>Subject: Re:
>Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:06:43 +0800
>
>I gave you Sen. Byrd because I thought you, being a Rush Limbaugh fan might have
>been amused. But if you prefer, I can refer you to "Stupid White Men" by Michael
>Moore, (the same who won an academy award for Colombine) for a more humorous assessment
>of our current president.
>By the by, you really should try to come to Japan. There are a lot of like-mind people
>whom you might enjoy meeting!
>
>Carolyn
My reply:
"Carolyn,
Do you bring anything but slurs and cant to this debate?
I am amused in the sense that progressive people do not hesitate to cite unadorned racists when it suits their purpose. You must not be aware of Byrd's 'White Nigger' outburst two years ago:
"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."
If you think Rush Limbaugh is a racist (or more precisely, if you heard from fellow 'progressives' that Rush Limbaugh is a racist and accepted this without question) it might surprise you to learn that two of his guest hosts are black scholars who know better:
-Dr Walter E Williams of George Mason http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/
TIP: Williams' Amnesty & Pardon at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html makes a great gift for the guilt-addled white lefty hand-wringing set.
-Dr Thomas Sowell of Stanford http://www.tsowell.com/
Neither man has any patience for the niggling (hey can I say that?) pinheads who've never listened to Limbaugh but seem to know all about him. Why don't you tune in on streaming audio at rushlimbaugh.com and have a listen? I won't tell anyone.
Of course I could be wrong, and you could be referring to Paul Shanklin's "Dueling Bozos" parody of Robert Byrd, which got a lot of play on Limbaugh's show a few years ago. But I don't think so.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/parody.guest.html
Michael Moore is a phony and not worth my time.
- He tackles complex issues like violence and poverty and attempts to explain them with dime-store psychoanalysis - "America's obsession with guns" and so on. I think you see through this.
- He is very sloppy. Even the title of his best known work is a classic Moorean screwup. 'Bowling' gets its name from the report that Klebold and Harris had gone bowling that morning. Later investigation showed that report to be false. But Moore's research is, well let's just call it superficial, and his fact-checking is limited to bouncing his stuff off fellow travelers over a latte at an upper West Side organic-shade-grown-fair-trade-coffee house. When confronted with the resulting errors in his books and films he grows very indignant and accuses his questioner of dwelling on trivia.
- He pretends to champion the common folk but in reality has only contempt for them. Have you noticed how all the people in his work are either helpless victims, poltroons or complete idiots? If you're not a convenient stereotype, Moore doesn't want you.
- He is personally brutal to interviewees and his own staff.
I recently heard Moore described as the token funny man for an increasingly humorless Left. I think that's perfectly captured, don't you?
Let us agree to disagree. I don't think I will find
anyone whose view you approve of, and there is
no way you can convince me that Bush has not
initiated this war for self-gain.
But less you think I am pro Saddam Hussein, let
me hasten to say he is not a flower that smells
so well either.
I am for neither party. I see mankind living their
paltry 60 odd years on earth fighting, staking
out their territories, and amassing their worldly
goods as if they will live indefinitely. The truth
though, is that none of this matters. They will
not be able to take any of it with them when they
die.
Earth has enough resources to provide every
human being with a comfortable life: good
shelter, sufficient clothing, nutritious food,
and medical support for all who need it. Is there
any reason why we cannot come up with a
system that would ensure every one at least
this much? And if you think Bush will give the
Iraqi people this, then I suggest you look at the
standard of living of the people in Kuwait since
1991.
My reply:
>and there is no way you can convince me that Bush has not
>initiated this war for self-gain.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but it is impossible to prove a negative, yes? Your framing the question this way is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me, to make me prove the absence of a hidden agenda. Actually the burden of proof is on you.
I think the way to judge Bush's intentions is to compare his rhetoric with his actions and see if they are consistent. He said serious consequences would follow if Saddam did not disarm; he clearly meant that. He said humanitarian aid would follow hard on the heels of the military; this is happening. He said he would seek the help of other nations in disarming Saddam; he got that help. Clearly he is a man who means what he says. He says Iraq is going back to the control of its people, do you have any reason to doubt that he means this?
And what on Earth do you mean by self-gain? You're not wallowing in tinfoil-hat oil conspiracy theories are you?
>But less you think I am pro Saddam Hussein, let
>me hasten to say he is not a flower that smells
>so well either.
Good Heavens Carolyn who do you think you are talking to? When I see you torturing people in same Baghdad basement then I will conclude you are pro-Hussein. It isn't necessary to say you are anti-Saddam. I think it something that can be safely assumed of all decent people.
>Earth has enough resources to provide every
>human being with a comfortable life: good
>shelter, sufficient clothing, nutritious food,
>and medical support for all who need it. Is there
>any reason why we cannot come up with a
>system that would ensure every one at least
>this much?
Yes. You frame the question as if it were an emotional one: "Can't we just agree that no one will ever go hungry again?" And for many people it is an emotional issue, and their examination of it stops there.
But it is not emotional it is economic. The problem with arrangements that purport to 'guarantee' everyone's 'needs' are met (socialism being the most common example) is that they assign decision-making to third parties. Instead of deciding for myself how much water, bread and concert tickets I need and deciding for myself how my limited resources can be used to meet those needs, an economic system explicitly designed to 'meet' my 'needs' for me just deprives me of the ability to make my own decisions. Would you leave it up to third parties to determine what color & pattern your walls are? What objets d'art are in your home? What kind of tires go on your car? Of course not! The results would be ugly and in the case of the tires possibly fatal. Third party decision-making is also slow and inefficient. It might take years for the Tire Committee to decide what kind of tires to kill you with. I recommend Sowell's Basic Economics as an antidote to socialistic nonsense:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/046508138X/qid=1049211557/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-5474569-0867355
Not to be confused the deadly dull Keynesian stuff ladled out in Econ 101 classes every day, this is actually a very readable and quite entertaining treatment of the subject. There is not a single chart or equation in the book.
>And if you think Bush will give the
>Iraqi people this, then I suggest you look at the
>standard of living of the people in Kuwait since 1991.
I don't see how this is relevant. It isn't the responsibility of government to achieve paradise on Earth. If you think it is, go live in any of the countries where this has been tried. And Kuwait isn't run by Bush, it's run, for better or for worse, by the emir. We went to war to boot the Saddamites out of Kuwait, and then we went home. Iraq is and will be quite another matter. We are there to change its government and we are going to do so. In the long term - I hope not very long - it will be some sort of representative government. That's the hope anyway, and I think the chances are good this will happen. And finally, it isn't the government, be it representative or totalitarian, that delivers prosperity, it's the people working for their own interests.
There are a great many leftists and socialists whose views meet with my approval. They accomplish this by being carefully reasoned, morally sound and regularly compared against reality. Nat Hentoff I have already cited; Christopher Hitchens is another. And my favorite historian is the late Barbara Tuchman."