Because, really, why would someone constantly check their watch before a flight, unless they were a terrorist?
Come on, what did you expect of the British?
I assume Arabs are lazy like Mexicans, so I doubt they'd have any need for checking watches unless they were terrorists.
To Guantanamo with them!
LGF has links to the Red reaction. Different than ours, as you might expect.
Hey, SCMTim, or should I say Charles Johnson, stop trying to build traffic. Also, thanks to you I went to Red State to see what they had to say (nothing I could find), and while there saw the following: "Thomas Ricks is probably the least knowledgeable military correspondent frequenting the pages of any major newspaper." Thanks a million.
An obviously Muslim friend of mine (i.e wears a skullcap) was on flight last year from Boston to LA. Before the plan left the ground he went into the bathroom; the woman who used it after him told a flight attendant some bullshit about how he had tampered with the back of the toilet somehow. The flight attendant confronted him about it, he denied it, but it was determined that he was some sort of risk so they made him get off that flight and fly the next day instead.
This sort of thing probably happens a lot more often than we're aware.
dagger aleph is friends with a terrorist?
7: Don't blame your addiction on me. That's the worst kind of leftist thinking. It's always someone else's fault: your mother, society, another commenter. Sometimes you just have to step up and accept that you lack the strength to resist the call of RedState.
Well, just think about it this way.
If they make it incredibly inconvenient for people of swarthy complexion to fly, most of us will just find another way to travel (e.g. someone will set up an airline that caters specifically to Muslims and those who will be mistaken for them). Assuming the burden is made heavy enough, the only "terrorist-looking" people who will fly regular airlines will be the ones that actually are suicidally motivated, and the police can easily capture them since they'll be the only ones left. In fact, the cops could just shoot them on sight and save the trouble of finding out whether they were really guilty of anything.
(Of course there is the small problem that several of the plotters recently arrested were white converts, but they were probably just doing managerial work. That is just how multinational corporations are these days, and even al Qa'ida needs a proper staff.)
9: Well, maybe it's overstating it to say that he's my friend; more accurate to say that we're in the same cell.
Anyhow. This
"regularly checking their watches."
is definitely suspicious, because anyone who's read this book knows that Arabs have a cavalier attitude towards time, since Arabic doesn't have distinct tenses the way Indo-European language do.
"since Arabic doesn't have distinct tenses the way Indo-European language do."
Wot wot wot?
The capacity for people to peddle utter bullshit, especially of the racist variety, will never cease to amaze. I can't believe people buy that book, if the above "observation" is at all indicative.
Arabic verbs inflect for aspect (perfective-imperfective) rather than tense (past-present-future). This is not an uncommon pattern cross-linguistically, and its relevance to cultural differences is imperceptible at best.
13: Oh, it's indicative. This book would be a quaint curiosity if it weren't to this day consulted by US government officials who want to "understand" the countries they're about to bomb the hell out of.
16: Look, we all know we're going to kill all the Muslim sooner or later, anyway. Given that, it seems kinder to do it sooner and faster rather than lower and slower. (This has been today's lesson from "Neocon in Simple Sentences.")
re: 15
It's been a while, and I only took intro arabic, so perhaps Al-Kitaab did a poor job of explaining it, but IIRC, you could inflect by both tense and aspect. Am I confused on this?
I'm not really British, despite what that goggle-tanned and kidney-op-scarred Persian would say, but I nonetheless say Huzzah!
A friend of mine here, who actually is British (Welsh, to be exact), believes the mistake made by the West was to listen to that poofter T.E. Lawrence and actually allow the Arabs to exert control over the lands in which they have lived for centuries. Britain, France and the U.S., he argues, should have established control of the oilfields and "let the bloody natives sell us saucepans at the gates. It worked for centuries."
The punchline is that this guy is a member of the Reform Club.
The standard inflections are for aspect: Perfective katab etc., Imperfective yiktab etc. These are generally translated with English past and present tense respectively. There is one tense inflection, for future (sa-), which is added to imperfective stems. So yes, you can inflect for both, but the tense inflection is limited.
but the tense inflection is limited
I'm not a linguist, so I have no idea how "aspect" differs from "tense".
