Re: [luv-talk] Reading the Bible
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
I watched Yes Minister when it was first on air. I haven't watched House of Cards, I'll watch the British original (thanks Rick).
Yr. very welcome. The best part is Ian Richardson's performance. His Uruquart has had enough of being taken for granted, used as a reliable enforcer but never allowed his just reward by (Tory) party leaders, and he decides to get revenge by systematically conniving his way to the top seat no matter how many lives must be destroyed, getting there. Uruquart frequently breaks the fourth wall and confides to us, the unseen audience as he does this. Also, the black humour of how the Tories, now in power, blithely ignore societal problems they find inconvenient, is done wittily. But, at the time of its release, the first run of episodes benefited from insanely lucky timing (through dumb luck): Episode one aired the very day that The Iron Lady, Ms. Thatcher, was suddenly ousted, ending the UK's longest Prime Ministership, from within her own party -- and, hours later, the character Uruquart is opening his first scene with an ironic comment on the 10 Downing Street upheaval that put his faction into power: 'Nothing lasts forever.' With arched eyebrow. The plotline seemed almost ripped from headlines. It'd reported that all activity around Whitehall stopped when BBC1 aired each new episode.
Having a PM elected by parliament instead of an elected president makes a significant difference to politics. Mark Latham showed himself to be mentally incapable of properly fulfilling the duties of a PM shortly after losing the election. One can only speculate as to how long he might have lasted if Labor had won, but the fact that Labor only needed a no-confidence vote to remove him (as opposed to impeachment which among other things requires admitting culpability at a party level) would have made it much different than the issues with Trump.
Perhaps you can clarify that reference to 'at a party level', as I'm not sure what you mean. Strictly speaking, the process of impeachment (indictment) of government officials in and by the House of Representatives, followed if indictments ensue by trial where all 100 Senators form a jury, is done entirely without reference to political parties, as the latter have no official recognition anywhere in the US Federal framework.. More figuratively speaking, it is of course awkward and unpalatable for leaders of a party in the House to indict fellow party members, particularly the heads of the Executive Branch (Pres. and VP). You might have meant that. The current severely (historically) gerrymandered House is artificially dominated by the GOP, which in turn continue to (apparently) fear Trumplandia voters punishing any failure to cover for The Toddler's transgressions, and so are in effect held hostage to his takeover. It is inconceivable for said lot to charge either The Toddler or his scary mediaeval-minded henchman, Vice-President Mike Pence. However, strong winds of change may blow in from the November mid-term elections. There are multiple signs the House GOP expect a massive Democratic Party wave to throw the out of power and decisively overturn their control despite the gerrymandering advantage. What a House with a strong Democratic majority would do is a wholly different question.
On Monday, 19 March 2018 1:15:23 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Labor only needed a no-confidence vote to remove him (as opposed to impeachment which among other things requires admitting culpability at a party level) would have made it much different than the issues with Trump.
Perhaps you can clarify that reference to 'at a party level', as I'm not sure what you mean.
Strictly speaking, the process of impeachment (indictment) of government officials in and by the House of Representatives, followed if indictments ensue by trial where all 100 Senators form a jury, is done entirely without reference to political parties, as the latter have no official recognition anywhere in the US Federal framework..
More figuratively speaking, it is of course awkward and unpalatable for leaders of a party in the House to indict fellow party members, particularly the heads of the Executive Branch (Pres. and VP). You might have meant that.
Yes. Removing Tony Abbott did not involve admitting that he did anything particularly wrong (specifically no criminal acts etc). It merely meant that most MPs in his party thought that there was someone better able to do the job. If members of Congress were able to vote "we think Paul Ryan is more capable as President" instead of "we think our President is a criminal" then maybe things would be different. Also if Trump was subject to losing his job to Paul Ryan at a simple vote of members of Congress then maybe he would work more closely with them and avoid doing things that might hurt them at the polls. Finally while most Australians think they are voting for a PM, what they don't realise is that there's nothing stopping MPs from voting for someone different immediately upon entering Parliament. For example if a party has 2 factions and the one who had the votes to appoint a leader before the election got fewer seats in the election then the other faction could theoretically immediately launch a leadership spill (but this is the sort of thing you would only wish on the party you dislike). Another possibility is that if a party was a couple of seats short of majority and there were a couple of independants who said "we will form government with you but NEVER with that leader" then that could get a rapid leadership spill. Having a PM from a different party to the Parliamentary majority is something that is as close to impossible as anything can be in politics (parties aren't in the constitution so it's permitted but MPs just aren't going to do it). But having the US President at odds with Congress seems a common occurance after mid-terms. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting russell@coker.com.au (russell@coker.com.au):
Removing Tony Abbott did not involve admitting that he did anything particularly wrong (specifically no criminal acts etc). It merely meant that most MPs in his party thought that there was someone better able to do the job.
