Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Fascism in Chicago?
Message-ID: <917@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 9-Mar-85 06:55:20 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.917
Posted: Sat Mar  9 06:55:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 05:44:33 EST
References: <> <352@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <859@topaz.ARPA> <322@talcott.UUCP>  <1445@dciem.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 36

> mmt:
> It is hard to determine whether JoSH is obtuse, deliberately appearing
> to be obtuse, or just inflammatory.  If he claims that ANY law puts
> nation above individual, and is therefore fascist, he has redefined
> "fascist" to a meaningless level of generality.  If he claims ANY law
> restricting gun ownership is fascist because it is a "tendency or actual
> exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control", 

I don't, or I wouldn't use the term to characterize one specific city,
or one specific law.

> I suspect he
> should look at how Chicago selects its autocrats.  My understanding is
> that they have elections, as elsewhere, and that Richard Daley no longer
> rigs them to the level that Chicago has a dictator nowadays.  

I think that Chicago's gun laws actually date from the Daley days...

> If JoSH
> means that any law is fascist simply because it is a law, ...

This straw man is almost worthy of Tim Sevener.

> JoSH at least owes Greg Kuperberg an apology for the libel in saying
> he was deliberately lying.
> Martin Taylor

Let me quote the actual statement:
> >...  Furthermore, I suspect that Greg (a) knows what I meant,
> >(b) knows what "fascist" in common usage means, and therefore (c)
> >was deliberately lying in claiming the opposite.

-- But I *did* suspect Greg of lying.  And I haven't seen anything
in the meantime to change my mind.

--JoSH