Discussion:
The Foundation Series
Add Reply
David Johnston
2018-07-27 19:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The Foundation Trilogy is fascinating to me…but not so much for the
prose style or characterization which are merely serviceable. It’s
science fiction from the 50s after all. Rather it fascinates for the
scope and originality of the premise. This is Big Idea science fiction,
but not written by an author who is so enraptured by his Big Idea that
he fails to grasp that it has problems or to admit to them. That was one
of Asimov’s strengths as compared to many of his peers. Compare to
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.

In short, I think the Foundation Trilogy is a worthwhile read but not
absolutely the best thing ever written for of all of it’s intriguing
originality. Not even the best thing Asimov ever wrote. For that look to
the Caves of Steel and Nightfall (the short story, not the superfluous
expansion). Asimov left the Trilogy on the shelf for a long time but
toward the end of his life he returned to it. Of those I thought
Foundation’s Edge was a pretty neat update and sequel. Anything after
that…sigh… Feeling compelled to tie absolutely every novel together into
one timeline didn’t work so well for me.
Christian Weisgerber
2018-07-27 22:28:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
The Foundation Trilogy is fascinating to me…but not so much for the
prose style or characterization which are merely serviceable. It’s
science fiction from the 50s after all. Rather it fascinates for the
scope and originality of the premise. This is Big Idea science fiction,
I read it rather late and my impression was that someone had
encountered statistical thermodynamics and now had the idea to apply
this to human society. I don't buy for a moment that you can do
that, humans behave in more complex ways than gas particles, leading
to all sorts of emergent behavior, but I'm willing to go with it
for a bit.
Post by David Johnston
but not written by an author who is so enraptured by his Big Idea that
he fails to grasp that it has problems or to admit to them. That was one
of Asimov’s strengths as compared to many of his peers. Compare to
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles. Heinlein
did at one point actually write a political manual, _Take Back Your
Government_, and a lot of it is found in... _Double Star_. Yes,
_Double Star_, widely considered a harmless romp, may be Heinlein's
most political novel.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
D B Davis
2018-07-28 00:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
The Foundation Trilogy is fascinating to me…but not so much for the
prose style or characterization which are merely serviceable. It’s
science fiction from the 50s after all. Rather it fascinates for the
scope and originality of the premise. This is Big Idea science fiction,
I read it rather late and my impression was that someone had
encountered statistical thermodynamics and now had the idea to apply
this to human society. I don't buy for a moment that you can do
that, humans behave in more complex ways than gas particles, leading
to all sorts of emergent behavior, but I'm willing to go with it
for a bit.
Post by David Johnston
but not written by an author who is so enraptured by his Big Idea that
he fails to grasp that it has problems or to admit to them. That was one
of Asimov’s strengths as compared to many of his peers. Compare to
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles. Heinlein
did at one point actually write a political manual, _Take Back Your
Government_, and a lot of it is found in... _Double Star_. Yes,
_Double Star_, widely considered a harmless romp, may be Heinlein's
most political novel.
Is psychohistory one of the Big Ideas? "Success has many fathers." Is
Campbell one of psychohistory's fathers?
Asimov first uses the term psychohistory in "Foundation." The
novelette appears in the May 1942 edition of Astounding. [1]
Psychohistory's synonymous with psychodynamics, which RAH coined for
"Coventry" and other stories. "Coventry" appears in the February 1940
edition of Astounding [2], a good two years before Asimov's
psychohistory is set into print.
The role that statistical thermodynamics played in RAH's
psychodynamics is unclear. It's my impression that propaganda and mob
psychology played bigger role.



Note.

1. https://archive.org/details/Astounding_v29n03_1942-05
2. https://archive.org/details/Astounding_v24n06_1940-02_cape1736

Thank you,
--
Don
Dan Tilque
2018-07-29 19:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by Christian Weisgerber
I read it rather late and my impression was that someone had
encountered statistical thermodynamics and now had the idea to apply
this to human society.
[deletia]
Post by D B Davis
Is psychohistory one of the Big Ideas? "Success has many fathers." Is
Campbell one of psychohistory's fathers?
Asimov first uses the term psychohistory in "Foundation." The
novelette appears in the May 1942 edition of Astounding. [1]
Psychohistory's synonymous with psychodynamics, which RAH coined for
"Coventry" and other stories. "Coventry" appears in the February 1940
edition of Astounding [2], a good two years before Asimov's
psychohistory is set into print.
The idea of mathematics predicting human behavior has an earlier
appearance in Asimov's fiction too. That idea is also in "Home Sol"
which was also published in 1940. According to Wikipedia, he wrote it in
December 1939, so obviously was not influenced by Heinlein's story.

He was a graduate student in chemistry at the time, so the influence of
statistical thermodynamics is quite likely.
--
Dan Tilque
m***@sky.com
2018-07-28 04:48:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
The Foundation Trilogy is fascinating to me…but not so much for the
prose style or characterization which are merely serviceable. It’s
science fiction from the 50s after all. Rather it fascinates for the
scope and originality of the premise. This is Big Idea science fiction,
I read it rather late and my impression was that someone had
encountered statistical thermodynamics and now had the idea to apply
this to human society. I don't buy for a moment that you can do
that, humans behave in more complex ways than gas particles, leading
to all sorts of emergent behavior, but I'm willing to go with it
for a bit.
I agree that statistical thermodynamics is a very good fit to Psychohistory as described by Asimov - you can't predict individual outcomes, but you can predict large scale movements over time. I note that if you consider turbulence instead, the analogy is a lot less encouraging (https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1315:_Questions_for_God). So all of those liberal arts students who are about to step in and explain to me that _of course_ people are different in special ways that only they can possibly understand can take a step back and meditate again on complex outcomes from simple rules.

(Looks like academics were prepared to take the idea of Psychohistory, but not the name - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliodynamics)
J. Clarke
2018-07-28 21:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 22:28:15 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
The Foundation Trilogy is fascinating to me…but not so much for the
prose style or characterization which are merely serviceable. It’s
science fiction from the 50s after all. Rather it fascinates for the
scope and originality of the premise. This is Big Idea science fiction,
I read it rather late and my impression was that someone had
encountered statistical thermodynamics and now had the idea to apply
this to human society. I don't buy for a moment that you can do
that, humans behave in more complex ways than gas particles, leading
to all sorts of emergent behavior, but I'm willing to go with it
for a bit.
but not written by an author who is so enraptured by his Big Idea that
he fails to grasp that it has problems or to admit to them. That was one
of Asimov’s strengths as compared to many of his peers. Compare to
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles. Heinlein
did at one point actually write a political manual, _Take Back Your
Government_, and a lot of it is found in... _Double Star_. Yes,
_Double Star_, widely considered a harmless romp, may be Heinlein's
most political novel.
Sometimes I think that the people who opine the loudest about it are
those who have never actually read it, the poster child for whom is
Paul Verhoeven.
David Johnston
2018-07-29 00:19:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
The Foundation Trilogy is fascinating to me…but not so much for the
prose style or characterization which are merely serviceable. It’s
science fiction from the 50s after all. Rather it fascinates for the
scope and originality of the premise. This is Big Idea science fiction,
I read it rather late and my impression was that someone had
encountered statistical thermodynamics and now had the idea to apply
this to human society. I don't buy for a moment that you can do
that, humans behave in more complex ways than gas particles, leading
to all sorts of emergent behavior, but I'm willing to go with it
for a bit.
Post by David Johnston
but not written by an author who is so enraptured by his Big Idea that
he fails to grasp that it has problems or to admit to them. That was one
of Asimov’s strengths as compared to many of his peers. Compare to
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles. Heinlein
did at one point actually write a political manual, _Take Back Your
Government_, and a lot of it is found in... _Double Star_. Yes,
_Double Star_, widely considered a harmless romp, may be Heinlein's
most political novel.
It's certainly a novel about politics. But somehow I doubt he
recommended recapitulating the Prison of Zenda as a method for "taking
back your government".
William Hyde
2018-07-29 20:19:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
The Foundation Trilogy is fascinating to me…but not so much for the
prose style or characterization which are merely serviceable. It’s
science fiction from the 50s after all. Rather it fascinates for the
scope and originality of the premise. This is Big Idea science fiction,
I read it rather late and my impression was that someone had
encountered statistical thermodynamics and now had the idea to apply
this to human society.
Asimov was quite clear in his autobiography that the idea was based on thermodynamics. Not statistical physics itself, Asimov didn't have the math for that and it wasn't required of chemists.


I don't buy for a moment that you can do
Post by Christian Weisgerber
that, humans behave in more complex ways than gas particles, leading
to all sorts of emergent behavior, but I'm willing to go with it
for a bit.
Post by David Johnston
but not written by an author who is so enraptured by his Big Idea that
he fails to grasp that it has problems or to admit to them. That was one
of Asimov’s strengths as compared to many of his peers.
My feeling is that this is why he stopped writing after the first three books. The logical consequences of his previous work (and Campbell's input) were not something he liked.

Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia, and Heinlein must have gotten many chuckles out of its defenders and detractors. Our narrator is not a smart person, which the author goes out of his way to make very clear.

