Not sure what's the best source or news story (now it should be common knowledge anyway) for this but former PM Baroness Thatcher has passed following a CVA.
As the premier woman PM of the UK, a driver of the reform of the Soviet Union, and the person at the helm of the handling of the Falklands War and known for her no-nonsense attitude, strength of character, and British pride, she will forever be in my memory as - dare I say it - a role model (despite her handling of some things such as unions, but today's not the day to debate her legacy).
One's heart must go out to her family, her children and grandchildren, and to the nation who love and/or hate her.
I'm sure all the irish people I know went out drinking last night.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I'm sure all the irish people I know went out drinking last night.
Irish-Americans or Irish in the US?
I know some folks celebrated the passing of Lady Thatcher and there'd be some who would do so if it weren't for their sense of good taste, propriety, and maturity. As much as you might hate someone or their party or their politics, I see no reason to say ill of them in death; you know, de mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Quote from Che Guevara »
The things she did to the working class and unions were terrible, not to mention the bad economic choices in her second term.
Some things should be considered in context; the UK was circling the drain and most everything would have happened all the same were the PM still Heath or anyone else. Politics isn't about being someone's mate all the way anyway and it's not as though anyone else, the non-politicians themselves, have any right to be throwing stones.
Kudos to you for taking the good with the bad, though, and your respect for her guts.
I know some folks celebrated the passing of Lady Thatcher and there'd be some who would do so if it weren't for their sense of good taste, propriety, and maturity. As much as you might hate someone or their party or their politics, I see no reason to say ill of them in death; you know, de mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Irish in the US. I've heard their drinking songs already when she was alive.
The paper here showed pics of Scotts dancing around to celebrate too.
The thing is.. Why do these 20 somethings even care? It would be one thing if she was still in power or something, but these people couldn't have been over 25.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
The paper here showed pics of Scotts dancing around to celebrate too.
Scots? I suppose they would do that too.
The thing is.. Why do these 20 somethings even care? It would be one thing if she was still in power or something, but these people couldn't have been over 25.
Well, during Major's premiership, she was pretty much still at the helm. That and she has a legacy, not only in her politics, philosophy, and the consequences of her words and actions but in song and stories, that transcends her tenure as PM; growing up, she was a role model and also a bogeyman to myself and many of my peers.
You know, that's a really good question. I don't know the answer to that myself and I'm baffled now. That people have harboured this hatred for a demented (in the clinical sense) woman who, at one time, did good things and did bad things for 20 years makes no sense.
I wonder what'd've happened had then Roberts continued with her career in chemistry. Guess we'll never know.
She will doubtless be remembered for her accomplishments. That said, it's the nature of a polarizing political figure that some will remember those accomplishments differently than others.
Condolences to her family. But I hope Thatcherism follows her.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
As much as you might hate someone or their party or their politics, I see no reason to say ill of them in death; you know, de mortuis nil nisi bonum.
You're not thinking hard enough if you don't see a reason.
She was not a private individual, she was the prime minister. She does not represent just a wife and a mother and a friend, she represents an ideology and a political legacy.
And saying that now is not the time to speak ill of it does not show merely show respect for Margaret Thatcher, the wife, mother and friend, it also allows her ideological heirs a platform to rewrite history without opposition.
The post-mortem ass licking given by the US media to Ronald Reagan is partly responsible for shaping the US public's perception of him and his legacy today, and that is used to justify all sorts of policies by Republicans today.
Did anybody extend this courtesy to Hugo Chavez (much less true tyrants like Kim Jong-Il)? Can you imagine anyone would miss the ideological and political aims of declaring criticism of him off-limits, even if it's just for a little while?
So, no, there's nothing wrong with making sure that we remember, on the occasion of her death, that she (and Reagan) laid the foundations for the type of capitalist avarice that led to the financial crisis AND the disastrous policies of austerity that have kept the UK and other European countries from recovering, that she passed the homophobic Section 28, that she supported the South African Apartheid regime and called the ANC terrorists, that her policies caused significant pain for millions of working class Britons, and that she tried to impose the regressive poll tax, and so forth. In fact, it's precisely the time they should be remembered.
