From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:50:03 GMT

In <1992Nov21.234817.4171@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu
>(Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>> In <69483@cup.portal.com> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>> 
>> <ad hominem attack deleted>

To all the newbies:  when in doubt, use a Latin phrase as above.  It makes you
look very distinguished.  :)

>> 
>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths                                          
>>> 
>>> 1. The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal of
>>>    the Soviet Union.
>> 
>> Even when it was a political power, this was untrue.  The greatest threat
>> to humanity lies in those humans who are in power, wherever and whoever they
>> may be.

>Certainly you aren't equating a democratic system with an authoritarian
>one, are you? 	

No.  They have very little in common.  They are, however, both political
systems, and in any political system there is the opportunity for the abuse
of power.  I believe it was one Mr. Lincoln who said something to the effect
of "I'd almost rather live in Russia, where at least they are honest in their
greed."

Or do you think the recent U.S. election was rigged, and
>a moral equivalency does in fact exist ;-}? 	

No.

I'm much happier now that the
>former Soviet Union is becoming democratic. 	

Hey, so am I.  Democracy is the best system of government yet developed.

If the elements in the FSU
>which long for the law-and-order days of Stalin ever regain control of
>the government, woe be unto us for cutting the defense budget too deeply
>and doing liberal sociology experiments with our military personnel.

If the reactionary elements in the United States which long for the
law-and-order days of WWII and Reagan conservatism ever regain control
of the government, woe be unto us and everyone else in the world who realizes
that stockpiling weapons is counterproductive and dangerous.

>>> 2. The single greatest threat to the free people of the world is  
>>>    posed by the Soviet Union.                                     
>> 
>> What does he mean by "free"?  Capitalist?  The people of the FSU were not
>> prisoners.  They did not consider themselves prisoners.

>Tell that to the Soviets who tried to travel abroad, or emigrate to Israel.
>Really, you must not have been paying attention during the Cold War!

Yes, of course, I've been in a coma for the last forty years.  No, actually
I've been quite aware of the realities of the Cold War.  And one of the 
realities was that a great deal of the Soviet people were quite happy with
the way their government was run.  I'd like to know if Limbaugh equates
capitalism with freedom.

> 
>>> 3. Peace does not mean the removal of nuclear weapons.            
>> 
>> Nope, but the presence of nuclear weapons is less peaceful than their absence.
>> Why?  Because they are tools of war, and war is by definition not peaceful.

>In fact, the US/SU nuclear standoff may well have prevented another World War.

Ah yes...stockpiling our snowballs prevented war.  Sure.  "Now we have the
capability to destroy you four times over!"  "Oh yeah?  Well _now_ we have the
capability to destroy you _six_ times over!"  "Oh yeah?..."  etc.

>Almost as soon as the standoff ended, the U.S. and its allies felt
>unconstrained in reversing the invasion of Kuwait, something which, if
>it were to have occurred in the context of the height of the Cold War, would
>have been viewed with much greater trepidation. 	

What are you trying to say?  That we shouldn't have invaded Kuwait?  Or that
we should have, but wouldn't have if there had been a stockpile?  I agree
with the first, but I don't think it had anything to do with the standoff,
present or no.  

>major conventional war. Otherwise you'd have to blame the absence of such
>a major conflict on the results of the Great Capitalist Imperialist War,
>a.k.a. World War II for those of you not in Berkeley, CA.)

You're not in Berkeley, and neither am I.  Cut the crap.

>>> 8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing an understanding of or  
>>>    with the Russian people.                                       
>> 
>> Bullshit.  By failing to understand them, we make them the faceless enemy,
>> who are much easier to destroy.  Their propaganda mills do/did the same to
>> us.

>He should have said, Soviet people, of course. This is dated, but it *was*
>true during the Cold War. Until a democratic government is in place,
>talking to the powerless masses could not readily influence their leaders,
>and talking to the Communist dictators without the threat of force
>did little good either. SALT, SALT II, etc. were routinely violated, and all
>we could really do is send them a letter. It was indeed, an evil empire,
>ruled by evil men, to greater or less degrees of tyranny.