William Hyde
David Johnston
2018-07-30 00:51:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
h***@gmail.com
2018-07-30 08:27:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
David Johnston
2018-07-30 14:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
It's a setting where everyone's happy with society except for the
external threat. That's a utopia.
Panthera Tigris Altaica
2018-07-30 14:57:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
It's a setting where everyone's happy with society except for the
external threat. That's a utopia.
Not everybody. There are disgruntled civilians, including disgruntled civilians who got whipped in the military and then got drummed out of the service for striking a superior officer, the Federation then being in a state of emergency.
William Hyde
2018-07-30 19:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such. Problematic parts of the book now work well.

It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.

The rulers launch what seems clearly to be a war of aggression at the bugs and bungle it so badly that it becomes a war of survival.

The book is rife with clues that the world Rico sees is not the world that actually exists. He's a very useful man, smart enough to be competent but not one to question the status quo. If he lives, I suspect they'll get him elected to office. A war-hero senator, and utterly reliable.

He will die respected by all, honored with a fine military funeral. People will shake their heads sadly and say that they don't make men like that nowadays. He will never know who he was working for.

William Hyde
David Johnston
2018-07-30 21:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such. Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
Kevrob
2018-07-31 00:01:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
Presumably, the veterans of Federal Service, or a subset
of them acting as a cabal, running things.

ST posits service, then citizenship. When it was written,
citizenship was supposed to be a birthright. If one was a
naturalized citizen, one had to promise to serve in time
of war. Refusing to serve could result in a felony conviction,
suspending your suffrage rights, or or terminating them,
absent a pardon, in some states. see:

https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

On the one hand we have: "volunteer to serve, and you
will get the franchise." On the other it's "we'll jail you
if you refuse conscription, and strip you of the franchise."

Arguably, the first is less oppressive. I don't think anyone goes
to jail for not refusing to "volunteer" for service.

The book does not go into detail about the other rights and
privileges of the "metic citizens" that Juan Rico's Dad and
Mom seem to be, but they seem very prosperous. Well-to-do
groups effectively with limited political rights or power
are common enough in human history.

In 1959, women's suffrage was only decades old, "manhood
suffrage" for white men wasn't much older in some states.
and African-Americans, Mexican-Americans were routinely
denied the right to vote. Chinese couldn't even become
citizens until 1943, and were still restricted from owning
land until 1952. Universal suffrage, without discrimination
by race, national origin, sex/gender etc. was not a reality
when RAH wrote the novel.

Kevin R
William Hyde
2018-08-01 18:22:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such. Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
We never see them, naturally. Only their actions.

William Hyde
D B Davis
2018-08-02 18:17:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.

Note.

1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)

Thank you,
--
Don
David Johnston
2018-08-02 20:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Which kind of undermines that idea.
J. Clarke
2018-08-04 04:46:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
Post by D B Davis
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Thank you,
D B Davis
2018-08-05 01:20:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.

Thank you,
--
Don
David Johnston
2018-08-05 01:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
D B Davis
2018-08-05 02:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
As stated above:

"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."

Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.

Thank you,
--
Don
m***@sky.com
2018-08-05 04:22:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
Thank you,
--
Don
Inequality of wealth becomes a threat to political order only if it translates into unwarranted political power. In the world of ST the veterans are using the schools to educate/indoctrinate all children in their political ideals. Only veterans can vote and run for political office. Popular opposition to this, to the extent that it exists, seems to consist in regarding politics as irrelevant to real life, rather than opposing the veterans or their ideology. I don't see a problem here, from the point of the veterans (explaining the dismal real life record of military juntas is a different problem).

Those who also wish to criticize ST as Fascist should note that this implies a parallel structure of authority that allows members of the ruling party to control directly every part of daily life, including all commercial enterprises and firms, on the basis of the authority of the party, as distinct from any authority of the government. An oligarch would be even less powerful here.
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 05:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole". Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth. What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.

Why do you think it important that nonctizens be poor?
Dimensional Traveler
2018-08-05 05:58:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole". Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth. What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to. Just serve.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
David Johnston
2018-08-05 06:32:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:27:07 AM UTC-4,
Post by h***@gmail.com
     Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in
making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any
counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way.  It always seemed to me like a fairly benign
coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia.  They all have a certain odor
to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
    Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering
military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel.  If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
   "Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
    Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole".  Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth.  What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't want
that guy participating in the political process, all they have to do is
ride the recruit until it washes out.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-08-05 16:42:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:27:07 AM UTC-4,
Post by h***@gmail.com
     Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in
making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any
counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way.  It always seemed to me like a fairly benign
coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia.  They all have a certain odor
to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much
better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
    Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering
military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel.  If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
   "Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
    Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole".  Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth.  What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't want
that guy participating in the political process, all they have to do is
ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
David Johnston
2018-08-05 17:43:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:27:07 AM UTC-4,
Post by h***@gmail.com
     Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in
making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any
counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people
the wrong
way.  It always seemed to me like a fairly benign
coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a
dystopia,
No more than any other utopia.  They all have a certain
odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have
a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much
better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
    Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering
military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel.  If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
   "Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
    Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole".  Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth.  What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't
want that guy participating in the political process, all they have to
do is ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
Even assuming you don't get assigned to a combat arm which is not you
can entirely control, that has nothing to do with being able to ride the
recruit until they wash out.
p***@hotmail.com
2018-08-05 20:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't
want that guy participating in the political process, all they have to
do is ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
Even assuming you don't get assigned to a combat arm which is not you
can entirely control, that has nothing to do with being able to ride the
recruit until they wash out.
Heinlein addresses this issue in the novel. Juan Rico tells of a
fellow recruit who washes out of the M I when he is injured in
training and is actually carried off the course on a stretcher. Rico
then mentions that a person doesn't have to accept a medical discharge
and that later he met the guy again who had become a navy cook
on a troop transport.

So even if a person's immediate superiors do ride them until they
wash out that person can just go on to another set of higher
ups in another branch of service. Prejudice against someone
would have to extend right to the top of the government to count
on getting rid of them. Whether the Federation is corrupt
enough for this to happen is a separate question.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 20:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't
want that guy participating in the political process, all they have to
do is ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
Even assuming you don't get assigned to a combat arm which is not you
can entirely control, that has nothing to do with being able to ride the
recruit until they wash out.
Heinlein addresses this issue in the novel. Juan Rico tells of a
fellow recruit who washes out of the M I when he is injured in
training and is actually carried off the course on a stretcher. Rico
then mentions that a person doesn't have to accept a medical discharge
and that later he met the guy again who had become a navy cook
on a troop transport.
So even if a person's immediate superiors do ride them until they
wash out that person can just go on to another set of higher
ups in another branch of service.
Being injured isn't "washing out". Washing out is when you decide to
take your ball and go home.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Prejudice against someone
would have to extend right to the top of the government to count
on getting rid of them. Whether the Federation is corrupt
enough for this to happen is a separate question.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
p***@hotmail.com
2018-08-06 00:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't
want that guy participating in the political process, all they have to
do is ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
Even assuming you don't get assigned to a combat arm which is not you
can entirely control, that has nothing to do with being able to ride the
recruit until they wash out.
Heinlein addresses this issue in the novel. Juan Rico tells of a
fellow recruit who washes out of the M I when he is injured in
training and is actually carried off the course on a stretcher. Rico
then mentions that a person doesn't have to accept a medical discharge
and that later he met the guy again who had become a navy cook
on a troop transport.
So even if a person's immediate superiors do ride them until they
wash out that person can just go on to another set of higher
ups in another branch of service.
Being injured isn't "washing out". Washing out is when you decide to
take your ball and go home.
In common usage, to wash out is to fail at a course of training. This
can be for physical or mental reasons. In the incident I referred to
the person washed out of the M I when he was physically unable to handle
the training. Earlier, Rico was rejected from pilot training, logistics,
and many other preferred options on the basis of tests before even getting
into the programs and ended up in the M I as his last choice.

During World War 2 the wash-out rate for military pilot trainees was
about two-thirds. These people were nonetheless talented, skilled
and motivated and typically became navigators, flight engineers,
and bombardiers on bombers and other multi-place aircraft.

The wash-out rate for the Galactic Patrol is much higher, as commandant
von Hohendorff explains to the graduating class of Lensmen, but similarly,
candidates who wash-out at one goal do not necessarily leave the organization:

..."You know that every year one million eighteen-year-old boys of Earth
are chosen as cadets by competitive examinations. You know that during
the first year, before any of them see Wentworth Hall, that number shrinks
to less than fifty thousand. You know that by Graduation Day there are only
approximately one hundred left in the class. Now I am allowed to tell you
that you graduates are those who have come with flying colors through the
most brutally rigid, the most fiendishly thorough process of elimination
that it has been possible to develop.

"Every man who can be made to reveal any real weakness is dropped. Most of
these are dismissed from the Patrol. There are many splendid men, however,
who, for some reason not involving moral turpitude, are not quite what a
Lensman must be. These men make up our organization, from grease-monkeys
up to the highest commissioned officers below the rank of Lensman. This
explains what you already know--that the Galactic Patrol is the finest
body of intelligent beings yet to serve under one banner.

"Of the million who started, you few are left. As must every being who has
ever worn or who ever will wear the Lens, each of you has proven repeatedly,
to the cold verge of death itself, that he is in every respect qualified
to wear it."

