Follow the Right-Wing Money!
Gail Thaler
Right-Wing Message For Sale
Whenever the conservative right attacks programs that help working
people like Truddy Lowe, listen for the
sound of a cash register.
According to a recent report from People for the American Way called
"Buying A Movement: Right-Wing
Foundations and American Politics," there's a well-organized
conservative money machine financing
far-right ideas that hurt working families in general and public
employees in particular.
The money comes from five big foundations:
The Bradley Foundation, with assets exceeding $420 million from the sale
of the Bradley family electronics
company, was created by a former member of the John Birch Society, a
kind of precursor to today's militia
movement. In the 1960s, it charged that Pres. John F. Kennedy was a
Soviet spy.
The Coors Foundation also financed the John Birch Society, and in 1973
created the Heritage Foundation. In
1978, the Coors Brewery broke its local of the Brewery, Bottling, Can
and Allied Industrial Union, and in
1983, William Coors told a largely African American audience that "one
of the best things they [slave
traders] ever did for you is to drag your ancestors over here in
chains."
The Koch Family Foundation was created by David and Charles Koch, whose
oil and gas holdings comprise
the second-largest private company in America, and uses its money
exclusively to promote a free-market
philosophy "to minimize the role of government and to maximize the role
of the private economy."
The Olin Foundation grew out of a family manufacturing business and in
1988 alone gave over $55 million to
promote supply-side economic and social policies. It supports right-wing
writers and personalities such as
Dinesh D'Souza.
The Scaife Family Foundations have given over $200 million in recent
years to right-wing causes. The
foundations were created by Richard Mellon Scaife, a member of the
Mellon banking and oil family.
University of Massachusetts professor Thomas Ferguson credits Scaife as
having "as much to do with the
Gingrich revolution as Gingrich himself."
A number of high-sounding "institutes" and think tanks routinely quoted
on television, in newspapers, by
elected officials and other public figures were funded or created by
these foundations, including:
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) supports arch-conservative
"scholars" such as Charles
Murray--who co-wrote the much- discredited "The Bell Curve," which
claims to demonstrate the intellectual
inferiority of African Americans.
The Heritage Foundation, considered the leading union-bashing
conservative think tank in America,
contributed substantially to Gingrich's "Contract With America."
The Cato Institute, closely allied with Republican House Majority Leader
Dick Armey, is the leading
libertarian think tank. It espouses supply-side economic policies and
opposes activist government.
The Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, home of
conservative operative Paul Weyrich,
promotes term limits and other ways to weaken the people's right to
representative government.
For the full report, contact People for the American Way, the
300,000-member progressive lobby opposed to
policies of the extreme right, at (202) 467-4997, by mail at 2000 M St
NW, Washington DC 20036, or via e-mail
at pf...@pfaw.org.
Gail Thaler
K. Knopp
> Right-Wing Message For Sale
>
> Whenever the conservative right attacks programs that help working
> people like Truddy Lowe, listen for the
> sound of a cash register.
>
> According to a recent report from People for the American Way called
> "Buying A Movement: Right-Wing
> Foundations and American Politics," there's a well-organized
> conservative money machine financing
> far-right ideas that hurt working families in general and public
> employees in particular.
According reports by the MRC and other groups, there's a not so well
organized, but just as powerful mainstream network news media, and a well
organized leftist money machine financing extremist far-left ideas (see
People for the American Way) that hurt working families (see WELFARE) in
general and ALL public and private employees.
> The money comes from five big foundations:
The financing comes from the "Big Three" plus CNN and various other
left-wing extremist groups like People for the American Way.
> The Bradley Foundation, with assets exceeding $420 million from the sale
> of the Bradley family electronics
> company, was created by a former member of the John Birch Society, a
> kind of precursor to today's militia
> movement. In the 1960s, it charged that Pres. John F. Kennedy was a
> Soviet spy.
Okay that was how many years ago.....what is it currently doing to "hurt
working families in general and public employees in particular"?
> The Coors Foundation also financed the John Birch Society, and in 1973
> created the Heritage Foundation. In
> 1978, the Coors Brewery broke its local of the Brewery, Bottling, Can
> and Allied Industrial Union, and in
> 1983, William Coors told a largely African American audience that "one
> of the best things they [slave
> traders] ever did for you is to drag your ancestors over here in
> chains."
Okay that was how many years ago.....what is it currently doing to "hurt
working families in general and public employees in particular"?
> The Koch Family Foundation was created by David and Charles Koch, whose
> oil and gas holdings comprise
> the second-largest private company in America, and uses its money
> exclusively to promote a free-market
> philosophy "to minimize the role of government and to maximize the role
> of the private economy."
Thank god.
> The Olin Foundation grew out of a family manufacturing business and in
> 1988 alone gave over $55 million to
> promote supply-side economic and social policies. It supports right-wing
> writers and personalities such as
> Dinesh D'Souza.
And the problem with that is......
> The Scaife Family Foundations have given over $200 million in recent
> years to right-wing causes. The
> foundations were created by Richard Mellon Scaife, a member of the
> Mellon banking and oil family.
> University of Massachusetts professor Thomas Ferguson credits Scaife as
> having "as much to do with the
> Gingrich revolution as Gingrich himself."
So?
> A number of high-sounding "institutes" and think tanks routinely quoted
> on television, in newspapers, by
> elected officials and other public figures were funded or created by
> these foundations, including:
With a equal or greater amount of left-wing high-sounding "institutes" and
think tanks routinely quoted on television, in newspapers, by elected
officials and other public figues. The difference usually lies in the fact
that most of the liberal groups, when quoted, don't get a "label", and the
conservative backed groups get clearly labeled a "conservative" think tank
or institute.
> The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) supports arch-conservative
> "scholars" such as Charles
> Murray--who co-wrote the much- discredited "The Bell Curve," which
> claims to demonstrate the intellectual
> inferiority of African Americans.
So?
> The Heritage Foundation, considered the leading union-bashing
> conservative think tank in America,
> contributed substantially to Gingrich's "Contract With America."
Great!
> The Cato Institute, closely allied with Republican House Majority Leader
> Dick Armey, is the leading
> libertarian think tank. It espouses supply-side economic policies and
> opposes activist government.
Thank goodness!
> The Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, home of
> conservative operative Paul Weyrich,
> promotes term limits and other ways to weaken the people's right to
> representative government.
Hmmmm. That's a stretch.
> For the full report, contact People for the American Way, the
> 300,000-member progressive lobby opposed to
> policies of the extreme right, at (202) 467-4997, by mail at 2000 M St
> NW, Washington DC 20036, or via e-mail
> at pf...@pfaw.org.
What about People for the American Way. Who supports it. Is it a left
wing high-sounding "institute" or think tank? Why is it okay for leftists
to involve themselves in supporting organizations that work to make
political change but not conservatives? Why is there a double standard?
kenfran
Gail Thaler wrote:
>
> Right-Wing Message For Sale
>
> Whenever the conservative right attacks programs that help working
> people like Truddy Lowe, listen for the
> sound of a cash register.
>
> According to a recent report from People for the American Way called
> "Buying A Movement: Right-Wing
> Foundations and American Politics," there's a well-organized
> conservative money machine financing
> far-right ideas that hurt working families in general and public
> employees in particular.
>
>
> of the Bradley family electronics
> company, was created by a former member of the John Birch Society, a
> kind of precursor to today's militia
> movement. In the 1960s, it charged that Pres. John F. Kennedy was a
> Soviet spy.
>
> created the Heritage Foundation. In
> 1978, the Coors Brewery broke its local of the Brewery, Bottling, Can
> and Allied Industrial Union, and in
> 1983, William Coors told a largely African American audience that "one
> of the best things they [slave
> traders] ever did for you is to drag your ancestors over here in
> chains."
>
> oil and gas holdings comprise
> the second-largest private company in America, and uses its money
> exclusively to promote a free-market
> philosophy "to minimize the role of government and to maximize the role
> of the private economy."
>
> 1988 alone gave over $55 million to
> promote supply-side economic and social policies. It supports right-wing
> writers and personalities such as
> Dinesh D'Souza.
>
> years to right-wing causes. The
> foundations were created by Richard Mellon Scaife, a member of the
> Mellon banking and oil family.
> University of Massachusetts professor Thomas Ferguson credits Scaife as
> having "as much to do with the
> Gingrich revolution as Gingrich himself."
>
> on television, in newspapers, by
> elected officials and other public figures were funded or created by
> these foundations, including:
>
> "scholars" such as Charles
> Murray--who co-wrote the much- discredited "The Bell Curve," which
> claims to demonstrate the intellectual
> inferiority of African Americans.
>
> conservative think tank in America,
> contributed substantially to Gingrich's "Contract With America."
>
> Dick Armey, is the leading
> libertarian think tank. It espouses supply-side economic policies and
> opposes activist government.
>
> conservative operative Paul Weyrich,
> promotes term limits and other ways to weaken the people's right to
> representative government.
>
> 300,000-member progressive lobby opposed to
> policies of the extreme right, at (202) 467-4997, by mail at 2000 M St
> NW, Washington DC 20036, or via e-mail
> at pf...@pfaw.org.
The first thing to check is always who is making money, and who is
paying out money.
xona
Watch as the Right-wing money flows to help provide child sex and
other such activities for the many psudo-organizations that help
keep the Republican nightmare alive and well.
xona
David G. Hughey
Actually that's sound advice, regardless of one's political bent. Are
you listening, Mr. President?
--
.sig file altered; don't want to | David G. Hughey
offend pompous busybodies | Decatur, Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't -
Either way, you're correct!" - Neal Boortz
--------------------------------------------------------
To respond via e-mail: Delete the dawg
mfri...@ix.netcom.com
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
......
>
> You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
> organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
> These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
> every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
> position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
> position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
> really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
I note:
This is bizarre coming from an individual who leans so far to the
right that she appears to have an uncorrected birth defect, who
doesn't really like to use labels then proceeds to attach a derogatory
label to every person that isn't leaning so far right that his/her ear
is scraping the ground, who handles doublespeak like a native except
with a naive failure to comprehend its transparency; but she
continues:
>
> For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
> recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
> explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
> philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
> its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
> representative democracy.
I note:
It's hardly necessary to consider oneself good and virtuous to
consider the Republican party to be a den of thieves and liars.
MAF
Eleanor Rotthoff
kkn...@citynet.NOSPAM.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
<huge snip of Gail Thaler's list of conservative organizations which
she characterizes as "weakening the people's right to representative
democracy" and of Knopp's excellent responses to each>
>What about People for the American Way. Who supports it. Is it a left
>wing high-sounding "institute" or think tank? Why is it okay for leftists
>to involve themselves in supporting organizations that work to make
>political change but not conservatives? Why is there a double standard?
You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
representative democracy.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Loren Petrich
In article <3339f8c5...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
>recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
>explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
>philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
>its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
>representative democracy.
Thank you for indicting all your fellow right-wingers, Ms. Rotthoff.
They often display *exactly* those traits. Consider Rush Limbaugh.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Zepp
On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:41:31 GMT, erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff)
wrote:
>kkn...@citynet.NOSPAM.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
>
><huge snip of Gail Thaler's list of conservative organizations which
>she characterizes as "weakening the people's right to representative
>democracy" and of Knopp's excellent responses to each>
>
>>What about People for the American Way. Who supports it. Is it a left
>>wing high-sounding "institute" or think tank? Why is it okay for leftists
>>to involve themselves in supporting organizations that work to make
>>political change but not conservatives? Why is there a double standard?
>
>You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
>organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
>These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
>every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
>position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
>position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
>really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
Funny, but I saw nothing in Gails' post to indicate anything wrong or
illegal about the phoney think tanks and what-not. Only you and
fellow apologist Knopp are making that assumption, so you can try and
make Gail defend other, more liberal think-tanks.
Which is easy enough to do. But nobody's ATTACKING the think tanks on
the right, are they? They are just showing who is behind them, where
the money comes from, and where it goes. Please feel free to do the
same with the other think tanks. We don't mind in the least.
Exposing the machine for the right really, really upsets you, doesn't
it? All that money wasted by that rotten first amendment.
>
>For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
>recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
>explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
>philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
>its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
>representative democracy.
>
Does he examine the Christian Coalition? Thought not.
>Eleanor Rotthoff
=====================================================================
Liberals tend to be happy and outgoing because they figure most
people are much like themselves.
Conservatives tend to be hostile and paranoid for pretty much the
same reason.
Libertarians crouch behind their sofas and wait for their dogs to
give the order to shoot.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
spambots.
Gail Thaler
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
> kkn...@citynet.NOSPAM.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
>
> <huge snip of Gail Thaler's list of conservative organizations which
> she characterizes as "weakening the people's right to representative
> democracy" and of Knopp's excellent responses to each>
I characterized nothing. I posted the article verbatim.
If Knopp had an "excellent" response, that would be a first.
>
> >What about People for the American Way. Who supports it. Is it a left
> >wing high-sounding "institute" or think tank? Why is it okay for leftists
> >to involve themselves in supporting organizations that work to make
> >political change but not conservatives? Why is there a double standard?
>
People for the American Way doesn't call itself a "think tank."
And when did I say right-wing groups couldn't have organizations
that work for political change? That would be redundant, as they
help the GOP write the bills, but where did I say it would be
wrong?
> You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
> organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
> These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
> every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
> position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
> position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
> really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
>
There's often MORE than two sides to an issue, Eleanor, and
yes, I happen to believe the right-wing way is usually wrong.
Fancy that. Sometimes I think the GOP is wrong, especially
when it's run by the right-wing. Sometimes I believe that
the Democrats are wrong. Perhaps there's more than one
position on issues. The groups I mentioned are all pro-corporation
(and I feel anti-labor and anti-people) and run by corporations.
Fancy that.
> For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
> recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
> explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
> philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
> its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
> representative democracy.
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
Thomas and Eleanor, mindreaders of straw men.
And women.
Hurry up, Eleanor, and get your grant. Submit your posts,
particulary on the school voucher issue.
Here in San Jose, a bunch of computer corporations decided they
need an educated populace to recruit employees. They got together
and decided to pour millions of dollars in the public schools.
And not a penny for vouchers, Eleanor.
kenfran
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
> You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
> organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
> These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
> every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
> position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
> position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
> really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
>
> recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
> explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
> philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
> its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
> representative democracy.
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
kenfran
mfri...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
> >
> ......
> >
> > You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
> > organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
> > These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
> > every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
> > position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
> > position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
> > really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
>
>
> This is bizarre coming from an individual who leans so far to the
> right that she appears to have an uncorrected birth defect, who
> doesn't really like to use labels then proceeds to attach a derogatory
> label to every person that isn't leaning so far right that his/her ear
> is scraping the ground, who handles doublespeak like a native except
> with a naive failure to comprehend its transparency; but she
> continues:
>
> >
> > recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
> > explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
> > philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
> > its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
> > representative democracy.
<insert most any Jesse Helms quote on the National Endowment for the
Arts>
<Insert any Christian Coalition quote on abortion or prayer in the
schools>
K. Knopp
> Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
> >
> ......
> >
> > You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
> > organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
> > These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
> > every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
> > position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
> > position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
> > really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
>
> I note:
>
> This is bizarre coming from an individual who leans so far to the
> right that she appears to have an uncorrected birth defect, who
> doesn't really like to use labels then proceeds to attach a derogatory
> label to every person that isn't leaning so far right that his/her ear
> is scraping the ground, who handles doublespeak like a native except
> with a naive failure to comprehend its transparency; but she
> continues:
Hmmm. I don't seem to remember her attacking any left wing groups and
denouncing their right to fight for what they believe in (as the original
post did). She was just pointing out their hypocracy.
> > For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
> > recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
> > explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
> > philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
> > its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
> > representative democracy.
>
> I note:
>
> It's hardly necessary to consider oneself good and virtuous to
> consider the Republican party to be a den of thieves and liars.
I guess her comments went right over your head. She wasn't commenting on
whether or not these people were good or virtuous, but was commenting on
those elitist extremists (like the original poster) who indeed do feel that
their position is the only position that has a right to be heard in the
"arena of ideas". Such blanket statements as to consider the "Republican
party to be a den of thieves and liars" clearly demonstrates exactly what
Mr. Rothoff was complaining about.
mfri...@ix.netcom.com
K. Knopp wrote:
>
.....
>
> Hmmm. I don't seem to remember her attacking any left wing groups and
> denouncing their right to fight for what they believe in (as the original
> post did). She was just pointing out their hypocracy.
I reply:
You missed twice.
You continue:
....
>
> I guess her comments went right over your head.
I reply:
You do seem to have a reading problem that should be corrected as soon
as possible.
