On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:53:06 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:55:38 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:

> >>> As the guy said, he only knew Harding because Coolidge's number
> >>> had been given in the previous question.
> >> So Mattea's a guy now (nobody else gave any answer in that category)!
> > I recalled it as the (now rare) male contestant.
>
> By the way, I don't think it came up in the chats, but Mattea identifies
> as what people on TikTok apparently pronounce "Le-dollar-bian" to avoid

I can't guess

> censorship by the algorithms.
>
> If it wasn't for Matt Amodio, who seems to be so straight he couldn't go
> down a spiral staircase,

That's cute -- too bad it was wasted on the creep.

> it'd be in danger of turning into Queerpardy.

NPR had a Mothers Day story this morning about the recuperation of the
term "Mama's Boy" -- apparently it's not an insult these days.

On Sun, 8 May 2022 07:19:16 -0400, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/7/2022 11:40 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I once had to write a letter to one "Jean Royce", and didn't know how
>> to
>>> address em.
>
>> Did you consider "Dear Them"?
>
>She was someone whose favourable opinion I wanted, so I looked into the
>matter before writing.

Lest you misunderstand, I of course was not serious in suggesting
"Dear Them."

On Sun, 8 May 2022 10:59:49 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:

>Quinn C hat am 07.05.2022 um 00:54 geschrieben:
>> * Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
>
>>>> For example, it's advisable to learn all the US presidents with their
>>>> number - not knowledge of "worldwide" importance (that you number your
>>>> presidents at all is a unique quirk.)
>>>
>>> Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
>>> quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.
>>
>> There is no 16th king of England, and James Monroe wasn't James II.
>> Quite different systems.
>
>
>Also, names and surnames are enough to define all US presidents.

.... and in a couple of cases, also middle names or initials.

>The
>numbers are not necessary. But Tony should tell us how he'd make the
>difference between king Victor Emmanuel of Italy and king Victor
>Emmanuel of Italy (same dinasty, the Savoy) without using numbers.

A minor point, but just in case that wasn't a typo, let me point out
that it's spelled "dynasty."

>Just for fun, the former small German State of Mecklenburg-Schwerin was
>ruled by grand dukes between the Vienna Congress and the end of World
>War One. FOUR of them bore the name Frederick Francis. How could you
>know which one I'm talking about if I did not use numbers?

How could I know which one you were talking about if I had never heard
of Mecklenburg-Schwerin nor anyone named Frederick Francis (which I
haven't).

On Sat, 07 May 2022 19:49:54 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2022-05-07, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/22 08:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>> For example, it's advisable to learn all the US presidents with
>>>> their number - not knowledge of "worldwide" importance (that you
>>>> number your presidents at all is a unique quirk.)
>>>
>>> Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
>>> quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.
>>
>> That's a different kind of numbering. Henry VIII was not the eighth king
>> of England. He was only the eighth one to be named Henry.
>
>And the numbering ignores everyone before William the Conqueror (AKA
>William the Bastard), e.g., Edward I (c.13) even though Edward the
>Elder (c.9) & Edward the Confessor (c.11) had also been kings of
>England (with varying territories).

Yes, Edward the Confessor's territory was his dresser.

On Sun, 08 May 2022 08:44:58 +0530, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

>* Sam Plusnet <PMAdK.136665$sMg.16916 @fx06.ams1> :
>Wrote on Sat, 7 May 2022 21:38:08 +0100:
>> On 07-May-22 16:58, charles wrote:
>>> In article <e35d7h500cmihae56d3avl4rq8bvtd0ess @4ax.com>,
>>> Ken Blake <Ken @invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 12:25:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
>>>> <peter @pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 07/05/22 07:59, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>>> So never did you your stately pleasure domes decree?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are quoting from English literature. There's no reason to think that
>>>>> Quinn would ever have encountered Alf, the sacred river.
>>>
>>>> I've also never encountered Alph, nor any other sacred river.
>>> perhaps you need to take opium to discover it.
>>>
>> Just stay well away from Porlock.
>
> ""Who then is Porlock?" I asked.
>
> "Porlock, Watson, is a nom-de-plume, a mere identification mark;
> but behind it lies a shifty and evasive personality. In a former
> letter he frankly informed me that the name was not his own, and
> defied me ever to trace him among the teeming millions of this
> great city. Porlock is important, not for himself, but for the
> great man with whom he is in touch."
>
> (Valley of Fear, Arthur ConanDoyle 1915)