All I know is, there are pretty standard ways in Arabic to convey actions in the past, present and future, as well as in the past perfect and future perfect.
I find the news that Arabs have developed the ability to use tenses very worrying. It can only aid their scheming.
I say we invade Iraq again, see if that nips it in the bud.
14: They also control the media with the power they glean from the blood of Christian babies.
Ah, but we've secretly replaced the Christian blood in babies with Folgers Crystals....
I'm still pissed that we ever allowed the Muslims to develop written language. Where was the preemptive attack on that one?
Ah, how I love statements like "There was no fuss or panic. People just calmly and quietly got off the plane. There were no racist taunts or any remarks directed at the men."
People weren't being racist, because they don't *really* think that Arabs are inferior, or that all Arabs are terrorists. They just thought *these specific* Arabs were acting "suspicious," what with their heavy clothing, scruffy, rough, appearance and long hair. It's not about race at all, and anyone who thinks it is is just being irritating and self-righteous.
27 - That's what my Dad says about teaching women to read.
I wish 26 were true.
I also would sell my mother for a cigarette right now.
28: We don't mind Arabs, but those scruffy people who act like Arabs, them we don't like. Especially when they'rechecking their watches and gibbering away in that jihadist tongue.
...Or, er, what sounds likeArabic, but could have been Farsi or Pashto...
Thanks Teo.
I'm still a little confused, though, and I think it's because I've mostly learned Arabic in Arabic, so "katab" was described as "maadi" (past) and "yaktub" was described as "mudaari'" (present). There wasn't any distinction between aspect and tense.
"There was no fuss or panic. People just calmly and quietly got off the plane. There were no racist taunts or any remarks directed at the men."
Now that's a shocker*. My first experience of anti-Muslim racism in England was in the customs line off the ferry in Dover early one morning, when the Arabs in line rolled out their mats and started praying, and the response from several of the natives was very open and very vicious. Granted, the late-night ferry may cater to a different class of traveler from those you typically run into in airports -- and everyone just seemed to be having a bit of fun, if you don't count the Muslims. But to an American accustomed to the sort of genteel, act-like-you're-not-racist style of bigotry prevalent here, it was quite a surprise.
*Yes, I'm aware that it's low-hanging fruit, but have at it. And if you're not aware, try Wikipedia.
When people are racist in such a way that they are afraid of members of the group, they normally do not taunt them.
It was a holiday flight full of families. There were children present and no-one would have wanted to behave in a way that sets a bad example for children.
Enjoying sneering at the racist Brits?
Oh, come on, Matt. British anti-Arab racism is pretty nasty.
If 37 was directed at me, all I can say is (a) yes, thank you, and (b) some of my best friends are British, and according to my lovely red passport and notwithstanding my current residence so am I.
who are speaking Arabic
The article keeps saying that it was just that the passengers thought it was Arabic, but it never tells us what they were actually speaking (seemingly the reporters never caught up with the two Asian guys).
re: 39
Pedantically, actually, British anti-Arab racism is pretty much non-existent since 99% of Moslems in Britain aren't Arabs. All the comments about Arabs pretty much miss the mark. To the extent that there is bigotry and racism directed at Moslems in Britain it's directed at Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
There is a fair bit of anti-Moslem bigotry in the UK and it's quite heavily stoked at the moment by our politicians and media. However, one incident -- in the middle of hysteria about Moslems on planes which is being quite cynically fostered by the state -- does not say much either way about how racist or not racist people here are.
FWIW, the incident I mentioned involved Arabs.
I don't know enough to judge British racism relative to that of anywhere else, but I can say with complete confidence that our rednecks can beat your rednecks' ass.
42: Yeah, "Paki" is the term rather than "Arab" in the UK. And maybe it's anti-Muslim rather than anti-Arab, fine. But the fact that most Muslims in the UK aren't Arabic is neither here nor there, as far as racism goes, being as it isn't really based on facts, right?