> She wasn't commenting on
> whether or not these people were good or virtuous,
I note:
Sure she was - at best you lack sufficient insight to be engaging in a
public internet conversation.
You continue:
> but was commenting on
> those elitist extremists
I note:
Her comments did not refer to the RNC.
You continue:
> (like the original poster) who indeed do feel that
> their position is the only position that has a right to be heard in the
> "arena of ideas".
I reply:
Typical. Your party yells and screams to the point that getting a
moment's peace is impossible, then complain when someone tells you to
turn down the noise. Absolutely typical.
You continue:
> Such blanket statements as to consider the "Republican
> party to be a den of thieves and liars" clearly demonstrates exactly what
> Mr. Rothoff was complaining about.
I reply:
Actually, what it illustrates is that I consider the RNC to be a den
of thieves and liars and that I'm willing to say so in an open forum.
Any other conclusions you want to draw are your own cross to bear.
Right wing complaints don't mean a thing. I've heard enough of their
whining to last a lifetime.
MAF
Steve Casburn
In article <3339f8c5...@news.io.com>, erot...@io.com wrote:
>
> You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
> organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
> These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
> every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
> position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
> position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
> really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
Do you think that the mindset of "my side right, your side evil" is
limited to liberals? And do you believe (as the beginning of your second
sentence implies) that all liberals think this way?
Steve
--
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
"Shut up he explained"
-- Ring Lardner, Jr.
Al Ridemfi
> From erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff)
> Organization Illuminati Online
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> kkn...@citynet.NOSPAM.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
>
> <huge snip of Gail Thaler's list of conservative organizations which
> she characterizes as "weakening the people's right to representative
> democracy" and of Knopp's excellent responses to each>
Tsk tsk, Eleanor. You're being *judgemental*. And besides, don't
ruin Gail's day. In her mind, non-liberals in cyberspace are in
full retreat now, unable to counter her superior arguments. :)
> >What about People for the American Way. Who supports it. Is it a left
> >wing high-sounding "institute" or think tank? Why is it okay for leftists
> >to involve themselves in supporting organizations that work to make
> >political change but not conservatives? Why is there a double standard?
In fact, there are oodles of double standards fostered by the left. The
list is too long ....
>
> You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
> organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
> These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
> every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
> position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
> position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
> really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
Precisely. And there is a companion mindset with many libs, which
goes something like "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee."
> For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
> recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
> explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
> philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
> its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
> representative democracy.
Too many liberals think only in terms of black and white (sometimes
literally), instead of the more realistic countless shades of grey
in between. You are either good or evil.
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
__________________________________________________________________
"I think that is not only highly improper, it should not happen.
And the failure to have procedures in place to be able to make
certain that it doesn't happen caused me to have a considerable
amount of doubt with regard to Mr. Lake."
--Senator Bob Kerrey, Nebraska, Democrat, 3/18/97, torpedoing
Tony Lake's nomination after it was revealed that the CIA
participated in Acce$$gate
"...get other names at [$]100,000 or more, [$]50,000 or
more. Ready to start overnights right away. Give me the
top 10 list back, along w/the [$]100, 50,000."
-- Bill Clinton, early 1995, in handwritten notes to his staff.
"I think the ethical standards established in this White House
have been the highest in the history of the White House."
-- Al Gore, October 1996
Eleanor Rotthoff
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>Funny, but I saw nothing in Gails' post to indicate anything wrong or
>illegal about the phoney think tanks and what-not.
Let's look at just a few examples:
"Whenever the conservative right attacks programs that help working
people..."
"..there's a well-organized conservative money machine financing
far-right ideas that hurt working families in general and public
employees in particular."
"...promotes term limits and other ways to weaken the people's right
to representative government."
And then there's your own "phoney think tanks and what-not."
>Only you and
>fellow apologist Knopp are making that assumption, so you can try and
>make Gail defend other, more liberal think-tanks.
On the contrary. I don't expect Gail or anyone else to defend liberal
think tanks because I feel no need to attack them. I don't always
agree with them, but I read their work with interest and try to
evaluate it on its own merits.
>Which is easy enough to do. But nobody's ATTACKING the think tanks on
>the right, are they?
If you don't consider it an attack when someone says that they are
advocating policies which "hurt working families" and "weaken the
people's right to representative government" (without of course having
the intellectual honesty to prove these at least debatable points),
tell me, what do you consider an attack?
>They are just showing who is behind them, where
>the money comes from, and where it goes. Please feel free to do the
>same with the other think tanks. We don't mind in the least.
As I said, I feel no need to launch a similar attack on the think
tanks of the left. To me, it is entirely legitimate that those with
political views at all points of the spectrum support organizations
which share their views and that those organizations then research
policy issues and present proposals which are compatible with their
philosophy. It's called free speech.
>Exposing the machine for the right really, really upsets you, doesn't
>it?
No, not in the slightest. What bothers me (as I thought I made clear)
was the implication in the article (both overt and implicit in the use
of such pejorative terms as "the machine for the right") that there
is something sinister about the financing and operations of
conservative organizations and what seems to be an underlying
assumption that only those on the left should be allowed to present
"the truth" because anyone who disagrees is (at a minimum) in error.
<snip>
Eleanor Rotthoff
Zepp
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 05:57:38 GMT, erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff)
wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>>Funny, but I saw nothing in Gails' post to indicate anything wrong or
>>illegal about the phoney think tanks and what-not.
>
>Let's look at just a few examples:
>
>"Whenever the conservative right attacks programs that help working
>people..."
>
>"..there's a well-organized conservative money machine financing
>far-right ideas that hurt working families in general and public
>employees in particular."
>
>"...promotes term limits and other ways to weaken the people's right
>to representative government."
So are you now claiming that these activities are illegal and wrong?
That's an interesting turnabout, Eleanor. Didn't think you had it in
you.
>
>And then there's your own "phoney think tanks and what-not."
>
So you figure that Gail should be held responsible for something I
said later. That's cute.
>>Only you and
>>fellow apologist Knopp are making that assumption, so you can try and
>>make Gail defend other, more liberal think-tanks.
>
>On the contrary. I don't expect Gail or anyone else to defend liberal
>think tanks because I feel no need to attack them. I don't always
>agree with them, but I read their work with interest and try to
>evaluate it on its own merits.
Well, that's good. That's very good. But you'll excuse us if we
don't feel obliged to give the same consideration to a billion dollar
propaganda machine from the far right.
>>Which is easy enough to do. But nobody's ATTACKING the think tanks on
>>the right, are they?
>
>If you don't consider it an attack when someone says that they are
>advocating policies which "hurt working families" and "weaken the
>people's right to representative government" (without of course having
>the intellectual honesty to prove these at least debatable points),
>tell me, what do you consider an attack?
You mean these think tanks never ever discuss who might be hurt by
"liberal policies" and "liberal media" and the like? They never talk
about how how AA "hurts blacks", or raising the minimum wage "hurts
the poor". They never, ever attack? Wow! I is suitably impressed!
Or is it only an attack if someone on the left dast criticize their
motivations and methods?
>
>>They are just showing who is behind them, where
>>the money comes from, and where it goes. Please feel free to do the
>>same with the other think tanks. We don't mind in the least.
>
>As I said, I feel no need to launch a similar attack on the think
>tanks of the left. To me, it is entirely legitimate that those with
>political views at all points of the spectrum support organizations
>which share their views and that those organizations then research
>policy issues and present proposals which are compatible with their
>philosophy. It's called free speech.
>
How open of you. Absolutely marvelous. You don't mind, though, if I
exercise my OWN right to free speech and cricticize these phony right
wing "think tanks" and some of the people behind them. After all,
that's a political view, just one from a different part of the
political spectrum. You should be applauding Gail and I for speaking
out!
>>Exposing the machine for the right really, really upsets you, doesn't
>>it?
>
>No, not in the slightest. What bothers me (as I thought I made clear)
>was the implication in the article (both overt and implicit in the use
>of such pejorative terms as "the machine for the right") that there
>is something sinister about the financing and operations of
>conservative organizations and what seems to be an underlying
>assumption that only those on the left should be allowed to present
>"the truth" because anyone who disagrees is (at a minimum) in error.
I think there -is- something sinister about it. I also think that the
fact that you didn't address one single point in Gail's 880 line piece
on these outfits, but instead merely jumped on Gail for having the bad
taste to post it, suggests that maybe you think the same thing, but
are going along for the ride.
>
><snip>
Eleanor Rotthoff
Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Precisely. And there is a companion mindset with many libs, which
>goes something like "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee."
Well, in fairness to them, if one genuinely believes that his position
is the absolutely correct and virtuous one, and that the other side's
position is not only quite wrong but motivated by greed, selfishness,
etc., etc., ad nauseum, then it makes a certain amount of sense to try
to shut the other side up so that they won't confuse the ordinary
citizen -- whom pseudo-elitist liberals view as a kind of ignorant
sheep. It is inexpressibly sad to me that American liberals (who were
once the most staunch defenders of the First Amendment) now seek to
silence their opponents, but it seems to be a logical outgrowth of the
mindset that their own point of view is the repository of all truth
and virtue.
<snip>
Eleanor Rotthoff
mfri...@ix.netcom.com
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
> kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Was that the Christian Coalition you were referring to, Eleanor?
>
> hesitate to comment. From what little I've seen of Ralph Reed, he
> strikes me as a reasonable, pragmatic human being who genuinely
> listens to other points of view while maintaining his own
> strongly-held views. OTOH I am troubled by those who adamantly (and
> arrogantly) believe that they have a monopoly on truth, no matter what
> their political persuasion.
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
I note:
I'm concerned about those who feel they have a monopoly on truth while
claiming they don't, and who at the same time accuse others of
maintaining this attitude.
MAF
mfri...@ix.netcom.com
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
......
> I was pointing out to
> Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
> view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
> expression because it alone is correct and virtuous.
I note:
Despite your acusations, I fail to see much evidence of what you
claim. Right-wing think tanks are primarily propaganda machines with
no concern for the truth. It's this which evokes an antagonistic
response from liberals (if these still exist except in the minds of
the RNC) and non-liberals alike.
MAF
mfri...@ix.netcom.com
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
....
>
> Well, in fairness to them, if one genuinely believes that his position
> is the absolutely correct and virtuous one, and that the other side's
> position is not only quite wrong but motivated by greed, selfishness,
> etc., etc., ad nauseum, then it makes a certain amount of sense to try
> to shut the other side up so that they won't confuse the ordinary
> citizen -- whom pseudo-elitist liberals view as a kind of ignorant
> sheep. It is inexpressibly sad to me that American liberals (who were
> once the most staunch defenders of the First Amendment) now seek to
> silence their opponents, but it seems to be a logical outgrowth of the
> mindset that their own point of view is the repository of all truth
> and virtue.
>
Seriously - it doesn't a liberal mindset, which in RNC-speak means any
non- or anti- Republican thought, to realize that the RNC has nothing
but lies and poverty to offer. All it takes is people who prefer
honesty and are fed up with hearing the RNC lie, yell, and scream. Oh
yes, and whine.
(The hand again. Shoved into my pocket with greater force now, is
forcibly removed - a slight curl of the lip indicative of
frustration).
MAF
Eleanor Rotthoff
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
<large snip>
>>On the contrary. I don't expect Gail or anyone else to defend liberal
>>think tanks because I feel no need to attack them. I don't always
>>agree with them, but I read their work with interest and try to
>>evaluate it on its own merits.
>
>Well, that's good. That's very good. But you'll excuse us if we
>don't feel obliged to give the same consideration to a billion dollar
>propaganda machine from the far right.
Thank you for making my point for me very clearly and succinctly. If
you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
from the far right."
<snip>
>How open of you. Absolutely marvelous. You don't mind, though, if I
>exercise my OWN right to free speech and cricticize these phony right
>wing "think tanks" and some of the people behind them.
Absolutely. Criticize them to your heart's content. I just reserve
my right to point out the fact that you seem to be attacking the
expression of all points of view that oppose your own. It's a mindset
which I find genuinely troubling.
>After all, that's a political view, just one from a different part of the
>political spectrum. You should be applauding Gail and I for speaking
>out!
Ah, but I do applaud anyone who has the courage to express his/her own
point of view, no matter how much it may differ from my own. I just
don't particularly like those who seem to want to suppress the
expression of opposing views.
>>What bothers me (as I thought I made clear)
>>was the implication in the article (both overt and implicit in the use
>>of such pejorative terms as "the machine for the right") that there
>>is something sinister about the financing and operations of
>>conservative organizations and what seems to be an underlying
>>assumption that only those on the left should be allowed to present
>>"the truth" because anyone who disagrees is (at a minimum) in error.
>I think there -is- something sinister about it.
I know that you genuinely believe that, and it is that belief which is
so troubling. Instead of engaging the policy positions of
conservative organizations on their merits, you instinctively view
them as part of some sort of sinister plot. If they take positions
opposed to your own, they must be not just wrong-headed but evil and
sinister. IMHO that kind of attitude is most unfortunate for rational
debate in a democracy.
> I also think that the
>fact that you didn't address one single point in Gail's 880 line piece
>on these outfits,
What do you want me to address? I don't know where the funding for
these organizations comes from, nor do I particularly care. The same
is true with respect to comparable liberal organizations. I am
content to evaluate the ideas and policy suggestions which they
produce to see if they make sense to me. My comments were addressed
to the entire thrust of the article which (as you acknowledge) implied
that there is something sinister about conservatives providing funding
to policy organizations which generally represent their point of view.
>but instead merely jumped on Gail for having the bad
>taste to post it,
I didn't "jump on Gail" in any way, shape or form. And I certainly
don't think that her posting the article was in "bad taste." Indeed,
I am grateful to her for posting it because it provided an opportunity
to have this discussion.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Eleanor Rotthoff
Milt
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
:ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
:
:<large snip>
:
:>>On the contrary. I don't expect Gail or anyone else to defend liberal
:>>think tanks because I feel no need to attack them. I don't always
:>>agree with them, but I read their work with interest and try to
:>>evaluate it on its own merits.
:>
:>Well, that's good. That's very good. But you'll excuse us if we
:>don't feel obliged to give the same consideration to a billion dollar
:>propaganda machine from the far right.
:
:Thank you for making my point for me very clearly and succinctly. If
:you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
:Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
:view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
:expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
:above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
:to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
:liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
:give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
:from the far right."
What a crock of shit!
You wanna talk rhetoric? The political right is full of their own special
mantras, that have no meaning, and which cannot be argued. While I will
agree that some on the far left are just as bad, here are some snippets
from conservatives that no fact or figure can ever argue.
1) Taxes went down and revenues went up under Reagan.
2) Abortion is murder.
3) The minimum wage is bad for the economy, because it hurts those it's
supposed to help.
4) The average tax burden is over 50%.
5) Bill Clinton is guilty of thousands of crimes and misdemeanors.
6) The US health care system is the best in the world.
7) Affirmative action laws hurt blacks.
8) The media (always a monolithic structure) is liberal.
9) Newt Gingrich is the most honest politician in the world. (I believe
that YOU are the one most fond of that one...)
Those are just a few. I could easily come up with a dozen more. And none
of these are ever backed up with fact. And the right-winger who spouts it
cannot accept another point of view. Look at the posts on the minimum wage
alone. Not one FACT has been presented by the anti- crowd. In fact, I've
challenged them to show me ONE instance where the minimum wage caused an
increase in unemployment, and no one has bothered. In fact, since the last
increase unemployment is down significantly. And to believe that it causes
problems, then you have to ignore the fact that there is more money in the
system, which is a key arguments conservatives use to justify CEOs'
skyrocketing salaries.
:<snip>
:
:>How open of you. Absolutely marvelous. You don't mind, though, if I
:>exercise my OWN right to free speech and cricticize these phony right
:>wing "think tanks" and some of the people behind them.
:
:Absolutely. Criticize them to your heart's content. I just reserve
:my right to point out the fact that you seem to be attacking the
:expression of all points of view that oppose your own. It's a mindset
:which I find genuinely troubling.
:
How is that, Eleanor? What should we do? Attack points of view we agree
with? You know, Tony Blankley and I disagree on damn near everything, but
there's one thing we agree on; partisanship is a good thing. A lot more
gets done when we argue and fight, and force solutions, than when we sit
back and let things happen. Now, I would agree in the case of personal
attacks. I rarely attack people who have not attacked me first, and the
times when i do, I usually apologize for it afterward. But politically, I
think your opinions are full of shit, and I will continue to tell you
so...
:>After all, that's a political view, just one from a different part of the
:>political spectrum. You should be applauding Gail and I for speaking
:>out!