Pour Lock 1 Distilling Co. Inferno Cinnamon Whiskey, Watson.

https://bremerswineandliquor.com/shop/lock-1-distilling-co-inferno-cinnamon-whiskey/

On Sun, 8 May 2022 07:56:16 -0400, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/7/2022 2:43 PM, lar3ryca wrote:

>> As for Peter Stuyvesant, only a self-centred boor that thinks the
>> world revolves around an eastern US state would expect every Canadian
>> to know anything at all about him.
>
>I know a little bit, but I went to school for several years in an
>eastern US state. I picture him saying that some opponent would soon be
>shorter by a head (possibly apocryphal; I couldn't find it on the Net),
>or looking like Charles Coburn, except black and white, and singing
>"September Song".

What am I missing? Surely you don't mean Peter Stuyvesant singing
"September Song".

On Sun, 8 May 2022 09:17:15 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 6:39:37 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> If a sitting Senator or Representitive would be nominated, he/she
>> would have to resign their seat as a Senator or Representive to serve
>> as a Cabinet secretary.
>>
>> A President will normally nominate either a member of his/her own
>> poltical party or at least a person who is in alignment with the
>> President's party's positions.
>
>Bush 43 tried to put a Democratic senator in his cabinet, which would
>have handed the Senate over to the Republicans.
>
>> If a President nominated a sitting Senator or Representitive, that
>> seat would be up for appointment by the state's Governor to fill the
>> position until the next election,
>
>Wrong. The governor (in 45 states) appoints a Senate replacement
>(historically the widow of the incumbent, though not any more), who
>must then run for election to fill out the predecessor's term at the next
>opportunity (that's how Georgia ended up with two new Democrats
>in the 2021 runoff) and is then back on the regular six-year schedule.

>https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2021-08-20_IF11907_5e406f4711dbfd13ea3dee0b41a778b674690cc2.pdf
>
>A House seat remains empty until the governor schedules an election.
>
>https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2021-01-08_IF11722_dcbc4bdca5fddd5b46b49cc06ba113d2ac8d43f0.pdf

I was not aware that it is handled differently in the case of a
Representitive. Thank you for the correction.
>

>> and the replacement would have to be
>> elected to the seat. That might not be a good political move for the
>> President.
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
>> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.
>
>And misinformation.

And a willingness to admit error.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

CDB hat am 08.05.2022 um 13:28 geschrieben:
> On 5/8/2022 4:59 AM, Silvano wrote:
>> Just for fun, the former small German State of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
>> was ruled by grand dukes between the Vienna Congress and the end of
>> World War One. FOUR of them bore the name Frederick Francis. How could
>> you know which one I'm talking about if I did not use numbers?
>
>
> Frederick Francis the Short, Frederick Francis the Fat, Frederick
> Francis the Stupid, and Frederick Francis of the Icy Fingers.
>
> Well, you asked.

Possible, but only if their contemporaries outside that small country
agreed on such nicknames. I guess their contemporaries within that small
country would have "enjoyed" the local jails if they had dared calling
them as you suggest.

* Silvano:

> CDB hat am 08.05.2022 um 13:28 geschrieben:
>> On 5/8/2022 4:59 AM, Silvano wrote:
>>> Just for fun, the former small German State of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
>>> was ruled by grand dukes between the Vienna Congress and the end of
>>> World War One. FOUR of them bore the name Frederick Francis. How could
>>> you know which one I'm talking about if I did not use numbers?
>>
>> Frederick Francis the Short, Frederick Francis the Fat, Frederick
>> Francis the Stupid, and Frederick Francis of the Icy Fingers.
>>
>> Well, you asked.
>
> Possible, but only if their contemporaries outside that small country
> agreed on such nicknames. I guess their contemporaries within that small
> country would have "enjoyed" the local jails if they had dared calling
> them as you suggest.

