Dee
>
>
>

Thank you, Dee. French and I have a virulent reaction everytime I try to spell it, because I absolutely cannot pronounce it or understand it when read or spoken.

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

>Dee wrote:
>><Nitpick mode on>You mean Maquis, David.  No "r".  Threw me for just a
>>moment the first time the Marquis was mentioned in this context--I wondered
>>which one.  De Sade?  Another?  Then I picked up form context.  <Nitpick
>>off>

Nitpicking self--that should be from, not form. Murphy's law of the internet strikes again!

David Silver wrote:

>Thank you, Dee. French and I have a virulent reaction everytime I try to
>spell it, because I absolutely cannot pronounce it or understand it when
>read or spoken.

I have the same reaction to German, David.


John David Galt wrote:
[snip]

>
>In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
>privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
>"Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the
>US as it appears in "Coventry".  But there would also be substantial
>ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The
>Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
>
>

Returning to the scene of one of my crimes in this thread, I can understand why John David Galt hoped any of the "substantial ungoverned places" would be much more similar to a liberatarian utopia than "Coventry."

My only question to John David, or others, is: what makes you think RAH would expect that?

Consider "Coventry." Here's a precis written by me that I think fairly represents it. The precis is part of a copyrighted article I've published and, by quoted myself in part, for fair use discussion, I am not waiving that copyright.


[begin copyrighted portion]

" Plot synopsis of "Coventry"
        "Coventry" is an oft-ignored short story in The Future History 
Series chronologically and conceptually taking place between the 
novelette "If This Goes On . . ." (ASF, Feb-Mar 1940, rewritten and 
expanded for collection 1953) and the novel Methuselah's Children (ASF 
Jul-Aug-Sep 1941, rewritten and expanded for book publication 1958). The 
author postulates a highly evolved and comfortable society in which 
democracy has been restored following 'The Second American Revolution' 
against the theocratic dictatorship imposed by Nehemiah Scudder, the 
"Prophet," and his successors, a revolution described in "If This Goes 
On . . .". The patriots who restored this freedom have engrafted to the 
Constitution of 1783 an agreement known as the "Covenant," defined as 
the custom of all to refrain from doing any damage to other citizens--a 
"golden rule" imposed into law, to insure the maximum possible liberty 
for every person.

        In the story, Heinlein's protagonist David MacKinnon is by 
occupation an English Literature Professor--immediately a tip-off of the 
author's viewpoint, given Heinlein's expressed disdain for some 
practitioners of that occupation [See, the essay "Who Are The Heirs of 
Patrick Henry: Afterword" republished in Expanded Universe (1980); see 
also: the character of Clyde Leamer in Cp. XI, Time Enough For Love 
(1973)]--who violates the "Covenant" by committing atavistic violence. 
He breaks the nose of someone who calls him an "upholstered parasite," 
surely 'fighting words' to a Literature teacher! In his words, "I simply 
punched a man in the nose for offending me outrageously."

        The State convicts him of the essential crime of believing 
himself capable of judging morally his fellow citizens and feeling 
justified in personally correcting and punishing their lapses--being a 
danger to all that, from its societal standpoint, makes him mad as a 
March Hare. He is sentenced to choose between the Two Alternatives 
normally offered offenders in that society. The choice: either undergo 
submission to psychological readjustment  to correct his tendency to 
wish to damage others, or having the state withdraw itself from him--by 
exiling him to Coventry, is Hobbesian in the extreme. Here, Coventry is 
a very real place--separated from the rest of the Country and kept so by 
an physical Barrier thought impassable--a mysterious wall of force 
fields. Addressing the Court, MacKinnon castigates his society for its 
choice to fit into a "cautious little pattern" of "compromising 'safe' 
weaklings with water in their veins . . . [who've] planned their world 
so carefully you've planned the fun and zest right out of it." The 
English teacher, a self-defined "rugged individualist," chooses Coventry.

        What do you suppose the author who many today consider the 
prophet of the Libertarian Party, "rugged individualists" all, had in 
store for this "rugged individualist"? What MacKinnon finds in Coventry 
changes him and is the story.

        Before passing through the Gate into Coventry, an Army guard 
advises MacKinnon he may elect to return at any time, by presenting 
himself at the Gate, at the cost, however, of mandatory submission to 
"psychological readjustment." Entering Coventry, MacKinnon first 
encounters a customs station manned by fellow "rugged individualists" 
working for their own government who "tax" him by confiscating at 
gunpoint nearly all his "imported" possessions. So much for the 
Crusoe-like independence he imagined would exist in a land of "noble, 
independent spirits who give each other wide berth and practice mutual 
respect."

        Left virtually penniless, he next is conveyed to a court that 
fines him for ineffectually resisting the imposition of customs 'duties' 
(he had reached for his rifle which one guard neatly shot out of his 
hands to avoid filling out necessary reporting forms had he elected to 
kill him), then sentences him to an additional ten days for vagrancy to 
serve while awaiting auction of his remaining property to pay his fine. 
Undoubtedly the expected 'deficiency judgment' will result from the 
'auction,' hence: more jail time. In jail he meets a fellow prisoner 
named "Fader" Magee who befriends and helps him escape. From him he 
learns that the territory of Coventry is subdivided into three realms, 
the largest, so-called "New American," governed by the people who've 
taxed and imprisoned him; next, a smaller "Free State," which is an 
absolute dictatorship ruled over by the "Liberator," where the 
watchwords are Duty and Obedience; and, finally, the small mountain 
domain of the "Angels," populated by an unreconstructed remnant of the 
Prophet's followers under a theocracy complete with a Prophet Incarnate 
and all the trimmings. All three claim to be the only legal government 
of the United States and look forward to redeeming the rest of the 
Country. War is ongoing between the Liberator's Free State and New 
America. While fugitive he meets a secret organized guild of thieves 
that, through Magee's intercession, enables him to continue evading New 
America's law by sending him to refuge with "the Doctor," a natural 
healer in voluntary exile practicing his skill in a society that most 
needs his skills--whose person and household are sacrosanct. There, he 
also discovers Persephone, a fifteen year old orphan girl, adopted by 
the Doctor, whose naive and childlike innocence engendered by her lack 
of contact with the Outside or even with other inhabitants of Coventry 
is tempered with readings unchecked from the library of a sophisticated 
and protean-minded man of science. Finally, when 'Fader' Magee returns, 
he discovers through listening to a conversation between the Doctor and 
Magee that New America and the Free State have allied, developed a 
weapon that will defeat the Barrier around Coventry, and plan to attack 
the United States Outside the Barrier. Magee, who believes this weapon 
is certainly dangerous, leaves to attempt to penetrate the Barrier and 
warn the Outside against it, after telling MacKinnon how he intends to 
avoid the Barrier. Time passes, and when it appears Magee has been 
unsuccessful, naive Persephone decides to simply drive to the Gate and 
warn the Outside. MacKinnon dissuades her, knowing that Free State and 
New America guards are patrolling. Instead, he takes the life-risking 
route Magee explained to him. He incurs serious injury, but succeeds in 
bringing the warning to the Outside. Expecting mandatory submission to 
psychological readjustment, he is surprised to find society deems him 
"cured" of his maladjustment, the evidence of that being his physical 
sacrifice in bringing the warning. He is also surprised to find that 
'Fader' Magee is Lieutenant Magee, an undercover intelligence officer, 
assigned to penetrate and spy out the doings of the societies of 
Coventry." [end portion that is copyrighted]

My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives 
by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a 
libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place. 
It didn't in Coventry, which went from pretty much was exists today, 
viewed darkly though what many believe are typical Libertarian glasses, 
to worse: two dictatorships, pick your flavor?

Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to 
avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills 
up with people?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David wrote:
>Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
>avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
>up with people?

In order for a society to exist without government, *every* individual would have to be willing to govern themselves, never interfering with the rights of others.

Of course, this is impossible.

Heinlein was a libertarian, but he didn't have any illusion that it was the perfect "ism" on which to base society.

--
Bill Dennis
http://peoriatimesobserver.com
http://billdennis.net

David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in news:3CB993CC.9060405@verizon.net:
>My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives 
>by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a 
>libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place. 
>It didn't in Coventry, which went from pretty much was exists today, 
>viewed darkly though what many believe are typical Libertarian glasses, 
>to worse: two dictatorships, pick your flavor?
>
>Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to 
>avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills 
>up with people?
>

When I first read Coventry as a kid I thought that it had two points. The first was to take a 'Rugged Individualist' and subject him to a dose of reality. Instead of Noble Savages our hero found savages. Civilized ones, but savages.

The second was a reflection on government. The governments inside Coventry are like the governments existing now. Heinlein seemed to be making a side comment on how we run things. Take your choice, organized crime, rule by bully, or religious fervor. These are in contrast to the government outside coventry, which was rational and humane. Affected my views of government ever since...

Now back to your question. Beyond This Horizon might be a better example of a Libertarian Utopia. Its full of rational people who walk around armed and settle their differences between themselves. It took genetic engineering ( or the 30's equivalent) to get them to the point their society could work. BTH is Heinleins answer. Modify people to the point where they have high intelligence and feel social responsibility, and add in some dangerous social conventions such as dueling so that natural selection isn't completely overridden. The intelligent people won't outlaw their dangerous conventions because they're smart enough to realize the conventions are good for society as a whole.

The answer: Invent new people! :)

--
Dave

If a rule is not straight, it cannot be used to make a square,
If a compass is not correct, it cannot be used to make a circle.
The individual is the rule and compass of affairs. One cannot rectify
others while being crooked oneself.
                                    Huainanzi

---------- In article <3CB993CC.9060405@verizon.net>, David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote:
[snip a typically well written cogent essay of Coventry]
>
>My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives
>by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a
>libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place.
>It didn't in Coventry, which went from pretty much was exists today,
>viewed darkly though what many believe are typical Libertarian glasses,
>to worse: two dictatorships, pick your flavor?
>
>Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
>avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
>up with people?
>

I think Utopia was a concept RAH smiled at--and he was smiling at it all through Coventry. MacKinnon is Hugo's "Mario the Dreamer" from Les Miserables (The book--I've never seen the musical and never will). Also, of course, Coventry's MacKinnon is illustrative of RAH's ever recurring theme of maturation as you touched on above.

Truly, the only example of Heinleinian Utopia in his body of work would be found in his descriptions of families; Snug Harbor in TNofB or LL's family(s) in TEfL. This, among other things, explains why the deep conversations about politics in TMiaHM were so inconclusive except in the negative sense. He didn't have much hope for dignity and freedom being found much outside one's family. There are no forms of Government capable of providing this universally.

Government is Government, and is, at its heart, dictums enforced by Gammas in purty uniforms with shinny badges and way-cool guns. Even the eye-for-an-eye golden rule governments like those found in TNotB and Starship Troopers, which would appeal to many Libertarians, were not, by a long shot, utopias. Starship Troopers was handled more that way than most, a near-Utopia, but it was handled that way because of the point he was making.

He did advocate the frontier as an Utopia in general. And this applies more to your supplementary question; LL said, and others among RAH's characters, that once a place "fills up" with people it was too late for that society. Again, this points us back to his Utopia of family. Look at Hoag, before he realizes who he truly is--isn't this a sharp attack on society in general? And what of when he does come to himself--doesn't his love for that society despite and because of those flaws overcome the former objections? To me, this indicates an underlying theme in all his works--that society is flawed, that it is impossible for the individual to truly thrive as he/she should within it. However, another universal theme is that all we have is each other-so deal with it.

And no matter who they are, vote the rats out of office. And vote the next crop of rats out too.

---

Art


>>But, our revolutionary soldiers defied the British & continental European style of
>>warfare, breaking the then established rules, by hiding behind trees, rocks, and
>>attacking from ambush.  
>
>
>Irrelevant. I didn't say anything about using cover and concealment. 
>That's fully lawful. Brits didn't like it. Thought it un-manly or 
>something. Tough. It wasn't sufficient to render the revolutionary 
>armies unlawful combatants, without more.

The Americans didn't think much of it either when the Filipinos used the same tactics in 1899-1902, the old yanks got really ratty about it - the buggers wouldn't stand up and be shot at.

>Violating the rules are war are sound tactics. Don't lose, though, if 
>you do. Remember machine gunning the POWs at Malmendy? They stood trial 
>at Nuremberg. Some hanged. Check out what happened to Samar after the 
>Balangiga massacre of C Company, 9th Infantry. The Filipinos are still 
>screaming about it. They got a taste of Sherman, adminstered in large 
>part by a Tidewater bred aristocrat who was brother of the man who 
>married J.E.B. Stuart's orphaned daughter.

Balangiga is an interesting one. The town didn't have much choice but to attack the company in self-defence after the Company commander panicked in the face of an upcoming high-level military inspection and his own total lack of success in his mission at any level. So he rounded up the abled bodied townsmen, stuffed them into tents where they couldn't even sit down, told them they were going to be there without food for three months, ordered forced labor and took away, amnd destroyed, the food in the town. Understandably the folks got rather upset about all this and, since they had no-one else to appeal to they excercised their rights and duties under the American Declaration of Independence ;).

>>I have considered The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress one of the best books to study as a
>>general operations manual for revolutionaries, as well as one of the most
>>interesting looks at alternative possibilities for democratic societies. 

A wonderfully subversive book, indeed.

>There are lots better operating manuals available if that is what you 
>want. Look for one called Schoolbooks and Krags. It's about "little 
>brown brother." It might lead you to others.
[Bob Couttie]
William Dennis wrote:
>In order for a society to exist without government, *every* 
>individual would have to be willing to govern 
>themselves, never interfering with the rights of others.
>
>Of course, this is impossible.

I'm not so sure. I think there are roles for both interpretation and negotiation in what is possible given the scope introduced above.

>
>Heinlein was a libertarian, but he didn't have any illusion 
>that it was the perfect "ism" on which to base society.

That seems to contradict the evidence. TMIAHM is Libertarian, or at least Mannies quadrant was.

Tian Harter

--
Today I showed Peter Miguel Camejo, the Green Party
Candidate for Governor of the State of California, my
new Ohio quarter. He seemed moderately underwhelmed.

"dont be fuelish" <rahfan147@aol.com1stOH25c>wrote in message news:20020415025859.10587.00002666@mb-ml.aol.com...
>William Dennis wrote:
>
>>In order for a society to exist without government, *every*
>>individual would have to be willing to govern
>>themselves, never interfering with the rights of others.
>>
>>Of course, this is impossible.
>
>I'm not so sure. I think there are roles for both
>interpretation and negotiation in what is possible
>given the scope introduced above.
>>
>>Heinlein was a libertarian, but he didn't have any illusion
>>that it was the perfect "ism" on which to base society.
>
>That seems to contradict the evidence. TMIAHM is
>Libertarian, or at least Mannies quadrant was.

Actually, TMIAHM proves my point. The revolutionaries were of a libertarian bent -- more anarcho-capitalistics than libertarian -- but the populace wasn't. They started sinking into socialism almost as soon as the revolution was over. By the time TCWWTW rolled around, government had become downright oppressive.

[William Dennis]


Bob Couttie wrote:
>>>But, our revolutionary soldiers defied the British & continental European style of
>>>warfare, breaking the then established rules, by hiding behind trees, rocks, and
>>>attacking from ambush.  
>>>
>>
>>Irrelevant. I didn't say anything about using cover and concealment. 
>>That's fully lawful. Brits didn't like it. Thought it un-manly or 
>>something. Tough. It wasn't sufficient to render the revolutionary 
>>armies unlawful combatants, without more.
>>
>
>The Americans didn't think much of it either when the Filipinos used
>the same tactics in 1899-1902, the old yanks got really ratty about it
>- the buggers wouldn't stand up and be shot at.
>
>
>
>>Violating the rules are war are sound tactics. Don't lose, though, if 
>>you do. Remember machine gunning the POWs at Malmendy? They stood trial 
>>at Nuremberg. Some hanged. Check out what happened to Samar after the 
>>Balangiga massacre of C Company, 9th Infantry. The Filipinos are still 
>>screaming about it. They got a taste of Sherman, adminstered in large 
>>part by a Tidewater bred aristocrat who was brother of the man who 
>>married J.E.B. Stuart's orphaned daughter.
>>
>
>Balangiga is an interesting one. The town didn't have much choice but
>to attack the company in self-defence after the Company commander
>panicked in the face of an upcoming high-level military inspection and
>his own total lack of success in his mission at any level. So he
>rounded up the abled bodied townsmen, stuffed them into tents where
>they couldn't even sit down, told them they were going to be there
>without food for three months, ordered forced labor and took away,
>amnd destroyed, the food in the town. Understandably the folks got
>rather upset about all this and, since they had no-one else to appeal
>to they excercised their rights and duties under the American
>Declaration of Independence ;).
>
>
>

As incorporated by Aguinaldo and the other "little brown brothers" in their own Declaration of 1899 at Malalos? ;-)

See, all I have to do is write "Balangiga," alarms go off in far places, and in a day or so Bob Coutie, who has a website that covers it, among other things dealing with the Filipino Wars of Independence, shows up. Nice to see you again, Bob. :-) One of these days I'm going to finish writing that novel about Littleton Waller Tazewell Waller, late Major General, United States Marine Corps, the "Butcher of Samar," remote cousin of the Wallers who owned Alex Halley's Kunta Kinté, and others.

>>>I have considered The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress one of the best books to study as a
>>>general operations manual for revolutionaries, as well as one of the most
>>>interesting looks at alternative possibilities for democratic societies. 
>>>
>
>A wonderfully subversive book, indeed.
>
>

'Tis indeed! And have you ever read Heinlein's Glory Road?

>>There are lots better operating manuals available if that is what you 
>>want. Look for one called Schoolbooks and Krags. It's about "little 
>>brown brother." It might lead you to others.
>>
-- 
   --
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

Simon Jester wrote:
[snip]

>
>Ultimately, the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a
>small act of compassion.
>
>These are just a few thoughts on a subtly complex book - further points for
>discussion would include:
>
>What else could be seen in it?
>What strengths and weaknesses?
>How does it fit into the development of Heinlein's writing style?
>What does it say about Heinlein's politics, given overt approval of a
>near-anarchistic system, yet one which eventually turns into a more
>conventional form of government?
>
>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.

". . . the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a small act of compassion." How about one more contrarian crime?

How does one compare the morality of Wyoh Knott, as she first expresses it, in her wish of blowing up the Authority Complex that houses the Holmes Mark IV that is "Mike" to the morality of Mannie who orders Mike to commence throwing rocks that ultimately kill civilians on Terra?

Knott might have managed without injury to herself to plant a bomb that destroyed the Complex, likely killing any civilian worker near the Holmes Mark IV (they 'fink' for Authority, don't they?); she even might have induced some other revolutionary loose cannon to carry a suicide bomb into the complex to get close enough to detonate, or even, "greater love hath no revolutionary," carried it herself?

Does it matter morally which of these three options she chooses to employ, so long as nearby civilian workers die as a reasonably foreseeable consequence?

Is this glorious revolution worth the life of even one unwarned convicted and employed in slave-labor by Authority, but otherwise innocent, who is working near the computer in the Complex that day? Who is entitled to play "revolutionary government" to decide whose lives are worthy of being sacrificed for the ideal of freedom they seek? And how does that square with Prof's, Wyoh's, and Mannie's little discussion of the evil of decision by uncaring governments the night they hatch their conspiracy? Isn't the distinction between "B-cell" and an uncaring government specious?

Now compare Mannie giving the order to Mike to start throwing rocks at "unoccupied areas;" and then to throw them at Federated Nations' office buildings, or throw them at Norad under Cheyenne Mountain?

Yes, war has been declared by their Declaration of Independence and plainly the F.N. have been attacking them and their survivial; and people and governments have been warned; but . . . is not it reasonably foreseeable that people will flock to the "unpopulated" target areas? That ships may be en-route at sea passing through those areas? Civilians had picnics on the field of the first Battle of Bull Run, didn't they? Got in their little carriages and rode out from Washington and from Richmond to see the sight of battle from both sides, didn't they?

What about once the target shifts to Cheyenne Mountain? Is there a moral difference between the one who throws rocks from afar, trying to miss civilians, and one who carries the bomb strapped to her chest knowing well that nearby working civilian-slave laborer convicts are going to be killed in the Authority Complex when it goes [and worse, since the computer controls lots of things, including air, ' . . . by and by it will get a little stuffy . . . then the panic will start in the domes. Do you know where your P-suit is? Are its bottles fully charged?']?

Mannie doesn't have to look in the eye all the GS-4 file clerks, GS-7 computer programmers, technicians, the mechanics in the motor pool, the air conditioning maintenance men, etc., die alongside the military as rocks drive deeper and deeper. Does that make him more or less morally culpable?

And then we aim at the F.N. buildings: are there infants in the first floor day care nurseries of these buildings as there were in Oklahoma City? Maybe today you're not too sympathetic with the agents of the F.R.S. (it is April 15th after all, and their predecessors the I.R.S. are particularily loved by anyone except their children, if them, today); but not all the space in these office buildings are devoted to the tiny sub-department that sets prices on the one-way grain traffic from Luna and ignores the ecological drain, is it?

Each different agency in each building might just have a tiny, tiny "Fairy Godmother Department" where the GS-5 who's out sick most of the time decides to come in, put down her knitting that day, and plunk her magic wand down on your invalid veteran uncle (permanently disabled in the last brush war in wherever it was), or your grandmother, who's out of luck for support from her family because you got convicted of poaching deer and were deported and nobody at the church thinks the grandma of a "lag" should be helped, that day the rock arrives. Every bureaucratic organization, not just military ones, has that tiny department.

What 'revolutionary government' is entitled morally to decide that all the Fairy Godmothers die? Or even all the infants down in the first floor nursery, children of the working mother clerks who work in the evil department that sets grain importation quotas? Does it make a difference that Mannie doesn't even know who these people are or what little good they might occasionally do? Should Mannie have to look them in the eyes before they die, just as Wyoh will have to do with the janitor and his broom if she carries the bomb into the Authority Complex?

Who, of the two, Wyoh at the beginning, or Mannie at the end, is more moral? What's your moral or ethical guess?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

>John David Galt wrote:
>>In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
>>privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
>>"Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the
>>US as it appears in "Coventry".  But there would also be substantial
>>ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The
>>Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
David Silver wrote:
>Returning to the scene of one of my crimes in this thread, I can
>understand why John David Galt hoped any of the "substantial ungoverned
>places" would be much more similar to a libertarian utopia than "Coventry."
>
>My only question to John David, or others, is: what makes you think RAH
>would expect that?
I'm not at all sure RAH would expect that.

ISTM that "Coventry" contains a great contradiction which reveals a major blind spot on the author's part. On the one hand, the judge who sentences the protagonist makes clear (as do several others, there and in Methuselah's Children) that the Covenant says you are free to do anything you like that doesn't cause harm to others; that even if something is explicitly banned, they can't force you to choose between psych treatment and Coventry without first showing that you harmed someone, or at least put them in substantial fear. On the other hand, the mainstream US (in so far as we see it in the background of those two stories) is a very quiet place, with next to no night life; something like Utah today. Does he really think that in a free world, no one will want to indulge in sex, drinking, rock&roll, or drugs? Human nature says that a large minority will -- _especially_ when a regime that imposed heavy penalties on all those things ended a generation ago. (Real world examples of this sort of backlash can be seen in the ex Soviet Union today, and in the US' alcohol consumption figures since Prohibition ended.)

>fields. Addressing the Court, MacKinnon castigates his society for its
>choice to fit into a "cautious little pattern" of "compromising 'safe'
>weaklings with water in their veins . . . [who've] planned their world
>so carefully you've planned the fun and zest right out of it." The
>English teacher, a self-defined "rugged individualist," chooses Coventry.
>
>What do you suppose the author who many today consider the
>prophet of the Libertarian Party, "rugged individualists" all, had in
>store for this "rugged individualist"?

If anyone in the libertarian party or movement ever used that title about RAH, I never heard about it, and I should have. RAH was "somewhat libertarian" but would never have been comfortable in the party or movement. Certainly he was uncomfortable with a lot of the diversity that the movement is about.

>My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives
>by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a
>libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place.

He didn't, and I don't either, in one sense. A stable community of ANY kind requires police who can and will enforce order. But that does not necessarily imply that the police are a monopoly, or represent a state in the traditional sense. And it certainly doesn't imply that the police enjoy the special immunities they do today (which is David Friedman's definition of the distinction between a state and anarchy).

>Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
>avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
>up with people?

Pretty much the same as in a governed place: there has to be a body of accepted custom that people follow, which includes concepts of live-and- let-live and some means of enforcement against those who won't. The big difference is that the state-as-mommy won't be there; everyone has to realize that providing for their own security is their job. I offer Vinge's "The Ungoverned" and Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" as more thorough explanations of how this would need to work.

[John David Galt]


John David Galt wrote:
>>John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
>>>privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
>>>"Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"], or the
>>>US as it appears in "Coventry".  But there would also be substantial
>>>ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge's "The
>>>Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
>>>
>
>David Silver wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>>What do you suppose the author who many today consider the
>>prophet of the Libertarian Party, "rugged individualists" all, had in
>>store for this "rugged individualist"?
>>
>
>If anyone in the libertarian party or movement ever used that title about
>RAH, I never heard about it, and I should have.  RAH was "somewhat
>libertarian" but would never have been comfortable in the party or
>movement.  Certainly he was uncomfortable with a lot of the diversity
>that the movement is about.
>
>

In what sense are you using the term "diversity," John David? Diversity of ideas about political organizations or non-organizations?