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
J. Clarke
2018-08-06 00:53:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't
want that guy participating in the political process, all they have to
do is ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
Even assuming you don't get assigned to a combat arm which is not you
can entirely control, that has nothing to do with being able to ride the
recruit until they wash out.
Heinlein addresses this issue in the novel. Juan Rico tells of a
fellow recruit who washes out of the M I when he is injured in
training and is actually carried off the course on a stretcher. Rico
then mentions that a person doesn't have to accept a medical discharge
and that later he met the guy again who had become a navy cook
on a troop transport.
So even if a person's immediate superiors do ride them until they
wash out that person can just go on to another set of higher
ups in another branch of service.
Being injured isn't "washing out". Washing out is when you decide to
take your ball and go home.
In common usage, to wash out is to fail at a course of training. This
can be for physical or mental reasons. In the incident I referred to
the person washed out of the M I when he was physically unable to handle
the training. Earlier, Rico was rejected from pilot training, logistics,
and many other preferred options on the basis of tests before even getting
into the programs and ended up in the M I as his last choice.
During World War 2 the wash-out rate for military pilot trainees was
about two-thirds. These people were nonetheless talented, skilled
and motivated and typically became navigators, flight engineers,
and bombardiers on bombers and other multi-place aircraft.
The wash-out rate for the Galactic Patrol is much higher, as commandant
von Hohendorff explains to the graduating class of Lensmen, but similarly,
..."You know that every year one million eighteen-year-old boys of Earth
are chosen as cadets by competitive examinations. You know that during
the first year, before any of them see Wentworth Hall, that number shrinks
to less than fifty thousand. You know that by Graduation Day there are only
approximately one hundred left in the class. Now I am allowed to tell you
that you graduates are those who have come with flying colors through the
most brutally rigid, the most fiendishly thorough process of elimination
that it has been possible to develop.
"Every man who can be made to reveal any real weakness is dropped. Most of
these are dismissed from the Patrol. There are many splendid men, however,
who, for some reason not involving moral turpitude, are not quite what a
Lensman must be. These men make up our organization, from grease-monkeys
up to the highest commissioned officers below the rank of Lensman. This
explains what you already know--that the Galactic Patrol is the finest
body of intelligent beings yet to serve under one banner.
"Of the million who started, you few are left. As must every being who has
ever worn or who ever will wear the Lens, each of you has proven repeatedly,
to the cold verge of death itself, that he is in every respect qualified
to wear it."
With all of that, the issue is making someone not get citizenship.
"Washing out" by your definition doesn't deny citizenship, so it is an
irrelevant scenario.
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-07 01:47:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't
want that guy participating in the political process, all they have to
do is ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
Even assuming you don't get assigned to a combat arm which is not you
can entirely control, that has nothing to do with being able to ride the
recruit until they wash out.
Heinlein addresses this issue in the novel. Juan Rico tells of a
fellow recruit who washes out of the M I when he is injured in
training and is actually carried off the course on a stretcher. Rico
then mentions that a person doesn't have to accept a medical discharge
and that later he met the guy again who had become a navy cook
on a troop transport.
So even if a person's immediate superiors do ride them until they
wash out that person can just go on to another set of higher
ups in another branch of service. Prejudice against someone
would have to extend right to the top of the government to count
on getting rid of them. Whether the Federation is corrupt
enough for this to happen is a separate question.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
The commander of a given recruit can, apaprently at will, subject only to reveiw by the commander's own superiors, isuse an 'undesirable discharge" to any recrit who the commander does not think will make a satisfactor soldier, or an acceptable citizen. We only *see* this being done for good cause, but three appear to be no effective limits except self-restraint on this power. Certainly it *could* be bused to prevent people with an attitude that the current powers that be dislike toward the government or institutions from ever becoming citizens.

-DES
J. Clarke
2018-08-07 03:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't
want that guy participating in the political process, all they have to
do is ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
Even assuming you don't get assigned to a combat arm which is not you
can entirely control, that has nothing to do with being able to ride the
recruit until they wash out.
Heinlein addresses this issue in the novel. Juan Rico tells of a
fellow recruit who washes out of the M I when he is injured in
training and is actually carried off the course on a stretcher. Rico
then mentions that a person doesn't have to accept a medical discharge
and that later he met the guy again who had become a navy cook
on a troop transport.
So even if a person's immediate superiors do ride them until they
wash out that person can just go on to another set of higher
ups in another branch of service. Prejudice against someone
would have to extend right to the top of the government to count
on getting rid of them. Whether the Federation is corrupt
enough for this to happen is a separate question.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
The commander of a given recruit can,
The "Regimental Commander", in the extant case a Major, which means
that the guy has already told his story to the Sergeant, the Second
Looie, the Looie, and the Captain.

And he has regulations that he has to follow? Have you ever seen the
US Uniform Code of Military Justice? You can't just kick somebody out
for no reason, he has to have busted a reg that has "Undesirable
Discharge" as an allowed punishment.
Post by d***@gmail.com
apaprently at will, subject only to reveiw by the commander's own superiors, isuse an 'undesirable discharge" to any recrit who the commander does not think will make a satisfactor soldier, or an acceptable citizen.
Just like a judge in the US, at will and subject only to review by his
own superiors, can jail just about anybody.
Post by d***@gmail.com
We only *see* this being done for good cause, but three appear to be no effective limits except self-restraint on this power.
You have evidence from the book that there are no regulations?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Certainly it *could* be bused to prevent people with an attitude that the current powers that be dislike toward the government or institutions from ever becoming citizens.
If the regs allow it.
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-07 20:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't
want that guy participating in the political process, all they have to
do is ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
Even assuming you don't get assigned to a combat arm which is not you
can entirely control, that has nothing to do with being able to ride the
recruit until they wash out.
Heinlein addresses this issue in the novel. Juan Rico tells of a
fellow recruit who washes out of the M I when he is injured in
training and is actually carried off the course on a stretcher. Rico
then mentions that a person doesn't have to accept a medical discharge
and that later he met the guy again who had become a navy cook
on a troop transport.
So even if a person's immediate superiors do ride them until they
wash out that person can just go on to another set of higher
ups in another branch of service. Prejudice against someone
would have to extend right to the top of the government to count
on getting rid of them. Whether the Federation is corrupt
enough for this to happen is a separate question.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
The commander of a given recruit can,
The "Regimental Commander", in the extant case a Major, which means
that the guy has already told his story to the Sergeant, the Second
Looie, the Looie, and the Captain.
And he has regulations that he has to follow? Have you ever seen the
US Uniform Code of Military Justice? You can't just kick somebody out
for no reason, he has to have busted a reg that has "Undesirable
Discharge" as an allowed punishment.
Post by d***@gmail.com
apaprently at will, subject only to reveiw by the commander's own superiors, isuse an 'undesirable discharge" to any recrit who the commander does not think will make a satisfactor soldier, or an acceptable citizen.
Just like a judge in the US, at will and subject only to review by his
own superiors, can jail just about anybody.
Post by d***@gmail.com
We only *see* this being done for good cause, but three appear to be no effective limits except self-restraint on this power.
You have evidence from the book that there are no regulations?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Certainly it *could* be bused to prevent people with an attitude that the current powers that be dislike toward the government or institutions from ever becoming citizens.
If the regs allow it.
Its been a while since the last time I re-read ST. My impression was that an "undesireable" discharge could be issued rather freely, but I will need to check for textev, I may be mistaken about that.

But even if this is not so, DIs can surely make things hard for a given recruit if they so choose. The DIs, such as Sgt Zim, that we are shown, would never do such a thing, they are motivated only by the good of the MI. But how typical are they? And how typical would they stay? If this were real life, not a novel, DIs would be human, with the usual range of flaws and virtues, and some might be corrupt. Does the system contain safeguards against such abuse? If it does, we are not shown them.

-DES
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 20:56:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 09:42:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:27:07 AM UTC-4,
Post by h***@gmail.com
     Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in
making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any
counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the
wrong
way.  It always seemed to me like a fairly benign
coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a
dystopia,
No more than any other utopia.  They all have a certain odor
to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a
close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much
better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
    Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering
military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel.  If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
   "Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
    Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole".  Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth.  What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't want
that guy participating in the political process, all they have to do is
ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
However the principal remains--harass the person until the person
bails.
p***@hotmail.com
2018-08-07 20:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 09:42:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:27:07 AM UTC-4,
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:51:52 AM UTC+10, David
     Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in
making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any
counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the
wrong
way.  It always seemed to me like a fairly benign
coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a
dystopia,
No more than any other utopia.  They all have a certain odor
to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a
close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much
better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating
oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
    Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering
military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel.  If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
   "Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
    Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole".  Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth.  What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't want
that guy participating in the political process, all they have to do is
ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
However the principal remains--harass the person until the person
bails.
Another possibility would be to have them killed in a training
accident, or select them for a dangerous mission as shown in
Damon Knight's novel _Hell's Pavement_.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
J. Clarke
2018-08-08 01:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 09:42:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:27:07 AM UTC-4,
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:51:52 AM UTC+10, David
     Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in
making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any
counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the
wrong
way.  It always seemed to me like a fairly benign
coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a
dystopia,
No more than any other utopia.  They all have a certain odor
to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a
close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much
better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating
oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
    Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering
military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to
impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel.  If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
   "Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
    Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole".  Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth.  What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to.  Just serve.
Of course if the people training them decide that they really don't want
that guy participating in the political process, all they have to do is
ride the recruit until it washes out.
Military service is not the only option.
However the principal remains--harass the person until the person
bails.
Another possibility would be to have them killed in a training
accident,
Nobody would willingly fill out that much paperwork over a political
disagreement.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
or select them for a dangerous mission as shown in
Damon Knight's novel _Hell's Pavement_.
So how many dangerous missions do you have available? If there's just
one guy nobody gives a crap and if it's a movement you've got to get
_all_ of them.
Kevrob
2018-08-08 01:25:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
So how many dangerous missions do you have available? If there's just
one guy nobody gives a crap and if it's a movement you've got to get
_all_ of them.
Don't officially label it such, but transfer them all into
a punishment battalion. Then throw it into really dangerous
situations. In peacetime, give them all the shit jobs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_military_unit