:
:Ah, but I do applaud anyone who has the courage to express his/her own
:point of view, no matter how much it may differ from my own. I just
:don't particularly like those who seem to want to suppress the
:expression of opposing views.
:
It's not about supressing anything! Show me anywhere where anyone has
called for banning someone from the internet. In my memory, that has only
happened to lefties, and been instigated by righties. (Keith?) If anyone
ever tries to shut you down, Eleanor, you tell us liberals, and you know
what? We'll back you up. It's not about suppression; it's about correcting
false information, and putting forth our point of view. You know, maybe,
if some of your conservative brethren and sistren would pick up a
newspaper occasionally, and know what's going on in the world, the attacks
would be less severe.
:>>What bothers me (as I thought I made clear)
:>>was the implication in the article (both overt and implicit in the use
:>>of such pejorative terms as "the machine for the right") that there
:>>is something sinister about the financing and operations of
:>>conservative organizations and what seems to be an underlying
:>>assumption that only those on the left should be allowed to present
:>>"the truth" because anyone who disagrees is (at a minimum) in error.
:
:>I think there -is- something sinister about it.
:
:I know that you genuinely believe that, and it is that belief which is
:so troubling. Instead of engaging the policy positions of
:conservative organizations on their merits, you instinctively view
:them as part of some sort of sinister plot. If they take positions
:opposed to your own, they must be not just wrong-headed but evil and
:sinister. IMHO that kind of attitude is most unfortunate for rational
:debate in a democracy.
:
What the hell are we supposed to do, Eleanor? (And conservatives, for that
matter?) Not question anything out there? You're warped if you think
that's what happens in a democracy. One of the greatest quotes I've ever
heard comes from George Bernard Shaw, who said, "Liberty means
responsibility. That is why most men dread it." It's true. Part of being
in a Democracy is listening to both sides of a debate, deciding which is
right (as in correct), and sticking to your guns until a compelling
argument comes along to change your mind. If you look at this net
objectively, there are thoughtful people from both sides, but many (mostly
from the right) who refuse to deal in reality, or in fact. There are
people who do not read newspapers, and depend on Limbaugh and Liddy for
their opinions, who regurgitate what these creeps say, and then get pissed
off when you tell them they're wrong. I have no problem with an opinion
that's different from mine, that is based on fact. But when the reasoning
is pulled out of the ass of a creep and a convicted felon, with no factual
basis, you bet your ass I'm gonna jump on it.
I got an e-mail today from some creep who was bitching about affirmative
action, because "it's time blacks picked them up by their bootstraps."
Now, if the argument had stopped there, I probably could have lived with
it. But then he goes on to PROVE just why affirmative action is still
necessary, by telling me all about "them people", and delineating the
horrifying nature of "black culture". It seems that, the real reason
blacks are not equal is because they all listen to gangsta rap, deal
drugs, and shoot people. I'm not supposed to attack that?
As for going after the "think tanks", I have a problem with their concept
overall. Any group of people who concocts an agenda, and then tries to
find statistics to fulfill their vision, is suspect, whether left or
right. Unfortunately for the right wing, the right wing think tamks are
much better funded than the left wing think tanks, and are better able to
afford better PR. But having better PR doesn't make your POV any more
valid. And any group that brings forth a group of statistics the entire
purpose of which is to push an agenda, SHOULD be attacked. The Heritage
Foundation, studies by Liberty University, etc., have no credibility,
because they're not honest, and they're propogated by people with a clear
agenda. Any rational person who disagrees with the findings would HAVE to
attack it...
:> I also think that the
:>fact that you didn't address one single point in Gail's 880 line piece
:>on these outfits,
:
:What do you want me to address? I don't know where the funding for
:these organizations comes from, nor do I particularly care. The same
:is true with respect to comparable liberal organizations.
Now wait a f***ing minute! A week ago, you're trying to convince us that,
because many reporters voted for Clinton, they could be liberal, so yes,
you DO care. Where the money comes from smacks to their credibility,
Eleanor. If a "think tank" is funded by a pro-tobacco lobby, and says that
cigarettes are less dangerous than chocolate, (I'm dead...), are you
telling me that it has the same credibility as a group who gets their
funding from a neutral source? Sure. Uh-huh. If the Black Panthers come
out with "proof" that the CIA started the AIDS epidemic to kill black
people, you're just going to evaluate the information, and not the source?
Sure you are, Eleanor. Sure you are...
:I am
:content to evaluate the ideas and policy suggestions which they
:produce to see if they make sense to me.
That's a crock and you know it. You CAN'T evaluate anything, without
knowing something of the source. It's not possible. Even in law, INTENT of
the lawmakers is a key factor in determining whether a law is on point, is
it not? Motivating factors are key...
:My comments were addressed
:to the entire thrust of the article which (as you acknowledge) implied
:that there is something sinister about conservatives providing funding
:to policy organizations which generally represent their point of view.
:
Sinister? No. But if they want credibility, it's going to be hard to come
by.
:>but instead merely jumped on Gail for having the bad
:>taste to post it,
:
:I didn't "jump on Gail" in any way, shape or form. And I certainly
:don't think that her posting the article was in "bad taste." Indeed,
:I am grateful to her for posting it because it provided an opportunity
:to have this discussion.
:
:Eleanor Rotthoff
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
"If a person is under investigation by the Ethics Committee, and he is in
a position to influence the outcome of the investigation, then he should
resign immediately..."
--Newt Gingrich, 1988
Al Ridemfi
> Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Precisely. And there is a companion mindset with many libs, which
> >goes something like "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee."
>
> Well, in fairness to them, if one genuinely believes that his position
> is the absolutely correct and virtuous one, and that the other side's
> position is not only quite wrong but motivated by greed, selfishness,
> etc., etc., ad nauseum, then it makes a certain amount of sense to try
> to shut the other side up so that they won't confuse the ordinary
> citizen -- whom pseudo-elitist liberals view as a kind of ignorant
> sheep. It is inexpressibly sad to me that American liberals (who were
> once the most staunch defenders of the First Amendment) now seek to
> silence their opponents, but it seems to be a logical outgrowth of the
> mindset that their own point of view is the repository of all truth
> and virtue.
>
> <snip>
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
Yes, I too remember a time when it was the left who *championed* the
First Amendment (especially during the late 60's, as opposition to
the Vietnam conflict grew).
Novels like _1984_ were written by the left, not right. Yet today,
we have politically correct (ie, anti-conservative) Thought Police,
especially on college campuses, with their chilling "speech codes."
__________________________________________________________________
" [President Bush] sent his emissaries to toast the butchers
of Tienamen Square" complained Vice President Gore during the
1992 campaign. On March 24, 1997, Al Gore and Premier Li
Peng [the Butcher-in-Chief of the Tienamen Square massacre]
*clinked* champagne glasses in Beijing.
Milt
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Al Ridemfi wrote:
:> From erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff)
:> Organization Illuminati Online
:
:> Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
:>
:> <snip>
:>
:> >Precisely. And there is a companion mindset with many libs, which
:> >goes something like "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee."
:>
:> Well, in fairness to them, if one genuinely believes that his position
:> is the absolutely correct and virtuous one, and that the other side's
:> position is not only quite wrong but motivated by greed, selfishness,
:> etc., etc., ad nauseum, then it makes a certain amount of sense to try
:> to shut the other side up so that they won't confuse the ordinary
:> citizen -- whom pseudo-elitist liberals view as a kind of ignorant
:> sheep. It is inexpressibly sad to me that American liberals (who were
:> once the most staunch defenders of the First Amendment) now seek to
:> silence their opponents, but it seems to be a logical outgrowth of the
:> mindset that their own point of view is the repository of all truth
:> and virtue.
:>
:> <snip>
:>
:> Eleanor Rotthoff
:
:Yes, I too remember a time when it was the left who *championed* the
:First Amendment (especially during the late 60's, as opposition to
:the Vietnam conflict grew).
We still do. Seems to me it's the right who wants to force prayer in
schools. It's the right who wants to ban porn on the internet. (Yes, I
disagree with the pres on this one.) It's the right who's usually on the
side against the ACLU. They're also dead set against the Fairness
Doctrine, in which all points of view must be presented. Why? Because
then, people like Limbaugh and Liddy might have to debate people, or there
might be an alternative viewpoint presented.
:Novels like _1984_ were written by the left, not right. Yet today,
:we have politically correct (ie, anti-conservative) Thought Police,
:especially on college campuses, with their chilling "speech codes."
:
Funny thing about political correctness. Have you ever looked into it
closely? The left talks about it, and suggests that some people follow
this, but it's usually the right wing that enforces it. When someone
actually displays a Confederate flag, liberals complain about the fact
that it's wrong, but it's usually a conservative that enforces the rule to
the n'th degree. The two kissing incidents last year? Both kids were
suspended by Republicans. The Confederate flag issue in MD? The Democrats
complained, but it was the GOP who has been leading the drive to have it
removed.
In my liberal circle (we're actually more left of center than actually
liberal, but you think Clinton is a liberal...), we discuss the merits of
political correctness on some issues. For example, is it really necessary
to refer to the Washington football team as "Redskins"? It's okay to call
the Cleveland team the "Indians", but does the mascot have to be so
stupid-looking? But I don't know anyone who's into enforcing it as a
speech issue. It's more of a politeness issue...
Milt
Eleanor Rotthoff
Casb...@osu.edu (Steve Casburn) wrote:
> Do you think that the mindset of "my side right, your side evil" is
>limited to liberals? And do you believe (as the beginning of your second
>sentence implies) that all liberals think this way?
You make 2 excellent points, Steve. No, I absolutely do not believe
that the "my side right, your side evil" mentality is limited to
liberals. I can think of conservatives who fit into that category
very neatly, and I think they are just as dangerous to rational
political discourse as their liberal counterparts. And no, I
certainly don't believe that all liberals think that way. I know a
number of them who can debate issues on their merits without getting
into that syndrome at all.
OTOH I do find Sowell's thesis persuasive -- that there is a mindset
afoot today among modern American liberals (too many of them) which
holds that their position, and their position alone, is
"compassionate", "caring", "good for average workers", etc., etc. and
that their opponents are "extremist", "mean-spirited", "fascist",
etc., etc. It seems to me that there is a qualitative difference
between saying, "I think that the other side is wholly wrong in its
position on this particular issue" and saying, "The other side is
composed of a bunch of evil, selfish people." It is the latter
mindset which troubles me, no matter what its source.
Eleanor Rotthoff
kenfran
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
> <large snip>
>
> >>On the contrary. I don't expect Gail or anyone else to defend liberal
> >>think tanks because I feel no need to attack them. I don't always
> >>agree with them, but I read their work with interest and try to
> >>evaluate it on its own merits.
> >
> >Well, that's good. That's very good. But you'll excuse us if we
> >don't feel obliged to give the same consideration to a billion dollar
> >propaganda machine from the far right.
>
> Thank you for making my point for me very clearly and succinctly. If
> you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
> Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
> view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
> expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
> above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
> to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
> liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
> give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
> from the far right."
You can have any opinion you want. You can express it if you want. (Even
if it is ignorant, vacuous, and self-serving <g>) All we are saying is
that we don't need a factory for producing opinions of the Proper sort
being financed by a few individuals who seem to think that because they
are rich they have the right to mold the opinions of everyone else.
>
> <snip>
>
> I didn't "jump on Gail" in any way, shape or form. And I certainly
> don't think that her posting the article was in "bad taste." Indeed,
> I am grateful to her for posting it because it provided an opportunity
> to have this discussion.
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure."
--Dan Quayle
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kenfran
(Guess they really showed that heavy metal musician, that Boone feller.)
Gail Thaler
The fact that you see only two sides, I believe, hints that you
suffer from the same dichotmy that you accuse others of.
I happen to believe that the right-wing IS lacking in
compassion and are greedy and don't care about the workers.
Read Michael Zarlenga's posts. Or John Parker. And while
there are some on my side, my friends Jim Kennemur and
Rack Jite for example, who make generalizations about
Republicans and conservatives, I do not. To their credit,
they don't whine about the other side making generalizations
about us, but rather confront the specific generalization.
Thomas Sowell is an intelligent man, but, unlike his brother,
a liberal, he is not a social scientist. To the best of
my knowledge, he has not done survey research on liberals
to back up his assertions.
I try not to make claims unless they are backed up by sources,
and except for a few feuds with gunloons, I stick to the issues.
I find it very strange that you would take my posts, cut and
paste data, and start quoting Sowell.
I'd like to have a nickel for every generalization that Limbaugh
or Gingrich has said about liberals and a nickel for every time
a GOP spinster or dittohead repeats the ridiculous assertion on
Usenet.
And with the money I would set up, not an advocacy group, like
either the Heritage Foundation or the People for the American
Way, but a research foundation that does real research like
Brookings.
But then I am not a lawyer/advocate like you, Eleanor. I am
a social scientist.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
<large snip of rant beginning with the elegant "What a crock of shit"
and moving on to an assertion that conservatives never back up their
statements with facts and cannot accept another point of view>
No point in responding to this sort of thing.
>:Absolutely. Criticize them to your heart's content. I just reserve
>:my right to point out the fact that you seem to be attacking the
>:expression of all points of view that oppose your own. It's a mindset
>:which I find genuinely troubling.
>:
>How is that, Eleanor? What should we do? Attack points of view we agree
>with? You know, Tony Blankley and I disagree on damn near everything, but
>there's one thing we agree on; partisanship is a good thing. A lot more
>gets done when we argue and fight, and force solutions, than when we sit
>back and let things happen.
I couldn't agree with you more about the importance of the conflict of
ideas, but your argument misses the point I was making. It is one
thing to attack *ideas* with which one disagrees -- a thoroughly
wholesome process. It is quite something else to say that people
should ignore all ideas which come from a source with a political
philosophy different from one's one and to suggest that there is
something faintly sinister about that source even *expressing* ideas.
<snip>
>It's not about suppression; it's about correcting
>false information, and putting forth our point of view.
Again, I'm not talking about debating the validity of ideas. I'm
talking about a mindset which automatically rejects any idea coming
from a source which holds a different point of view because one
believes that only the people who share your philosophy are wise and
virtuous.
>You know, maybe, if some of your conservative brethren and sistren
>would pick up a newspaper occasionally, and know what's going
>on in the world, the attacks would be less severe.
<sigh> Note the express assertion that conservatives are generally
ill-informed. For my own part, I find no correlation between
political ideology and degree of information. But then, what do I
know? I don't even find a correlation between ideology and wisdom or
ideology and virtue.
<large snip of my previous discussion with Zepp and much from Milt
about how important it is in a democracy to debate ideas, followed by
a great deal of ad hominem about Limbaugh, Liddy and "some creep">
>As for going after the "think tanks", I have a problem with their concept
>overall. Any group of people who concocts an agenda, and then tries to
>find statistics to fulfill their vision, is suspect, whether left or
>right.
Why do you define a think tank as an organization which "concocts an
agenda, and then tries to find statistics to fulfill their vision"? I
gather from your comments later on that you are of the opinion that
conservative think tanks do this, but would you levy the same charge
against comparable liberal organizations, e.g. The Progressive Policy
Institute? If so, who do you pay attention to who is entirely neutral
and has no "agenda" (for which read belief system) whatsoever?
>Unfortunately for the right wing, the right wing think tamks are
>much better funded than the left wing think tanks, and are better able to
>afford better PR.
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion, or are you just
throwing it out to us? I was not under the impression that PPI,
Brookings and the like were in a state of starvation.
>The Heritage Foundation, studies by Liberty University, etc., have no credibility,
>because they're not honest, and they're propogated by people with a clear
>agenda. Any rational person who disagrees with the findings would HAVE to
>attack it...
There is a major difference between "disagreeing with the findings"
and asserting that scholarship from a certain source "has no
credibility because they're not honest". To assert that only one side
of the political spectrum is honest or credible reflects exactly the
mindset I deplore.
<snip>
> You CAN'T evaluate anything, without knowing something of the source.
>It's not possible.
The source might shed some light on the point of view, but that is a
far cry from suggesting that everything coming from a source which
espouses a political philosophy different from your own is "not
credible because they're not honest".
>:My comments were addressed
>:to the entire thrust of the article which (as you acknowledge) implied
>:that there is something sinister about conservatives providing funding
>:to policy organizations which generally represent their point of view.
>:
>Sinister? No. But if they want credibility, it's going to be hard to come
>by.
Well, your point of view must surely simplify your life quite
considerably. If anything comes from a conservative source, it isn't
credible (because we all know that those conservatives aren't honest),
and therefore you don't have to pay any attention to it other than to
attack it. You certainly don't have to give it any serious thought.