Did anybody extend this courtesy to Hugo Chavez (much less true tyrants like Kim Jong-Il)? Can you imagine anyone would miss the ideological and political aims of declaring criticism of him off-limits, even if it's just for a little while?
Funny thing, there isnt a single thread made over Hugo Chavez's death.
And this is what the UK has on there page about the man:
Your letting your idealogy bleed through rather strongly, Chavez was a tyrant he just wasn't as insane as Kim Jong-Il.
If anything her death and the jubilation the left is showing reminds me of why the Right in America needs to not falter.
Even the Iron Lady could stop her countries descent into become a broken shadow of what it once was.
And we in the United States need to not give ground to the leftist who wish to turn the country away from its greatness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Your letting your idealogy bleed through rather strongly, Chavez was a tyrant he just wasn't as insane as Kim Jong-Il.
If anything her death and the jubilation the left is showing reminds me of why the Right in America needs to not falter.
Even the Iron Lady could stop her countries descent into become a broken shadow of what it once was.
And we in the United States need to not give ground to the leftist who wish to turn the country away from its greatness.
Oh god. I just love the people who cry foul over celebrating the death of Thatcher who were just finished celebrating the death of Chavez. The irony is delicious, especially because Thatcher supported an actual dictator.
Oh god. I just love the people who cry foul over celebrating the death of Thatcher who were just finished celebrating the death of Chavez. The irony is delicious, especially because Thatcher supported an actual dictator.
Huh?
Where was this jubilation over Chavez's death?
I missed it, in fact one would deduce that Thatcher was the tyrant not Chavez from the media coverage of both of their deaths.
Personally, I didnt celebrate Osam Bin-Ladens or Saddam Husseins death either.
If anything I think of Thatcher as a tragic figure.
Boudica died at the Hands of the invincible Roman Empire. Churchill got to at least see his country have one last stand hurrah being the bulwark against the Nazi regime, before its decline.
Thatcher tried to stop the decline of her country but in the end people from Southern England claiming to be British are like Italians claiming to be Roman.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Funny thing, there isnt a single thread made over Hugo Chavez's death.
MTGS is not my frame of reference for everything, I wasn't visiting much at the time.
But I did see people celebrating on Facebook, and saw plenty of news stories that focused on his bad side, often without even mentioning any of his positive accomplishments.
But you know, I didn't chide anyone for talking about him in a negative way simply because he just had died. Not that he's my hero anyway, he did do bad things. And his death would be a good time to mention them.
And this is what the UK has on there page about the man:
Your letting your idealogy bleed through rather strongly, Chavez was a tyrant he just wasn't as insane as Kim Jong-Il.
Chavez didn't always respect human rights, particularly with regards to political expression. And his support or praise of brutal dictators like Robert Mugabe, Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, the Iranian regime, etc. is inexcusable.
But the way he was talked about, it was as if he was a Gaddafi or Assad. He was definitely not. He wasn't an Ahmadinejad. And he was not as bad as the rulers of Saudi Arabia either. The reason he is discussed with such vitriol is because he was opposed to the US foreign policy and business interests and he called Bush the devil that one time at the UN. But his anti-Americanism also led him to praise people who deserve only contempt, as I mentioned above.
So I wouldn't praise him too much. But his sins don't rise anywhere near the level of calling him a "more sane Kim Jong-Il." While Kim allowed his people to starve, Chavez cut poverty in Venezuela in half. He also greatly expanded public education. He did do some good things for Venezuela, he was popular for a reason. They're miles apart.
Meanwhile, the Iron Lady supported Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, General Suharto in Indonesia, the apartheid regime in South Africa and Pinochet in Argentina. A perhaps even more ignominious list than the one for Chavez.
