NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/californ/2052

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 6.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!gdt!mascdb
From: [e-mail] (C D Burdorf)
Newsgroups: alt.california
Subject: Re: relocation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:39:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK
Lines: 158

In the referenced article, [e-mail] (Don Steiny) writes:
>[e-mail] (C D Burdorf) writes:
>
>>In the referenced article, [e-mail] (Don Steiny) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (C D Burdorf) writes:
>
>>Well, pusuing policies that have dumped thousands of people
>>out of work (as Bush has done) isn't exactly humanitarian, is it?
>
>    Which policies are those?   There are more people of working
>age per 100 people working now than ever before in history.  The only
>policy I know of that is throwing people out of work is reducing the
>defense budget.

They may be working, but it's just flipping burgers.  The high
interest rates that Reagen imposed did a lot of damage to our
industrial base.  Also, open trade policies allowed Japanese
companies to dump products at below cost on the US market and
drive the US competitors out of business.  Then they raise
prices once they've got control of the market.  This has killed
the memory chip industry, badly hurt the auto industry, and destroyed
the steel industry.

>>The Willie Horton ads definitely had racist undertones.
>
>    Hold that thought.   In a few paragraphs you are going to claim
>that the reason people voted Bush out is because they opposed his racism.
>Recall that the ad did work.
>


I never made any claim of the sort.  You have a very iritating
way of putting words into my mouth.  It's obvious that you do
this because you have a weak argument.  Take an introductory
speech class.  It will clue you in.


>    According to the October issue of Scientific American the amount
>of money spent on education increased from about 4% of GDP to about 6%
>of GDP during the Reagan/Bush years.

Well, I don't know where it all went.  Teachers salaries are still
abhorent.  State university tuition continues to increase and
keep lower income students out. My friends in the educational
research field say that funding has been reduced.  Where has it gone?

>
>>The Republican party platform with it's anti-gay
>>message had some real fascist sentiments as well.
>
>    Hmm, that must mean that Muslums are fascists.   And the Zoroasterans
>--before 500BC they wrote some very anti-gay stuff.   Early fascists.
>

Yeah sure, why not?  Singling out  groups of people for attack, that's
a fascist element.  That was an element of another poster's definition.


>
>    I doubt that the same people who voted for him because of the
>Willie Horton ad suddenly stopped being afraid and saw the light.   Likewise
>I have never seen any analysis that indicated that the reason people
>voted Bush out was because of his evironmental stance.    Besides, in a
>few paragraphs you are going to accuse your fellow citizens of being
>fascists.   These fascists of yours are a confusing lot, voting against
>their own kind.

The Willie Horton ad effected a lot of people on an emotional level.
Both Reagen and Bush appealed to the lowest level of human motives:
greed, fear, racism, hatred.  They couldn't get away with it directly,
so they worked at it subliminally.

>>Why not try reading something more interesting like the Nation or
>>the Progressive or even the Guardian?
>
>    The opinions of East Coast pundits are only of limited interest to me.
>I read them occasionally.

Well, the Guardian isn't east coast, and the Nation has lots
of articles by Alexander Cockburn who is based in Los Angeles.
I don't know why I bother arguing with you.

>
>    Such an intelligent and important man as the great Ross Perot has
>much better things to do than give an audience to me.    However, economists
>do not agree that the debt is as terrible as it is made out to be.   One
>point is that after WWII the debt as a percentage of GDB was about 3 times
>what it is now and we had a terrific boom and paid it all off.    It looks
>like we won the cold war for 1/3 the cost of WWII.

Interesting, first you say that Ross Perot is intelligent and important
and then you say that he is wrong.

Why haven't we had a big boom this time.  1) Resources are in
much shorter supply. 2) Germany and Japan were devastated after
the war and we pilaged a lot of their industrial equipment. Now
they are our main competitors.  My point is that the escalation of
the arms race wasn't necessary to defeat the Soviet Union.  I don't
believe for one minute that Star Wars caused Gorbachev to pursue
Perestroika.


>    Happening to whom?  Do you mean those same people that voted out Bush,
>the environmentally sensitive, anti-racist forces?
>
The Pat Buchanan crowd.  Even Reagen fired him for being too right-wing.
Now he's gaining support.

>
>    What I am saying about you is that I do not think that you have
>I do not think you actually have much idea what fascism is.   I think that
>it is a word you heard, that you know vaugely what it means, and that you
>use it as a perjoritive.     One aspect of fascism and Nazism that is
>the most fascinating to me is not the actually political statements, but
>the way people just went along with it.

Just like they did with Reagen and Bush.

>Similar behavior is quite common.
>One thing that characterizes it is the use of simple slogans to explain
>complex problems.

Yeah slogans like "no new taxes", "stay the course" and "get government
out of the way of business".


>
Since you use the word in such an unusual way, it
>seems to me that you are just repeating the word because you think it is
>"right" to do so without really understanding what the word means or
>when it is appropriate to use.

From my perspective there are fascist elements in the Reagen and Bush
camp and that people like you aren't willing to see it, because you
get seduced into accepting it.

>
>>>    I am more afraid that YOU will want to round people up and gas them
>>>that that Bush or Reagan will.
>>What planet are you from?  You're paranoid.
>
>    Perhaps, but at least I am not humor impaired.

Sorry, but I don't see any humour in having someone accuse me
of wanting to round up people and gas them.  If that's humour to
you, then you're a very sick individual.

>
>>Oh, so if I attack the right, then I must be crazy.  Grow up!!
>
>    Why attack anyone?   What is this "right" anyway?   Do you see
>the world as divided into "left" and "right" that is at war?

There is such a thing as a political spectrum, and what one expouses
politically places one's views at some point on that spectrum.  I believe
that right-wing views are dangerous and destructive, so I choose
to make a statement as such.  Why do you have a problem with this?
Am I not allowed to express my views?