Mouth breathers buy tickets too.

In other news, the NFL remains popular.

appears to apply mainly to prisoners that are to be placed in the prison population

It applies only to people who are being placed in general pop, the majority (and Alito's concurrence specifically) is clear on that point.

The irony of this thread is that, having met Ray, I can say he's probably the most "normal" and well adjusted Primate I've met.

He sure seems normal enough to me in person, too. But then the friendliest and most "normal"-seeming politician I've ever met in person was Pat Buchanan. Great sense of humor and totally self-depreciating.

Victims of tyrant behave tyrannically.

How many of them were supporters of the prior tyrant?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's a business decision by the Marlins.

Fine, but when some equally spineless individual suspends a John Rocker for some insensitive comment, don't whine about "political correctness".

That's a business decision also, Andy.

This is a business decision. Guillen's comments were, the team felt, bad for business. And so he was suspended. Any discussion about the First Amendment, or left/right politics, is out of place.

Fidel Castro has tortured, murdered and imprisoned people for the simple act of disagreeing with him, he limits their freedoms and he quite simply oppresses his people.

so the correct response here is to muffle free speech? THat's brilliant.

I just think the whole lefty-righty thing is kind of silly here. The Marlins understand that the comment would alienate a sizable percentage of their fan base, and took an action they hoped would do the best to minimize the damage (whether such damage is justified is irrelevant). Mouth breathers buy tickets too.

Listen hippie, the only reason Cubans are mouth-breathers is because you can't swim to America without a snorkel.

Seriously, there are sizable sections of Miami where Spanish is the default language and Cuban culture flourishes. As soon as those commies are gone from Havana the Teabag contingent is going to notice these Cubans are just Island Mexicans.

In the words of Krusty when he found out he wasn't Jewish, "All this time I thought I was a self-hating Jew, it turns out I'm just an anti-Semite."

Krusty is goyim? When the hell did that happen?

I guess by that you mean that "the left" doesn't pile on Castro the way that your favorite institution piled on Francisco Franco. That'd be a below the belt remark if only it weren't 100% true.

If your choice was Francisco Franco or the bunch of Stalinist thugs on the other side, Franco looks like George Washington. Remember, it was the "Rebublicans" (i.e. the Communists/Anarchists) who started burning churches and murdering priests and nuns, and executing Conservative/Royalist politicians.

I have no doubt that in that conflict, Franco was the lesser of two evils. Of course I would never say "I love him", because he committed some horrible crimes.

Since this is the political thread, Rick Santorum just announced he's suspending his campaign. Full speed ahead for Mitt Romney.

Krusty is goyim? When the hell did that happen?

My memory may be wrong, but I think that quote is reversed. I thought it was "All this time I thought I was an anti-Semite, it turns out I'm just a self-hating Jew."

Seriously, there are sizable sections of Miami where Spanish is the default language and Cuban culture flourishes. As soon as those commies are gone from Havana the Teabag contingent is going to notice these Cubans are just Island Mexicans.

What's really funny about the Tea Party contingent of the party being opposed to open borders is that leftist Marxists are too, but for different reasons. The Marxists want closed borders to prevent the spread of global capitalism (and cheap labor and all those things that open borders allow). Tea Partiers think that the Mexicans are getting a free ride and stealing jobs, which sounds more than a bit like wanting to get rid of cheap labor and limiting the spread of global capitalism....

My memory may be wrong, but I think that quote is reversed. I thought it was "All this time I thought I was an anti-Semite, it turns out I'm just a self-hating Jew."

Your memory is wrong. Sorry!

I have no doubt that in that conflict, Franco was the lesser of two evils.

Boy, the brainwashing really did take with you, didn't it?

it was the "Rebublicans" (i.e. the Communists/Anarchists) who started burning churches and murdering priests and nuns,

You say that like it was a bad thing.

(OK, OK ...)

Krusty is goyim? When the hell did that happen?

From 2003, Episode is "Today, I am a clown." It happens in the middle of the episode and by the end he has a bar mitzvah.

"However, when Krusty returns to his old neighborhood in the Jewish section of Springfield, he sees the Jewish Walk of Fame and finds that his star is not on the sidewalk. He then goes to register for it and is told he does not have a star because he did not have a bar mitzvah, which means he is not a Jewish man, so he claims he can not be a "self-hating Jew" but instead he is an antisemite (much to the delight of Rainier Wolfcastle). Bart and Lisa take Krusty to see his father, who claimed that Krusty was not given a bar mitzvah due to his non-serious attitude growing up making him fear Krusty would make fun of the event. He agrees to help Krusty achieve his goal teaching Krusty all the goals associated with Judaism. With this happening, Krusty cannot do shows on Saturday (the Sabbath); therefore, he must seek a replacement, and gets Homer to replace him for the day. Homer's replacement show is a talk show, featuring Moe, Lenny (later replaced by Barney and Disco Stu), and Carl as panelists. The show becomes a success in its own right; meanwhile, Krusty continues to learn his Jewish traditions."

Edited to correct my own memory (Krusty has a bar mitzvah at the end, doesn't find out that it was a mistake).

Edit 2: Here's the link

Since this is the political thread, Rick Santorum just announced he's suspending his campaign. Full speed ahead for Mitt Romney.

It would seem so. I'm not sure why Ron Paul hasn't gone third party yet, his support is mounting despite the best efforts of the Republican party. He had almost 8,000 at his UCLA rally last week.

From 2003, Episode is "Today, I am a clown." It happens in the middle of the episode and by the end he finds out that he's actually Jewish.

Oh! OK, I actually did see that, I guess it didn't stick in my head because Krusty never actually stopped being Jewish, he just wasn't bar mitzvah'd. Thanks for getting me hip!

Your memory is wrong. Sorry!

You are right.

his support is mounting

Seriously? His support is not mounting. If it were mounting, he'd be doing better in polls AND at the voting booth. The man is not winning anything except maybe 3rd place. And that's with Santorum dropping out.

Boy, the brainwashing really did take with you, didn't it?

Never attended Catholic school, and our CCD was the '80s "Jesus is your pal" crap.

I reached my conclusions through my independent study of history. With the sole exception of the Nazis, Communist/Socialist thugs have always been worse than Facist/Right-wing thugs. When you're caught in a street fight, there's no way to side with the angels.

Santorum stepping aside was foretold a few days ago when Romney stopped the attack ads on him and the first SuperPAC announced its intention to focus on Obama. This will be the round-robin style of attack on the president that Karl Rove is directing against Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Karl Rove is directing a national campaign at taking back the Senate and House. Latest tally is that they've spent $5 Million there. They're also directing millions (as are the Dems) at Wisconsin. Rove and the RNC have a plan here to punt the presidency pretty soon. I think they'd like to win back the House, Senate and White House, but they'll settle for another version of the 1994 revolution.

Edit: round-robing? corrected to round-robin

Never attended Catholic school, and our CCD was the '80s "Jesus is your pal" crap.

??? I presume "Catholic Church D(something)"?

With the sole exception of the Nazis, Communist/Socialist thugs have always been worse than Facist/Right-wing thugs. When you're caught in a street fight, there's no way to side with the angels.

Your previous calumny aside (Stalin's legions, of course, backstabbed the CNT six ways to Sunday, IIRC), I of course side with the anarchist thugs.

Santorum stepping aside was foretold a few days ago when Romney stopped the attack ads on him and the first SuperPAC announced its intention to focus on Obama. This will be the round-robing style of attack on the president that Karl Rove is directing against Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Karl Rove is directing a national campaign at taking back the Senate and House. Latest tally is that they've spent $5 Million there. They're also directing millions (as are the Dems) at Wisconsin. Rove and the RNC have a plan here to punt the presidency pretty soon. I think they'd like to win back the House, Senate and White House, but they'll settle for another version of the 1994 revolution.

Sounds like a good plan. I approve.

Hell, if Romney can get his foot out of his mouth for 30 secs., I might even send them some $$$.

his support is mounting

Better not let Santorum find out.

DB

??? I presume "Catholic Church D(something)"?

I actually had to look it up, it's

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

.

It means Sunday School for Catholics, but it's often not on Sunday.

Sounds like a good plan. I approve.

I don't know that it can work. The plan is for Obama to campaign against the "do-nothing" congress. Worked for Truman.

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

I did CCD for 8 years and never knew what it stood for. I'm also surprised that someone didn't know it was "Catholic education." Everyone I knew growing up went to CCD or something similar.

I actually had to look it up, it's

heh, I went to it too, but never knew what the letters stood for.

I don't know that it can work. The plan is for Obama to campaign against the "do-nothing" congress. Worked for Truman.

I don't think that works when you control the Senate, and since most people don't like all the "doing" the previous Congress did (Obamacare, TARP, stimulus). Plus, both Houses favor the Reps, especially the Senate, in terms of vacancies/retirement/redistricting.

Romney will pound Obama for his policies that the Dem Congress enacted, allowing the Rep. Congressmen to say, we did all we could just to stop Obama screwing #### up more.

He plays too much tennis, though. That's worrying.

Which of the Williams sisters does he dress like?

Robin, in "Mrs. Doubtfire."

#130 should be the end of the thread.

Hell, if Romney can get his foot out of his mouth for 30 secs., I might even send them some $$$.

My brother has decided to shift from Obama to Romney. I asked why. He said that Romney had promised to increase military spending, and my brother works for Northrup Grumman. "Can't trust Obama to do the same." Simple as that.

Which of the Williams sisters does he dress like?

Robin, in "Mrs. Doubtfire."

Nicely done!

I did CCD for 8 years and never knew what it stood for. I'm also surprised that someone didn't know it was "Catholic education." Everyone I knew growing up went to CCD or something similar.

Gef's from Arkansas, which isn't exactly teeming with Catholics. In contrast, at my public school, they bused us from our school to the church for CCD classes during the school day, while the handful of non-Catholic stragglers left behind had study hall.

And to echo the chorus - I didn't know what it meant either.

I'm also surprised that someone didn't know it was "Catholic education." Everyone I knew growing up went to CCD or something similar.

I grew up in a very small rural Arkansas county (population of around 10,000 back then, probably; more like 6,000 now) with no Catholic churches of any kind.

Also, carbonated beverage of SoSH U's choice proffered his way.

From Salon:

An ABC News/Washington Post released this morning offers the most dramatic and definitive evidence yet that the gender gap really is exploding. If the election were limited to male voters, Mitt Romney would actually be comfortably ahead of President Obama, 52 to 44 percent. But among women, Romney has fallen 19 points behind Obama, 57 to 38 percent, resulting in an overall 7-point deficit for the presumptive Republican nominee.

This comes a week after a poll of 12 swing states found similar results, with Obama opening up an 18-point cushion among women, even as he barely broke even with men. It’s true that gender gaps have been a regular feature of general elections since 1980, but as Gary Langer, who conducted the survey for ABC and the Post, points out, the current male/female split would be the biggest since polling began if it holds:

Obama did 12 points better vs. John McCain among women than among men in the 2008 election (+13 points among women, +1 among men) – almost exactly matching the average (a 13-point differential for the Democrat) in exit polls since 1976.
Highs, computed in this way, were a 22-point gender gap in 2000 and 17 points in 1996 and 1980 alike. Today’s figure is higher: Obama leads Romney by 19 points among women but trails by 8 among men, a 27-point difference.

A long, nasty race is still to come, but it will be interesting to track how this trend plays out ...

Gef's from Arkansas, which isn't exactly teeming with Catholics.

There were (probably still are) Catholic churches in the counties to our immediate northwest (stomping grounds for Clinton, Huckabee in their youths &, these days, my first-wife-the-city-manager) & east (where I went to college), though.

A long, nasty race is still to come, but it will be interesting to track how these trends play out ...

It's state legislatures that will kill Romney with women. There's nothing he can even do about it, and nothing the RNC can do. They're off the leash. The ultrasound abortion laws are extremely unpopular with women, as has been the backlash against Planned Parenthood.

My brother has decided to shift from Obama to Romney. I asked why. He said that Romney had promised to increase military spending, and my brother works for Northrup Grumman. "Can't trust Obama to do the same." Simple as that.

Not surprising. Most people vote their pocketbooks.

Not surprising. Most people vote their pocketbooks.

My brother's at least honest about why. My in-laws are voting Republican because they want to dramatically cut government. My brother knows better.

If your choice was Francisco Franco or the bunch of Stalinist thugs on the other side, Franco looks like George Washington. Remember, it was the "Rebublicans" (i.e. the Communists/Anarchists) who started burning churches and murdering priests and nuns, and executing Conservative/Royalist politicians.

The reason they're called the "Republicans" is because they were the supporters of the legitimate, democratic republic which Franco's military coup overturned. The idea that the Republicans were nothing but communists and anarchists is batshittery and crackpottery of the highest order.

Franco's army took power by murdering in cold blood the elected representatives of the people, and his rule coincided with a reign of terror that is estimated to have killed ("disappeared") well over 100,000. Support for Franco should be as wholly unacceptable as support for Castro.

Even if I accepted your characterization of the Republicans, I mean, Batista was an #######, you know. That doesn't get anyone off the hook for their crimes.

That doesn't get anyone off the hook for their crimes.

Unless said crimes were committed by the thugs in the administration immediately before President Peace Prize's. Then it's all good.

Anti-clericalism ran in the Spanish left during the civil war (and still does) because Spanish clerics were openly advocating the overthrow of the Republican state. Plus, you know, atrocities were committed by both sides, but the Franquistas were really brutal. They pretty much killed everybody to the right of Franco in Andalucia and Castilla. Not to mention Gernika.

Not to mention Gernika.

Is that a new (to me, at least) spelling for Guernica? I say that with no snark intended; I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Guernica in the Basque language.

Is that a new (to me, at least) spelling for Guernica?

basque

The reason they're called the "Republicans" is because they were the supporters of the legitimate, democratic republic which Franco's military coup overturned. The idea that the Republicans were nothing but communists and anarchists is batshittery and crackpottery of the highest order.

Franco's army took power by murdering in cold blood the elected representatives of the people, and his rule coincided with a reign of terror that is estimated to have killed ("disappeared") well over 100,000. Support for Franco should be as wholly unacceptable as support for Castro.

Even if I accepted your characterization of the Republicans, I mean, Batista was an #######, you know. That doesn't get anyone off the hook for their crimes.

And the democratically elected government was riven by communist/anarchist thugs and stooges. They committed as many atrocities as the Nationalists during the war, and more before the war. The Nationalists only topped them b/c they won. If the Republicans had won, the death toll would have been greater. By 1938 they were a fully owned subsidiary of Stalin inc.

I don't let them off the hook for their crimes. I think Franco was guilty of many atrocities. I'm just saying that in my analysis, he was the lesser of two evils in Spain. If I lived in Spain back then, I probably would have been a Carlist.

I don't care if a gov't is democratic if it's noxious to the natural rights of people. If a democratically elected American gov't allowed its thugs to burn churches and kill clergy in the US, I'd hope our military would depose it immediately.

Has anyone linked to this picture yet?

full article

Guernica in the Basque language.

Aha. Lafayette County, Ark., has even fewer Basques than it does Catholics.

I have no doubt that in that conflict, Franco was the lesser of two evils. Of course I would never say "I love him", because he committed some horrible crimes.

What about the old lady from "You've Got Mail"? Surely she's not a monster just because of her youthful dalliance.

If a democratically elected American gov't allowed its thugs to burn churches and kill clergy in the US, I'd hope our military would depose it immediately.

The NAACP hoped the same thing a few decades ago, which I guess is why I'm now living in the People's Republic of Alabama, to the immediate east of the Union of Mississippi Socialist Republics.

If a democratically elected American gov't allowed its thugs to burn churches and kill clergy in the US, I'd hope our military would depose it immediately.

Unless it's minority Protestants who are persecuted and murdered? Then it's ok?

Anti-clericalism ran in the Spanish left during the civil war (and still does) because Spanish clerics were openly advocating the overthrow of the Republican state. Plus, you know, atrocities were committed by both sides, but the Franquistas were really brutal. They pretty much killed everybody to the right of Franco in Andalucia and Castilla. Not to mention Gernika.

That doesn't justify murdering them.

I fully admit both sides were brutal, and Franco committed many crimes and atrocities.

The NAACP hoped the same thing a few decades ago, which I guess is why I'm now living in the People's Republic of Alabama, to the immediate east of the Union of Mississippi Socialist Republics.

Well, those were state gov'ts, and the Federal Gov't did absolutely the right thing in sending US Marshals and Federal troops (on isolated occasions). You've never heard me defend the segregationists. The Feds should have done more.

Unless it's minority Protestants who are persecuted and murdered? Then it's ok?

No, of course it's not OK. Are you really flacking an article about 1941 Spain (most of which I can't read)?

I've never claimed Franco was a good guy. I don't know what you're rebutting.

most people don't like all the "doing" the previous Congress did (Obamacare, TARP, stimulus).

TARP was the Congress before the previous Congress. It was a Bush program.

The Feds should have done more.

Which is my point here, I guess. (Just got through reading the most recent book I know of on the '57 "Central High crisis," David Margolick's Elizabeth and Hazel: Two Women of Little Rock. Always a bit jarring to see people I used to know &/or work with turn up between hardcovers. Even more jarring to reflect on how the unreconstructed racist executive editor of my old newspaper still insists that Faubus was in the right all along & mandates that the paper's summaries of the whole episode reflect that delusion.)

Concur. If Joe Girardi said the same thing about Pinochet, I think a lot of people would be responding differently.

Not in the slightest. Guillen didn't say anything positive about castro, just praised his ability to stay alive. I can say the same thing about a far right winger and not intend for it to be a positive about them. I could say something positive about a few of the far right political leaders and not at all imply that I like them.

First, your qualified defense of Franco is exactly the sort of thing you'd hate if someone did it with a left-wing dictator. Batista was pretty ####### evil.

Second, I'm challenging your claim that Franco was the obvious lesser of evils.

You have put forward the narrative that the persecution of clergy precipitated the coup, and that this justified the coup. I was citing an article which narrated the persecution of Protestants under Franco to show that he committed exactly parallel crimes. Further, the persecution of clergy, by most accounts I've read, followed after the Spanish church's support for the coup. It wasn't justified in any way, but the coup was not precipitated by persecution of clergy. It was precipitated by right-wing nutjobs looking for power and not having any scruples about murdering to get it.

The depiction of the Republican forces as mostly communist and anarchist is likewise a bit of crackpot history that I know of very little mainstream support for.

Not in the slightest. Guillen didn't say anything positive about castro, just praised his ability to stay alive. I can say the same thing about a far right winger and not intend for it to be a positive about them. I could say something positive about a few of the far right political leaders and not at all imply that I like them.

He said "I love Fidel Castro". That's positive.

The reason they're called the "Republicans" is because they were the supporters of the legitimate, democratic republic which Franco's military coup overturned. The idea that the Republicans were nothing but communists and anarchists is batshittery and crackpottery of the highest order.

I will have to track down my copy of the Antony Beevor book, "THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939," updated to include information taken from the Soviet archives, but I remember reading that the Communists had already co-opted the Republican government by the time Franco and his troops returned to the mainland in 1936.

I've never quite understood the old line European clergy participating in politics, claiming a privileged position to do so, and then whining when politics in a politically volatile land hits their front door.

What exactly do they expect? If they want to be exempt from political tides, they need to be Switzerland. The Spanish clergy in the first half of the last century was not Switzerland.

And the democratically elected government was riven by communist/anarchist thugs and stooges. They committed as many atrocities as the Nationalists during the war, and more before the war.

Strongly disagree. Before the war, Falangists were driving through the streets of Andalucian cities, machinegunning civilians, with impunity. I'm not sure what you'd place on the opposing scales.

Antony Beevor book, "THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939," updated to include information taken from the Soviet archives, but I remember reading that the Communists had already co-opted the Republican government by the time Franco and his troops returned to the mainland in 1936.

I've read Beevor also, and I don't think he says that. The Communists did their best to infiltrate the government, and cooperated as part of the Popular Front movement, but did not gain supremacy until later in the war.

At any rate, I am comfortable sympathizing with the side that produced a thinker like Miguel de Unamuno. I challenge you to find a similar voice allied to Franco:

--

Professor Francisco Maldonado decried Catalonia and the Basque Country as "cancers on the body of the nation," adding that "Fascism, the healer of Spain, will know how to exterminate them, cutting into the live flesh, like a determined surgeon free from false sentimentalism."

From somewhere in the auditorium, someone cried out the motto "¡Viva la Muerte!" As was his habit, Millán-Astray responded with "¡España!"; the crowd replied with "¡Una!" He repeated "¡España!"; the crowd then replied "¡Grande!" A third time, Millán-Astray shouted "¡España!"; the crowd responded "Libre!" This was a common Falangist cheer. Later, a group of uniformed Falangists entered, saluting the portrait of Franco that hung on the wall.

Unamuno, who was presiding over the meeting, rose up slowly and addressed the crowd: "You are waiting for my words. You know me well, and know I cannot remain silent for long. Sometimes, to remain silent is to lie, since silence can be interpreted as assent. I want to comment on the so-called speech of Professor Maldonado, who is with us here. I will ignore the personal offence to the Basques and Catalonians. I myself, as you know, was born in Bilbao. The Bishop," Unamuno gestured to the Archbishop of Salamanca, "Whether you like it or not, is Catalan, born in Barcelona. But now I have heard this insensible and necrophilous oath, "¡Viva la Muerte!", and I, having spent my life writing paradoxes that have provoked the ire of those who do not understand what I have written, and being an expert in this matter, find this ridiculous paradox repellent. General Millán-Astray is an invalid. There is no need for us to say this with whispered tones. He is an invalid of war. So was Cervantes. But unfortunately, Spain today has too many invalids. And, if God does not help us, soon it will have very many more. It torments me to think that General Millán-Astray might dictate the norms of the psychology of the masses. It should be expected from a mutilated who lacks the spiritual greatness of Cervantes to find horrible solace in seeing how the number of mutilated ones multiplies around him."

Millán-Astray reportedly responded: "¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!" ("Death to intelligence! Long live death!"), provoking applause from the Falangists (although some versions suggest he actually said "Death to traitor intellectuality" but in the commotion in the auditorium this was not perceived). Pemán, in an effort to calm the crowd, exclaimed "¡No! ¡Viva la inteligencia! ¡Mueran los malos intelectuales!" ("No! Long live intelligence! Death to the bad intellectuals!")

Unamuno continued: "This is the temple of intelligence, and I am its high priest. You are profaning its sacred domain. You will succeed, because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. In order to convince it is necessary to persuade, and to persuade you will need something that you lack: reason and right in the struggle. I see it is useless to ask you to think of Spain. I have spoken." Millán-Astray, controlling himself, shouted "Take the lady's arm!" Unamuno took Carmen Polo by the arm and left in her protection.

Before the war, Falangists were driving through the streets of Andalucian cities, machinegunning civilians, with impunity. I'm not sure what you'd place on the opposing scales.

Establishing the DH?

Hey leaf us not get this thread sent down the Mammary Hole now that I am posting again on Primer Al. Stop all the talk of Politics and Fidel Castrol and Homage to Catalina. Lets talk base ball folks. Now that Fidel Castrol was a heck of a pitching prospect some say he tried out for the Nats Al but that can not be because that was when they were the Montreal Experts. Of course Castrol would have been happier pitching in Canadia where they have socialist medicine. Oops I think I let Politics crept back in.

First, your qualified defense of Franco is exactly the sort of thing you'd hate if someone did it with a left-wing dictator. Batista was pretty ####### evil.

Second, I'm challenging your claim that Franco was the obvious lesser of evils.

You have put forward the narrative that the persecution of clergy precipitated the coup, and that this justified the coup. I was citing an article which narrated the persecution of Protestants under Franco to show that he committed exactly parallel crimes. Further, the persecution of clergy, by most accounts I've read, followed after the Spanish church's support for the coup. It wasn't justified in any way, but the coup was not precipitated by persecution of clergy. It was precipitated by right-wing nutjobs looking for power and not having any scruples about murdering to get it.

The depiction of the Republican forces as mostly communist and anarchist is likewise a bit of crackpot history that I know of very little mainstream support for.

Batista was a corrupt thug.

The immediate precipitation for the coup was the murder of a Conservative/Monarchist member of parliament, Calvo Sotello, by the Assault Guards. The communists and anarchists had been involved in atrocities for many years, (as were the fascists as power swung back and forth in the 1930's), not just after coup planning started.

Both sides were diverse coalitions. The Nationalists were comprised of Falange (fascists), Carlist monarchists, Bourbon monarchists, etc. The Republicans had the support of the traditional Liberal parties, but the anarchists and communists represented a much larger percentage of their numbers (outside of the elites). Once the war started, the Communists purged everyone else pretty rapidly.

Given the tenor of the times, the Liberals in the Republic could not comtrol the communists and anarchists. That's what prompted the coup.

I don't have the book handy, but here are snippets from a few reviews.

Most nations are deeply suspicious of foreigners who write books about them. Thus, the most convincing tributes to Antony Beevor’s history of the Spanish civil war come from Madrid’s reviewers, whose applause kept this book at the top of their bestseller lists for months, well before its appearance here. A version of Beevor’s study was originally published in 1982. Access to the Soviet archives, together with a mass of new post-Franco material available in Spain, have caused him to rewrite extensively, to formidable effect. He is now able to document Stalin’s involvement in the 1936-39 “crucible of grief” in unprecedented detail, and a grisly story it is. . . .

Franco and the Nationalists sought to overthrow the legitimate government of Spain by force of arms. Beevor notes the significant point that had the Republicans lost the prewar election they, too, would almost certainly have resorted to arms to contest the democratic verdict, and that had they won the war, the communists would probably have seized monopoly power with their usual ruthlessness. Stalin, incidentally, afterwards executed most of the Soviet advisers who had served in Spain. By 1939, he was pursuing his compact with Hitler.

The collapse of Soviet Communism has led to the release of archival material that proves conclusively just how Stalinist many of the key decision-makers of the Spanish Republic had become, and what they were planning to do if they won. From these reports back to Moscow, it is clear that victory over Franco would have led to the same gulags, mass executions and iron-gripped totalitarianism as existed in the USSR at the time. Instead, Beevor estimates, Franco placed up to half a million Republicans in 190 concentration camps at the end of the war, to slave away in labour battalions for decades. He puts the long-disputed figure of those executed after the surrender at around 50,000 to 70,000. The Caudillo would choose who lived and who died - and how they died - as he drank post-prandial coffee with his priest, José María Bulart. For those needing to be made an example of, he wrote 'garrote y prensa' (garrotting and press coverage) on the death warrant.

The Battle for Spain contains its own horrors, with outrages on both sides. The brutality of Franco's Nationalists is well known, but equally shocking is the murderous paranoia of the Communists and the blood-lust of the people unleashed after years of oppressive government. In Spain, it has reignited debate about the war and its painful legacy, not least because Beevor explodes the myth that the Republic was a virgin democracy violated by fascist forces and betrayed by its democratic neighbours.

"The myth of the immaculate Republic was something that really did need to be tackled, because it still exists in Spain," Beevor explains. It is an under-statement. The idea of the Immaculate Republic remains a rallying cry for the Left. To understand the impact, imagine a foreign historian revealing that the idea of plucky Britain facing the fascists alone during the Blitz is a myth.

"Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, whose grandfather was executed by the Right, refuses to believe it was anything else other than a virgin political entity ravished by the appalling Fascists," he says. "In the book, I do not in any way diminish the horrors of the Nationalist brutality, but the trouble with the myth of the violated Republic is that it automatically means everybody and every element within it shares the same reputation."

In place of the myth, Beevor shows a Republic in disarray. While the cruelty of Franco's Nationalists is shocking in its systematic viciousness, the Republic was hamstrung by incompetence and ideological infighting. The lack of political cohesion severely clouded the judgement of its leadership, leaving it isolated internationally and divided at home.

I've never quite understood the old line European clergy participating in politics, claiming a privileged position to do so, and then whining when politics in a politically volatile land hits their front door.

What exactly do they expect? If they want to be exempt from political tides, they need to be Switzerland. The Spanish clergy in the first half of the last century was not Switzerland.

They knew they weren't ever going to be exempt. From the French Revolution on all the socialist/radical movements were intensely anti-clerical to the point of violence. Read about the French terror in the Vendee.

They picked sides b/c they had no confidence the other side wouldn't persecute them. hell, it was basically their political program.

Most nations are deeply suspicious of foreigners who write books about them. Thus, the most convincing tributes to Antony Beevor’s history of the Spanish civil war come from Madrid’s reviewers, whose applause kept this book at the top of their bestseller lists for months, well before its appearance here. A version of Beevor’s study was originally published in 1982. Access to the Soviet archives, together with a mass of new post-Franco material available in Spain, have caused him to rewrite extensively, to formidable effect. He is now able to document Stalin’s involvement in the 1936-39 “crucible of grief” in unprecedented detail, and a grisly story it is. . . .

Franco and the Nationalists sought to overthrow the legitimate government of Spain by force of arms. Beevor notes the significant point that had the Republicans lost the prewar election they, too, would almost certainly have resorted to arms to contest the democratic verdict, and that had they won the war, the communists would probably have seized monopoly power with their usual ruthlessness. Stalin, incidentally, afterwards executed most of the Soviet advisers who had served in Spain. By 1939, he was pursuing his compact with Hitler.



The collapse of Soviet Communism has led to the release of archival material that proves conclusively just how Stalinist many of the key decision-makers of the Spanish Republic had become, and what they were planning to do if they won. From these reports back to Moscow, it is clear that victory over Franco would have led to the same gulags, mass executions and iron-gripped totalitarianism as existed in the USSR at the time. Instead, Beevor estimates, Franco placed up to half a million Republicans in 190 concentration camps at the end of the war, to slave away in labour battalions for decades. He puts the long-disputed figure of those executed after the surrender at around 50,000 to 70,000. The Caudillo would choose who lived and who died - and how they died - as he drank post-prandial coffee with his priest, José María Bulart. For those needing to be made an example of, he wrote 'garrote y prensa' (garrotting and press coverage) on the death warrant.



The Battle for Spain contains its own horrors, with outrages on both sides. The brutality of Franco's Nationalists is well known, but equally shocking is the murderous paranoia of the Communists and the blood-lust of the people unleashed after years of oppressive government. In Spain, it has reignited debate about the war and its painful legacy, not least because Beevor explodes the myth that the Republic was a virgin democracy violated by fascist forces and betrayed by its democratic neighbours.

"The myth of the immaculate Republic was something that really did need to be tackled, because it still exists in Spain," Beevor explains. It is an under-statement. The idea of the Immaculate Republic remains a rallying cry for the Left. To understand the impact, imagine a foreign historian revealing that the idea of plucky Britain facing the fascists alone during the Blitz is a myth.

"Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, whose grandfather was executed by the Right, refuses to believe it was anything else other than a virgin political entity ravished by the appalling Fascists," he says. "In the book, I do not in any way diminish the horrors of the Nationalist brutality, but the trouble with the myth of the violated Republic is that it automatically means everybody and every element within it shares the same reputation."

In place of the myth, Beevor shows a Republic in disarray. While the cruelty of Franco's Nationalists is shocking in its systematic viciousness, the Republic was hamstrung by incompetence and ideological infighting. The lack of political cohesion severely clouded the judgement of its leadership, leaving it isolated internationally and divided at home.

Thank you for doing the leg work, Jason. I read Beevor's book, and it's excellent.

The right saw what was coming, and acted to pre-empt it. Doesn't excuse them for their atrocities during and after the war, but I don't think the coup itself was wrong.

They knew they weren't ever going to be exempt. From the French Revolution on all the socialist/radical movements were intensely anti-clerical to the point of violence. Read about the French terror in the Vendee.

They picked sides b/c they had no confidence the other side wouldn't persecute them. hell, it was basically their political program.

There was also the immense privilege from the King that they stood to lose, including 1/3 of the assembly and various other benefits. It shouldn't be a surprise that the people rebelling would be angry with a group that had used it's own power for hundreds of years to keep them oppressed.

I don't get the review. The first two clips are simply speculation of things that might have happened arrayed against things that did happen under Franco. The third somehow equates Franco's "cruelty" that was "shocking in its systematic viciousness" with a Republic "hamstrung by incompetence and ideological infighting" which is rather like saying "While Alex Rodriguez was hitting 600 homeruns, Sugarbear Blanks was showing that he, too, could grip a baseball bat with two hands."

There was also the immense privilege from the King that they stood to lose, including 1/3 of the assembly and various other benefits. It shouldn't be a surprise that the people rebelling would be angry with a group that had used it's own power for hundreds of years to keep them oppressed.

Hey, I never said I was surprised by the anger of the left. They had some legitimate grievances.

They picked sides b/c they had no confidence the other side wouldn't persecute them. hell, it was basically their political program.

But this kind of makes it seem like the clergy entered politics in order to combat the radical elements that have been the legacy of the French Revolution for the past 200+ years. They had picked a side (or picked various sides in various places) for hundreds if not a thousand years before that. Which is why there was such an anti-clerical backlash* to begin with.

*And nor was anti-clericalism the exclusive property of radicals

He said "I love Fidel Castro".

And he loves his beard.


Coke to Calcaterra.

They knew they weren't ever going to be exempt. From the French Revolution on all the socialist/radical movements were intensely anti-clerical to the point of violence. Read about the French terror in the Vendee.

Yet in the United States, we don't have any significant anti-clericalist factions, much less violent ones.

And that's really the point -- the clergy isn't going to be "exempt" from violence and politics when they're such a big player in it.

Yet in the United States, we don't have any significant anti-clericalist factions, much less violent ones.

I'm guessing that has something to do with America being founded by a nation that took the anti-clerical route in the Reformation. (To make a sweeping generalization that I was just yelled at for by a supervisor a few meetings ago)

No worrries, Snapper. What fasincated me the most about Beevor's book was his contention that the Republicans had already lost the war before the first shot was even fired.

It is worth noting too that the third excerpt above came from the Independent, hardly an apologist for the Franco regime.

The best thing the US could do to put an end to communism in Cuba is win the people over, relaxing the sanctions will do just that.

The entire rest of the world has been trading with Castro for 50 years, but the Cuban people are neither freer nor wealthier because of it. The idea that some fat American tourists smoking cigars in Veradero will bring liberty and democracy to Cuba has always been a fantasy.

But this kind of makes it seem like the clergy entered politics in order to combat the radical elements that have been the legacy of the French Revolution for the past 200+ years. They had picked a side (or picked various sides in various places) for hundreds if not a thousand years before that. Which is why there was such an anti-clerical backlash* to begin with.

Well, they sided with the Monarchies/Aristocracies which were the only legitimate form of government for the 1750 years between the Church's founding and the US Revolution (minor Italian Republics/Oligarchies excepted). So, if they picked a side, yeah they did, but there really wasn't another side to pick.

Also, carbonated beverage of SoSH U's choice proffered his way.

But isn't everything "Coke" where you're from? :-)

With the sole exception of the Nazis, Communist/Socialist thugs have always been worse than Facist/Right-wing thugs. When you're caught in a street fight, there's no way to side with the angels.

Given that Fascism and Communism are both pretty much 20th century inventions, putting aside the Nazis is a pretty big omit. We could also say "With the sole exception of the Soviet Union, Fascist/Right-wing thugs have always been worse than Communist/Socialist thugs" and the statement would likely be completely true, given that you're removing the biggest offender from one side of the ledger while leaving the other intact.

Even so I wouldn't be convinced the original statement is true regardless, and even so of that both sides have done horrible things to their citizenry in the last 100 years. Comparing them seems silly - both are ########.

Aha. Lafayette County, Ark., has even fewer Basques than it does Catholics.

So sauteed txangurro isn't something I should expect to find in a diner there?

No worrries, Snapper. What fasincated me the most about Beevor's book was his contention that the Republicans had already lost the war before the first shot was even fired.

Not that I've read Beevor --

But how significant does the lack of any allied (France/UK) support for the elected government while the fascists/Nazis poured resources over to Franco play in that equation?

Even the Soviets, IIRC, initially followed the League agreement not to send arms to Spain -- but when it became readily apparent that Italy/Germany were completely ignoring the treaty they signed; ferrying Franco around, using Spain as a weapons testing ground, even sending "volunteers" who were regular army -- the Soviets jumped in on the Republican side, not before.

That's not to take excuse any Republican excesses -- but would things have been different if France/UK hadn't essentially washed their hands of the situation?

I love the re-enactment of "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" going on here. Very 2012.

160. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)...said "I love Fidel Castro".

Ah, that's better.

Well, they sided with the Monarchies/Aristocracies which were the only legitimate form of government for the 1750 years between the Church's founding and the US Revolution (minor Italian Republics/Oligarchies excepted). So, if they picked a side, yeah they did, but there really wasn't another side to pic

There isn't much of a choice when you have either sided with or actively aided in the atrocities committed against the population for hundreds of years.

By the way, I have difficulty accepting left-right labels when describing Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, at least as they existed in the first half of the 20th century. The Monarchists, Army, Church, and big business interests had little in common with Hitler and Mussolini and alliances between the two sides were meant to be tactical, just like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

What fasincated me the most about Beevor's book was his contention that the Republicans had already lost the war before the first shot was even fired.