And at any rate, the point is that Thatcher's death is the right time to remember her entire legacy, not just the good stuff.
Thatcher did some good by reforming Britain's government. The end result was absolutely brutal for a lot of people as institutions that had become weak were exposed to globalization. Most industry in Britain apart from that surrounding London evaporated. She largely ignored the IRA and they went on a bloody rampage during those years. Her political style was confrontational and came through rule of force - when she was right, she looked brilliant, when she was wrong, she plowed forward.
Thatcher's responsibility for the fiscal boom of the 90's is...murky, similar to claims that Reagan was responsible for the 90's boom. But some of her efforts did tamp down inflation and reduce spending. In the end, everything she did seemed to come at some kind of heavy cost to somebody, whether it needed to or not.
You're not thinking hard enough if you don't see a reason.
And you've pretty much lost me here.
She was not a private individual, she was the prime minister. She does not represent just a wife and a mother and a friend, she represents an ideology and a political legacy.
And saying that now is not the time to speak ill of it does not show merely show respect for Margaret Thatcher, the wife, mother and friend, it also allows her ideological heirs a platform to rewrite history without opposition.
Edit: No, this [my comment that was here] is absurd!
I don't see any purpose or good reason in voicing how much I care and how much I like or dislike Thatcherism and, if one must, Baroness Thatcher; I have considerably better things to focus my energy and efforts on. I think Martin McGuinness puts it rather nicely, really; "She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds".
Well, it would be right and proper were it paid for bankers and those that prospered under the Heath/Wilson/Callaghan/Thatcher/Major premierships (yes, despite Wilson and Callaghan being Lab); but, the state funeral is to be paid by the state, of course.
If anything I think of Thatcher as a tragic figure.
What an interesting interpretation. It's your opinion, so we'll let that be.
Boudica died at the Hands of the invincible Roman Empire. Churchill got to at least see his country have one last stand hurrah being the bulwark against the Nazi regime, before its decline.
You forget Chamberlain.
Also, Attlee was responsible for the post-War clean up.
Thatcher tried to stop the decline of her country but in the end people from Southern England claiming to be British are like Italians claiming to be Roman.
This is incredibly stupid. The people in southern England are not of a degraded character compared to wealthy Londoners, nor are Italians a degraded version of Romans. This is some Victorian ****. Did you fall out of a time vortex somewhere? lol.
I felt that the UK under Thatcher was paradoxical to say the least, especially when considering her government's policies and her words. One thing that isn't confusing was the shift from the community to the self. That I plainly disagree with.
Considering that she dedicated her life to destroying workers' rights, supporting apartheid and selling out public goods to her rich friends (to mention just three things wrong with her) it's not remotely disturbing. She was to the UK what Reagan was to the US. It's far more surprising that she died of being so old.
What? Reagan was one of the most loved presidents in the US.
Considering that she dedicated her life to destroying workers' rights, supporting apartheid and selling out public goods to her rich friends (to mention just three things wrong with her) it's not remotely disturbing. She was to the UK what Reagan was to the US. It's far more surprising that she died of being so old.
Heh.
-"This is a sad day, but her legacy of good will endure and inspire future generations to come."
-"Wait, didn't she also support Pino-"
-"This is NOT the time to talk about her legacy!! >:["
Frankly, as someone who has studied both leftism and rightism philosophies since youth. These philosophies tend to have internal problems because of kinetics built into their structures, as well as some of their blind spots such as academic Keynesianism that Krugman espouses about blind spending without regard to return on investment and increased value through some public works such as Swedish bridges (that are built undercost, well engineered, and beautiful).
She liked the concept of the Scottish Enlightenment, in which persons in Scotland, Americas, and the like engaged in letters and public and private works to improve society. They were learned men, who had salons and ways to improve themselves. These were informally constructed, and helped to create a tie towards futures.
