Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Wing nuts

Expand Messages
  • Dan Sullivan
    David and Walter seem to have inferred that I must be some kind of right-wing nut because I have been so critical of left-wing nuts on this list. That s
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 23, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      David and Walter seem to have inferred that I must be some kind of
      right-wing nut because I have been so critical of left-wing nuts on this
      list. That's probably because there are so few right-wing nuts on this
      list who have not already been exposed to criticism of their
      viewpoints.

      There is a zen concept, loosely related to Karma, that what comes
      back at you see is a reflection of what you send out. Thus, those who
      send out left-wing nonsense you will see criticisms of that nonsense as
      right-wing, and vice versa. I have often made it clear that I see both
      wings as equally evil, for want of a better word, but, as Locke noted,
      people see an affront to them as much greater than an affront to their
      adversaries. Thus, right wingers see me as a Marxist and left wingers
      see me as a Randian when, in fact, I have nearly equal disdain for both
      Marx and Rand. (I do believe, however, that both Marx and Rand
      stand head and shoulders above most Marxists and Randians.)

      Anyhow, I was incorrect in saying that my "Royal Libertaran" article
      appeared in *Green Revolution*. That particular article was a direct
      assault on the neolibertarian defense of property in land, and was
      published for distribution at one of the national LP convention. It was
      widely read and became controversial.

      Those who attacked it from the right were lost causes anyhow, and
      served only to expose the illogic of neolibertarianism. However, quite
      a few LP members who had a nagging feeling that something was not
      right about their official dogma became interested in the issue. The LP
      platform committee on taxation has even declared themselves to be in
      favor of land value tax, although it still has no chance on the party
      floor.

      Similar things have happened within the Greens, who responded to
      another article, called "Greens and Libertarians, the Yin and Yang of
      Our Political Future." This *Green Revolution* published. This
      article was similarly attacked from the left, but it has also been
      embraced by many Greens that reject the old left-wing dogma. I will
      post it. It is also online. In fact, it is the *first* thing that comes up
      when one Google's "Dan Sullivan" and "Ayn Rand." I'm surprised that
      David didn't see it, but it would have been harder for him to take out
      of context. The only mention of Rand is in the second of the following
      paragraphs:

      "Libertarian bias tends to show up more in prioritization of issues
      than in any particular issue. For example, Libertarians are far more
      prone to complain about the capital gains tax than about many
      other taxes, even though there is nothing uniquely un-libertarian
      about that particular tax.

      "Many Libertarians ignore classic libertarian writings and dwell on
      the works of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.
      The classical libertarians get mere superficial attention. For
      example, few have read Tragedy of the Commons, but many quote
      the title. Specifically, they are unwilling to recognize that the
      ecological mishaps like those referred to in that work had been
      absent for centuries when almost all land was common. As with the
      tragedy of the reservations, commons were abused because so
      many people had to share access to so little land. All this was a
      result of government sanction, allowing vast tracts of commonly
      held land to be appropriated by individuals without proper
      compensation to those who were dispossessed of access to the
      earth. These facts are ignored because they cannot be reconciled
      with pseudo-libertarian conservatism."

      As no amount of context-cutting makes these paragraphs spinnable
      into a pro-Rand or pro-libertarian piece, I am not surprised that David
      did not use it.

      In any case, many Greens say they came to an appreciation of LVT
      directly through this article, and that it has led to LVT being on the
      plank of Green platforms in some countries. Frank deJong, leader of
      the Green Party of Ontario, Canada, notes that the Greens can be
      much truer to their values in Canada because socialists have their own
      semi-viable party there, and do not try to work through [read co-opt]
      the Greens as they do in the United States.

      In any case, anyone not from one end of the spectrum or the other will
      see upon reading "Greens and Libertarians" that it is equally critical of
      both the right and the left.

      -ds
    • David Reed
      If Sullivan is referring to me as a left-wing nut,I am very flattered, but I am very middle ground supporting the parliamentary Labour Party. I cannot approach
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
          If Sullivan is referring to me as a left-wing nut,I am very flattered, but I am very middle ground supporting the parliamentary Labour Party. I cannot approach the heroic left-wing heights approached by Dave Wetzel who has become a legend in
         his lifetime for Fares Fair a Georgist system of subsidising London public transport out of the rates (local property tax) or indeed Julien Gross whom I suggested to Sullivan needed gentle treatment in view of his great age and the  heroic status accorded by the Henry George Foundation ("Which Henry George Foundation?" demanded the Americanocentric Sullivan with  blundering insensitivity.)
        Squirm and special plead as he may  his remarks about the hysterical lady novelist
        show him as an avowed Libertarian trying to find some common ground with the brutish right-wing property lovers in "the party of principle"  
        "Ayn Rand is sooo close."."By Jove I think she 's.." (Why are all his references so low-brow? The Life of Brian? Paul Simon!!!).
        I don't think that if George called himself a libertarian he could have had any presentiment of the depths to which present Libertarians have degraded the term.Mark Monson remarked brilliantly that modern Libertarians represent the political wing of unfettered consumerism.Too true-where the old libertarians distrusted the accumulation of property.
        Nothing Sullivan says deals with the basic problem that he has decided that anybody who does not admire Powderly, or thinks George's Tribune article was anything other than regettable or dissents from him on any  of his eccentric opinions is a back stabber and an untrustworthy ally. 
        He cannot see how egocentic this is.
        Why should Labour Land Campaign which seeks to continue the old Georgist tradition in Labour Party Manifestos beginning in 1906 ,(resulting on the way with a national land tax actually set up in 1931) care for a moment what he thinks?
        He often talks about "we on this list" Who are these people ,this shadow army? How come they have taken control of a list started by Dave Wetzel? 
        All this bullying of socialists and people from different traditions has to stop on a site which is supposed to be a democracy.
         




        To: landcafe@yahoogroups.com
        From: pimann@...
        Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:42:21 -0500
        Subject: [LandCafe] Wing nuts


        David and Walter seem to have inferred that I must be some kind of
        right-wing nut because I have been so critical of left-wing nuts on this
        list. That's probably because there are so few right-wing nuts on this
        list who have not already been exposed to criticism of their
        viewpoints.

        There is a zen concept, loosely related to Karma, that what comes
        back at you see is a reflection of what you send out. Thus, those who
        send out left-wing nonsense you will see criticisms of that nonsense as
        right-wing, and vice versa. I have often made it clear that I see both
        wings as equally evil, for want of a better word, but, as Locke noted,
        people see an affront to them as much greater than an affront to their
        adversaries. Thus, right wingers see me as a Marxist and left wingers
        see me as a Randian when, in fact, I have nearly equal disdain for both
        Marx and Rand. (I do believe, however, that both Marx and Rand
        stand head and shoulders above most Marxists and Randians.)

        Anyhow, I was incorrect in saying that my "Royal Libertaran" article
        appeared in *Green Revolution*. That particular article was a direct
        assault on the neolibertarian defense of property in land, and was
        published for distribution at one of the national LP convention. It was
        widely read and became controversial.

        Those who attacked it from the right were lost causes anyhow, and
        served only to expose the illogic of neolibertarianism. However, quite
        a few LP members who had a nagging feeling that something was not
        right about their official dogma became interested in the issue. The LP
        platform committee on taxation has even declared themselves to be in
        favor of land value tax, although it still has no chance on the party
        floor.

        Similar things have happened within the Greens, who responded to
        another article, called "Greens and Libertarians, the Yin and Yang of
        Our Political Future." This *Green Revolution* published. This
        article was similarly attacked from the left, but it has also been
        embraced by many Greens that reject the old left-wing dogma. I will
        post it. It is also online. In fact, it is the *first* thing that comes up
        when one Google's "Dan Sullivan" and "Ayn Rand." I'm surprised that
        David didn't see it, but it would have been harder for him to take out
        of context. The only mention of Rand is in the second of the following
        paragraphs:

        "Libertarian bias tends to show up more in prioritization of issues
        than in any particular issue. For example, Libertarians are far more
        prone to complain about the capital gains tax than about many
        other taxes, even though there is nothing uniquely un-libertarian
        about that particular tax.

        "Many Libertarians ignore classic libertarian writings and dwell on
        the works of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.
        The classical libertarians get mere superficial attention. For
        example, few have read Tragedy of the Commons, but many quote
        the title. Specifically, they are unwilling to recognize that the
        ecological mishaps like those referred to in that work had been
        absent for centuries when almost all land was common. As with the
        tragedy of the reservations, commons were abused because so
        many people had to share access to so little land. All this was a
        result of government sanction, allowing vast tracts of commonly
        held land to be appropriated by individuals without proper
        compensation to those who were dispossessed of access to the
        earth. These facts are ignored because they cannot be reconciled
        with pseudo-libertarian conservatism. "

        As no amount of context-cutting makes these paragraphs spinnable
        into a pro-Rand or pro-libertarian piece, I am not surprised that David
        did not use it.

        In any case, many Greens say they came to an appreciation of LVT
        directly through this article, and that it has led to LVT being on the
        plank of Green platforms in some countries. Frank deJong, leader of
        the Green Party of Ontario, Canada, notes that the Greens can be
        much truer to their values in Canada because socialists have their own
        semi-viable party there, and do not try to work through [read co-opt]
        the Greens as they do in the United States.

        In any case, anyone not from one end of the spectrum or the other will
        see upon reading "Greens and Libertarians" that it is equally critical of
        both the right and the left.

        -ds




        Take your friends with you with Mobile Messenger. Click Here!
      • Walter Horn
        ... Right wing, I don t know. Nut, definitely. W
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:
          >
          > David and Walter seem to have inferred that I must be some kind of
          > right-wing nut.

          Right wing, I don't know. Nut, definitely.

          W
        • Walter Horn
          ... decided that anybody who does not admire Powderly, or thinks George s Tribune article was anything other than regettable or dissents from him on any of
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
            >

            > Nothing Sullivan says deals with the basic problem that he has
            decided that anybody who does not admire Powderly, or thinks George's
            Tribune article was anything other than regettable or dissents from
            him on any of his eccentric opinions is a back stabber and an
            untrustworthy ally.
            > He cannot see how egocentic this is.