Such is one of the strengths of a Westminster-like parliamentary system. (As you may recall, I'm anglo-centric on account of personal history, though not anglophile. So, please forgive my starting assumption that parliamentary systems resemble the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster until proven otherwise; I'll admit it's mental laziness. My thanks to Trent for his mention of the Oz framework's 'washminster' nature, which I look forward to reading about.) By contrast, the USA provisions for removing many Federal officials from office (particularly, Pres., VP, and Federal judges) is complicated. The Constitution specifies that accused must be found guilty by a majority Senate vote of 'high crimes and misdemeanors', a phrase not anywhere defined. Scholarly consensus is this phrase has ultimately a meaning defined only by political will, however. The USA governing framework is very odd and 18th C. experimental, which I've tried to account for to European friends as what happens when a collection of dissident Brits have a mad afflatus to craft a novel government based largely on abstract, unproven ideas from a French philosopher (Montesquieu). Thomas Jefferson openly expected the US 1788 Constitutional framework to last maybe a score of years and then need to be junked and replaced, by demand of the citizenry, perhaps with more bloodshed, so one can say this antique contraption has long outlasted its expected service life already (with help from patches).
If members of Congress were able to vote "we think Paul Ryan is more capable as President" instead of "we think our President is a criminal" then maybe things would be different.
Quibble: If the Senate were to vote _only_ to remove The Toddler, and do nothing else, then (current) Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan would _not_ be next in line for the Presidency but rather Mike 'torquemada' Pence, the VP. Here's a hilarious political fantasy: Impeachment and trial gets delayed until after the November midterm elections. The Senate finds cause to remove _both_ the Pres. and VP. (This assumes the House files indictments aka impeachmens against both, and the Senate presumes to find them convincing.) Let's say for further entertainment value that Hillary Clinton has run in the November midterms for a House of Representatives seat in (say) a New York State Congressional district, and won. Let's say that the Democrats achieve an absolute House majority in November, and then elects as the new Speaker of the House... Hillary Clinton. Guess who then would immediately ascend to the Presidency upon Trump and Pence's removal from office? ;->
Finally while most Australians think they are voting for a PM, what they don't realise is that there's nothing stopping MPs from voting for someone different immediately upon entering Parliament.
This was also true in Westminster, and is how Theresa May replaced David Cameron without a nationwide election -- based just on an intra-Conservative reshuffle. Oz gains many advantage in electoral flexibility from its pioneering use of ranked-choice voting, I vaguely recall. Such methods have been slowly gaining more adoption in more progressive-minded parts of the USA, such as (locally) the City of San Francisco. Adopting it for Federal offices would of course required Constitutional amendments, hence would be very difficult, more's the pity.
But having the US President at odds with Congress seems a common occurance after mid-terms.
It's actually so common that it's expected. Rare is the party in power that doesn't raise a backlash after a few years.
Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Oz gains many advantage in electoral flexibility from its pioneering use of ranked-choice voting, I vaguely recall.
IRV isn't as sexy as FPTP users think. Cool kids use either Condorcet (w/ resolution) or MMP. See the Wikipedia articles for gory details.
On Monday, 19 March 2018 3:41:39 PM AEDT Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
IRV isn't as sexy as FPTP users think. Cool kids use either Condorcet (w/ resolution) or MMP.
With the significant number of Australians who don't realise that we don't have the "wasted vote" issue that FPTP has I don't think Condorcet is viable. Our current system is at the limits of comprehension of many voters. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Monday, 19 March 2018 3:16:43 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
If members of Congress were able to vote "we think Paul Ryan is more capable as President" instead of "we think our President is a criminal" then maybe things would be different.
Quibble: If the Senate were to vote _only_ to remove The Toddler, and do nothing else, then (current) Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan would _not_ be next in line for the Presidency but rather Mike 'torquemada' Pence, the VP.