Now with that said, she may have been right in the ease by which something like the Scottish Enlightenment comes along as she was intellectually influenced by Hayek. Hayek did have a problematic assumption that if government just stepped aside institutional entrepreneurs would arise to fill the vacuum, to which anarchists also cling to. However, these entrepreneurs do not rise to the top as politics and policy are demonstrably linked and bringing something to scale against established powers is difficult. That and no entrepreneurs showing up to the task also just allows a problem to persist with undying never truly going to the graveyard.
Yet, I believe things such as this debate forum shows that there are people that are willing to learn from each other. Readers and the like, sharing materials and the like. While it doesn't affect the debated much, readers do learn more and do change. Accumulating knowledge and applying that knowledge allows for greater individual growth, and that is in part what she stood for. And that is what she did, she set about a task, learned everything, tried, and adapted and grew to fill in nice rolls.
I think Reagan was too simplistic even with his management experience and economics degree, Thatcher was both a chemist and a lawyer and more of a politician than an actor. Yet, I think we can take a few things from them as people. First behavior that Thatcher displayed as mentioned already was that she talked, met with people, went to lectures, and read what people told her to read when she asked. That is a good habit for young people, and it's something I can see in say a libertarian like Surging Chaos and leftists and rightists and so on. Which is a good sign. The other habits are practice and refinement, such as Reagan had a notes that he would take on his speeches to use quotes and stories to build around. Granted he was a public speaker by trade so these came to him, but it was something that Thatcher used differently in her own personal story by trying to push the "housewife" image a bit. Which reinforce that people buy based on emotion and justify through logic.
Her and Reagan were wealthy, and one of the reasons why Reagan died as early as he did was because of the Altheimers that was precipitated by a horse riding accident by hitting his head severely. While I doubt if he would have lived to 100, it was possible he would've had a few more functional years as we can see with Henry Kissinger. Equally, Thatcher had memory problems with her short term which was why she retired and eventually had Altheimers herself. And it shouldn't be overstated that she was a woman, who generally live longer than males.
And as a young conservative back during the 1980's with her as a woman conservative, I found her more appealing than Ronald Reagan as someone to relate to. She made me think that I might just see a minority president in the US rather than just some white guy all the time. Ironically, we still did get another white president, but we ended up with a uniquely American first minority just as Britain got with the Iron Lady. I also liked her brand of feminism more than Clinton's, because she was more open to discuss not on the role of being a woman but rather on the merit that she was the first scientist. That to me reflects my own philosophy on achievement.
While I never received the education in youth I deserved, I took it upon myself to self educate and to grow as much as I could. In later years whenever I read her memoirs and biography, I frankly felt more connected to her as a person than say a Reagan in terms of personal admiration. That and she was more fiscally conservative than Reagan, which helps.
Given a good study of her life, she's worth the effort to draw on what successful habits she had that can be as easily seen in other successful persons. Grant you, I'm very much in the same sentence to say that people can learn things from persons like Che Guevera or, hell, even Fred Rogers.
Take the time to learn from others, and exploit that for what it is worth. It reaps benefits beyond anything you can imagine over time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I'm sure all the irish people I know went out drinking last night.
Indians (from India) and Jamaicans too, if The Satanic Verses is an accurate depiction of British race relations in the 80s.
Also, Argentines. Definitely Argentines.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
And you've pretty much lost me here.
Edit: No, this [my comment that was here] is absurd!
I don't see any purpose or good reason in voicing how much I care and how much I like or dislike Thatcherism and, if one must, Baroness Thatcher; I have considerably better things to focus my energy and efforts on. I think Martin McGuinness puts it rather nicely, really; "She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds".
Well maybe you don't, but that's not the same thing as seeing no reason for a left-wing person to do so.
Certainly all the right-wingers will be taking this opportunity to praise her actions and reshape perceptions of her time in office, in an attempt to spread their ideology. Which is exactly the reason why left-wingers feel they need to say something about it as well.