Pippin the Short, Charles the Fat and Childeric the Idiot are among
nicknames that have been handed down to our days, so they should have
been well-known in their time.

<https://awkward.com/15-actual-rulers-unfortunate-nicknames/10>

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On 08-May-22 18:04, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2022 08:44:58 +0530, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
>
>> * Sam Plusnet <PMAdK.136665$sMg.16916 @fx06.ams1> :
>> Wrote on Sat, 7 May 2022 21:38:08 +0100:
>>> On 07-May-22 16:58, charles wrote:
>>>> In article <e35d7h500cmihae56d3avl4rq8bvtd0ess @4ax.com>,
>>>> Ken Blake <Ken @invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 12:25:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
>>>>> <peter @pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/05/22 07:59, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>>>> So never did you your stately pleasure domes decree?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are quoting from English literature. There's no reason to think that
>>>>>> Quinn would ever have encountered Alf, the sacred river.
>>>>
>>>>> I've also never encountered Alph, nor any other sacred river.
>>>> perhaps you need to take opium to discover it.
>>>>
>>> Just stay well away from Porlock.
>>
>> ""Who then is Porlock?" I asked.
>>
>> "Porlock, Watson, is a nom-de-plume, a mere identification mark;
>> but behind it lies a shifty and evasive personality. In a former
>> letter he frankly informed me that the name was not his own, and
>> defied me ever to trace him among the teeming millions of this
>> great city. Porlock is important, not for himself, but for the
>> great man with whom he is in touch."
>>
>> (Valley of Fear, Arthur ConanDoyle 1915)
>
> Pour Lock 1 Distilling Co. Inferno Cinnamon Whiskey, Watson.
>
> https://bremerswineandliquor.com/shop/lock-1-distilling-co-inferno-cinnamon-whiskey/

The real question should be "What is Porlock?"
A nice enough place, but parking in short supply.
Watch out for the hill if you're heading west.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sun, 8 May 2022 10:55:33 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>>> In this context, a Canadian is a foreigner. The context is
>>>> established by your use of "non-American". I framed it as "American
>>>> vs foreigner".
>>>
>>>No you didn't. You better leave both the kickoff spot and the goalposts
>>>where they were.
>>>
>>
>> A Canadian is a non-American, Mattea is a Canadian. Can you take
>> that one step further? Is she, or is she not, a "foreigner" when
>> appearing on an American television show?
>
>Stop retconning. What I answered to is right up there:
>
>| I would assume some ability to answer questions of a broader nature
>| than Canadian history and events would be required

"Retconning" is "retroactive continuity" and explained as when the
form or content of a previously established narrative is changed.

Who is changing what, and who has established the narrative?

The "narrative" of a thread is the progress of the comments as the
thread evolves. Anything I've posted has been a response to something
already in the thread.

>It's not the broader than Canadian that is the problem, but the narrowly
>American nature.
>
>>>> Frankly, I don't understand your complaint.

I still don't.

>>>> You mentioned somewhere
>>>> "if Canadians are allowed to enter". As far as I know, anyone - from
>>>> anywhere - can apply to enter.
>>>
>>>No, only Americans and Canadians. Or maybe residents of those two
>>>countries. But certainly not people living elsewhere.
>>
>> This page does not indicate that only Americans and Canadians are
>> eligible:
>>
>> https://www.jeopardy.com/be-on-j/faqs
>
>What do you think is the point of this one, then?
>
>| ARE CANADIANS ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE TEST?
>|
>| Yes, Canadians are eligible.
>

I'll take "Obvious Answers for $1,000".

What is the nationality of the people who most often ask if they are
eligible?

Canada is a large county neighboring the United States with a large
number of viewers who watch the program.

If there were a large number of questions from non-American viewers of
other nationalities, there would be a similar entry for that group.

There's nothing about that entry that implies in any way that other
non-Americans are ineligible.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 08/05/2022 8:44 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Canada is a large county neighboring the United States with a large
> number of viewers who watch the program.

Is it as big as Yorkshire?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Den 08-05-2022 kl. 00:39 skrev Tony Cooper:
> In the US, we have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers.

