RIP Margret Thatcher

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 81 - 100 of total 117 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Apr 12, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
She was just like Reagan, loved more after she wrecked the place

Dr F u know better!
more like reagan was taught by Margret.

get ur historical stuff right :)

RIP Margret T.

deuce4

climber
Hobart, Australia
Apr 12, 2013 - 05:45pm PT
Paul credits Maggie for the rise in British climbing standards in the 80's.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3020
guido

Trad climber
Santa Cruz/New Zealand/South Pacific
Apr 12, 2013 - 09:56pm PT
Credit: guido
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Apr 12, 2013 - 10:18pm PT


...


Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Apr 12, 2013 - 10:25pm PT
Here's an example of something that makes the the Evangelicals cringe.

That being the problem with Satan is, Satan ain't always wrong...

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Apr 12, 2013 - 10:39pm PT
Is her voice impediment caused by the huge rod up her Butt?
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Apr 12, 2013 - 10:50pm PT
Craig,

Would the USA in general and yourself in particular hitch up to a supranational governing body from outside of the boundaries that make your home what it is ?

I love sharing the pie with less economically privileged regions of Canada because we are all Canadian and pull together for each other when times are tough.

That's a different brand of being social than having something imposed by some people who don't necessarily share our interests.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 12, 2013 - 10:56pm PT
Her last sentience summarizes Dr Fraud.

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Apr 12, 2013 - 11:28pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Credit: Dr. F.
Credit: Dr. F.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Apr 12, 2013 - 11:57pm PT
Back to what I said about sea change, there was a noticeable upsurge in narrow minded wealth creation during the latter 1980's in Canada.

Brian Mulroney was our PM and a leader in divesting a nation of believing that how you care for the less fortunate is a measure of a nation.

I'm not castigating people for finding alternatives to work because I tried as hard as I could to solve that dilemma, while working on climbing technique...

I'm talking about how so many rich nations used the expedience of "community integration" to close down institutions that offered various levels of care and refuge for people with mental, psychological and emotional trouble.

Crazy people living under cardboard boxes and self medicated homelessness isn't something that just dropped out of the clouds. There was a determined drive in the 1980's to divest national societies of any obligation.

Getting a job by everyone else was just the math concerning the unemployment insurance party being over and was sadly understood by many climbers !

rockermike

Trad climber
Berkeley
Apr 13, 2013 - 11:31am PT
Here's another statement The Smiths' singer Morrissey made about the passing of Margaret Thatcher today, even more cutting than the one he made yesterday:
The difficulty with giving a comment on Margaret Thatcher’s death to the British tabloids is that, no matter how calmly and measured you speak, the comment must be reported as an “outburst” or an ”explosive attack” if your view is not pro-establishment.

If you reference “the Malvinas”, it will be switched to “the Falklands”, and your “Thatcher” will be softened to a “Maggie.” This is generally how things are structured in a non-democratic society. Thatcher’s name must be protected not because of all the wrong that she had done, but because the people around her allowed her to do it, and therefore any criticism of Thatcher throws a dangerously absurd light on the entire machinery of British politics.

Thatcher was not a strong or formidable leader. She simply did not give a sh#t about people, and this coarseness has been neatly transformed into bravery by the British press who are attempting to re-write history in order to protect patriotism. As a result, any opposing view is stifled or ridiculed, whereas we must all endure the obligatory praise for Thatcher from David Cameron without any suggestion from the BBC that his praise just might be an outburst of pro-Thatcher extremism from someone whose praise might possibly protect his own current interests.

The fact that Thatcher ignited the British public into street-riots, violent demonstrations and a social disorder previously unseen in British history is completely ignored by David Cameron in 2013. In truth, of course, no British politician has ever been more despised by the British people than Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday will be heavily policed for fear that the British tax-payer will want to finally express their view of Thatcher. They are certain to be tear-gassed out of sight by the police.