The brass can send their widows and grieving parents
a flag and a medal, "and the thanks of a grateful nation"
when they get wiped out trying to storm Bugopolis.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2018-08-08 03:04:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
So how many dangerous missions do you have available? If there's just
one guy nobody gives a crap and if it's a movement you've got to get
_all_ of them.
Don't officially label it such, but transfer them all into
a punishment battalion. Then throw it into really dangerous
situations.
That's a luxury reserved for conscript armies that have unlimited
cannon fodder. You're forgetting that the society in Starship
Troopers runs an all-volunteer force. If they pull that kind of crap
the supply of volunteers dries up and the Bugs win.
Post by Kevrob
In peacetime, give them all the shit jobs.
EVERYBODY in Federal Service gets the shittest jobs they can find.
Didn't you read the fine print?
Post by Kevrob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_military_unit
The brass can send their widows and grieving parents
a flag and a medal, "and the thanks of a grateful nation"
when they get wiped out trying to storm Bugopolis.
No need. If they get wiped out trying to storm Bugopolis there won't
be a grateful nation, at least not a human one. They idea isn't to
kill people with unpopular views, the idea is to kill Bugs.
Kevrob
2018-08-08 03:27:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
So how many dangerous missions do you have available? If there's just
one guy nobody gives a crap and if it's a movement you've got to get
_all_ of them.
Don't officially label it such, but transfer them all into
a punishment battalion. Then throw it into really dangerous
situations.
That's a luxury reserved for conscript armies that have unlimited
cannon fodder. You're forgetting that the society in Starship
Troopers runs an all-volunteer force. If they pull that kind of crap
the supply of volunteers dries up and the Bugs win.
These are supposed to be the seditious ones, right? I agree
it makes no sense to do any of that for screwups and barracks
lawyers.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
In peacetime, give them all the shit jobs.
EVERYBODY in Federal Service gets the shittest jobs they can find.
Didn't you read the fine print?
I remember Juan being selected into the MI after he was
disqualified for just about any other slot.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_military_unit
The brass can send their widows and grieving parents
a flag and a medal, "and the thanks of a grateful nation"
when they get wiped out trying to storm Bugopolis.
No need. If they get wiped out trying to storm Bugopolis there won't
be a grateful nation, at least not a human one. They idea isn't to
kill people with unpopular views, the idea is to kill Bugs.
The army might win the battle, but the boys who "went over
the top" first all get skragged.

Two birds, one stone.

Kevin R
Dimensional Traveler
2018-08-08 05:06:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
So how many dangerous missions do you have available? If there's just
one guy nobody gives a crap and if it's a movement you've got to get
_all_ of them.
Don't officially label it such, but transfer them all into
a punishment battalion. Then throw it into really dangerous
situations.
That's a luxury reserved for conscript armies that have unlimited
cannon fodder. You're forgetting that the society in Starship
Troopers runs an all-volunteer force. If they pull that kind of crap
the supply of volunteers dries up and the Bugs win.
These are supposed to be the seditious ones, right? I agree
it makes no sense to do any of that for screwups and barracks
lawyers.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
In peacetime, give them all the shit jobs.
EVERYBODY in Federal Service gets the shittest jobs they can find.
Didn't you read the fine print?
I remember Juan being selected into the MI after he was
disqualified for just about any other slot.
For any other _military_ slot. He could have done his service as a lab
tech washing test tubes or something like that. Elsewhere in this
thread it was mentioned that one trainee who medically washed out of the
M.I. still did his service as a cook. Too many people are focusing on
"service" as only being military service which is not accurate.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
David Johnston
2018-08-08 06:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
So how many dangerous missions do you have available?  If there's just
one guy nobody gives a crap and if it's a movement you've got to get
_all_ of them.
Don't officially label it such, but transfer them all into
a punishment battalion.  Then throw it into really dangerous
situations.
That's a luxury reserved for conscript armies that have unlimited
cannon fodder.  You're forgetting that the society in Starship
Troopers runs an all-volunteer force.  If they pull that kind of crap
the supply of volunteers dries up and the Bugs win.
These are supposed to be the seditious ones, right?  I agree
it makes no sense to do any of that for screwups and barracks
lawyers.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
In peacetime, give them all the shit jobs.
EVERYBODY in Federal Service gets the shittest jobs they can find.
Didn't you read the fine print?
I remember Juan being selected into the MI after he was
disqualified for just about any other slot.
For any other _military_ slot.  He could have done his service as a lab
tech washing test tubes or something like that.  Elsewhere in this
thread it was mentioned that one trainee who medically washed out of the
M.I. still did his service as a cook.  Too many people are focusing on
"service" as only being military service which is not accurate.
That's because it's all military. That they provide makework for the
recruits who are excess to their military needs doesn't mean that they
aren't in the military. Not every member of the military is a member of
a combat arm.
J. Clarke
2018-08-09 01:55:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:06:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
So how many dangerous missions do you have available? If there's just
one guy nobody gives a crap and if it's a movement you've got to get
_all_ of them.
Don't officially label it such, but transfer them all into
a punishment battalion. Then throw it into really dangerous
situations.
That's a luxury reserved for conscript armies that have unlimited
cannon fodder. You're forgetting that the society in Starship
Troopers runs an all-volunteer force. If they pull that kind of crap
the supply of volunteers dries up and the Bugs win.
These are supposed to be the seditious ones, right? I agree
it makes no sense to do any of that for screwups and barracks
lawyers.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
In peacetime, give them all the shit jobs.
EVERYBODY in Federal Service gets the shittest jobs they can find.
Didn't you read the fine print?
I remember Juan being selected into the MI after he was
disqualified for just about any other slot.
For any other _military_ slot. He could have done his service as a lab
tech washing test tubes or something like that. Elsewhere in this
thread it was mentioned that one trainee who medically washed out of the
M.I. still did his service as a cook. Too many people are focusing on
"service" as only being military service which is not accurate.
Wouldn't necessarily be washing test tubes though. "experimental
animal" and "laborer in the Terranizing of Venus" were two
possibilities mentioned.
J. Clarke
2018-08-09 01:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
So how many dangerous missions do you have available? If there's just
one guy nobody gives a crap and if it's a movement you've got to get
_all_ of them.
Don't officially label it such, but transfer them all into
a punishment battalion. Then throw it into really dangerous
situations.
That's a luxury reserved for conscript armies that have unlimited
cannon fodder. You're forgetting that the society in Starship
Troopers runs an all-volunteer force. If they pull that kind of crap
the supply of volunteers dries up and the Bugs win.
These are supposed to be the seditious ones, right? I agree
it makes no sense to do any of that for screwups and barracks
lawyers.
Now let's see, you have a society in which you serve a term to get the
franchise. The "seditious ones" would be the ones who don't think you
should have to serve a term to get the franchise. So are they going
to be serving a term to begin with?

In any case, with an all volunteer force you don't have the luxury of
throwing away volunteers because you don't like what they say.
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
In peacetime, give them all the shit jobs.
EVERYBODY in Federal Service gets the shittest jobs they can find.
Didn't you read the fine print?
I remember Juan being selected into the MI after he was
disqualified for just about any other slot.
Except for all the civilian stuff that didn't interest him. And was
supposed to be _really_ bad.
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_military_unit
The brass can send their widows and grieving parents
a flag and a medal, "and the thanks of a grateful nation"
when they get wiped out trying to storm Bugopolis.
No need. If they get wiped out trying to storm Bugopolis there won't
be a grateful nation, at least not a human one. They idea isn't to
kill people with unpopular views, the idea is to kill Bugs.
The army might win the battle, but the boys who "went over
the top" first all get skragged.
Two birds, one stone.
"Going over the top" is another luxury for conscript armies.