You had me confused there for a moment.
My first thought was that this is a distinction without a difference,
but when I tried to look it up, I found that British cabinet secretaries
are senior civil servants - which surely is not what you intended.

Am I right in interpreting your point as being one of terminology:
In the US, politically appointed heads of government departments are
(mostly) referred to as "secretary of X", rather than "minister of X"?

Or is there a deeper significance to your comment that I'm missing?

/Anders, Denmark

On Sun, 8 May 2022 20:22:52 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 08-May-22 18:04, Ken Blake wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 May 2022 08:44:58 +0530, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
> >
> >> * Sam Plusnet <PMAdK.136665$sMg.16916 @fx06.ams1> :
> >> Wrote on Sat, 7 May 2022 21:38:08 +0100:
> >>> On 07-May-22 16:58, charles wrote:
> >>>> In article <e35d7h500cmihae56d3avl4rq8bvtd0ess @4ax.com>,
> >>>> Ken Blake <Ken @invalid.news.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 12:25:48 +1000, Peter Moylan
> >>>>> <peter @pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> On 07/05/22 07:59, Ken Blake wrote:
> >>>>>>> So never did you your stately pleasure domes decree?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are quoting from English literature. There's no reason to think that
> >>>>>> Quinn would ever have encountered Alf, the sacred river.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've also never encountered Alph, nor any other sacred river.
> >>>> perhaps you need to take opium to discover it.
> >>>>
> >>> Just stay well away from Porlock.
> >>
> >> ""Who then is Porlock?" I asked.
> >>
> >> "Porlock, Watson, is a nom-de-plume, a mere identification mark;
> >> but behind it lies a shifty and evasive personality. In a former
> >> letter he frankly informed me that the name was not his own, and
> >> defied me ever to trace him among the teeming millions of this
> >> great city. Porlock is important, not for himself, but for the
> >> great man with whom he is in touch."
> >>
> >> (Valley of Fear, Arthur ConanDoyle 1915)
> >
> > Pour Lock 1 Distilling Co. Inferno Cinnamon Whiskey, Watson.
> >
> > https://bremerswineandliquor.com/shop/lock-1-distilling-co-inferno-cinnamon-whiskey/
>
> The real question should be "What is Porlock?"
> A nice enough place, but parking in short supply.
> Watch out for the hill if you're heading west.
>
It can be a bit weir'd.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Den 08-05-2022 kl. 21:18 skrev Quinn C:
> * Silvano:
>
>> CDB hat am 08.05.2022 um 13:28 geschrieben:
>>> On 5/8/2022 4:59 AM, Silvano wrote:
>>>> Just for fun, the former small German State of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
>>>> was ruled by grand dukes between the Vienna Congress and the end of
>>>> World War One. FOUR of them bore the name Frederick Francis. How could
>>>> you know which one I'm talking about if I did not use numbers?
>>>
>>> Frederick Francis the Short, Frederick Francis the Fat, Frederick
>>> Francis the Stupid, and Frederick Francis of the Icy Fingers.
>>>
>>> Well, you asked.
>>
>> Possible, but only if their contemporaries outside that small country
>> agreed on such nicknames. I guess their contemporaries within that small
>> country would have "enjoyed" the local jails if they had dared calling
>> them as you suggest.
>
> Pippin the Short, Charles the Fat and Childeric the Idiot are among
> nicknames that have been handed down to our days, so they should have
> been well-known in their time.

"Short" and "Idiot" are likely to have been insulting at all times,
but I suspect that "fat" may have suggested sufficient wealth to allow
being well-nourished, and sufficient order in the realm to not have
to be in fighting condition. In the 9th century those was not givens,
even for rulers.