The common practice in Australian politics is to have the "Deputy PM" be someone who supports the PM but lacks the power to mount a credible challenge. In the case of "The Coalition" (Liberals and Nationals who almost always work together) the PM is Liberal (the larger of the 2 Tory parties) and the Deputy PM is National. I don't expect to see the Deputy PM ever become the PM, especially not from the Tories. In the case of Pence, I doubt that he would be likely to win a Congressional popularity contest, it's possible that he would do worse than Trump. Paul Ryan might not be the most likely, but he seems a much better candidate.
Here's a hilarious political fantasy: Impeachment and trial gets delayed until after the November midterm elections. The Senate finds cause to remove _both_ the Pres. and VP. (This assumes the House files indictments aka impeachmens against both, and the Senate presumes to find them convincing.) Let's say for further entertainment value that Hillary Clinton has run in the November midterms for a House of Representatives seat in (say) a New York State Congressional district, and won. Let's say that the Democrats achieve an absolute House majority in November, and then elects as the new Speaker of the House... Hillary Clinton.
Guess who then would immediately ascend to the Presidency upon Trump and Pence's removal from office? ;->
;) But I'm really doubtful that they could find cause to impeach Pence. He is horrible but doesn't strike me as particularly stupid. I think that the only hope for impeaching him would be to get him to say "I did not have sexual relations with that MAN" under oath. One can only hope that some intern has a stained shirt in a cupboard somewhere.
Oz gains many advantage in electoral flexibility from its pioneering use of ranked-choice voting, I vaguely recall. Such methods have been slowly gaining more adoption in more progressive-minded parts of the USA, such as (locally) the City of San Francisco. Adopting it for Federal offices would of course required Constitutional amendments, hence would be very difficult, more's the pity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_1919 It was having 2 competing Tory parties that caused the adoption of preferential voting. If the sane conservatives were to split from the party of Trump the same thing could happen in the US. But it seems that there has been a slow attrition of sane people from the GOP rather than a hard fork of the party.
But having the US President at odds with Congress seems a common occurance after mid-terms.
It's actually so common that it's expected. Rare is the party in power that doesn't raise a backlash after a few years.
That happens everywhere. But in Australia it either results in the PM and parliamentary majority changing or both of them not changing much. But winning with a smaller than expected majority can lead to a change of PM. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
The common practice in Australian politics is to have the "Deputy PM" be someone who supports the PM but lacks the power to mount a credible challenge. Likewise in Westminster, if memory serves.
In the case of Pence, I doubt that he would be likely to win a Congressional popularity contest, it's possible that he would do worse than Trump. Paul Ryan might not be the most likely, but he seems a much better candidate.
You may already know this, but just to be clear: If the US President dies or is removed from office, whoever is then the Vice-President automatically ascends to the Presidency, irrespective of whether anyone in Congress or elsewhere likes him/her. This is why the oft-disregarded VP office is actually crucial, even given that one of FDR's Vice-Presidents pronounced the office 'not worth spit'. (The noun actually used was reportedly more vulgar.) The VP post is also distinctive for being the only office at the White House whose occupant The Toddler has zero power to fire. ;-> The Constitution (as amended) states a very specific, non-changeable order of succession. If there is no seated VP, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives ascends automatically to the Presidency -- and then it goes down a long and non-negotiatible list that cannot be changed except through yet another Constitutional amendment.
But I'm really doubtful that they could find cause to impeach Pence.
Well, to use the Arabic expression, 'inshallah' (God willing). One of the interesting things about the Mueller Trump-Russia investigation is that he has been quietly using classic FBI techniques to quietly ascend the Federal ladder, and relying on a number of big hammers such as the Federal statute that makes it a felony (with a five-year prison sentence) to lie to any Federal investigator in the performance of investigatory queries, whether under oath or not. He has been using the classic technique of building a solid case against an underling, then _confidentially_ getting that defendent to fully cooperate in all matters in exchange for reduced charges. Then, with the underling wearing a wire and/or revealing all past communications with peers and higher-ups, he pursues another persion slightly higher up the food chain. As it happens, Pence was among other things in full charge of the transition team coordinating the incoming Administration's affairs between the election results and the inauguration, so there is high likelihood that he was _deeply_ involved in the Trump people's unlawful activities at that time, and possibly also afterwards. All it would take for some damning evidence to emerge, and Pence could be ruined. People make the mistake of thinking Mueller isn't making progress because they are unaware that almost all the public fireworks always occur right at the end of the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_1919
Ah, thank you, sir.