Must be very efficient to live in a world in which no thought which
contradicts your preconceived ideology is ever given serious
consideration, except possibly for the purpose of launching an attack
upon it. Saves a lot of time needlessly wasted in serious thinking,
doesn't it?
As I told Zepp, thank you for providing an excellent example in
support of my thesis.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Milt
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Milt wrote:
:On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
:
::> Zepp wrote:
::>Well, that's good. That's very good. But you'll excuse us if we
::>don't feel obliged to give the same consideration to a billion dollar
::>propaganda machine from the far right.
::
::Thank you for making my point for me very clearly and succinctly. If
::you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
::Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
::view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
::expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
::above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
::to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
::liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
::give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
::from the far right."
(Here is what Eleanor chose to cut from her response. Obviously, she finds
the need to dismiss it, because there is no way to defend it or excuse
it. Note that I not only say, "What a crock of shit, but I go on for
several paragraphs, all of which are cut from the Eleanor response, to
explain WHY it's a crock of shit.)
:What a crock of shit!
Now, Eleanor, argue the points I made in the above. Don't just pretend
they don't exist...
::<snip>
(Note that good sized portion of the above was also cut; kind of ironic
when you consider that she's accusing the LEFT of suppressing ideas...)
::>>What bothers me (as I thought I made clear)
:
(Note that none of the above or below were commented on, and were
paraphrased in one short sentence. Seems as though Eleanor's into
suppressing ideas herself, eh?)
:I got an e-mail today from some creep who was bitching about affirmative
:
:
:
Milt
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
:
:>On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
:
:<large snip of rant beginning with the elegant "What a crock of shit"
:and moving on to an assertion that conservatives never back up their
:statements with facts and cannot accept another point of view>
:
:No point in responding to this sort of thing.
It was not a rant. I was supplying points counter to your assertion that
liberals all seem to think they are the only ones who are correct about
anything, and that we all have closed minds...
Where do you get off censoring my words, simply because you can't argue
them. There's no point responding to them, because you cannot, Eleanor.
After I finish posting my answer to this, I'm going to repost my original
argument, which you are trying very hard to evade, for someone with such a
supposedly fine intellect. You really can't handle the truth, to quote
Jack Nicholson...
:>:Absolutely. Criticize them to your heart's content. I just reserve
:>:my right to point out the fact that you seem to be attacking the
:>:expression of all points of view that oppose your own. It's a mindset
:>:which I find genuinely troubling.
:>:
:>How is that, Eleanor? What should we do? Attack points of view we agree
:>with? You know, Tony Blankley and I disagree on damn near everything, but
:>there's one thing we agree on; partisanship is a good thing. A lot more
:>gets done when we argue and fight, and force solutions, than when we sit
:>back and let things happen.
:
:I couldn't agree with you more about the importance of the conflict of
:ideas, but your argument misses the point I was making. It is one
:thing to attack *ideas* with which one disagrees -- a thoroughly
:wholesome process. It is quite something else to say that people
:should ignore all ideas which come from a source with a political
:philosophy different from one's one and to suggest that there is
:something faintly sinister about that source even *expressing* ideas.
Of course, you don't attack the ideas you can't attack. No, instead, you
edit them out, and only keep the parts you can use to make me look bad.
Above, you dismiss me by saying that your view was a crock of shit, but
you conveniently left out the two or three paragraphs that effectively
proved it was a crock of shit. This is why we have such a hard time with
conservatives; with you guys, if something isn't all neat and pretty, and
"as it should be", you dismiss it, as if it doesn't matter. I never do
that. I may attack the idea, but i back up my attack. Here, you pull the
ultimate right wing startegy; eliminate the opposition, and pretend it
doesn't exist. Well, I wrote a lot more than you can simply dismiss with
an inaccurate paraphrase...
:
:<snip>
:
:>It's not about suppression; it's about correcting
:>false information, and putting forth our point of view.
:
:Again, I'm not talking about debating the validity of ideas. I'm
:talking about a mindset which automatically rejects any idea coming
:from a source which holds a different point of view because one
:believes that only the people who share your philosophy are wise and
:virtuous.
:
It's called skepticism, and I practice it with everyone. Most rational
people are skeptics, Eleanor. And when someone shows me something that
supports a point of view that (s)he has held for a long time, that person
has a higher threshold of believability to scale than the person who's
saying smething that's opposite of what he has traditionally believed.
For example, if Ted Kennedy suddenly came out as anti-choice, and gave you
his reasons, he would have more credibility than Orrin Hatch saying the
same thing, simply because it's such a departure. By the same token, a gun
study by the NRA holds no more credibility than a gun study by an anti-gun
group, because BOTH have an agenda...
:>You know, maybe, if some of your conservative brethren and sistren
:>would pick up a newspaper occasionally, and know what's going
:>on in the world, the attacks would be less severe.
:
:<sigh> Note the express assertion that conservatives are generally
:ill-informed. For my own part, I find no correlation between
:political ideology and degree of information. But then, what do I
:know? I don't even find a correlation between ideology and wisdom or
:ideology and virtue.
:
Note the express disinterest of the word, "some". I didn't say all,
Eleanor, or even most. But if you read the right wingers on these groups,
the vast majority seem to have no more than an intrinsic knowledge of
anything. They believe X simply because they've been told X. You, and Al
Redemfi, and choice few others are (were, at least, until today) at least
somewhat thoughtful, and could produce some backup to your feelings.
Debate is possible with you guys. But then you have odell, Mr Spam,
Discipio, et al, as well as some new people, who just say shit, and
believe it, without any reason. Look at the treatment Steve Kangas got a
few weeks ago. He posted some very good stuff. Very thoughtful and
insightful, possibly debatable. But they didn't debate. They called him a
liar, a Nazi and various and sundry other things, and presented not one
argument in refutation...
:<large snip of my previous discussion with Zepp and much from Milt
:about how important it is in a democracy to debate ideas, followed by
:a great deal of ad hominem about Limbaugh, Liddy and "some creep">
:
Limbaugh, Liddy, et al, are walking ad hominem. But you still don't have
the right to censor me, and then comment on it...
:>As for going after the "think tanks", I have a problem with their concept
:>overall. Any group of people who concocts an agenda, and then tries to
:>find statistics to fulfill their vision, is suspect, whether left or
:>right.
:
:Why do you define a think tank as an organization which "concocts an
:agenda, and then tries to find statistics to fulfill their vision"?
Look at their funding. These are rarely funded by people who simply want
to know "the facts". Usually, they want to know which facts support their
view, and which ones they can ignore, that don't fit their agenda...
:I
:gather from your comments later on that you are of the opinion that
:conservative think tanks do this, but would you levy the same charge
:against comparable liberal organizations, e.g. The Progressive Policy
:Institute? If so, who do you pay attention to who is entirely neutral
:and has no "agenda" (for which read belief system) whatsoever?
:
Mostly research institutions are pretty reliable. Those who do research
that is funded by a gov't, whether state or federal, usually don't have
the same pressures as those funded by an organization with an agenda. How
many scientists or researchers, whose living is based on making their
benefactors happy, are going to present information detrimental to their
benefactor? It's gonna be pretty rare.
:>Unfortunately for the right wing, the right wing think tamks are
:>much better funded than the left wing think tanks, and are better able to
:>afford better PR.
:
:Do you have any evidence to support that assertion, or are you just
:throwing it out to us? I was not under the impression that PPI,
:Brookings and the like were in a state of starvation.
:
Oh, come now. They are not heavily funded, and they are not funded by a
couple of primary donors. But yes, I look at info from those people with
skepticism, as well, because I don't want to be blown out of the water
when I argue with nfo that is tainted. I get into this all of the time
with environmentalists. I believe very strongly in the environmental
movement, but there is a tendency to turn it into a doomsday scenario,
which does no one any good. For example, one group keeps claiming that it
takes 500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. This is based on
the erroneous concept that all beef is grain-fed, while most cattle are
grazing cattle. It also ignores the fact that cows perspire, etc, and the
water from that and urination goes back into the atmosphere and is
recycled. In other words, it sounds really dire, when we "waste' that much
water, but if it's not true, it takes your credibility and flushes it.
When Pat Robertson tags AIDS as "the gay disease", same thing. When the
Heritage Foundation says anything that toes the conservative line, I'm
skeptical, because of their funding. That doesn't mean I won't believe it;
just that their level of proof had better be good...
:>The Heritage Foundation, studies by Liberty University, etc., have no credibility,
:>because they're not honest, and they're propogated by people with a clear
:>agenda. Any rational person who disagrees with the findings would HAVE to
:>attack it...
:
:There is a major difference between "disagreeing with the findings"
:and asserting that scholarship from a certain source "has no
:credibility because they're not honest". To assert that only one side
:of the political spectrum is honest or credible reflects exactly the
:mindset I deplore.
:
And characterizing people you disagree with as having a mindset that they
don't have is just the tunnel-vision I deplore. I have never asserted that
"only one side...is honest or credible." Therefore, you are trying to
create something that isn't there. That's why you edit posts that say
things you can't debate. You're an intellectual coward, Eleanor. I'll
betcha, if we dig through Dejanews, we can find more agreements between
myself and conservatives, than between you and liberals. YOU are much more
dogmatic than I have ever been. Hell, if I even mention that Newt is less
than divine, you jump down my throat. Seems to me, maybe you're
projecting?
:<snip>
:
:> You CAN'T evaluate anything, without knowing something of the source.
:>It's not possible.
:
:The source might shed some light on the point of view, but that is a
:far cry from suggesting that everything coming from a source which
:espouses a political philosophy different from your own is "not
:credible because they're not honest".
:
Notice how she fuses two ideas; one I didn't say, and one I did, into one
thing, in an attempt to make me look dogmatic. I did say that a few
sources were "not credible because they're dishonest", but I never said
that it was because they differed from me politically, did I? In fact, you
conveniently cut out my Black Panther example, did you not? I have never
said that all people or groups with whom I disagree are liars. In fact,
that's another one of those famous right wing assertions. Anything they
don't believe is a LIE! Mary Knadler is famous for that one.
:>:My comments were addressed
:>:to the entire thrust of the article which (as you acknowledge) implied
:>:that there is something sinister about conservatives providing funding
:>:to policy organizations which generally represent their point of view.
:>:
:>Sinister? No. But if they want credibility, it's going to be hard to come
:>by.
:
:Well, your point of view must surely simplify your life quite
:considerably. If anything comes from a conservative source, it isn't
:credible (because we all know that those conservatives aren't honest),
:and therefore you don't have to pay any attention to it other than to
:attack it. You certainly don't have to give it any serious thought.
It must be nice to have all of your world simplified into "A" and "B"
piles, Eleanor, and it must be interesting to live in a world where you
can make up whatever you want abot someone, and pretend it's true. Show me
where I have ever asserted that the above scenario applies only to
conservative groups. There are a few liberal groups I have a problem with,
as well, such as Earth First and Act Up! If they presented a study that
they funded, I would be skeptical of the findings there, as well. And as
you can probably tell, i give serious thought to nearly everything in my
life. I wish I could just be like you, and eliminate that which is
unpleasant, and label that which i don't understand...
:Must be very efficient to live in a world in which no thought which
:contradicts your preconceived ideology is ever given serious
:consideration, except possibly for the purpose of launching an attack
:upon it. Saves a lot of time needlessly wasted in serious thinking,
:doesn't it?
:
Seems to me, YOU are the one doing that here. First, you cut about 3
paragraphs of my post where I show you why you're full of shit, and
dismiss it, as though it was nothing. Then you attribute qualities to me,
based on your prejudice against my leftist leanings. It would probably
surprise you to find out that I consider myself pretty moderate. I'm not
all that leftist. In fact on most fiscal matters, I'm fairly conservative.
but you'd rather make snap judgments, and show your bigotry to anyone who
thinks Newt Gingrich is a pure-d asshole. I was a page when Newt first
started, and I thought he was an asshole then, and I've been waiting for
soething to change my mind. Nothing yet...
:As I told Zepp, thank you for providing an excellent example in
:support of my thesis.
:
Look in the mirror, Eleanor. You're a better example than I coule be on my
worst day...
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
Go Arizona Wildcats!!!!!!!!!
Tom Cavender
In article <333D22...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>>
>> kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Was that the Christian Coalition you were referring to, Eleanor?
>>
>> I'm really not that familiar with the Christian Coalition, so I
>> hesitate to comment. From what little I've seen of Ralph Reed, he
>> strikes me as a reasonable, pragmatic human being who genuinely
>> listens to other points of view while maintaining his own
>> strongly-held views. OTOH I am troubled by those who adamantly (and
>> arrogantly) believe that they have a monopoly on truth, no matter what
>> their political persuasion.
>>
>> Eleanor Rotthoff
Ralph Reed is the Eddie Haskell of American Politics. He may come off as the
voice of pragmatism, but don't let the facade fool you. This is the same man
who advocated the "San Diego strategy" (usually called "stealth
candidacies") with regard to school board elections in the early '90s. Reed
also uses different rhetoric when speaking to the Robertson faithful; witness
the following quote from a 1991 speech he gave to Christian Coalition
activists: "I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face
and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag.
You don't know until election night."
Reed constantly tries to invoke the rhetoric of the civil rights movement.
Read either of his books and you'll see references to "the back of the bus"
and "having a place at the table". This from a man who once worked for that
paragon of civil rights, North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms. Ralph Reed has
yet to denounce Senator Helms's occasionally racially charged rhetoric.
Speaking of Senator Helms and the Christian Coalition, it should be noted that
Ralph Reed and his boss, Pat Robertson, refer to the Christian Coalition as "a
nonpartisan social welfare organization". Here is Pat Robertson describing
the Coalition's impact on the 1990 North Carolina Senate race:
"Before the election, the conservative incumbent, Jesse Helms,
was trailing his liberal opponent, the black mayor of
Charlotte, Harvey Gantt, by as much as eight percentage points
in public opinion polls. On the two Sundays prior to the
election, a public interest issues group that I had formed,
the Christian Coalition, distributed 750,000 church bulletins
listing the stands of the candidates on a number of major
election issues. When the ballots were counted, Jesse Helms
was ahead by almost the same percentage as he had previously
been behind. I believe educating the people on the issues
affecting them made the difference in THAT PSYCHOLOGICALLY
VITAL SENATORIAL ELECTION". (Robertson, THE NEW WORLD
ORDER, p.260, emphasis mine).
So much for being nonpartisan.
>Monopoly on truth? Yep. It WAS the Christian Coalition.
>(Guess they really showed that heavy metal musician, that Boone feller.)
Of course, that "truth" is one that is defined by Pat Robertson, a man who
openly speculated a few years back that gays cause blizzards, Hindus are
Satanists, and John Wilkes Booth may have been hired to shoot Abraham Lincoln
by an international cabal of bankers and Freemasons. This is the man Ralph
Reed takes his marching orders from.
rmacd...@microd.com
On 3/29/97 9:05AM, in message <333D21...@concentric.net>, kenfran
<ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
> >
> > ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
> >
> > <large snip>
> >
> > >>On the contrary. I don't expect Gail or anyone else to defend liberal
> > >>think tanks because I feel no need to attack them. I don't always
> > >>agree with them, but I read their work with interest and try to
> > >>evaluate it on its own merits.
> > >
> > >Well, that's good. That's very good. But you'll excuse us if we
> > >don't feel obliged to give the same consideration to a billion dollar
> > >propaganda machine from the far right.
> >
> > Thank you for making my point for me very clearly and succinctly. If
> > you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
> > Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
> > view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
> > expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
> > above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
> > to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
> > liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
> > give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
> > from the far right."
>
> You can have any opinion you want. You can express it if you want. (Even
> if it is ignorant, vacuous, and self-serving <g>) All we are saying is
> that we don't need a factory for producing opinions of the Proper sort
> being financed by a few individuals who seem to think that because they
> are rich they have the right to mold the opinions of everyone else.
Let's see, T. Kennedy and J. Rockafeller might make a few people to fit in this
category, they are the two richest people on congress aren't they.
--
Richard A. Macdonald
SSG (Ret), USA, ADA
Dedicated follower of Fr. Luca Pacioli, master juggler.
"Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt."
"Copulato Ergo Sum"
Eleanor Rotthoff
to...@jaxnet.com (Tom Cavender) wrote:
<large snip of attack on Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition>
>Of course, that "truth" is one that is defined by Pat Robertson, a man who
>openly speculated a few years back that gays cause blizzards, Hindus are
>Satanists, and John Wilkes Booth may have been hired to shoot Abraham Lincoln
>by an international cabal of bankers and Freemasons. This is the man Ralph
>Reed takes his marching orders from.