/Anders, Denmark

On Sun, 8 May 2022 22:25:38 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
<news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:

>Den 08-05-2022 kl. 00:39 skrev Tony Cooper:
>> In the US, we have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers.
>
>You had me confused there for a moment.
>My first thought was that this is a distinction without a difference,
>but when I tried to look it up, I found that British cabinet secretaries
>are senior civil servants - which surely is not what you intended.
>
>Am I right in interpreting your point as being one of terminology:
>In the US, politically appointed heads of government departments are
>(mostly) referred to as "secretary of X", rather than "minister of X"?
>
>Or is there a deeper significance to your comment that I'm missing?
>
>/Anders, Denmark

Titles. Antony Blinken is "Secretary of State". Not all Cabinet
members are "Secretary of...", but the major ones - except for the
Vice President - are.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet/
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 08-May-22 21:18, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 08/05/2022 8:44 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Canada is a large county neighboring the United States with a large
>> number of viewers who watch the program.
>
> Is it as big as Yorkshire?
>
You are Riding for a fall.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 08-May-22 20:18, Quinn C wrote:
> * Silvano:
>
>> CDB hat am 08.05.2022 um 13:28 geschrieben:
>>> On 5/8/2022 4:59 AM, Silvano wrote:
>>>> Just for fun, the former small German State of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
>>>> was ruled by grand dukes between the Vienna Congress and the end of
>>>> World War One. FOUR of them bore the name Frederick Francis. How could
>>>> you know which one I'm talking about if I did not use numbers?
>>>
>>> Frederick Francis the Short, Frederick Francis the Fat, Frederick
>>> Francis the Stupid, and Frederick Francis of the Icy Fingers.
>>>
>>> Well, you asked.
>>
>> Possible, but only if their contemporaries outside that small country
>> agreed on such nicknames. I guess their contemporaries within that small
>> country would have "enjoyed" the local jails if they had dared calling
>> them as you suggest.
>
> Pippin the Short, Charles the Fat and Childeric the Idiot are among
> nicknames that have been handed down to our days, so they should have
> been well-known in their time.
>
> <https://awkward.com/15-actual-rulers-unfortunate-nicknames/10>
>
They might have become much more openly used - once that particular
ruler was safely deceased.

Jokes about Stalin flourished - once the £$%^&*() was safely dead.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sat, 7 May 2022, at 17:08:41, bil...@shaw.ca posted:
>On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 1:38:06 PM UTC-7, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022, at 11:54:01, Peter Moylan posted:
>> >On 07/05/22 00:34, Adam Funk wrote:
>> >> On 2022-05-06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >>> On 06/05/22 01:50, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> How big is a House district? Ours come very close to being
>> >>>> exactly 1/435 of the total population as counted in the last
>> >>>> Census, except it's messed up by the small states getting 1 Rep
>> >>>> regardless of size; but within a state, all the districts have to
>> >>>> be exactly the same size.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's the same here. All electorates have to be equal in population,
>> >>> as much as practicable. I don't have the numbers to hand at the
>> >>> moment. The redistributions are done by a non-partisan body, so
>> >>> gerrymandering is not a problem.
>>
>> [snippo]
>>
>> >>> It's not all good. The main beneficiaries are likely to be the
>> >>> United Australia Party and One Nation, both of which are extreme
>> >>> right, anti-vax, and racist. The UAP is gaining support because it
>> >>> is promising low-interest mortgages (while knowing that there is
>> >>> no way it could finance that).
>> >
>> >As in other countries, promising a chicken in every pot is a vote winner.
>> >
>> >>> On the other hand, some climate change deniers in the government
>> >>> run the risk of being edged out.
>> >>
>> >> Aren't extreme right kooks usually also climate change deniers?
>> >
>> >Our present Liberal/National coalition government has its share of
>> >extreme right kooks. Both of those parties are strong supporters of coal
>> >mining, and that leads them to inaction on climate change.
>> >
>> >But climate change is now, according to surveys, the top concern of
>> >voters. For that reason, probably, a number of independents are standing
>> >against government members on a platform of doing more about climate
>> >change. In addition, there is a body lobbying for climate action that,
>> >although not running candidates for election, is donating funds to those
>> >independents that it approves of, to give those independents a better
>> >chance of winning.
>> >
>> >Meanwhile, we seem to have fewer right-wing kooks running as
>> >independents, because they have a couple of extreme right parties they
>> >can join.
>> >
>> I imagine that spectrum of groupings characterised by leftness and
>> rightness would run from extreme left through left, centre and right to
>> extreme right. I mean that outer reaches are necessarily the extremes.
>>
>> But I hear a great deal in the public meeja about the extreme right, and
>> hardly anything about the extreme left. Am I biassed, or just not
>> noticing it, or is there a conspiracy of silence towards the leftward
>> extreme? Other explanations welcome, if politely put.
>
>Remind us where you live

In my own head, subjectively speaking. Geographically, central southern
England, Wessex, and Berkshire. Culturally, Western European.