            That's pretty much my position in a nutshell. It takes about 12
            seconds to say, and it's completely confirmable by a 1000 posts on
            this site. You can almost pick at random. Sullivan considers himself
            the arbiter--of what is relevant on this site, of what makes a good
            ally, of what Americans really want, of who is a back-stabber to
            Georgism (although he would never, NEVER! condescend to suggest who is
            a good Georgist!), of what Julien Gross should have been doing with
            his life, etc., etc.

            This has nothing to do with land value taxes, greenbacks, socialism,
            racism, Powderly, Randianism, or even George. It's all about Royal
            Sullivanism.

            W
          • Dan Sullivan
            ... This misses the point. It focuses on left and ignores nut. Or, to use another term, it ignores reactionary, for there is a reactionary left, just as
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              On 24 Dec 2008 at 9:15, David Reed wrote:

              > If Sullivan is referring to me as a left-wing nut,I am very
              > flattered, but I am very middle ground supporting the
              > parliamentary Labour Party.

              This misses the point. It focuses on "left" and ignores "nut." Or, to use
              another term, it ignores "reactionary," for there is a reactionary left,
              just as there is a reactionary right.

              > I cannot approach the heroic left-wing heights approached by
              > Dave Wetzel who has become a legend in his lifetime

              No, you can't approach the heights, nor the depths, but only the
              shallowness.

              > for Fares Fair a Georgist system of subsidising London public
              > transport out of the rates (local property tax)

              But that is not left-wing in the current, capitalist vs. socialist sense. It
              is only left-wing in the classical libertarian vs. authoritarian sense.

              > or indeed Julien Gross whom I suggested

              You d id no "suggesting" at all. You just went spastic because I had
              not gone about finding in advance about someone's personal situation.

              > to Sullivan needed gentle treatment in view of his great age
              > and the heroic status accorded by the Henry George Foundation
              > ("Which Henry George Foundation?" demanded the
              > Americanocentric Sullivan with blundering insensitivity.)

              There is nothing Americanocentric about asking the question. There
              are at least three Henry George Foundations that I know of. One in the
              US, one in Australia and one in Great Britain. It is Anglocentric to
              assume that everyone will know that "Henry George Foundation"
              means the British one. We call ours the Henry George Foundation of
              America, even when speaking to other Americans. The Aussies call
              theirs the Henry George Foundation of Australia. The non-
              anglocentric Brits call theirs the Henry George Foundation of Britain
              or of Great Britain. (I have seen it both ways.) Only the most petulant
              anglophiles become incensed when someone asks "Which Henry
              George Foundation?"

              > Squirm and special plead as he may his remarks about the
              > hysterical lady novelist show him as an avowed Libertarian.

              Indeed, I am an avowed libertarian. (Small L). Not to be
              Americanocentric, I just went to my Oxford English Dictionary,
              which lists two definitions. One is theological, believing in free will
              vs. determinism. The *only* political definition is, "One who
              advocates liberty." I have also been active in the Libertarian Party, the
              Green Party and the Democratic Party.

              If this is hard for those with the "us vs. them" mentality to understand,
              that is their problem.

              > trying to find some common ground with the brutish right-wing
              > property lovers in "the party of principle"

              I have found common ground with those in the Libertarian Party who
              reject the brutish right-wing aspects, just as I have found common
              ground with socialists who reject the brutish left-wing aspects of
              socialism.

              > "Ayn Rand is sooo close."."By Jove I think she 's.."

              I posted the piece. People who have read it know how stupid these
              out-of-context-quotes are. The LP does indeed call itself "The Party of
              Principle," and I showed how their position on land violates that
              principle.

              I quoted a particular passage of Ayn Rand that did indeed come "sooo
              close," and then showed how she went on to violate her own logic.

              > (Why are all his references so low-brow? The Life of Brian?
              > Paul Simon!!!).

              Sorry for being insufficiently snobbish. I guess it's the American in
              me. I'll try to be more aristocratic in the future.

              > I don't think that if George called himself a libertarian he
              > could have had any presentiment of the depths to which present
              > Libertarians have degraded the term.

              George was not about labelling himself, and nobody ever said he
              called himself a libertarian. He was, however, regarded as one of the
              great libertarians of his day, and is acknowledged as such by many
              icons of today's libertarianism, as right-wing as it has become.

              > Mark Monson remarked brilliantly that modern Libertarians
              > represent the political wing of unfettered consumerism.

              I would say that the dominant faction of the Libertarian Party
              represents ufnettered corporate monopolism, but then I never
              supported the dominant faction of libertarians, any more than the
              dominant faction of socialists.

              > Too true-where the old libertarians distrusted the
              > accumulation of property.

              The old libertarians had no problem with legitimate property. The new
              libertarians, like the socialists, are too wrapped up in defending or
              attacking all property to understand the distinction made by the old
              libertarians. That was the point of my article. You should try actually
              reading it.

              > Nothing Sullivan says deals with the basic problem that he
              > has decided that anybody who does not admire Powderly, or
              > thinks George's Tribune article was anything other than
              > regettable or dissents from him on any of his eccentric
              > opinions is a back stabber and an untrustworthy ally.

              No, you are a back-stabber and an untrustworthy ally for other
              reasons. Mostly because you misrepresent George and Georgism, as
              you are doing now, and then attack those who call you on it based on
              your own misrepresentations.

              > He cannot see how egocentic this is.

              See what I mean?

              > Why should Labour Land Campaign which seeks to continue the
              > old Georgist tradition in Labour Party Manifestos beginning
              > in 1906, (resulting on the way with a national land tax
              > actually set up in 1931) care for a moment what he thinks?

              I don't know that the Labour Land Campaign does care what I think.
              Am I mentioned on their website or something? You, on the other
              hand, seem to care a great deal. (Methinks he doth protest too much.)

              > He often talks about "we on this list."

              Another quote out of context. Actually, another complete fabrication
              out of Dave's paranoid imagination. I just searched my messages to
              this list back though August of 2004 for "we on this list." I got exactly
              zero matches. Enough reality, however. On with the parnaoia:

              > Who are these people, this shadow army? How come they have
              > taken control of a list started by Dave Wetzel?

              Without knowing the context of the "we on this list" quote you
              obviously got wrong, I can only surmise that "these people" are
              whoever is on the list. As for the "shadow army" having "taken
              control," that's a projection of socialist rhetoric, not Georgist or
              libertarian rhetoric. It is not Georgist or libertarian to sing "solidarity
              forever," or to demand conformity. I suspect most of us are not
              interested in serving in an army or taking control, but only interested
              in truth. Georgists seek truth through dissent and the criticism of
              dissent.

              > All this bullying of socialists and people from different
              > traditions has to stop on a site which is supposed to be a
              > democracy.

              What you call bullying, I call criticism. Sorry if you can only dish it
              out and can't take it. At least I don't fabricate quotes.

              -ds
            • David Reed
              Oh dear the season of goodwill does not seem to be going very well. Sullivan s shadow army that runs land cafe (so he thinks) is very much in evidence in his
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Oh dear the season of goodwill does not seem to be going very well.
                Sullivan's shadow army that runs land cafe (so he thinks) is very much in evidence in his first mailing on land nationalisation on 11th December (there are another 14 mailings that day which seems to have been especially stressful for him).
                "This is a tough enough job(!!!) without back-stabbers in our(?) ranks--- would do the world a favour if you" (anybody who disagrees with "us" )"would form your own lists---- we are not worthy that you come under our roof."
                Sullivan must know from Dave Wetzel's mailing that he formed the list with the help of Eric Britton-- so it is not Sullivan or the Libertarians' list fullstop/thats all she wrote/ no further questions/I rest my case .
                I only became involved in landcafe to support  Dave W as President of Labour Land Campaign  when he complained  that the term socialist was routinely used a term of abuse.(Dave Wetzel made very clear  how land cafe originated from his socialist take on Henry George a very long time ago). I also complained that the list had been over-run by libertarian entrists a long time ago.So it is the anti-socialists who have been invited under "our" roof and commenced to insult everything the man of the house and his friends (such as Julien) stands for.Blundering insensitivity reigns supreme, which is putting it mildly.
                And now we are getting whole Libertarian tracts on the site.
                 


                To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                From: pimann@...
                Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:26:21 -0500
                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Wing nuts


                On 24 Dec 2008 at 9:15, David Reed wrote:

                > If Sullivan is referring to me as a left-wing nut,I am very
                > flattered, but I am very middle ground supporting the
                > parliamentary Labour Party.

                This misses the point. It focuses on "left" and ignores "nut." Or, to use
                another term, it ignores "reactionary, " for there is a reactionary left,
                just as there is a reactionary right.

                > I cannot approach the heroic left-wing heights approached by
                > Dave Wetzel who has become a legend in his lifetime

                No, you can't approach the heights, nor the depths, but only the
                shallowness.

                > for Fares Fair a Georgist system of subsidising London public
                > transport out of the rates (local property tax)

                But that is not left-wing in the current, capitalist vs. socialist sense. It
                is only left-wing in the classical libertarian vs. authoritarian sense.

                > or indeed Julien Gross whom I suggested

                You d id no "suggesting" at all. You just went spastic because I had
                not gone about finding in advance about someone's personal situation.

                > to Sullivan needed gentle treatment in view of his great age
                > and the heroic status accorded by the Henry George Foundation
                > ("Which Henry George Foundation?" demanded the
                > Americanocentric Sullivan with blundering insensitivity. )

                There is nothing Americanocentric about asking the question. There
                are at least three Henry George Foundations that I know of. One in the
                US, one in Australia and one in Great Britain. It is Anglocentric to
                assume that everyone will know that "Henry George Foundation"
                means the British one. We call ours the Henry George Foundation of
                America, even when speaking to other Americans. The Aussies call
                theirs the Henry George Foundation of Australia. The non-
                anglocentric Brits call theirs the Henry George Foundation of Britain
                or of Great Britain. (I have seen it both ways.) Only the most petulant
                anglophiles become incensed when someone asks "Which Henry
                George Foundation?"

                > Squirm and special plead as he may his remarks about the
                > hysterical lady novelist show him as an avowed Libertarian.

                Indeed, I am an avowed libertarian. (Small L). Not to be
                Americanocentric, I just went to my Oxford English Dictionary,
                which lists two definitions. One is theological, believing in free will
                vs. determinism. The *only* political definition is, "One who
                advocates liberty." I have also been active in the Libertarian Party, the
                Green Party and the Democratic Party.