I conceded at the outset that my knowledge of the Christian Coalition
is very limited, but if you think that Pat Robertson runs the
Christian Coalition and Ralph Reed "takes his marching orders from
him", then I submit to you that your degree of ignorance of the
organization exceeds my own.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Eleanor Rotthoff
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>You can have any opinion you want. You can express it if you want. (Even
>if it is ignorant, vacuous, and self-serving <g>)
Thank you. How very kind of you to allow me to retain my First
Amendment rights.
>All we are saying is
>that we don't need a factory for producing opinions of the Proper sort
>being financed by a few individuals who seem to think that because they
>are rich they have the right to mold the opinions of everyone else.
IOW an individual conservative can (do we each individually need your
permission, or does your permission to me constitute carte blanche for
all conservatives to speak?) say what he or she pleases. But let's
get rid of these conservative organizations that actually do research
and produce studies and the like which contradict your point of view.
Tell me, do you advocate the same treatment for the Progressive Policy
Institute, Brookings, and the like, or are the targets of your muzzle
only the conservative groups?
Wow, you people keep proving my point in spades. Kudos (and my
profound respect) to Steve Casburn for his response.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Eleanor Rotthoff
Gail Thaler <scri...@best.com> wrote:
>I happen to believe that the right-wing IS lacking in
>compassion and are greedy and don't care about the workers.
I don't doubt for a moment, Gail, that that is your sincere belief.
But bear with me for a moment while I explain why that belief (along
with the comparable belief on the far right that liberals are
atheistic, lazy, irresponsible, etc., etc.) troubles me.
If I believe that someone is wrong about a political issue, but is a
genuinely good person trying to do the right thing, then I can engage
that person in honest debate and out of our interchange of ideas a
democratic solution can emerge. If OTOH I believe that the person is
just a genuinely bad *person* (greedy, lacking in compassion, etc.),
then there is no point in my exchanging ideas with that person.
Indeed, as soon as I begin to define someone that way, then it is
morally permissible, is it not, for me to use almost any means to
defeat his agenda? Indeed, if I genuinely believe that my adversary
is out to harm the American people, then don't I have almost a moral
imperative to take whatever steps are necessary to defeat him? And
then we have arrived squarely at, "The end justifies the means."
Commentators have made fun of Bill Clinton's recent comment that if he
broke campaign financing laws, it was imperative to "stop the
Dole/Gingrich juggernaut". But I believe that he was entirely sincere
in that belief (although I didn't notice any Dole/Kemp "juggernaut" to
tell you the truth <g>). His sincerity does not alter the fact that
his statement very starkly says, "The end justifies the means."
IMHO this is exactly the same mindset which allowed basically decent
people to burn each other at the stake in the demented belief that by
burning their bodies they were saving their souls. We simply can't
reach those depths if we explicitly recognize that our opponents are
just as good and decent as human beings as we are; they merely
disagree with us on a number of issues and possibly, just possibly,
they may from time to time be right about something.
<snip of much interesting stuff which I would like to address, but I
have rambled on making the point which I consider central to the
entire discussion>
Eleanor Rotthoff
John Parker
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 06:05:23 -0800, kenfran <ken...@concentric.net>
wrote:
>You can have any opinion you want. You can express it if you want. (Even
>if it is ignorant, vacuous, and self-serving <g>) All we are saying is
>that we don't need a factory for producing opinions of the Proper sort
>being financed by a few individuals who seem to think that because they
>are rich they have the right to mold the opinions of everyone else.
But they do have the right to attempt to change everyone's opinion,
just like you, right, Kenfran, no matter what their reasons are, or
are you going to come out against free speech too?
To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
-John Parker
Al Ridemfi
I agree--and from I what saw last fall, there wasn't much of a
Dole/Kemp juggernaut (?) anywhere to be stopped either.
Actually, Clinton's call for overhauling the campaign financing laws
remind
me of the old cliche where the murderer cries out, "please stop me
before
I kill again."
> IMHO this is exactly the same mindset which allowed basically decent
> people to burn each other at the stake in the demented belief that by
> burning their bodies they were saving their souls. We simply can't
> reach those depths if we explicitly recognize that our opponents are
> just as good and decent as human beings as we are; they merely
> disagree with us on a number of issues and possibly, just possibly,
> they may from time to time be right about something.
>
> <snip of much interesting stuff which I would like to address, but I
> have rambled on making the point which I consider central to the
> entire discussion>
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
__________________________________________________________________
scri...@best.com
In article <333ec468...@news.io.com>,
erot...@io.com wrote:
>
> Gail Thaler <scri...@best.com> wrote:
>
> >I happen to believe that the right-wing IS lacking in
> >compassion and are greedy and don't care about the workers.
>
> I don't doubt for a moment, Gail, that that is your sincere belief.
> But bear with me for a moment while I explain why that belief (along
> with the comparable belief on the far right that liberals are
> atheistic, lazy, irresponsible, etc., etc.) troubles me.
>
far right, Eleanor. Unless you somehow think that
Phyliss Schaffly, the Birchers and libertarians are
now to be considered moderate or conservative. Do
you consider Newt and Rush to be far right now or
do they just speak "far right" talk about liberals?
Just curious.
> If I believe that someone is wrong about a political issue, but is a
> genuinely good person trying to do the right thing, then I can engage
> that person in honest debate and out of our interchange of ideas a
> democratic solution can emerge. If OTOH I believe that the person is
> just a genuinely bad *person* (greedy, lacking in compassion, etc.),
> then there is no point in my exchanging ideas with that person.
> Indeed, as soon as I begin to define someone that way, then it is
> morally permissible, is it not, for me to use almost any means to
> defeat his agenda? Indeed, if I genuinely believe that my adversary
> is out to harm the American people, then don't I have almost a moral
> imperative to take whatever steps are necessary to defeat him? And
> then we have arrived squarely at, "The end justifies the means."
>
I do not engage in ad hominem. What does this have to
do with me?
> Commentators have made fun of Bill Clinton's recent comment that if he
> broke campaign financing laws, it was imperative to "stop the
> Dole/Gingrich juggernaut". But I believe that he was entirely sincere
> in that belief (although I didn't notice any Dole/Kemp "juggernaut" to
> tell you the truth <g>). His sincerity does not alter the fact that
> his statement very starkly says, "The end justifies the means."
>
Oh, please. What politician doesn't believe the end
justifies the means? As far as I know, the Pope made
Father Drinan retire from Congress. And what does
this have to do with my assertion that the right-wing
lacks compassion and is greedy.
Please read Michael Lind's book, Up From Conservatism instead
of just GOPAC propoganda.
> IMHO this is exactly the same mindset which allowed basically decent
> people to burn each other at the stake in the demented belief that by
> burning their bodies they were saving their souls. We simply can't
> reach those depths if we explicitly recognize that our opponents are
> just as good and decent as human beings as we are; they merely
> disagree with us on a number of issues and possibly, just possibly,
> they may from time to time be right about something.
>
Whatever good thing did Phyliss Schaffly do, except
stop admitting she's a Bircher? And who wants to
burn her at the stake? All I want to do is argue
with her views.
Pardon the ad feminim.
You are naive in the extreme if you don't believe that
there are not selfish and greedy people who want to manipulate
the system to provide for themselves and leave the rest
to fend themselves. Not only public figures, but people
who post here every day. I am not going to sit by and
watch them lie to Usenet and the American people. And
I will continue to in my own way, which is mostly
assertive but backed by sources and not directly
against persons (except for the unholy trinity).
If
there were a dangerous and powerful left wing in this
country, I would attack them too.
Why don't you join me in criticizing the far right,
Eleanor?
> <snip of much interesting stuff which I would like to address, but I
> have rambled on making the point which I consider central to the
> entire discussion>
>
Interesting explanation for why you're snipping.
> Eleanor Rotthoff
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Zepp
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:42:08 GMT, erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff)
wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
><large snip>
>
>>>On the contrary. I don't expect Gail or anyone else to defend liberal
>>>think tanks because I feel no need to attack them. I don't always
>>>agree with them, but I read their work with interest and try to
>>>evaluate it on its own merits.
>>
>>Well, that's good. That's very good. But you'll excuse us if we
>>don't feel obliged to give the same consideration to a billion dollar
>>propaganda machine from the far right.
>
>Thank you for making my point for me very clearly and succinctly. If
>you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
>Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
>view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
>expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
>above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
>to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
>liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
>give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
>from the far right."
Ah. Sarcasm doesn't carry well in this medium. You pay scant
attention to liberal points of view, being entirely a creature of the
GOP.
None of which has anything to do with your specious claim that only
some points of view are "allowed" in this forum. Are you trying to
claim that you are a victim?
>
><snip>
>
>>How open of you. Absolutely marvelous. You don't mind, though, if I
>>exercise my OWN right to free speech and cricticize these phony right
>>wing "think tanks" and some of the people behind them.
>
>Absolutely. Criticize them to your heart's content. I just reserve
>my right to point out the fact that you seem to be attacking the
>expression of all points of view that oppose your own. It's a mindset
>which I find genuinely troubling.
>
In case you haven't noticed, this is a debate forum. The one that I
post in reads, "alt.society.liberalism", and not "no.eleanors.please".
Do you deny that you attack points of view that differ from your own?
For example, mine.
Why not knock off these silly self-serving whines about being
suppressed and attacked in some way? In case you don't notice, my
opinions get attacked with alacrity, and you should SEE some of the
e-mail I get. Just a part of being on Usenet. BTW, are you planning
to go after Parkie or Knopp for the same offense, or is this limited
to me and others who agree with me?
>>After all, that's a political view, just one from a different part of the
>>political spectrum. You should be applauding Gail and I for speaking
>>out!
>
>Ah, but I do applaud anyone who has the courage to express his/her own
>point of view, no matter how much it may differ from my own. I just
>don't particularly like those who seem to want to suppress the
>expression of opposing views.
>
Broke every mirror you owned, did you?
>>>What bothers me (as I thought I made clear)
>>>was the implication in the article (both overt and implicit in the use
>>>of such pejorative terms as "the machine for the right") that there
>>>is something sinister about the financing and operations of
>>>conservative organizations and what seems to be an underlying
>>>assumption that only those on the left should be allowed to present
>>>"the truth" because anyone who disagrees is (at a minimum) in error.
>
>>I think there -is- something sinister about it.
>
>I know that you genuinely believe that, and it is that belief which is
>so troubling. Instead of engaging the policy positions of
>conservative organizations on their merits, you instinctively view
>them as part of some sort of sinister plot. If they take positions
>opposed to your own, they must be not just wrong-headed but evil and
>sinister. IMHO that kind of attitude is most unfortunate for rational
>debate in a democracy.
Some people spend BILLIONS trying to persuade people to adopt a
philosophy and a course of action that will prove, in my view,
massively destructive to the lower and middle class of this country,
and their freedoms and rights. It is a gigantic PR campaign, designed
to benefit a tiny minority of very rick and their lickspittles. That
is at the core of discussions such as the one you are trying to
interrupt here with your piteous whines of persecution. Can you get
back to the subject at hand, or are you playing the role of the
spoiled three year old who shrieks until she gets her way?
>
>> I also think that the
>>fact that you didn't address one single point in Gail's 880 line piece
>>on these outfits,
>
>What do you want me to address? I don't know where the funding for
>these organizations comes from, nor do I particularly care. The same
>is true with respect to comparable liberal organizations. I am
>content to evaluate the ideas and policy suggestions which they
>produce to see if they make sense to me. My comments were addressed
>to the entire thrust of the article which (as you acknowledge) implied
>that there is something sinister about conservatives providing funding
>to policy organizations which generally represent their point of view.
>
Ah, but the rest of us care. We care quite a bit. We want to know
who is screwing with our country, and why. I've yet to see anyone
claim that your conservatives can't do this. Similarly, you've yet to
demonstrate why we shouldn't put a lot of sunshine on their
activities, and discuss their motivations and methods.
>>but instead merely jumped on Gail for having the bad
>>taste to post it,
>
>I didn't "jump on Gail" in any way, shape or form. And I certainly
>don't think that her posting the article was in "bad taste." Indeed,
>I am grateful to her for posting it because it provided an opportunity
>to have this discussion.
But you won't discuss the specifics of what Gail posted, will you?
Instead, you are trying to disrupt and evade the specifics. Kinda
pitiful, really.
Zepp
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 19:04:33 GMT, erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff)
wrote:
>Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Precisely. And there is a companion mindset with many libs, which
>>goes something like "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee."
>
>Well, in fairness to them, if one genuinely believes that his position
>is the absolutely correct and virtuous one, and that the other side's
>position is not only quite wrong but motivated by greed, selfishness,
>etc., etc., ad nauseum, then it makes a certain amount of sense to try
>to shut the other side up so that they won't confuse the ordinary
>citizen -- whom pseudo-elitist liberals view as a kind of ignorant
>sheep. It is inexpressibly sad to me that American liberals (who were
>once the most staunch defenders of the First Amendment) now seek to
>silence their opponents, but it seems to be a logical outgrowth of the
>mindset that their own point of view is the repository of all truth
>and virtue.
Boy, you guys are really desperate not to discuss Gail's post from
PFAW, aren't you?
Milt, you had nine mantras of the right that Skaife, Coors, Ailes and
the rest like to sell. Just to round it out, here's another.
10) Private Industry, being more efficient, would not pile up the
debt that the goverment has.
FACT: Corporate debt is the highest in history, and has quintupled
since 1985. This, despite the record number and size of debt-relief
bankruptcies. (Without those bankrupcies, corporate debt would be
even larger than the federal debt!). And who takes the brunt of costs
associated with those bankrupcies? Yup--me and thee. But private
enterprize is supposed to be more responsible and efficient than
government.
>
><snip>
John Parker
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 05:41:45 GMT, volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim
Kennemur) wrote:
>
>Bullshit. You conservatives with your Holy Books are in the
>Heaven/Hell, good/evil, right/wrong business, not us. Absolutism is a
>conservative trait.
Spoken like a true old hippy, Volty. Sure, there's a bunch of you
herd people on the far right too, and just like you liberals, they're
scared to death of people who don't fit into their mold. Actually, I
envision the far right and the entire left as nothing more than the
two sides of the same phoney wooden nickel. Voltaire and Jerry
Falwell, two funny old has-been absolutist peas in a pod.
Milt
:
:
:
:
Milt
:
:
:
:
Steve Casburn
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970329...@nevis.u.arizona.edu>,
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>
> [on liberal think-tanks: ]
>
> But yes, I look at info from those people with
> skepticism, as well, because I don't want to be blown out of the water
> when I argue with nfo that is tainted. I get into this all of the time
> with environmentalists. I believe very strongly in the environmental
> movement, but there is a tendency to turn it into a doomsday scenario,
> which does no one any good. For example, one group keeps claiming that it
> takes 500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. This is based on
> the erroneous concept that all beef is grain-fed, while most cattle are
> grazing cattle. It also ignores the fact that cows perspire, etc, and the
> water from that and urination goes back into the atmosphere and is
> recycled. In other words, it sounds really dire, when we "waste' that much
> water, but if it's not true, it takes your credibility and flushes it.
Right-wingers on these newsgroups have frequently called me a
"traitor," a "closet liberal," and other epithets over the last several
years because I ask sharp questions about some of the views they express.
The reason for my skepticism is that I myself used to believe
uncritically that what George Will, _National Review_, _The Wall Street
Journal_, etc. stated was the truth.
Then, about five years ago, I started to meet and seriously talk with
people who were liberals, radicals, and socialists of various stripes, and
I found exactly what Milt says above -- that these arguments and
characterizations that I had been led to believe were irrefutable or exact
were simply blown out of the water, and that these people weren't anything
like the way I had been led to believe they were.
Experiences like that lead to skepticism (and bitterness as well).
I'm still a conservative and always will be -- I still believe in
most of the principles which most conservatives profess -- but I will also
always be wary of the arguments and factual claims of right-wing partisan
groups.
Steve
--
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
"Shut up he explained"
-- Ring Lardner, Jr.
John W. Tibbs
Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
> kkn...@citynet.NOSPAM.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
>
> <huge snip of Gail Thaler's list of conservative organizations which
> she characterizes as "weakening the people's right to representative
> democracy" and of Knopp's excellent responses to each>
>
> >What about People for the American Way. Who supports it. Is it a left
> >wing high-sounding "institute" or think tank? Why is it okay for leftists
> >to involve themselves in supporting organizations that work to make
> >political change but not conservatives? Why is there a double standard?
>
> You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
> organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
> These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
> every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
> position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
> position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
> really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
>
> For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
> recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
> explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
> philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
> its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
> representative democracy.