United Kingdom? Syria? China? What’s the difference?”
Patrick Sawyer

climber
Originally California now Ireland
Apr 13, 2013 - 11:49am PT
I interviewed her in 1989 when I was editor of Training Personnel magazine (Wembley/Stonebridge Park) after she had instigated the launch of the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs).

I will not speak ill of the dead, but she was not my cup of tea and a tough interview.

But I challenge some of those who think her legacy is sparkling. The Argentinian Junta saved her premiership, she was down in the low 20s in the polls. I am sure she was glad that the generals decided (because they were also in the shits) to attack the Falklands/Malvinas.

The best way to get a country behind you, is to go to war, as the Argie generals did and Thatcher obliged.

Interesting to see that the conservative posters on the Taco Stand think she was wonderful. I lived under her rule, I researched her, and I interviewed her.


EDIT

As a side note regarding the Falklands/Malvinas conflict. I had fellow colleagues, English, tell me that the US did not help Britain. BS.

We gave them the loan of ships and logistics. Even though Reagan and Thatcher were close (Hmmm, I wonder how close, did Nancy and Denis know, hah hah, okay, now I am being mean) he wasn't so sure how much help and support to give as to not to upset the OAS (Organization of American States) who were supporting the Argie argument, but Casper Weinberger convinced Ronnie Raygun to help our 'cousins'.

I tried telling my British colleagues, why did Weinberger receive an honorary British knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II.
Patrick Sawyer

climber
Originally California now Ireland
Apr 13, 2013 - 12:18pm PT
Okay, one more comment. Leaders should be strong, but being dogmatic and obstinate as Maggie was... good democratic leadership should have room for compromise. There is more than one at the party.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Apr 13, 2013 - 12:30pm PT
Ska Music intermission for Jaybro !

Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Apr 13, 2013 - 12:38pm PT
Patrick, aside from intel I would be most interested to see your evidence
that we materially supported the cousins down south. They did not lack for
naval resources. Their weakness was long-range air power notably highlighted
by the Monty Pythonesque mission to take out the Port Stanley airfield prior
to the invasion. It was about 10 minutes' fuel short of a tragic cockup.
Hardman Knott

Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
Apr 13, 2013 - 01:40pm PT
Surprised this clip hasn't been posted - makes Morrisey's comments seem tame by comparison.

The discussion following her comments at 06:30 is worth watching as well.

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Apr 14, 2013 - 11:04am PT

At Thatcher's Funeral, Bury TINA, Too

by Laura Flanders
Published on Saturday, April 13, 2013 by The Nation
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/13-1

Margaret Thatcher’s fancy funeral will be held this coming Wednesday. Along with the deceased prime minister, can we bury TINA, too?Margaret Thatcher at a Conservative Party Conference on October 13, 1989. (Reuters/Stringer)

For thirty years we’ve lived with TINA: “There is No Alternative.” Thatcher deployed her most famous slogan to mean that certain debates were over, especially debates over capitalism. Globalized capitalism, so called free-markets and free trade were the best ways to build wealth, distribute services and grow a society’s economy. Deregulation’s good, if not God.

This week, as the canonization of Margaret Thatcher has played out, it’s clear that while Maggie may be gone, TINA lives.

Both the other guests and pretty much all the callers on a public radio show I was part of embraced TINA, arguing in effect that economic change comes with pain and change was necessary. From each came some version of “Thatcher turned the UK economy around.”

Left activist and author Tariq Ali said on Democracy Now! “The fact that no one has come up with an alternative to the Wall Street crash of 2008 does indicate that there’s some truth to her most famous statement.”

Is that what we really believe?

Looking at the data from the British Office of National Statistics compiled by The Guardian, here’s what I see: in the Thatcher years, unemployment shot up, manufacturing spiraled down and poverty grew. Scratch that—poverty almost doubled, from 13.4 percent to 22.2 percent. Inequality rose.

No alternative? Even Thatcher’s quip “the lady’s not for turning” should remind us there were other routes we could have traveled. Thatcher wasn’t just stubborn, she was specific. She dragged the nation down a defiantly neo-liberal path.

