--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > Shemp fancies himself a libertarian but I don't even think > > he knows what one is. He sounds like the Ayn Rand variety > > but I'm not even sure of that. I just think he's confused. :) > > I don't agree. After long experience with Shemp's > provocative posts both here and on a.m.t., and > more than a few exchanges in which he succeeded > in provoking me :-), I think he's pondered many > of the stances he takes here deeply. > > My only question is about the *input* for this > pondering. I don't understand how he could have > seen the same things I've seen in America and > hold those views. I have to believe that we've > lived in different places and seen a different > America.
Recast a bit, I think Shemp raises some good and reasonable points. For example: * Steps to address Global Climate Change should be subject to cost-benefit analysis and ranked along with competing social needs/opportunities. * There are different levels of lack in the world * The term 'poverty" is relative to its social context. * There have been many mass(million+)-murdering tyrants and movements in long and recent history. - We should keep that as some context when looking viewing and analyzing current autrocities. - We should include awareness of those "means" in any ends achieved by such. However, IMO, its his polarized polemics, highly-charge with 'power/skunk" words in his exposition of such, and his apparent superficial study of underlying issues of some of these ares (e.g., global climate change), IMO hugely diminish the effectiveness of his catalyzing intelligent discussion and/or expaning anyones views on the topic. Probably I see these faults in Shemps expositions, because I have done or do the same in some areas -- to some degree -- perhaps more, perhaps less. One focuses on perceived faults in others when, though perhaps not only, they have or are dealing with that trait within themselves. Thus, the value I find in Shemps polarizations and simplistic renditions is as a cautionary tale -- and/or stimulus to search deep within to see if i do the same in some areas. And to root it out if I do. As a reader, I might start to take Shemp seriously if he toned down the rhetoric and black-and-white analysis, and presented the issues he raises in more humble, studied and approachable terms. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