>
> Eleanor Rotthoff
Good post, Eleanor, but it is probably wasted on liberals to try to
reason with them. There are two types. The ones who know they are
wrong but have such a strong 'feeling' for their agenda or those who
haven't wised up to how unworkable socialism is. But keep trying
anyway. I enjoy your posts. Dr. Sowell is one of my favorites also.
jwt
John W. Tibbs
Jim Kennemur wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:54:05 GMT, jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 06:05:23 -0800, kenfran <ken...@concentric.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>You can have any opinion you want. You can express it if you want. (Even
> >>if it is ignorant, vacuous, and self-serving <g>) All we are saying is
> >>that we don't need a factory for producing opinions of the Proper sort
> >>being financed by a few individuals who seem to think that because they
> >>are rich they have the right to mold the opinions of everyone else.
> >
> >But they do have the right to attempt to change everyone's opinion,
> >just like you, right, Kenfran, no matter what their reasons are, or
> >are you going to come out against free speech too?
>
> lot about that.
>jim
Hey, Jim, ever know of a landlord that urinated in the hallways or put
his fist through the wall or put wine bottles and beer cans and
disposable
diapers in the furnace or broke the windows out? That's just a few of
the things the 'poor people' you love so much do to stay poor. Just
facts
of life, ole Buddy, even if you don't want to accept them.
jwt
Milt
On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
:
:> Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
:>
:>:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
:
:Preface: In this post, Milt notes that I snipped certain of his
:comments from a previous post and accuses me of attempting to "censor"
:him and "suppress the expression" of his ideas. Two points in
:response: First, as I have explained to Milt more than once, my ISP
:has instituted rigid rules about the amount of included text in a post
:which its server will accept. To characterize the necessary snippage
:which results from this as "censorship" is hyperbolic at best, and
:disingenuous at worst. Second, is there a moral imperative in usenet
:to respond to each and every point made a previous poster, no matter
:how irrelevant one deems the point to be? I think not. I have
:replied to Milt's each and every point in this case, but I shall not
:again invest the time and effort in dealing with straw men and issues
:which are quite beside the point under discussion.
Eleanor, you are the longest winded cry-baby I have ever seen. Okay-- cut
my posts-- but don't you ever try to paraphrase three full paragraphs in
one lame sentence again. These were not straw men, because the point you
were trying to make was that WE on the left, are always making gross
generaalizations about things, and that we're too closed-minded to accept
a POV which is different from our own. The whole point of what you called
"a rant", was to show you that there is a lot of that coming from your
compadres on the right. It was not irrelevant, and frankly, I don;t think
you can argue the point I was trying to make, as evidenced by your lame,
"point-by-point" critique in another post.
:>:<large snip of rant beginning with the elegant "What a crock of shit"
:>:and moving on to an assertion that conservatives never back up their
:>:statements with facts and cannot accept another point of view>
:
:After rereading the snipped material with infinite care, I still
:believe this to be an accurate synopsis. Milt may also be saying that
:the "conservative positions" he lists (some of which IMHO he grossly
:distorts) *cannot* be supported by facts but whether or not he is
:going that far is unclear to me.
I hate to break it to you, Eleanor, but those are NOT gross distortions.
In fact, I took every single one of them from e-mail that I have gotten.
They are very common, and repeated constantly by your conservative
brethren and sistren. As I said; up until that post, I had a lot more
respect for you than that, but I'm losing it for you. The points I listed
are actual statements (mantras) repeated by the right so often, we all
know them by heart. And every single one of them is, to say the least,
flawed, and to say the most, total crap.
:>:No point in responding to this sort of thing.
:>It was not a rant. I was supplying points counter to your assertion that
:>liberals all seem to think they are the only ones who are correct about
:>anything, and that we all have closed minds...
:
:In point of fact, that was not what I said. I was deploring a mindset
:which holds that one's political opponents are not only wholly wrong
:on all the issues but are also *bad people* compared to the
:supporter's of one's own point of view. In response to Steve
:Casburn's courteous and intelligent post, I quickly agreed that there
:are conservatives who seem to hold that same mindset and that it is
:equally disturbing to me irrespective of the quarter from which it
:comes.
:
:Just a few examples of the mindset from the original thread from which
:you removed this, in order to be quite clear at the outset what we are
:talking about:
:
:1. "I happen to believe that the right wing IS lacking in compassion,
:and are greedy and don't care about the workers."
Well, while I won't agree on the first, about compassion, the other two
are hard to fight with the evidence. Greed IS a major motivating factor
among most leadership on the right, and they have NEVER had the workers'
needs on their minds, in any way shape or form. Please, some evidence of
the right's caring for the average worker...
:2. "You can have any opinion you want. You can express it if you
:want [but] we don't need a factory for producing opinions of the
:Proper sort being financed by a few individuals who seem to think that
:because they are rich they have the right to mold the opinions of the
:world." [I interpret this to mean that conservatives are free to
:express their opinions individually but not collectively. I'm sure
:the author will correct me if I am wrong.]
:
I think the point is, you do have a lot of cases (in fairness, it happens
on both sides) in which people with a lot of money feel that somehow they
have a moral imperative to socially engineer the world. A great example is
Arianna Huffington. I like her, and I don't fault her goals, but her means
to those ends are through a social engineering that is not going to
happen. It's funny that the same people who piss and moan about the
social engineering tendency of welfare, welcome it when it comes to making
abortion illegal, or requirng prayer in schools, etc. I also seem to
remember Ed Meese trying to save us from the moral scourge of Playboy, and
look at Bill Bennett, with his "Books of Virtue", as if he was some sort
of swami, or his idea of virtue were the only acceptable ones.
The right is still trying to "save the institution" of matrimony, by
forbidding gays from marrying. They're still trying to keep gays and women
out of the military and "military schools", and they are still
rationalizing the deprivation of gays' civil rights, based on the fact
that they are "not normal", as if someone has a definition of what that
is, exactly. All we on the left say is, leave them alone. As for your
freedom of speech, well, it works both ways. Just as you have the right to
say what you want, others have the right to tell you to shut up. BUT, when
they actually TRY to shut you up, I'll betcha lefties are by your side
more quickly than righties...
:3. "I think there *is* something sinister about" [conservative
:foundations, think tanks and the like expressing their point of view.]
:
That wasn't what was said, Eleanor. What was considered "sinister" was the
fact that someone from a biased POV, came up with a study that supported
their own particular bias. Such studies should be met with skepticism.
Studies of any kind must be taken mostly on trust, since there is little
checking to be done in most cases. So the less biased a source is, the
more credibility it has. As an attorney, you should know this...
:And then there is your own contribution:
:
:"The Heritage Foundation, studies by Liberty University" (whoever in
:the world they are) "etc., have no credibility because they're not
:honest."
:
Um, yeah. SO?
:>Where do you get off censoring my words, simply because you can't argue
:>them.
:
:As pointed out above, I did not attempt to censor your words. I
:frankly did not (and still do not) see the relevance of your assertion
:that conservative points of view are generally unsupported (or perhaps
:you are arguing unsupportable) to the mindset we were discussing.
You were attempting to portray the mindset as distinctly leftist. I was
pointing out that it is more prevalent on your side of the fence. Not that
it doesn't exist on our side. But if you were to survey the responses on
the net that were wholly unsupported conjecture, you would find that MOST
come from the right...
:Please reread the paragraph about the topic under discussion and the
:quotes illustrating the point in order to differentiate between 1) the
:conviction that one's political opponents are wholly wrong on the
:issues and 2) the conviction that one's political opponents are bad
:people who are "greedy", "selfish", "mean-spirited", "lacking in
:compassion", etc., etc. ad nauseum.
:
I'll be quite honest. There is a prevalence of selfishness, greediness,
and a TON of meanness coming from your side of the fence. In fact, every
time there's a tragedy of some sort, we all bet on which right wing wacko
is going to be the first to blame it on Clinton. Read some of Joh n
Parker's posts; Discipio's posts, where he is absolutely GIDDY about
getting rid of AA in CA, by using language he says is straight out of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Read Zarlenga sometime, and Soja's another one;
a guy who basically BRAGS about being a creep to his employees. Hell, look
at the leadership in Congress! The right wing leadership is CONSTANTLY
going after the poor. They demonize welfare mothers, and threaten to cut
them off. I don't see anyone cutting off ADM, or DuPont, and they get a
hel of a lot of welfare. Please, Eleanor, show us some examples of
compassionat right wingers. There are righties on here that think that
women who have abortions should be killed themselves, and that those who
kill doctors who perform abortions, are saints! You wanna see loads of
right wing compassion? Check out alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. Or better yet,
alt.feminism. You'll get loads of compassion there...
:>There's no point responding to them, because you cannot, Eleanor.
:>After I finish posting my answer to this, I'm going to repost my original
:>argument, which you are trying very hard to evade, for someone with such a
:>supposedly fine intellect. You really can't handle the truth, to quote
:>Jack Nicholson...
:
:If this is so important to you, I'll respond to it point by point
:under your repost, but I still consider it wholly tangential to the
:point under discussion.
:
:>:>:Absolutely. Criticize them to your heart's content. I just reserve
:>:>:my right to point out the fact that you seem to be attacking the
:>:>:expression of all points of view that oppose your own. It's a mindset
:>:>:which I find genuinely troubling.
:>:>:
:>:>How is that, Eleanor? What should we do? Attack points of view we agree
:>:>with? You know, Tony Blankley and I disagree on damn near everything, but
:>:>there's one thing we agree on; partisanship is a good thing. A lot more
:>:>gets done when we argue and fight, and force solutions, than when we sit
:>:>back and let things happen.
:>:
:>:I couldn't agree with you more about the importance of the conflict of
:>:ideas, but your argument misses the point I was making. It is one
:>:thing to attack *ideas* with which one disagrees -- a thoroughly
:>:wholesome process. It is quite something else to say that people
:>:should ignore all ideas which come from a source with a political
:>:philosophy different from one's one and to suggest that there is
:>:something faintly sinister about that source even *expressing* ideas.
:>
:>Of course, you don't attack the ideas you can't attack. No, instead, you
:>edit them out, and only keep the parts you can use to make me look bad.
:
:Milt, I submit to you that no usenet poster can "make" another "look
:bad". Only the poster himself/herself can, by his/her own words,
:accomplish that.
:
I disagree. If you make an argument, and I take it apart, that can work
too. Of course, your way works most often.
:>Above, you dismiss me by saying that your view was a crock of shit, but
:>you conveniently left out the two or three paragraphs that effectively
:>proved it was a crock of shit.
:
:Well, I don't agree with you that the 3 paragraphs in question
:"proved" anything at all. And they certainly didn't have anything to
:do with the topic under discussion. Nor do I know the meaning of the
:usage proving something is "a crock of shit". Is this meant to
:suggest that the ideas are wholly wrong? If so, it just doesn't
:pertain to the mindset I was discussing. Does it mean that the poster
:whose ideas are being described lacks character and virtue? If so, it
:does. OTOH if these 3 paragraphs strike you as so crucial, I will
:respond to them point by point under your repost.
:
Funny how a half dozen e-mails from different people all disagree with
you. I also posted the "rules of conservative correctness, and so far,
you've actually fulfilled three of the rules so far. But the paragraphs
weren't meant to engender a response point-bypoint. The whole point was to
show that the mindset is not unique to either side, and in fact, if you
could ever open your mind a little bit, you would see that it's more
prevalent on your side of the aisle. Of course we have our flamers, but
for the most part, if you look at the worst minds on the net; if you look
at the people with the most narrow minds on the net; if you look at the
people with the greediest, or the most insensitive POV on the net, they
almost all come from the right. And even in the public arena, can you even
come close to finding a left-leaning politician who is as mean as Dick
Armey or Trent Lott? Can you imagine a left-winger getting up on the floor
of the House, and calling the president a traitor? Can you imagine a
leftist Senator telling Ronald Reagan he'd better not set foot in a
certain place, because he may be shot? Open your eyes, Eleanor. I don't
think all right-leaning people are mean. But most of the meanness out
there does come from the right...
:>This is why we have such a hard time with
:>conservatives; with you guys, if something isn't all neat and pretty, and
:>"as it should be", you dismiss it, as if it doesn't matter. I never do
:>that. I may attack the idea, but i back up my attack. Here, you pull the
:>ultimate right wing startegy; eliminate the opposition, and pretend it
:>doesn't exist. Well, I wrote a lot more than you can simply dismiss with
:>an inaccurate paraphrase...
:
:How, precisely, was my paraphrase "inaccurate"?
:
:>:>It's not about suppression; it's about correcting
:>:>false information, and putting forth our point of view.
:>:
:>:Again, I'm not talking about debating the validity of ideas. I'm
:>:talking about a mindset which automatically rejects any idea coming
:>:from a source which holds a different point of view because one
:>:believes that only the people who share your philosophy are wise and
:>:virtuous.
:>:
:>It's called skepticism, and I practice it with everyone.
:
:"Skepticism: The philosophical doctrine that absolute knowledge is
:impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to
:acquire approximate or relative certainty". [Source: American
:Heritage Dictionary] I can't resist noting that for a skeptic you
:seem to express your own opinions with absolute certainty. <g>
:
See, Eleanor; that's another thing you guys do; you point to the one part
of something that makes your point, and ignore the other parts that don't
support your point. The other definition of skepticism (from Webster's)
is;
"an attitude of doubt or a disposition of incredulity either in general
or toward a particular object"
I express my opinions with some certainty, because I back them up with
facts. You, on the other hand, express your opinions with the same
certainty, even in the face of facts which make them moot. And your
use of the <g> to register some sort of smug sarcasm, does little to
increase your credibility, and simply makes you irritating, Eleanor.
:Moreover, however one defines the term, it deals with the validity of
:ideas. If you will reread the paragraph to which you were responding,
:I think you will find that it was quite explicitly *not* dealing with
:that issue.
Yes it does. It deals with people dismissing ideas, because of the source
of those ideas. That is EXACTLY what I mean. When a source, with an
agenda, presents "research" that supports said agenda, said source, has a
very large hurdle to pass over, as far as credibility is concerned...
:>Most rational
:>people are skeptics, Eleanor. And when someone shows me something that
:>supports a point of view that (s)he has held for a long time, that person
:>has a higher threshold of believability to scale than the person who's
:>saying smething that's opposite of what he has traditionally believed.
:>For example, if Ted Kennedy suddenly came out as anti-choice, and gave you
:>his reasons, he would have more credibility than Orrin Hatch saying the
:>same thing, simply because it's such a departure. By the same token, a gun
:>study by the NRA holds no more credibility than a gun study by an anti-gun
:>group, because BOTH have an agenda...
:>
:>:>You know, maybe, if some of your conservative brethren and sistren
:>:>would pick up a newspaper occasionally, and know what's going
:>:>on in the world, the attacks would be less severe.
:>:
:>:<sigh> Note the express assertion that conservatives are generally
:>:ill-informed. For my own part, I find no correlation between
:>:political ideology and degree of information. But then, what do I
:>:know? I don't even find a correlation between ideology and wisdom or
:>:ideology and virtue.
:>:
:>Note the express disinterest of the word, "some". I didn't say all,
:>Eleanor, or even most.
:
:I do apologize for not taking your use of the word "some" into
:account.
:
:>But if you read the right wingers on these groups,
:>the vast majority seem to have no more than an intrinsic knowledge of
:>anything.
:
:Note that in the span of one sentence, Milt has moved from "some" to
:"the vast majority".
Note that Eleanor has ignored the fact that in the first sentence, i was
talking about the set "all conservatives", while in the second set, I was
talking about the subset, "those on the net."
:>They believe X simply because they've been told X. You, and Al
:>Redemfi, and choice few others are (were, at least, until today) at least
:>somewhat thoughtful,
:
:Thank you (I think) <g>
:
:>and could produce some backup to your feelings.
:
:At the risk of quibbling, I try to base my posts on facts and
:thoughts, not feelings. Too many people in usenet IMHO seem to spew
:forth their feelings at great length apparently on the (to me,
:incomprehensible) assumption that feelings are an adequate substitute
:for facts and logic.
:
:>Debate is possible with you guys. But then you have odell, Mr Spam,
:>Discipio, et al, as well as some new people, who just say shit, and
:>believe it, without any reason. Look at the treatment Steve Kangas got a
:>few weeks ago.
:
:I have no familiarity with the incident you describe, and therefore
:cannot comment on it.
:
:<snip of further discussion of the Kangas incident>
:
:<snip of rest of post in the hope that I *might* be able to get this
:through my ISP. Discussion to be continued in a second post>
:
:Eleanor Rotthoff
:
You need a new ISP. Could I suggest a few?