On Monday, 19 March 2018 5:06:42 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
The common practice in Australian politics is to have the "Deputy PM" be someone who supports the PM but lacks the power to mount a credible challenge. Likewise in Westminster, if memory serves.
I've heard that the practice in China is similar. It's not an issue of the local political process but of game theory strategy.
In the case of Pence, I doubt that he would be likely to win a Congressional popularity contest, it's possible that he would do worse than Trump. Paul Ryan might not be the most likely, but he seems a much better candidate. You may already know this, but just to be clear: If the US President dies
Oh yes. My point is that if you had Pence as Deputy PM under a system like ours then I don't think he would have much chance at the top job.
cooperate in all matters in exchange for reduced charges. Then, with the underling wearing a wire and/or revealing all past communications with peers and higher-ups, he pursues another persion slightly higher up the food chain. As it happens, Pence was among other things in full charge of the transition team coordinating the incoming Administration's affairs between the election results and the inauguration, so there is high likelihood that he was _deeply_ involved in the Trump people's unlawful activities at that time, and possibly also afterwards. All it would take for some damning evidence to emerge, and Pence could be ruined.
If Mueller gets sufficient evidence on Trump to compell impeachment would he keep working on making a case against Pence or would he just go for Trump?
People make the mistake of thinking Mueller isn't making progress because they are unaware that almost all the public fireworks always occur right at the end of the case.
Yes. Trump wouldn't want to shut him down unless he expected something to happen. ;) -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
On Monday, 19 March 2018 5:06:42 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
The common practice in Australian politics is to have the "Deputy PM" be someone who supports the PM but lacks the power to mount a credible challenge. Likewise in Westminster, if memory serves.
I've heard that the practice in China is similar. It's not an issue of the local political process but of game theory strategy.
In the case of Pence, I doubt that he would be likely to win a Congressional popularity contest, it's possible that he would do worse than Trump. Paul Ryan might not be the most likely, but he seems a much better candidate. You may already know this, but just to be clear: If the US President dies
Oh yes. My point is that if you had Pence as Deputy PM under a system like ours then I don't think he would have much chance at the top job.
cooperate in all matters in exchange for reduced charges. Then, with the underling wearing a wire and/or revealing all past communications with peers and higher-ups, he pursues another persion slightly higher up the food chain. As it happens, Pence was among other things in full charge of the transition team coordinating the incoming Administration's affairs between the election results and the inauguration, so there is high likelihood that he was _deeply_ involved in the Trump people's unlawful activities at that time, and possibly also afterwards. All it would take for some damning evidence to emerge, and Pence could be ruined.
If Mueller gets sufficient evidence on Trump to compell impeachment would he keep working on making a case against Pence or would he just go for Trump?
If he is doing his job as Special Counsel, he will pursue goals dictated _not_ by surrounding politics but rather by evidence and the pursuit of justice that is his charge. As appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, he was charged thus, in order to 'ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election': The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before he House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. section 600.4(a). See: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-M... (Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 600.4(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4 , appears to be the Justice Department administrative regulation establishing the powers and jurisdiction of a Special Counsel, to 'investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted'.) Section (ii) of Mueller's authorisation is powerful and interesting, empowering him to pursue _any_ apparent Federal crimes provided they arise directly from his investigation of Russian interference and coordination between Trump campaign staff / entourage and Russian agents. So, the Special Counsel is by design a sort of implacable Inspector Javert, where he is not supposed to be constrained by political objectives, only concerns of law enforcement. Mueller is a universally respected former prosecutor and veteran FBI Director, as was James B. Comey before him. (Like many, many top FBI people, both men are also Republicans. One of the ironies of the present situation is that political liberals have been heard to be putting their faith in the integrity and independence of the FBI as a national domesic police force, though a decade ago they might have been loadly skeptical on that very point.)