US dead Korea--33686. US dead Vietnam--47424. US dead for the whole
Middle East business, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan, the whole nine yards,
5684. When you can't just go draft another million targets, you use
your forces far more carefully.
m***@sky.com
2018-08-09 04:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(trimmed)
Post by J. Clarke
Now let's see, you have a society in which you serve a term to get the
franchise. The "seditious ones" would be the ones who don't think you
should have to serve a term to get the franchise. So are they going
to be serving a term to begin with?
In any case, with an all volunteer force you don't have the luxury of
throwing away volunteers because you don't like what they say.
Not enough organisations realise that people will join them for motives that are repellent to the organisation, especially once the organisation has become established. A number of UK aid charities have just found out that some of their members wanted the ability to misbehave in foreign countries and to distribute or withhold aid in pursuit of their own personal power and gratification, while being applauded as a saint by the unknowing world. There will be people in the world of ST who put in a term of service in pursuit of future political power without having the good character that the willingness to serve is supposed to certify.
J. Clarke
2018-08-10 00:54:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed)
Post by J. Clarke
Now let's see, you have a society in which you serve a term to get the
franchise. The "seditious ones" would be the ones who don't think you
should have to serve a term to get the franchise. So are they going
to be serving a term to begin with?
In any case, with an all volunteer force you don't have the luxury of
throwing away volunteers because you don't like what they say.
Not enough organisations realise that people will join them for motives that are repellent to the organisation, especially once the organisation has become established. A number of UK aid charities have just found out that some of their members wanted the ability to misbehave in foreign countries and to distribute or withhold aid in pursuit of their own personal power and gratification, while being applauded as a saint by the unknowing world. There will be people in the world of ST who put in a term of service in pursuit of future political power without having the good character that the willingness to serve is supposed to certify.
They no doubt will. And many of them will screw up by the numbers and
get themselves executed, discharged, or killed by the Bugs. Some will
make it through and then maybe they will change society or maybe they
won't.
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 08:14:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 22:58:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole". Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth. What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to. Just serve.
Exactly. Nobody is disenfranchised. One of the rules is that they
_have_ to take you, no matter your condition.
David Johnston
2018-08-05 17:46:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 22:58:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole". Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth. What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to. Just serve.
Exactly. Nobody is disenfranchised.
Theodore Hendrick is. Interestingly he's the only person in the whole
book who has an interest in politics.
Gene Wirchenko
2018-08-07 18:04:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 11:46:41 -0600, David Johnston
[snip]
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Exactly. Nobody is disenfranchised.
Theodore Hendrick is. Interestingly he's the only person in the whole
book who has an interest in politics.
Well, no. I think he is the only one SHOWN to have an interest
in politics. That is rather a different thing though. ST was not a
political story so understandably, Heinlein did dwell on it.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
David Johnston
2018-08-07 21:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 11:46:41 -0600, David Johnston
[snip]
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Exactly. Nobody is disenfranchised.
Theodore Hendrick is. Interestingly he's the only person in the whole
book who has an interest in politics.
Well, no. I think he is the only one SHOWN to have an interest
in politics.
I meant politics as a career. And I stand by my statement in that
regard.
Gene Wirchenko
2018-08-08 02:41:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:38:19 -0600, David Johnston
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by David Johnston
I meant politics as a career. And I stand by my statement in that
regard.
So do I. Except I missed a "not".

No one in ST expressed any interest in macrame either, but that
does not mean no one was interested in macrame. We simply do not
know.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Kevrob
2018-08-08 02:50:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:38:19 -0600, David Johnston
[snip]
Post by David Johnston
I meant politics as a career. And I stand by my statement in that
regard.
So do I. Except I missed a "not".
No one in ST expressed any interest in macrame either, but that
does not mean no one was interested in macrame. We simply do not
know.
That means we were all missing a knot...or a whole bunch of knots.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2018-08-08 01:28:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 11:46:41 -0600, David Johnston
[snip]
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Exactly. Nobody is disenfranchised.
Theodore Hendrick is. Interestingly he's the only person in the whole
book who has an interest in politics.
Well, no. I think he is the only one SHOWN to have an interest
in politics. That is rather a different thing though. ST was not a
political story so understandably, Heinlein did dwell on it.
And Hendrick disenfranchised himself, mostly by stupidity.

Zim wanted to administer "administrative discipline". Hendricks
insisted on seeing the Battalion Commander. The Battalion Commander
was all set to give him 30 days restriction. Then the dumb shit hadto
say "I got up and popped him one". At that point the Battalion
Commander did the _least_ that he was allowed to do having been made
aware of the offense. If he had it in for Hendrick, he would have
called a different kind of hearing that had the authority to hang him.
But he didn't, he got the guy off with ten lashes and a bad conduct
discharge.

This wasn't in any way arbitrary behavior--Hendrick screwed up by the
numbers and didn't have the sense to recognize that everyone was going
out of their way to _not_ ruin his life.
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-08 21:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 11:46:41 -0600, David Johnston
[snip]
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Exactly. Nobody is disenfranchised.
Theodore Hendrick is. Interestingly he's the only person in the whole
book who has an interest in politics.
Well, no. I think he is the only one SHOWN to have an interest
in politics. That is rather a different thing though. ST was not a
political story so understandably, Heinlein did dwell on it.
And Hendrick disenfranchised himself, mostly by stupidity.
Zim wanted to administer "administrative discipline". Hendricks
insisted on seeing the Battalion Commander. The Battalion Commander
was all set to give him 30 days restriction. Then the dumb shit hadto
say "I got up and popped him one". At that point the Battalion
Commander did the _least_ that he was allowed to do having been made
aware of the offense. If he had it in for Hendrick, he would have
called a different kind of hearing that had the authority to hang him.
But he didn't, he got the guy off with ten lashes and a bad conduct
discharge.
This wasn't in any way arbitrary behavior--Hendrick screwed up by the
numbers and didn't have the sense to recognize that everyone was going
out of their way to _not_ ruin his life.
This is true. Hedricks was not treated unfairly or arbitrarily by the rules of the Federation, as best we know them, and there is no indication that either Zim or the Major was in any way prejudiced against Hendricks. One thing that made me think that the system gave a wide power to DIs was the conversation between Zim and the Major *after* the field court.

The Major told Zim that he (zim) should have "eased him out" weeks ago, because Hendricks was stupid. IIRC it was implied that Zim could easily have done so, had he chosen to. If this is correct, and a DI could "ease out" a recruit that he judged too stupid, he could equally well ease out one he judged to be too liberal, or whatever. There is no hint in ST that anyone is doing or has ever done that. But I don't see what in the system as described would prevent it.

-DES
Gene Wirchenko
2018-08-09 01:41:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 21:28:37 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 11:46:41 -0600, David Johnston
[snip]
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Exactly. Nobody is disenfranchised.
Theodore Hendrick is. Interestingly he's the only person in the whole
book who has an interest in politics.
Well, no. I think he is the only one SHOWN to have an interest
in politics. That is rather a different thing though. ST was not a
political story so understandably, Heinlein did dwell on it.
And Hendrick disenfranchised himself, mostly by stupidity.
Entitled, very entitled stupidity.
Post by J. Clarke
Zim wanted to administer "administrative discipline". Hendricks
insisted on seeing the Battalion Commander. The Battalion Commander
was all set to give him 30 days restriction. Then the dumb shit hadto
say "I got up and popped him one". At that point the Battalion
Commander did the _least_ that he was allowed to do having been made
aware of the offense. If he had it in for Hendrick, he would have
As I read it, he did not like what he had to do, but he had to do
it, and he did. I think you agree with this.
Post by J. Clarke
called a different kind of hearing that had the authority to hang him.
But he didn't, he got the guy off with ten lashes and a bad conduct
discharge.
This wasn't in any way arbitrary behavior--Hendrick screwed up by the
numbers and didn't have the sense to recognize that everyone was going
out of their way to _not_ ruin his life.
A very good write-up of the situation.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
J. Clarke
2018-08-09 01:58:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 21:28:37 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 11:46:41 -0600, David Johnston
[snip]
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Exactly. Nobody is disenfranchised.
Theodore Hendrick is. Interestingly he's the only person in the whole
book who has an interest in politics.
Well, no. I think he is the only one SHOWN to have an interest
in politics. That is rather a different thing though. ST was not a
political story so understandably, Heinlein did dwell on it.
And Hendrick disenfranchised himself, mostly by stupidity.
Entitled, very entitled stupidity.
Post by J. Clarke
Zim wanted to administer "administrative discipline". Hendricks
insisted on seeing the Battalion Commander. The Battalion Commander
was all set to give him 30 days restriction. Then the dumb shit hadto
say "I got up and popped him one". At that point the Battalion
Commander did the _least_ that he was allowed to do having been made
aware of the offense. If he had it in for Hendrick, he would have
As I read it, he did not like what he had to do, but he had to do
it, and he did. I think you agree with this.
Yep. When he saw Zim with a shiner, he very likely knew what had gone
down, but as long as nobody came out and _said_ it he could ignore it.
But once it had been said in front of witnesses he didn't have a
choice but to act on it.
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Post by J. Clarke
called a different kind of hearing that had the authority to hang him.
But he didn't, he got the guy off with ten lashes and a bad conduct
discharge.
This wasn't in any way arbitrary behavior--Hendrick screwed up by the
numbers and didn't have the sense to recognize that everyone was going
out of their way to _not_ ruin his life.
A very good write-up of the situation.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Robert Carnegie
2018-08-05 20:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole". Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth. What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to. Just serve.
If by "the political process" you mean voting or running
for office, - isn't "having money" a lot more powerful
than "having a voting card"? It is here on Earth-2.