>and what sort of parties constitute the extreme
>left and right there.

It's not so much 'there' as in the minds and words of the people with
opinions who report or are reported in mainstream media. The Corbyn
supporters in the Labour party seem to be on the leftward edge, but I
don't remember them being called extreme left, so there ought to be
something beyond them that actually is at the extreme left. There's a
Communist Party and a Socialist Workers Party on the leftward fringe but
no-one pays them any attention. Or maybe Corbyn is extreme left, but
people shy away from saying so.

Substantial leftward parties are the non-English nationalist parties -
Scottish National, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein - yet the UK Independence
Party and British National Party are characterised as right wing. So
nationalism isn't either left or right, and doesn't help.

Right-wing leaves me baffled, except for preserving the status quo ante,
therefore far-right is meaningless to me. Fascism is unthinkingly said
to be far right-wing, but by that standard the Chinese Communist Party
is far right-wing. Is it? Maybe it is, if authoritarianism and
ultra-nationalism are the leading criteria. Whichever wing it is, left
or right, the Chinese system is pretty extreme anyway.

I'm left with the feeling that "extreme right" is simply the antithesis
of socialism, but with a louder voice.

>Here in Canada, there are no parties with significant public
>support on either extreme.
>
>But in the U.S., Donald Trump has dragged the Republicans to extreme positions
>not seen previously in my lifetime, to the point where tens of thousands
>of his supporters marched on Washington, broke through police lines
>and stormed the Capitol building, where at least some of them were
>looking to kill the vice-president for not being right-wing enough and to
>overturn the results of the election their side had lost. It was incompetently
>carried out, but it was nevertheless an attempted coup.

What do they mean by "not being right-wing enough"?
>
>On the left? Sleepy Joe Biden. Which side do you think poses the bigger
>threat to democracy?
>
>In most of Europe, meanwhile, far-right parties are on the rise. Far-left
>parties are neither on the rise, nor a threat to democracy. In Russia,
>Putin has established a one-man dictatorship that resembles
>fascism more than anything else, complete with the persecution of
>ethnic Ukrainians and the outright invasion of Ukraine.

Would you say Putin's fascism was left-wing fascism or right-wing
fascism?
>
>Feel free to point out left-wing threats equivalent to these threats
>from the right. My view is that there are no equivalent threats from
>the left, and that the media are correct to focus on the right,
>especially in the U.S.

That may be so. In Britain, there are many socialist parties, but they
seem doomed ever to squabble amongst themselves for supremacy of
doctrine, so have little impact on Real Life.
--
Paul

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 3:19:19 PM UTC-7, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022, at 17:08:41, bil...@shaw.ca posted:

> >> >
> >> I imagine that spectrum of groupings characterised by leftness and
> >> rightness would run from extreme left through left, centre and right to
> >> extreme right. I mean that outer reaches are necessarily the extremes.
> >>
> >> But I hear a great deal in the public meeja about the extreme right, and
> >> hardly anything about the extreme left. Am I biassed, or just not
> >> noticing it, or is there a conspiracy of silence towards the leftward
> >> extreme? Other explanations welcome, if politely put.
> >
> >Remind us where you live
>
> In my own head, subjectively speaking. Geographically, central southern
> England, Wessex, and Berkshire. Culturally, Western European.
>
> >and what sort of parties constitute the extreme
> >left and right there.
>
> It's not so much 'there' as in the minds and words of the people with
> opinions who report or are reported in mainstream media. The Corbyn
> supporters in the Labour party seem to be on the leftward edge, but I
> don't remember them being called extreme left, so there ought to be
> something beyond them that actually is at the extreme left. There's a
> Communist Party and a Socialist Workers Party on the leftward fringe but
> no-one pays them any attention. Or maybe Corbyn is extreme left, but
> people shy away from saying so.