Do you ever wonder what would happen if you tried something like this yourself? Like if you went up to the gate desk and said, "I hate to sound paranoid, but that women with the baby keeps acting suspiciously. How do we know it's actually milk in those bottles?" or something along those lines. I guess I've always assumed that the security guy would take one look at the situation and say "Right, that's you to the strip search room then. 'Aving us on about terrorism, is it? Well, there's no irony allowed in the airport, 'aven't you read the signs?" Because, frankly, I always figure I'm the most suspicious looking person on any given flight. Thankfully, that's the only type of narcissism I allow myself to indulge in.
Actually, I have done something like this.
I once saw someone hand a passenger a bag after the passenger had walked past the last checkpoint, just before he entered the gangplank (or whatever they're called). This was years ago, btw, way before 9/11. Anyway, so once I got on and sat down I pushed the call button, explained to the attendant what I'd seen, she asked me to show her which passenger so we walked back down the aisle to first class and I told her which seat he was in. A few minutes later she came back, said she'd spoken with him and he'd told her that his brother was just helping with his luggage and it was okay. The plane took off a couple minutes later.
Needless to say, I wasn't really thrilled about her response--I don't care what he said, I want to know if you checked the bag? But anyway, they didn't decide that I was a threat, either. So I guess you can point out weird stuff without becoming yourself a suspect. Or at least, you could then.
re: 44
Actually, I'd defend the UK as being pretty low down the league of 'racist European nations'. The UK has a rather better record on this -- in terms of rates of intermarriage, social integration, the relative absence of hard-right political parties from politics, numbers of MPs from 'immigrant' backgrounds, etc. -- than almost any of our major European counterparts. Of course there's alot of room for improvement but it's been steadily improving over my lifetime.
However, I get pretty tired of the casual imputation of racism. I hear it a lot from friends from other European countries -- countries with explicitly racist political parties with a major electoral presence, for example -- and it rankles. Hence the (over-defensive) snark in 38.
That's not to trivialize or deny the existence of racism or anti-Moslem bigotry which, unfortunately, at the moment --after decades of steady improvement -- is getting worse rather than better. I have Moslem friends and friends who aren't Moslem but 'look' Moslem -- because their familes are from India, for example -- who report a level of police attention, for example, that looks a lot like harrassment.
Incidentally, the point about most British Moslems being of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin does have substance. British racism is the product of colonialism and mass immigration from former British colonies and has a pretty complex etiology that doesn't reduce easily to simple claims of anti-Moslem bigotry.
47: Yeah, I know that re. the colonial origins of racism in Britain, of course. But I've certainly also run into a lot of casual British racism about blacks (much of it through an English/Algerian friend who, to my American eyes, doesn't look like someone who'd deal with racism at all--one of the interesting things, to Americans, about European/British racism is the visibility/invisibility thing). It's different from American raicsm, to be sure, and from say German or French racism as well. Am quite willing to admit that my understanding of British racism gets some of the angles all wrong.
On the other hand, it's often easier to see racism outside one's own cultural biases, no?
In any case, my original comment was really meant more to address the way all sorts of people, including ime tons of Americans, excuse or fail to acknowledge racism, as if it's not racist if it doesn't actually involve the N word (or equivalent).
I don't have much trouble imagining this same story taking place on a U.S. flight.
I would think it probably only takes one or two people who are frightened enough -- and unembarrassed enough about it -- to actually get up and walk out, to get the whole flight joining in.
And by "the whole flight," of course, I mean "such a large part of it as might as well be the whole thing from the point of view of the airline."
49: Yeah, it could totally happen on a US flight, of course.
49: You don't have to imagine it, Felix. Check out this ridiculousness from a couple of years ago.
52: Jesus. I'd forgotten that one. I think that's possibly even worse, or at least more pathetic.
Well, now that we can't take pens on planes any more, there'll be no more worries of *that* sort.
Am quite willing to admit that my understanding of British racism gets some of the angles all wrong.
Really, B, it'd probably best if you just stopped spouting off about things British altogether.
Aw, fuck 'em. It's not like I'm the first or last smartass American they've ever run across.