Having said that, though, in our societies where political
power is in military hands, it's not long before the money
is as well. They even sometimes turn over the political
bit back to civilian employees and just keep the money.
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 20:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole". Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth. What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to. Just serve.
If by "the political process" you mean voting or running
for office, - isn't "having money" a lot more powerful
than "having a voting card"? It is here on Earth-2.
Having money only works until the people with the voting cards decide
that the government needs that money more than you do.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Having said that, though, in our societies where political
power is in military hands, it's not long before the money
is as well. They even sometimes turn over the political
bit back to civilian employees and just keep the money.
In the Starship Troopers society, NOTHING is "in military hands". The
military has no say in what happens. While you're in the military you
don't get to participate in the political process. It's after you get
out of the military that you get a say.
Robert Carnegie
2018-08-05 21:18:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole". Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth. What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to. Just serve.
If by "the political process" you mean voting or running
for office, - isn't "having money" a lot more powerful
than "having a voting card"? It is here on Earth-2.
Having money only works until the people with the voting cards decide
that the government needs that money more than you do.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Having said that, though, in our societies where political
power is in military hands, it's not long before the money
is as well. They even sometimes turn over the political
bit back to civilian employees and just keep the money.
In the Starship Troopers society, NOTHING is "in military hands". The
military has no say in what happens. While you're in the military you
don't get to participate in the political process. It's after you get
out of the military that you get a say.
How elegant. In non-fictional situations with
military ownership of government and industry,
I think of them as a distinct race or caste -
or a set of castes at various ranks, I suppose -
so that once it gets going, which doesn't take long,
you are born into your status in society - or marry
into it maybe. Whether you personally are in military
service (not necessarily a dangerous sort) or casting
the votes in ST is less important than just being a
member of the superior race.
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 21:24:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 14:18:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "loophole". Nobody asserted that
noncitizens were incapable of acquiring wealth. What they are
incapable of doing is participating in the political process.
And they can become capable of participating in the political process
any time they wish to. Just serve.
If by "the political process" you mean voting or running
for office, - isn't "having money" a lot more powerful
than "having a voting card"? It is here on Earth-2.
Having money only works until the people with the voting cards decide
that the government needs that money more than you do.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Having said that, though, in our societies where political
power is in military hands, it's not long before the money
is as well. They even sometimes turn over the political
bit back to civilian employees and just keep the money.
In the Starship Troopers society, NOTHING is "in military hands". The
military has no say in what happens. While you're in the military you
don't get to participate in the political process. It's after you get
out of the military that you get a say.
How elegant. In non-fictional situations with
military ownership of government and industry,
I think of them as a distinct race or caste -
or a set of castes at various ranks, I suppose -
so that once it gets going, which doesn't take long,
you are born into your status in society - or marry
into it maybe. Whether you personally are in military
service (not necessarily a dangerous sort) or casting
the votes in ST is less important than just being a
member of the superior race.
In the Starship Troopers society, the miliary doesn't own government
or industry. Juan's father is not military and he owns an industrical
company
David Johnston
2018-08-05 06:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
And that loophole is?
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
m***@sky.com
2018-08-05 08:07:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 7:36:41 AM UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society. Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for devoting large portions of their time to learning about the implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal responsibility for the state of their bodies.

(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real life)
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 08:18:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society. Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for devoting large portions of their time to learning about the implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal responsibility for the state of their bodies.
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real life)
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
m***@sky.com
2018-08-05 10:57:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society. Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for devoting large portions of their time to learning about the implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal responsibility for the state of their bodies.
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real life)
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman.
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 15:54:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society. Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for devoting large portions of their time to learning about the implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal responsibility for the state of their bodies.
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real life)
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman.
I still don't understand what "Ulysses or Sporting Life" means.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-08-05 16:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society.
Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to
serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to
get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens
wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or
US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for
devoting large portions of their time to learning about the
implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular
niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do
not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do
respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at
any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal
responsibility for the state of their bodies.
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of
appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting
Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality
and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or
simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real
life)
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most
admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their
intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and
their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy
a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald
Fraser's Flashman.
I still don't understand what "Ulysses or Sporting Life" means.
Ulysses (orig Odysseus) in _The Odyssey_ has been called a man who can
barely open his mouth without lying, and he always has some scheme going.
I know less about "Sporting Life", a character in "Porgy & Bess", which
I have neither seen nor read the work it was based on, but I assume he
is a similar type.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-08-05 17:35:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society.
Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to
serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to
get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens
wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or
US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for
devoting large portions of their time to learning about the
implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular
niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do
not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do
respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at
any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal
responsibility for the state of their bodies.
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of
appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting
Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality
and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or
simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real
life)
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most
admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their
intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and
their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy
a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald
Fraser's Flashman.
I still don't understand what "Ulysses or Sporting Life" means.
Ulysses (orig Odysseus) in _The Odyssey_ has been called a man who can
barely open his mouth without lying, and he always has some scheme going.
I know less about "Sporting Life", a character in "Porgy & Bess", which
I have neither seen nor read the work it was based on, but I assume he
is a similar type.
He's a fast-talking hustler.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
p***@hotmail.com
2018-08-06 15:27:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society.
Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to
serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to
get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens
wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or
US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for
devoting large portions of their time to learning about the
implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular
niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do
not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do
respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at
any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal
responsibility for the state of their bodies.
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of
appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting
Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality
and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or
simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real
life)
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most
admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their
intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and
their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy
a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald
Fraser's Flashman.
I still don't understand what "Ulysses or Sporting Life" means.
Ulysses (orig Odysseus) in _The Odyssey_ has been called a man who can
barely open his mouth without lying, and he always has some scheme going.
I know less about "Sporting Life", a character in "Porgy & Bess", which
I have neither seen nor read the work it was based on, but I assume he
is a similar type.
He's a fast-talking hustler.
Some may find this to be of interest:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/theater/david-alan-grier-of-the-gershwins-porgy-and-bess.html

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 21:02:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society.
Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to
serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to
get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens
wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or
US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for
devoting large portions of their time to learning about the
implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular
niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do
not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do
respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at
any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal
responsibility for the state of their bodies.
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of
appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting
Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality
and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or
simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real
life)
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most
admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their
intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and
their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy
a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald
Fraser's Flashman.
I still don't understand what "Ulysses or Sporting Life" means.
Ulysses (orig Odysseus) in _The Odyssey_ has been called a man who can
barely open his mouth without lying, and he always has some scheme going.
I know less about "Sporting Life", a character in "Porgy & Bess", which
I have neither seen nor read the work it was based on, but I assume he
is a similar type.
Are you sure that those are the "Ulysses" and "Sporting Life" to whom
mcdowell was referring?

The guy made a reference that obviously means something to him, but it
doesn't mean anything to me, and I'd like him to clarify it for me.
I'm not asking for someone else to try to read his mind.

He could have been referring to a novel by James Joyce and a British
horse-racing newspaper for all I know.
m***@sky.com
2018-08-06 04:02:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society.
Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to
serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to
get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens
wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or
US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for
devoting large portions of their time to learning about the
implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular
niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do
not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do
respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at
any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal
responsibility for the state of their bodies.
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of
appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting
Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality
and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or
simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real
life)
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most
admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their
intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and
their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy
a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald
Fraser's Flashman.
I still don't understand what "Ulysses or Sporting Life" means.
Ulysses (orig Odysseus) in _The Odyssey_ has been called a man who can
barely open his mouth without lying, and he always has some scheme going.
I know less about "Sporting Life", a character in "Porgy & Bess", which
I have neither seen nor read the work it was based on, but I assume he
is a similar type.
Are you sure that those are the "Ulysses" and "Sporting Life" to whom
mcdowell was referring?
The guy made a reference that obviously means something to him, but it
doesn't mean anything to me, and I'd like him to clarify it for me.
I'm not asking for someone else to try to read his mind.
He could have been referring to a novel by James Joyce and a British
horse-racing newspaper for all I know.
Those were indeed the characters that I was referring to. The only context not explained is something I only vaguely remember - an introduction to a child's version of Greek and Roman Myths explaining that while Ulysses may strike a well brought up child of that time as a despicable character, in the context in which the myths were written, his ability as a trickster was applauded. I don't think that such an introduction would be as necessary today. Curiously enough, just after writing the original post, I heard an announcer on Talksport, a UK mostly sports based radio station, asking the audience to give examples of amusing lies they had come across - and apparently had no shortage of replies, from claims of personal achievement that were believed, to successful attempts to talk the authorities out of pressing minor charges.
Robert Carnegie
2018-08-06 08:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society.
Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to
serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to
get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens
wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or
US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for
devoting large portions of their time to learning about the
implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular
niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do
not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do
respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at
any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal
responsibility for the state of their bodies.
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of
appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting
Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality
and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or
simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real
life)
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most
admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their
intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and
their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy
a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald
Fraser's Flashman.
I still don't understand what "Ulysses or Sporting Life" means.
Ulysses (orig Odysseus) in _The Odyssey_ has been called a man who can
barely open his mouth without lying, and he always has some scheme going.
I know less about "Sporting Life", a character in "Porgy & Bess", which
I have neither seen nor read the work it was based on, but I assume he
is a similar type.
Are you sure that those are the "Ulysses" and "Sporting Life" to whom
mcdowell was referring?
The guy made a reference that obviously means something to him, but it
doesn't mean anything to me, and I'd like him to clarify it for me.
I'm not asking for someone else to try to read his mind.
He could have been referring to a novel by James Joyce and a British
horse-racing newspaper for all I know.
Those were indeed the characters that I was referring to. The only context not explained is something I only vaguely remember - an introduction to a child's version of Greek and Roman Myths explaining that while Ulysses may strike a well brought up child of that time as a despicable character, in the context in which the myths were written, his ability as a trickster was applauded. I don't think that such an introduction would be as necessary today. Curiously enough, just after writing the original post, I heard an announcer on Talksport, a UK mostly sports based radio station, asking the audience to give examples of amusing lies they had come across - and apparently had no shortage of replies, from claims of personal achievement that were believed, to successful attempts to talk the authorities out of pressing minor charges.
Presumably the anxiety about Ulysses is that the children
will imitate him. (Get lost on the way home and present
the most ridiculous tall tales to explain why?)
Greg Goss
2018-08-06 10:15:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society. Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for devoting large portions of their time to learning about the implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal responsibility for the state of their bodies.
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real life)
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman.
I still don't understand what "Ulysses or Sporting Life" means.
Ulysses is a famous particularly incomprehensible novel, supposedly
stream of conciousness of a severe drunk. I haven't read it and only
know it by reputation.

