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