"Evil" is the keyword here.  It's a propagandistic word.  Good versus evil
and black versus white.  The Jedi versus the Dark Side.  Liberal versus
conservative.  Democrat versus Republican.  Washington, D.C. versus Moscow.
This is so laughably oversimplistic it's surprising it ever worked, but
I guess people have a powerful need for something to fear.

>>> 9. Americans opposing America is not always courageous. Sometimes 
>>>    it is dangerous.                                               
>> 
>> Yes, and sometimes Americans supporting America is dangerous.  Nothing is
>> absolute.  Protest is the active exercise of constitutional rights, but more,
>> it is the practice of democratic action.  It is _patriotic_ to disagree.
>> That's what America is all about.  If we go on and on about how we're the
>> only nation to allow its citizens complete freedom (unlike the FSU) and then
>> we censor or chide our citizens when they use their freedom to disagree
>> rather than accept authority's decisions, aren't we being just a bit
>> hypocritical???

>Limbaugh's point is self-evident, and it includes your point, by way
>of implication. Put positively, the statements could read:
>"Americans opposing America are sometimes courageous, and sometimes
>dangerous."

Interesting, then, that he didn't word it that way.  He worded it in a biased
way.  Apparently it isn't an undeniable truth that Americans opposing America
is not always dangerous, but it is an undeniable truth that Americans
opposing America is not always courageous.  I agree with his point, but it's
a very selective point and it needs to be balanced out in order to make it
viable as an "undeniable truth".

>The question is, do we have the wisdom to see which is which?
>And do we have the courage to counter anti-Americanism when it is not
>fashionable ("P.C.") to do so?

Rhetorical question.  And fairly moot point.  The only thing I can think of
that would be anti-American would be to attempt to replace the government
with a totalitarian system under which citizens have no voice.  Other than
that, any freedom of expression is American, unless it directly endangers
the lives of others.  Burning a flag isn't the same as killing a man.

>>>10. Communism kills.                                               
>> 
>> Life kills, Mr. Limbaugh.  So does capitalism, i.e., a drug dealer killing
>> a former customer who is about to inform on him, in order to protect his
>> financial security.  Control kills, whatever form it may manifest itself in--
>> authority, money, government, weaponry, et cetera.  Communism ain't unique.
> 
>Limbaugh restates and updates Lord Acton. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[blah blah blah]
>others besides... They didn't call it "National Socialism" for nothing!)

Still haven't addressed the point.  Limbaugh says communism kills.  I say
so what?  Machine guns kill.  That's an undeniable truth and it means nothing.

>>>12. Freedom is God-given. It is the natural state to which humans  
>>>    yearn.                                                         
>> 
>> Fuck God, freedom is human-given.  We give ourselves individual freedom,
>> and if we have an intelligent government, they give us societal freedom.

>Free will is yours by birth. Governments are instituted to limit and
>channel your free will, so that you don't infringe the rights of others,
>and they don't infringe yours. Too much government is the problem, but
>too little government is no solution.

You restated my point.

>(God language is a little too strong for some people, evidently. But don't
>worry, God's going to kill atheists, too.

Flip side: we all gonna die, Xtians or otherwise.  Hint: I'm not an atheist.

>We'll all find out whether "Fuck God" was a stupid statement. And anyway,
>I thought Venus was a goddess.) 

True, but naturally Rush doesn't mention her.  Leave that to the Feminazis.

>>>14. To free people, peace means the absense of threat and the      
>>>    presence of justice.                                           
>> 
>> Again, I take issue with the "free people" euphemism, especially in light of
>> number 12.  If Limbaugh argues that freedom is God-given, then everyone's
>> a free person, right?  Unless God doesn't love the Soviets...

>The ""free people" euphemism"? Evidently couldn't argue the *content*.

Read it again: I did.  The "free people" euphemism is at the root of his
assertion.  And you avoided my question.  I'll restate it.  If Limbaugh says
that God provides freedom, then people should be free--does he mean that
God only loves non-Communists?  If that's not what he means, then Communists
are as free as you and I, and his statement applies to all people, in which
case it's basically irrelevant.