I know even less of Sporting Life - Sports talk uses a lot of lingo,
but never seemed particularly incomprehensible.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Robert Carnegie
2018-08-06 20:22:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who? I think we see a divided society. Non-citizens will not hold non-citizens in contempt for not choosing to serve. In fact, non-citizens may regard citizens as dupes for serving to get a say in the political process - I suspect that many non-citizens wouldn't bother to vote if they had the universal franchise of the UK or US. I can guarantee you that nerds do not hold nerds in contempt for devoting large portions of their time to learning about the implementation of the Unix operating system, or whatever particular niche of nerd-dom they inhabit. I am told that criminals in prison do not hold themselves in contempt for their actions (although they do respect those on the outside for not getting caught). The "healthy at any size" movement does not believe that they bear any personal responsibility for the state of their bodies.
(I find that many people seem to be putting forth the sort of appearance and speech that you might associate with Ulysses or Sporting Life, rather than what used to be encouraged by conventional morality and upbringing - I have no idea if this is a change in behaviour, or simply a more realistic attitude about people's actual behaviour in real life)
Could you be kind enough to explain "Ulysses or Sporting Life"?
I am thinking of the hero as sophisticate and trickster. At their most admirable you definitely want them on your side, you admire their intelligence, you find them amusing, you envy their self-assurance and their uninhibited enjoyment of various pleasures - but you would not buy a second hand car from them. Another example would be George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman.
I still don't understand what "Ulysses or Sporting Life" means.
Ulysses is a famous particularly incomprehensible novel, supposedly
stream of conciousness of a severe drunk. I haven't read it and only
know it by reputation.
I know even less of Sporting Life - Sports talk uses a lot of lingo,
but never seemed particularly incomprehensible.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
I thought it might be this, but it isn't, which makes
it rather redundant of me to say so.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Sporting_Life_%28novel%29>
David Johnston
2018-08-05 17:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
m***@sky.com
2018-08-05 18:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
I don't believe that the situation Heinlein is describing is either implausible or a fatal flaw in the society he describes, because I believe that - at some level - this situation exists in most human societies. There are a large number of possible dividing lines, and the population on each side of the dividing line believes that it is superior to the population on the other side of the dividing line, with the possible exception of the quote from Casablanca

Ugarte: You despise me, don’t you?
Rick Blaine: If I gave you any thought I probably would.

Some exaggerated examples:

The rich believe the poor are losers
The poor believe "and you may know how little God thinks of money by observing on what bad and contemptible characters he often bestows it."

(possibly out of date)
The actors believe the audience are uncultured rubes
The audience believe that the actor's skills make them fundamentally untrustworthy

The upper class look down on the dirty and ill-bred lower classes
The lower class view the upper classes as effete nincompoops holding positions they did not earn

The city people believe the rural folk are stupid
The rural folk believe the city people are dishonest
David Johnston
2018-08-05 19:13:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
I don't believe that the situation Heinlein is describing is either implausible or a fatal flaw in the society he describes, because I believe that - at some level - this situation exists in most human societies. There are a large number of possible dividing lines, and the population on each side of the dividing line believes that it is superior to the population on the other side of the dividing line, with the possible exception of the quote from Casablanca
Ugarte: You despise me, don’t you?
Rick Blaine: If I gave you any thought I probably would.
The rich believe the poor are losers
The poor believe "and you may know how little God thinks of money by observing on what bad and contemptible characters he often bestows it."
(possibly out of date)
The actors believe the audience are uncultured rubes
The audience believe that the actor's skills make them fundamentally untrustworthy
The upper class look down on the dirty and ill-bred lower classes
The lower class view the upper classes as effete nincompoops holding positions they did not earn=
You do know that mutual perception resulted in bloody revolution and the
disempowerment of the upper class, right?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-08-06 15:53:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 13:13:17 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
I don't believe that the situation Heinlein is describing is either implausible or a fatal flaw in the society he describes, because I believe that - at some level - this situation exists in most human societies. There are a large number of possible dividing lines, and the population on each side of the dividing line believes that it is superior to the population on the other side of the dividing line, with the possible exception of the quote from Casablanca
Ugarte: You despise me, don’t you?
Rick Blaine: If I gave you any thought I probably would.
The rich believe the poor are losers
The poor believe "and you may know how little God thinks of money by observing on what bad and contemptible characters he often bestows it."
(possibly out of date)
The actors believe the audience are uncultured rubes
The audience believe that the actor's skills make them fundamentally untrustworthy
The upper class look down on the dirty and ill-bred lower classes
The lower class view the upper classes as effete nincompoops holding positions they did not earn=
You do know that mutual perception resulted in bloody revolution and the
disempowerment of the upper class, right?
Well, yes. You say that as if it's a bad thing.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
D B Davis
2018-08-05 21:19:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
A suitably sized political campaign contribution ought to go a long way
to ameliorate any contempt. Citizen tricksters might go so far as to
publicly feign contempt in order to get elected. And then meet behind
closed doors with the object of voter's contempt: wealthy non-citizen
oligarchical campaign donors.
During these private meetings behind closed doors, the public
servant tricksters might sell out their own constituencies in order to
give oligarchs the quid pro quo that oligarchs purchase with campaign
contributions during, and after, an election.
In this case both public servant tricksters and oligarchs may regard
citizens as dupes. That is, only in the unlikely event that either
public servant tricksters, or oligarchs, give citizens one second of
thought after an election.
Special thanks to mcdowell_ag for providing the requisite jargon to
move this thread ahead.

Thank you,
--
Don
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 21:26:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
A suitably sized political campaign contribution ought to go a long way
to ameliorate any contempt. Citizen tricksters might go so far as to
publicly feign contempt in order to get elected. And then meet behind
closed doors with the object of voter's contempt: wealthy non-citizen
oligarchical campaign donors.
During these private meetings behind closed doors, the public
servant tricksters might sell out their own constituencies in order to
give oligarchs the quid pro quo that oligarchs purchase with campaign
contributions during, and after, an election.
In this case both public servant tricksters and oligarchs may regard
citizens as dupes. That is, only in the unlikely event that either
public servant tricksters, or oligarchs, give citizens one second of
thought after an election.
Special thanks to mcdowell_ag for providing the requisite jargon to
move this thread ahead.
Or it may be that other citizens say "WTF are all these noncitizens
doing hanging around the legislature" and have the whole lot arrested.
Post by D B Davis
Thank you,
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
2018-08-06 11:30:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
A suitably sized political campaign contribution ought to go a long way
to ameliorate any contempt. Citizen tricksters might go so far as to
publicly feign contempt in order to get elected. And then meet behind
closed doors with the object of voter's contempt: wealthy non-citizen
oligarchical campaign donors.
During these private meetings behind closed doors, the public
servant tricksters might sell out their own constituencies in order to
give oligarchs the quid pro quo that oligarchs purchase with campaign
contributions during, and after, an election.
In this case both public servant tricksters and oligarchs may regard
citizens as dupes. That is, only in the unlikely event that either
public servant tricksters, or oligarchs, give citizens one second of
thought after an election.
Special thanks to mcdowell_ag for providing the requisite jargon to
move this thread ahead.
Or it may be that other citizens say "WTF are all these noncitizens
doing hanging around the legislature" and have the whole lot arrested.
And when in human history has that happened?

Also they don't hang around the legislature they just need to invite the
legislators to the clubs and parties they can't get to - has the benefit
of hiding the interactions from the voters.
--
Mark
J. Clarke
2018-08-07 01:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
A suitably sized political campaign contribution ought to go a long way
to ameliorate any contempt. Citizen tricksters might go so far as to
publicly feign contempt in order to get elected. And then meet behind
closed doors with the object of voter's contempt: wealthy non-citizen
oligarchical campaign donors.
During these private meetings behind closed doors, the public
servant tricksters might sell out their own constituencies in order to
give oligarchs the quid pro quo that oligarchs purchase with campaign
contributions during, and after, an election.
In this case both public servant tricksters and oligarchs may regard
citizens as dupes. That is, only in the unlikely event that either
public servant tricksters, or oligarchs, give citizens one second of
thought after an election.
Special thanks to mcdowell_ag for providing the requisite jargon to
move this thread ahead.
Or it may be that other citizens say "WTF are all these noncitizens
doing hanging around the legislature" and have the whole lot arrested.
And when in human history has that happened?
Well, let's see, how many rich people got it in the Russian and French
revolutions?