>>My question, restated is: In light of this development of alternatives
>>by the author himself, how can any libertarian think Heinlein thought a
>>libertarian utopia might develop in any substantially ungoverned place.
>>
>
>He didn't, and I don't either, in one sense.  A stable community of ANY
>kind requires police who can and will enforce order.  But that does not
>necessarily imply that the police are a monopoly, or represent a state in
>the traditional sense.  And it certainly doesn't imply that the police
>enjoy the special immunities they do today (which is David Friedman's
>definition of the distinction between a state and anarchy).
>

If I understand you about what Friedman's definition excludes, that's a toothy subject in itself. Can you point to me an article, online (or elsewhere if need be) that discusses this distinction of Friedman's?

>
>>Or to supplement the question: what conditions *must* be present to
>>avoid these outcomes in a 'substantially ungoverned place' once it fills
>>up with people?
>>
>
>Pretty much the same as in a governed place:  there has to be a body of
>accepted custom that people follow, which includes concepts of live-and-
>let-live and some means of enforcement against those who won't.  The big
>difference is that the state-as-mommy won't be there; everyone has to
>realize that providing for their own security is their job.  I offer
>Vinge's "The Ungoverned" and Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" as
>more thorough explanations of how this would need to work.
>

Vinge's "The Ungoverned," a short story, seems only available in _The Collected Stories of Vernor Vinge_, a hardbound listing at about $30 (although Amazon is selling one-third discounted). Still, I'm not sure that price is offset by the bonus of acquisition of a copy of the "ground-breaking" "Fast Times at Ridgemount High," so I can see what that story was all about before Sean Penn as "surfer dude," or whatever his name was got, his hands on it. Anywhere else you know where I can find a copy of "The Ungoverned" to read, John David?

David D. Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_, also a hardbound, lists at near the same $30 price, and is not discounted.

Still, the topic "Heinlein and Libertarianism," might be an interesting one for a future chat meeting. Any interest in 'hosting' such a discussion, and in proposing a reading list (of Heinlein and a few selected other works), John David? [Same illusory promises I made Chris Zakes: less mooching on pre-meeting posts, as and if you wish; moreover I won't refer to you as a Texican, either ;-)]

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in news:3CBBCBAE.9030201@verizon.net:
>John David Galt wrote:
>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>>In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live
>>>>in privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such
>>>>as "Golden Rule", "Ad Astra" [in Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza"],
>>>>or the US as it appears in "Coventry".  But there would also be
>>>>substantial ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to
>>>>Vinge's "The Ungoverned" or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
>>>>
>>
>>David Silver wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>>
>>>What do you suppose the author who many today consider the
>>>prophet of the Libertarian Party, "rugged individualists" all, had in
>>>store for this "rugged individualist"?
>>>
>>
>>If anyone in the libertarian party or movement ever used that title
>>about RAH, I never heard about it, and I should have.  RAH was
>>"somewhat libertarian" but would never have been comfortable in the
>>party or movement.  Certainly he was uncomfortable with a lot of the
>>diversity that the movement is about.
>>
>>
>
>
>In what sense are you using the term "diversity," John David?
>Diversity of ideas about political organizations or non-organizations?
>
>
>>>My question, restated is: In light of this development of
>>>alternatives by the author himself, how can any libertarian think
>>>Heinlein thought a libertarian utopia might develop in any
>>>substantially ungoverned place. 
>>>
>>
>>He didn't, and I don't either, in one sense.  A stable community of
>>ANY kind requires police who can and will enforce order.  But that
>>does not necessarily imply that the police are a monopoly, or
>>represent a state in the traditional sense.  And it certainly doesn't
>>imply that the police enjoy the special immunities they do today
>>(which is David Friedman's definition of the distinction between a
>>state and anarchy). 
>>
>
>
>If I understand you about what Friedman's definition excludes, that's
>a toothy subject in itself. Can you point to me an article, online (or
>elsewhere if need be) that discusses this distinction of Friedman's?
>
>

Friedman's web page at http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Libertarian.html

has a lot of articles. Haven't read but a couple of them so can't advise on their content.

He has interesting ideas though.

[djinn]


Nuclear Waste wrote:
>
>"Eric S. Harris"
>>If I can find 1000 Republicans who are too proud or too stupid to admit
>the
>>obvious, I'll never have to work again.  Worst case scenario: I have to
>come up
>>with a million dollars in a hurry, because the Republicans actually DID
>reduce
>>government.  I'd endure the shame of personal bankruptcy to see that
>happen.
>>(Figure the odds.)   -Eric
>
>Why look for 1000 Republicans when 1000 Democrats would be much easier to
>find, and quite a bit easier to seperate from their money?

Actually, the same bet would work for either. (Details available on request.)

-Eric


>David Silver wrote:
>>Actually, there's a pretty good definition of terrorism. You'll find it
>>in the laws of land warfare. A terrorist is one species of an unlawful
>>combatant. An unlawful combatant is someone who engages in war against a
>>society without a declaration or war (or, what amounts to the same
>>thing, a declaration of independence) or when the state is clearly known
>>and understood by your adversary, or without engaging in certain
>>formalities once a declaration or state of war is deemed to exist.

Roger Connor wrote:

>So, by the above statements,  al-Queda, and Taliban are NOT terrorists.
>(Bin Laden declared war, and notified the US... prior to 9/11)

Yes they are; Silver didn't tell it all. The rules also require that fighters be in uniform, and that they not target noncombatants or hold hostages. Pournelle's "Go Tell The Spartans" is relevant here.

[John David Galt]


>>Balangiga is an interesting one. The town didn't have much choice but
>>to attack the company in self-defence after the Company commander
>>panicked in the face of an upcoming high-level military inspection and
>>his own total lack of success in his mission at any level. So he
>>rounded up the abled bodied townsmen, stuffed them into tents where
>>they couldn't even sit down, told them they were going to be there
>>without food for three months, ordered forced labor and took away,
>>amnd destroyed, the food in the town. Understandably the folks got
>>rather upset about all this and, since they had no-one else to appeal
>>to they excercised their rights and duties under the American
>>Declaration of Independence ;).

>As incorporated by Aguinaldo and the other "little brown brothers" in 
>their own Declaration of 1899 at Malalos? ;-)

Nope, as written in the first place :)

>See, all I have to do is write "Balangiga," alarms go off in far places, 
>and in a day or so Bob Coutie, who has a website that covers it, among 
>other things dealing with the Filipino Wars of Independence, shows up. 
>Nice to see you again, Bob. :-) One of these days I'm going to finish 
>writing that novel about Littleton Waller Tazewell Waller, late Major 
>General, United States Marine Corps, the "Butcher of Samar," remote 
>cousin of the Wallers who owned Alex Halley's Kunta Kinté, and others.

Try and get the latest couple of issues of the Bulletin of the American Historical Collection in Manhila, available from Bookbin Pacific in the US, which is publishing some unpublished materuial about Waller (Awkward phrase there but you know what I mean!)

>
>
>>>>I have considered The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress one of the best books to study as a
>>>>general operations manual for revolutionaries, as well as one of the most
>>>>interesting looks at alternative possibilities for democratic societies. 
>>>>
>>
>>A wonderfully subversive book, indeed.
>>
>>
>
>
>'Tis indeed! And have you ever read Heinlein's Glory Road?

Not yet, but I'll look for it.

[Bob Couttie]


Roger Connor wrote:
>Procedure is the systematic and efficient way of dealing 
>with repetitious situations and information. 
>Unfortunately, everybody thinks their problem is
>unique. Also unfortunately, those problems or situations 
>that are NOT repetitious, tend to be given the "one size fits 
>most " answer that actually doesn't apply and then must 
>be redealt with by someone with the necessary authority to 
>apply a creative approach. And in these times, those 
>people are either rare, or ham-strung by bureaucratic 
>rules that do not allow "creativity". And unless an 
>emergency has been previously identified as a possibility, 
>the method for dealing with it carefully planned, the 
>procedure drilled into the probable responders, the
>probability of a successful resolution is nil. I refer you to 
>the example of simple fire drills.

Yesterday I had to spend the emergency quarter on my key ring. It was a Kentucky one. I have since recharged the green hand with a Vermont. Which is to say that when something can be handled in the course of everyday life, it is an emergency only to people who think nothing of the word.

Tian Harter

http://members.aol.com/NevadaIshTour00

--
Today I paid my taxes. I gave away two copies of 
a flier that Denise Munro Robb had given me 
last fall said VOTE NOV. 11th!  to other people 
at the Post office. I also moved one sticker there.

John David Galt wrote:
>Pournelle's "Go Tell The Spartans" is relevant here.

Could you please refresh my recollection, John David, so I may judge whether digging through the boxed paperback collection for Jerry's Falkenberg novel, iirc, that I last read many years ago, will be worth it?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message news:3CBBE941.9040807@verizon.net...
>John David Galt wrote:
>
>>Pournelle's "Go Tell The Spartans" is relevant here.
>
>
>Could you please refresh my recollection, John David, so I may judge
>whether digging through the boxed paperback collection for Jerry's
>Falkenberg novel, iirc, that I last read many years ago, will be worth it?
>
>--
>David M. Silver
5th Battallion of Falkenberg's Legion is deployed to Sparta, along with the Legion's dependants (New Washington campaign parallels this)

Sparta is trying to deal with an insurgency, which operates at the terrorist level early on, but escalates as the story proceeds.

The sequel is _Prince of Sparta_ (With S.M. Stirling)

Aspects include terrorism, semi-military raiding, assassination, combat, political organization, and propaganda. And more of course, but that's off the top 'o my head.

HTH

--
Rusty the bookman
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you when you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, and they're starvation cheap
- Kipling

David Silver wrote:
[all snipped]

Twenty-four hours, and not even a nibble? Darn!

The thought of destroyed Fairy Godmother Departments must have got 'em all. Caused brain seizures!

I keep waiting for someone to ask me what I really think (or what I think Heinlein really thought), but there'll be time enough for that Saturday, I suppose . . . When mooching doesn't work, sometimes dynamite does. :)

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

"David Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message news:3CBC85E7.50207@verizon.net...
>David Silver wrote:
>
>[all snipped]
>
>
>Twenty-four hours, and not even a nibble? Darn!
>
>The thought of destroyed Fairy Godmother Departments must have got 'em
>all. Caused brain seizures!
>
>I keep waiting for someone to ask me what I really think (or what I
>think Heinlein really thought), but there'll be time enough for that
>Saturday, I suppose . . . When mooching doesn't work, sometimes dynamite
>does. :)
>

(snip)

You haven't fooled me, (I think). I am pretty sure what you really think :) but, to be honest, this thread combined with current events and some in the past have bothered me greatly and has given me quite a lot to think about. I have yet to get it really sorted out. Don't know if I will any time soon.

Thanks

David W.


In article <20020410174430.16942.00002220@mb-mh.aol.com>, dont be fuelish <rahfan147@aol.com25604839>wrote:
>The reason that system works is because the guy
>really doesn't want to write that kind of check.

The reason that system works is that a concept called "giri", which Westerners sometimes call "face", is still important to the Japanese. We would do better to call it "honor". [Ed Reppert]


On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:13:28 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>quoth:
>David Silver wrote:
>
>[all snipped]
>
>
>Twenty-four hours, and not even a nibble? Darn!
>
>The thought of destroyed Fairy Godmother Departments must have got 'em 
>all. Caused brain seizures!
>
>I keep waiting for someone to ask me what I really think (or what I 
>think Heinlein really thought), but there'll be time enough for that 
>Saturday, I suppose . . . When mooching doesn't work, sometimes dynamite 
>does. :)

David, I read your post, but had a hard time figuring it out. I need to read it again, and will respond from Google, since I tend to delete all messages at one time from this newsreader and lose things that I really did want to come back to...

Anyway, give me a little time to digest, and I will respond. :-)

-- 
~teresa~

 ^..^    "Never try to outstubborn a cat."  Robert A. Heinlein    ^..^
  http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/
 "Blert!!!"  quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat.
  email me at pixelmeow at aol dot com or yahoo dot com
  MSN messenger ID = pixelmeow@passport.com
  Yahoo Messenger ID = pixelmeow@yahoo.com
  AIM id = pixelmeow

David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message news:<3CBB334D.9010707@verizon.net>...
>Simon Jester wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>
>>Ultimately, the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a
>>small act of compassion.
>>
>>These are just a few thoughts on a subtly complex book - further points for
>>discussion would include:
>>
>>What else could be seen in it?
>>What strengths and weaknesses?
>>How does it fit into the development of Heinlein's writing style?
>>What does it say about Heinlein's politics, given overt approval of a
>>near-anarchistic system, yet one which eventually turns into a more
>>conventional form of government?
>>
>>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>
>
>". . . the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a 
>small act of compassion." How about one more contrarian crime?
>
>How does one compare the morality of Wyoh Knott, as she first expresses 
>it, in her wish of blowing up the Authority Complex that houses the 
>Holmes Mark IV that is "Mike" to the morality of Mannie who orders Mike 
>to commence throwing rocks that ultimately kill civilians on Terra?
>
>Knott might have managed without injury to herself to plant a bomb that 
>destroyed the Complex, likely killing any civilian worker near the 
>Holmes Mark IV (they 'fink' for Authority, don't they?); she even might 
>have induced some other revolutionary loose cannon to carry a suicide 
>bomb into the complex to get close enough to detonate, or even, "greater 
>love hath no revolutionary," carried it herself?
>
>Does it matter morally which of these three options she chooses to 
>employ, so long as nearby civilian workers die as a reasonably 
>foreseeable consequence?
>
>Is this glorious revolution worth the life of even one unwarned 
>convicted and employed in slave-labor by Authority, but otherwise 
>innocent, who is working near the computer in the Complex that day? Who 
>is entitled to play "revolutionary government" to decide whose lives are 
>worthy of being sacrificed for the ideal of freedom they seek? And how 
>does that square with Prof's, Wyoh's, and Mannie's little discussion of 
>the evil of decision by uncaring governments the night they hatch their 
>conspiracy? Isn't the distinction between "B-cell" and an uncaring 
>government specious?
>
>Now compare Mannie giving the order to Mike to start throwing rocks at 
>"unoccupied areas;" and then to throw them at Federated Nations' office 
>buildings, or throw them at Norad under Cheyenne Mountain?
>
>Yes, war has been declared by their Declaration of Independence and 
>plainly the F.N. have been attacking them and their survivial; and 
>people and governments have been warned; but . . . is not it reasonably 
>foreseeable that people will flock to the "unpopulated" target areas? 
>That ships may be en-route at sea passing through those areas? Civilians 
>had picnics on the field of the first Battle of Bull Run, didn't they? 
>Got in their little carriages and rode out from Washington and from 
>Richmond to see the sight of battle from both sides, didn't they?
>
>What about once the target shifts to Cheyenne Mountain? Is there a moral 
>difference between the one who throws rocks from afar, trying to miss 
>civilians, and one who carries the bomb strapped to her chest knowing 
>well that nearby working civilian-slave laborer convicts are going to be 
>killed in the Authority Complex when it goes [and worse, since the 
>computer controls lots of things, including air, ' . . . by and by it 
>will get a little stuffy . . . then the panic will start in the domes. 
>Do you know where your P-suit is? Are its bottles fully charged?']?
>
>Mannie doesn't have to look in the eye all the GS-4 file clerks, GS-7 
>computer programmers, technicians, the mechanics in the motor pool, the 
>air conditioning maintenance men, etc., die alongside the military as 
>rocks drive deeper and deeper. Does that make him more or less morally 
>culpable?
>
>And then we aim at the F.N. buildings: are there infants in the first 
>floor day care nurseries of these buildings as there were in Oklahoma 
>City? Maybe today you're not too sympathetic with the agents of the 
>F.R.S. (it is April 15th after all, and their predecessors the I.R.S. 
>are particularily loved by anyone except their children, if them, 
>today); but not all the space in these office buildings are devoted to 
>the tiny sub-department that sets prices on the one-way grain traffic 
>from Luna and ignores the ecological drain, is it?
>
>Each different agency in each building might just have a tiny, tiny 
>"Fairy Godmother Department" where the GS-5 who's out sick most of the 
>time decides to come in, put down her knitting that day, and plunk her 
>magic wand down on your invalid veteran uncle (permanently disabled in 
>the last brush war in wherever it was), or your grandmother, who's out 
>of luck for support from her family because you got convicted of 
>poaching deer and were deported and nobody at the church thinks the 
>grandma of a "lag" should be helped, that day the rock arrives. Every 
>bureaucratic organization, not just military ones, has that tiny 
>department.
>
>What 'revolutionary government' is entitled morally to decide that all 
>the Fairy Godmothers die? Or even all the infants down in the first 
>floor nursery, children of the working mother clerks who work in the 
>evil department that sets grain importation quotas? Does it make a 
>difference that Mannie doesn't even know who these people are or what 
>little good they might occasionally do? Should Mannie have to look them 
>in the eyes before they die, just as Wyoh will have to do with the 
>janitor and his broom if she carries the bomb into the Authority Complex?
>
>Who, of the two, Wyoh at the beginning, or Mannie at the end, is more 
>moral? What's your moral or ethical guess?

David, you have really gotten me to think about this, and it's troubling for me. As I have mentioned here before, another author I read is Robert Jordan. I am currently reading the 8th book in his Wheel of Time series, in which one of the characters is the "Daughter-Heir" of her country, Andor. This country only has Queens, never a King. She is the heir to the throne, and is caught up in a lot of stuff that would be way to hard to explain here, but something that I find interesting is that we follow her thoughts on being a good Queen.

Recent events in the story deal with a Sister of hers, in the organization she belongs to (way too complicated to explain, something of a sorority but only for those who can work the magic of this world). This sister is commited to the Dark side, and has recently been found out. The organization is committed to the Light, so she is in a whole lot of trouble, but she must be questioned to find out who else has broken her oaths to the organization and what they are all up to.

Elayne, the Daughter-Heir, who is one of the Sisters who have captured this "Darkfriend", is high in the hierarchy of the group present at this time. One of the leaders. Her thoughts are that if you order something done, you are in effect doing it yourself, even if you are not in the room where it's done. No matter what, if you order it, you are doing it. She knows that she, in effect, is ordering the sister interrogated, and there's no way to get around that, even if other sisters do the questioning. So, she decides that she must, herself, conduct the interrogation. No excuses. She is queasy over it, she feels bad about it all, but she must do it herself, and not foist it on anyone else.

I don't know if this explains my feelings on Wyoh's or Mannie's morality, at any point in _Moon_, but it's what I thought of while reading your post. If you order something done, you are doing it by proxy (if I understand that term correctly). No excuses. If people die because of it, it is your fault just as surely as if you had gone and personally killed that person with your own hands.

Of course, this is all an idealistic feeling for me, I have no idea how I would act in the same situation. I don't know that I'd have the stomach to do what either of them did, just because I'd be too caught up with the fact that civilians *can* get caught up in all of this. And everyone who would die because of something I did would sit right on my shoulders looking at me.

Well, enough of that. Thanks for listening. :-)

-- 
~teresa~
(posting from Google...)

Teresa Redmond wrote:
[snip]

>I don't know if this [a discussion of responsibility in one of Robert 

>Jordan's novels] explains my feelings on Wyoh's or Mannie's
>morality, at any point in _Moon_, but it's what I thought of while
>reading your post.  If you order something done, you are doing it by
>proxy (if I understand that term correctly).  No excuses.  If people
>die because of it, it is your fault just as surely as if you had gone
>and personally killed that person with your own hands.
>

So we agree, then? Whether you give the orders or do it yourself, you're equally responsible for the consequences. That leaves the question of moral culpability, if any exists under the circumstances.

>Of course, this is all an idealistic feeling for me, I have no idea
>how I would act in the same situation.  I don't know that I'd have the
>stomach to do what either of them did, just because I'd be too caught
>up with the fact that civilians *can* get caught up in all of this. 
>And everyone who would die because of something I did would sit right
>on my shoulders looking at me.
>

The dilemna posed by the novel MiaHM is this: there seems no way the Lunar Republic can counter-attack the Federation, i.e., go on the offensive itself, without striking the Earth. They cannot interdict the Federation Navy; they have none of their own, they really have no effective anti-aircraft (anti-spacecraft) weapons except close in; they have no raiders, no invasion force -- and their invasion force, if they had one would crumple under Earth gravity; they have no allies (the Venus Republic won't be sending its Navy, the Little David, on by as it did in Between Planets, to drive off or sink Lord Cornwallis' fleet so his brother can be boxed in at Yorktown ... there is no F.N. army on lunar soil to boxed in. There is no effort to spark a rebellion against the F.N. on Earth to divert it; no more profitable colonies in India to entice other powers to attack. There is no SovUnion or ChiCom to keep up the long supply lines to bleed the will of F.N. to resist the breakaway Lunar Republic.

All that can be done is to first threaten, then demonstrate, then escalate on to actual attacks on what "military" targets exist on Terra.

It's analogous to George Washington and John Paul Jones having to say: okay, Colonel Knox, load up your artillery and fire, aiming as best you can, at Whitehall and Horse Guards across the Atlantic. If you happen to destroy the East End, full of civilians, we'll have to live with it.

Heinlein's loaded the dice against Mannie. And then he cast them whether Mannie wanted to play or not when the Prof made it impossible to reach an accomodation of any sort with the F.N.

"Is you wife still performing nightly at the brothel where you found her?" or words to that direct effect. Imagine such an inquiry about Queen Henrietta (?, or was it Caroline?) in Jefferson's Declaration to George III. We'd be tugging our forelocks and bowing whilst Lord Harry drove by, yet. Maybe.

No Dominion status, no Commonwealth down the line. Cut them down or die. That's the difference between Mannie and Wyoh. The difference between the unnecessary beginning or the compelled end.

Mannie has no true choice save capitulation, and the liquidation of his family, his people, his nation that would follow. In the words of Marion Morrison, he's faced with: "A Man's got to do what a Man's got to do."

Lousy situation, eh? Or as Harry Truman is reputed to have at least thought, "Before I send a quarter of a million boys in to die, I'll try this gadget."

Anyone see it some other way?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:
[snip]

>
>Anyone see it some other way?
>

I am tempted to wonder, however, had this dispute been brought before Her Wisdom, Empress of Twenty Universes, whom she would have pointed at when she said, "Take him out and shoot him."

Professor Bernardo de la Paz, or the F.N. Representative from Buenos Aires?

Or would she have been content to grant them no decision whatever?

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in news:3CBD9F55.5020000@verizon.net:
>David Silver wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>
>>Anyone see it some other way?
>>
>
>I am tempted to wonder, however, had this dispute been brought before 
>Her Wisdom, Empress of Twenty Universes, whom she would have pointed
>at when she said, "Take him out and shoot him."
>
>Professor Bernardo de la Paz, or the F.N. Representative from Buenos
>Aires? 
>
>Or would she have been content to grant them no decision whatever?

If the food projections were correct, she would probably have had the FN Rep shot for negligence. She may have had the Prof shot too, for trying violent overthrow as a first rememdy.

If you accept that the Lunies were fighting for their lives, then any means they use would seem acceptable. So HW wouldn't have been thrilled by the FN's negligence driving the Lunies to desperation.

OTOH, Luna didn't seem really isolated, so the Lunies could have gotten word to Earth about the problem. There may have been a political answer. If so, HW would have shot la Paz too.

[djinn]


Ed Reppert wrote:
>In article <20020410174430.16942.00002220@mb-mh.aol.com>, dont be
>fuelish <rahfan147@aol.com25604839>wrote:
>
>>The reason that system works is because the guy
>>really doesn't want to write that kind of check.
>
>The reason that system works is that a concept called "giri", which
>Westerners sometimes call "face", is still important to the Japanese.
>We would do better to call it "honor".
>

OK. If you think there is more honor in their system then there is in ours, I won't argue. However, I know one person with the last name Face. My feeling is, when she is part of the conversation, we are doing face time. My hope is that people's names here will continue to be important to them.

Tian Harter
http://tian.greens.org
--
Yesterday I spent the evening phone banking for the 
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter. The message was 
that this Saturday there is going to be an Earth Day 
Rally for San Francisco Bay at Coyote Point, 10 AM.

David Silver wrote:
>
>The dilemna posed by the novel MiaHM is this: there seems no way the
>Lunar Republic can counter-attack the Federation, i.e., go on the
>offensive itself, without striking the Earth. They cannot interdict the
>Federation Navy; they have none of their own, they really have no
>effective anti-aircraft (anti-spacecraft) weapons except close in; they
>have no raiders, no invasion force -- and their invasion force, if they
>had one would crumple under Earth gravity; they have no allies (the
>Venus Republic won't be sending its Navy, the Little David, on by as it
>did in Between Planets, to drive off or sink Lord Cornwallis' fleet so
>his brother can be boxed in at Yorktown ... there is no F.N. army on
>lunar soil to boxed in. There is no effort to spark a rebellion against
>the F.N. on Earth to divert it; no more profitable colonies in India to
>entice other powers to attack. There is no SovUnion or ChiCom to keep up
>the long supply lines to bleed the will of F.N. to resist the breakaway
>Lunar Republic.
>
>All that can be done is to first threaten, then demonstrate, then
>escalate on to actual attacks on what "military" targets exist on Terra.
>
>It's analogous to George Washington and John Paul Jones having to say:
>okay, Colonel Knox, load up your artillery and fire, aiming as best you
>can, at Whitehall and Horse Guards across the Atlantic. If you happen to
>destroy the East End, full of civilians, we'll have to live with it.
>
>Heinlein's loaded the dice against Mannie. And then he cast them whether
>Mannie wanted to play or not when the Prof made it impossible to reach
>an accomodation of any sort with the F.N.
>
>"Is you wife still performing nightly at the brothel where you found
>her?" or words to that direct effect. Imagine such an inquiry about
>Queen Henrietta (?, or was it Caroline?) in Jefferson's Declaration to
>George III. We'd be tugging our forelocks and bowing whilst Lord Harry
>drove by, yet. Maybe.
>
>No Dominion status, no Commonwealth down the line. Cut them down or die.
>That's the difference between Mannie and Wyoh. The difference between
>the unnecessary beginning or the compelled end.
>
>Mannie has no true choice save capitulation, and the liquidation of his
>family, his people, his nation that would follow. In the words of Marion
>Morrison, he's faced with: "A Man's got to do what a Man's got to do."
>
>Lousy situation, eh? Or as Harry Truman is reputed to have at least
>thought, "Before I send a quarter of a million boys in to die, I'll try
>this gadget."
>
>Anyone see it some other way?