I can say with complete confidence that our rednecks can beat your rednecks' ass
Hmm. If you're talking strictly redneck, I'll give this one to the Americans. But the UK actually doesn't have a very large rural poor population, so it's a bit of an unfair fight. If you want to talk US poor white trash versus UK poor white trash, though, my money's on the Brits. While Americans seem to spend the first 10 minute of every fight bowing up and shouting "You want some of this?" or (here's my favourite from high school) "You feeling froggy? Then jump!", Brits move straight in for a headbutt to the nose, or hit you across the face with a bottle.
There's a certain grim, methodical fiereceness to the British hard man that you don't find in most American rednecks. I'd take a Glasgow chav in a fight over a Georgia redneck anyday.
I think Reuben's right. The image of Begby shoving a pint glass through a minor disputant's face isn't particularly fanciful.
re: 57 and 58
'd take a Glasgow chav in a fight over a Georgia redneck anyday.
Goes without saying! Americans are emasculated by the widespread availability of guns.
I'm not sure you guys know the right georgia rednecks. some of them go for the "coming at you all of a sudden with a tire iron" school of drunk-fu. the only warning you got was a sullen, meth-addled gleam in their eye, and then...maybe we could start a fantasy white-trash fight league, using real crime statistics.
I take the Brits. The issue isn't the hardness of the Georgia redneck; it's our constant underrating of the Brit thug, who, I gather, really are a thug's thugs.
re: 60
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm
ttaM -- how could Scotland be "the most violent country in the developed world"? -- It is not even properly speaking a country, is it? More a province or whatchamacallit of the United Kingdom right?
re: 63
Crime statistics for Scotland are recorded separately from the rest of the UK and Scotland has a separate legal system and judiciary.
The status of the consistituent countries of the UK is a bit wierd. Scotland is classed -- by the UK government -- as a 'constituent country' rather than a province. Scotland didn't cease to be a country when the Act of Union took place.
64 -- Huh. I didn't realize, thought the UK was sort of like the US -- turns out it is more like the EU.
re: 66
Yes and no. For example, Scotland has, its own:
parliament
legal system
judiciary
education system
football team
However, the Scottish Parliament has somewhat limited powers. It has full jurisdiction over almost everything except foreign policy and defence but it only has the power to vary income tax 3% either side of the value set by the UK national parliament [which itself has just over 60 Scottish members].
Scotland doesn't count as a separate state for some international legal purposes -- there's no Scottish passport for example -- but, since Scottish civil and criminal law is different from the rest of the UK, is treated separately for many others.
It's all a bit complicated!
Wales and Northern Ireland lack many of the independent features that Scotland retains.
Wales and Northern Ireland lack many of the independent features that Scotland retains.
What about the channel islands?
60 & 61: SCMT has it right. I've lived in Georgia and the UK, and spent more than one night in the Cherokee County (Ga) holding cell. (Extra fun when you're tripping, and wearing nothing but underwear and glasses.) When it comes to violence, American rednecks are highly enthusiastic amateurs, but British thugs have a true sense of professionalism about their violence. It's almost admirable in a way.
Think about it - thugs in the UK are so tough, they get two whole countries' worth of statistics.
Seems to me I remember the Channel Isles are not part of the UK, but the remnants of the Dukedom of Normandy. Just as the king of England & Scotland were the same person for a hundred years before the Act of Union, without making them one country, the isles are not part of the kingdom. Queen is called the "the Duke" there — note gender. She'd be Elector of Hannover too, if that mattered.
re: 68
More complicated again, I think!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_islands#Politics
They aren't actually part of the UK but have another type of wierd status again. To quote wikipedia:
Matters reserved to the Crown (i.e. the United Kingdom government) are limited to defence, citizenship, and diplomatic representation. The Islands are not bound by treaties concluded by the United Kingdom (unless they so request) and may separately conclude treaties with foreign governments (except concerning matters reserved to the Crown)....The Islands are not part of the European Union but are part of the Customs Territory of the European Community by virtue of Protocol 3 to the Treaty on European Union. Islanders are full British Citizens, but not all are European Citizens."
Reading upthread a bit, I'm reminded that the concept of "union," which in American history has an almost mystic significance, mostly dating from the civil war period and Lincoln's usage, comes from and is analogous to British usage, referring to The Act. Most Americans, even well-educated ones, don't know enough history to get that; they think Britain, which they often call "England," was one country back into the middle ages. They may know the flag is called the "Union Jack," but are unlikely to know it's a St. George's Cross in front of a St. Andrew's. St Patrick's added later, by another act of union that has not held for the whole island of Ireland.