Your only model for democracy is one in which the vote is a
birthright. If people have to earn it they might not have the same
attitude toward people who haven't as the current politicians.
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
Also they don't hang around the legislature they just need to invite the
legislators to the clubs and parties they can't get to - has the benefit
of hiding the interactions from the voters.
What clubs and parties can't a citizen get to? "This club excludes
citizens" would be followed up by "this club is illegal", if anybody
actually cared enough to make an issue of it.
D B Davis
2018-08-10 13:48:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
A suitably sized political campaign contribution ought to go a long way
to ameliorate any contempt. Citizen tricksters might go so far as to
publicly feign contempt in order to get elected. And then meet behind
closed doors with the object of voter's contempt: wealthy non-citizen
oligarchical campaign donors.
During these private meetings behind closed doors, the public
servant tricksters might sell out their own constituencies in order to
give oligarchs the quid pro quo that oligarchs purchase with campaign
contributions during, and after, an election.
In this case both public servant tricksters and oligarchs may regard
citizens as dupes. That is, only in the unlikely event that either
public servant tricksters, or oligarchs, give citizens one second of
thought after an election.
Special thanks to mcdowell_ag for providing the requisite jargon to
move this thread ahead.
Or it may be that other citizens say "WTF are all these noncitizens
doing hanging around the legislature" and have the whole lot arrested.
There will be no arrests because the upper echelon of Law Enforcement
(LE) will sacrifice the rule of law to preserve the status quo.
"I'm not in love with this system, but it's the only one we've got
and it's better than no system at all." explains Utah State Prison
Warden Auerbach as to why he ignores corrupt guards, murders, and other
criminal behavior in his prison. It's from the Hollywood treatment of
"The Glass House" (Capote).
A LE that selectively ignores the rule of law is a common theme in
both life and fiction. In _White Jazz_ (Ellroy) the LA Police Department
protects one sanctioned heroin dealer. Partially because a monopoly
ensures the highest profit. Mostly because LE's upper echelon believes
that the status quo is best served by keeping the black population of
the city drugged and lethargic.
The bloody revolutions that you mention elsewhere in this thread
stand a better chance of success. But, they seem implausible to me.
YMMV.



Thank you,
--
Don
J. Clarke
2018-08-11 01:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
A suitably sized political campaign contribution ought to go a long way
to ameliorate any contempt. Citizen tricksters might go so far as to
publicly feign contempt in order to get elected. And then meet behind
closed doors with the object of voter's contempt: wealthy non-citizen
oligarchical campaign donors.
During these private meetings behind closed doors, the public
servant tricksters might sell out their own constituencies in order to
give oligarchs the quid pro quo that oligarchs purchase with campaign
contributions during, and after, an election.
In this case both public servant tricksters and oligarchs may regard
citizens as dupes. That is, only in the unlikely event that either
public servant tricksters, or oligarchs, give citizens one second of
thought after an election.
Special thanks to mcdowell_ag for providing the requisite jargon to
move this thread ahead.
Or it may be that other citizens say "WTF are all these noncitizens
doing hanging around the legislature" and have the whole lot arrested.
There will be no arrests because the upper echelon of Law Enforcement
(LE) will sacrifice the rule of law to preserve the status quo.
"I'm not in love with this system, but it's the only one we've got
and it's better than no system at all." explains Utah State Prison
Warden Auerbach as to why he ignores corrupt guards, murders, and other
criminal behavior in his prison. It's from the Hollywood treatment of
"The Glass House" (Capote).
A LE that selectively ignores the rule of law is a common theme in
both life and fiction. In _White Jazz_ (Ellroy) the LA Police Department
protects one sanctioned heroin dealer. Partially because a monopoly
ensures the highest profit. Mostly because LE's upper echelon believes
that the status quo is best served by keeping the black population of
the city drugged and lethargic.
The bloody revolutions that you mention elsewhere in this thread
stand a better chance of success. But, they seem implausible to me.
YMMV.
The status quo is that rich flakes don't annoy the citizens. If the
rich flakes want to annoy citizens they are welcome to serve a hitch.

You're assuming that the oligarchs _want_ to be annoyed by every
shopkeeper with a new widget to sell, and that people who volunteered
to be experimental animals are so enamored of personal luxury that
they are easy prey for every asshat with bribe money.
David Johnston
2018-08-10 16:35:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
A suitably sized political campaign contribution ought to go a long way
to ameliorate any contempt.
Which would eventually lead to a broadening of the franchise.
D B Davis
2018-08-10 16:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
A suitably sized political campaign contribution ought to go a long way
to ameliorate any contempt.
Which would eventually lead to a broadening of the franchise.
"The sinews of war are infinite money."
- Marcus Tullius Cicero



Thank you,
--
Don
J. Clarke
2018-08-11 01:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed, and starting with what David Johnston is replying to)
Post by David Johnston
Post by D B Davis
"Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth."
Emilio's a wealthy man who did not serve, at least not at first.
J. feels that Emilio may be an oligarch. But it just doesn't matter if
Emilio's an oligarch. My point is that there's a loophole that allows
owners, oligarch or not, to accumulate wealth without having served.
I'm not seeing whatever it is you're talking about. Now of course in
reasonable terms not being a citizen should be a social stigma,
something that leads to the civilians being held in contempt for their
lack of character. But Heinlein simply dismisses that reality.
Held in contempt by who?
Do I really need to explain that the answer is the
"citizens"...including everyone in a position of political power and all
of law enforcement?
A suitably sized political campaign contribution ought to go a long way
to ameliorate any contempt.
Which would eventually lead to a broadening of the franchise.
"The sinews of war are infinite money."
- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Which money the citizens are quite capable of extracting from the
unenfranchised rich without the rich having any say in the matter.
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 05:42:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D B Davis
Post by David Johnston
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn't happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye
kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such.
Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy
which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
Who are the oligarchs?
The usual suspects: "Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders.
Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators." [1] Some capitalist's
company (apparently regardless of its owner's citizenship status)
profited from provisioning "Rasczak's Roughnecks" with jump jets,
corvette transports, food, medical supplies, and all of the other
military paraphernalia.
Emilio Rico tries to dissuade his son Juan from entering military
service. So a lack of resultant citizenship doesn't seem to impede the
accumulation of greater wealth.
Note.
1. "War is a Racket" (Major General Smedley Butler)
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
It doesn't matter if Emilio's an oligarch. ST's political system still
has a big loophole in it.
You have asserted this before but you have not supported with
evidence, only rhetoric.
Post by D B Davis
Thank you,
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-08-05 01:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
Since I don't have a copy of _ST_, what's the word?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
David Johnston
2018-08-05 01:51:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by J. Clarke
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
Since I don't have a copy of _ST_, what's the word?
I'm guessing "Private".
D B Davis
2018-08-05 02:42:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by J. Clarke
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
Since I don't have a copy of _ST_, what's the word?
I'm guessing "Private".
Sergeant Emilio Rico ends up in the Mobile Infantry after he sees the
error of his ways. Sergeant Emilio's commanding officer is Emilio's son,
Lieutenant Juan Rico. The son was wise beyond his years and had to wait
for his father to catch up.
Far be it from me to suggest that the son commanding his father at
the end panders to young, golden-aged boys.

Thank you,
--
Don
J. Clarke
2018-08-05 05:49:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by J. Clarke
Note the word that appears before "Emilio" in the one appearance of
that name in the novel. If he is one of the oligarchs who sends
others off to die to serve his greed, it doesn't seem to have stuck.
Since I don't have a copy of _ST_, what's the word?
"Corporal"
J. Clarke
2018-07-31 03:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 12:18:28 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Compare to
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by David Johnston
Starship Troopers where the author is more interested in making his
ideological point than he is in acknowledging any counterpoint, instead
simply declaring that <obvious problem> just doesn’t happen.
I don't know why Starship Troopers rubs so many people the wrong
way. It always seemed to me like a fairly benign coming-of-age
story, in a similar mold to the other Heinlein juveniles.
Of course, as I've posted before, I believe that ST is a dystopia,
No more than any other utopia. They all have a certain odor to them.
Anybody who rates Starship Troopers as a utopia should have a close eye kept on them.
Calling it a dystopia is probably a bit harsh
Not only do I think it is a dystopia, I find it reads much better as such. Problematic parts of the book now work well.
It's a society (IMO, of course) ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy which disguises itself as a restricted democracy.
??? Anybody can get the vote. All the have to do is gut out a term
of government service. You get the vote if you spent your hitch
counting fuzz on caterpillars by touch just like if you were MI.
Post by William Hyde
The rulers launch what seems clearly to be a war of aggression at the bugs and bungle it so badly that it becomes a war of survival.
Can you support this statement with quotations from the book?
Post by William Hyde
The book is rife with clues that the world Rico sees is not the world that actually exists. He's a very useful man, smart enough to be competent but not one to question the status quo. If he lives, I suspect they'll get him elected to office. A war-hero senator, and utterly reliable.
Care to share a few of these "clues"?
Post by William Hyde
He will die respected by all, honored with a fine military funeral. People will shake their heads sadly and say that they don't make men like that nowadays.
Why will they do that? Remember, everybody else made their drops too.
Post by William Hyde
He will never know who he was working for.
And who do you believe he was working for? Certainly not the
"military-industrial complex"--his father was an industrialist you
know, if industry was running things then all he had to do was stay
home and become one of the bosses.
Loading...