Corby strikes me as a little too left-wing to win enough seats
to form a government. Not extreme, mind you, but near enough to scare
a significant proportion of voters.
>
> Substantial leftward parties are the non-English nationalist parties -
> Scottish National, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein - yet the UK Independence
> Party and British National Party are characterised as right wing. So
> nationalism isn't either left or right, and doesn't help.

I think Canada's Parti Quebecois might be comparable to those parties.
Its aim at one time was to achieve independence for Quebec, but nowadays
its policies are meant to enhance the interests of the province within Canada.
That could change with a strong charismatic leader, but we haven't seen one
of those for a while.
>
> Right-wing leaves me baffled, except for preserving the status quo ante,
> therefore far-right is meaningless to me. Fascism is unthinkingly said
> to be far right-wing, but by that standard the Chinese Communist Party
> is far right-wing. Is it? Maybe it is, if authoritarianism and
> ultra-nationalism are the leading criteria. Whichever wing it is, left
> or right, the Chinese system is pretty extreme anyway.

I don't think there are neat categories to define today's China. Communism
is long gone, despite the name of the party, which adopted a kid of
economic nationalism decades ago while maintaining a ruling class of
senior party members.
>
> I'm left with the feeling that "extreme right" is simply the antithesis
> of socialism, but with a louder voice.

And yet the German Nazis called themselves socialists. The name really
doesn't mean much. I'm thinking about whether there should be a name
for parties and dictators that reflect their willingness to try to achieve
their goals by means of genocide. "Fascist" may carry too much historical
baggage to qualify.
>
> >Here in Canada, there are no parties with significant public
> >support on either extreme.
> >
> >But in the U.S., Donald Trump has dragged the Republicans to extreme positions
> >not seen previously in my lifetime, to the point where tens of thousands
> >of his supporters marched on Washington, broke through police lines
> >and stormed the Capitol building, where at least some of them were
> >looking to kill the vice-president for not being right-wing enough and to
> >overturn the results of the election their side had lost. It was incompetently
> >carried out, but it was nevertheless an attempted coup.
>
> What do they mean by "not being right-wing enough"?

He was unwilling to do his best to overturn the election results that made Biden
president, and to try to reinstall Trump for a second term for which he had not
been elected.
> >
> >On the left? Sleepy Joe Biden. Which side do you think poses the bigger
> >threat to democracy?
> >
> >In most of Europe, meanwhile, far-right parties are on the rise. Far-left
> >parties are neither on the rise, nor a threat to democracy. In Russia,
> >Putin has established a one-man dictatorship that resembles
> >fascism more than anything else, complete with the persecution of
> >ethnic Ukrainians and the outright invasion of Ukraine.
>
> Would you say Putin's fascism was left-wing fascism or right-wing
> fascism?

I don't think there is anything left-wing about Putin's outlook. As I said,
his rule most closely resembles fascism. He is a dictator who is willing
to massacre dissenters and bomb his own country's cities. The last
place I recall where that sort of thing happened was Syria.
> >
> >Feel free to point out left-wing threats equivalent to these threats
> >from the right. My view is that there are no equivalent threats from
> >the left, and that the media are correct to focus on the right,
> >especially in the U.S.
>
> That may be so. In Britain, there are many socialist parties, but they
> seem doomed ever to squabble amongst themselves for supremacy of
> doctrine, so have little impact on Real Life.

I think it's a sign of good political health when the fringe/crackpot parties
in a multi-party system are mostly ignored by the populace. Also when
the parties that do have a chance to form governments remain comfortably
close to the political centre.

bill

On Sun, 08 May 2022 17:42:36 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 8 May 2022 22:25:38 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
><news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Den 08-05-2022 kl. 00:39 skrev Tony Cooper:
>>>In the US, w e have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers.
>>
>>You had me confused there for a moment.
>>My first thought was that this is a distinction without a difference,
>>but when I tried to look it up, I found that British cabinet secretaries
>>are senior civil servants - which surely is not what you intended.
>>
>>Am I right in interpreting your point as being one of terminology:
>>In the US, politically appointed heads of government departments are
>>(mostly) referred to as "secretary of X", rather than "minister of X"?
>>
>>Or is there a deeper significance to your comment that I'm missing?
>>
>>/Anders, Denmark
>
>Titles. Antony Blinken is "Secretary of State". Not all Cabinet
>members are "Secretary of...", but the major ones - except for the
>Vice President - are.
>
>https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet/

I don't know what I was thinking of when I wrote "In the US, we have
Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers".