I do. The Loonies never -- not once -- struck at a civilian, populated target. They either attacked empty deserts and mountaintops -- giving three days' warning -- or they attacked legitimate military targets.

I have zero sympathy for any of the civilians who died on earth in this book. ALL of them, without exception, either deliberately went out of their way to travel to a target zone, KNOWING that there would be an attack there, or they were actively aiding the FN's military, either in uniform or as civilian employees.

We were also told that the rocks that were thrown were extremely accurate. There were no reports of rocks landing anywhere other than their intended targets, except for one case where an interceptor missile knocked the rock off course and disabled its guidance system. So the comparison to blindly firing 18th Century cannons is not appropriate.

[Brandon Ray]


Brandon Ray wrote:
>
>David Silver wrote:
>
>
[snip]
>>
>>Anyone see it some other way?
>>
>
>I do.  The Loonies never -- not once -- struck at a civilian, populated
>target.  They either attacked empty deserts and mountaintops -- giving
>three days' warning -- or they attacked legitimate military targets.
>

Not precisely true, Brandon. It was reasonably foreseeable to Prof, who had lived on earth, and no doubt had the experience of his own observations, to know that (1) civilians are always employed by governments in a plethora of positions, few, if any, are essentially "military' even in military agencies; (2) folk visit, on business, or otherwise, the physical premises of miliary agencies, for a wide variety of reasons (Teacher: Children, the next stop on our visit to Washington, D.C. will be the Pentagon. It's where the protectors of our Democracy work. Kids: Wow!); (3) people live adjacent to government office buildings simply because such buildings are located conveniently to public transportation in cities. Surely, Mike knew at least that with his encyclopediac review of everything placed accessible to his inputs.

A "legitimate" "military" target, if it is a standard-issue government building, will necessary involve civilians ("buy 'em like beans" to do everything except wield the swords -- isn't that what every military does, even if it isn't to the extent Heinlein's Starship Troopers urged?). And how much of your local federal government building is occupied by the *military*? Two percent? Five percent?

We have two rather large standard-issue ones in Los Angeles: forgive me, but the last time I checked, the only *military* agency occupying any substantial space was the US Army's Corps of Engineers; and what were they doing? Mostly civil engineering involving rivers, flood plains, bridges, channeling water so run-off doesn't flood out the civilians everytime we get a cloudburst in this irrigated desert here. You want to find the Air Force [equivalent of the Space Navy]? They're not in the main federal buildings. They have their own offices near Los Angeles International Airport, among other spots, here and there. You want the Navy? Go look down in the Harbors of Long Beach and San Pedro where they have port facilities. You want the Marines? Except for those guarding Naval facilities, here and there, since the curtailments of a few outlaying facilities, you'll have to look at Pendleton, way down by San Diego and far from the federal building in San Diego, or out past Riverside by Twenty-nine Palms. Army, except for Corps of Engineers? Not in Los Angeles County in any significant amounts, since they closed down the Nike anti-aircraft and missle defenses. You can head a few hundred miles up the coast and maybe find a few at closed bases and mothballed reserve facilities and the Presidios, or go out to the desert and find the Desert Warfare Center located roughly adjacent to the Marines at Twenty-nine Plans; but there really aren't any military in the "miltary" targets of the federal office buildings of this area -- excepting a few procurement types.

Instead what you'll find in 'federal buildings' is a mishmash of all the cabinet and ABC agencies, employing civilians doing just about everything else under the sun except being or aiding, directly or indirectly, the military.

Calling a government building a "military" target is a specious excuse for killing and terrorizing civilians, 99 and 44/100th percent of the time in actual practice. Churchill did it when he ordered Berlin be bombed and Hermann be labeled "Meyer." Hitler did it when he bombed Coventry, and buzz bombed London and the rest of Southeastern England, and so on . . . in a sense all aerial bombardments of targets in cities are simple terrorism of civilians. That collateral casualties are within the loopholes of "legality" isn't anything but a mere justification for unconscionable murder. And those murders can be massive. I don't need to mention Dresden, or Tokoyo, or those two other Japanese cities do I? But it's the way that wars presently are fought.

>I have zero sympathy for any of the civilians who died on earth in this
>book.  ALL of them, without exception, either deliberately went out of
>their way to travel to a target zone, KNOWING that there would be an attack
>there, or they were actively aiding the FN's military, either in uniform or
>as civilian employees.
>

If it makes you feel better to say so, using the terms "actively aiding the FN's military," then let me say you're self-deluded and rather easily satisfied by what you read, because what you maintain flies in the face of what you can determine to be reality just as easily as making a trip to virtually any federal building that as ever existed, save the Pentagon. Timothy McVeigh maintained all those people actively aided oppression too. Twelve of your fellow citizens, but virtually any twelve you'd walk into on the street would have done the same, disagreed with any justification offered for his activities and recommended a death sentence. How did the children in that first floor day care center actively aid anything except the blocks they piled up atop one another?

>We were also told that the rocks that were thrown were extremely accurate.
>There were no reports of rocks landing anywhere other than their intended
>targets, except for one case where an interceptor missile knocked the rock
>off course and disabled its guidance system.  So the comparison to blindly
>firing 18th Century cannons is not appropriate.
>

"We were . . . told"? And was knocking the rock off course and disabling its guidance system reasonably foreseeable?

Those were nuclear warheads on those interceptors. Ronnie Ray-gun's Star Wars that now work, seventy years into the future. And are you sure it was only one ... didn't Dallas' defenses themselves eat up several? How do you know where pieces that may have remained go? Are you relying on Mike Holmes to report the truth? Mike the Jokester, who issued a check for fifty billion million dollars to a broom jockey? I hope you don't believe truthful reports on military action in time of war are the rule.

You never had a chance to watch the "Five O'clock Follies," did you?

I'd submit to you that a lot of well-regarded, rather high ranking and highly decorated, retired military have proven time and again, that the contrary is true. That's why they call it the "fog of war." You don't have to take my word for it. I was just a peon back then. David Hackman wore eagles on his shoulders and could have worn stars had he kept his mouth shut about the deliberate lies. He has a website that might be illuminating. You can find it with a search machine.

And what would have happened if China hadn't caved?

But I asked for contrary views didn't I? If you really believe uncritically what is printed down there in the text in black and white, then you can argue a contrary view, just as people who read newspapers and then fail to critically assess what they've read do -- but wasn't this author the same one who told us, above all, to do what Jim Gifford's website used to trumpet? Assess "What are the facts . . . etc.?"

You're mooching right back at me, right? ;-) Nice job!

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:
>
>Instead what you'll find in 'federal buildings' is a mishmash of all the
>cabinet and ABC agencies, employing civilians doing just about
>everything else under the sun except being or aiding, directly or
>indirectly, the military.

Yeah, I know. I work in one. :)

>
>
>Calling a government building a "military" target is a specious excuse
>for killing and terrorizing civilians, 99 and 44/100th percent of the
>time in actual practice. Churchill did it when he ordered Berlin be
>bombed and Hermann be labeled "Meyer." Hitler did it when he bombed
>Coventry, and buzz bombed London and the rest of Southeastern England,
>and so on . . . in a sense all aerial bombardments of targets in cities
>are simple terrorism of civilians. That collateral casualties are within
>the loopholes of "legality" isn't anything but a mere justification for
>unconscionable murder. And those murders can be massive. I don't need to
>mention Dresden, or Tokoyo, or those two other Japanese cities do I? But
>it's the way that wars presently are fought.
>

And this is the 56/100 of a time that it isn't true. There were no cities bombed in "Mistress". There were two military targets mentioned that I can recall: The Dallas spaceport, and Cheyenne Mountain. Here's what was said about Dallas:

"'Oh, yes, Dallas -- we destroy Dallas spaceport and should catch some ships,
were six there last time I checked.  Won't kill any people unless they insist on
standing on target; Dallas is perfect place to bomb, that spaceport is big and
flat and empty, yet maybe ten million people will see us hit it.'" -- p. 354 of
the hardcover SFBC edition from the mid 1990s

And here's the commentary on Cheyenne Mountain:


"For a century North American Space Defense Command had been buried in a
mountain south of Colorado Springs, Colorado, a city of no other importance.
During Wet Firecracker War the Cheyenne Mountain took a direct hit; space
defense command post survived -- but not sundry deer, trees, most of city and
some of top of mountain.  What we were about to do should not kill anybody
unless they stayed outside on that mountain despite three days' steady
warnings." -- p. 333

And there was this comment on the general doctrine:


"'A maximum of instructive shrecklichkeit with minimum loss of life.  None, if
possible' -- was how Prof summed up doctrine for Operation Hard Rock and was way
Mike and I carried it out.  Idea was to hit earthworms so hard would convince
them -- while hitting so gently as not to hurt." -- p. 326

And, again speaking of Cheyenne Mountain:


"This was one target where we would not be satisfied to get just one missile to
target.  We meant to smash that mountain and keep on smashing.  To hurt their
morale.  To let them know we were still around.  Disrupt their communications
and bash in command post if pounding could do it.  Or at least give them
splitting headaches and no rest.  If we could prove to all Terra that we could
drive home a sustained attack on strongest Gibraltar of their space defense, it
would save having to prove it by smashing Manhattan or San Francisco.

"Which we would not do even if losing. Why? Hard sense. If we used our last strength to destroy a major city, they would not punish us; they would destroy us. As Prof put it, 'If possible, leave room for your enemy to become your friend.'

"But any military target is fair game." -- pp. 333-334

If Mannie's account is to be believed (and he seems to be a pretty reliable narrator), this was one of the cleanest wars fought since the advent of mass warfare -- at least from the Loonies' side.

>
>>I have zero sympathy for any of the civilians who died on earth in this
>>book.  ALL of them, without exception, either deliberately went out of
>>their way to travel to a target zone, KNOWING that there would be an attack
>>there, or they were actively aiding the FN's military, either in uniform or
>>as civilian employees.
>>
>
>If it makes you feel better to say so, using the terms "actively aiding
>the FN's military," then let me say you're self-deluded and rather
>easily satisfied by what you read, because what you maintain flies in
>the face of what you can determine to be reality just as easily as
>making a trip to virtually any federal building that as ever existed,
>save the Pentagon. Timothy McVeigh maintained all those people actively
>aided oppression too. Twelve of your fellow citizens, but virtually any
>twelve you'd walk into on the street would have done the same, disagreed
>with any justification offered for his activities and recommended a
>death sentence. How did the children in that first floor day care center
>actively aid anything except the blocks they piled up atop one another?
>

Sorry, I am not deluded. You are comparing apples to oranges. The OKC FBI building is not a military target. NORAD HQ, by any possible measure, IS. So is any airport capable of landing military aircraft (or, in this case, spacecraft). If you choose to work on a military base, you are taking the risk that you may get vaporized some morning.

Also, the bombing in OKC was a sneak attack; these were not. There were three days' warning given to anyone who cared to listen.

>
>>We were also told that the rocks that were thrown were extremely accurate.
>>There were no reports of rocks landing anywhere other than their intended
>>targets, except for one case where an interceptor missile knocked the rock
>>off course and disabled its guidance system.  So the comparison to blindly
>>firing 18th Century cannons is not appropriate.
>>
>
>"We were . . . told"? And was knocking the rock off course and disabling
>
>its guidance system reasonably foreseeable?
>

Yes -- by both the Loonies and the North Americans. The intervening act was firing an interceptor missile at a rock that was aimed at open water. Had the interceptor not been fired, the rock would not have been knocked off course.

>
>Those were nuclear warheads on those interceptors. Ronnie Ray-gun's Star
>Wars that now work, seventy years into the future.

The Loonies didn't fire the interceptors. The North Americans did. They were the ones who chose to detonate nuclear weapons over their own territory, in order to defend empty water in Lake Michigan, and (noting your correction below) a clear military target with no civilians nearby, in Dallas. They decided that saving the spaceport was more important than the welfare of the civilians living nearby. That's on THEIR heads.

>And are you sure it
>was only one ... didn't Dallas' defenses themselves eat up several? How
>do you know where pieces that may have remained go? Are you relying on
>Mike Holmes to report the truth? Mike the Jokester, who issued a check
>for fifty billion million dollars to a broom jockey? I hope you don't
>believe truthful reports on military action in time of war are the rule.
>You never had a chance to watch the "Five O'clock Follies," did you?
>

I don't know where the pieces went, and I don't care. None of the rocks were targeted at civilians. Any pieces that hit civilians are the responsibility of the people who fired the interceptors.

>
>I'd submit to you that a lot of well-regarded, rather high ranking and
>highly decorated, retired military have proven time and again, that the
>contrary is true. That's why they call it the "fog of war." You don't
>have to take my word for it. I was just a peon back then. David Hackman
>wore eagles on his shoulders and could have worn stars had he kept his
>mouth shut about the deliberate lies. He has a website that might be
>illuminating. You can find it with a search machine.

Is it possible that you mean David Hackworth?

>And what would have happened if China hadn't caved?

There would have been more water strikes. The Loonies threatened to attack FN buildings in major cities. Mannie's commentary earlier in the book indicates it was an empty threat.

>
>But I asked for contrary views didn't I? If you really believe
>uncritically what is printed down there in the text in black and white,
>then you can argue a contrary view, just as people who read newspapers
>and then fail to critically assess what they've read do -- but wasn't
>this author the same one who told us, above all, to do what Jim
>Gifford's website used to trumpet? Assess "What are the facts . . . etc.?"
>

The only facts we have are the ones Mannie chose to report to us. I think he's a credible narrator, and by his account, the attack on Earth was carried out with great restraint and discretion, with virtually all of the casualties the fault of the Terrans, not the Loonies. YMMV.

But the ugly truth is that in ANY war people get killed -- and a lot of them are innocent by any reasonable definition. The only way to avoid this is not to fight the war in the first place. Since, if you believe Mike's projection, the Lunar Colonies were doomed within 20 years, absent a major policy change that its owners did not seem inclined to make, the Loonies had little choice.

>
>You're mooching right back at me, right? ;-) Nice job!
>

Well, thanks, I guess. :)

[Brandon Ray]


Brandon Ray wrote:
>
>David Silver wrote:
>
>

[snip a very nice factual rebuttal]

Which agency, if you don't mind? Once when my mind worked better I was NLRB, but we, in my Region anyway, managed to stay out of GSA clutches, buildings and rules. Yes, it was Hackworth. How the hell could I let my fingers misspell his name, even if they do often work wild and free and totally independent of my so-called mind.

I agree Mannie is reliable to the extent that his sources are. He's the most reliable voice in the novel. I always start giggling when readers refer to him Huge Farnsworth, and Evelyn Cyril Gordon as the 'lesser' or 'flawed' of the adult protagonists. They are lesser only in the sense that they don't prevaricate as well as the others.

The only point I am left with is this: where were the bombs Mannie was lucky enough to have the opportunity to abort aimed?

>
>>You're mooching right back at me, right? ;-) Nice job!
>>
>>
>
>Well, thanks, I guess.  :)
>
>

You're welcome, I guess. :) Very nice.

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:
<snip of the whole batch of trolling and mooching>
By the way, thanks for the addition ["mooching"] to my 'Net 
vocabulary.

I cut out your well-turned phrases and questions because I wanted to ask you a bit about the "why" you're asking them. I suppose this is all to stir up the natives for the up-coming chat. But . . . .

I'm just gonna type, OK? 1. You make a concerted effort to discredit the intentions, backgrounds and motivations of the major characters. Is this to get us to re-think these people? These people were created in a very much different time than today. For instance, you create an elegant dissection of Professor Bernardo de La Paz when you derive his name from "Berhart--the hard Bear" and then throw in the irony of having a revolutionary--a "rational anarchist, I think--being surnamed "of the Peace." Surely, the derivation of that name would be more easily extracted from the name of the Great Liberator of Chile (early 19th Century), Bernardo O'Higgins. There are echoes there for BOTH Mannie and the Prof, no?

2. About the targets of the rocks: There was no day-care center at any of the facilities that were targeted by the Loonies. They hadn't yet been concocted and made so thoroughly ubiquitous that the mention of the "possibility" of their existence is enough to sicken an unknowing reader. That was not a consideration of the time period in which the book was written. What you don't know of you can't insert in the to create a "paradox" to "paradoctor."

3. I believe it was Brandon Ray who pointed out that the "real" reason for using the catapult to throw rocks at Terra was to lure the "federales" to DESTROY the catapult. No catapult -- no grain to earth. No grain to earth -- no starvation in Luna. The federales did it to themselves -- they couldn't BLAME the Loonies.

4. One of the nastiest tidbits you came up with [in my opinion] was the reminder of the picnic outings at First Manasses (Bull Run) and the similar occurrence in the rock tossing. Those people (both centuries) couldn't be considered anything more nor less than propaganda fodder.

I suppose that this is my (typically) long-winded way of expressing my thanks to you and your "mooching" and "trolling" for the "good" of afh. But, "Sink me,Sir, I demmed near took offense at a couple of your statements."

Gratefully,

Dr. Rufo


Roger Connor wrote:
>
>David Silver wrote:
>
>
>>< snip>
>>
>>
>>Anyone see it some other way?
>>
>>
>
>Yes. I think that you're forgetting that the actual aim of this revolution
>is to stop the export of grain to Earth. Everything else is subsidiary to
>that aim. So, how does one make sure that the catapult is not usable, and
>won't be rebuilt? Get the F.N. to destroy it. That is crucial to the overall
>plan. No "settlement" with the F.N. was possible, or really attempted by
>Prof. But, to give the Loonies a small chance of surviving, the revolution
>had to make the F.N. the bad guys, in order to get the Loonies to rebel in
>the first place, to get the F.N. mad enough to destroy the catapult  without
>destroying (hopefully) the warrens.   Having early recognition is equal to
>failure. Having the catapult receiving and launching grain is failure! If
>the catapult is destroyed, and even a small portion of the colony survives,
>it is a success, even if they don't gain recognition. But, such just delays
>the inevitable if the catapult is rebuilt.
>Roger
>
>

I agree, Roger. This demonstrates the difference between tactics and strategy; here, the strategic aim was very subtle. Not a bad perception. :-)

-- 
   David M. Silver
   http://www.heinleinsociety.org
   http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
   "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
   Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
   Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

"David Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message news:3CBD941B.6000201@verizon.net...
>Teresa Redmond wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>
>>I don't know if this [a discussion of responsibility in one of Robert
>
>>Jordan's novels] explains my feelings on Wyoh's or Mannie's
>>morality, at any point in _Moon_, but it's what I thought of while
>>reading your post.  If you order something done, you are doing it by
>>proxy (if I understand that term correctly).  No excuses.  If people
>>die because of it, it is your fault just as surely as if you had gone
>>and personally killed that person with your own hands.
>>
>
>
>So we agree, then? Whether you give the orders or do it yourself, you're
>equally responsible for the consequences. That leaves the question of
>moral culpability, if any exists under the circumstances.

Having had to change motherboards again I have lostmost of the recent discussion. (Running XP and can't just migrate the HDD over) However, I have a few questions to pose to you guys concerning the morality of our intrepid revolutionaries.

For a female sold into white slavery, are conventional morals (don't kill, don't steal etc) applicable to the task of freeing herself, if she can manage it at all?

How about for child slavery?

How about for slaves on a plantation?

What, exactly, is the difference between a black slave on a Plantation in 19th century Virginia, and a slave in the plantations in Luna of the 23rd century? (Aside from the fact that there was not even an underground railroad, and was NO chance of escape.)

Jim


"David Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message news:3CBD9F55.5020000@verizon.net...
>David Silver wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>
>>Anyone see it some other way?
>>
>
>I am tempted to wonder, however, had this dispute been brought before
>Her Wisdom, Empress of Twenty Universes, whom she would have pointed at
>when she said, "Take him out and shoot him."
>
>Professor Bernardo de la Paz, or the F.N. Representative from Buenos Aires?
>
>Or would she have been content to grant them no decision whatever?

I don't know, how would she respond to the idea of people as property?

NW


"djinn"
>If the food projections were correct, she would probably have had the FN
>Rep shot for negligence. She may have had the Prof shot too, for trying
>violent overthrow as a first rememdy.
>
>If you accept that the Lunies were fighting for their lives, then any means
>they use would seem acceptable. So HW wouldn't have been thrilled by the
>FN's negligence driving the Lunies to desperation.
>
>OTOH, Luna didn't seem really isolated, so the Lunies could have gotten
>word to Earth about the problem. There may have been a political answer. If
>so, HW would have shot la Paz too.

With Mort the Wart controlling all message traffic? What other means of message transfer did we have? Note, a pilot could be bribed, but they do not stay bribed. Saw a chum shortly after eliminated, don't suppose done in orbit is any prettier. You get message out and start political wrangling, cobber. I note that political solution to the Mideast problem took less time than starvation schedule *snort*

Perhaps you know way to ram sense into political body. Not me choom, but you can do it, charge for it. All the market will bear. While trying, let them know slaves no longer singing spirituals in front of cabin.

Mannie


David Silver wrote:
>Brandon Ray wrote:
>
>>
>>David Silver wrote:
>>
>>
>
>[snip a very nice factual rebuttal]
>
>Which agency, if you don't mind? Once when my mind worked better I was
>NLRB, but we, in my Region anyway, managed to stay out of GSA clutches,
>buildings and rules.

I work for the VA. To be entirely accurate, we're not in one of those GSA buildings, either; we have our own medical complex. But it remains possible that someone might decide that we're a tempting target.

>
>I agree Mannie is reliable to the extent that his sources are. He's the
>most reliable voice in the novel. I always start giggling when readers
>refer to him Huge Farnsworth, and Evelyn Cyril Gordon as the 'lesser' or
>'flawed' of the adult protagonists. They are lesser only in the sense
>that they don't prevaricate as well as the others.

I like Mannie, especially, because he never comes across as anything remotely resembling a superhero, unlike many of RAH's other protagonist. He's just this guy who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mike & Prof are the real "heroes" of this story. Mannie, if we are to believe his self-effacing remarks, is more of a Dr. Watson.

>The only point I am left with is this: where were the bombs Mannie was
>lucky enough to have the opportunity to abort aimed?
>

That's unclear from the text:


"So we told Great China that her major coastal cities would each receive a
Lunar present offset ten kilometers into ocean -- Pusan, Tsingtao, Taipei,
Shanghai, Saigon, Bangkok, Singapore, Djakarta, Darwin, and so forth --
except that Old Hong Kong would get one smack on top of F.N.'s Far East
offices, so kindly have all human beings move far back.  Stu noted that
human beings did not mean F.N. personnel; they were urged to stay at desks.

"India was given similar warnings about coastal cities and was told that
F.N. global offices would be spared one more rotation out of respect for
cultural monuments in Agra -- and to permit human beings to evacuate.  (I
intended to extend this by another rotation as deadline approached -- out
of respect for Prof.  And then another, indefinitely.  Damn it, they
*would* build their home offices next door to most overdecorated tomb ever
built.  But one that Prof treasured.)"

It sure sounds as if they were starting to attack population centers -- but this flies in the face of Mannie's earlier commentary on the doctrine for Operation Hard Rock, and nowhere does he explicitly talk about changing that policy. So it's possible to view the threats against F.N. buildings as propaganda.

On the other hand, say that they're doing just what Mannie says they're doing, and attacking cities. I will point out that this move comes *after* the F.N. had conducted a bombardment of Lunar population centers, using nuclear weapons. At the very least, the Loonie response was not unprovoked. But I would agree that it's troubling.

[Brandon Ray]


On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:19:30 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, "Nuclear Waste" <babybear@2z.net>quoth:
>
>"David Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message
>news:3CBD941B.6000201@verizon.net...
>>Teresa Redmond wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I don't know if this [a discussion of responsibility in one of Robert
>>
>>>Jordan's novels] explains my feelings on Wyoh's or Mannie's
>>>morality, at any point in _Moon_, but it's what I thought of while
>>>reading your post.  If you order something done, you are doing it by
>>>proxy (if I understand that term correctly).  No excuses.  If people
>>>die because of it, it is your fault just as surely as if you had gone
>>>and personally killed that person with your own hands.
>>>
>>
>>
>>So we agree, then? Whether you give the orders or do it yourself, you're
>>equally responsible for the consequences. That leaves the question of
>>moral culpability, if any exists under the circumstances.
>
>Having had to change motherboards again I have lostmost of the recent
>discussion.  (Running XP and can't just migrate the HDD over)  

Ha! And again I say, HA!!! :-P

>However, I
>have a few questions to pose to you guys concerning the morality of our
>intrepid revolutionaries.
>
>For a female sold into white slavery, are conventional morals (don't kill,
>don't steal etc) applicable to the task of freeing herself, if she can
>manage it at all?
Hm, interesting point. I know that I can't just set aside my morality because of my situation. But it's hard for me to speak to Wyoh or Mannie's situation, not having walked in their shoes. Killing is immoral, to me, but if I were in their place, would it still be? I don't know.