If the conservatives refrained from talking about her political legacy at all (and that includes vague praise as calling her "a champion of freedom"), then I would be alright with saying don't speak ill of the dead. But of course that won't happen, so I say go right ahead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As the premier woman PM of the UK, a driver of the reform of the Soviet Union, and the person at the helm of the handling of the Falklands War and known for her no-nonsense attitude, strength of character, and British pride, she will forever be in my memory as - dare I say it - a role model (despite her handling of some things such as unions, but today's not the day to debate her legacy).
One's heart must go out to her family, her children and grandchildren, and to the nation who love and/or hate her.
I salute her for the guts she had though, how she dealt realistically with people.
I know some folks celebrated the passing of Lady Thatcher and there'd be some who would do so if it weren't for their sense of good taste, propriety, and maturity. As much as you might hate someone or their party or their politics, I see no reason to say ill of them in death; you know, de mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Some things should be considered in context; the UK was circling the drain and most everything would have happened all the same were the PM still Heath or anyone else. Politics isn't about being someone's mate all the way anyway and it's not as though anyone else, the non-politicians themselves, have any right to be throwing stones.
Kudos to you for taking the good with the bad, though, and your respect for her guts.
Irish in the US. I've heard their drinking songs already when she was alive.
The paper here showed pics of Scotts dancing around to celebrate too.
The thing is.. Why do these 20 somethings even care? It would be one thing if she was still in power or something, but these people couldn't have been over 25.
Well, during Major's premiership, she was pretty much still at the helm. That and she has a legacy, not only in her politics, philosophy, and the consequences of her words and actions but in song and stories, that transcends her tenure as PM; growing up, she was a role model and also a bogeyman to myself and many of my peers.
You know, that's a really good question. I don't know the answer to that myself and I'm baffled now. That people have harboured this hatred for a demented (in the clinical sense) woman who, at one time, did good things and did bad things for 20 years makes no sense.
I wonder what'd've happened had then Roberts continued with her career in chemistry. Guess we'll never know.
She will doubtless be remembered for her accomplishments. That said, it's the nature of a polarizing political figure that some will remember those accomplishments differently than others.
Condolences to her family. But I hope Thatcherism follows her.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
She was not a private individual, she was the prime minister. She does not represent just a wife and a mother and a friend, she represents an ideology and a political legacy.
And saying that now is not the time to speak ill of it does not show merely show respect for Margaret Thatcher, the wife, mother and friend, it also allows her ideological heirs a platform to rewrite history without opposition.
The post-mortem ass licking given by the US media to Ronald Reagan is partly responsible for shaping the US public's perception of him and his legacy today, and that is used to justify all sorts of policies by Republicans today.
Did anybody extend this courtesy to Hugo Chavez (much less true tyrants like Kim Jong-Il)? Can you imagine anyone would miss the ideological and political aims of declaring criticism of him off-limits, even if it's just for a little while?
So, no, there's nothing wrong with making sure that we remember, on the occasion of her death, that she (and Reagan) laid the foundations for the type of capitalist avarice that led to the financial crisis AND the disastrous policies of austerity that have kept the UK and other European countries from recovering, that she passed the homophobic Section 28, that she supported the South African Apartheid regime and called the ANC terrorists, that her policies caused significant pain for millions of working class Britons, and that she tried to impose the regressive poll tax, and so forth. In fact, it's precisely the time they should be remembered.
Any news on who is paying for the funeral?
Thanks to Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery Signatures!
Funny thing, there isnt a single thread made over Hugo Chavez's death.
And this is what the UK has on there page about the man:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/hugo-chavez
Your letting your idealogy bleed through rather strongly, Chavez was a tyrant he just wasn't as insane as Kim Jong-Il.
If anything her death and the jubilation the left is showing reminds me of why the Right in America needs to not falter.
Even the Iron Lady could stop her countries descent into become a broken shadow of what it once was.
And we in the United States need to not give ground to the leftist who wish to turn the country away from its greatness.
Oh god. I just love the people who cry foul over celebrating the death of Thatcher who were just finished celebrating the death of Chavez. The irony is delicious, especially because Thatcher supported an actual dictator.
Huh?
Where was this jubilation over Chavez's death?
I missed it, in fact one would deduce that Thatcher was the tyrant not Chavez from the media coverage of both of their deaths.
Personally, I didnt celebrate Osam Bin-Ladens or Saddam Husseins death either.
If anything I think of Thatcher as a tragic figure.
Boudica died at the Hands of the invincible Roman Empire. Churchill got to at least see his country have one last stand hurrah being the bulwark against the Nazi regime, before its decline.
Thatcher tried to stop the decline of her country but in the end people from Southern England claiming to be British are like Italians claiming to be Roman.
But I did see people celebrating on Facebook, and saw plenty of news stories that focused on his bad side, often without even mentioning any of his positive accomplishments.
But you know, I didn't chide anyone for talking about him in a negative way simply because he just had died. Not that he's my hero anyway, he did do bad things. And his death would be a good time to mention them.
The Guardian is not "the UK."
Chavez didn't always respect human rights, particularly with regards to political expression. And his support or praise of brutal dictators like Robert Mugabe, Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, the Iranian regime, etc. is inexcusable.
But the way he was talked about, it was as if he was a Gaddafi or Assad. He was definitely not. He wasn't an Ahmadinejad. And he was not as bad as the rulers of Saudi Arabia either. The reason he is discussed with such vitriol is because he was opposed to the US foreign policy and business interests and he called Bush the devil that one time at the UN. But his anti-Americanism also led him to praise people who deserve only contempt, as I mentioned above.
So I wouldn't praise him too much. But his sins don't rise anywhere near the level of calling him a "more sane Kim Jong-Il." While Kim allowed his people to starve, Chavez cut poverty in Venezuela in half. He also greatly expanded public education. He did do some good things for Venezuela, he was popular for a reason. They're miles apart.
Meanwhile, the Iron Lady supported Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, General Suharto in Indonesia, the apartheid regime in South Africa and Pinochet in Argentina. A perhaps even more ignominious list than the one for Chavez.
And at any rate, the point is that Thatcher's death is the right time to remember her entire legacy, not just the good stuff.
Thatcher's responsibility for the fiscal boom of the 90's is...murky, similar to claims that Reagan was responsible for the 90's boom. But some of her efforts did tamp down inflation and reduce spending. In the end, everything she did seemed to come at some kind of heavy cost to somebody, whether it needed to or not.
Edit: No, this [my comment that was here] is absurd!
I don't see any purpose or good reason in voicing how much I care and how much I like or dislike Thatcherism and, if one must, Baroness Thatcher; I have considerably better things to focus my energy and efforts on. I think Martin McGuinness puts it rather nicely, really; "She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds".
Well, it would be right and proper were it paid for bankers and those that prospered under the Heath/Wilson/Callaghan/Thatcher/Major premierships (yes, despite Wilson and Callaghan being Lab); but, the state funeral is to be paid by the state, of course.
As well as the family and co.
What an interesting interpretation. It's your opinion, so we'll let that be.
You forget Chamberlain.
Also, Attlee was responsible for the post-War clean up.
Isn't London in the south of England now?
Yeah. Pretty much.
I felt that the UK under Thatcher was paradoxical to say the least, especially when considering her government's policies and her words. One thing that isn't confusing was the shift from the community to the self. That I plainly disagree with.
What? Reagan was one of the most loved presidents in the US.
My fellow American... miss u
*sniffle*
My Buying Thread
Frankly, as someone who has studied both leftism and rightism philosophies since youth. These philosophies tend to have internal problems because of kinetics built into their structures, as well as some of their blind spots such as academic Keynesianism that Krugman espouses about blind spending without regard to return on investment and increased value through some public works such as Swedish bridges (that are built undercost, well engineered, and beautiful).
