T1B

Excelent book by Lynne Olson on the prelude to Chamberlain's ouster (first chapter available online)...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0374179 ... eader-link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


We all may still be going to die.

Or Obama could lose.

















Also an excelent read on the pathology of the left....

"Accuse your enemies of what you do"

--Machiavelli

King Crimson wrote:"Accuse your enemies of what you do"

--Machiavelli

A Chamberlain fan?

Must be campaigning for Obama.

I think it's clear that he was referring to your latter choice.

PSUFAN wrote:I think it's clear that he was referring to your latter choice.

I guess he must have read the book. The intro covers the left's tendency to do just that.

Props.

i stand by the "universality" of my original post and the apparent, demonstrated reversibility of the logic in partisan terms as adequate comment on politics today.

i do find it a little funny that the right likes to foreground a certain element of the past (Churchill and the "troublesome Tories") without hesitation into the present. the reframing of WWII (and appeasement) as the moral context for thinking global politics, foreign policy and economy today seems regressive and ideological to me. there's a real set of historical, anti-establishment underdogs, the Tories.

calling someone an "appeaser" or a fan of Nigel Chamberlain is about as automatic as partisan logic gets. c'mon, you got to better than that.

edit: interesting you've sigged Yeats. don't read any comment into this, i just think it's interesting.

King Crimson wrote:i stand by the "universality" of my original post and the apparent, demonstrated reversibility of the logic in partisan terms as adequate comment on politics today.

It may be universal, but lacking in context. Although it is a theme of the intro to the second book in question, whether you have read it or it was mearly serendipitous is unknown.

King Crimson wrote:i do find it a little funny that the right likes to foreground a certain element of the past (Churchill and the "troublesome Tories") without hesitation into the present. the reframing of WWII (and appeasement) as the moral context for thinking global politics, foreign policy and economy today seems regressive and ideological to me. there's a real set of historical, anti-establishment underdogs, the Tories.

A) It was supposed to be funny. Thanks.
B) Just because you don't like the analogy doesn't make it valid.
C) In case you didn't know, the subjects of TYM were going against the Tories, at severe political risk.

King Crimson wrote:edit: interesting you've sigged Yeats. don't read any comment into this, i just think it's interesting.

Seems appropriate for this political cycle.

BTW, also went through this one...




Fourth in the series, a real page turner.

Churchill briefly joined the liberals on economic terms, but was a Tory most of his career. as i mentioned, intra-Tory squabbling over the nature of the empire is more the fascination of those with a ken for authoritarian personalities and ruling class dramatics rather than radical politics.

King Crimson wrote:Churchill briefly joined the liberals on economic terms, but was a Tory most of his career. as i mentioned, intra-Tory squabbling over the nature of the empire is more the fascination of those with a ken for authoritarian personalities and ruling class dramatics rather than radical politics.

Of course none of that has anything to do with the book in question.

Diogenes wrote:

King Crimson wrote:Churchill briefly joined the liberals on economic terms, but was a Tory most of his career. as i mentioned, intra-Tory squabbling over the nature of the empire is more the fascination of those with a ken for authoritarian personalities and ruling class dramatics rather than radical politics.

Of course none of that has anything to do with the bok in question.

which one? the book where you idolize a subset of the Tory party or the one that claims Mussolini was a left figure?

King Crimson wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

King Crimson wrote:Churchill briefly joined the liberals on economic terms, but was a Tory most of his career. as i mentioned, intra-Tory squabbling over the nature of the empire is more the fascination of those with a ken for authoritarian personalities and ruling class dramatics rather than radical politics.

Of course none of that has anything to do with the bok in question.

which one? the book where you idolize a subset of the Tory party or the one that claims Mussolini was a left figure?

I don't do anything in the first (it doesn't even mention me- and and it doesn't idolize anyone either) and the second only has one chapter on Mussolini (who of course was a leftist) and eight on the history of the American left.

But please continue commenting on books you haven't read.

Diogenes wrote: I don't do anything in the first (it doesn't even mention me )

Then you should have taken a more active role in the cabinet. Snoozing backbencher, eh?

Dio, you're getting a bit muddled. :?

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Diogenes wrote: I don't do anything in the first (it doesn't even mention me )

Then you should have taken a more active role in the cabinet. Snoozing backbencher, eh?

I prefer working behind the scenes.

Some links on LF (for those who would like to at least read about a book before denigrating it...

http://www.nysun.com/arts/americas-fasc ... ent/68954/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://calitreview.com/303" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I won't buy you a copy, but this guy will...

http://www.davidunleashed.com/2008/07/1 ... pies-left/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;