                If this is hard for those with the "us vs. them" mentality to understand,
                that is their problem.

                > trying to find some common ground with the brutish right-wing
                > property lovers in "the party of principle"

                I have found common ground with those in the Libertarian Party who
                reject the brutish right-wing aspects, just as I have found common
                ground with socialists who reject the brutish left-wing aspects of
                socialism.

                > "Ayn Rand is sooo close."."By Jove I think she 's.."

                I posted the piece. People who have read it know how stupid these
                out-of-context- quotes are. The LP does indeed call itself "The Party of
                Principle," and I showed how their position on land violates that
                principle.

                I quoted a particular passage of Ayn Rand that did indeed come "sooo
                close," and then showed how she went on to violate her own logic.

                > (Why are all his references so low-brow? The Life of Brian?
                > Paul Simon!!!).

                Sorry for being insufficiently snobbish. I guess it's the American in
                me. I'll try to be more aristocratic in the future.

                > I don't think that if George called himself a libertarian he
                > could have had any presentiment of the depths to which present
                > Libertarians have degraded the term.

                George was not about labelling himself, and nobody ever said he
                called himself a libertarian. He was, however, regarded as one of the
                great libertarians of his day, and is acknowledged as such by many
                icons of today's libertarianism, as right-wing as it has become.

                > Mark Monson remarked brilliantly that modern Libertarians
                > represent the political wing of unfettered consumerism.

                I would say that the dominant faction of the Libertarian Party
                represents ufnettered corporate monopolism, but then I never
                supported the dominant faction of libertarians, any more than the
                dominant faction of socialists.

                > Too true-where the old libertarians distrusted the
                > accumulation of property.

                The old libertarians had no problem with legitimate property. The new
                libertarians, like the socialists, are too wrapped up in defending or
                attacking all property to understand the distinction made by the old
                libertarians. That was the point of my article. You should try actually
                reading it.

                > Nothing Sullivan says deals with the basic problem that he
                > has decided that anybody who does not admire Powderly, or
                > thinks George's Tribune article was anything other than
                > regettable or dissents from him on any of his eccentric
                > opinions is a back stabber and an untrustworthy ally.

                No, you are a back-stabber and an untrustworthy ally for other
                reasons. Mostly because you misrepresent George and Georgism, as
                you are doing now, and then attack those who call you on it based on
                your own misrepresentations.

                > He cannot see how egocentic this is.

                See what I mean?

                > Why should Labour Land Campaign which seeks to continue the
                > old Georgist tradition in Labour Party Manifestos beginning
                > in 1906, (resulting on the way with a national land tax
                > actually set up in 1931) care for a moment what he thinks?

                I don't know that the Labour Land Campaign does care what I think.
                Am I mentioned on their website or something? You, on the other
                hand, seem to care a great deal. (Methinks he doth protest too much.)

                > He often talks about "we on this list."

                Another quote out of context. Actually, another complete fabrication
                out of Dave's paranoid imagination. I just searched my messages to
                this list back though August of 2004 for "we on this list." I got exactly
                zero matches. Enough reality, however. On with the parnaoia:

                > Who are these people, this shadow army? How come they have
                > taken control of a list started by Dave Wetzel?

                Without knowing the context of the "we on this list" quote you
                obviously got wrong, I can only surmise that "these people" are
                whoever is on the list. As for the "shadow army" having "taken
                control," that's a projection of socialist rhetoric, not Georgist or
                libertarian rhetoric. It is not Georgist or libertarian to sing "solidarity
                forever," or to demand conformity. I suspect most of us are not
                interested in serving in an army or taking control, but only interested
                in truth. Georgists seek truth through dissent and the criticism of
                dissent.

                > All this bullying of socialists and people from different
                > traditions has to stop on a site which is supposed to be a
                > democracy.

                What you call bullying, I call criticism. Sorry if you can only dish it
                out and can't take it. At least I don't fabricate quotes.

                -ds




                Take your friends with you with Mobile Messenger. Click Here!
              • Dan Sullivan
                With all of David Reed s harping about whose list this is, how I am the self-appointed gatekeeper and other such nonsense, I was surprised to go back through
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  With all of David Reed's harping about whose list this is, how I am
                  the self-appointed gatekeeper and other such nonsense, I was
                  surprised to go back through the files and come across this statement
                  to David from Eric Britton, the *actual* gate-keeper (i.e., the list
                  owner), cc'd to me and several others, on February 18 of this year:

                  "You complain a lot David. And I perhaps explain myself
                  poorly. Listening to your complaints the third or fourth
                  time around about this and that, I don't think you are going
                  to be happy here. Which is too bad since this is not a
                  'pro-Austrian', anti-Henry George forum."

                  David also wraps himself in the good name of Dave Wetzel. Earlier
                  today, Wetzel wrote back to me. His message consisted entirely of the
                  following two lines:

                  "You've every right to defend yourself!

                  "I liked you're article."

                  So, it seems, first of all, that David had gone to this list's actual gate-
                  keeper (as he calls it) and was rejected. Next, it seems that the views
                  he has invoked on behalf of Dave Wetzel are not shared by Dave
                  Wetzel, either.

                  On March 18, I had written the following to Dave Wetzel:

                  "You seem to at least focus on the question at hand and not lash out at
                  non-socialist allies. I have no problem with socialists who take that
                  approach, and I have enjoyed many a conversation over beers with
                  socialists who discussed issues with me, even though we came at
                  those issues from different perspectives.

                  "A few years ago, we had some right-wingers who joined land-theory
                  and tried to piss all over us for being socialists. It wasn't long before I
                  just bounced them off the list. Today, I don't have to bounce them off,
                  because I can just moderate the list. Much of what Rooney and
                  Monson write on my list never sees the light of day, so we can focus
                  on positive actions more.

                  "Monson even asked me if I had been funded by a libertarian
                  think tank. I hadn't, but I just told him to f--k off. Now I
                  see that he is the type to fish for something he can attack
                  with. How do you lefties get anything done with people like
                  that in your ranks?"

                  This was Dave's reply in its entirety:

                  "Over here we have Trotskyists who denounce us democratic
                  socialists as sell-outs to capitalism.

                  "Over the years I have noticed how they argue re socialist
                  purity and splinter among themselves into smaller and
                  smaller groups.

                  "We've seen it in scotland with the Scottish Socialist Party
                  and in London with Respect.

                  "I don't apologise for Tony Blair and co. as I never voted
                  for them to rule my Labour Party. Our Labour Land Campaign
                  has a small but great team of committed socialists who
                  mostly understand Annual Land Value Tax but like me would
                  also prefer common ownership of land with the rent collected
                  by the state (similar to Hong Kong).

                  "Best Wishes,
                  "Dave"

                  So, apparently socialists have people who are even more socialist in
                  their own ranks, who back-stab the less socialist, and so it goes.

                  In any case, the portrayal of "Reed to the rescue" of Britton and
                  Wetzel from anti-socialists doesn't wash, even with Britton and
                  Wetzel.

                  -ds

                  On 24 Dec 2008 at 17:29, David Reed wrote:

                  > Oh dear the season of goodwill does not seem to be going very
                  > well.

                  > Sullivan's shadow army that runs land cafe (so he thinks) is
                  > very much in evidence in his first mailing on land
                  > nationalisation on 11th December (there are another 14
                  > mailings that day which seems to have been especially
                  > stressful for him).

                  > "This is a tough enough job(!!!) without back-stabbers in
                  > our(?) ranks--- would do the world a favour if you" (anybody
                  > who disagrees with "us" )"would form your own lists---- we
                  > are not worthy that you come under our roof."

                  > Sullivan must know from Dave Wetzel's mailing that he formed
                  > the list with the help of Eric Britton-- so it is not
                  > Sullivan or the Libertarians' list fullstop/thats all she
                  > wrote/ no further questions/I rest my case .

                  > I only became involved in landcafe to support Dave W as
                  > President of Labour Land Campaign when he complained that
                  > the term socialist was routinely used a term of abuse. (Dave
                  > Wetzel made very clear how land cafe originated from his
                  > socialist take on Henry George a very long time ago). I also
                  > complained that the list had been over-run by libertarian
                  > entrists a long time ago.So it is the anti-socialists who have
                  > been invited under "our" roof and commenced to insult
                  > everything the man of the house and his friends (such as
                  > Julien) stands for.Blundering insensitivity reigns supreme,
                  > which is putting it mildly.

                  > And now we are getting whole Libertarian tracts on the site.
                • David Reed
                  A fine Christmas as the man says in A Child s Christmas in Wales when he has to call the Fire Brigade out and his sister asks them Would you like
                  Message 8 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "A fine Christmas" as the man says in " A Child's Christmas in Wales" when he has to call the Fire Brigade  out and his sister asks them "Would you like something to read?"
                     I don't know what you think you have proved here: that Dave Wetzel is  infinitely tolerant ; that your remarks have occasioned criticism before?You wrote to Dave W
                    "Today I don't have to bounce them off,because I can just moderate the list (land theory?) Much of what Rooney and Monson write in never sees the light of day so we can focus on positive(!) actions more.Monson even asked me if I had been funded by a libertarian think tank.I had n't but I just told him to f..k off ."
                    I am surprised that Dave W didn't comment on this outrageous stuff and I think the less of him for not doing so.
                    I think this rather does for Sullivan's reputation as a believer in democratic discussion.
                     
                      




                    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                    From: pimann@...
                    Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:06:57 -0500
                    Subject: [LandCafe] Reed to the rescue?


                    With all of David Reed's harping about whose list this is, how I am
                    the self-appointed gatekeeper and other such nonsense, I was
                    surprised to go back through the files and come across this statement
                    to David from Eric Britton, the *actual* gate-keeper (i.e., the list
                    owner), cc'd to me and several others, on February 18 of this year:

                    "You complain a lot David. And I perhaps explain myself
                    poorly. Listening to your complaints the third or fourth
                    time around about this and that, I don't think you are going
                    to be happy here. Which is too bad since this is not a
                    'pro-Austrian' , anti-Henry George forum."

                    David also wraps himself in the good name of Dave Wetzel. Earlier
                    today, Wetzel wrote back to me. His message consisted entirely of the
                    following two lines:

                    "You've every right to defend yourself!

                    "I liked you're article."

                    So, it seems, first of all, that David had gone to this list's actual gate-
                    keeper (as he calls it) and was rejected. Next, it seems that the views
                    he has invoked on behalf of Dave Wetzel are not shared by Dave
                    Wetzel, either.

                    On March 18, I had written the following to Dave Wetzel:

                    "You seem to at least focus on the question at hand and not lash out at
                    non-socialist allies. I have no problem with socialists who take that
                    approach, and I have enjoyed many a conversation over beers with
                    socialists who discussed issues with me, even though we came at
                    those issues from different perspectives.

                    "A few years ago, we had some right-wingers who joined land-theory
                    and tried to piss all over us for being socialists. It wasn't long before I
                    just bounced them off the list. Today, I don't have to bounce them off,
                    because I can just moderate the list. Much of what Rooney and
                    Monson write on my list never sees the light of day, so we can focus
                    on positive actions more.

                    "Monson even asked me if I had been funded by a libertarian
                    think tank. I hadn't, but I just told him to f--k off. Now I
                    see that he is the type to fish for something he can attack
                    with. How do you lefties get anything done with people like
                    that in your ranks?"

                    This was Dave's reply in its entirety:

                    "Over here we have Trotskyists who denounce us democratic
                    socialists as sell-outs to capitalism.

                    "Over the years I have noticed how they argue re socialist
                    purity and splinter among themselves into smaller and
                    smaller groups.

                    "We've seen it in scotland with the Scottish Socialist Party
                    and in London with Respect.

                    "I don't apologise for Tony Blair and co. as I never voted
                    for them to rule my Labour Party. Our Labour Land Campaign
                    has a small but great team of committed socialists who
                    mostly understand Annual Land Value Tax but like me would
                    also prefer common ownership of land with the rent collected
                    by the state (similar to Hong Kong).

                    "Best Wishes,
                    "Dave"

                    So, apparently socialists have people who are even more socialist in
                    their own ranks, who back-stab the less socialist, and so it goes.

                    In any case, the portrayal of "Reed to the rescue" of Britton and
                    Wetzel from anti-socialists doesn't wash, even with Britton and
                    Wetzel.

                    -ds

                    On 24 Dec 2008 at 17:29, David Reed wrote:

                    > Oh dear the season of goodwill does not seem to be going very
                    > well.

                    > Sullivan's shadow army that runs land cafe (so he thinks) is
                    > very much in evidence in his first mailing on land
                    > nationalisation on 11th December (there are another 14
                    > mailings that day which seems to have been especially
                    > stressful for him).

                    > "This is a tough enough job(!!!) without back-stabbers in
                    > our(?) ranks--- would do the world a favour if you" (anybody
                    > who disagrees with "us" )"would form your own lists---- we
                    > are not worthy that you come under our roof."

                    > Sullivan must know from Dave Wetzel's mailing that he formed
                    > the list with the help of Eric Britton-- so it is not
                    > Sullivan or the Libertarians' list fullstop/thats all she
                    > wrote/ no further questions/I rest my case .

                    > I only became involved in landcafe to support Dave W as
                    > President of Labour Land Campaign when he complained that
                    > the term socialist was routinely used a term of abuse. (Dave
                    > Wetzel made very clear how land cafe originated from his
                    > socialist take on Henry George a very long time ago). I also
                    > complained that the list had been over-run by libertarian
                    > entrists a long time ago.So it is the anti-socialists who have
                    > been invited under "our" roof and commenced to insult
                    > everything the man of the house and his friends (such as
                    > Julien) stands for.Blundering insensitivity reigns supreme,
                    > which is putting it mildly.

                    > And now we are getting whole Libertarian tracts on the site.




                    Read amazing stories to your kids on Messenger. Try it Now!
                  • Dan Sullivan
                    ... I proved that you had taken your case to the actual list owner and been rejected, and that it is you, who is now attempting to take it upon yourself to do
                    Message 9 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 24 Dec 2008 at 19:03, David Reed wrote:

                      > I don't know what you think you have proved here:

                      I proved that you had taken your case to the actual list owner and been
                      rejected, and that it is you, who is now attempting to take it upon
                      yourself to do what the list moderator refused to do.

                      I proved that your invoking Dave Wetzel's name in support of your
                      diatribes is bogus.

                      As I noted in the letter to Wetzel, I have no problem with socialists if
                      they do not take it upon themselves to attack non-socialists. Your
                      posts were full of attacks before I had replied to any of them. You
                      joined this list with a chip on your shoulder, and I, for one, stood up to
                      you. Then you complained to the list owner often enough that he
                      suggested you would be happier somewhere else.

                      Now you are rescuing the list from the same evil right-wing forces
                      that you claimed had captured it when the list owner rebuked you.

                      Period.

                      -ds
                    • David Reed
                      I cannot remember what the business with Eric Britton was all about : Ithink I was complaining about something he d said about downplaying Henry George and
                      Message 10 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                          I cannot remember what the business with Eric Britton was all about : Ithink I was complaining about something he'd said about downplaying Henry George and getting up to speed with the Austrians.Which seemed out of order. I did complain  about you calling Mark Monson's contributions "Monson's poisonous screeds" which Britton decided did not deserve a red card: trouble is he did n't show you a yellow card either.Britton at one stage  stopped all my contributions,claiming to have accidentally put them in the junk file. I made the same complaints as I make now.
                        But now you have come clean as a bully who tries to clean out sites like this by abuse,foul language and mindless copying;sites you moderate by partiality and abuse of power.
                        Would n't it be be nicer if you could dominate by intellect and quick-wittedness? But that is why the bully is always pitiful.


                         


                        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        From: pimann@...
                        Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:17:01 -0500
                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Reed to the rescue?


                        On 24 Dec 2008 at 19:03, David Reed wrote:

                        > I don't know what you think you have proved here:

                        I proved that you had taken your case to the actual list owner and been
                        rejected, and that it is you, who is now attempting to take it upon
                        yourself to do what the list moderator refused to do.

                        I proved that your invoking Dave Wetzel's name in support of your
                        diatribes is bogus.

                        As I noted in the letter to Wetzel, I have no problem with socialists if
                        they do not take it upon themselves to attack non-socialists. Your
                        posts were full of attacks before I had replied to any of them. You
                        joined this list with a chip on your shoulder, and I, for one, stood up to
                        you. Then you complained to the list owner often enough that he
                        suggested you would be happier somewhere else.

                        Now you are rescuing the list from the same evil right-wing forces
                        that you claimed had captured it when the list owner rebuked you.

                        Period.

                        -ds




                        Read amazing stories to your kids on Messenger. Try it Now!
                      • Wyn Achenbaum
                        Perhaps it is time to move the conflicts back to Land Theory, or to side conversations, and let this list continue to be the Cafe, with civil conversation
                        Message 11 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Perhaps it is time to move the conflicts back to Land Theory, or to side conversations, and let this list continue to be the Cafe, with civil conversation about ideas, whose archives will illuminate rather than infuriate.

                          Might the combatants take this to the street?    A lot of people here have a great deal to offer, and a lot of us have a great deal to learn. But at the moment, we're getting more heat than light.

                          Make the distinctions, yes.  Megapixel when necessary.  But without the ad hominems.  They wear us down.

                          Merry Christmas, friends!

                          Wyn

                          David Reed wrote:

                            I cannot remember what the business with Eric Britton was all about : Ithink I was complaining about something he'd said about downplaying Henry George and getting up to speed with the Austrians.Which seemed out of order. I did complain  about you calling Mark Monson's contributions "Monson's poisonous screeds" which Britton decided did not deserve a red card: trouble is he did n't show you a yellow card either.Britton at one stage  stopped all my contributions, claiming to have accidentally put them in the junk file. I made the same complaints as I make now.
                          But now you have come clean as a bully who tries to clean out sites like this by abuse,foul language and mindless copying;sites you moderate by partiality and abuse of power.
                          Would n't it be be nicer if you could dominate by intellect and quick-wittedness? But that is why the bully is always pitiful.


                           



                          To: LandCafe@yahoogroup s.com
                          From: pimann@pobox. com
                          Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:17:01 -0500
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Reed to the rescue?


                          On 24 Dec 2008 at 19:03, David Reed wrote:

                          > I don't know what you think you have proved here:

                          I proved that you had taken your case to the actual list owner and been
                          rejected, and that it is you, who is now attempting to take it upon
                          yourself to do what the list moderator refused to do.

                          I proved that your invoking Dave Wetzel's name in support of your
                          diatribes is bogus.

                          As I noted in the letter to Wetzel, I have no problem with socialists if
                          they do not take it upon themselves to attack non-socialists. Your
                          posts were full of attacks before I had replied to any of them. You
                          joined this list with a chip on your shoulder, and I, for one, stood up to
                          you. Then you complained to the list owner often enough that he
                          suggested you would be happier somewhere else.

                          Now you are rescuing the list from the same evil right-wing forces
                          that you claimed had captured it when the list owner rebuked you.

                          Period.

                          -ds




                           

                          -- 
                          Wyn Achenbaum
                          blogging at http://lvtfan.typepad.com/
                          website: http://www.wealthandwant.com/
                          
                          
                          
                        • Jeffery J. Smith
                          ... Hear, hear! I never read any of their posts. And my delete finger is getting weary! Merries. SMITH, Jeffery J. President, Forum on Geonomics
                          Message 12 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Dec 24, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Wyn Achenbaum wrote:

                            Perhaps it is time to move the conflicts back to Land Theory, or to side ... hominems.  They wear us down.





                            Hear, hear! I never read any of their posts. And my delete finger is getting weary!

                            Merries.

                            SMITH, Jeffery J.
                            President, Forum on Geonomics
                            Land Rights course: www.course.earthrights.net
                            Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve..



                          • Dan Sullivan
                            ... As a factual matter, Eric s letter was sent to you well *before* comments about Monson s poisonous screed. (It was a harsh opinion piece that, in my
                            Message 13 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 24 Dec 2008 at 19:53, David Reed wrote:

                              > I cannot remember what the business with Eric Britton was
                              > all about: I think I was complaining about something he'd said
                              > about downplaying Henry George and getting up to speed with
                              > the Austrians. Which seemed out of order. I did complain
                              > about you calling Mark Monson's contributions "Monson's
                              > poisonous screeds" which Britton decided did not deserve a red
                              > card: trouble is he did n't show you a yellow card either.
                              > Britton at one stage stopped all my contributions, claiming
                              > to have accidentally put them in the junk file. I made the
                              > same complaints as I make now.

                              As a factual matter, Eric's letter was sent to you well *before*
                              comments about Monson's poisonous screed. (It was a harsh opinion
                              piece that, in my opinion, misrepresented Shearman. I noted that
                              Shearman's first-hand statements were online, for anyone who cared.)

                              Eric's letter to you came four days *after* this post to the list:

                              ***

                              Dan Sullivan, who is also justifiably upset about all this
                              and a far more reasonable person that I, has kindly written
                              me and made the following good suggestion: "Putting
                              individual members on moderated status is effective and less
                              heavy-handed. You could appoint some assistant moderators if
                              you don't want to deal with the task of previewing posts."

                              To whit my reply which I share with you all:

                              Thanks Dan. I want to be exactly heavy handed. I run
                              something like about twenty of these groups and this one is
                              the randiest and at the end of the day saddest. Perhaps
                              because they feel themselves so effectively disenfranchised.
                              But it's their fault. Apparently they just don't get it. And
                              that's too bad, because the things we are discussing are
                              absolutely critical for the necessary restructuring of our
                              society. They often remind me of, who was it, Oscar Wilde
                              who said about the English gentry and fox hunting. "The
                              unspeakable pursing the inedible."

                              I think they need to be shaken up. Too comfortable with all
                              that chatting and small minded one-upmanship. What was the
                              great point that one of our number in another group said
                              only yesterday "Internecine conflict just lets the real bad
                              guys win"? Moderating is OK and I do a bit of that but it's
                              hard to retain patience, never mind interest when things fly
                              so far afield.

                              My thought at this point is either (a) enter into a new era
                              of creative interaction and or (b) close it down next week.
                              There is no (c).

                              I welcome discussion and suggestions.

                              Eric Britton

                              > But now you have come clean as a bully who tries to clean out
                              > sites like this by abuse, foul language and mindless copying;
                              > sites you moderate by partiality and abuse of power.

                              Well, Eric was complaining that my approach was not heavy handed
                              enough, so go figure. Actually, my site has mechanisms that prevent
                              partiality on my part - mechanisms that nobody has ever actually used.
                              Anyone disputes my moderating decisions (or lack thereof) can take
                              the matter to a panel of other list members who had not taken sides on
                              the matter. That way the larger list is spared the anguish of listening to
                              people like you and Walter bitch endlessly, and the anguish of
                              listening to me reply in kind.

                              > Would n't it be be nicer if you could dominate by intellect
                              > and quick-wittedness? But that is why the bully is always
                              > pitiful.

                              Pot-to-kettle alert.

                              Anyhow, if it is your mission (and Walter's mission) to rescue the list
                              from the likes of me, perhaps you should take it up with the moderator
                              - again, and spare everyone else.

                              -ds
                            • David Reed
                              You re seriously suggesting that you wrote to Britton and suggested moderating/censoring people who had upset you(nobody else is mentioned) and Britton said
                              Message 14 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                You're seriously suggesting that you wrote to Britton and suggested moderating/censoring people who had upset you(nobody else is mentioned) and Britton said get in there and sort them out?For God's sake! And was he aware that you were boasting to Dave Wetzel about bouncing people off sites and that sites which you  moderated barred socialists?This is pretty bad.But you really can't see it can you? Alongside your intellectual thuggery there is strain of sheer naivety.   


                                To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                From: pimann@...
                                Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:01:25 -0500
                                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Reed to the rescue?

                                On 24 Dec 2008 at 19:53, David Reed wrote:

                                > I cannot remember what the business with Eric Britton was
                                > all about: I think I was complaining about something he'd said
                                > about downplaying Henry George and getting up to speed with
                                > the Austrians. Which seemed out of order. I did complain
                                > about you calling Mark Monson's contributions "Monson's
                                > poisonous screeds" which Britton decided did not deserve a red
                                > card: trouble is he did n't show you a yellow card either.
                                > Britton at one stage stopped all my contributions, claiming
                                > to have accidentally put them in the junk file. I made the
                                > same complaints as I make now.

                                As a factual matter, Eric's letter was sent to you well *before*
                                comments about Monson's poisonous screed. (It was a harsh opinion
                                piece that, in my opinion, misrepresented Shearman. I noted that
                                Shearman's first-hand statements were online, for anyone who cared.)

                                Eric's letter to you came four days *after* this post to the list:

                                ***

                                Dan Sullivan, who is also justifiably upset about all this
                                and a far more reasonable person that I, has kindly written
                                me and made the following good suggestion: "Putting
                                individual members on moderated status is effective and less
                                heavy-handed. You could appoint some assistant moderators if
                                you don't want to deal with the task of previewing posts."

                                To whit my reply which I share with you all:

                                Thanks Dan. I want to be exactly heavy handed. I run
                                something like about twenty of these groups and this one is
                                the randiest and at the end of the day saddest. Perhaps
                                because they feel themselves so effectively disenfranchised.
                                But it's their fault. Apparently they just don't get it. And
                                that's too bad, because the things we are discussing are
                                absolutely critical for the necessary restructuring of our
                                society. They often remind me of, who was it, Oscar Wilde
                                who said about the English gentry and fox hunting. "The
                                unspeakable pursing the inedible."

                                I think they need to be shaken up. Too comfortable with all
                                that chatting and small minded one-upmanship. What was the
                                great point that one of our number in another group said
                                only yesterday "Internecine conflict just lets the real bad
                                guys win"? Moderating is OK and I do a bit of that but it's
                                hard to retain patience, never mind interest when things fly
                                so far afield.

                                My thought at this point is either (a) enter into a new era
                                of creative interaction and or (b) close it down next week.
                                There is no (c).

                                I welcome discussion and suggestions.

                                Eric Britton

                                > But now you have come clean as a bully who tries to clean out
                                > sites like this by abuse, foul language and mindless copying;
                                > sites you moderate by partiality and abuse of power.

                                Well, Eric was complaining that my approach was not heavy handed
                                enough, so go figure. Actually, my site has mechanisms that prevent
                                partiality on my part - mechanisms that nobody has ever actually used.
                                Anyone disputes my moderating decisions (or lack thereof) can take
                                the matter to a panel of other list members who had not taken sides on
                                the matter. That way the larger list is spared the anguish of listening to
                                people like you and Walter bitch endlessly, and the anguish of
                                listening to me reply in kind.

                                > Would n't it be be nicer if you could dominate by intellect
                                > and quick-wittedness? But that is why the bully is always
                                > pitiful.

                                Pot-to-kettle alert.

                                Anyhow, if it is your mission (and Walter's mission) to rescue the list
                                from the likes of me, perhaps you should take it up with the moderator
                                - again, and spare everyone else.

                                -ds



                                Get Windows Live Messenger on your Mobile. Click Here!
                              • Mark Monson
                                everybody has more important things to do than waste time and bandwidth on hear, hear!
                                Message 15 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  everybody has more important things to do than waste time and bandwidth
                                  on "hear, hear!"
                                • Dan Sullivan
                                  ... No. There was a great deal of on-list debate about the rancorous nature of the list. ... Huh? ... No. The people I moderated on my list were not
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 24 Dec 2008 at 21:19, David Reed wrote:

                                    >
                                    > You're seriously suggesting that you wrote to Britton and
                                    > suggested moderating/censoring people who had upset
                                    > you (nobody else is mentioned)

                                    No. There was a great deal of on-list debate about the rancorous
                                    nature of the list.

                                    > and Britton said get in there and sort them out?

                                    Huh?

                                    > For God's sake! And was he aware that you were boasting to
                                    > Dave Wetzel about bouncing people off sites and that sites
                                    > which you moderated barred socialists?

                                    No. The people I moderated on my list were not socialists,
                                    particularly. Most of them were right-wing. They were moderated for
                                    their behavior, not their political views. I would never think of
                                    moderating Dave Wetzel, for example.

                                    > This is pretty bad.

                                    Well, it's a pretty bad misrepresentation of what was said, but that's
                                    nothing new.

                                    > But you really can't see it can you? Alongside your
                                    > intellectual thuggery there is strain of sheer naivety.

                                    Pot-to-kettle alert.

                                    -ds
                                  • Mark Monson
                                    ... You know, at this time of year, with all the shopping and going to social gatherings I was getting sick of the whole thing. But then I saw Dan s post and
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dan Sullivan wrote:


                                      >
                                      > "A few years ago, we had some right-wingers who joined land-theory
                                      > and tried to piss all over us for being socialists. It wasn't long
                                      > before I
                                      > just bounced them off the list. Today, I don't have to bounce them off,
                                      > because I can just moderate the list. Much of what Rooney and
                                      > Monson write on my list never sees the light of day, so we can focus
                                      > on positive actions more.
                                      >
                                      > "Monson even asked me if I had been funded by a libertarian
                                      > think tank. I hadn't, but I just told him to f--k off. Now I
                                      > see that he is the type to fish for something he can attack
                                      > with. How do you lefties get anything done with people like
                                      > that in your ranks?"
                                      >
                                      You know, at this time of year, with all the shopping and going to
                                      social gatherings I was getting sick of the whole thing. But then I saw
                                      Dan's post and started laughing. Every time I think about it I'm again
                                      laughing. It's a wonderful life.

                                      Merry Solstice, everybody.

                                      Mark Monson

                                      Merry So
                                    • Walter Horn
                                      ... list ... moderator ... My immediate mission is merely that there be an ignore function as there is on many bulletin boards so that I wouldn t be tempted
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Dec 24, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:
                                        >

                                        > Anyhow, if it is your mission (and Walter's mission) to rescue the
                                        list
                                        > from the likes of me, perhaps you should take it up with the
                                        moderator
                                        > - again, and spare everyone else.
                                        >
                                        > -ds
                                        >

                                        My immediate mission is merely that there be an "ignore" function as
                                        there is on many bulletin boards so that I wouldn't be tempted to read
                                        your self-serving baloney.