Eleanor Rotthoff
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
>:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>:
>:>On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>:
<snip of large portion of the "discussion" covered in the previous
post. The beat goes on. <g> Is everyone else as bored with this as
I am?>
>:Why do you define a think tank as an organization which "concocts an
>:agenda, and then tries to find statistics to fulfill their vision"?
>
>Look at their funding. These are rarely funded by people who simply want
>to know "the facts".
Are you persuaded that it is even possible to generate and present
research data in an atmosphere which is totally value free? I am not
so persuaded. You seem to return again and again to the issue of
funding. What is it that bothers you about the source of funding?
That people who disagree with you contribute to conservative
organizations? That's no surprise, is it? That they are apparently
willing to contribute generously? Why is that a problem? Is it again
the notion (as in McCain-Feingold) that speech which relies on money
for its dissemination is somehow evil?
>Usually, they want to know which facts support their
>view, and which ones they can ignore, that don't fit their agenda...
If that is true, isn't it even more important for people to read and
digest a diversity of viewpoints in order to achieve some sort of
sensible synthesis?
>:I
>:gather from your comments later on that you are of the opinion that
>:conservative think tanks do this, but would you levy the same charge
>:against comparable liberal organizations, e.g. The Progressive Policy
>:Institute?
No answer, Milt?
>If so, who do you pay attention to who is entirely neutral
>:and has no "agenda" (for which read belief system) whatsoever?
>:
>Mostly research institutions are pretty reliable.
Well, since think tanks generally *are* research institutions, I'm a
bit confused at this point. OTOH if you suggesting that research
produced in the groves of academia is more reliable than that produced
by think tanks, I simply can't agree. First, scholars regularly cycle
between employment at one and employment at another. Are you
suggesting that they shed their integrity at the door? Second, just
ask the professor at Penn State (whose name unfortunately eludes me at
the moment) about the penalty which can be imposed on a university
academic who dares to publish a paper expressing the "wrong" point of
view. His colleagues not only pelted him with hate male, they
actually went so far as to try to ostracize him.
>Those who do research
>that is funded by a gov't, whether state or federal,
Surely you jest.
>usually don't have
>the same pressures as those funded by an organization with an agenda.
Are you asserting that the author of a study of welfare reform
generated in the last 2 years and funded by HHS would have felt
perfectly comfortable letting the chips fall where they may? I don't
think so.
>How
>many scientists or researchers, whose living is based on making their
>benefactors happy, are going to present information detrimental to their
>benefactor? It's gonna be pretty rare.
Again, to me this is an excellent argument for reading widely and with
an open mind.
>:>Unfortunately for the right wing, the right wing think tamks are
>:>much better funded than the left wing think tanks, and are better able to
>:>afford better PR.
>:
>:Do you have any evidence to support that assertion, or are you just
>:throwing it out to us? I was not under the impression that PPI,
>:Brookings and the like were in a state of starvation.
>:
>Oh, come now. They are not heavily funded, and they are not funded by a
>couple of primary donors. But yes, I look at info from those people with
>skepticism, as well, because I don't want to be blown out of the water
>when I argue with nfo that is tainted. I get into this all of the time
>with environmentalists. I believe very strongly in the environmental
>movement, but there is a tendency to turn it into a doomsday scenario,
>which does no one any good.
<snip of examples proving the previous assertion with while I
wholeheartedly agree. No need to prove the point to me.>
>When the Heritage Foundation says anything that toes the conservative
>line, I'm skeptical, because of their funding. That doesn't mean I won't
>believe it; just that their level of proof had better be good.
Well, this is certainly a vast improvement over your original
statement (below) that their studies "have no credibility because
they're not honest". When one attacks the academic integrity of an
entire, large group of scholars (whose work has BTW been praised by
Sen. Pat Moynihan who certainly doesn't agree with their philosophy),
one exhibits the mindset I deplored. After all, dishonest people are
generally regarded as morally inferior to the rest of us, aren't they?
BTW if your skepticism is based on "funding", then you have to be
equally skeptical of everything published, don't you? After all,
everything is funded by *someone*, and each of those someones has
beliefs and opinions. Do you subject the work product of Brookings,
PPI and the like to the same intense skepticism?
>:>The Heritage Foundation, studies by Liberty University, etc., have no credibility,
>:>because they're not honest, and they're propogated by people with a clear
>:>agenda. Any rational person who disagrees with the findings would HAVE to
>:>attack it...
>:
>:There is a major difference between "disagreeing with the findings"
>:and asserting that scholarship from a certain source "has no
>:credibility because they're not honest". To assert that only one side
>:of the political spectrum is honest or credible reflects exactly the
>:mindset I deplore.
>:
>And characterizing people you disagree with as having a mindset that they
>don't have is just the tunnel-vision I deplore. I have never asserted that
>"only one side...is honest or credible."
Okay, let's let the rubber meet the road. Would you also argue that
the scholars at Brookings, PPI and the like (collectively) are also
"not honest"?
>Therefore, you are trying to
>create something that isn't there. That's why you edit posts that say
>things you can't debate. You're an intellectual coward, Eleanor. I'll
>betcha, if we dig through Dejanews, we can find more agreements between
>myself and conservatives, than between you and liberals. YOU are much more
>dogmatic than I have ever been. Hell, if I even mention that Newt is less
>than divine, you jump down my throat. Seems to me, maybe you're
>projecting?
Unrealistic hyperbole does not advance your argument, nor do personal
attacks on me. BTW since you said previously that you do not launch
personal attacks on people who have not attacked you first, and that
when you do, you apologize, when am I going to be the recipient of
your apology? I do not believe that I have attacked you in any way.
>:> You CAN'T evaluate anything, without knowing something of the source.
>:>It's not possible.
>:
>:The source might shed some light on the point of view, but that is a
>:far cry from suggesting that everything coming from a source which
>:espouses a political philosophy different from your own is "not
>:credible because they're not honest".
>:
>Notice how she fuses two ideas; one I didn't say, and one I did, into one
>thing, in an attempt to make me look dogmatic. I did say that a few
>sources were "not credible because they're dishonest", but I never said
>that it was because they differed from me politically, did I?
Well, of course you didn't make an explicit cause and effect linkage.
And I very much doubt that you were even aware of your mindset until
this discussion came up. But the fact is that you tarred all the
scholars who labor in a major, respected conservative think tank as
"dishonest". Perhaps it is mere coincidence that the organization in
question does not share your point of view. Would you be more
charitable toward the Progress and Freedom Foundation?
>In fact, you
>conveniently cut out my Black Panther example, did you not?
I cut out a lot of irrelevant stuff, and the more I labor to respond
to all of this stuff, the more I wish I had snipped far more
extensively. Would you *please* try to stay on topic?
> have never
>said that all people or groups with whom I disagree are liars. In fact,
>that's another one of those famous right wing assertions. Anything they
>don't believe is a LIE! Mary Knadler is famous for that one.
>
>:>:My comments were addressed
>:>:to the entire thrust of the article which (as you acknowledge) implied
>:>:that there is something sinister about conservatives providing funding
>:>:to policy organizations which generally represent their point of view.
>:>:
>:>Sinister? No. But if they want credibility, it's going to be hard to come
>:>by.
<snip of rather snotty comment by me which is unnecessary. Readers
can draw their own conclusions>
>It must be nice to have all of your world simplified into "A" and "B"
>piles, Eleanor, and it must be interesting to live in a world where you
>can make up whatever you want abot someone, and pretend it's true. Show me
>where I have ever asserted that the above scenario applies only to
>conservative groups. There are a few liberal groups I have a problem with,
>as well, such as Earth First and Act Up! If they presented a study that
>they funded, I would be skeptical of the findings there, as well.
Well, such groups are hardly equivalent in stature to Heritage, are
they? If you are prepared to assert that the scholars at Brookings
and/or PPI are also dishonest, then your assertion that your
assessment of Heritage has nothing whatsoever to do with its point of
view might be more credible.
<snip of another snotty comment by me. The fact that it is really
tiring to labor through all this stuff does not excuse my own
rudeness>
>Seems to me, YOU are the one doing that here. First, you cut about 3
>paragraphs of my post where I show you why you're full of shit,
Does this last phrase merely mean that I am totally wrong on all
issues or does it rise to the level of an assertion that I am lacking
in character and virtue? The meaning of this particular usage is not
clear to me. Lest I be misunderstood, let me be quite explicit. The
usage does not offend me in the slightest. I merely find it
imprecise.
>and
>dismiss it, as though it was nothing. Then you attribute qualities to me,
>based on your prejudice against my leftist leanings.
On the contrary. I have no prejudice whatsoever against liberals as
human beings. I deeply believe that they are by and large good,
decent, honorable, caring people with whom I often profoundly disagree
on political issues.
>It would probably
>surprise you to find out that I consider myself pretty moderate.
Not in the slightest. Everyone defines himself/herself as a moderate,
and the defines the rest of the political spectrum from there.
<snip of very small bit of stuff (relative speaking) in which Milt
says he is a fiscal conservative and launches yet another attack on
Newt Gingrich>
Eleanor Rotthoff
Eleanor Rotthoff
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
> (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>>Thank you for making my point for me very clearly and succinctly. If
>>you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
>>Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
>>view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
>>expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
>>above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
>>to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
>>liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
>>give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
>>from the far right."
>
>Ah. Sarcasm doesn't carry well in this medium.
You don't understand, Zepp. It wasn't sarcasm at all. I was
genuinely thanking you because your post so clearly illustrated the
mindset I was talking about.
>You pay scant attention to liberal points of view, being entirely a
>creature of the GOP.
Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion of me. I leave it to
other usenet readers to reach their own conclusions as to which of us
has the more open mind.
>None of which has anything to do with your specious claim that only
>some points of view are "allowed" in this forum.
Are you confused or trying (rather clumsily IMHO) to muddy the waters.
I did not say, in the post to which you are responding or in any other
post I have ever written, that the expression of views on the internet
is censored. (I certainly hope it never will be.) What I *said* is
that there are some who would like to attack or eliminate the freedom
of expression of conservative groups in public life -- having nothing
whatever to do with the net. The responses (including yours)
to my post amplify demonstrate the truth of my assertion.
>Are you trying to claim that you are a victim?
Good heavens, no. I have no patience with the politics of
victimization, and I try very hard not to whine. There are so many
people in our society who do so that I figure they've used up my whine
quota as well as their own. <g>
>In case you haven't noticed, this is a debate forum. The one that I
>post in reads, "alt.society.liberalism", and not "no.eleanors.please".
>Do you deny that you attack points of view that differ from your own?
>For example, mine.
Again, you set up a strawman. There is all the difference in the
world between attacking "points of view" (IMHO a very healthy process)
on the one hand, and 1) asserting that groups representing a
particular point of view should not be heard in public life or 2)
asserting in a very blanket way that one should not attach credibility
to anything they say "because they're not honest".
<snip of more of strawman about the conflict of *ideas* which was not
the subject of my post at all>
> BTW, are you planning to go after Parkie or Knopp for the same
>offense, or is this limited to me and others who agree with me?
I have made it abundantly clear that I deplore this mindset regardless
of its source. OTOH I cannot think offhand of any post from either of
these gentlemen which has ever said, in a blanket way, that everything
the Progressive Policy Institute, Brookings or the like say should be
disregarded because of its political orientation -- that its scholars
"lack credibility because they aren't honest". Can you find such a
post?
<large snip>
>Some people spend BILLIONS trying to persuade people to adopt a
>philosophy and a course of action that will prove, in my view,
>massively destructive to the lower and middle class of this country,
>and their freedoms and rights. It is a gigantic PR campaign, designed
>to benefit a tiny minority of very rick and their lickspittles.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, although I note again the
extent to which it reflects the deplorable mindset that your side is
not only correct from a policy perspective but morally superior to the
other side in every way. But even if you were 100% correct in your
assessment, the First Amendment says that they are allowed to speak.
My heavens, we protect the free speech rights of the KKK, the
neo-Nazis, communists, skinheads, etc., etc., and you want to silence
the Heritage Foundation????? Get a grip, Zepp.
>That is at the core of discussions such as the one you are trying to
>interrupt here with your piteous whines of persecution.
Bag it! I didn't whine. I didn't raise the issue of persecution.
And I'm not going to let you get away with trying to run away from the
subject after you have already hanged yourself.
>Can you get
>back to the subject at hand, or are you playing the role of the
>spoiled three year old who shrieks until she gets her way?
*I* should get back to the subject? Oooooookay. But then, when
defeated in argument, you always resort to ad hominem, don't you?
<snip>
Eleanor Rotthoff
Eleanor Rotthoff
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>
>:Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>:
>:>Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
Preface: In this post, Milt notes that I snipped certain of his
comments from a previous post and accuses me of attempting to "censor"
him and "suppress the expression" of his ideas. Two points in
response: First, as I have explained to Milt more than once, my ISP
has instituted rigid rules about the amount of included text in a post
which its server will accept. To characterize the necessary snippage
which results from this as "censorship" is hyperbolic at best, and
disingenuous at worst. Second, is there a moral imperative in usenet
to respond to each and every point made a previous poster, no matter
how irrelevant one deems the point to be? I think not. I have
replied to Milt's each and every point in this case, but I shall not
again invest the time and effort in dealing with straw men and issues
which are quite beside the point under discussion.
>:
>:<large snip of rant beginning with the elegant "What a crock of shit"
>:and moving on to an assertion that conservatives never back up their
>:statements with facts and cannot accept another point of view>
After rereading the snipped material with infinite care, I still
believe this to be an accurate synopsis. Milt may also be saying that
the "conservative positions" he lists (some of which IMHO he grossly
distorts) *cannot* be supported by facts but whether or not he is
going that far is unclear to me.
>:No point in responding to this sort of thing.
>It was not a rant. I was supplying points counter to your assertion that
>liberals all seem to think they are the only ones who are correct about
>anything, and that we all have closed minds...
In point of fact, that was not what I said. I was deploring a mindset
which holds that one's political opponents are not only wholly wrong
on all the issues but are also *bad people* compared to the
supporter's of one's own point of view. In response to Steve
Casburn's courteous and intelligent post, I quickly agreed that there
are conservatives who seem to hold that same mindset and that it is
equally disturbing to me irrespective of the quarter from which it
comes.
Just a few examples of the mindset from the original thread from which
you removed this, in order to be quite clear at the outset what we are
talking about:
1. "I happen to believe that the right wing IS lacking in compassion,
and are greedy and don't care about the workers."
2. "You can have any opinion you want. You can express it if you
want [but] we don't need a factory for producing opinions of the
Proper sort being financed by a few individuals who seem to think that
because they are rich they have the right to mold the opinions of the
world." [I interpret this to mean that conservatives are free to
express their opinions individually but not collectively. I'm sure
the author will correct me if I am wrong.]
3. "I think there *is* something sinister about" [conservative
foundations, think tanks and the like expressing their point of view.]
And then there is your own contribution:
"The Heritage Foundation, studies by Liberty University" (whoever in
the world they are) "etc., have no credibility because they're not
honest."
>Where do you get off censoring my words, simply because you can't argue
>them.
As pointed out above, I did not attempt to censor your words. I
frankly did not (and still do not) see the relevance of your assertion
that conservative points of view are generally unsupported (or perhaps
you are arguing unsupportable) to the mindset we were discussing.
Please reread the paragraph about the topic under discussion and the
quotes illustrating the point in order to differentiate between 1) the
conviction that one's political opponents are wholly wrong on the
issues and 2) the conviction that one's political opponents are bad
people who are "greedy", "selfish", "mean-spirited", "lacking in
compassion", etc., etc. ad nauseum.
>There's no point responding to them, because you cannot, Eleanor.
>After I finish posting my answer to this, I'm going to repost my original
>argument, which you are trying very hard to evade, for someone with such a
>supposedly fine intellect. You really can't handle the truth, to quote
>Jack Nicholson...
If this is so important to you, I'll respond to it point by point
under your repost, but I still consider it wholly tangential to the
point under discussion.
>:>:Absolutely. Criticize them to your heart's content. I just reserve
>:>:my right to point out the fact that you seem to be attacking the
>:>:expression of all points of view that oppose your own. It's a mindset
>:>:which I find genuinely troubling.
>:>:
>:>How is that, Eleanor? What should we do? Attack points of view we agree
>:>with? You know, Tony Blankley and I disagree on damn near everything, but
>:>there's one thing we agree on; partisanship is a good thing. A lot more
>:>gets done when we argue and fight, and force solutions, than when we sit
>:>back and let things happen.
>:
>:I couldn't agree with you more about the importance of the conflict of
>:ideas, but your argument misses the point I was making. It is one
>:thing to attack *ideas* with which one disagrees -- a thoroughly
>:wholesome process. It is quite something else to say that people
>:should ignore all ideas which come from a source with a political
>:philosophy different from one's one and to suggest that there is
>:something faintly sinister about that source even *expressing* ideas.