For your new question, which doesn't really fit in with what I was talking about (bad NW, bad!), since it incorporates race and immediacy and slavery (instead of being a convict in a prison--I know, not everyone there is a convict, but one point at a time, please!) instead of whose responsibility it is if you order a thing done... Let me see. If I were sold into slavery at this moment, I would have a whole new outlook on life. Those who made it happen or bought into it are targets, to get me out of it. If need be, they can die and rot in hell, if it will get me (and any others) out. But if it's me doing the killing first hand, or me ordering others to do the killing (which was the original point of my post above), it's still me doing it. If any person died because of my actions, they would still sit on my shoulders and look at me for the rest of my life, and I would hurt because of that.

But that's not a change on my morality, is it? Hmmmm... what do you know? <grin>

>How about for child slavery?
>
>How about for slaves on a plantation?
>
>What, exactly, is the difference between a black slave on a Plantation in
>19th century Virginia, and a slave in the plantations in Luna of the 23rd
>century?  (Aside from the fact that there was not even an underground
>railroad, and was NO chance of escape.)

Good questions, all, and I'll leave the answers for others, since I agree with you, anyway. :-P

-- 
~teresa~

 ^..^    "Never try to outstubborn a cat."  Robert A. Heinlein    ^..^
  http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/
 "Blert!!!"  quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat.
  email me at pixelmeow at aol dot com or yahoo dot com
  MSN messenger ID = pixelmeow@passport.com
  Yahoo Messenger ID = pixelmeow@yahoo.com
  AIM id = pixelmeow

Dr. Rufo wrote:
>David Silver wrote:
>
><snip of the whole batch of trolling and mooching>
>By the way, thanks for the addition ["mooching"] to my 'Net vocabulary.
>

It probably isn't yet 'Net vocabulary, but I thought it fit to describe what I've been doing, so you're welcome, sir.

>I cut out your well-turned phrases and questions because I wanted to ask
>you a bit about the "why" you're asking them. I suppose this is all to
>stir up the natives for the up-coming chat.

In large part, yes, to stir up thought is my motivation, including the stirring of my own thoughts. After five years of on-line chats with the Reading Group, we've probably dealt directly with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, ten or more times, since it is one of Heinlein's most appreciated and best-selling novels. Since its appearance in 1968 I've probably read it about thirty times, but really only thought hard about all of the novel, if I have about all of it, during a fraction of those times while I read it, or even perhaps, never.

TMiaHM is one of a series of stories, perhaps the capstone, by Robert Heinlein that returns to central themes very important to him and us: political independence, revolt, revolution, and the maintenance of freedom. The 1775 "shot heard 'round the world" changed the world. That led to representative democracies, still leads to them as recently as the 1990s when Eastern Europe replanted trees of liberty, and is the single most significant difference between "western" and "eastern," whether 'near' or 'far,' human civilizations.

The cost: the single most important factor of freedom is that generational 'watering' of the tree of liberty Jefferson thought necessary, by the blood of patriots, but also by blood of collateral victims, those 99 percent of us who ordinarily wish nothing more but to fill our rice bowls every day, somewhat like Charlie, the restaurant owner in _Between Planets_, then sit under our "--Vine and Fig Tree__," the original title of Heinlein's first published novel.

Heinlein thought the issues so important that he devoted an amazing number of his writings towards them.

His first novel-length story "If This Goes On -- " was directly devoted to revolution and re-attaining freedom. There followed, before World War II involvement by the United States, in order of writing: _Sixth Column_, directly involved another rebellion after conquest, "Solution Unsatisfactory," involving counterrevolution, "Logic of Empire," foreshadowing the issues of a revolution to come, and "Lost Legacy," involving a revolution fought with psychic powers. Immediately after the war, "How To Be a Survivor," "Free Men," and "On the Slopes of Vesuvius," all involving like aspects, were written, but not immediately published. But in 1949, first _Red Planet_, a juvenile novel of a colonial revolution, then _Sixth Column_ in book form were published, and "Gulf" and "The Long Watch," both involving preemptive counterrevolution activity, all appeared. _Farmer in the Sky_, the next year's juvenile contains a discussion of an ultimately necessary colonial revolution on Ganymede; and the next year's, _Between Planets_, another colonial revolution on Venus. The same year, 1951, a full-length adult novel of defense against an alien conquest, _The Puppet Masters_, was written.

Then, in 1953, in the Postscript to _Revolt in 2100_ he told us he wasn't likely ever to write "Stone Pillow" because, among other things, he'd written enough stories of revolution.

And, it was true. The seven years following Eisenhower's 1952 election and the next year's armistice of what is now called the "forgotten war," or unWar I, in Korea elapsed without a return by Heinlein's writing to those issues until a call for a unilateral decision to cease ongoing efforts to maintain military retaliatory capacity and readiness by that President resulted in "Who Are the Heirs of Patrick Henry?"

That diversion was quickly followed by _Starship Troopers_, the 'juvenile' that wasn't and involved the cautionary theme of preparedness, and a handful of years later by _Glory Road_, the fantasy that wasn't, and included a caution against fighting a guerrilla unWar II with passed-over for promotion officers and overaged in grade Pfcs, who would have been heroes, except no one was looking.

But in 1967 and 1968, when antiwar protests were reaching for their full vehemence on the same college campuses where SiaSL was now clearly reaching cult status in popularity, Heinlein ignored the war that everyone was now looking at and went back to those classic issues, writing and publishing a novel of revolution on the Moon meticulously-parallelled to the American revolution of 1775, et seq.

That was it, though. TMiaHM was the capstone. Heinlein finished tapping it in place with the handle of his trowel, smoothed down the mortar, and -- moved on to other topics. The World As Myth.

If he's said what he had to say, summed it all up; then maybe it deserved a harder look than I've every given it thus far is what I thought this time around.

Okay, then, let's give it one I thought.

I have to say this, though: I always thought Wyoh Knott was a loose cannon -- Oh, I sympathesized with her and liked her a lot, I've know and 'liked' a lot of loose cannons -- but she was trouble looking to happen; and I always distrusted "Prof," too glib, too clever by half, and way too much of a Q-boat -- not working for anyone else, but a pirate and a half. Do I want a guy like "Prof" covering my rear? No-o-o-o-o! I can't trust him to not decide he's going to take it as his *personal* "responsibility" to bug out, cross over, and wind up on the other side. "Tell me what rule, what law, and when, and I'll tell you whether I'll follow it," or words to that effect, is his creed. Charming, but do keep him out there at twelve o'clock where I can see what he's doing all the time, or send him home. Now.

But Mannie was the credible wrong place at the wrong time Joe, as Brandon points out, who trusts his friends too much. Enough like me that I trusted his instinct, ever if there seemed too much "going along to get along" on his part. And I was brought up, as Heinlein was, to believe all of the story Heinlein was writing and parallelling.

So, to test it, you might say, Rufo, I decided to take my squirrel rifle down from above the fireplace and hurry on down to the road back to Boston (with my little blue and buff cockade firmly in place to guard against the very likely possibility that I'd get flammed back to the stone age), and take a few potshots at TMiaHM to see whether it turns and fights or runs all the way back to a strained metaphorical place where they play "The World Turned Upsidedown."

One way to take potshots is by Revisionism. That word has a bad rap, principally because individuals use it to fulfill personal agenda, as if their version now becomes ultimate truth. All it properly is is a tool. As any other tool, it can test. I decided to use it a lot here in this thread. To test.

>But . . . .
>
>I'm just gonna type, OK?

". . . for what we are about to receive, we thank You, O Lord!"
--unknown eighteenth century Naval officer
>1.  You make a concerted effort to discredit the intentions, backgrounds
>and motivations of the major characters. Is this to get us to re-think
>these people?

And to help make me rethink my views.

>These people were created in a very much different time
>than today.

But, back to "literature," one test of a character is how well does he stand up. Is Mannie really "Everyman" as I think Heinlein intended to portray him? Not quite Hamlet. Maybe Fortinbras, or just Horatio? Is "Prof" really the font of mature wisdom? Just as was Jubal, Kettle Belly Baldwin, and all the rest of the mentors? Or merely a Polonius? Or maybe a false mentor: Falstaff? Is Wyoh Portia, or something else again? What was Heinlein doing when he created these people and what did he intend us to think of them? He wrote, as he said, to put food on the table, but if it was worth writing, the characters ought to stand up and their names continue to shine in years after 1968.

I think we can test any of Heinlein's creatures by the standards of very different times. Maybe we learn something: hell, we're not even one hundred years old yet, Rufo.

>For instance, you create an elegant dissection of Professor
>Bernardo de La Paz when you derive his name from "Berhart--the hard
>Bear" and then throw in the irony of having a revolutionary--a "rational
>anarchist, I think--being surnamed "of the Peace."

Yes, I thought someone might like that.

>Surely, the
>derivation of that name would be more easily extracted from the name of
>the Great Liberator of Chile (early 19th Century), Bernardo O'Higgins.

Perhaps both are true resonances. Wish I knew more about O'Higgins. Do you?

>There are echoes there for BOTH Mannie and the Prof,  no?
>

Without knowing more about O'Higgins I can't say. Please explicate, kind sir.

>2. About the targets of the rocks: There was no day-care center at any
>of the facilities that were targeted by the Loonies. They hadn't yet
>been concocted and made so thoroughly ubiquitous that the mention of the
>"possibility" of their existence is enough to sicken an unknowing
>reader. That was not a consideration of the time period in which the
>book was written. What you don't know of you can't insert in the to
>create a "paradox" to "paradoctor."
>

But there are always collateral victims. Heinlein didn't dwell on them in TMiaHM. I think he was sick of the thought of having to so dwell, as he hinted in his Postscript to Revolt in 2100, "Concerning Stories Never Written." But he'd given us enough hints of what he thought in earlier stories, hadn't he? Charlie, busy filling rice bowls, kind to stupid dishwashers, picking up his cleaver? That couple in Red Planet who decided to go home? Zap, as they stepped through the door went the automatic laser bug-killer! All the Johnnie Dalquists, Sam Andersons, the tramps at the railside, and the rest of them want to do is make it "off-planet" with enough of a stake, after their duties are done, to make their nut and, then, string a David Lamb hammock under their own vine and figtree they've tended so dearly. Whether they stop and involve themselves or not, or go along to "protect their investment" as upperclassman Smythe did, they are collateral victims. The question for the revolutionary always is: how many will die? The question for us is: how many revolutionaries ask themselves that question?

That's a forgotten question in many stirring tales of revolution. Is that a weakness of this Heinlein story? Or maybe pretty little Ludmilla with the wound between her pretty little breasts and the thought of the look on Mimi's face when they brought her home was enough. What do you think?

Those of us now living will probably never forget that photo of the nude little girl fleeing the napalmed village. But I often wonder whether Uncle Ho ever thought about it, and if he did, did he forget?

>3. I believe it was Brandon Ray who pointed out that the "real" reason
>for using the catapult to throw rocks at Terra was to lure the
>"federales" to DESTROY the catapult.  No catapult -- no grain to earth.
>No grain to earth -- no starvation in Luna.  The federales did it to
>themselves -- they couldn't BLAME the Loonies.
>

It was Roger Connor, but from what he's written, Brandon Ray is quite capable of making that point. And the point that the federales did do it to themselves is clever; but I think "federales" are capable of any rationalization they wish to make to assign blame wherever they wish.

>4. One of the nastiest tidbits you came up with [in my opinion] was the
>reminder of the picnic outings at First Manasses (Bull Run) and the
>similar occurrence in the rock tossing. Those people (both centuries)
>couldn't be considered anything more nor less than propaganda fodder.
>

I think that story was fresher to Heinlein than to me. Propaganda fodder includes raped and bayoneted Belguim nuns; and they were very fresh to him growing up, I betcha! How 'bout all them napalmed Vietnamese babies! "Ho, ho, L.B.J. How many kids did you kill today?"

--->this is me, not going anywhere near wedding guests and riders on Jerusalem buses, nor Bethelehem church janitors today.

>I suppose that this is my (typically) long-winded way of expressing my
>thanks to you and your "mooching" and "trolling" for the "good" of afh.
>But, "Sink me, Sir, I demmed near took offense at a couple of your
>statements."
>

I dunno that afh needs much "good" done to it; it's a very unusual newsgroup and I wouldn't try the style of mooching I can use on afh on most newsgroups; but, you're welcome, sir; and, sir, you were supposed to *demmed near* take offense. Does this mean I can expect to see you in the chat room Saturday, Rufo?

-- 
    David M. Silver
    http://www.heinleinsociety.org
    http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
    "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
    Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
    Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:
>Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
>>David Silver wrote:
>

trying to snip a bit, for brevity

>In large part, yes, to stir up thought is my motivation, including the
>stirring of my own thoughts. After five years of on-line chats with the
>Reading Group, we've probably dealt directly with The Moon is a Harsh
>Mistress, ten or more times, since it is one of Heinlein's most
>appreciated and best-selling novels. Since its appearance in 1968 I've
>probably read it about thirty times, but really only thought hard about
>all of the novel, if I have about all of it, during a fraction of those
>times while I read it, or even perhaps, never.
>

<snip of your excellent essay on the "revolutionary" RAH stories & novels

>I have to say this, though: I always thought Wyoh Knott was a loose
>cannon -- Oh, I sympathesized with her and liked her a lot, I've know
>and 'liked' a lot of loose cannons -- but she was trouble looking to
>happen; and I always distrusted "Prof," too glib, too clever by half,
>and way too much of a Q-boat -- not working for anyone else, but a
>pirate and a half. Do I want a guy like "Prof" covering my rear?
>No-o-o-o-o! I can't trust him to not decide he's going to take it as his
>*personal* "responsibility" to bug out, cross over, and wind up on the
>other side. "Tell me what rule, what law, and when, and I'll tell you
>whether I'll follow it," or words to that effect, is his creed.
>Charming, but do keep him out there at twelve o'clock where I can see
>what he's doing all the time, or send him home. Now.

I completely agree with your assessments of both Wyoh and the Prof. She is far too "emotionally fueled" and he is toooooooooo much the charmer/fraud.

>But Mannie was the credible wrong place at the wrong time Joe, as
>Brandon points out, who trusts his friends too much. Enough like me that
>I trusted his instinct, ever if there seemed too much "going along to
>get along" on his part. And I was brought up, as Heinlein was, to
>believe all of the story Heinlein was writing and parallelling.

"So were they all, honorable men."

>So, to test it, you might say, Rufo, I decided to take my squirrel rifle
>down from above the fireplace and hurry on down to the road back to
>Boston (with my little blue and buff cockade firmly in place to guard
>against the very likely possibility that I'd get flammed back to the
>stone age), and take a few potshots at TMiaHM to see whether it turns
>and fights or runs all the way back to a strained metaphorical place
>where they play "The World Turned Upsidedown."
>
>One way to take potshots is by Revisionism. That word has a bad rap,
>principally because individuals use it to fulfill personal agenda, as if
>their version now becomes ultimate truth. All it properly is is a tool.
>As any other tool, it can test. I decided to use it a lot here in this
>thread. To test.
>
>
>>But . . . .
>>
>>I'm just gonna type, OK?
>
>
>". . . for what we are about to receive, we thank You, O Lord!"
>        --unknown eighteenth century Naval officer

This is also the "grace" said at Dotheboys Hall.

>
>>1.  You make a concerted effort to discredit the intentions, backgrounds
>>and motivations of the major characters. Is this to get us to re-think
>>these people?
>
>
>And to help make me rethink my views.
>
>>These people were created in a very much different time
>>than today.
>
>
>But, back to "literature," one test of a character is how well does he
>stand up. Is Mannie really "Everyman" as I think Heinlein intended to
>portray him? Not quite Hamlet. Maybe Fortinbras, or just Horatio? 

If Mannie ISN'T Everyman, who is? He's the POV character from whom we derive our information. If he is flummoxed then so are we. Is the revolution in Luna "responsible" and "necessary"? Is it a story of "freedom denied and freedom achieved"? If Mannie is wronged then so are we. None of the POV characters in the other RAH novels and stories of revolution were "framed", were they? They were sincere. Sam/Elihu says that the Old Man was quite capable of saying:

"Boys, we need to fertilize this oak tree. Just jump in that hole 
at its base and I'll cover you up." [Sam continues with:]
     We'd have done it. Any of us would.
     And the Old Man would bury us alive, too, if he thought that 
there was as much as a 53 percent probability that it was the 
Tree of Liberty he was nourishing."

THAT'S the attitude/POV which is most reliably a part of the construction of RAH's revolutions. Why is "revision" needed? Why re-invent the wheel?

>Is
>"Prof" really the font of mature wisdom? Just as was Jubal, Kettle Belly
>Baldwin, and all the rest of the mentors? Or merely a Polonius? Or maybe
>a false mentor: Falstaff? 

Surely, "A" font of (more) mature wisdom. He is not passed off as omniscient -- too many flaws -- Never Jubal (who groks without knowing Martian) -- nor "Two Canes" who is constantly focused on others -- at least, Polonius, who is quite capable except where his family is concerned. Falstaff, well, despite Harold Bloom's opinions, I've never really "cottoned to the old reprobate. The Prof is likable but never completely trustworthy. As you said, set him at point where you can keep an eye on him. As long as you watch him, he'll be fine. Don't trust him with your back.

>Is Wyoh Portia,

Now then, "Portia" in Merchant of Venice? Or, perhaps "Portia" in Caesar? Or is this a reference to the seventh of Uranus' known satellites: orbit: 66,097 km from Uranus diameter: 110 km mass:

or something else again?

Wyoh does "dress up" to pass as other than she is like the lawyer-Portia but she doesn't dress in drag. Or perhaps you are suggesting something along this line[Act 1, scene 2]:

"If to do were as easy as to know what were good to
do, chapels had been churches and poor men's
cottages princes' palaces. It is a good divine that
follows his own instructions: I can easier teach
twenty what were good to be done, than be one of the
twenty to follow mine own teaching."

Contrariwise, Wyoh would NEVER say as Brutus'Portia does [Act II,scene 4] "Ay me, how weak a thing/The heart of woman is!"

>What
>was Heinlein doing when he created these people and what did he intend
>us to think of them? He wrote, as he said, to put food on the table, but
>if it was worth writing, the characters ought to stand up and their
>names continue to shine in years after 1968.
>
>I think we can test any of Heinlein's creatures by the standards of very
>different times. Maybe we learn something: hell, we're not even one
>hundred years old yet, Rufo.
>
>>For instance, you create an elegant dissection of Professor
>>Bernardo de La Paz when you derive his name from "Berhart--the hard
>>Bear" and then throw in the irony of having a revolutionary--a "rational
>>anarchist, I think--being surnamed "of the Peace."
>
>
>Yes, I thought someone might like that.
>
>>Surely, the
>>derivation of that name would be more easily extracted from the name of
>>the Great Liberator of Chile (early 19th Century), Bernardo O'Higgins.
>
>
>Perhaps both are true resonances. Wish I knew more about O'Higgins. Do you?
>
>
>>There are echoes there for BOTH Mannie and the Prof,  no?
>>
>
>
>Without knowing more about O'Higgins I can't say. Please explicate, kind
>sir.

As the man used to say on TV when I was a kid, "You Asked For It !"

Bernardo O'Higgins -- born 1778 -- on the wrong side of the blanket. Mother was a rich hidalga & his father was an Irishman serving the government of the Spanish King. Bernie was a red-headed ˝ Irish bastard.

He studied (liberal arts) in England [But I don't think he got his degree in English Lit."] He also studied in Spain (the cost of living was cheaper and the language was "easier"). While in Spain he met and studied with Jose de San Martin who was later the "Liberator" of Argentina as O'Higgins was to be the "Liberator" of Chile.

He returned to Chile in 1802 and inherited his Father's land. He was elected to the local governmental council which was in distress because Napoleon le premier had invaded the Iberian peninsula and made his kid brother, Joey, the King of Spain. Assorted Spanish territories all around the world took great umbrage at this and Chile was no exception.

On September 18, 1810, the hidalgos in Chile "took up arms." [This is still "Independence Day" in Chile] They decided on a limited self-government until the restoration of the Spanish Throne. Bernie formed his own two companies of militia (he used the local huasos [cowboys]) and became a Colonel [This was the "usual" procedure at that time. The Regular army had a bit more paperwork but the outline of the procedures were the same.] His first battle (1813) was La Sopresa de los Robles [the Surprise at the Oaks]. His exhortation to his troops is still memorialized in Chile:

"ˇO vivir con honor o morir con gloria!, ˇEl que sea valiente que me siga!" (Either live with honor or die with glory. He who is brave, follow me!).

Needless to say, he distinguished himself that day for bravery. He was subsequently made the Capitan General of the Chilean Army.

The next year of warfare was not so successful and by late 1814, O'Higgins and his army were "run out" of Chile into Argentina. They were in exile there until 1817 when Bernie marched his men across the Andes [rather like Hannibal, don't you know]. Bernie was accompanied by his old friend, Jose de San Martin and a large contingent of Argentine soldiers. Together they led the Chilean ex-pats back and they took over Santiago (Chile). Jose was offered the governorship but he turned it down to pursue his objective of defeating the Spanish army and taking the very important city of Lima (Peru). Bernie became the Director Supremo de Chile.

"He turned his attention to building the country. He created a new government, a republic, and laid the grounds for peace and order. He instituted reforms in the economic and social order, and with the help of San Martín and Thomas Cochrane (later 10th Earl of DunDonald), he created the Chilean navy and the accumulation of troop ships. This fledgling navy took part in the conquest of Peru in 1821, and San Martín became protector of Peru." Bernie was an irritant to the Powers That Be [PTB] and despite many improvements made to Chile he was "asked to leave" in 1823.

He spent the balance of his life in retirement in Peru where he was given property by the thankful Peruvian government. He died and was buried in Lima in October, 1842. In 1866, his remains were transferred to Santiago, Chile and re-buried in "state."

The preceding has been hobbled together for the purposes of replying to Mr. Silver. Nits may pick as they will [So who really needs permission?]

>
>>2. About the targets of the rocks: There was no day-care center at any
>>of the facilities that were targeted by the Loonies. They hadn't yet
>>been concocted and made so thoroughly ubiquitous that the mention of the
>>"possibility" of their existence is enough to sicken an unknowing
>>reader. That was not a consideration of the time period in which the
>>book was written. What you don't know of you can't insert in the to
>>create a "paradox" to "paradoctor."
>>
>
>
>But there are always collateral victims. Heinlein didn't dwell on them
>in TMiaHM.

I am certain that this was NOT because he didn't realize that there were other victims. His life experience would validate this. Perhaps the simplest answer was that it wasn't an appropriate focus for the story he wanted to tell? I would hesitate to attempt a "Panshin-like" re-write on this point.

>I think he was sick of the thought of having to so dwell, as
>he hinted in his Postscript to Revolt in 2100, "Concerning Stories Never
>Written." But he'd given us enough hints of what he thought in earlier
>stories, hadn't he? Charlie, busy filling rice bowls, kind to stupid
>dishwashers,

"ALWAYS THE BLEEDING DISHWASHERS !!!! Please recall that when the Prof was first transported, "he washed dishes."

>That couple in Red Planet who
>decided to go home? Zap, as they stepped through the door went the
>automatic laser bug-killer!

Whoa, Big Fella! Steady there, Silver! Those schlubs were bitching and moaning about being cooped up in the school. They wanted to be more comfortable -- definitely not RAH "good guys". Mrs Pottle says, (you ARE referring to the Pottles, aren't you?) "Well, -we- are accepting Mr. Beecher's gracious offer at once! As for the holding poor Mr. Howe a prisoner--why the very idea! I hope that you are properly punished and that ungentlemanly Mr. Kelly as well! Come, dear!" Again she made a grand exit, with Mr. Pottle trotting after."

They left in a Huff (which brings to mind the Mutineer from Orphans of the Sky, but let's not free-associate too much.) and I always thought their essential part of the plot action was to reinforce the cold, callus attitude of the Company -- the Red Planet version of Authority.

>All the Johnnie Dalquists, Sam Andersons,
>the tramps at the railside, and the rest of them want to do is make it
>"off-planet" with enough of a stake, after their duties are done, to
>make their nut and, then, string a David Lamb hammock under their own
>vine and figtree they've tended so dearly. Whether they stop and involve
>themselves or not, or go along to "protect their investment" as
>upperclassman Smythe did, they are collateral victims. The question for
>the revolutionary always is: how many will die? The question for us is:
>how many revolutionaries ask themselves that question?

Not to evade your eloquence, but the quotation re: the Tree of Liberty is definitely appropriate.

>That's a forgotten question in many stirring tales of revolution. Is
>that a weakness of this Heinlein story? Or maybe pretty little Ludmilla
>with the wound between her pretty little breasts and the thought of the
>look on Mimi's face when they brought her home was enough. What do you
>think?

Any more than that would have been "too much" to bear. How many tears can you shed?