I had to assemble the flag from its components, rightside up, as part of a timed competition as a "Wolf Cub" — what's called a "Cub Scout" in the US.
If you are in any doubt on the true nature of British violence, you should read Bill Buford's Among the Thugs.
re: 75
Speaking of Reno...
I was at an opening for an exhibition last year which featured a blackboard donated by E /no.
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/blackboard/eno-l.htm
A mate and I were discussing the blackboard -- fairly snarkily, it has to be said -- unaware of the bloke in the anorak behind us. A Mr B E /no.
They aren't actually part of the UK but have another type of wierd status again
How can they not be part of the UK? It's a united kingdom, isn't it?
Then the country shouldn't be called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", it should be called "The United Kingdom of The Channel Islands and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And Bermuda".
76: Why googleproof? I believe he is one of the men I would most like to appear on this forum.
Some of my cousins grew up on the Isle of Jersey in the Channel Islands, and one of the interesting features of the island, given its tax haven status, is that there is so much money floating around that basically all students from there go on to fully-funded university education.
one of the interesting features of the island
... and one of the most annoying aspects of being an American citizen is that you can't take advantage of such islands, no matter where you live or are employed. Dammit.
re: 77
Yeah, but they aren't part of the United Kingdom. The UK is a political entity created by a series of treaties - the Union.
The Channel Islands aren't party to those treaties but have their status under an entirely different set of treaties based around the Queen's status as the Duke of Normandy. As 'I don't pay' said in 70.
The Isle of Man has a similarly wierd status -- she, Elizabeth, is the 'Lord of Mann'. The Isle of Man is also not part of the UK.
and one of the most annoying aspects of being an American citizen is that you can't take advantage of such islands, no matter where you live or are employed.
Yes, but as an American citizen you have a right to build factories that employ slave labor on our own islands. What we lose on the swings we gain on the roundabouts.
I think American history, particularly the civil war, obscures our ability to understand states comprised of nations which remain distinct, formed by treaty. So that learning that Wilhelmine Germany was such a country, where the Emperor was supreme but also, in his capacity of King of Prussia, exchanged embassadors with the King of Bavaria, whose army was distinct, and had a certain autonomy, seems like house of mirrors stuff to us.
I agree with 83, I have no ability to fathom a situation like the one he describes.
I find it almost impossible to imagine how the Prime Minister of the U.K. can also be the Member of Parliament from some little district somewhere. I mean, doesn't that mean that the Durham/Sedgefield area should enjoy an absolutely insane amount of undeserved congressional earmarks?
re: 84
That's because we are a parliamentary democracy rather than some wierd electoral quasi-monarchy.
That's because we are a parliamentary democracy rather than some wierd electoral quasi-monarchy.
Oh, please. I'm not even going to dignify this claptrap beyond "oh, please," either.
re: 87
There are properties of the US system that make it more superficially quasi-monarchical but of course I know it's not a bloody monarchy in any sense of the term. Can't someone be a bit snarky without it being taken literally?
I agree with the contention that the U.S. President is an office that should not exist. The U.S. government is pretty much the most democratic government that anyone could have imagined in 1780. But now there are dozens of more democratic governments.
It would be OK if the Queen of England was an elected office, though.
Edmund Wilson's account, in Patriotic Gore, of how our understanding of our country was created by the rhetoric of one man, Lincoln is very provocative on these issues. Wilson compared him to Bismark and Lenin, as one of a triumvirate of modern empire unifiers, who used the imagination of the people to essentially create a new country.
Consider the use by Lincoln of the word nation: it's prominant in both speeches, Second Innaugural and Gettysburg Address, which are carved in stone and flank the statute on the monument. And speaking in front of the statute, MLK used the word in Lincoln's sense to great effect. Yet the word is essentially question-begging, and assumes something that had not existed, and may not exist now, except in our sentiments.
