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