One of her first moves on coming into office was to liberalize capital markets—think NAFTA a decade earlier. Governed by the belief that free capital provided the answer to the economic difficulties experienced in the 1970s, Thatcher, like Reagan, tore down tariffs. Money roamed free and went where it was wont to go—offshore, where profits were bigger because wages were lower—and to tax havens, where big money could evade the taxes it would otherwise (like the rest of us) have to pay.

In a damning new documentary from Dutch national TV, former McKinsey-researcher-turned-journalist James S. Henry estimates that some 21 to 32 trillion dollars are parked in no-tax tax havens today—only a third of it from the developing world. British accountant and author Richard Murphy credits Thatcher with starting the trend.

TINA would call the practice delicately “tax minimization” or “neutralization.” Murphy calls it breaking the law. It’s not just “the way it is,” it’s the way liberalizing capital markets made it. Public coffers from London to the Potomac are trillions of dollars poorer as a result.

Globalize capital, “neutralize” taxation on the biggest money and where’s a government to go for cash? To little-guy-consumers via the sales tax. While much has been made of the changes Thatcher made to income tax—lowering the rates on the rich and raising rates below—the most effective way her government shifted tax burdens from top to bottom was by nearly doubling the value added or sales tax (from 8 to 15 percent). While big businesses could park money abroad in tax havens, everyday consumers were taxed at the checkout, every time we bought bread or lettuce or socks.

Was there really no alternative? Some squealed against the onslaught, but it was hard to hear what they had to say, because with the turn in the economy came a shift in the democracy and the media. In TINA’s world, dissenters were what Thatcher called the mineworkers: “the enemy within.” Unions may have needed reform; but working people needed a voice. Under Thatcher they lost the loudest one they had.

Union membership by Britons in the Thatcher years shrank from one in four to one in eight. Part of the decline was a consequence of all that competition with low-wage workers in non-union countries and foreign bosses living too far away to shame. Part of it was due to the brutal “brass knuckle” tactics of security forces in response to strikes. Union mineworkers were bashed on the head by mounted police on picket lines; their wives and children were stopped at police checkpoints when they tried to take their message South; their communities vilified in the news; their supporters were red-baited in debates. In TINA times, who was left to even speak about an alternative?

Union towns and poor and immigrant neighborhoods saw unprecedented levels of police. Financiers saw less. In the city of London, the “Big Bang” delivered “deregulation.” Clamping down on critics, Thatcher freed up finance. Again, it was a choice. A sort of Glass Steagall years ahead of Clinton's, the Thatcher administration’s decision to put growth first, regardless of the cost to people or the planet, meant doing away with boring, cautious banking, removing regulation, permitting integration, encouraging financialization and demonizing scrutiny by “red tape” bureaucrats. London, like Wall Street, loved all that and shared the love with politicians. Influence scandals, corruption and the crash economy grew. And where the money went, so went the media and the press.

Twenty years on, Thatcher’s celebrated as the one who turned around the UK economy. But turned it where? To a less united place, for sure. As BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders (my sister) put it in a report shortly before Thatcher’s demise:


Going to London these days, sometimes feels like going to a different planet… The ten richest boroughs of London are now worth in real estate terms the same as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales added together... A third of the population was born in another country.

Belgravia is exclusive and also mostly devoid of living and breathing people. The streets have become prestigious property parks for (non-tax-paying) foreign wealth.

Was there really no alternative? To name but one, Thatcher inherited a North Sea Oil boom that turned the UK into a net exporter of oil, generating trillions of dollars of revenue, more oil than Iraq, Kuwait and Nigeria, and more gas than Saudi Arabia by the end of the 1990s.

Norway used their oil profits to plan for the future and an aging population by building up a soveriegn wealth fund. Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez, used theirs to help the poor.

Britain, let’s just say, did neither of those things; the lion’s share went to pay unemployment benefits. Now, with no national investment bank and no plan, the oil has almost gone. The country’s importing once more.