>
>Of course, you don't attack the ideas you can't attack. No, instead, you
>edit them out, and only keep the parts you can use to make me look bad.
Milt, I submit to you that no usenet poster can "make" another "look
bad". Only the poster himself/herself can, by his/her own words,
accomplish that.
>Above, you dismiss me by saying that your view was a crock of shit, but
>you conveniently left out the two or three paragraphs that effectively
>proved it was a crock of shit.
Well, I don't agree with you that the 3 paragraphs in question
"proved" anything at all. And they certainly didn't have anything to
do with the topic under discussion. Nor do I know the meaning of the
usage proving something is "a crock of shit". Is this meant to
suggest that the ideas are wholly wrong? If so, it just doesn't
pertain to the mindset I was discussing. Does it mean that the poster
whose ideas are being described lacks character and virtue? If so, it
does. OTOH if these 3 paragraphs strike you as so crucial, I will
respond to them point by point under your repost.
>This is why we have such a hard time with
>conservatives; with you guys, if something isn't all neat and pretty, and
>"as it should be", you dismiss it, as if it doesn't matter. I never do
>that. I may attack the idea, but i back up my attack. Here, you pull the
>ultimate right wing startegy; eliminate the opposition, and pretend it
>doesn't exist. Well, I wrote a lot more than you can simply dismiss with
>an inaccurate paraphrase...
How, precisely, was my paraphrase "inaccurate"?
>:>It's not about suppression; it's about correcting
>:>false information, and putting forth our point of view.
>:
>:Again, I'm not talking about debating the validity of ideas. I'm
>:talking about a mindset which automatically rejects any idea coming
>:from a source which holds a different point of view because one
>:believes that only the people who share your philosophy are wise and
>:virtuous.
>:
>It's called skepticism, and I practice it with everyone.
"Skepticism: The philosophical doctrine that absolute knowledge is
impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to
acquire approximate or relative certainty". [Source: American
Heritage Dictionary] I can't resist noting that for a skeptic you
seem to express your own opinions with absolute certainty. <g>
Moreover, however one defines the term, it deals with the validity of
ideas. If you will reread the paragraph to which you were responding,
I think you will find that it was quite explicitly *not* dealing with
that issue.
>Most rational
>people are skeptics, Eleanor. And when someone shows me something that
>supports a point of view that (s)he has held for a long time, that person
>has a higher threshold of believability to scale than the person who's
>saying smething that's opposite of what he has traditionally believed.
>For example, if Ted Kennedy suddenly came out as anti-choice, and gave you
>his reasons, he would have more credibility than Orrin Hatch saying the
>same thing, simply because it's such a departure. By the same token, a gun
>study by the NRA holds no more credibility than a gun study by an anti-gun
>group, because BOTH have an agenda...
>
>:>You know, maybe, if some of your conservative brethren and sistren
>:>would pick up a newspaper occasionally, and know what's going
>:>on in the world, the attacks would be less severe.
>:
>:<sigh> Note the express assertion that conservatives are generally
>:ill-informed. For my own part, I find no correlation between
>:political ideology and degree of information. But then, what do I
>:know? I don't even find a correlation between ideology and wisdom or
>:ideology and virtue.
>:
>Note the express disinterest of the word, "some". I didn't say all,
>Eleanor, or even most.
I do apologize for not taking your use of the word "some" into
account.
>But if you read the right wingers on these groups,
>the vast majority seem to have no more than an intrinsic knowledge of
>anything.
Note that in the span of one sentence, Milt has moved from "some" to
"the vast majority".
>They believe X simply because they've been told X. You, and Al
>Redemfi, and choice few others are (were, at least, until today) at least
>somewhat thoughtful,
Thank you (I think) <g>
>and could produce some backup to your feelings.
At the risk of quibbling, I try to base my posts on facts and
thoughts, not feelings. Too many people in usenet IMHO seem to spew
forth their feelings at great length apparently on the (to me,
incomprehensible) assumption that feelings are an adequate substitute
for facts and logic.
>Debate is possible with you guys. But then you have odell, Mr Spam,
>Discipio, et al, as well as some new people, who just say shit, and
>believe it, without any reason. Look at the treatment Steve Kangas got a
>few weeks ago.
I have no familiarity with the incident you describe, and therefore
John Parker
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:28:25 GMT, volt...@worldnet.att.net (Jim
Kennemur) wrote:
>
>How about people who come out against poor people, Parker? You know a
>lot about that.
Indeed, my dimwitted friend, I wage a tireless campaign to heap
tragedy and misfortune on the poor ragged misfortunates of this world.
Actually, I rather like poor people, having been one myself, it's just
you pathetic old hippies and brain dead liberals who work so
diligently to keep people poor that I "come out against."
Eleanor Rotthoff
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Milt wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>:
>::> Zepp wrote:
>
>::>Well, that's good. That's very good. But you'll excuse us if we
>::>don't feel obliged to give the same consideration to a billion dollar
>::>propaganda machine from the far right.
>::
>::Thank you for making my point for me very clearly and succinctly. If
>::you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
>::Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
>::view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
>::expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
>::above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
>::to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
>::liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
>::give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
>::from the far right."
>
>(Here is what Eleanor chose to cut from her response. Obviously, she finds
>the need to dismiss it, because there is no way to defend it or excuse
>it.
No, in point of fact I snipped it because I failed (and still fail) to
see what in the world it has to do with the subject under discussion
which is fairly well summarized in the preceding paragraph. Please
note that the mindset to which I was referring includes not only the
conviction that the other side is wrong but also a conviction that
they are morally inferior, e.g. "selfish", "greedy", "mean-spirited",
etc., etc. ad nauseum. In what way is it responsive to that idea to
say, as you do, in essence, "Conservatives don't support their points
of view with facts" and perhaps "Conservative points of view are
unsupportable"?
>Note that I not only say, "What a crock of shit, but I go on for
>several paragraphs, all of which are cut from the Eleanor response, to
>explain WHY it's a crock of shit.)
I repeat: What does this usage mean? Is it merely meant to disparage
my ideas and statements or is it means to suggest also a lack of
character and virtue, which would at least relate to the topic?
>:What a crock of shit!
>:You wanna talk rhetoric? The political right is full of their own special
>:mantras, that have no meaning, and which cannot be argued. While I will
>:agree that some on the far left are just as bad, here are some snippets
>:from conservatives that no fact or figure can ever argue.
Since you have such pride of authorship in these three paragraphs,
Milt, let's take the points briefly one by one although each could
clearly constitute (and has frequently constituted) a thread of its
own.
>:1) Taxes went down and revenues went up under Reagan.
I do not engage in that particular debate. We have had long threads,
consisting of many, many posts, in which each side hauls out its own
statistics to support its own point of view. IMHO this is an exercise
in futility -- an effort to allocate blame for today's huge debt
between the Reagan Administration and the Democrat-controlled
congresses of the period. Who cares? I'm not into blaming people.
If we were to succeed in allocating blame with laser-like precision,
we would not have reduced the debt by one cent. I much prefer to
focus on where we need to go from here.
For that reason, I believe that my only contribution to any of these
debates has been to point out that the old high-coupon Treasuries
issued during the 70's did not go away once inflation was under
control. (Treasuries are not callable, and some of those old bonds
are still out there today). The fact that the federal government had
to continue to pay interest on those bonds at the high interest rates
of the 70's for decades thereafter IMHO contributed mightily to the
accumulation of the national debt -- a fact which no one seems to care
about because you can't blame anyone for it.
>:2) Abortion is murder.
One's position on this issue is a product of one's own moral values
and is, therefore, inherently not susceptible to factual analysis --
which is only one of many reasons I never debate the issue of
abortion, on the net or off.
>:3) The minimum wage is bad for the economy, because it hurts those it's
>:supposed to help.
Again, I regard the issue as largely irrelevant. It may be
fascinating to others, but to me we raised the minimum wage last year.
That, good or bad, is a fait accompli. Let's move on.
>:4) The average tax burden is over 50%.
Actually, I have not heard that number asserted. In order to have an
intelligent discussion of the subject, one would have to clarify: 1)
what are the "taxes" being discussed (presumably, in this case, the
total federal, state and local tax burden), 2) what portion of the
population are we talking about, and 3) measured as a percentage of
what? These simplistic statements don't get us anywhere.
>:5) Bill Clinton is guilty of thousands of crimes and misdemeanors.
You have not heard, nor will you ever hear, make a statement even
remotely akin to this bit of hyperbole. Nor will you hear me assert
that everyone in the Clinton Administration is the innocent victim of
a "partisan witch hunt". My position is that the investigations
should continue in a thoroughly professional manner, and let the chips
fall where they may.
>:6) The US health care system is the best in the world.
Well, this is inherently an opinion rather than an assertion of fact,
susceptible of proof, isn't it? If one wants to treat it as a factual
assertion, then one would have to be much more nuanced. "Best" by
what standard? What are the criteria to be used?
I note parenthetically, however, that my recent statements in another
thread that medical savings account plans include the purchase of
catastrophic health care insurance *is* a fact although it seems to
come as a surprise to many of those who attack MSA's.
>:7) Affirmative action laws hurt blacks.
I would never (I hope) be guilty of making the simplistic statement
that, "AA laws hurt blacks" OR "AA laws help blacks". The truth is
*far* more nuanced than that. While it is true that to some extent
one must necessarily deal in generalizations, the simplistic
statements you have posted take generalization too far IMHO.
>:8) The media (always a monolithic structure) is liberal.
Now here is one issue which I *have* discussed, but your statement is
a gross distortion of my position. The notion that "the media"
(collectively) is monolithic is simply laughable. How monolithic are
the American Spectator and Mother Jones? Ted Turner and Rush
Limbaugh? One could go on and on.
What I have said (and proved) is that there are surveys done by very
reputable survey research firms which indicate the *members of the
Washington-based national media* self-identify as liberals, Democrats,
and Clinton supporters in numbers which are grossly disproportionate
to the percentage of the American people who self-identify in the same
ways. Thus a particular political philosophy is disproportionately
represented among them. One can argue over whether these basic
political attitudes affect their reporting. Given your comments about
distrusting information from sources with "an agenda", i.e. a defined
point of view, I would think you would be more inclined to believe
that such an effect is likely than unlikely. But, based on our past
exchanges on the subject, I believe that you refuse to believe that
such an effect exists. I find that inconsistent.
>:9) Newt Gingrich is the most honest politician in the world. (I believe
>:that YOU are the one most fond of that one...)
Congratulations! This is the most blatant distortion of all. You can
search DejaNews until you are blue in the face, and you will not find
me making a statement even remotely close to this one. I have merely
insisted that the Newtophobes on the net stay somewhere within
shouting distance of the facts about the man. Why does it distress
you so much to see anyone defend him, even in a calm, rational manner?
Why is it apparently so important to you to believe that Newt Gingrich
is not merely misguided or stupid but an evil, vicious, dangerous man?
Why is it so important to you to incessantly try to convince others of
the truth of your opinion on this point?
And now that I have addressed your magic 9 points, I'm out of here.
One parting question: Now that I have spent all this time and effort
indulging you in a point-by-point reply, what did any of this stuff
have to do with the topic under discussion which, to refresh your
memory, was:
>::If
>::you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
>::Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
>::view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
>::expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
>::above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
>::to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
>::liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
>::give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
>::from the far right."
Is it your assertion that conservative opinions are just too stupid to
require that anyone pay attention to them? I note that you couch them
all in the most simplistic terms possible. Straw man, anyone? If
that is in fact your point, that's still quite far off the topic of
the mindset I deplored.
BTW if you anticipate following up each of these major, major issues,
you will need to find yourself a new opponent. I have neither the
time nor the energy nor the inclination to try to debate them all
simultaneously.
Eleanor Rotthoff
John W. Tibbs
Jim Kennemur wrote:
> >In fact, there are oodles of double standards fostered by the left. The
> >list is too long ....
>
> Translation: I can't think of a one so I better use a cliche to cover
> up.
>
> >> You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
> >> organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
> >> These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
> >> every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
> >> position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
> >> position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
> >> really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?
>
> >Precisely. And there is a companion mindset with many libs, which
> >goes something like "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee."
> >
> >> For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
> >> recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
> >> explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
> >> philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
> >> its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
> >> representative democracy.
> >Too many liberals think only in terms of black and white (sometimes
> >literally), instead of the more realistic countless shades of grey
> >in between. You are either good or evil.
>
> Bullshit. You conservatives with your Holy Books are in the
> Heaven/Hell, good/evil, right/wrong business, not us. Absolutism is a
> conservative trait.
>
>
> Jim
Below are the Kennemur/Kenfran/Rack Jite/Zepp/Shawn S. attempts to
portray
others (me especially) as bigots. At the same time they delete and omit
the
fact their articles are titled 'JESUS OF WACO' and other very
predjudiced
postings. What they delete and omit says more about them than any posts
of
mine can say about me. Judge for yourself.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
>
> >Rack Jite conservatively incorrect reply:
> >
> >You Christian Identity Johnny? Figures...
>
> I'm proud of it, Rack.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
By now everyone reading this thread knows my 'Identity with Christ' has
nothing to do with any so-called 'hate' group. Being a Christian is my
identity with my religion. Your lies are not working anymore. I'll
continue to expose you as long as you keep your hatefulness going.
jwt
Eleanor Rotthoff
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
<massive snippage to address only one point>
>These were not straw men, because the point you
>were trying to make was that WE on the left, are always making gross
>generaalizations about things, and that we're too closed-minded to accept
>a POV which is different from our own.
If you will check the original thread you will find that I set forth
"the point I was trying to make" in the following exact words:
"You don't understand. <g> To liberals, it's okay for leftist
organizations to work for political change because they're *right*.
These people seem to genuinely believe that there are not two sides to
every issue, indeed not two sides to *any* issue. There is their
position (which is "the truth"), and there is the conservative
position (which is "dangerous to representative democracy"). It's
really a rather frightening mindset, isn't it?"
[Note: In response to a subsequent post from Steve Casburn, I
acknowledged that my semi-jocular remarks painted with too broad a
brush and that the mindset that one possesses both ultimate truth and
moral superiority to one's political opponents can be found on both
sides of the political spectrum. I continue to believe that it is
much more broadly true of the left than the right, as witness the
cascade of adjectives, "greedy", "selfish", "mean-spirited",
"uncaring", "lacking in compassion" which are hurled at conservatives
-- all of which connote the opinion that conservatives are morally
inferior.
"For anyone who wants to explore that mindset in more depth, I highly
recommend Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, which
explores the issue of whether it is not in fact *any* political
philosophy which regards itself as ultimately good and virtuous and
its opponents as ultimately bad and evil which is truly dangerous to
representative democracy."
Moreover, the paragraph to which you responded when you jumped into
the debate reads precisely as follows:
::Thank you for making my point for me very clearly and succinctly. If
::you will recall, before you jumped into the fray I was pointing out to
::Knopp that modern liberals seem to believe that only their point of
::view is legitimate and only their point of view should be allowed
::expression because it alone is correct and virtuous. Your statement
::above provides an excellent illustration of that mindset. According
::to you, it is commendable that I read and attend to the work of
::liberal think tanks and organizations, but you "don't feel obliged to
::give the same consideration to a billion dollar propaganda machine
::from the far right."
Please point out to me where I accused liberals of "always making
gross generalizations about things". You won't find it there or
anywhere else because while I firmly believe that too many of us are
guilty of overgeneralization, I find absolutely no correlation between
one's tendency to do that and one's political philosophy. And I have
made clear repeatedly that I am *far* less troubled by a closed mind
than by the assumption of moral superiority.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Zepp
>On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 06:05:23 -0800, kenfran <ken...@concentric.net>
>wrote:
>
>>You can have any opinion you want. You can express it if you want. (Even
>>if it is ignorant, vacuous, and self-serving <g>) All we are saying is
>>that we don't need a factory for producing opinions of the Proper sort
>>being financed by a few individuals who seem to think that because they
>>are rich they have the right to mold the opinions of everyone else.
>
>But they do have the right to attempt to change everyone's opinion,
>just like you, right, Kenfran, no matter what their reasons are, or
>are you going to come out against free speech too?
Thurston, show me one post where anyone has suggested that these
outfits should be shut up. Just one. You won't find any. We simply
say--"Put 'em in the light, so everyone knows where the money is
coming from for these outfits, and why so much is being spent."
But of course, that's as bad as shutting them up, isn't it? The only
difference is that the way we do it doesn't violate anyone's
Consitutional rights.
>
>To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
>not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
>confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
>
>-John Parker
What do you know about logic?