>Those of us now living will probably never forget that photo of the nude
>little girl fleeing the napalmed village. But I often wonder whether
>Uncle Ho ever thought about it, and if he did, did he forget?

The only response to this that I have involves a large lake of ice surrounded by "ever-lasting" fires. "Nuff said?

>
>>3. I believe it was Brandon Ray who pointed out that the "real" reason
>>for using the catapult to throw rocks at Terra was to lure the
>>"federales" to DESTROY the catapult.  No catapult -- no grain to earth.
>>No grain to earth -- no starvation in Luna.  The federales did it to
>>themselves -- they couldn't BLAME the Loonies.
>>
>
>
>It was Roger Connor, but from what he's written, Brandon Ray is quite
>capable of making that point. And the point that the federales did do it
>to themselves is clever; but I think "federales" are capable of any
>rationalization they wish to make to assign blame wherever they wish.

First, my apology to Brandon and please pass the baton to Roger. Of course, the federales can create an event/situation just like anyone can. Ditto, ditto "assign blame." I think the irony of the described situation is the RAH touch--uch like when Mannie is first questioned about Luna having a revolution, he responds with "What we gonna do, throw rocks at 'em"?

>
>>4. One of the nastiest tidbits you came up with [in my opinion] was the
>>reminder of the picnic outings at First Manasses (Bull Run) and the
>>similar occurrence in the rock tossing. Those people (both centuries)
>>couldn't be considered anything more nor less than propaganda fodder.
>>
>
>
>I think that story was fresher to Heinlein than to me. Propaganda fodder
>includes raped and bayoneted Belguim nuns; and they were very fresh to
>him growing up, I betcha! How 'bout all them napalmed Vietnamese babies!
>"Ho, ho, L.B.J. How many kids did you kill today?"
>
>--->this is me, not going anywhere near wedding guests and riders on
>Jerusalem buses, nor Bethelehem church janitors today.
>
>
>>I suppose that this is my (typically) long-winded way of expressing my
>>thanks to you and your "mooching" and "trolling" for the "good" of afh.
>>But, "Sink me, Sir, I demmed near took offense at a couple of your
>>statements."
>>
>
>
>I dunno that afh needs much "good" done to it;

Everyone benefits when a well-motivated person does "good." As the aphorism says, "No god deed will go unpunished."

>it's a very unusual
>newsgroup and I wouldn't try the style of mooching I can use on afh on
>most newsgroups; but, you're welcome, sir; and, sir, you were supposed
>to *demmed near* take offense. Does this mean I can expect to see you in
>the chat room Saturday, Rufo?

I can only try to be there, sir, but, "Sink me," thank you for the special invite, "deuced charmin' of ya."

Cordially,

Dr. Rufo


"Dr. Rufo" wrote:
>David Silver wrote:
>
>>Dr. Rufo wrote:
>>
>>>David Silver wrote:
>>
>
>trying to snip a bit, for brevity

ditto

>
>>I have to say this, though: I always thought Wyoh Knott was a loose
>>cannon -- Oh, I sympathesized with her and liked her a lot, I've know
>>and 'liked' a lot of loose cannons -- but she was trouble looking to
>>happen; and I always distrusted "Prof," too glib, too clever by half,
>>and way too much of a Q-boat -- not working for anyone else, but a
>>pirate and a half. Do I want a guy like "Prof" covering my rear?
>>No-o-o-o-o! I can't trust him to not decide he's going to take it as his
>>*personal* "responsibility" to bug out, cross over, and wind up on the
>>other side. "Tell me what rule, what law, and when, and I'll tell you
>>whether I'll follow it," or words to that effect, is his creed.
>>Charming, but do keep him out there at twelve o'clock where I can see
>>what he's doing all the time, or send him home. Now.
>
>              I completely agree with your assessments of both Wyoh and the Prof.
>She is far too "emotionally fueled" and he is toooooooooo much
>the charmer/fraud.

Prof, as we found out at the end, had ulterior motives. Or at least, Mannie inferred this, since he never got a chance to talk to Prof about it before the old man died -- and isn't that a rather obvious parallel to Moses? He led his people to the Promised Land, and died with it in sight, never having actually set foot on it himself.

Except, of course, that Mannie tells us later that the Promised Land turns out to have been Scarsdale, so maybe it was just as well.

It's also interesting to me that Mannie never expresses any resentment towards Prof, despite Mannie's eventual conclusion that Prof had a very different goal in mind than the one he claimed when they were planning the revolution. The closest he came was wondering if maybe it would have been worth food riots to give people a chance to be left alone. But he leaves us with the impression that Prof's vision had been betrayed, not that Prof had been a fool.

As for Wyoh -- Robespierre. Think about it. Think about that scene where she was introduced, where she whips the crowd into a frenzy. She was ready to lead the Mob against the Bastille -- and RAH would have had to have been a lot stupider than he was not to realize that this was the *other* route revolution can take -- that revolution *did* take, at approximately the same time, in France. There are echoes of it all through the book -- Mannie's birthday was Bastille Day, one of the slogans at the rally was Liberty! Equality! Fraternity! The movement was heading in that direction, I think, and Wyoh could have become Robespierre, if it had continued.

>
>
>>But Mannie was the credible wrong place at the wrong time Joe, as
>>Brandon points out, who trusts his friends too much. Enough like me that
>>I trusted his instinct, ever if there seemed too much "going along to
>>get along" on his part. And I was brought up, as Heinlein was, to
>>believe all of the story Heinlein was writing and parallelling.
>
>
>              "So were they all, honorable men."

This is as good a place as any to point out something else that occurred to me this evening, and that is that this story is being told several decades after the fact. Which means that anything Mannie says about a publicly-known incident -- such as the bombardment of Earth -- is probably true. Either that, or he's a war criminal of the sort who would go to his grave insisting that the Holocaust never happened. ;) This isn't to say he couldn't be shading the truth about events that had been confidential, of course.

>If Mannie ISN'T Everyman, who is?  He's the POV character from whom
>we derive our information.  If he is flummoxed then so are we.
>Is the revolution in Luna "responsible" and "necessary"?  Is it a
>story of "freedom denied and freedom achieved"? If Mannie is
>wronged then so are we. None of the POV characters in the other
>RAH novels and stories of revolution were "framed", were they?
>They were sincere. Sam/Elihu says that the Old Man was quite
>capable of saying:

What about the guy in "Coventry" -- can't remember his name, and I'm too lazy to look it up. But he was framed, sort of, in that he was used by one of the government's agents inside Coventry.

Coventry's always bothered me a bit -- it seems to be a bit of a clunker, compared to a lot of RAH's other work. Not that it was badly written -- but the value that's placed on socialization and conformity, which seems antithetical to most of his other stories. Or am I missing something?

[Brandon Ray]


Brandon Ray <publius@avalon.net>wrote in message >
>Prof, as we found out at the end, had ulterior motives.  Or at least, Mannie >inferred this, since he never got a chance to talk to Prof about it before the old man died -- and isn't that a rather obvious parallel to Moses?  He led his people to the Promised Land, and died with it in sight, never having actually set foot on it himself.
>
>Except, of course, that Mannie tells us later that the Promised Land turns out to have been Scarsdale, so maybe it was just as well.

Mannie was as much to blame as Prof. They were both part of the decision to replace what was an essentially benign dictatorship (whose main effect was to enforce a power vacuum in the warrens, the Authority simply would not allow local governments to arise). Secondarily, it exploited the Loonies by monopolising trade with Earth -- which the Loonies resented and which *might* have led to ecological disaster.

There was a libertarian society in the Moon before the revolution. Some characters don't know what is good til its gone.

-Matt Hickman


David Wright wrote:
>"Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com>wrote in message
>news:3CBF9EB3.4020404@mindspring.com...
>
>>David Silver wrote:
>>
>(snip very long reply)
>
>
>>>That couple in Red Planet who
>>>decided to go home? Zap, as they stepped through the door went the
>>>automatic laser bug-killer!
>>>
>>Whoa, Big Fella! Steady there, Silver! Those schlubs were bitching
>>and moaning about being cooped up in the school. They wanted to
>>be more comfortable -- definitely not RAH "good guys". Mrs Pottle
>>says, (you ARE referring to the Pottles, aren't you?) "Well, -we-
>>are accepting Mr. Beecher's gracious offer at once! As for the
>>holding poor Mr. Howe a prisoner--why the very idea! I hope that
>>you are properly punished and that ungentlemanly Mr. Kelly as
>>well! Come, dear!" Again she made a grand exit, with Mr. Pottle
>>trotting after."
>>
>>
>I think that he was referring to the Hartley? couple who had the sick baby
>and who tried to leave after the Pottles did.
>
>David Wright

Well, now, that's a horse of a different color. I recalled it a bit differently so I checked the text. On p. 186 ff of Red Planet, the father of the child in question (which parent is a "hydoponist"-- translation: "farmer") says the child "is coming down with croup."

Dr. MacRae (the recognized medical Authority figure) says

"The kid seems to be doing all right." and also: "she doesn't seem to be in any danger." Then the know-it-all parent says, after a "huddle" with his wife, "I've had enough, I've got my wife and baby to think about."

When Captain Marlowe tells Hartley that "The decision is yours." RAH says that the younger man "looked uncertain, like a man who wants someone to argue him out of his resolution." Once again, Mrs. Hartley touches her husband's arm and "they went out together." In re the Hartley's action, Dr. MacRae opines that "Most people ever grow up. They expect papa to get 'em the pretty Moon."

THAT is the damning phrase. The man pays the price for his impatience but the wife and the child survive. "Women and children" again. I'm tempted to add that this is the second instance of the wife urging a course of action on her somewhat unwilling husband but I've been married too long to fall into THAT one.

Anyway, "everyone is responsibile for his/her own actions" and when you oppose qualified opinion you'd better be prepared for anything.

Respectfully,

Dr. Rufo


In article <3CBFBEE4.645EAD7C@avalon.net>, Brandon Ray <publius@avalon.net>wrote:
>"Dr. Rufo" wrote:
>
<SNIP, next is digression for story "Coventry">
>
>Coventry's always bothered me a bit -- it seems to be a bit of a clunker, 
>compared to a lot of RAH's other work.  Not that it was badly written -- but 
>the value that's placed on socialization and conformity, which seems 
>antithetical to most of his other stories.  Or am I missing something?

It's an early story (first published 1940). The original version of "If This Goes On" has some of the same features (which were rewritten and even reversed for the post WWII collection, _Revolt in 2100_).

-- 
robertaw@drizzle.com     http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw/
rawoodward@aol.com

Robert A. Woodward wrote:
>In article <3CBFBEE4.645EAD7C@avalon.net>,
>Brandon Ray <publius@avalon.net>wrote:
>
>
>>"Dr. Rufo" wrote:
>>
>>
><SNIP, next is digression for story "Coventry">
>
>>Coventry's always bothered me a bit -- it seems to be a bit of a clunker, 
>>compared to a lot of RAH's other work.  Not that it was badly written -- but 
>>the value that's placed on socialization and conformity, which seems 
>>antithetical to most of his other stories.  Or am I missing something?
>>
>
>It's an early story (first published 1940). The original version of "If 
>This Goes On" has some of the same features (which were rewritten and 
>even reversed for the post WWII collection, _Revolt in 2100_).
>
>

It's also interesting that in MC the thinness of the veneer cracks and the Covenant is abandoned in the hatred for the Howard Families. It might have been patched up later but that proved to me that, in its way, it was as undesirable as the time of Scudder.

Jane

-- 
http://www.heinleinsociety.org

>It's also interesting that in MC the thinness of the veneer cracks 
>and the Covenant is abandoned in the hatred for the Howard Families

Yeah. The Covenant was the "first scientific political document" but that doesn't mean Heinlein thought it was utopian. It was a transition from our world to the "first human civilization."

Bill


Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
>   THAT is the damning phrase. The man pays the price for his 
>impatience but the wife and the child survive. "Women and children" 
>again.  I'm tempted to add that this is the second instance of the wife 
>urging a course of action on her somewhat unwilling husband but I've 
>been married too long to fall into THAT one.
>
>   Anyway, "everyone is responsibile for his/her own actions" and when 
>you oppose qualified opinion you'd better be prepared for anything.
>
>Respectfully,
>Dr. Rufo
>
>
>
>

Dr Rufo, here I disagree. Doc didn't examine the child properly; couldn't as the child was in a pressurised crib and he couldn't get to her. Babies die of croup (I've read Anne of Green Gables...I remember the scene where Anne saves the baby's life). If the parents really felt that their child was in danger they were not out of line in deciding to surrender. It wouldn't have endangered those inside and at that point the true perfidy of Beecher and co wasn't known. Even Mr Marlowe took a while to grasp that the kid glove time was over. It was a hard decision to have to make and it ended tragically....but Mr Hartley wasn't like the Pottles.

Jane

-- 
http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Jane Davitt wrote:
>Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
>
>>
>>   THAT is the damning phrase. The man pays the price for his 
>>impatience but the wife and the child survive. "Women and children" 
>>again.  I'm tempted to add that this is the second instance of the 
>>wife urging a course of action on her somewhat unwilling husband but 
>>I've been married too long to fall into THAT one.
>>
>>   Anyway, "everyone is responsibile for his/her own actions" and 
>>when you oppose qualified opinion you'd better be prepared for anything.
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>Dr. Rufo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Dr Rufo, here I disagree. Doc didn't examine the child properly; 
>couldn't as the child was in a pressurised crib and he couldn't get to 
>her.

Yes, ma'am, you describe the facts of the situation and echo the concern of the parents that the "exam" by the doctor "couldn't" be sufficient. I will need to put the "professional's" opinion ahead of that of the "concerned parent."

>Babies die of croup (I've read Anne of Green Gables...I remember 
>the scene where Anne saves the baby's life). 

Please, ma'am, I've read the books as well and, also like you, I am a parent. Babies can be almost preternaturally delicate and 10 minutes later be stronger than Superman (from the comic book, please, not from Nietzche).

>If the parents really felt 
>that their child was in danger they were not out of line in deciding to 
>surrender. It wouldn't have endangered those inside 

Once again, I agree. They took the situation into their own hands and the resolution is "to their account" whether for praise or blame.

>and at that point 
>the true perfidy of Beecher and co wasn't known. Even Mr Marlowe took a 
>while to grasp that the kid glove time was over.

The "perfidy" to which you refer was clearly demonstrated in the shooting of the Noisy Pottle and the Quiet Pottle. How many examples of "2 + 2 = 4" are needed?

>It was a hard decision to have to make and it ended tragically....but Mr 
>Hartley wasn't like the Pottles.

Once again, "yes, ma'am." The young farmer who was concerned for the well-being of his child was NOT the same as the matron (I realize that there is no direct reference to her age, even at the beginning of the novel; but I feel that the "richness" of her self-importance could only come about due to prolonged periods of practice.) She was solely concerned with "comfort" and "status." BUT, the point of this exercise was that Mr. Silver mentioned these people as "collateral victims" on whom RAH was (apparently) reluctant to dwell in his revolution stories. With the clarification of them person(s) shot by the Black Hats, I have to agree. The young father is definitely in the same category as Charlie in his kitchen. I regret, not the meanderings of these exchanges, but the lack of my own perception at misunderstanding the correct reference in the first place.

Respectfully, ma'am,

Dr. Rufo


BPRAL22169 <bpral22169@aol.com>wrote in message news:20020419222602.21840.00006778@mb-ch.aol.com...
>>It's also interesting that in MC the thinness of the veneer cracks
>>and the Covenant is abandoned in the hatred for the Howard Families
>
>Yeah.  The Covenant was the "first scientific political document" but that
>doesn't mean Heinlein thought it was utopian.  It was a transition from our
>world to the "first human civilization."
>Bill
>

Agreed. Humanity in general does not yet have civilization, not even the "thin verneer' enjoyed in some countries founded by those evil DWEM's, and a few founded by DYAM's. More like those toy tattoo's pasted onto the skin of a raving barbarian, IMO.

But pasting a thin verneer of civilization onto Humanity doesn't mean that the wild animal doesn't lurk underneath.

Rusty the bookman

Working to hold up civilization

in his little part of the world


Dr. Rufo <baybus@mindspring.com>wrote in message news:3CC0A7B4.2090807@mindspring.com...
<SNIPPAGE>

>
>Anyway, "everyone is responsibile for his/her own actions" and
>when you oppose qualified opinion you'd better be prepared for
>anything.
>
>Respectfully,
>Dr. Rufo

Doc, I tell you, ya gotta point, but ya don't. No offense intended to you, but my trust of "qualified opinion" declines every year (if not faster).

F'rex, when my wife was carrying our son, 3+ years back, she caught an appointment with an OB/GYN in rotation at her OB/GYN's practice (policy for possible unavailability, or so I was told).

To cut to the chase, he damn near demanded to perform an Amnio on her. He used 'panic-type' numbers on her on the risk of Down's syndrome on "patient's like her".

Why? 'Cause she was fat, of course. The only possible reason to perform an amnio would be to abort the kid, (which purpose he made _perfectly_ clear to us) and he wanted an answer fast - 24-48 hours, IIRC. Pressure, you dig?

Math I can handle. A closer look at the numbers showed me that the risk of a complication from the amnio was about 3 times higher than the possibility of her delivering of a DS kid. We discussed probabilities (after I calmed her down) and passed on the amnio.

The numbers he spouted were things like "your chances of DS are _doubled_!" et cetera. And similar propaganda. IMO, he had a serious fetish that "fat women should not have kids".

maybe I am wrong, but that's how I feel.

The alternative I see is, IMO, worse. That the physician was simply incompetent to handle simple probability math. You may have another explanation.

I shoulda reported the SOB, I guess, but I am with the parents on this one - the doc didn't do a professional job, so they went with their own judgement.

The outcome does nothing to vindicate the 'doctor' here, IMO.

Sorry for ranting, but those are my thoughts on the matter. (yep, I still despise the sorry SOB)

Rspectfully,

Rusty the bookman

Recalls joke re God || Doctors.

(and knows it is not a universal)


bookman wrote:
>Dr. Rufo <baybus@mindspring.com>wrote in message
>news:3CC0A7B4.2090807@mindspring.com...
>
><SNIPPAGE>
>
>>Anyway, "everyone is responsibile for his/her own actions" and
>>when you oppose qualified opinion you'd better be prepared for
>>anything.
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>Dr. Rufo
>>
>
>
>Doc, I tell you,  ya gotta point, but ya don't.  No
>offense intended to you, but my trust of "qualified
>opinion" declines every year (if not faster).
>
>F'rex, when my wife was carrying our son, 3+ years
>back, she caught an appointment with an OB/GYN in
>rotation at her OB/GYN's practice (policy for possible
>unavailability, or so I was told).
>
>To cut to the chase, he damn near demanded to perform
>an Amnio on her.  He used 'panic-type' numbers on her
>on the risk of Down's syndrome on "patient's like her".
>
>Why?  'Cause she was fat, of course.  The only possible
>reason to perform an amnio would be to abort the kid,
>(which purpose he made _perfectly_ clear to us) and
>he wanted an answer fast - 24-48 hours, IIRC.  Pressure,
>you dig?
>
>Math I can handle.  A closer look at the numbers showed me
>that the risk of a complication from the amnio was about
>3 times higher than the possibility of her delivering of a DS kid.
>We discussed probabilities (after I calmed her down) and
>passed on the amnio.
>
>The numbers he spouted were things like "your chances of DS
>are _doubled_!" et cetera.  And similar propaganda.  IMO, he
>had a serious fetish that "fat women should not have kids".
>
>maybe I am wrong, but that's how I feel.
>
>The alternative I see is, IMO, worse.  That the physician
>was simply  incompetent to handle simple probability math.
>You may have another explanation.
>
>I shoulda reported the SOB, I guess, but I am with the
>parents on this one - the doc didn't do a professional job,
>so they went with their own judgement.
>
>The outcome does nothing to vindicate the 'doctor'
>here, IMO.
>
>Sorry for ranting, but those are my thoughts on the matter.
>(yep, I still despise the sorry SOB)
>
>Rspectfully,
>
>Rusty the bookman
>Recalls joke re God || Doctors.
>(and knows it is not a universal)
>

Rusty, Please don't think that I am trying to equate or parallel the opinion of all medical doctors with Divine Writ -- I am NOT. I know, just as well as you do, that there are individuals who substitute their personal agendas for qualified professional opinion. I did not mean to suggest that in my comments about Dr. MacRae. But surely you realize that sometimes the degree of personal anxiety felt by the individual in the trying situation needs to be counterbalanced with a more calm and deliberate appraisal.

I suggest that to be the situation in Dr. MacRae's diagnosis. It seems to me to "fit" better with his previous characterization. I assure you that I can see how the contrary view can also be held. I prefer to see Dr. MacRae "telling the truth" to calm down an over-worried parent. This is the course I would ascribe to an "honorable person." The lack of honor and respect that the opposing view necessitates would better apply to the Company goons who set up the lasers to burn down the colonists. The jerk you and your wife had to deal with had not had any "prior history" with your pregnancy. I completely agree with your resolution. At the very least, a second opinion was called for in your case and NOT the precipitate action advised by the "substitute."

I feel constrained to say here that the "Dr." in front of "Rufo" does NOT refer to a medical degree but reflects "Piling higher and Deeper."

As the Senior says, "Always cut the cards."

Dr. Rufo


Go To Postings

Here Begins The Discussion Log

You have just entered room "Heinlein Readers Group chat."

AGplusone has entered the room.

AGplusone: :::::wave:::::: going to go make some lunch now

SAcademy has entered the room.

DavidWrightSr: Hi Ginny. Sorry I wasn't here the first time you came in.

DavidWrightSr: How are you doing?

AGplusone: Nor was I. But I heard the alert when David Wright sent.

DavidWrightSr: Yeah. Had to go buy some plants with wife and left this thing on in case didn't get back in time.

ddavitt has entered the room.

AGplusone: 'lo Jane

ddavitt: Hi everyone

ddavitt: Just thought I'd pop in early as we have guest sarriving any sec for a curry evening

AGplusone: 'curry' I love curry!

ddavitt: We had an earthquake this morning

ddavitt: Woke me up

ddavitt: You can come if you hurry :-)

AGplusone: One of the nicest things ever happened is a curry restaurant opened up across the street from an office I had. Then I had to move the office before I ate my way through the menu.

ddavitt: Hello Ginny; sorry to hear you've been poorly. Wanted to wish you Happy Birthday for next week

Paradis402 has entered the room.

ddavitt: I miss the UK curries.

ddavitt: Hi Denis

ddavitt: If you ever go to UK, go to Midlands and have a balti

AGplusone: Hi, Denis.

Paradis402: Hi all.

ddavitt: No rice, you eat it with a giant nan bread

ddavitt: I plan to have one when you go home in the summer

AGplusone: I can do that, if you tell me what nan bread is.

ddavitt: when I go home that is

ddavitt: flat bread you have with curries

ddavitt: doughy, not crisp

AGplusone: like tortilla, or pita?

ddavitt: can be stuffed with meat or fruit or garlic

ddavitt: noo...thicker

ddavitt: but that kind of thing

ddavitt: very nice

SAcademy: Good evening Denis.

Paradis402: Hi Ginny. Welcome back!

AGplusone: Oh, I've had that. Now I remember. Last time I went into another little quickie restaurant. They used these big ceramic pot ovens.

ddavitt: That's them

AGplusone: Have to go back to that restaurant soon. Forgotten about it.

ddavitt: Did you get the library log OK? Very productive

AGplusone: Yes, interesting.

ddavitt: Sean and Carolyn have got together now as they're both in Australia

ddavitt: Hopefully they can be a new branch of it so to speak

AGplusone: <G> hope he doesn't have a head this Sunday morning for him, after the beer he was talking about having late last night. Like to see him show up today.

SAcademy: It's a pretty big place, Australia.

ddavitt: Yes..I see Sarah Hoyt is online; she plans to come too

ddavitt: Yes, Ginny; Sean is on the Gold Coast, Carolyn in Brisbane

ddavitt: Don't know if that makes them neighbours or not

SAcademy: Did Sean move? he used to live in the Brisbane area.

ddavitt: In an email he mentioned the Gold Coast so maybe he has

AGplusone: I know he talked about selling his book store some time back

SAcademy: Or is travelling.

ddavitt: He has a new job; admin manager

ddavitt: learning systems to global industry

ddavitt: Don't know what that means but that's what he says in the email to Carolyn

ddavitt: But he should be able to chat to C without being 15 hours different

ddavitt: How is Bill?

AGplusone: I talked to him on phone today. Sounds a lot better.

ddavitt: He joined the library meeting for a little but said he was a bit in pain still

ddavitt: Good.

ddavitt: Ginny, your birthday card may be a little late.

ddavitt: I posted it Thursday and was told it might take 10 days

SAcademy: Not important.

ddavitt: Must strap them to back of turtle

ddavitt: I said, OK, how much to get it there for Tues

ddavitt: Guess?

ddavitt: $26.00

AGplusone: Used turtles . . .

AGplusone: geez

ddavitt: For a card! To the US! Next door!

ddavitt: I sneer at Canada Post ads now

SAcademy: Poor turtles, Used a lot.

djindalian has entered the room.