                                        W
                                      • Walter Horn
                                        In San Francisco, the other day, A well-dressed boy, on his way to Sunday-school, was arrested and thrown into the city prison for stoning Chinamen. What a
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jan 4, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          In San Francisco, the other day, "A well-dressed boy, on his way to
                                          Sunday-school, was arrested and thrown into the city prison for
                                          stoning Chinamen."

                                          What a commentary is this upon human justice! What sad prominence it
                                          gives to our human disposition to tyrannize over the weak! San
                                          Francisco has little right to take credit to herself for her treatment
                                          of this poor boy. What had the child's education been? How should he
                                          suppose it was wrong to stone a Chinaman? Before we side against him,
                                          along with outraged San Francisco, let us give him a chance--let us
                                          hear the testimony for the defense.

                                          He was a "well-dressed" boy, and a Sunday-school scholar, and
                                          therefore the chances are that his parents were intelligent,
                                          well-to-do people, with just enough natural villainy in their
                                          composition to make them yearn after the daily papers, and enjoy them;
                                          and so this boy had opportunities to learn all through the week how to
                                          do right, as well as on Sunday.

                                          It was in this way that he found out that the great commonwealth of
                                          California imposes an unlawful mining-tax upon John the foreigner, and
                                          allows Patrick the foreigner to dig gold for nothing--probably because
                                          the degraded Mongol is at no expense for whisky, and the refined Celt
                                          cannot exist without it.

                                          It was in this way that he found out that a respectable number of the
                                          tax-gatherers--it would be unkind to say all of them--collect the tax
                                          twice, instead of once; and that, inasmuch as they do it solely to
                                          discourage Chinese immigration into the mines, it is a thing that is
                                          much applauded, and likewise regarded as being singularly facetious.

                                          It was in this way that he found out that when a white man robs a
                                          sluice- box (by the term white man is meant Spaniards, Mexicans,
                                          Portuguese, Irish, Hondurans, Peruvians, Chileans, etc., etc.), they
                                          make him leave the camp; and when a Chinaman does that thing, they
                                          hang him.

                                          It was in this way that he found out that in many districts of the
                                          vast Pacific coast, so strong is the wild, free love of justice in the
                                          hearts of the people, that whenever any secret and mysterious crime is
                                          committed, they say, "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall,"
                                          and go straightway and swing a Chinaman.

                                          It was in this way that he found out that by studying one half of each
                                          day's "local items," it would appear that the police of San Francisco
                                          were either asleep or dead, and by studying the other half it would
                                          seem that the reporters were gone mad with admiration of the energy,
                                          the virtue, the high effectiveness, and the dare-devil intrepidity of
                                          that very police-making exultant mention of how "the Argus-eyed
                                          officer So- and-so" captured a wretched knave of a Chinaman who was
                                          stealing chickens, and brought him gloriously to the city prison; and
                                          how "the gallant officer Such-and-such-a-one" quietly kept an eye on
                                          the movements of an "unsuspecting, almond-eyed son of Confucius" (your
                                          reporter is nothing if not facetious), following him around with that
                                          far-off look. of vacancy and unconsciousness always so finely affected
                                          by that inscrutable being, the forty-dollar policeman, during a waking
                                          interval, and captured him at last in the very act of placing his
                                          hands in a suspicious manner upon a paper of tacks, left by the owner
                                          in an exposed situation; and how one officer performed this prodigious
                                          thing, and another officer that, and another the other--and pretty
                                          much every one of these performances having for a dazzling central
                                          incident a Chinaman guilty of a shilling's worth of crime, an
                                          unfortunate, whose misdemeanor must be hurrahed into something
                                          enormous in order to keep the public from noticing how many really
                                          important rascals went uncaptured in the mean time, and how overrated
                                          those glorified policemen actually are.

                                          It was in this way that the boy found out that the legislature, being
                                          aware that the Constitution has made America, an asylum for the poor
                                          and the oppressed of all nations, and that, therefore, the poor and
                                          oppressed who fly to our shelter must not be charged a disabling
                                          admission fee, made a law that every Chinaman, upon landing, must be
                                          vaccinated upon the wharf, and pay to the state's appointed officer
                                          ten dollars for the service, when there are plenty of doctors in San
                                          Francisco who would be glad enough to do it for him for fifty cents.

                                          It was in this way that the boy found out that a Chinaman had no
                                          rights that any man was bound to respect; that he had no sorrows that
                                          any man was bound to pity; that neither his life nor his liberty was
                                          worth the purchase of a penny when a white man needed a scapegoat;
                                          that nobody loved Chinamen, nobody befriended them, nobody spared them
                                          suffering when it was convenient to inflict it; everybody,
                                          individuals, communities, the majesty of the state itself, joined in
                                          hating, abusing, and persecuting these humble strangers.

                                          And, therefore, what could have been more natural than for this sunny-
                                          hearted-boy, tripping along to Sunday-school, with his mind teeming
                                          with freshly learned incentives to high and virtuous action, to say to
                                          himself:

                                          "Ah, there goes a Chinaman! God will not love me if I do not stone him."

                                          And for this he was arrested and put in the city jail.

                                          Everything conspired to teach him that it was a high and holy thing to
                                          stone a Chinaman, and yet he no sooner attempts to do his duty than he
                                          is punished for it--he, poor chap, who has been aware all his life
                                          that one of the principal recreations of the police, out toward the
                                          Gold Refinery, is to look on with tranquil enjoyment while the
                                          butchers of Brannan Street set their dogs on unoffending Chinamen, and
                                          make them flee for their lives.

                                          --[I have many such memories in my mind, but am thinking just at
                                          present of one particular one, where the Brannan Street butchers set
                                          their dogs on a Chinaman who was quietly passing with a basket of
                                          clothes on his head; and while the dogs mutilated his flesh, a butcher
                                          increased the hilarity of the occasion by knocking some of the
                                          Chinaman's teeth down his throat with half a brick. This incident
                                          sticks in my memory with a more malevolent tenacity, perhaps, on
                                          account of the fact that I was in the employ of a San Francisco
                                          journal at the time, and was not allowed to publish it because it
                                          might offend some of the peculiar element that subscribed for the paper.]

                                          Keeping in mind the tuition in the humanities which the entire
                                          "Pacific coast" gives its youth, there is a very sublimity of
                                          incongruity in the virtuous flourish with which the good city fathers
                                          of San Francisco proclaim (as they have lately done) that "The police
                                          are positively ordered to arrest all boys, of every description and
                                          wherever found, who engage in assaulting Chinamen."

                                          Still, let us be truly glad they have made the order, notwithstanding
                                          its inconsistency; and let us rest perfectly confident the police are
                                          glad, too. Because there is no personal peril in arresting boys,
                                          provided they be of the small kind, and the reporters will have to
                                          laud their performances just as loyally as ever, or go without items.

                                          The new form for local items in San Francisco will now be: "The ever-
                                          vigilant and efficient officer So-and-so succeeded, yesterday
                                          afternoon, in arresting Master Tommy Jones, after a determined
                                          resistance," etc., etc., followed by the customary statistics and
                                          final hurrah, with its unconscious sarcasm: "We are happy in being
                                          able to state that this is the forty-seventh boy arrested by this
                                          gallant officer since the new ordinance went into effect. The most
                                          extraordinary activity prevails in the police department. Nothing like
                                          it has been seen since we can remember."

                                          -THE END-
                                        • Dan Sullivan
                                          I have long had impressions of this story for, as most Georgists who attend the American conventions know, I have long been a Twain scholar. However, before I
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jan 4, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I have long had impressions of this story for, as most Georgists who
                                            attend the American conventions know, I have long been a Twain
                                            scholar. However, before I comment on its applicability to this list, I
                                            would like to know what Walter's point was in posting it.

                                            -ds

                                            On 4 Jan 2009 at 12:47, Walter Horn wrote:

                                            > In San Francisco, the other day, "A well-dressed boy, on his way to
                                            > Sunday-school, was arrested and thrown into the city prison for
                                            > stoning Chinamen."
                                            >
                                            > What a commentary is this upon human justice! What sad prominence it
                                            > gives to our human disposition to tyrannize over the weak! San
                                            > Francisco has little right to take credit to herself for her treatment
                                            > of this poor boy. What had the child's education been? How should he
                                            > suppose it was wrong to stone a Chinaman? Before we side against him,
                                            > along with outraged San Francisco, let us give him a chance--let us
                                            > hear the testimony for the defense.
                                            >
                                            > He was a "well-dressed" boy, and a Sunday-school scholar, and
                                            > therefore the chances are that his parents were intelligent,
                                            > well-to-do people, with just enough natural villainy in their
                                            > composition to make them yearn after the daily papers, and enjoy them;
                                            > and so this boy had opportunities to learn all through the week how to
                                            > do right, as well as on Sunday.
                                            >
                                            > It was in this way that he found out that the great commonwealth of
                                            > California imposes an unlawful mining-tax upon John the foreigner, and
                                            > allows Patrick the foreigner to dig gold for nothing--probably because
                                            > the degraded Mongol is at no expense for whisky, and the refined Celt
                                            > cannot exist without it.
                                            >
                                            > It was in this way that he found out that a respectable number of the
                                            > tax-gatherers--it would be unkind to say all of them--collect the tax
                                            > twice, instead of once; and that, inasmuch as they do it solely to
                                            > discourage Chinese immigration into the mines, it is a thing that is
                                            > much applauded, and likewise regarded as being singularly facetious.
                                            >
                                            > It was in this way that he found out that when a white man robs a
                                            > sluice- box (by the term white man is meant Spaniards, Mexicans,
                                            > Portuguese, Irish, Hondurans, Peruvians, Chileans, etc., etc.), they
                                            > make him leave the camp; and when a Chinaman does that thing, they
                                            > hang him.
                                            >
                                            > It was in this way that he found out that in many districts of the
                                            > vast Pacific coast, so strong is the wild, free love of justice in the
                                            > hearts of the people, that whenever any secret and mysterious crime is
                                            > committed, they say, "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall,"
                                            > and go straightway and swing a Chinaman.
                                            >
                                            > It was in this way that he found out that by studying one half of each
                                            > day's "local items," it would appear that the police of San Francisco
                                            > were either asleep or dead, and by studying the other half it would
                                            > seem that the reporters were gone mad with admiration of the energy,
                                            > the virtue, the high effectiveness, and the dare-devil intrepidity of
                                            > that very police-making exultant mention of how "the Argus-eyed
                                            > officer So- and-so" captured a wretched knave of a Chinaman who was
                                            > stealing chickens, and brought him gloriously to the city prison; and
                                            > how "the gallant officer Such-and-such-a-one" quietly kept an eye on
                                            > the movements of an "unsuspecting, almond-eyed son of Confucius" (your
                                            > reporter is nothing if not facetious), following him around with that
                                            > far-off look. of vacancy and unconsciousness always so finely affected
                                            > by that inscrutable being, the forty-dollar policeman, during a waking
                                            > interval, and captured him at last in the very act of placing his
                                            > hands in a suspicious manner upon a paper of tacks, left by the owner
                                            > in an exposed situation; and how one officer performed this prodigious
                                            > thing, and another officer that, and another the other--and pretty
                                            > much every one of these performances having for a dazzling central
                                            > incident a Chinaman guilty of a shilling's worth of crime, an
                                            > unfortunate, whose misdemeanor must be hurrahed into something
                                            > enormous in order to keep the public from noticing how many really
                                            > important rascals went uncaptured in the mean time, and how overrated
                                            > those glorified policemen actually are.
                                            >
                                            > It was in this way that the boy found out that the legislature, being
                                            > aware that the Constitution has made America, an asylum for the poor
                                            > and the oppressed of all nations, and that, therefore, the poor and
                                            > oppressed who fly to our shelter must not be charged a disabling
                                            > admission fee, made a law that every Chinaman, upon landing, must be
                                            > vaccinated upon the wharf, and pay to the state's appointed officer
                                            > ten dollars for the service, when there are plenty of doctors in San
                                            > Francisco who would be glad enough to do it for him for fifty cents.
                                            >
                                            > It was in this way that the boy found out that a Chinaman had no
                                            > rights that any man was bound to respect; that he had no sorrows that
                                            > any man was bound to pity; that neither his life nor his liberty was
                                            > worth the purchase of a penny when a white man needed a scapegoat;
                                            > that nobody loved Chinamen, nobody befriended them, nobody spared them
                                            > suffering when it was convenient to inflict it; everybody,
                                            > individuals, communities, the majesty of the state itself, joined in
                                            > hating, abusing, and persecuting these humble strangers.
                                            >
                                            > And, therefore, what could have been more natural than for this sunny-
                                            > hearted-boy, tripping along to Sunday-school, with his mind teeming
                                            > with freshly learned incentives to high and virtuous action, to say to
                                            > himself:
                                            >
                                            > "Ah, there goes a Chinaman! God will not love me if I do not stone him."
                                            >
                                            > And for this he was arrested and put in the city jail.
                                            >
                                            > Everything conspired to teach him that it was a high and holy thing to
                                            > stone a Chinaman, and yet he no sooner attempts to do his duty than he
                                            > is punished for it--he, poor chap, who has been aware all his life
                                            > that one of the principal recreations of the police, out toward the
                                            > Gold Refinery, is to look on with tranquil enjoyment while the
                                            > butchers of Brannan Street set their dogs on unoffending Chinamen, and
                                            > make them flee for their lives.
                                            >
                                            > --[I have many such memories in my mind, but am thinking just at
                                            > present of one particular one, where the Brannan Street butchers set
                                            > their dogs on a Chinaman who was quietly passing with a basket of
                                            > clothes on his head; and while the dogs mutilated his flesh, a butcher
                                            > increased the hilarity of the occasion by knocking some of the
                                            > Chinaman's teeth down his throat with half a brick. This incident
                                            > sticks in my memory with a more malevolent tenacity, perhaps, on
                                            > account of the fact that I was in the employ of a San Francisco
                                            > journal at the time, and was not allowed to publish it because it
                                            > might offend some of the peculiar element that subscribed for the paper.]
                                            >
                                            > Keeping in mind the tuition in the humanities which the entire
                                            > "Pacific coast" gives its youth, there is a very sublimity of
                                            > incongruity in the virtuous flourish with which the good city fathers
                                            > of San Francisco proclaim (as they have lately done) that "The police
                                            > are positively ordered to arrest all boys, of every description and
                                            > wherever found, who engage in assaulting Chinamen."
                                            >
                                            > Still, let us be truly glad they have made the order, notwithstanding
                                            > its inconsistency; and let us rest perfectly confident the police are
                                            > glad, too. Because there is no personal peril in arresting boys,
                                            > provided they be of the small kind, and the reporters will have to
                                            > laud their performances just as loyally as ever, or go without items.
                                            >
                                            > The new form for local items in San Francisco will now be: "The ever-
                                            > vigilant and efficient officer So-and-so succeeded, yesterday
                                            > afternoon, in arresting Master Tommy Jones, after a determined
                                            > resistance," etc., etc., followed by the customary statistics and
                                            > final hurrah, with its unconscious sarcasm: "We are happy in being
                                            > able to state that this is the forty-seventh boy arrested by this
                                            > gallant officer since the new ordinance went into effect. The most
                                            > extraordinary activity prevails in the police department. Nothing like
                                            > it has been seen since we can remember."
                                            >
                                            > -THE END-
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------------
                                            >
                                            > To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                                            > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                                            > To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • Walter Horn
                                            I saw it for the first time last week in a collection at my in-laws (I m not a Twain scholar) and remembered that Twain s views of Chinese immigrants had been
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jan 4, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I saw it for the first time last week in a collection at my in-laws
                                              (I'm not a Twain scholar) and remembered that Twain's views of Chinese
                                              immigrants had been discussed here.

                                              W

                                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > I have long had impressions of this story for, as most Georgists who
                                              > attend the American conventions know, I have long been a Twain
                                              > scholar. However, before I comment on its applicability to this list, I
                                              > would like to know what Walter's point was in posting it.
                                              >
                                              > -ds
                                              >
                                              > On 4 Jan 2009 at 12:47, Walter Horn wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > In San Francisco, the other day, "A well-dressed boy, on his way to
                                              > > Sunday-school, was arrested and thrown into the city prison for
                                              > > stoning Chinamen."
                                              > >
                                              > > What a commentary is this upon human justice! What sad prominence it
                                              > > gives to our human disposition to tyrannize over the weak! San
                                              > > Francisco has little right to take credit to herself for her treatment
                                              > > of this poor boy. What had the child's education been? How should he
                                              > > suppose it was wrong to stone a Chinaman? Before we side against him,
                                              > > along with outraged San Francisco, let us give him a chance--let us
                                              > > hear the testimony for the defense.
                                              > >
                                              > > He was a "well-dressed" boy, and a Sunday-school scholar, and
                                              > > therefore the chances are that his parents were intelligent,
                                              > > well-to-do people, with just enough natural villainy in their
                                              > > composition to make them yearn after the daily papers, and enjoy them;
                                              > > and so this boy had opportunities to learn all through the week how to
                                              > > do right, as well as on Sunday.
                                              > >
                                              > > It was in this way that he found out that the great commonwealth of
                                              > > California imposes an unlawful mining-tax upon John the foreigner, and
                                              > > allows Patrick the foreigner to dig gold for nothing--probably because
                                              > > the degraded Mongol is at no expense for whisky, and the refined Celt
                                              > > cannot exist without it.
                                              > >
                                              > > It was in this way that he found out that a respectable number of the
                                              > > tax-gatherers--it would be unkind to say all of them--collect the tax
                                              > > twice, instead of once; and that, inasmuch as they do it solely to
                                              > > discourage Chinese immigration into the mines, it is a thing that is
                                              > > much applauded, and likewise regarded as being singularly facetious.
                                              > >
                                              > > It was in this way that he found out that when a white man robs a
                                              > > sluice- box (by the term white man is meant Spaniards, Mexicans,
                                              > > Portuguese, Irish, Hondurans, Peruvians, Chileans, etc., etc.), they
                                              > > make him leave the camp; and when a Chinaman does that thing, they
                                              > > hang him.
                                              > >
                                              > > It was in this way that he found out that in many districts of the
                                              > > vast Pacific coast, so strong is the wild, free love of justice in the
                                              > > hearts of the people, that whenever any secret and mysterious crime is
                                              > > committed, they say, "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall,"
                                              > > and go straightway and swing a Chinaman.
                                              > >
                                              > > It was in this way that he found out that by studying one half of each
                                              > > day's "local items," it would appear that the police of San Francisco
                                              > > were either asleep or dead, and by studying the other half it would
                                              > > seem that the reporters were gone mad with admiration of the energy,
                                              > > the virtue, the high effectiveness, and the dare-devil intrepidity of
                                              > > that very police-making exultant mention of how "the Argus-eyed
                                              > > officer So- and-so" captured a wretched knave of a Chinaman who was
                                              > > stealing chickens, and brought him gloriously to the city prison; and
                                              > > how "the gallant officer Such-and-such-a-one" quietly kept an eye on
                                              > > the movements of an "unsuspecting, almond-eyed son of Confucius" (your
                                              > > reporter is nothing if not facetious), following him around with that
                                              > > far-off look. of vacancy and unconsciousness always so finely affected
                                              > > by that inscrutable being, the forty-dollar policeman, during a waking
                                              > > interval, and captured him at last in the very act of placing his
                                              > > hands in a suspicious manner upon a paper of tacks, left by the owner
                                              > > in an exposed situation; and how one officer performed this prodigious
                                              > > thing, and another officer that, and another the other--and pretty
                                              > > much every one of these performances having for a dazzling central
                                              > > incident a Chinaman guilty of a shilling's worth of crime, an
                                              > > unfortunate, whose misdemeanor must be hurrahed into something
                                              > > enormous in order to keep the public from noticing how many really
                                              > > important rascals went uncaptured in the mean time, and how overrated
                                              > > those glorified policemen actually are.
                                              > >
                                              > > It was in this way that the boy found out that the legislature, being
                                              > > aware that the Constitution has made America, an asylum for the poor
                                              > > and the oppressed of all nations, and that, therefore, the poor and
                                              > > oppressed who fly to our shelter must not be charged a disabling
                                              > > admission fee, made a law that every Chinaman, upon landing, must be
                                              > > vaccinated upon the wharf, and pay to the state's appointed officer
                                              > > ten dollars for the service, when there are plenty of doctors in San
                                              > > Francisco who would be glad enough to do it for him for fifty cents.
                                              > >
                                              > > It was in this way that the boy found out that a Chinaman had no
                                              > > rights that any man was bound to respect; that he had no sorrows that
                                              > > any man was bound to pity; that neither his life nor his liberty was
                                              > > worth the purchase of a penny when a white man needed a scapegoat;
                                              > > that nobody loved Chinamen, nobody befriended them, nobody spared them
                                              > > suffering when it was convenient to inflict it; everybody,
                                              > > individuals, communities, the majesty of the state itself, joined in
                                              > > hating, abusing, and persecuting these humble strangers.
                                              > >
                                              > > And, therefore, what could have been more natural than for this sunny-
                                              > > hearted-boy, tripping along to Sunday-school, with his mind teeming
                                              > > with freshly learned incentives to high and virtuous action, to say to
                                              > > himself:
                                              > >
                                              > > "Ah, there goes a Chinaman! God will not love me if I do not stone
                                              him."
                                              > >
                                              > > And for this he was arrested and put in the city jail.
                                              > >
                                              > > Everything conspired to teach him that it was a high and holy thing to
                                              > > stone a Chinaman, and yet he no sooner attempts to do his duty than he
                                              > > is punished for it--he, poor chap, who has been aware all his life
                                              > > that one of the principal recreations of the police, out toward the
                                              > > Gold Refinery, is to look on with tranquil enjoyment while the
                                              > > butchers of Brannan Street set their dogs on unoffending Chinamen, and
                                              > > make them flee for their lives.
                                              > >
                                              > > --[I have many such memories in my mind, but am thinking just at
                                              > > present of one particular one, where the Brannan Street butchers set
                                              > > their dogs on a Chinaman who was quietly passing with a basket of
                                              > > clothes on his head; and while the dogs mutilated his flesh, a butcher
                                              > > increased the hilarity of the occasion by knocking some of the
                                              > > Chinaman's teeth down his throat with half a brick. This incident
                                              > > sticks in my memory with a more malevolent tenacity, perhaps, on
                                              > > account of the fact that I was in the employ of a San Francisco
                                              > > journal at the time, and was not allowed to publish it because it
                                              > > might offend some of the peculiar element that subscribed for the
                                              paper.]
                                              > >
                                              > > Keeping in mind the tuition in the humanities which the entire
                                              > > "Pacific coast" gives its youth, there is a very sublimity of
                                              > > incongruity in the virtuous flourish with which the good city fathers
                                              > > of San Francisco proclaim (as they have lately done) that "The police
                                              > > are positively ordered to arrest all boys, of every description and
                                              > > wherever found, who engage in assaulting Chinamen."
                                              > >
                                              > > Still, let us be truly glad they have made the order, notwithstanding
                                              > > its inconsistency; and let us rest perfectly confident the police are
                                              > > glad, too. Because there is no personal peril in arresting boys,
                                              > > provided they be of the small kind, and the reporters will have to
                                              > > laud their performances just as loyally as ever, or go without items.
                                              > >
                                              > > The new form for local items in San Francisco will now be: "The ever-
                                              > > vigilant and efficient officer So-and-so succeeded, yesterday
                                              > > afternoon, in arresting Master Tommy Jones, after a determined
                                              > > resistance," etc., etc., followed by the customary statistics and
                                              > > final hurrah, with its unconscious sarcasm: "We are happy in being
                                              > > able to state that this is the forty-seventh boy arrested by this
                                              > > gallant officer since the new ordinance went into effect. The most
                                              > > extraordinary activity prevails in the police department. Nothing like
                                              > > it has been seen since we can remember."
                                              > >
                                              > > -THE END-
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > ------------------------------------
                                              > >
                                              > > To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                              > > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                                              > > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                                              > > To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                            • Dan Sullivan
                                              ... But how is this posting pertinent to the purposes of this list? It seems to me that the earlier discussion of Twain s views were tangential to an attack on
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Jan 4, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On 4 Jan 2009 at 13:16, Walter Horn wrote:

                                                > I saw it for the first time last week in a collection at my
                                                > in-laws (I'm not a Twain scholar) and remembered that Twain's
                                                > views of Chinese immigrants had been discussed here.

                                                But how is this posting pertinent to the purposes of this list?

                                                It seems to me that the earlier discussion of Twain's views were
                                                tangential to an attack on Powderly's views about Chinese
                                                immigration, which was tangential to an attack on Powderly for
                                                condemning violence and violent anarchists, which was tangential to
                                                the question of whether such anarchists and socialists (and others)
                                                who are prone to attack-mode are suitable as allies. I suppose the
                                                ugliness and distatefulness of the thread itself makes the case that they
                                                are not suitable.

                                                In any case, as the Twain discussion seems to be a tangent of a tangent
                                                of a tangent of a tangent, held together only by the common thread of
                                                attack. It strikes me that Twain's views on the treatment of the
                                                Chinese are not a pertinent discussion point in their own right, but
                                                only as they bear, in a most miserably indirect way, on questions that
                                                wend their way back to list purposes.

                                                -ds
                                              • Walter Horn
                                                ... to ... others) ... that they ... tangent ... of ... but ... that ... I thought it was interesting, well-written, and certainly relates to a discussion that
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Jan 4, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > On 4 Jan 2009 at 13:16, Walter Horn wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > > I saw it for the first time last week in a collection at my
                                                  > > in-laws (I'm not a Twain scholar) and remembered that Twain's
                                                  > > views of Chinese immigrants had been discussed here.
                                                  >
                                                  > But how is this posting pertinent to the purposes of this list?
                                                  >
                                                  > It seems to me that the earlier discussion of Twain's views were
                                                  > tangential to an attack on Powderly's views about Chinese
                                                  > immigration, which was tangential to an attack on Powderly for
                                                  > condemning violence and violent anarchists, which was tangential
                                                  to
                                                  > the question of whether such anarchists and socialists (and
                                                  others)
                                                  > who are prone to attack-mode are suitable as allies. I suppose the
                                                  > ugliness and distatefulness of the thread itself makes the case
                                                  that they
                                                  > are not suitable.
                                                  >
                                                  > In any case, as the Twain discussion seems to be a tangent of a
                                                  tangent
                                                  > of a tangent of a tangent, held together only by the common thread
                                                  of
                                                  > attack. It strikes me that Twain's views on the treatment of the
                                                  > Chinese are not a pertinent discussion point in their own right,
                                                  but
                                                  > only as they bear, in a most miserably indirect way, on questions
                                                  that
                                                  > wend their way back to list purposes.
                                                  >
                                                  > -ds
                                                  >

                                                  I thought it was interesting, well-written, and certainly relates to
                                                  a discussion that took place here recently. I don't have settled
                                                  opinions about whether this or that post is more or less "relevant
                                                  to the purpose of this list" than, say, a new year's greeting. If
                                                  you aren't interested in it and don't want to respond that's
                                                  certainly ok with me. Others may enjoy it.

                                                  If this ends up being another long, ugly, distasteful thread, I'm
                                                  guessing readers will be able to determine whether that is mostly a
                                                  function of the content of Twain's remarks, my posting them here, or
                                                  something else.

                                                  W
                                                • Mark Monson
                                                  ... Thanks for the laugh, Walter. I hadn t seen this before. Many people view Twain as some kind of apolitical hayseed humorist. I m always eager to read
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Jan 4, 2009
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Walter Horn wrote:

                                                    > In San Francisco, the other day, "A well-dressed boy, on his way to
                                                    > Sunday-school, was arrested and thrown into the city prison for
                                                    > stoning Chinamen."
                                                    >
                                                    Thanks for the laugh, Walter.

                                                    I hadn't seen this before. Many people view Twain as some kind of
                                                    apolitical hayseed humorist. I'm always eager to read anything by Twain
                                                    that strikes at social injustice and hypocrisy in high places.

                                                    Mark Monson

                                                    Here's another one:


                                                    The War Prayer


                                                    by Mark Twain

                                                    It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in
                                                    arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of
                                                    patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols
                                                    popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand
                                                    and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a
                                                    fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young
                                                    volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new
                                                    uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts
                                                    cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by;
                                                    nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory
                                                    which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they
                                                    interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears
                                                    running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors
                                                    preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles
                                                    beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence
                                                    which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and
                                                    the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and
                                                    cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and
                                                    angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank
                                                    out of sight and offended no more in that way.

                                                    Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the
                                                    front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young
                                                    faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern advance, the
                                                    gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight
                                                    of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the
                                                    surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored,
                                                    submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear
                                                    ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no
                                                    sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for
                                                    the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service
                                                    proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first
                                                    prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the
                                                    building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and
                                                    beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

                                                    *God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and
                                                    lightning thy sword!*

                                                    Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for
                                                    passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its
                                                    supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all
                                                    would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and
                                                    encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the
                                                    day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make
                                                    them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to
                                                    crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable
                                                    honor and glory --

                                                    An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the
                                                    main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a
                                                    robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending
                                                    in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale,
                                                    pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he
                                                    made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side
                                                    and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his
                                                    presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with
                                                    the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the
                                                    victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

                                                    The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the
                                                    startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he
                                                    surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an
                                                    uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

                                                    "I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The
                                                    words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave
                                                    no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and
                                                    will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall
                                                    have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For
                                                    it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more
                                                    than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think.

                                                    "God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken
                                                    thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not.
                                                    Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the
                                                    spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would
                                                    beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke
                                                    a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing
                                                    of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly
                                                    praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain
                                                    and can be injured by it.

                                                    "You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am
                                                    commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part
                                                    which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed
                                                    silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You
                                                    heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is
                                                    sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those
                                                    pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed
                                                    for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow
                                                    victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening
                                                    spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth
                                                    me to put it into words. Listen!

                                                    "O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to
                                                    battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth
                                                    from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord
                                                    our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our
                                                    shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of
                                                    their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the
                                                    shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their
                                                    humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of
                                                    their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out
                                                    roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their
                                                    desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames
                                                    of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with
                                                    travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for
                                                    our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives,
                                                    protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their
                                                    way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their
                                                    wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source
                                                    of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are
                                                    sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

                                                    (*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The
                                                    messenger of the Most High waits!"

                                                    It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was
                                                    no sense in what he said.
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.