I find it almost impossible to imagine how the Prime Minister of the U.K. can also be the Member of Parliament
Actually, that's the situation in more democracies than not. The German Chancellor is not the head of state, I'm more or less certain that she's a member of the House of Representatives. The President is a ceremonial office. Ditto Ireland. Ditto, the scandinavian monarchies (exc. for ceremonial monarchs instead of presidents.) And Australia and NZ.
What we can't understand is how you let the executive branch concentrate so much power when it clearly wasn't the intention of the framers.
the most democratic government that anyone could have imagined in 1780
Well, no. The framers deliberately tried to avoid establishing a democratic government. The Constitution was designed quite intentionally to avoid what they saw as the flaws of too much democracy.
But nattarGcM, I expect more of PPE-ist snark.
To probably 99.9% of Americans, the word "nation", and "country" are synonymous. And the word "state" means one of the 50 states of the U.S., and has no other meaning.
One of the weirdest days of my life was when a friend explained to me that what I had thought were countries were actually states. And that some states contain more than one nation. And some nations are spread across more than one state. And some states exist in the absence of a nation. And the word "country" is meaningless, at least to him. If he hadn't been a political science major there's no way I could have figured out what he was talking about.
Well, no. The framers deliberately tried to avoid establishing a democratic government. The Constitution was designed quite intentionally to avoid what they saw as the flaws of too much democracy.
I meant that it was their attempt to avoid the aspects of democracy which they thought would lead to mob rule. But democracies founded later on showed that some of those fears were unfounded.
how you let the executive branch concentrate so much power when it clearly wasn't the intention of the framers
Laziness and deference. And while we're at in, the Magna Carta looks distinctly unwell.
Well, you're the people who had the revolution, so what's with this fucking deference?
the word "country" is meaningless
Deference to our local elites, who were so wise as to effect a revolution for us.
Well, you're the people who had the revolution, so what's with this fucking deference?
Those were different people, they were in a country that was being restrained from growing. We live in a country whose prosperity has plateaued, and are terrified of losing what we have been born into.
re: 93
Ah, the problem here is that I'm not a PPE-ist.
I'm strictly a single-P sort of chap. My undergraduate degree was philosophy and linguistics/english-philology sort of stuff.
So low-grade political snark it is.
re:
And while we're at in, the Magna Carta looks distinctly unwell.
Yeah. The UK is in a parlous state at the moment. It's quite depressing to contemplate the current political and legal situation.
I endorse the statement "We live in a country whose prosperity has plateaued, and are terrified of losing what we have been born into" and think it's a good explanation for the "Safety is at least thirty times more important than freedom" attitude that seems to be unavoidable recently.
Deference to the stupid idea of macho American individualism.
The fucking bane of the colonized, revolutionary, agrarian myth.
B, there's lots to be said against the individualist myth but in fairness I think that's not why we've yielded so much power to the executive.
I'm having a little trouble parsing 104. I think the second sentence is a variation on the first, not a statement that the stupid idea of macho American individualismisthe fucking bane..., which sets those myths against each other.
why we've yielded so much power to the executive
Michael Franti will tell you why.
re: 107
Ooh. I saw them on that tour. One of the overwhelming memories was of being nervous that the sparks would ignite the ceiling in 'King Tut's Wah Wah Hut'...
106 was me, and I meant it to look like this:
I'm having a little trouble parsing 104. I think the second sentence is a variation on the first, not a statement that the stupid idea of macho American individualism is the fucking bane..., which sets those myths against each other.
Michael Franti will tell you why.
Yeah, but again in fairness, we started down this road a long time before tv.
108: I saw them open for Public Enemy many, many moons ago. What a show.
re: 111
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8AbVg7cO8iM
From a British TV show.
Michael Franti will tell you why.
Then democracy is over? Well, it was fun while it lasted.
No, not sure I'm ready to believe that yet.
106 was right, not 109.
105: I actually believe that, even though it's obviously a massive oversimplification. I think that Rove et al. have done a fabulous job of building on the individualist idea that we vote the man, not the party, and combining it with the rugged individualist portrayal of GWB, and the "no one tells America what to do" thing, and the idea that any criticism of policy is an insult to the president personally. And insulting a man, them's fighting words. Etc. etc.