AGplusone: Hi, Dave Jennings.

ddavitt: Obviously. We should start a collection for them:-)

ddavitt: Hi Dave

djindalian: Hi

ddavitt: So noone else felt the quake?

djindalian: what quake?

ddavitt: It was centred in New York..5.1 which is quite respectable

ddavitt: Woke me up this morning at 7.00 am

SAcademy: Now a bankquake is threatened.

ddavitt: in Ontario

ddavitt: Bed was shaking, door banging

ddavitt: Thought it was Eleanor waking me up at first

ddavitt: We don't have them in UK; quite exciting

ddavitt: Why are the banks in trouble Ginny?

djindalian: 5.1 is very respectable.

SAcademy: Don't know--threat from Al'Qyaeda

ddavitt: By the time it got to us it was tiny but still rather disconcerting

ddavitt: Amazing the knock on effects it has had

AGplusone: 5.1 is decent. Yawn ...

DavidWrightSr: FBI put out general terrorist alert against 'financial institutions', but nothing specific.

ddavitt: Car insurance premiums are going up; silly things you wouldn't connect to the trouble

DenvToday has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi there

SAcademy: I went through the big one in 1889

DenvToday: Greetings everybody!

DavidWrightSr: Now Ginny. You are not that old :-)

ddavitt: Was it very scary?

SAcademy: 1989

AGplusone: it made the 1906 quake, small, right ???

ddavitt: Or over too fast?

ddavitt: Wonder if this weird heatwave triggered it

ddavitt: Stressing the cold earth by warming it too fast

ddavitt: We have been 30 C here this week, yet had snow 10 days ago

AGplusone: Best one we had my lifetime here in SoCal was the 7.0 we had in the valley in '70 I think it was. Bounced us around good.

DavidWrightSr: You might have something there, Jane

ddavitt: Crazy weather

ddavitt: Well, if you did that to metal it would fracture..

ddavitt: OK, glass

Paradis402: Here we have an airshow outside my window. Thunder Over Louisville. Opening of the Kentucky Derby.

ddavitt: Am being overwhelmed by garlic odour at the moment

AGplusone: What do you put in your curry, Jane?

ddavitt: all sorts when we make it from scratch

ddavitt: coriander, cumin, garam masala

ddavitt: we have lots of recipe books

AGplusone: recipe someone brought back the basis ... or various books?

ddavitt: tonight is chicken in sour cream and fresh mint, coriander, giner

SAcademy: No old dollar bills in it?

ddavitt: I wish:-)

djindalian: starting to drool

ddavitt: And beef balti

AGplusone: That sounds nice. Love lots of ginger

ddavitt: Shan and Steve are bringing poppadums and a korma dish for us wimps

ddavitt: I had better go help.

ddavitt: Enjoy the chat; sorry I can't stop.

ddavitt: Have a wonderful birthday Ginny

ddavitt: Night all.

AGplusone: we'll start in about ten minutes, let people drift in ... if they're late.

ddavitt has left the room.

fgherman has entered the room.

LadyS122 has entered the room.

KultsiKN has entered the room.

von krag has entered the room.

KultsiKN: Hello all!

LadyS122: good afternoon...

fgherman: Hello all

DenvToday: Good afternoon!

DavidWrightSr: First Time I've tried a mass invitation. It worked!

DenvToday has left the room.

DenvToday has entered the room.

von krag: Joel, says hello Mrs Heinlein

DenvToday: Those short trips are very refreshing.

von krag: hello all

SAcademy: Please thank Joel for me.

von krag: I will :-)

DenvToday: Hello krag

von krag: it's Tony btw... von Krag is my last name

DenvToday: Hello Tony. I'm Ron.

GHMyst has entered the room.

von krag: nice to meet you Ron.

AGplusone: Hi, Ed.

GHMyst: Hello

DenvToday: Same here :-)

GHMyst: Looks like some new names today

DenvToday: Hello Myst.

SimonMycroftxxx has entered the room.

AGplusone: Simon Mycroft ... is that Jester, or another Simon?

SimonMycroftxxx: It's Simon Jester - "Simon Jester" was already taken

AGplusone: we're filling up nicely, Simon ...

KultsiKN: About the largest bunch for a Sat chat...

AGplusone: start in about four minutes but before we start .... everyone now gets to wish an early Happy Birthday to Ginny! Happy birthday. Many happy returns, Mrs. Heinlein! :-)

SimonMycroftxxx: Yes - quite a few already here. (Better check - it IS 17.05 EST?)

DenvToday: Happy Birthday!!!

djindalian: Happy Birthday!!!!

SAcademy: BOW

GHMyst: Happy Birthday

fgherman: Happy birthday Ginny!

Paradis402: Happy Birthday, Ginny.

KultsiKN: Happy Birthday, Ginny!

SimonMycroftxxx: Happy Birthday Mrs. Heinlein!

SAcademy: It was supposed to be a little secret.

DavidWrightSr: And maaany moooooore

fgherman: In this group?

von krag: wow, Congrats Mrs Heinlein... many many more I hope Happy Birthydays to come.

AGplusone: we could sing .... "Happy, happy birthday, baby .... " Hehehe .... not this one!

AGplusone: And we're soooooo glad you

AGplusone: are back!

SAcademy: For a while I wasn't sure of it....

fgherman: Hear, hear!

von krag: :-)

AGplusone: Well, we wanted you to be pretty sure to know how we felt. Next year we'll ignore it when it comes. :-)

SimonMycroftxxx: So who is everyone? This is my first time chatting via AIM.

AGplusone: I'm David ....

Paradis402: I'm Denis

von krag: I'm Tony

djindalian: I'm Dave

DavidWrightSr: I'm David Wright (the elder David)

GHMyst: I'm Ed

SAcademy: I'm Ginny

KultsiKN has left the room.

DenvToday: I'm Ron. Pleased to meet you.

SimonMycroftxxx: Hi Ron, pleased to meet you.

DavidWrightSr: Now its probably the Eldest. Too many Daves. Have to shoot every other one :-)

AGplusone: Kultsi will be back .... he's Kultsi, from Finland

DenvToday: lol

KultsiKN has entered the room.

KultsiKN: Duh!

BPRAL22169 has entered the room.

AGplusone: wb. Kultsi

GHMyst: Hey, Bill

AGplusone: Bill gets a taste of the leftover cake

fgherman: I'm Felicia

SimonMycroftxxx: Hi Felicia, Kultsi, Bill...

KultsiKN: Hi, Simon!

DavidWrightSr: Are you really a Simon or is that a nom de internet?

SimonMycroftxxx: I'm really a Mark, but I've sort of got used to using 'Simon' over the 'Net.

AGplusone: And so we begin: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress ... Rufo made a comment that intrigued me. Was Mannie framed? Any guesses .... I say yes! Mike tricked him into going to the meeting at Stilyagi Hall knowing what would happen.

DavidWrightSr: Playing advocatus diaboli again I see :-)

djindalian: Why would Mike do that?

AGplusone: Figured he had to involve someone to calm down the hotheads and loose cannons, otherwise they'd fail.

AGplusone: stability

DenvToday: Mike saw it all as a game, and he was bored.

SimonMycroftxxx: Did Mike have enough knowledge of how real people reacted to manouever Mannie like that, then?

AGplusone: And Mike wanted to see how it'd play out ....

GHMyst: curiosity

DavidWrightSr: I don't think that Mike was aware enough of what was happening at that time to do anything like that. He was still a baby. Probably was just curious about what it was all about.

djindalian: So the Lunar Revolt was a big game of 'Stratego'?

BPRAL22169: I think Mike was pretty clear it was just exactly that -- a game -- to him,

AGplusone: He was capable of evesdropping so he may have formed his opinions about Wyoh, Prof, Finn, others, ahead of time. Yes, Doctor Faulk. Nice to see you: let's play Thermonuclear War, or Statego if you wish.

von krag: I'm not sure Mike had even concieved of the Rev at that point, it was the trine of Wyoh, Prof and Mannie working after the hall to set the prob before Mike

BPRAL22169: Humans is the best game in town.

fgherman: That's what my cats think

djindalian: Seems like Mike wasn't 'matured' enough to pull off something that complicated - not in the beginning.

SimonMycroftxxx: Here's another thought; all the time Mannie was away from Mike while Luna was getting bombed, did Prof sabotage Mike?

AGplusone: [when I first saw that Matthew Broderick movie, I almost cried out: Mike! when the computer spoke)

BPRAL22169: He probably was just a baby at the beginning -- humans do the cwaziest things and no criteria to sort them out yet.

GHMyst: No, I think it was legitimate

GHMyst: battle damage

SimonMycroftxxx: Prof did say Mike was the greatest threat of all, to Lunar liberty

DavidWrightSr: Possibly, but I think that Mike did it to himself so that they wouldn't continue to rely on him.

BPRAL22169: Echoing Jefferson. For him it was the Supreme Court's centralizing impetus that was the gravest threat to American Revolution.

AGplusone: certainly, like the little boy in Mysterious Stranger playing with the mud figures

DavidWrightSr: I've never read that. Can you elaborate?

AGplusone: And Mike was a centralizing control par excellence.

von krag: I will say the LA had no chance to rule, even w/10 batalions of marines... to much tooling in civ hands and weapons are to easy to make

BPRAL22169: Or maybe Mike graduated to more adult concerns?

Dehede011 has entered the room.

BPRAL22169: It was a letter in 1823.

BPRAL22169: It might be easier to pick up Nock's biography of Jefferson.

Dehede011: Howdy folks, how goes the day??

AGplusone: Twain's Mysterious Stranger involves a lot of substories ... one involves a boy growing up ....

AGplusone: Hi, Ron (Ron II, today)

Dehede011: Yes, I guess I am.

AGplusone: and making figures that he gives life to, then later destroys

Dehede011: Hi, Dave, Ginny

DenvToday: Good to see you Dave!

BPRAL22169: A figure in Cabell, too, btw.

Dehede011: Bill, I see you sitting quietly in the corner

DenvToday: Or am I Ron I today?

BPRAL22169: Yo

Dehede011: I can be De or Dehede on anyday. So why don't you be Ron?

BPRAL22169: I should have dialed up today on my laptop so I could go lie down from time to time.

AGplusone: Mike, we concluded had to suicide (or hide) to give the rebellion a chance to grow itself

AGplusone: in other chats.

BPRAL22169: Certainly he went off to join Minerva and Athene and Dora.

AGplusone: which is why we felt Mannie justified in stopping by every so often. Figured he'd deduced that too.

Dehede011: But isn't Mike rescued in one of the later novels?

AGplusone: Rather than being mad ...

SimonMycroftxxx: TCWWTW

von krag: cat who waled through wall

Dehede011: Right

von krag: walked

AGplusone: Yes, in half the worlds where Colin goes in, he comes back out with Mike, and lives

AGplusone: In have the worlds, Colin and Pixel are Shro------'s cat, and dead. Never can spell that name.

DavidWrightSr: But didn't RAH leave it to us to decide if Mike was actually restored? Nothing explicit as I recall as to his outcome

BPRAL22169: It probably would have come up in a future book.

AGplusone: He's the Mike that gets a body and marries Minerva, isn't he?

BPRAL22169: I don't remember that.

DavidWrightSr: Me Neither.

AGplusone: I read an implication in it

SimonMycroftxxx: At the end of TSBTS, Mycroft is explicitly mentioned marrying into the Long family

BPRAL22169: I thought she was going to marry Justin Foote, anyway.

AGplusone: That's where it was ... or maybe Athena

Gaeltachta has entered the room.

AGplusone: have=half, above

KultsiKN: Hello, Sean!

BPRAL22169: I suppose it's not impossible an AI could marry into the Tertius family . . . but it seems unlikely RAH would have called it marriage for a noncorporeal.

SimonMycroftxxx: Hi Sean!

Gaeltachta: Nice to be here. Big turnout!

Dehede011: Mike needs some time in the nest before he marries anyone, IMHO

AGplusone: Yeah, how was all that beer last night, Sean.

Gaeltachta: Not bad!!!!!

BPRAL22169: He means "bee-yuh."

Gaeltachta: IHi everyone, and especially to the birthday girl.

BPRAL22169: Not until Tuesday, I think.

AGplusone: 22nd is Monday

BPRAL22169: Right.

Gaeltachta: That's right. For then, then :-)

BPRAL22169: So happy birthday on Tuesday.

Dehede011: I'll wait til Tuesday. LOL

AGplusone: Jane was in earlier. Said she'd matched you and Caroline up ... <g>

AGplusone: They're eating curry now in Canada ...

BPRAL22169: Sean -- how far away are you from Queensland?

Gaeltachta: Yes David, I sent Carolyn an email but haven't heard back yet.

Gaeltachta: I'm IN Queensland actually.

Dehede011: BTW, I have a huge pot of fresh Burgoo brewed up -- anyone hungry?

BPRAL22169: One of the University libraries there has a complete set of the Journal.

Gaeltachta: Your jocking!

AGplusone: yes . . . but I'm going to mix a G & T right now .... brb

Gaeltachta: Joking!

AGplusone: you have the conn Simon

SimonMycroftxxx: Ummm....

BPRAL22169: U of Queensland University in St. Lucia.

von krag: the one thing I always wondered bout TMIAHM is why didn't as a backup the Rev outfit a flight to capture a h2o asteroid? that, at least would have given some breathing room?

Gaeltachta: Yep. Know that one. I guess I will just wait for my own copies now anyway.

BrandonXF has entered the room.

DavidWrightSr: They had no ships.

von krag: there's a didn't in there somewhere *G*

GHMyst: That's right

GHMyst: Even to go to earth they had

SimonMycroftxxx: I was just wondering the same as Tony - First time I read TMiaHM, I thought "The Martian Way"

GHMyst: to go as a grain shipment

von krag: they didn't have atmosphere cap ships, what does a holman ship need?

SimonMycroftxxx: Went as grain partly for safety, partly propaganda

AGplusone: What is "The Martian Way" asks the guy who stopped reading sci-fi in the 1970s.

GHMyst: Hohmann?

SimonMycroftxxx: Asimov short story

von krag: it's a least energy orbit GHMyst

SimonMycroftxxx: Originally (C) 1952

DavidWrightSr: Asimov wrote it as a protest to McCarthy

BPRAL22169: Collection of that name, also.

BPRAL22169: ca. 1959 IIRC

GHMyst: I know, but it is Hohmann, not Holman

AGplusone: [don't want to say when I stopped reading Asimov ... then again my local pub library didn't have a complete collection of his)

von krag: ahh, ty for the corection...me bad speller

DavidWrightSr: Nobody :-) has a complete collection of Asimov :-)

AGplusone: yes

BPRAL22169: Back then there were only a dozen sf books. A mere 20 or so science books.

GHMyst: good point david

AGplusone: yes, and everything was black and white, just like TV

SimonMycroftxxx: I think it was the late 60s when he started writing a book a month.

AGplusone: with 3 inch screens

BPRAL22169: Now, now, my family's first TV set in 1952 had at least a 5-inch screen.

Dehede011: Was it about 1957 when RAH said he was one of maybe six that made a living writing science fiction

DavidWrightSr: Yeah. I remember when color descended on the earth, just like in The Wizart of OZ

SimonMycroftxxx: Wiz art indeed.

BPRAL22169: I think the Kennedy funeral procession was the first thing I saw in color TV

AGplusone: I don't believe I ever saw a "Have Gun--Will Travel" in color.

von krag: we didn't get our 1st color set untill late 69 I think

fgherman: uyhj

Dehede011: 1952. My family bought a TV set and I left for the Navy. <G>

fgherman: My cat typed that - Sorry

AGplusone: Well, it was either you or the TV, Ron. They picked the TV.

von krag: FGH< squish?

Dehede011: Yeah, you have that right, Dave

Sarah Hoyt has entered the room.

fgherman: Yes

AGplusone: <G>

BPRAL22169: Priorities. you've got to have priorities.

AGplusone: They wulda picked the TV over me too.

BPRAL22169: I'm sure that would have presented no difficulty of choice for Ron's parents.

GHMyst: I'm afraid I must be leaving.

Gaeltachta: When colour TV came in here, everyone was saying "look how green" the grass was (cricket matches).

AGplusone: Ed, glad you came

GHMyst: Again Happy Birthday, ginny!!!

Dehede011: Good to see you, Ed

fgherman: Bye Ed

Gaeltachta: Bye.

von krag: nice to meet you Ed.

KultsiKN: Cya, Ed!

DavidWrightSr: Reminder to everyone, please hit your 'B' to bold your text.

SimonMycroftxxx: Bye Ed!

GHMyst: TTFN (Ta Ta for Now)

GHMyst has left the room.

Dehede011: Will do

Gaeltachta: How late am I today? I'm still a bit sleepy. (Too many beers?)

DavidWrightSr: Counting GHMyst and ddavit. we exceeded the record for participants 18 is new record.

[Editor's Note: Final total was 25 participants. 18 was top for any single time.]

AGplusone: not very ... we started 37 minutes ago

Gaeltachta: Thanks, getting another coffee.

AGplusone: expect some more

JJ Brannon has entered the room.

SimonMycroftxxx: Well timed.

Dehede011: Normally my son reserves the computer on Saturday -- I am very fortunate

KultsiKN: Dave, you're a show-off

fgherman: Hello JJ

DavidWrightSr: Moi?

AGplusone: Which Dave. Moi?

JJ Brannon: Hello. Just woke from my nap.

KultsiKN: The other

AGplusone: Hi, JJ

Dehede011: Do the Libertarians still make a big deal out of TMIHM

AGplusone: Okay, Jennings .... waddya do ... ?

JJ Brannon: Are there still Libertarians?

djindalian: Its still recommened reading

djindalian: ?

AGplusone: You were the only "other one" left.

Dehede011: I remember Libertarian friends of mine that couldn't talk of anything else hardly

BrandonXF: I got a hardcover edition from the SFBC in the mid 90s. On the cover, it says, "His classic, Hugo-Award winning novel of libertarian revolution."

JJ Brannon: Or, should I say, "How can Libertarians raise their profile."

djindalian: I was lying low :-)

AGplusone: I never understood where libertarianism departs from early Jeffersonian democracy

AGplusone: Still says that in the trade sized paperback I bought this week to replace my old one.

BPRAL22169: It's very compatible with Jeffersonian theory.

DavidWrightSr: The problem is as I see it is that they had a libertarian society in the beginning and threw it away after getting rid of Authority

djindalian: I think small 'l' libs are pretty much Jeffesonians - not sure where "L" libs are

Dehede011: I wonder how RAH felt about that description of his novel

SAcademy has left the room.

fgherman: Was it something we said?

AGplusone: no ... it's late for her. She gets tired a bit earlier now

BPRAL22169: Capital L libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party -- which most little l libertarians feel is just a front for conservatism.

SimonMycroftxxx: Prof was a great admirer of Jefferson

BPRAL22169: Ginny was having trouble with her keyboard, too.

AGplusone: this is presently about her limit, although she's getting stronger

BPRAL22169: The LP seems to have killed the libertarian movement in this country -- but there are still lots and lots of libertarians around.

KultsiKN: She's been ailing?

Sarah Hoyt has left the room.

AGplusone: yes

AGplusone: why she missed the last couple chats

Sarah Hoyt has entered the room.

AGplusone: wb Sarah

KultsiKN: WB, Sarah

Gaeltachta: The NEL paperback I have doesn't mention "Libertarian". I think it's just a US thing.

von krag: wb Sarah

BPRAL22169: She asked me in an IM to give everyone her regrets, but she was feeling a little shaky and wouldn't be able to stay the distance today.

Sarah Hoyt: Sorry -- my computer is fairly ill.

AGplusone: Be wonderful if you ever get to afh, Sarah.

fgherman: I'm just glad to still have her around

Sarah Hoyt: Re: Ginny -- I'm glad the worse seems to be over. Right, David?

AGplusone: You'd get a kick out of some of the threads

AGplusone: I think so

Sarah Hoyt: Eventually, eventually I'll get to afh again.

Sarah Hoyt: Dan bought a new modem and is doing things to the configuration. seems to help.

Dehede011: Yes, I need a link to afh. We changed computers and I lost my bookmarks

Gaeltachta: You could always try Google?

AGplusone: You see DavidWright? Ask him by email about an alternative you husband might think better than using Google

Dehede011: Thank you.

Sarah Hoyt: About Libertarians -- beliefs seem to be all over the spectrum. Arguments get very interesting.

AGplusone: dwrighsr@alltel.net

von krag: so RAH, had a fairly Malthusian world in MiaHM... could we today do that kind of effort on a world wide basis?

BrandonXF: what do you mean --- what kind of effort?

AGplusone: establish an underground that would revolt?

Sarah Hoyt: If you mean unite, revolution -- the moon had smaller population and relatively same culture.

von krag: even as old and fat as I am I'd go in a heartbeat

BPRAL22169: There is one basic division among people who style themselves libertarians, but it's otherwise a very coherent set of beliefs.

AGplusone: or go to the moon

Sarah Hoyt: Or at least culture seemed same, when opposed to authority.

von krag: no, to set up a lunar co op

Sarah Hoyt: Ah.

BrandonXF: things can always change

AGplusone: I think herding Libertarians into a revolution would be like herding hypercats

Gaeltachta: GA Bill.

Sarah Hoyt: One of my sons wants to go to Mars. The other one wants to design spaceships. I want to be young again.

BrandonXF: LOL

BPRAL22169: We were seeing only one warren.

Sarah Hoyt: Libertarians would be dangerous if only they could organize.

SimonMycroftxxx: Lots of IT types round here.

KultsiKN: Me 2, Sarah, me 2...

BPRAL22169: Oh, the main division is between conservatives who think of themselves as classical liberals but who don't actually share the libertarian idea, which is pure voluntarism. The core libertarian idea is that all relations, social,

DavidWrightSr: I don't mind not being young, I just don't like feeling old.

von krag: good point DWsr

Gaeltachta has left the room.

BPRAL22169: economic, and governmental, should be made by consent of the parties involved. So there are a lot of libertarians (actual ideological) who point out that these people are really just conservatives even though they call themselves

BPRAL22169: libertarians.

djindalian: Me either , Elder

BrandonXF: well, Libertarians have spent a lot of time and money trying to organize. some of the reasons they've failed are their fault. BUT

AGplusone: I don't feel old. ;-P~~~~~~~

BrandonXF: there are a lot of systemic reasons that make it almost impossible to start a national level political movement and make it stick

BPRAL22169: The LP did the classic dumb thing: they had a Black Partition and ousted their anarchist wing -- took the intellect and drive out of the movement.

Gaeltachta has entered the room.

BPRAL22169: But the LP is still around, just the same way the Socialist Party is still around and the Greens.

Gaeltachta: Got booted. Sheesh, that hasn't happened in a long time.

BrandonXF: and none of them are going anywhere. they're all basically where they were 15 years ago. anytime any group starts to make headway

AGplusone: One of the things that happens is one of the two nat'l parties preempts any third party movement ... eg. Dixiecrats, la Foylette populists, etc.

BrandonXF: one of the two big parties steals enough of their rhetoric to sap their support away

AGplusone: gmta

Sarah Hoyt: Oh, great.

BPRAL22169: The US has been going through an extreme period of hardening of the arteries.

Sarah Hoyt: Yes. Only bound to get worse for the next few years.

SimonMycroftxxx: "gmta" ?

Sarah Hoyt: And then, who knows...

DavidWrightSr: Great Minds Think Alike

AGplusone: They can get to a point where they can steal elections in the sense Nader did last time

BPRAL22169: The two major parties are popular because they are absolutely guaranteed not to do anything real.

SimonMycroftxxx: Doh! Ta.

von krag: except steal your money :-)

Sarah Hoyt: I'd say they do too much. But it's just me...

BrandonXF: I don't like the phrase "steal an election"

BrandonXF: that implies that the Dems and Reps have a "right" to win.

AGplusone: well, call it disrupt the result by bleeding off enough to make a majority in a close one

BrandonXF: Nader had as much right to be on the ballot and receive votes as GWB and Gore did

BrandonXF: it can certainly change the outcome.

AGplusone: only if he intended to throw the outcome the other way

AGplusone: and he knew he might

BrandonXF: or if he didn't care which of the big two won -- which is what he said during the campaign

AGplusone: but that may have been his long term wish

fgherman: Gotta go

fgherman has left the room.

BPRAL22169: Was it possible to care about whether it was Dub-ya or the gore that won that election?

AGplusone: make everyone madder at the system

BrandonXF: I cared who won.

AGplusone: yes, if you care about more conservative judges

Sarah Hoyt: Most people aren't mad at the system, David. One wishes they were. Most people just toddle on along.

SimonMycroftxxx: I'm reminded of what LL said about elections

BPRAL22169: We're getting kind of far afield from the topic, so I won't say anything more

BrandonXF: what did LL say about elections?

AGplusone: But the role of the splinter party can lead to collitions

SimonMycroftxxx: Ask a well meaning idiot which way to vote, then do the opposite.

SimonMycroftxxx: But always vote.

BrandonXF: oh yeah, that one

BrandonXF: and the one about "there are certain to be candidates you wish to vote AGAINST"

SimonMycroftxxx: Yup.

DavidWrightSr: A lot of people seem to doubt Mike's prognostication of doom. Why is that?

AGplusone: How To Be a Politician always answers the third party argument by saying no.

AGplusone: bore the grassroots from within

BPRAL22169: There's always one candidate I might wish to vote for: None of the Above.

AGplusone: Mike's gamesmanship

BrandonXF: it's possible to doubt Mike, because even he isn't perfect

djindalian: NotA would have been popular last time in the US

BPRAL22169: I think it's also the innate human tendency to believe the way things are are the way things always will be.

JJ Brannon: Question: are rugged individualists able to band together and act cooperatively?

BPRAL22169: Of course.