That implies that the word "Secretary" is not used as a title for UK
Cabinet members. It is, of course. It's just that a Minister can be
a member of the Cabinet. A US Secretary of... is not also a Senator
or Representative. In the US, they resign that office to be a Cabinet
member if in that office when they become Secretary of.

The titles in the UK don't seem to follow a pattern. I see:

Foreign Secretary
Secretary of State for...
Minister of State
and the one I like best: Minister without Portfolio.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 09/05/22 06:25, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 08-05-2022 kl. 00:39 skrev Tony Cooper:

>> In the US, we have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers.
>
> You had me confused there for a moment. My first thought was that
> this is a distinction without a difference, but when I tried to look
> it up, I found that British cabinet secretaries are senior civil
> servants - which surely is not what you intended.
>
> Am I right in interpreting your point as being one of terminology: In
> the US, politically appointed heads of government departments are
> (mostly) referred to as "secretary of X", rather than "minister of
> X"?
>
> Or is there a deeper significance to your comment that I'm missing?

It's mostly a difference in terminology.

The word "secretary" is very flexible. It ranges from someone who is
good at shorthand to people with very senior positions.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

I thought I explained this but I wasn't clear. The central opinion
making machine of the world-ruling libs positions itself as "the
left". everything that is not aligned to the agenda is "RIGHT" the "far
right" is a bogeyman created along the lines of "the kulak" (for the
russian propaganda machine) or "the jews" (for the nazi propaganda
machine) to shape opinion and ensure the agenda is not harmed.

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:39:37 PM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:54:45 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Den 07-05-2022 kl. 00:11 skrev bil...@shaw.ca:
> >> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:07:31 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>> Wed, 4 May 2022 17:29:35 -0400: Quinn C
> >> [...]
> >>>> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
> >>
> >>> Strange, very strange.
> >>
> >> Not strange to me. In Canada, cabinet ministers are nearly always MPs,
> >> though it is not mandatory.
> >
> >Same here.
> >
> >> Very rarely, a non-MP is named to the cabinet,
> >> usually a prominent person.
> >
> >Quite the contrary: Most non-MPs appointed minister are "experts" in
> >some sense of the word; some already well-known to the public, but
> >more, I think, have been non-public figures.

Experts in their field who are prominent enough for cabinet consideration
*are* generally experts in some sense of the word, as you put it. You are
free to put it in your own words, but ""quite the contrary" is unwarranted here.

> >Another category is politicians who are EPs

Whatever you mean by EPs is probably not in use in Canadian English.
Or perhaps, when you explain what you mean by it, I'll say "D'oh" and
slap myself on the forehead. For now, I have no idea what you mean
by EPs.
> >
> In the US, we have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers. They are
> nominated by the President but must be confirmed by the Senate before
> they take office.

Our ministers are chosen from among the elected MPs by the prime minister
and his/her advisers. They should be vetted for suitability but that is sometimes
not done thoroughly, with embarrassing results.

> If a sitting Senator or Representitive would be nominated, he/she
> would have to resign their seat as a Senator or Representive to serve
> as a Cabinet secretary.

That's a major difference between the U.S. system and the British-style
parliamentary system we have in Canada. Anyone named a federal cabinet
minister who is not already a Member of Parliament is expected to become
an MP as soon as possible so as to be able to answer questions about
their ministry in Parliament.
>
bill

On 08/05/2022 11:09 pm, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 08-May-22 21:18, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 08/05/2022 8:44 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> Canada is a large county neighboring the United States with a
>>> large
>>> number of viewers who watch the program.
>>
>> Is it as big as Yorkshire?
>>
> You are Riding for a fall.

Autumn, my dear fellow. We're not Americans.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within