She liked the concept of the Scottish Enlightenment, in which persons in Scotland, Americas, and the like engaged in letters and public and private works to improve society. They were learned men, who had salons and ways to improve themselves. These were informally constructed, and helped to create a tie towards futures.
Now with that said, she may have been right in the ease by which something like the Scottish Enlightenment comes along as she was intellectually influenced by Hayek. Hayek did have a problematic assumption that if government just stepped aside institutional entrepreneurs would arise to fill the vacuum, to which anarchists also cling to. However, these entrepreneurs do not rise to the top as politics and policy are demonstrably linked and bringing something to scale against established powers is difficult. That and no entrepreneurs showing up to the task also just allows a problem to persist with undying never truly going to the graveyard.
Yet, I believe things such as this debate forum shows that there are people that are willing to learn from each other. Readers and the like, sharing materials and the like. While it doesn't affect the debated much, readers do learn more and do change. Accumulating knowledge and applying that knowledge allows for greater individual growth, and that is in part what she stood for. And that is what she did, she set about a task, learned everything, tried, and adapted and grew to fill in nice rolls.
I think Reagan was too simplistic even with his management experience and economics degree, Thatcher was both a chemist and a lawyer and more of a politician than an actor. Yet, I think we can take a few things from them as people. First behavior that Thatcher displayed as mentioned already was that she talked, met with people, went to lectures, and read what people told her to read when she asked. That is a good habit for young people, and it's something I can see in say a libertarian like Surging Chaos and leftists and rightists and so on. Which is a good sign. The other habits are practice and refinement, such as Reagan had a notes that he would take on his speeches to use quotes and stories to build around. Granted he was a public speaker by trade so these came to him, but it was something that Thatcher used differently in her own personal story by trying to push the "housewife" image a bit. Which reinforce that people buy based on emotion and justify through logic.
Her and Reagan were wealthy, and one of the reasons why Reagan died as early as he did was because of the Altheimers that was precipitated by a horse riding accident by hitting his head severely. While I doubt if he would have lived to 100, it was possible he would've had a few more functional years as we can see with Henry Kissinger. Equally, Thatcher had memory problems with her short term which was why she retired and eventually had Altheimers herself. And it shouldn't be overstated that she was a woman, who generally live longer than males.
And as a young conservative back during the 1980's with her as a woman conservative, I found her more appealing than Ronald Reagan as someone to relate to. She made me think that I might just see a minority president in the US rather than just some white guy all the time. Ironically, we still did get another white president, but we ended up with a uniquely American first minority just as Britain got with the Iron Lady. I also liked her brand of feminism more than Clinton's, because she was more open to discuss not on the role of being a woman but rather on the merit that she was the first scientist. That to me reflects my own philosophy on achievement.
While I never received the education in youth I deserved, I took it upon myself to self educate and to grow as much as I could. In later years whenever I read her memoirs and biography, I frankly felt more connected to her as a person than say a Reagan in terms of personal admiration. That and she was more fiscally conservative than Reagan, which helps.
Given a good study of her life, she's worth the effort to draw on what successful habits she had that can be as easily seen in other successful persons. Grant you, I'm very much in the same sentence to say that people can learn things from persons like Che Guevera or, hell, even Fred Rogers.
Take the time to learn from others, and exploit that for what it is worth. It reaps benefits beyond anything you can imagine over time.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Indians (from India) and Jamaicans too, if The Satanic Verses is an accurate depiction of British race relations in the 80s.
Also, Argentines. Definitely Argentines.
On phasing:
Certainly all the right-wingers will be taking this opportunity to praise her actions and reshape perceptions of her time in office, in an attempt to spread their ideology. Which is exactly the reason why left-wingers feel they need to say something about it as well.
If the conservatives refrained from talking about her political legacy at all (and that includes vague praise as calling her "a champion of freedom"), then I would be alright with saying don't speak ill of the dead. But of course that won't happen, so I say go right ahead.