Could there have been an alternative? What do you think? C'mon. At Thatcher’s funeral, let’s bury TINA, too.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Apr 14, 2013 - 11:21am PT
I'm sorry, but there is too many must reads that need to be posted
This one is just portion of the article


Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean

by Dave Zirin
Published on Tuesday, April 9, 2013 by The Nation
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/09-7


Never have I witnessed a gap between the mainstream media and the public, quite like the last 24 hours since the death of Margaret Thatcher. While both the press and President Obama were uttering tearful remembrances, thousands took to the streets of the UK and beyond to celebrate. Immediately this drew strong condemnation of what were called "death parties", described as “tasteless”, “horrible”, and “beneath all human decency.” Yet if the same media praising Thatcher and appalled by the popular response would bother to ask one of the people celebrating, they might get a story that doesn't fit into their narrative, which is probably why they aren't asking at all.

Thousands have taken to the streets to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher.I received a note this morning from the friend of a friend. She lives in the UK, although her family didn't arrive there by choice. They had to flee Chile, like thousands of others, when it was under the thumb of General Augusto Pinochet. If you don't know the details about Pinochet's blood-soaked two-decade reign, you should read about them but take care not to eat beforehand. He was a merciless overseer of torture, rapes, and thousands of political executions. He had the hands and wrists of the country's greatest folk singer Victor Jara broken in front of a crowd of prisoners before killing him. He had democratically elected Socialist President Salvador Allende shot dead at his desk. His specialty was torturing people in front of their families.

As Naomi Klein has written so expertly, he then used this period of shock and slaughter to install a nationwide laboratory for neoliberal economics. If Pinochet's friend Milton Friedman had a theory about cutting food subsidies, privatizing social security, slashing wages, or outlawing unions, Pinochet would apply it. The results of these experiments became political ammunition for neoliberal economists throughout the world. Seeing Chile-applied economic theory in textbooks always boggles my mind. It would be like if the American Medical Association published a textbook on the results of Dr. Josef Mengele's work in the concentration camps, without any moral judgment about how he accrued his patients.

Pinochet was the General in charge of this human rights catastrophe. He also was someone who Margaret Thatcher called a friend. She stood by the General even when he was exile, attempting to escape justice for his crimes. As she said to Pinochet, "[Thank you] for bringing democracy to Chile."

Therefore, if I want to know why someone would celebrate the death of Baroness Thatcher, I think asking a Chilean in exile would be a great place to start. My friend of a friend took to the streets of the UK when she heard that the Iron Lady had left her mortal coil. Here is why:

"I'm telling [my daughter] all about the Thatcher legacy through her mother's experience, not the media's; especially how the Thatcher government directly supported Pinochet's murderous regime, financially, via military support, even military training (which we know now, took place in Dundee University). Thousands of my people (and members of my family) were tortured and murdered under Pinochet's regime- the fascist beast who was one of Thatcher's closest allies and friend. So all you apologists/those offended [by my celebration] -you can take your moral high ground & shove it. YOU are the ones who don't understand. Those of us celebrating are the ones who suffered deeply under her dictatorship and WE are the ones who cared. We are the ones who protested. We are the humanitarians who bothered to lift a finger to help all those who suffered under her regime. I am lifting a glass of champagne to mourn, to remember and to honour all the victims of her brutal regime, here AND abroad. And to all those heroes who gave a sh#t enough to try to do something about it."
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Apr 14, 2013 - 11:23am PT
Hey Jim B.
I don't really understand your question to me
maybe you can reword it.
sullly

Trad climber
Apr 14, 2013 - 12:21pm PT
In agreement with Dr F. here. Full blooming cactus for him. Thatcher could have been more Bill Clinton-George Mitchell about the nineteen hunger strikers in '81. Complete fail on her part.

Famished after a bus ride from Dublin to Belfast, I finally located Sands' grave in the rain. I commenced eating fish and chips out of a white paper bag. Later in the day, I realized how disrespectful this was considering I was standing atop hunger striker graves.
photo not found
Missing photo ID#298759
photo not found
Missing photo ID#298760
Messages 81 - 100 of total 117 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews