You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sarkozy Out
- Thread starter Tom Glasgow
- Start date
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
You know, that makes a bit more sense, and I now too vaguely recall something like "it wasn't for WWII."
Good detective work, Joe.
ETA: And as far as time-frame, a grandfather of someone 24 in the mid-90s (i.e. born himself in late 60s/early 70s) would probably have been more for WWI than WWII.
Good detective work, Joe.
ETA: And as far as time-frame, a grandfather of someone 24 in the mid-90s (i.e. born himself in late 60s/early 70s) would probably have been more for WWI than WWII.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Not by my reckoning. Born around 1970 means father born 1950-1935 means grandfather born 1930-1900 (and you can add a few more years around each). WWI certainly possible, but not necessarily more probable than WWII.originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
ETA: And as far as time-frame, a grandfather of someone 24 in the mid-90s (i.e. born himself in late 60s/early 70s) would probably have been more for WWI than WWII.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Immediately assumed WW1...
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Not by my reckoning. Born around 1970 means father born 1950-1935 means grandfather born 1930-1900 (and you can add a few more years around each). WWI certainly possible, but not necessarily more probable than WWII.originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
ETA: And as far as time-frame, a grandfather of someone 24 in the mid-90s (i.e. born himself in late 60s/early 70s) would probably have been more for WWI than WWII.
Yes, but generation times are shaky ground to build these arguments on. If his father was 40 when he was born, and the father's father 35 when he was born, the grandfather would then be born in 1895 and have been of prime age for WW I. My son's grandfather was born 86 years before him, just as a for instance.
Mark Lipton
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Not by my reckoning. Born around 1970 means father born 1950-1935 means grandfather born 1930-1900 (and you can add a few more years around each). WWI certainly possible, but not necessarily more probable than WWII.originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
ETA: And as far as time-frame, a grandfather of someone 24 in the mid-90s (i.e. born himself in late 60s/early 70s) would probably have been more for WWI than WWII.
Yes, but generation times are shaky ground to build these arguments on. If his father was 40 when he was born, and the father's father 35 when he was born, the grandfather would then be born in 1895 and have been of prime age for WW I. My son's grandfather was born 86 years before him, just as a for instance.
Mark Lipton
Certainly possible, as I said, Mark. But I think in rural France at that time, it was more likely to have had children while fairly young, unlike today (although not certain -- the grandfather could have married relatively late in life, taking advantage of the very favorable female/male ratio after WWI). Historically, generations have usually been counted as 20-30 years in my experience.
OTOH, proudly showing the medal to someone from the US does make one think it was more likely WWI than WWII (but then, see the Alice Kaplan book I referred to above).
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
Not to mention that, given the casualty rates in WWI, by 1917 they were probably hosing up everyone they could, not just "prime age". Speaking of French demographics, where's Rahsaan when we need him?originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Not by my reckoning. Born around 1970 means father born 1950-1935 means grandfather born 1930-1900 (and you can add a few more years around each). WWI certainly possible, but not necessarily more probable than WWII.originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
ETA: And as far as time-frame, a grandfather of someone 24 in the mid-90s (i.e. born himself in late 60s/early 70s) would probably have been more for WWI than WWII.
Yes, but generation times are shaky ground to build these arguments on. If his father was 40 when he was born, and the father's father 35 when he was born, the grandfather would then be born in 1895 and have been of prime age for WW I. My son's grandfather was born 86 years before him, just as a for instance.
Mark Lipton
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
I think Texas needs all the socialism it can get. Cab would be good, too.
Not Cab, Tempranillo. And maybe Verdelho and Petite Sirah. Politically, even Eisenhower Republicans would be a big improvement.
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
A long time ago, yes.
Céline (at least early Céline) is confoundingly brilliant. Maybe my favorite novelist of the 20th century in France, with Proust (in a completely different vein, of course).
"Death on the Installment Plan" was perhaps my favorite novel in my "20th Century French Literature" class in college - hell, perhaps in all my lit classes (and I took enough to have declared it as a major).
Of course, smoking lots of pot before reading helped with the enjoyment factor.
A "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy," no?originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
Eisenhower
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
I think in rural France at that time, it was more likely to have had children while fairly young, unlike today
Tours is anything but "rural France." Rather, a mid-sized, very bourgeois city.
OTOH, proudly showing the medal to someone from the US...
Again, as I described it, it wasn't proudly, but rather snarkily/sheepishly.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
France is urban (Paris) and rural (everywhere else). ;)
If there wasn't some pride somewhere, why did he show it to you? Out of guilt? -- that goes against your theory that it was WWI.
If there wasn't some pride somewhere, why did he show it to you? Out of guilt? -- that goes against your theory that it was WWI.
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
Not to mention that, given the casualty rates in WWI, by 1917 they were probably hosing up everyone they could, not just "prime age". Speaking of French demographics, where's Rahsaan when we need him?originally posted by MLipton:
Yes, but generation times are shaky ground to build these arguments on. If his father was 40 when he was born, and the father's father 35 when he was born, the grandfather would then be born in 1895 and have been of prime age for WW I. My son's grandfather was born 86 years before him, just as a for instance.
Mark Lipton
As Nathan and Joe will tell us, trend lines tell us little about individual cases. But the odds are the space between the generations was greater in the first third of the century than after WWII.
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
Eisenhower Republicans would be a big improvement.
Absolutely. Eisenhower wasn't just a socialist but a full-blown Commie: the top marginal rate in his day was 92%!
originally posted by Cliff: Eisenhower wasn't just a socialist but a full-blown Commie: the top marginal rate in his day was 92%!
Loading…
budiansky.blogspot.com
Steven Spielmann
Steven Spielmann
It's amusing to say that (about Ike, Nixon, etc.), given that Clinton and Obama are so far to those guys' right, but it's not actually true. There is a big difference between a capitalist economy with high top marginal rates (and there were many deductions available to pay less than that) and a state-controlled economy. I actually believe that for example utilities and many other basic services should be provided by the state, not the private sector, which is an actual socialist/communist position. This is all academic in that the working classes have bought into such a high degree of individualism in most of the world that I suspect we're going all the way back to the middle ages, with the bankers and a small handful of productive corporations playing the role of feudal lords. But top marginal rates don't make for communism.
My earlier jest about Hollande - I would actually like it if I could elect candidates who would dismantle the existing big banks, seizing their assets, etc. I am not convinced that banking should be run by the public sector as an absolute judgment but I do know that neither nation-states nor productive businesses are really running the show on Planet Earth any more, and I would like that changed.
This is what I do when I get on here without drinking first, sorry.
My earlier jest about Hollande - I would actually like it if I could elect candidates who would dismantle the existing big banks, seizing their assets, etc. I am not convinced that banking should be run by the public sector as an absolute judgment but I do know that neither nation-states nor productive businesses are really running the show on Planet Earth any more, and I would like that changed.
This is what I do when I get on here without drinking first, sorry.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Not by my reckoning. Born around 1970 means father born 1950-1935 means grandfather born 1930-1900 (and you can add a few more years around each). WWI certainly possible, but not necessarily more probable than WWII.originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
ETA: And as far as time-frame, a grandfather of someone 24 in the mid-90s (i.e. born himself in late 60s/early 70s) would probably have been more for WWI than WWII.
Yes, but generation times are shaky ground to build these arguments on. If his father was 40 when he was born, and the father's father 35 when he was born, the grandfather would then be born in 1895 and have been of prime age for WW I. My son's grandfather was born 86 years before him, just as a for instance.
Mark Lipton
Certainly possible, as I said, Mark. But I think in rural France at that time, it was more likely to have had children while fairly young, unlike today (although not certain -- the grandfather could have married relatively late in life, taking advantage of the very favorable female/male ratio after WWI). Historically, generations have usually been counted as 20-30 years in my experience.
OTOH, proudly showing the medal to someone from the US does make one think it was more likely WWI than WWII (but then, see the Alice Kaplan book I referred to above).
It seems to me quite likely from Sharon's story that the medal was from WWII. The grandson was showing it as the kind of family past in which one takes an ironic pride. In all probability, if the grandfather was a Petainist, he remained proud of it in the never say die manner of much of the French right and to the rest of the family, his politics might have seemed an aspect of his crustiness about which they remained fond. Think of all the French movies by left wing directors about lovable old right wingers who bond with Jewish or immigrant children, but remain lovably fascistic. I'm not saying that is what happened, but I don't see that it isn't likely.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
I'm with Claude: gramps was awarded the medal, in person, during The Great War and that is still a thing to be proud of. Alas, the giver of the medal went on to be less than honorable, which mars the story but does not destroy it.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
It seems to me quite likely from Sharon's story that the medal was from WWII.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
OTOH, proudly showing the medal to someone from the US does make one think it was more likely WWI than WWII (but then, see the Alice Kaplan book I referred to above).
Chances are also good that those who received medals from Pétain during the Great War continued to support him politically in his later career. He was, after all, an overwhelmingly popular figure. Nobody liked the Third Republic by the end.
My note about Ike was entirely in jest. The postwar U.S. economy was far more egalitarian than any socialist state I can think of, and there was nothing communistic about it. But Ike and Nixon were surely to the left of Obama and Clinton.
My note about Ike was entirely in jest. The postwar U.S. economy was far more egalitarian than any socialist state I can think of, and there was nothing communistic about it. But Ike and Nixon were surely to the left of Obama and Clinton.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Ike and Nixon supported policies to the left of any Democratic president who came after them. That doesn't mean they (or at least Nixon) were really to the left of Clinton or Obama. The US center moved pointedly right after Carter and presidents have to govern the country of which they are president. Hollande may be a member of the socialist party, but he won't be nationalizing anything. Even a more old-line socialist like Aubry wouldn't be doing anything surprising.