Yes. Trump wouldn't want to shut him down unless he expected something to happen. ;)
The politics of that continues to be twisty indeed. This situation is haunted by the memory of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre firings during Watergate in 1973, which in turn lead to Congress passing enabling legislation for Special Prosecutors with strengthened protection so that they could not be fired by the Executive Branch, but then even Republicans conceded that Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr went completely off the rails in his attempt to hound Bill Clinton on something, anything, and the Special Prosecutor statute was allowed to expire and not re-adopted. So, the current situation is that, per Executive Branch regulations, Mueller as Special Counsel, having been appointed and charged with his duties by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after Attorney General Jeff Sessions was so politically compromised that he was obliged to recuse himself from all Trump/Russia matters, can be fired _only_ by Rod Rosenstein, which Rosenstein has vowed will never be for any poliical reason, unless one of two things happens: 1. The Toddler could at his options fire Rod Rosenstein, who, as an Executive Branch employee with no special protection, serves at the pleasure of the President. Or rather, The Toddler would direct Rosenstein to fire Mueller, and if Mueller failed to comply could fire Rosenstein. The Toddler would then turn to Rosenstein's own deputy, Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio, and hold the same 'Would you like to keep your job?' conversation. This was the chain of firings Nixon went through on Saturday, October 20, 1973, when Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardsonto fire independent Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox (who Nixon found to be too competent at pursuing the Watergate investigation). Rather than comply, Richardson resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned. Third on the list was the Solicitor General of the United States, Robert Bork, as acting head of the Justice Department. He (finally) complied. (This was the Saturday Night Massacre.) This all was enormously controversial and proved to any doubters that Nixon was guilty. Moreover, a month later, a Federal District judge ruled that Cox's firing was unlawful absent a finding of extraordinary improprieties that was wholly absent. This in turn set the stage for resumption of the investigation and the eventual returning of articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Commiteee (if memory serves), followed by Nixon's resignation on the eve of of his certain impeachment (indictment) by the full House. This was the same Robert Bork later appointed by Reagan to the US Supreme Court and grilled by House Democrats so severely that the appointment was defeated. 2. The Toddler could unilaterally rescind the Executive Branch regulations that assign supervision of Special Counsels to Rosenstein as acting head of the Justice Department (given Sessions's recusal) -- and then fire Mueller personally. Either of these two tactics would then of course be subject to immediate court challenge. As with the firing of Cox, judges might well find that the actions had illicit purpose. Meanwhile, Congress and the American people would also explode, and we would have endless fun.
Sorry about overquoting in the prior posting. I'm making a long overdue update to the Subject header for this afterthought: [...]
2. The Toddler could unilaterally rescind the Executive Branch regulations that assign supervision of Special Counsels to Rosenstein as acting head of the Justice Department (given Sessions's recusal) -- and then fire Mueller personally.
Either of these two tactics would then of course be subject to immediate court challenge. As with the firing of Cox, judges might well find that the actions had illicit purpose. Meanwhile, Congress and the American people would also explode, and we would have endless fun.
Even _if_ The Toddler starts either coercing and firing people or rescinding Executive Branch regulations and firing people, it's probably already too late. One of Mueller's known tactics is sealed indictments. It's rather likely that, if The Toddler starts trying to give Mueller the Archibald Cox treatment, Mueller will make a quick telephone call and order unsealing of a few dozen Federal indictments already issued by a Grand Jury against top Trump Administration officials, quite possibly including Trump and sundry culpable members of his family. Ah, you might think, but cannot Trump as the head of the Executive Branch quash those or just use the broad power of Presidential pardons? No, he cannot quash Grand Jury indictments, _and_ it's widely speculated that judges would disallow any Presidential pardons carried out for entirely illicit purposes. And _moreover_, it is widely suspected that Mueller has been closely coordinating aspects of his investigation with _state_ prosecutors, notably those in Trump's native New York State. A President's power of pardoning extends only to Federal legal matters, and he/she has no auhority over state prosecutions. Thus, it's widely held that if The Toddler attempts any of the apocalyptic measures I've mentioned, attempting to through the Republic into a sort of constitutional crisis such as pertained in October 1973, he actually would achieve only an epic own goal, and in short is fscked already. (The GOP currenly dominant in the House and Senate might also at that point reach their limit and remove him.)
Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Quibble: If the Senate were to vote _only_ to remove The Toddler, and do nothing else, then (current) Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan would _not_ be next in line for the Presidency but rather Mike 'torquemada' Pence, the VP.
Didn't I read somewhere that the whole president/vice president dynamic arose organically and was unintentional?
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
Didn't I read somewhere that the whole president/vice president dynamic arose organically and was unintentional?
Oh, not just that: At first, the electoral mechanics were so badly thought out that deadly-enemy rivals from opposing parties repeatedly took the two offices. A Constitutional amendment was required to fix the electoral mechanism so that (eliding a lot of details) Pres. and VP candidates are considered in the ELectoral College as packaged pairings. But still after that, most VPs were selected to be avoided by their associated Presidents, who after all _usually_ didn't care to see or work with the walking memento mori that is a VP. Most VPs are not even kept briefed by their Presidents and their staff, being tapped on the shoulder only if the President dies (or resigns) or it's necessary for them to carry out their only _other_ assigned duty, as tie-breaking vote if the Senate deadlocks (but never having a Senate vote at any other time).
Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
But, at the time of its release, the first run of episodes benefited from insanely lucky timing (through dumb luck): Episode one aired the very day that The Iron Lady, Ms. Thatcher, was suddenly ousted, ending the UK's longest Prime Ministership, from within her own party -- and, hours later, the character Uruquart is opening his first scene with an ironic comment on the 10 Downing Street upheaval that put his faction into power: 'Nothing lasts forever.' With arched eyebrow.
Oh good heavens, I didn't realize the TVification was so old. I vaguely assumed that it was from (say) 2010 and the USians had looked at the ratings and seen "sure-fire winner" and remade it with more USians and fewer Thatchers. The original is of course little squiggles on a dead tree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dobbs ...and I knew enough context to assume it had been written (or at least published) after the author was Well Out Of It, i.e. at least a decade after the stuff he was writing about. Thatcher's run as PM was '79 to '90; the book came out in '89, and the TV show in '90. Charlie Stross wrote something about all this on his blog, but as usual, I can never find the post I want over there. (antipope.org)
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
Oh good heavens, I didn't realize the TVification was so old.
It's indeed old (as am I), but _so_ very good. The Ian Richardson antihero character Francis Ewan Urquhart gave 1990s Britain an ironic catchphrase in Urquhart's classic political hack's non-denial denial: 'You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.' People of A Certain Age still guffaw when you quote it. A few years ago, when my wife and I took an ocean cruise from San Francisco to Sydney (where to my delight Russell Coker was then visiting, so we got to have fun together, for a few hours), all the way across the Pacific we _usually_ had dinner with the same urbane crowd of six other people, including a pair of British academics who were part of the ship's faculty. I repeatedly got points with my new British friends for not being obviously an ignorant savage, despite my citizenship and accent, and I delighted at occasionally poking them with unexpected knowledge of their country's affairs. (I've lived in Southwark, south side of London, and spent significant time in other places in the UK.) Once, the husband said something _for_ which Urquhart's famous evasion was an approriate response, so I puckishly said it, straight-faced. He looked startled, and said, 'Um, it's possibly a coincidence, but....' I gave a reproving look, and said 'George, I'm a big fan of the BBC production. Of _course_ I know where said phrase came from.' Random slightly disturbing factoid: Search the Web for any circa 1976 pictures of The Toddler, Donald John Trump. This was exactly when he was then 30 years old, and when I was in my final year of high school. As Russell can testify, the late 2010s Rick Moen looks extremely like that person, like I'm his brother, perhaps having been kept in suspended animation for some decades. For the record, I will turn 60 years of age this coming May, and I look _now_ almost exactly the way The Toddler did at half my age. I guess this is testimony to the benefits (on my part) of clean living and not snorting the family funds up my nose. But it's still disturbing as fsck. ;->
On Monday, 19 March 2018 4:00:51 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Random slightly disturbing factoid: Search the Web for any circa 1976 pictures of The Toddler, Donald John Trump. This was exactly when he was then 30 years old, and when I was in my final year of high school.
As Russell can testify, the late 2010s Rick Moen looks extremely like that person, like I'm his brother, perhaps having been kept in suspended animation for some decades. For the record, I will turn 60 years of age this coming May, and I look _now_ almost exactly the way The Toddler did at half my age.
That is something that had never occurred to me. But I never put photos of you and him side by side. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
That is something that had never occurred to me. But I never put photos of you and him side by side.
Him in _1976_, mind you (age 30). I sure hope even if I live to be 90 to never end up as bloated and disspated looking as Trump does at 71.
participants (3)
-
Rick Moen -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck