Re: The long and short of it

[Ray Evans Harrell]

Bill, I personally have trouble with all of the either/or thinking going one here and elsewhere.   Are you all students of Keirkegaard?  Why must society not be an efficient mix of what each element does very well?   I agree with Bill that there is a lot of helping going on in the society, but frankly what is wrong with that?       When we get doctrinaire about it we get the horror that is the HMO health care system, the 32 bar song form as the height of our musical imagination and the education system that constantly lies about what is going on in the classroom.    Christians are a predatory religion.    They get their food from other religions, as does Islam and the Jews are exclusionary so why should we trust those who feed and those who exclude to be inclusive, respectful  and equalitarian in programs that they would do for the government of the rest of us?   If there is any truth in all of this it is that Liberals are wishy washy biased and think they know everything while conservatives are rigid, biased, narrow-minded and can barely see two sides to any story.   They barely stand and consider standing to be the measure of morality except they only have a front and back side.    Up and down, left and right doesn't exist except as insults of each other.    Coordination is a hopeless dream.   Liberals have a problem with center while conservatives have rocks in their head.  No where was it more apparent than in the last two nights on Donahue when he interviewed Tim Russert and Ted Koppel.   Two folks who are closet conservatives.    Then it was followed by Chris Matthews at Fordham University bragging about his education by biased Elder branch of Christianity.   I still remember those blazers and yard sticks when I used to teach in their schools.    MSNBC last night was hours and hours in a row of biased propaganda.  (not to be confused with Fox which is Months and Months of bias and outright lies)    What a scary bunch they all are.     As far as I'm concerned they are all bankrupt and this war and world is proof of that bankruptcy.    One interesting thing is that the weasel Matthews is caught in the dilemma of not being able to stomach the war put forward by the very people he has kissed and cultivated over the last four years.    Only Donahue seems to escape blame for that and who knows how long that will last given the NYTimes slam of his "lack of grasp of the core issues" a couple of weeks ago in discussing his program.    If you want to read the political weather just follow the NYTimes.    Not what they claim in their editorials but where they go and put their emphasis.     Cousin REH     ----- Original Message ----- From: William B Ward To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:20 AM Subject: Re: The long and short of it Tom,   Some liberals think that way. In addition, the funding of faith groups to do good in the community is a right wing effort [one which I support]. The bailing out of the airlines and almost letting Amtrak die was the work of a party that has to pay attention to the teamsters and truckers. We continually bail out the shipping industry because that is a major industry in Senator Lott's state. Government covers losses above $100 k for people in banks that go broke. We could go on and on. There is more welfare for the rich than for the poor. I own a small business and am able legally to take off more charges than a wage earner. The welfare program that every one fussed over was a paltry $30 billion which doesn't even register and what was saved was a lot less than that. We can blame Clinton for initiating that one.   We left wingers realize that relying on governments will cost you more than you get so don't try and tar and feather everyone on the left. You also may want to look a bit closer re benefits that rich friends or relatives of your [ADM, etc.] are getting.   Bill Ward     On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:36:51 -0700 "Tom Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The great weakness of the left, IMHO, is that they habitually think in terms of "the government should do this... the government should do that..." as if any government ever would do what it should even if it could. One is better off to start with the assumption that the government WON'T do something that it would be "a good idea" for it to do. This doesn't mean abandoning making policy demands or suggestions. What it means is using such proposals for the purpose of bringing an issue to the attention of a larger public audience, rather than expecting consummation from the state. Arthur Cordell wrote,   Will add one more thing.  I heard Reich speak before he was in government.  Sounded like he knew what was going on in the economy.  Could have been an FWer.  Maybe being in government demonstrates to the individual all the things that can't be done.  Kind of like an intellectual lobotomy.