From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner
Newsgroups: net.college
Title: Re: Re: Jeane Kirkpatrick - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.738
Posted: Tue Mar  1 02:32:27 1983
Received: Wed Mar  2 05:52:58 1983

#R:watarts:-171400:ucbesvax:2900012:000:2477
ucbesvax!turner    Feb 28 23:35:00 1983

	It's really hard to know how to respond to this kind of reasoning.
    There are too many "obviously's", too many "don't care's", too many
    references to inspecific examples, too many assumptions that, really,
    everything is perfectly OK already, and anyone who comes along with
    assertions to the contrary is only trying to corrupt the relative
    perfection of the present order of things.

	Well, I don't know about you, Bernie, but the whole notion that J.K.
    MUST be telling the truth about U.S. foreign policy, because we'd all
    know by now whether she was lying (even if we "couldn't care less", as
    you clearly don't) will make a very good epitaph for Jeffersonian
    democracy, with its dependence on an inquiring, educated and intelligent
    citizenry.  You are intelligent, but it isn't clear that that you inquire
    beyond narrow limits, and you can hardly be well-educated if you think
    your style of reasoning is either effective or valid.

	Certainly, as the ovens of Belsen and the stacked human firewood of
    Treblinka gave off their meat-stench over landscapes of recently-vacated
    Jewish homes, the people of Germany said, "But, surely, if they were
    just killing them all, it would be obvious by now?"  References to Nazi
    Germany are the ultimate in rhetorical bombast, I know, but something has
    to wake you up to the danger of your complacency.

	Fascism still exists in the world, U.S. foreign policy supports it
    in many of its manifestations, and Jeane Kirkpatrick's JOB is to support
    this policy.  Given that one cannot make claims of moral action in such
    a circumstance without exposing onself to ridicule (please note!),
    Kirkpatrick chooses to avail herself of the general ignorance of the
    American people of the consequences of U.S. foreign policy.  Which is to
    say, she cannot afford to suffer exposure of any facts which contradict
    her (spurious) moral claims.  I submit that it is not the function of
    freedom of speech to give deception a forum.  At least, not on the
    Government payroll.  (Libertarians, take note.)

	This is the statement I would like you to consider.  Is it true?  If
    it is, why haven't you heard about it?  I suggest that you review some of
    the previous notes I've contributed here, and try to find out if I've told
    even a single lie.  Unless, of course, your mind is closed on the subject.

	Try again, sometime.

	    Michael Turner