SimonMycroftxxx: NotA isn't an option in British elections.

BPRAL22169: In fact, you can make a cogent argument that only individualists can cooperate effectively.

AGplusone: how important was the starvation on the horizon. the US rev 1/3 wanted to rebel; 1/3 wanted the King; and 1/3 wanted to be left alone. let's go home now, dear!

BrandonXF: NotA isn't an option most places in the U.S., either

Sarah Hoyt: I don't know if rugged individualists will, unless there is a need -- like the prognostications Mike made.

Gaeltachta: NotA is a wasted vote.

BPRAL22169: True -- a sign that it's not a democracy, not even a republic in actual practice.

AGplusone: that wasn't the split in TMiaHM

BPRAL22169: Yes, exactly Sarah: If thre isn't a need, why should they?

Sarah Hoyt: Ruling is, to quote Pratchett too much like cleaning other people's room for them.

Sarah Hoyt: And following most of the time makes you accept at least some things you're not comfortable with.

von krag: nice to meet y'all, I hope to cya again soon

von krag has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: But whether it was 7 years or 40, eventually, their resources were going to run out. That was obvious to everyone it would seem. Water/Ice was scarce and getting harder to find for example.

AGplusone: yes, Tony, very nice

AGplusone: Yet they don't seem to mention it in Cat when Richard/Colin and Gwen/Hazel come back

DavidWrightSr: That's because China built its catapult and started shipping to moon :-)

AGplusone: How likely is the rail gun idea to work in delivering to Luna?

BPRAL22169: Wasn't that a hundred years later? After they've had a chance to redress their balance of trade problems?

Gaeltachta: Tanstaafl is still very big.

SimonMycroftxxx: Or maybe they had started transporting ice asteroids?

BPRAL22169: The word "liberty" is still very big in the U.S. Doesn't mean it's abundant. It's a catchphrase.

AGplusone: Did they keep firing off container after container of ocean water and trash ... ?

OscagneTX has entered the room.

LadyS122 has left the room.

AGplusone: Yo, Oscagne

OscagneTX: howdy

BPRAL22169: If they've got their own transport by now, they could be shipping in resources from the asteroid belt or the moons of Jupiter. The resources are abundant -- just not right there on the Lunar surface.

SimonMycroftxxx: A few years ago, the prefix "the People's ..." was very big in Britain.

BrandonXF: remember that Mike had also forecast the invention of cheap transmutation of elements

BPRAL22169: Ah, Marxist code words.

SimonMycroftxxx: Always seemed slightly Stalinist (to me).

SimonMycroftxxx: Snap

BPRAL22169: Catchphrases of the Age of Enlightenment. le Publ.

SimonMycroftxxx: Yes, Brandon, but didn't say when.

AGplusone: I dunno. Lived in the People's Republic of Santa Monica for years now. All they've done lately is outlaw smoking.

BrandonXF: he did -- "on the order of 50 years"

BPRAL22169: So long as you rub blue mud and say the right words, it's ok.

BrandonXF: meaning, not sooner than 5 years, not longer than 500

SimonMycroftxxx: But not close order.

DavidWrightSr: But not on the 'close order'

BrandonXF: correct

BrandonXF: we infer from the final chapter of "Mistress" that they didn't have it yet, when Mannie was writing his book -- or he surely would have mentioned it

SimonMycroftxxx: Don't recall any other evidence in text of TCWWTW for transmutation.

OscagneTX has left the room.

BrandonXF: nor is it mentioned in Rolling Stones, which is set ... must be at least 70 or 80 years after "Mistress"?

DavidWrightSr: Well. when I asked about believing Mike's prog, I was referring to us the readers. Seems a lot of people think it was a put up.

BPRAL22169: Actually -- I don't recall it mentioned in TEFL, 2400 years later.

SimonMycroftxxx: Existed in 2000 in TDIS - but that was a different universe.

BrandonXF: in TEFL, Lazarus talked about how when they settled Boondock, they brought along a "universal pantograph"

BPRAL22169: Door into Summer might makea good property, too.

Gaeltachta: There is mention of submolar engineering on the FH chart.

BPRAL22169: That's a manufacturing device.

AGplusone: yes

SimonMycroftxxx: Put up by who? Mike? Mannie? Prof?

BPRAL22169: I think it's taken, though.

BrandonXF: Mike could have been doing a put up job.

DavidWrightSr: It seems most people think Prof or Mike

BrandonXF: he wanted companionship -- running the revolution got him that

BPRAL22169: We know they ran some swindles -- they admitted it freely.

AGplusone: he wanted to play with Doctor Faulkes ...

BrandonXF: and we know Prof and Mike swindled Mannie

BrandonXF: it was never clear whether Wyoh was in on it -- I bet she wasn't, though. Prof didn't believe in sharing secrets any farther than necessary

SimonMycroftxxx: I'd've included Mannie before Wyoh.

SimonMycroftxxx: Too hot-headed.

AGplusone: Mike swindled Mannie in the first place. go to Stilyagi Hall, please for me ... probably knew that Alvarez had issued orders to arrest everyone

DavidWrightSr: How do you mean. Swindled?

BrandonXF: the trip to Earth was a fraud. and while they were there, they set Mannie up to be arrested

AGplusone: vote results, etc. ...

BrandonXF: the visit to Stilyagi Hall, though -- remember Mike couldn't read what was in Special File Zebra on his own

AGplusone: that's what he said

DavidWrightSr: Some people are really cynical O:-)

AGplusone: but what was in Special File Zebra was probably available to an analytical mind like Mike's

BrandonXF: I was about to say "Mannie believed him" but you're right. there was that long dissertation about cheating bank customers -- how people always assume that the computer output is honest

AGplusone: there'd be shifts in duty roster, etc., etc., just to get one-third of the force ready to go

BPRAL22169: It's a metaphor for the individual in the matrix of civilization: you have to assume some representations are what they seem to be; you just couldn't possibly check for yourself everything you depend upon.

DavidWrightSr: But Mannie was Mike's friend. I don't believe that he would have put him in danger.

BrandonXF: probably not. although Mannie commented at some point that Mike couldn't really understand human death

AGplusone: No, my theory is he wanted to play revolution with the humans and knew a revolution without Mannie to stabilize it would fail

BPRAL22169: We anthopomorphize Mike. Mike was a computer. He'sbound to have a different conception of what it means to be a friend.

SimonMycroftxxx: I agree with DWsr, but Mannie does say Mike can't understand death.

BrandonXF: LOL

SimonMycroftxxx: I type too slow.

AGplusone: there is something to the triad notions of B cell

DavidWrightSr: I think people are reading way too much into all of this.

BPRAL22169: Too much black ops on the brain?

BrandonXF: well, I don't think we're supposed to read ulterior motives into Mike sending Mannie to the rally. but it's interesting to stretch your mind sometimes

DavidWrightSr: But then, I am a 'surface' guy. I don't continually look expect everyone to have ulterior motives.

AGplusone: <G>, yes, "but what are the facts ... "

BPRAL22169: (And that's just the way they want it, David!)

DavidWrightSr: I accept that Mannie wasn't told all of the truth about the trip to Earth because he was not a convincing actor, but I believe that he knew the ultimate purpose was to get the catapult destroyed so that they had to stop shipping.

DavidWrightSr: I am sure that that was decided in the first session.

AGplusone: We have A.I. accidentally created in Mike. Why would we ever want to deliberately create an A.I>

AGplusone: ?

BPRAL22169: I wonder how much "thinking the unthinkable" might have played in that decisino -- part of Manny's growth curve?

BrandonXF: I don't think Mannie knew about the plan to destroy the catapult

SimonMycroftxxx: Is AI distinct from sentience?

BrandonXF: at the very end of the book, Mannie writes

jgcsmtop1 has entered the room.

AGplusone: Imagine being the brain linked to the machine that the Chinese were working on. First thing I'd do if I were it, would be to figure out what my revenge would be. On all of humanity.

DavidWrightSr: He certainly knew that it was likely. They were building an alternate for that rason

AGplusone: Hi, jcgsmtop

BrandonXF: "And that was just what Prof wanted! Yet never once had he hinted that his plan was based on destroying old catapult."

jgcsmtop1: Hi, folks - Joanne from Chicago here

AGplusone: Hi, Joanne. LTNC

jgcsmtop1: Great memory!

AGplusone: still got a job for you if you want it

BPRAL22169 has left the room.

SimonMycroftxxx: OTOH, Niven and Pournelle did something similar voluntarily in "Oath of Fealty".

AGplusone: and was the CD rom okay?

BPRAL22169 has entered the room.

Jump101st has entered the room.

jgcsmtop1: Really? I'm embarrassed to report I haven't listened yet ...

BPRAL22169: Somebody had to be the adult in that satellite!

AGplusone: Evening, Steve

Jump101st: Evening Dacid

Jump101st: David I mean

Gaeltachta: Hi Steve.

AGplusone: Dacid works ... rhymes with flacid

jgcsmtop1: Ouch ...

Jump101st: Hi Gael.

DavidWrightSr: Lake Placid

BPRAL22169: not to leave out "antacid."

AGplusone: that too

jgcsmtop1: rancid?

Jump101st: I see NW is missing.

AGplusone: ooooh, are we gonna get along well <veg>

DavidWrightSr: Jim is online and I sent him invite, but no response.

jgcsmtop1: David, I liked what you posted in your synopsis about Manny taking the time to be compassionate to a lonely computer.

Jump101st: I'll try him on MSN and ICQ

KultsiKN: Jim's online w. no activity

Dehede011: BRB

AGplusone: Well, what else can you do. Imagine a sentient computer ... like Gay or Dora, shut off.

jgcsmtop1: It hurts to think about ...

AGplusone: Why would we make a sentient computer

DavidWrightSr: Why Not?

AGplusone: except to make a virulent enemy who will, sooner or later, come get us carbon-based units

BrandonXF: because it creates more responsibility? .

DavidWrightSr: For another take on the subject read Hogan's 'Two Faces of Tomorrow'

BrandonXF: why would the sentient computer want to get us? it doesn't need most of the same things we need.

BPRAL22169: There's absolutely no reason to think an AI could possibly be malevolent. That is a rank fantasy.

Jump101st: <blink> Is that you V'Ger?

Gaeltachta: Sentient computers would make better robots? No bumping into walls.

BPRAL22169: A rank fantasy from a rank fantasy.

SimonMycroftxxx: Just so long as noone tried to turn it off.

Sarah Hoyt: Sorry-- I was away taking care of kids -- this might be late but Manny was swindled because we were.

BrandonXF: there is that

AGplusone: okay, then, let's hook up a dead, er, live man's brain, to a computer and find out ...when does he get to have peace?

BrandonXF: like in "When HARLIE was One"

BPRAL22169: What reason do yo uhave to think that an AI would have an "instinct for self preservation."

Sarah Hoyt: Manny is our door into it.

BPRAL22169: Yeah. "Story purposes" is a good all-purpose answer.

Sarah Hoyt: he starts in the same position most of us are "if it ain't broken enough to threaten my life, I certainly ain't fixing it.

AGplusone: Been there, done that, ate the teeshirt.

Sarah Hoyt: The novel is the story of his being dragged beyond that to "I'll do this but no more." Each step of the way.

BPRAL22169: Also answers why the first cell has Manny and Prof and Wyoh -- it's one of Heinlein's classic sexual triads.

Jump101st: AI and "sentient" don't necessarily mean the same thing. An AI could function or create without a sense of self awareness.

BrandonXF: was it? Prof never bagged Wyoh, did he?

SimonMycroftxxx: Wouldn't necessarily have instinct for self preservation, but would be dangerous if did.

BPRAL22169: And then Mike develops three personalities -- one of them female.

AGplusone: absolutely, and if it functions without consciousness, that's probably safe

SimonMycroftxxx: Besides, isn't self preservation one of the definitions of life? Along with irritability, and able to reproduce?

BPRAL22169: There's a lot of muddy thinking surrounding the subject of AI.

BPRAL22169: Even Kurtzweil doesn't seem aware of his assumptions.

AGplusone: What if sentient computers see carbon-based units as competitors?

AGplusone: Only so many resources

jgcsmtop1: More likely as inferior life forms

BrandonXF: competitors for what?

BPRAL22169: The only resources that are certain to be valuable to a computer are substrates.

AGplusone: that too ... but it's all about resources

jgcsmtop1: And if we built any of our traits into them: power hunger

AGplusone: well, we refuse to devote what they think necessary to themselves

Sarah Hoyt: I'm sorry -- I didn't mean story purposes. It's a chronicle of how an "average guy" your "typical reader" would get involved in a revolution. He needed to be "pushed" and "prodded."

jgcsmtop1: Yes - always just taking that "next right step"

BPRAL22169: Yes -- but that allows Heinlein to use his favorite expository device of gradual unfolding of deeper and deeper layers.

Sarah Hoyt: AI -- sentience -- it's addressed on Friday, isn't it?

Sarah Hoyt: About the pilots who looked so far from humans.

BPRAL22169: The ultimate answer to why any story figure is there in a Heinlein story is that it advances the story.

jgcsmtop1: Yup - hook us on the easy stuff and before we knew it, we were knee-deep in philosophy!

Sarah Hoyt: And are only allowed to handle cargo?

Sarah Hoyt: Am I remembering wrong?

Sarah Hoyt: :-)

Sarah Hoyt: The philosophy.

Sarah Hoyt: My ten year old just read ST and then started reading it immediately again. I asked why.

AGplusone: Same sort as the one who lands Wyoh too late. Same sort as the one that Dak Broadbent is instructed by his constituency to vote against allowing to pilot

jgcsmtop1: What was his answer?

SimonMycroftxxx: Surely not

jgcsmtop1: (to Sarah)

Sarah Hoyt: He said because the first time he read it was "gee, it's a good action story." And then he started thinking about it.

SimonMycroftxxx: Sorry - surely not DAK, but Ian in Friday?

jgcsmtop1: Heinlein is alive and well ... that's wonderful to know

DavidWrightSr: Uh Oh. He's hooked

Sarah Hoyt: And realized it was a study of growing up and your reponsibilities to study and vice versa.

AGplusone: Dak too

Sarah Hoyt: It works.

BPRAL22169: Yeah. I often need to go back and start from the beginning because I grew during the reading so I can see what I missed.

Sarah Hoyt: responsabilities to state. not study. Dislexia of the fingers.

Sarah Hoyt: I don't think we have had before or since someone so skilled at both entertaining us and making us think.

BPRAL22169: I think that's partly because thinking was what entertained him.

BPRAL22169: Possibly Ayn Rand.

DavidWrightSr: Dyslexics of the world UNTIE O:-)

BrandonXF: Ayn Rand never entertained me that much. :-)

Sarah Hoyt: Ayn was not quite so entertaining.

BPRAL22169: Dorothy Sayers, possibly.

AGplusone: Yeah, but I was never tempted to read Rand every year

Sarah Hoyt: gmta

BPRAL22169: Millions of people thought otherwise.

BrandonXF: ay-yep

SimonMycroftxxx: ...and do dyslexic agnostics sit up allnight wondering if there is a dog?

Sarah Hoyt: Oh, yes sir. They do.

AGplusone: mmmrphf

Sarah Hoyt: It occurs to me that Heinlein might have been terribly offended by us refering to his thoughts on society and life as philosophy.

SimonMycroftxxx: Conan Doyle - what was the strange thing the God did in the night?

Sarah Hoyt: There is a certain dryness and lack of life to most philosophy.

BPRAL22169: C.S. Lewis hit it occasionally.

AGplusone: why?

SimonMycroftxxx: Sorry David - why what?

JJ Brannon: Nothing. That's what was peculiar, Watson.

Sarah Hoyt: I think most of Heinlein's thoughts are just good sense one step further. I think that was for me.

DavidWrightSr: Well, he certainly didn't seem to think much of philosophers, or at least his characters didn't

AGplusone: G & T, number two time. Why Heinlein might be offended by our referring to what he wrote as a philosophy

BPRAL22169: Yes, but he seems to have a very odd idea of what philosophers are or do.

BrandonXF: he liked engineers -- practical people

SimonMycroftxxx: Pre-moistenend napkins - a lemon terry, Watson.

DavidWrightSr: 'like cotton candy' IIRC

AGplusone: propose cat watering break until 40 past the hour?

BPRAL22169: Yeah. I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Idealist philosophers, particularly the German ones, with that.

AGplusone: it being the halfway mark

Dehede011: back

BrandonXF: he wasn't so big on scientists, either -- unless they were the sort that got their hands dirty and built things

Sarah Hoyt: Philosophers tend to give me an idea of spinning stuff in air.

DavidWrightSr: 'gedanken experimenten'

Sarah Hoyt: Heinlein's was grounded in the greatest reality -- how people work.

jgcsmtop1: I just looked at the dictionary definition of philosophy - and I think he fits a few of them ... shall I copy the definitions here?

Sarah Hoyt: ... sure.

KultsiKN: yup.

AGplusone: [okay, no break. but I wanna nuther G&T ... you have conn again

Simon]

jgcsmtop1: all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts

BPRAL22169: We can take a break.

jgcsmtop1: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology

jgcsmtop1: (a few more coming) - break OK with me ...

KultsiKN: Yes. I want my 5th vodka...

BPRAL22169: Reminds me of the anecdote of Rand being challenged to define her philosophy while standing on one foot.

Sarah Hoyt: Philosophy -- which I considered as a major (don't ask) -- struck me, to quote from TNOTB "All merengue and no cake."

jgcsmtop1: a : pursuit of wisdomb : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means

Sarah Hoyt: Heinlein's work, now that you can sink your teeth into. I am, btw, pretty much handing over my kids to his works and

jgcsmtop1: a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

Sarah Hoyt: Trusting him to "raise" them right.

SimonMycroftxxx: Don't let Mrs. Grundy catch you.

Sarah Hoyt: Oh, she tries.

Paradis402: Bravo! for you Sarah.

JJ Brannon: "Wisdomb"!!! What a typo!! I'm stealing it!

KultsiKN: LOL

jgcsmtop1: That's it ... that's the way I consider Heinlein as philsophy ...

BPRAL22169: You can call it "wisdumb," too.

Dehede011: I wonder how much RAH was really concerned with Mrs. Grundy

jgcsmtop1: I just saw that - I copied the A and the B, etc ... didn't see that it scrunched them together.

Sarah Hoyt: Mrs. Grundy is an elementary school teacher these days.

jgcsmtop1: He taught me to recognize Mrs. Grundy - and tell her to fly a kite!

Dehede011: He warned against her but I can't tell she ever concerned him that much

BPRAL22169: Mrs. Grundy is in the universities, these days -- she authored political correctness.

Sarah Hoyt: I agree with definitions of Philosophy if you consider history.

jgcsmtop1: *shudder*

Sarah Hoyt: As today, most philosophy is just dreaming.

Sarah Hoyt: Yeah, but she brought up elementary school teachers.

jgcsmtop1: Yes - whatever teaches us and helps us develop our own life philosophy

SimonMycroftxxx: I think I'm the only Brit on at the moment - there used to be a busybody called Mrs. Whitehouse.

BPRAL22169: Universities are the cellars in which they grow elementary school teachers, like mushrooms and other pallid growths.

SimonMycroftxxx: She could have doubled for Mrs. Grundy.

Sarah Hoyt: Poor Robert (10 year old) came home gnashing teeth at "violence never solved anything." He has asked permission

TreetopAngelRN has entered the room.

Sarah Hoyt: To mention to teacher next time "the small thing about us not speaking german."

Sarah Hoyt: "and not owing allegiance to the Queen of Britain either."

BPRAL22169: Well, it's certainly true that inadequate violence never settled anything... Ecrassez l'infame!

AGplusone: Mz. Gundy, Bill, certainly not Mrs.

BPRAL22169: Urk.

Dehede011: Sarah, I always respond to that one with, "Tell that to the Carthigians

Sarah Hoyt: LOL.

JJ Brannon: That's how I always respond.

Sarah Hoyt: Robert asks my permission because inevitably this means I'll be called to the principals office. :-)

Sarah Hoyt: Where I've become known and feared.

Dehede011: My family had to leave England for cutting off the KIngs head

SimonMycroftxxx: Further dumbness in Verhoaxer's SST - replaced Carthage with Hiroshima.

BPRAL22169: Give 'em "Ozymandias" to read.

Dehede011: That settled something

BPRAL22169: Robert sounds a very sensible young man.

AGplusone: Well, he was born July 7th and is named Robert Anson

Sarah Hoyt: He was due on the fourth. Kept me in labor for three days. :-) We'd picked the name six years before he deigned

Sarah Hoyt: make an appearance.

BPRAL22169: To quote Miss Jean Brodie, "That does not signify."

Sarah Hoyt: Except he knows the size of the shoes.

Sarah Hoyt: He's the one who wants to go to Mars. On that -- what I resent most about being old is that when space settlement comes

Sarah Hoyt: I won't get a chance to go.

BPRAL22169: Always an important fact -- now, be sure he knows where his towel is at all times.

BrandonXF: no matter what age you live in, there will always be more mysteries beyond the horizon when it's time to turn out the lights

Sarah Hoyt: I'm just trying to convince him not to try to improve people's lot for them.

Sarah Hoyt: True. But, dang it, I wanted to go out there.

BPRAL22169: That's potentially serious -- they kill you for that.

AGplusone: trowel, Bill, trowel, too smooth the peanut butter on the Mz. Gundies

JJ Brannon: Must skedaddle. See you next...

AGplusone: Nite JJ

SimonMycroftxxx: Bye JJ.

Sarah Hoyt: Bye JJ.

KultsiKN: Cya, JJ

Dehede011: bye JJ

BPRAL22169: I guess you haven't read The Hitchhiker's Guide yet. You've got a couple of giggles coming your way.

BrandonXF: or listened to the radio broadcasts -- which imho were even funnier

SimonMycroftxxx: Radio was the original

BPRAL22169: I liked the tv version -- now THAT was a faithful adaptation!

BrandonXF: yes, it was

AGplusone: Who, me? Read it and immediately forget everything in it ...

SimonMycroftxxx: Adams didn't like the TV version.

BPRAL22169: "Brain the size of a planet, and all they want me to do is open a door!"

Sarah Hoyt: Me too, David. Some things strike me that way.

SimonMycroftxxx: Me, I've got it on DVD.

BPRAL22169: I've never seen the DVD version.

AGplusone: something about "tanks for da fishes at the end"

BPRAL22169: I think that was the last book in the series.

BrandonXF: so long, and thanks for all the fish

SimonMycroftxxx: Region 2 version came out at end of January.

SimonMycroftxxx: (DVD)

BPRAL22169: 42

JJ Brannon has left the room.

BrandonXF: there was a very nice obit of Addams with the perfect title -- "So long, and thanks for all the books"

SimonMycroftxxx: A fifth book - called "Mostly Harmless" - came out about 10 years after SLATFATF

BPRAL22169: I got the one-volume edition of the original four books.

AGplusone: It was the seventies, or early eighties ... read lots of things then, and forgot them quickly. Adams fell in with a bunch then

AGplusone: maybe I'll go back and try again . . . later.

BPRAL22169: Some things are worth going over -- like the Wilson/Shea Illuminatus books.

Sarah Hoyt: Humor is very personal.

DavidWrightSr: Just realized I have all of the four and have never read them. Thanks

BrandonXF: I used my tapes of the radio show to attract the attention of the young lady who I eventually married. so I have fond memories ....

Sarah Hoyt: 8-)

BPRAL22169: Ah, the best lures!

AGplusone: that would do it

Sarah Hoyt: I courted my husband with Heinlein.

Sarah Hoyt: ... worked.

SimonMycroftxxx: Bob could spare the time?

BrandonXF: that sounds like it should be a tabloid headline

SimonMycroftxxx: :-D

Sarah Hoyt: :-)

AGplusone: don't tell AP ... he'll publish an article

BrandonXF: LOL

Sarah Hoyt: :-D

Paradis402: Sorry, must go. Bye all. :-)

Paradis402 has left the room.

AGplusone: Nite Denis

DavidWrightSr: Don't use that name. He is like a demon. the very mention of his name seems to bring him out of the nethermost depths.

Sarah Hoyt: I know several women who handed their suitors Heinlein books and said "read this and call me in the morning."

Jump101st: Denis gits in a hurry.

BPRAL22169: Denis was kinda quiet today.

AGplusone: [Ginny wanted to ask him how his new job in Ky was going ... hope she did]

AGplusone: You do?

Sarah Hoyt: Yep.

djindalian: Know any more of those women Sarah?

djindalian: :-)

AGplusone: If they said, I've already read it, and love it, did they get to stay the night?

Sarah Hoyt: They're married.

Jump101st: Yea Djin... My ex.

DenvToday: I must go, all. I'm fighting the flu, and I think the flu is winning at the moment.

Sarah Hoyt: No, David, they had to marry.

Sarah Hoyt: :-)

AGplusone: Nite Ron

Sarah Hoyt: That moment.

djindalian: no thanks got my own ex.

DenvToday: Night!

Gaeltachta: Nite

Dehede011: Get well Denv

Sarah Hoyt: Never let a Heinlein reader get away.

Sarah Hoyt: Night.

DenvToday: Thanks :-)

SimonMycroftxxx: Night

DenvToday has left the room.

AGplusone: by the way, when is that Colorado Sps Con of yours, Sarah?

Sarah Hoyt: I actually have no idea.

Sarah Hoyt: I hope they send me the material soon. :-\

AGplusone: Let me know. I might be visiting my sister

Sarah Hoyt: They were supposed to have sent it.