What does he mean by that- does he mean that people who believed/wanted democracy had already lost (likely true)
or does he mean that the left was doomed to lose militarily to the right (almost certainly not true)

So, if they picked a side, yeah they did, but there really wasn't another side to pick.

This is still way too passive a construction. The European clergy was a side in European politics.

And a particularly retrograde side at that.

By the way, I have difficulty accepting left-right labels when describing Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, at least as they existed in the first half of the 20th century. The Monarchists, Army, Church, and big business interests had little in common with Hitler and Mussolini and alliances between the two sides were meant to be tactical, just like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Very true.

And just to be clearer from 183 --

I'm not necessarily saying France/England were in a position to match Nazi/Italisan fascist support for Franco, or necessarily even that they should have... but it's awfully hard to think things might not have turned out a bit different if they had. Once the conflict became, for intents, binary -- it was inevitable that the radicals on the left side were going to run the show because "their guys" (i.e., the Soviets) were the only ones offering any material support. If some of the western democracies had likewise stepped in, isn't it possible that more moderate elements amongst the Republicans have a greater say in conduct and execution of the civil war?

Again, I'm completely setting aside that England and France both were in no position to be waging a proxy war that Italy and Germany were already itching (at least, at the top of government) to have...

But it seems to me that the Soviets became proxies for the Republicans more by last resort/default than otherwise.

Given that Fascism and Communism are both pretty much 20th century inventions, putting aside the Nazis is a pretty big omit. We could also say "With the sole exception of the Soviet Union, Fascist/Right-wing thugs have always been worse than Communist/Socialist thugs" and the statement would likely be completely true, given that you're removing the biggest offender from one side of the ledger while leaving the other intact.

Even so I wouldn't be convinced the original statement is true regardless, and even so of that both sides have done horrible things to their citizenry in the last 100 years. Comparing them seems silly - both are ########.

Not. Even. Close.

Leaving aside the Soviets, you still have Mao, and Pol Pot as full-on genocidal communists. Plus North Korea, and the Vietnamese.

Pol Pot alone killed far more people in two years than all the other Fascist dictators of the 20th c. combined (Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet, Batista, Samoza, et al.) did in 100.

Aha. Lafayette County, Ark., has even fewer Basques than it does Catholics.

Plus your barbecue sucks.

Well, they sided with the Monarchies/Aristocracies which were the only legitimate form of government for the 1750 years between the Church's founding and the US Revolution (minor Italian Republics/Oligarchies excepted). So, if they picked a side, yeah they did, but there really wasn't another side to pick.

I think that's the point being made though. If you align yourself with a particular form of government, you're going to be treated as part of that form of government when people want to topple it. To be a bit glib there's always the option of just not getting inolved in politics.

THere is also the whole messy business of the Reformation(s) as well, if we can even sort out politics and anti-clericalism there. You might even say that in that case it was political forces making the "taking sides" decisions for the clergy.

But it seems to me that the Soviets became proxies for the Republicans more by last resort/default than otherwise.

That was the dominant theory before the Soviet Archives were made public.

Beevor (and others) debunk that. They show the Republicans were riddled with Communists and Soviet agents long before the war started.

The true Liberals had already lost control of their side well before the shooting starts. I imagine the British and French had some knowledge of this, and it contributed heavily to their staying neutral.

But how significant does the lack of any allied (France/UK) support for the elected government while the fascists/Nazis poured resources over to Franco play in that equation?

Kind of like what's going on today in Syria or in the 90s in Bosnia?

IIRC, a weak Socialist government in France (Blum) was unable to get its #### together. Britain had a Conservative government (Baldwin) that feared both the Communists and, later, annoying Hitler. (Damn, where's my copy of the book?)

snapper -

Your argument still boils down to, "apart from the Holocaust..."

I think it'd be best to just let that 'un go.

What does he mean by that- does he mean that people who believed/wanted democracy had already lost (likely true)
or does he mean that the left was doomed to lose militarily to the right (almost certainly not true)

In this case, it wasn't the battle that was lost beforehand, but the war itself.

EDIT: To be clear, "does he mean that people who believed/wanted democracy had already lost" is accurate too.

I think that's the point being made though. If you align yourself with a particular form of government, you're going to be treated as part of that form of government when people want to topple it. To be a bit glib there's always the option of just not getting inolved in politics.

Yes, but it really wasn't politics. It's just the way things were.

In the Feudal mindset there were no "politics" per se. There was dynastic ambition. Monarchy/aristocracy was just the way things were. If you toppled the King/Prince/Duke/Count you just got another one.

Saying the Church took sides is like saying the Democratic party choose to be on the side of democratic-republicanism in the US in the 1990s. There was no other side.

Pol Pot alone killed far more people in two years than all the other Fascist dictators of the 20th c. combined (Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet, Batista, Samoza, et al.) did in 100.

I think I'd want to run the numbers on that -- it's probably true, but a lot would depend on exactly how you count the deaths... do the 250-300K Ethiopians killed count towards Mussolini's total? Do any of the deaths in Africa, the Balkans, etc?

In the Feudal mindset there were no "politics" per se. There was dynastic ambition. Monarchy/aristocracy was just the way things were. If you toppled the King/Prince/Duke/Count you just got another one.

Nobody's talking about feudal times. The only time that matters is when politics became part of Western life in the mid 18th century or so. The Church didn't budge from the side they'd been on from then until the 1960s -- that's 200 years. They stayed on the side of aristocrats and monarchs when essentially no one else had.

Why are they even involved in Spanish politics in 1930?