But yielding of power to the executive, contrary to the framers' intentions, goes back to George Washington. Which is a little before Rove. I guess you could make the case that was about individualism too, but it seems a little anachronistic, which is why I was suggesting deference.
106 was right, not 109.
Now you've really confused me.
the stupid idea of macho American individualism [is]
the fucking bane of the colonized, revolutionary, agrarian myth.
The framers intended the executive to be more powerful than previous executives in the state governments, many of which they saw as too weak in the face of the legislative (mob-like) powers. Part of the reason they wanted the federal government to be stronger than the Articles of Confederation government was also to counteract what they saw as too much democracy in the states. I don't know when governors became stronger.
My guess is that the framers themselves would say that we've allowed the executive to gain so much power because power is always at war with liberty, it's the nature of power to concentrate itself through the abuse of such things as patronage, and that all the checks and balances put in place were not enough to prevent this from happening, and, just maybe, some of the anti-Federalists (but not all, because there were a lot of varieties of anti-Federalism and the lack of coherent, consistent opposition to the Constitution put the anti-Feds at a disadvantage during the ratification debates, faced as they were with a pretty united pro-Constitution front) were right and the Constitution really was written in such a way as to allow for the growth of despotism. They'd also sound more paranoid, and have a more conspiratorial view of history, than we do.
So you did mean to set them against each other, as in some respects equally constructed and distorting. Which is a backhanded way of saying, yes, our individualist inheritance is atrocious, but so is what many of its enemies believe, the reason for their opposition.
Some of the framers, or at least Hamilton, would be pretty damn pleased at how things turned out.
I believe Hamilton was a bastard brat.
118: Don't you think they also still had memories of the Commonwealth and religious intolerance going through their heads, and associated too much parliamentary power with populist fundamentalist? And saw executive power as inherently somewhat elitist and therefore anti-populist?
Which, obviously they were wrong, and didn't yet see the ways that a strong executive could expoloit populism for fascist purposes.
119: Oh fuck, now I've confused myself. Ignore 117. What I meant was, "American individualism; the bane of. . . "
I'm not such a fan either. Nor do I share his pleasure in the way things shook out, the pleasure of his ghostie, the smug little bastard.
One problem is that we had to undertake a massive war effort, the likes of which the framers probably did not foresee, and then wanted to keep undertaking it. Or at least that's what my anustart keeps telling me.
123: No, I don't think so. The proximate cause of their concern about too much democracy was the behavior of Rhode Island and other states between the war and the conference in Philadelphia. They worried about Shays's Rebellion and the like. The concern about kings they had nursed during the 1760s and 1770s was somewhat overshadowed by the evident infirmities of the existing republics and their weak confederation.
This doesn't mean that much of anyone, except maybe Hamilton, wanted a really strong, quasi-monarchist executive. Madison pretty clearly wanted a supreme national legislature, with a Fourteenth-Amendment-style veto over state laws (obvs. didn't get it).
OTOH, much of the language in the Federalist about how limited the national government, and its executive, will be under the Constitution does have to be taken with a grain of salt, as the Federalist was meant to allay the fears of anti-Federalists, and does not express so well as the Notes of Debates the original concerns of the framers.
On the third hand, the language of the Federalist should probably for that very reason be taken to have more force as an indicator of original intent than the Notes, because it wasn't the framers who ratified the Constitution, but rather, the people who were supposed to be swayed by the Federalist; they were sovereign, not the Philadelphia conferees. Which means that inasmuch as the Federalist, and like pamphlets, tell us what the voters wanted to hear about the new government, they're probably a better source for what "we the people" wanted out of their Constitution.
114 only works when said "man" is respected and seen as a hero (even if a loner) which GWB no longer obviously is. He's now seen as a little man with a big Napoleon complex.
124: I thought I had it; 119 is what I think follows, from your use of words, whatever your intention.
colonized, revolutionary, agrarian myth ain't the friendliest way of characterizing the source of much opposition to American individualism, or any other kind of belief in individual autonomy. I happen to agree with what I think you're saying.
126: To say nothing of long-standing issues about the reliability of the notes, and Madison's motives in publishing them many years later, under changed political conditions.