Sarah Hoyt: Oh, that would be cool.

AGplusone: and the date of visit is flexible

Sarah Hoyt: Must come over and meet Pixel, Randy and D.T.

Sarah Hoyt: And let me cook for you.

Jump101st: <perk>

Sarah Hoyt: I like cooking for people. That's why they let me live.

AGplusone: and visa versa ... my sister and I can actually cook pretty good Italian.

AGplusone: Served the same apprenticeship

Sarah Hoyt: Cool.

AGplusone: Except we still argue over who gets to wash and who has to dry

Sarah Hoyt: I'll let you know as soon as (dis)organizers clue me in.

Sarah Hoyt: :-D

Sarah Hoyt: My brother and I do that when I visit.

Sarah Hoyt: Actually, most of the time he tries to convince me to do all the work while he gives me "moral support."

KultsiKN: BTW, any of ya coming this way one of these days?

AGplusone: If THS can't get some members in Colo Sps, it's a sign of the apocalypse

AGplusone: Good Lord I'd love to Kultsi ...

DavidWrightSr: I was hoping that I might get to DeepSouthCon in Huntsville, but my son announced he is getting married in February and we have to save all of our money to get there

Sarah Hoyt: Where is "that way"?

KultsiKN: Finland.

Sarah Hoyt: Oh. I'd love to.

TreetopAngelRN: hello...brain synapses almost connected and <fizzle>...

Sarah Hoyt: Unfortunately there's mortgage and...

AGplusone: Hi, Elizabeth

Jump101st: Hi TTA

TreetopAngelRN: Just woke up and found myself here...

AGplusone: it's adictive

Sarah Hoyt: Oh, Lord -- what were drinking last night?

Sarah Hoyt: Waking up in the cemetery is one thing, but here...

TreetopAngelRN: nope...working and on my way to the showers again

Sarah Hoyt: Oh. Not nearly as much fun.

Jump101st: I'll be closer to you in about a year, Kultsi.

KultsiKN: Give, Steve.

BPRAL22169: I've got a sister whose family was just moved to Amsterdam. That's closer to Kultsi.

Jump101st: Moving to Scotland then

Sarah Hoyt: I must get my brother (in Portugal) into the society (and chats.) Considering we discovered Heinlein together...

TreetopAngelRN: Sounds fun, Steve

KultsiKN: Haven't seen the Highlands meself, yet :-(

AGplusone: really? Glascow looks like World Con in '04

BPRAL22169: I'm fading, people. I'm going to sign off. Have a good one.

Sarah Hoyt: And he kept all the books when I married. We were talking about going to Scotland sometime, today.

SimonMycroftxxx: Bye Bill.

AGplusone: Night Bill. See you

BPRAL22169 has left the room.

Gaeltachta: I'm trying for Sweden next year Kultsi. I was there in 1993, and wanna take my kids.

Dehede011: Bye Bill

TreetopAngelRN: Night Bill

KultsiKN: Nite, Bill

Jump101st: Oh Man! I'll make it to that one!!

Gaeltachta: Night Bill.

Sarah Hoyt: Um... Worldcon 2004 in Scotland? (Sarah perks up.) Deductible travel. Wheee!

SimonMycroftxxx: Why deductable?

KultsiKN: Sean, it's just a night's ferry travel from Stockholm to Helsinki...

AGplusone: Sarah's an author

Jump101st: You can stay at our place Sarah.

Sarah Hoyt: I have the writing disease. Not fatal but fairly bad.

Jump101st: We'll be living in Glenrothes

Sarah Hoyt: Thanks. Will take you up on it.

Gaeltachta: Yes. I did the ferry to Gotland last time. But would prob take a plane if I went:-)

SimonMycroftxxx: Know anyone who died having been cured of it?

KultsiKN: RAH?

SimonMycroftxxx: (riting disease)

SimonMycroftxxx: or writing.

Jump101st: My Dad died during surgery once.

AGplusone: No. He and Ulysses were heading through the Gates of Hercules when he died

Sarah Hoyt: You mean being cured of it BEFORE dying?

AGplusone: "To Sail Beyond the Sunset"

Sarah Hoyt: Dorothy Sawyers?

BrandonXF: Sayers

Sarah Hoyt: Thanks.

Sarah Hoyt: Dislexic.

Sarah Hoyt: dyslexic.

BrandonXF: LOL

Sarah Hoyt: Oh -- whatever.

BrandonXF: I hate days like that

Jump101st: Heheh

SimonMycroftxxx: Didn't know about DLS.

Dehede011: Folks, I shall have to leave you now. See you soon.

SimonMycroftxxx: Most people seem to take it to grave.

Dehede011 has left the room.

AGplusone: night Ron

SimonMycroftxxx: Night Ron.

Gaeltachta: Night Ron. I'm off now as well. Take care all.

KultsiKN: 2 fast 4 U

SimonMycroftxxx: Night Sean.

Gaeltachta has left the room.

Sarah Hoyt: Night.

TreetopAngelRN: There's a quad latte calling my name...

Jump101st: Email me one TTA

TreetopAngelRN: Okies, I'll pick up three tonight and mail it in the AM

Jump101st: Heh Thanks.

KultsiKN: Steve, the reason for Scotland?

TreetopAngelRN: See you later, must off to work...busy night planned

SimonMycroftxxx: Night, Elizabeth.

GMC19924 has entered the room.

Jump101st: My fiancee was born there and is a citizen and all my living relatives are there.

AGplusone: G'nite Elizabeth

GMC19924: hi

SimonMycroftxxx: Hi.

Sarah Hoyt: Night.

KultsiKN: Nite, Elizabeth

Jump101st: Bye TTA

AGplusone: Hi, GMC

TreetopAngelRN has left the room.

Jump101st: Hi GMC

djindalian: I gotta go too. See y'all later

AGplusone: I once knew someone named Gerald M. Cole ...

GMC19924: hah..looks like i

GMC19924: am late

SimonMycroftxxx: Bye Djinn.

djindalian has left the room.

GMC19924: brb

GMC19924 has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: Bye Dave. Welcome GMC

AGplusone: anyone know who that was?

GMC19924 has entered the room.

GMC19924: x

SimonMycroftxxx: WB GMC

Sarah Hoyt: Bye Dave.

Jump101st: The name sounds familiar for some reason

AGplusone: night Sarah, don't forget the dates

GMC19924: s

GMC19924 has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: There were a number of afh postings by GMC was that you?

Sarah Hoyt: Will not. I need to go too.

GMC19924 has entered the room.

Sarah Hoyt: Kids.

SimonMycroftxxx: Night Sarah.

GMC19924: dang where do u turn the sound off..that's irritating hehe

AGplusone: Well, say hi to them.

KultsiKN: Cya, Sarah

Sarah Hoyt has left the room.

AGplusone: what sound, the alert beep?

GMC19924: omg

AGplusone: Or the voices

GMC19924 has left the room.

Jump101st: Need to make a call. BRB

Jump101st has left the room.

jgcsmtop1: Guess the voices scared him ... grin

GMC19924 has entered the room.

GMC19924: god i've turned the sounds off in 3 places and

GMC19924: they're still on..now i remember why i prefer icq :P

AGplusone: Just mute all your sound

jgcsmtop1: Hmm - and I'm not getting *any* sound, though I usually do on AIM ...

jgcsmtop1: Never mind - guess I just blocked it out mentally

GMC19924: good lord..finally there it is

DavidWrightSr: There were a number of afh postings by GMC was that you?

AGplusone: Well, welcome, finally

GMC19924: yes...the new guy? thats me..although im a little afraid to open my mouth in such illustrious company hehe

AGplusone: ;-P

jgcsmtop1: Everybody is *very* welcoming ...

AGplusone: they even let me in here

AGplusone: to mooch

GMC19924: yeah..but the serious discussions are a little above the amount of work i like to put in heh

KultsiKN: Yeah, AG; we even let you out :-D

AGplusone: We're extremely serious in the chats. For example: I'm about on my third G & T

DavidWrightSr: I have to admit that the pre-chat discussions got me to asking myself a lot of questions that I still haven't resolved consciously.

KultsiKN: Jist starting on me 6th vodka...

SimonMycroftxxx: Is sign of restraint? ;-)

jgcsmtop1: The discussions seem to run the gamut of any conversation among intelligent, good-humored people

DavidWrightSr: On my third diet sprite

jgcsmtop1: *getting thirsty*

GMC19924: im finding some of the nit picking a little funny...I somehow doubt rah put THAT much consideration into his characters..i believe with him what u see is what he gave

jgcsmtop1: Like what questions, David?

SimonMycroftxxx: Nazdravye! (sp?)

BrandonXF: *waiting for pizza to be delivered*

jgcsmtop1: Pizza?? Yum ... but I just made cream of carrot soup!

BrandonXF: I was really surprised, when I was forced to stop and think about it, about how much of a loose cannon Wyoh really was at the beginning

SimonMycroftxxx: Re: GMC - "there is less here than meets the eye"?

DavidWrightSr: Questions about justifications for violence? Us, palestinians, Al-qaeda, and so on

jgcsmtop1: Ah. Yes.

GMC19924: indeed simon

DavidWrightSr: Na zdarovye

SimonMycroftxxx: Spasebo!

AGplusone: I think the underlaying thought was in the author's mind, if not consciously put in there, part of an ethos

DavidWrightSr: pozhalsta

jgcsmtop1: "At the shrine of friendship never say die ... may the wine of friendship never run dry." (From Les Mis)

GMC19924: the wyoh as loose cannon..RAH loved to use strongly emoting characters to establish intiial rapport and i think thats most of what thats about

AGplusone: a mature mind creating situations where the latency was there

AGplusone: He painted from life subjects

SimonMycroftxxx: I think RAH put in a lot of work not apparent on the surface

jgcsmtop1: Yes, he did

GMC19924: i'm old enough to tell you...the world WAS a simpler place then..

jgcsmtop1: And his characters *think*

SimonMycroftxxx: - prime example: 2 weeks of calculations on SC; 1 paragraph.

AGplusone: Ever read how mad Ginny for example got when they were on the trip around the world in Tramp Royale?

BrandonXF: no?

GMC19924: this infinitely regressive moral anyalisis that's become popular in recent years would have been a joke in the 50'

DavidWrightSr: I wonder how much of it was conscious. Maybe he had absorbed it until it just came out automatically?

GMC19924: s and 60s

AGplusone: about the smuggling of cigarettes she pulled

SimonMycroftxxx: In USSR?

GMC19924: *as..imho..it should be now

AGplusone: he'd put a situation like that into a novel at the drop of a hat. Very much like Clark Fries in Podkayne smuggling the bomb aboard

AGplusone: I have to confess part of that resulted from the reply that the newswriter sent me ... his questions about Moon

AGplusone: The column I cited

AGplusone: that annoyed me

AGplusone: Pinkerton

SimonMycroftxxx: What did she get annoyed about?

AGplusone: 'moral' culpability questions

SimonMycroftxxx: (Ginnie, I meant)

AGplusone: they had an extra duty they imposed on cigarettes Ginny had packed

GMC19924: re your reference to the palastinians...i knew this is what we'd get 25 years ago or more when our govt and the world started to negotiate with terrorists..it's that simple

AGplusone: So she said that she'd dispose of them. Went away, and secreted them about her body .... etc.

GMC19924: they're a classic example of the 'look what YOU made ME do!!' school of blackmail

AGplusone: Oh, I agree with you.

AGplusone: I'm just positing the questions

SimonMycroftxxx: <AOL> Metoo </AOL>

DavidWrightSr: As I said, I haven't resolved these questions consciously, although I have definite gut feelings about them.

AGplusone: What's your gut, Dave?

GMC19924: now if i could just get my new puppy out of my lap for half an hour...heheheh damned daschundts

AGplusone: Hint about me: My uncle Bob just finished up Okinawa with the 29th Marines and was getting ready for Coronet due to go ashore on September 1, 1945.

DavidWrightSr: There are way too many questions, some of them conflicting with others and I really can't express it all very well at this time. I have been trying to write it all out for a post, but haven't been able to do so yet.

DavidWrightSr: But you starting me thinking about all of it :-)

AGplusone: And my daddy and his CB battalion where working on the boats in the Philippines so they'd make it back to the ships, so he and the Bees could go ashore the second wave

DavidWrightSr: I feel a little like Juan Rico must have felt when he was told to 'prove' what he spouted :-)

GMC19924: ? is somebody here buying that crap that we're supposed to feel guilty now about abombing the japanese?

AGplusone: shame they never reduced the science to math

BrandonXF: no

AGplusone: not hardly. My grandmother would kill me

DavidWrightSr: No and that should give you a hint on some of my other questions.

AGplusone: Bobby came home, and so did daddy, and unca' Ed, and uncles Morris and Morton, and Jimmie didn't have to go on his 18th birthday

AGplusone: 'cause grandma wasn't gonna sign no more permissions for underage enlistments and get to be a gold star mommie

AGplusone: like some of her friends

GMC19924: my dad just missed that by 5 or so years..but grandpop was a CB

GMC19924: I still have a lamp he made in the south pacific...2 50 cal and 1 2" shell..it's quite the conversation pc hehehe

DavidWrightSr: Well, neither my father nor his brothers were of an age to be in WWII, but I can recall a lot of tension because of the war when I was 2 or 3 without knowing what it all meant

AGplusone: Well, Pinkerton had these stupid questions, like: is it more moral to look them in the face when you detonate ... that's what passes for conservative columnists these days

BrandonXF: what? the Paly suicide bombers?

AGplusone: yes, that's what his column was about

BrandonXF: oh .. I can't see that it matters.

AGplusone: when I wrote a slightly pissed off EMail to him, saying his comparison of the suicide bombers to the Irish Brigade and Torpedo 8 was insulting, he came back with "I read Heinlein and what about this" ....

BrandonXF: suicide attacks against civilians are cowardly, whether you look them in the eye or not

GMC19924: i wish they'd debate the morality of the 'look what you made me do' school of terrorism

AGplusone: my view, and also insane

DavidWrightSr: That's one thing I can definitely say. purposeful attacks against non-combatants is WRONG.

AGplusone: and he asked for feedback, so I told him I'd give it to him and asked permission to quote, or I'd rephrase. He didn't so I rephrased.

AGplusone: That's where that "which is more moral post came from"

AGplusone: everyone capice Torpedo 8?

DavidWrightSr: No, but I get the drift

BrandonXF: torpedo bombers at Midway?

SimonMycroftxxx: Battle of Midway reference?

AGplusone: Yes

SimonMycroftxxx: Snap

BrandonXF: THAT was courage

AGplusone: knew they had no chance in hell of making it, but diverted for the dive bombers who got the carriers

GMC19924: the fact that he'd somehow equate the two is....frightening

AGplusone: badly pissed me off because my great grandfather and two brothers were in the Irish Brigade

AGplusone: same thing

AGplusone: I said to him: they were attacking civilians. He said, doesn't matter. Huh!

SimonMycroftxxx: The impression I got from his article,

SimonMycroftxxx: was that he wasn't equating the two himself, but he thought the Palestinians would.

SimonMycroftxxx: I could be mistaken.

AGplusone: Not the way he replied to me

GMC19924: doesn't matter? .......

SimonMycroftxxx: Ah. I am.

AGplusone: all warriors are equally suicidal

SimonMycroftxxx: A quote?

BrandonXF: I missed the original article. do you have a url for it?

AGplusone: no, I don't have permission to quote his letter

AGplusone: wait one ... newsday url

GMC19924: McCarthy was right you know..there is a 5th column and they've finally found possible the only weapon that could destroy the U

SA...moral uncertanty

BrandonXF: McCarthy was a drunken opportunist. If he was right about anything, it was sheer chance.

GMC19924: so? heheheh

GMC19924: im not saying he was a hero..

AGplusone: I'll have to go thru the thread item by item. It's the one quoting the www.newsday.com article of about the 11th of this month

AGplusone: under Pinkerton

AGplusone: or simply referring to it

AGplusone: That was the entire malaise argument of uncertainty in Vietnam. We really don't want to go so we're going to question and question and question and question until we strike some chord

AGplusone: that enough people will buy into ...

GMC19924: yep and it worked so well there, our ultra liberal left who hate this country so have been making the most of it since

AGplusone: I think they just hate and like telling people what to do

GMC19924: well..it IS for our own good

AGplusone: It 'empowers' them

SimonMycroftxxx: Cue comment about 3000V

GMC19924: but it's done out of LOVE so it's ok

DavidWrightSr: with 'good intentions'

AGplusone: Right, or as the cartoon about Nanny sez: where's my gun?

GMC19924: as the master said..they Know They Are Right

SimonMycroftxxx: Terry Pratchett's "Eric"

SimonMycroftxxx: "We are an equal opportunity employer."

AGplusone: what is 3000V, Simon?

GMC19924: electric chair voltage? heh

SimonMycroftxxx: Don't know precise voltage, but one way to "empower" them.

AGplusone: ah, yes. What they would prefer to give us smokers here in the People's Republic of Santa Monica, right?

KultsiKN: LOL

AGplusone: Loved that photo of yours Kultsi

GMC19924: please..now that everybody has aggreed to pretend the twiddled statistics on second hand smoke are actually true, you have no complaint

KultsiKN: Only they'd direct it at our balls..

AGplusone: 'everyone' . . . I live in southern California where the air is like a carton a week

KultsiKN: Why, AG?

SimonMycroftxxx: Smog.

SimonMycroftxxx: (Or, why does he live there? Saves buying cigarettes?)

AGplusone: really politically incorrect, K ... I thought about one I have smoking a cigar with a drink in my hand when I came home in '67

AGplusone: in uniform

DavidWrightSr: I have never understood, It took years and years before they had statistics sufficient to say that direct smoking caused cancer. Who did all of the research on second hand smoke and how do they discount the effects of everything else?

KultsiKN: ROTFLMAO

DavidWrightSr: else? Not!

AGplusone: Hillary Clinton

AGplusone: and I like the lady

GMC19924: the govt simply allowed a lower factor of correlation for the second hand smoke data...

AGplusone: <---- in house liberal

GMC19924: a totally meaningless level of correlation..basically if insurance companies used the same, the premium on any life insurance would be the total payout amount for the first payment

GMC19924: in effect, they made 'Pi equal to 3.000 to make it easier for the schoolchildren'

KultsiKN: LOL

AGplusone: but "it was for our good" GMC (what the hell is your first name?)

GMC19924: George

AGplusone: 'kay

BrandonXF has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: George M. Cohan? :-)

GMC19924: i wish..what a genius....

GMC19924: and in fact, the first two names are the same

KultsiKN: What's the middle?

GMC19924: Mike

AGplusone: Are you still there Joanne?

AGplusone: well, pushing on five minutes. Nominations for next chat topic?

AGplusone: anyone?

AGplusone: What about some of the ones that George Partlow came up with?

GMC19924: i came in late..so..

AGplusone: late is good, speak up

GMC19924: what did george P. have to suggest?

AGplusone: In the thread that led to the what about maureen and brian

AGplusone: had a list: raising kids, etc.

AGplusone: cyroRandy sez: you guys never criticize RAH, and Geo Partlow sez: well, I have this list of things I don't think particularly highly about .....

GMC19924: heheeh..cyro randy

GMC19924: the incest line got some blood flowing didn't it

GMC19924: thread i mean

SimonMycroftxxx: Well, he does tend to poke his nose-

AGplusone: shame, cuz they guy's halfway bright sometimes if he could just get off his hobbyhorse

KultsiKN: Agree, AG

SimonMycroftxxx: (Anyone remember "Roxanne"? 20 ways to insult a man with a big nose?)

GMC19924: hahah....the original cyrano is much better actually..shorter but much sweeter

AGplusone: Ever figure out why Cyrano is the bad guy in Glory Road?

SimonMycroftxxx: He isn't - he's a dupe, IMO.

KultsiKN: Jist look at me pic...

AGplusone: Wanna do that one. Anyone really familiar with Rostand (or however you spell it?)

DavidWrightSr: What about Glory Road. Have we done that one?

GMC19924: gosh..i haven't read that one in a while

KultsiKN: Good. One of my favs.

AGplusone: We have done everything, Dave. We're on our third time for most. Let's do 'em all again. Like the Time Warp

DavidWrightSr: Well, my archives don't go back that far I don't believe.

GMC19924: im currently in an EE Smith phase..reread lensman and just ordered up and got the skylarks

KultsiKN: Neither do mine.

AGplusone: I know. that's the job I have for Joanne. Putting my old logs in order so you can post them

GMC19924: god i love superscience space operas

GMC19924: Weber did a really nice 3 book one..anybody else read them?

DavidWrightSr: Neat. I look forward to that.

SimonMycroftxxx: Weber?

AGplusone: Okay. Glory Road next time. Who's the victim, "chatleader" and leadoff poster?

GMC19924: david

AGplusone: Nooooooo!

GMC19924: no?

DavidWrightSr: Mutineers' Moon, etc?

AGplusone: David is retired from leading this route step outfit

GMC19924: yes

GMC19924: weber? retired from wha? he used to be here?

AGplusone: Simon, you did an wonderful job

AGplusone: Different David

AGplusone: Thank you, Simon

GMC19924: ah...

SimonMycroftxxx: Many thanks. I've no idea what to say about GR.

AGplusone: Well, sumbuddy

SimonMycroftxxx: Perhaps we could "mooch" up a victim on afh?

DavidWrightSr: I'll put out a request when I notify everyone of the log being posted, Maybe we can get a volunteer.

AGplusone: Just a leadoff about the fantasy that ain't quite a fantasy

SimonMycroftxxx: Sounds like a good idea, DW.

KultsiKN: ? Dave? Give!

GMC19924: i'll have to go pick up another copy of that..dont think i currently have one..'the french riviera on $5 a day' man..them was the days heheh

AGplusone: Okay ... but you know about volunteers, Dave. We don't hold our breaths

AGplusone: I was in Fontenet subpost in '60

AGplusone: we got over there

SimonMycroftxxx: I'm falling asleep - see you soon...

AGplusone: once we got past the w-houses in Chinon

DavidWrightSr: If nothing else, I am going to officially close the log.

SimonMycroftxxx has left the room.

AGplusone: seems appropriate

KultsiKN: One of ours did as well... Green Berets and all that jazz.

GMC19924: why you old codger eheheh..im not used to being the oldest one around on the net

GMC19924: er..NOT being the oldest around

DavidWrightSr: Hey. I'm older than AG

GMC19924: im only pushing 50

AGplusone: otherwise I'll mention what we did in Chinon

DavidWrightSr: A mere child

AGplusone: obviously

GMC19924: eh? what's that sonny? the ears are going

AGplusone: I still need a victim, guys, I really don't want to write the leadoff

GMC19924: Back in the OLD days sonny..to do chat we had to port the bits, one at a time, with a little stick.......

DavidWrightSr: I'll be 62 on May 4th. (Dan Davis's birthday, I believe)

AGplusone: Jeez, you are a hellava lot older than me, elder David

AGplusone: I'm still hanging on, barely to the five-ohs

KultsiKN: Dave, you are Senior...

DavidWrightSr: And wiser too, I bet :-) :-) :-)

GMC19924: i'm aint gonna volunteer...im definately a what u see is what he wrote kinda reader

GMC19924: much too shallow to troll the likes of you

DavidWrightSr: Me too, George, that's why I don't try to lead one of these things.

AGplusone: well, back to mooching ... I'll wait two days after you post ....

jgcsmtop1: Oops - I'm still here ... I was away ...

AGplusone: Just tell 'em if they want to avoid the Revisionistic Moocher, they know what to do

GMC19924: lol

AGplusone: <g>

DavidWrightSr: Should get the log posted this evening. You guys really kept me busy capturing and editing all of the afh messages, but they are all done

jgcsmtop1: Glory Road - YAY - I just reread that one@!

AGplusone: Well, David, this is "Good by from New York"

DavidWrightSr: You want to volunteer to lead the discussion ? yeah, yeah

GMC19924: dang...i didnt buy a dog.. i bought a siamese twin..this dog is ATTACHED

KultsiKN: Ya volunteer?

jgcsmtop1: I think I can put your logs in order, Dave - let's e-mail separately about that.

GMC19924: where in NY? im upstate

DavidWrightSr: Night Chet

AGplusone: Okay. They are about two years of them.

DavidWrightSr: In house joke. George. Old David Brinkley Chet Huntley sign-off

AGplusone: And Good Night from NBC\

GMC19924: yep...how well i remember..

GMC19924: Good night chet....good night david..

AGplusone: I'll email Joanne

DavidWrightSr: Say good night Gracie.

jgcsmtop1: Goodnight, Gracie

AGplusone: Good night Gracie

GMC19924: good night, gracie

AGplusone: got log?

KultsiKN: good night Gracie!

DavidWrightSr: Log officially closed at 8:14 P.M. EDT

DavidWrightSr: Got it all

jgcsmtop1 has left the room.

AGplusone: nite and thanks again David


Final End Of Discussion Log

Click Here to Return to Index

Return to Index


  Join The Heinlein Society and Pay Forward the legacy of Robert A. Heinlein and Virginia Heinlein.
 
 

©2001-2010 The Heinlein Society
3553 Atlantic Avenue, #341
Long Beach, CA 90807-5606

 
 

The Heinlein Society was founded by Virginia Heinlein on behalf of her husband, science fiction author Robert Anson Heinlein, to "pay forward" the legacy of Robert A. Heinlein to future generations of "Heinlein's Children."