>>>15. The peace movement in the United States, whether by accident   
>>>    or by design, is pro-Communist.                                
>> 
>> No.  Limbaugh seems to have a tendency to use blanket terms and huge
>> generalities to classify what he does not understand.  The peace movement is
>> far too large and fragmented to ever be supposed to speak with one voice.
>> As a peace activist, I can attest from an insider's point of view that there
>> are Communists in the peace movement, as well as socialists, anarchists,
>> transcendentalists, Christians, capitalists, and lots of other folks.
>> The only time the peace movement ever comes together to produce a significant
>> activity, it is usually quite mainstream, as in a huge organized demonstration
>> in Washington to protest the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  Is legal
>> protest against nuclear weapons pro-Communist?  I think not.

>Unilateral disarmament wouldn't have made the Soviet Union go away.
>Neither would the "nuclear freeze". Reagan's defense spending made
>the Soviet Union go away. It couldn't keep up.

Bullshit.  The Soviet Union had its own problems to deal with, and when it
finally crumbled, it wasn't due to military inferiority.  BTW, you didn't
address my assertion at all.  I'll reassert.  The peace movement is far too
large to be pro-anything but peace.  It is not pro-Communist.  Would you
care to challenge that?

>>>16. The collective knowledge and wisdom of senior citizens is the  
>>>    most valuable, yet untapped, resource our young people have.   
>> 
>> Untapped, yes.  Most valuable, no.

>Most valuable untapped resource, yes.

How about this: the potential knowledge and wisdom of young people is the
most valuable, yet neglected, resource the world has.  It is neglected because
our government does not make education a priority.

>>>20. There IS a god.                                                
>> 
>> This is an undeniable truth of life for Mr. Limbaugh.  It is not for me.
>> There is not, has never been, and never will be any proof for the existence
>> of a supreme being.  It's a matter of belief, not truth.

>Mr. Limbaugh's in-your-face theological assertions did bother you,
>didn't they?

Yes, they do.  I'm hep to the fact that my beliefs don't apply to everyone.
I respect other points of view.  I may argue them if I think they're 
ridiculous, but I don't claim that my spiritual bent is the One True Way.
How can Limbaugh claim that the existence of a supreme being is an undeniable
truth?  I'd like to see some reasoning behind that claim.

>>>21. Abortion is wrong.                                             
>> 
>> Single mothers living in poverty with six starving children is wrong.

>Birth control is NOT wrong. 	

That's not the issue.

Abortion IS a conflict between the basic
>rights of two individuals. 	

Yes: the mother and the government.

>(It IS a baby in the mother's body by the end of gestation, whether you
>like it or not. And the single-celled embryo is NOT a baby, any more than
>an acorn is an oak tree. <Thought I'd piss everybody off for a change.>)

:)  No, sir, it's not a baby.  Yes, it is alive.  But it is an embryotic
organism until it leaves the womb and begins to breathe air instead of fluid.
That's technical stuff and it really doesn't address the issue, which is:
is it okay to end one life for the sake of another?  I believe it is, and 
I believe the welfare of a complex, functioning, conceptualizing member of
society is more important than that of an organism that has barely begun
consciousness.

>>>22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.                  
>> 
>> "To those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say, just watch me."
>> Rush Limbaugh knows what's best for me?  I think not.
>> 
>> Morality is relative, as is everything else.

>"If morality is relative, I'd hate to meet your relatives."
>They'd probably argue that murder isn't morally wrong as they're revving up
>the chainsaw.

If anybody did that, I'd try my damnedest to stop them, because *MY* moral
convictions tell me that murder is unacceptable.  The vast, vast majority
of people in my society also believe this, and we have passed laws to make
murder punishable because doing so benefits our society.  There are also
some moral convictions that I hold that are not acceptable to the majority
of people in this society, and I risk prosecution if I am caught following
them.  Does that mean I am wrong?  No, only that I am in the minority.

>>>24. Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have 
>>>    access to the mainstream of society.                           
>> 
>> Absolute bullshit, possibly the most offensive of Limbaugh's bogus "truths".
>> Limbaugh insults and ignores what he does not understand or what makes him
>> uncomfortable.  He prefers to wallow in his own illusions.  This contention
>> of his is so repugnant as to almost not be worth the time it takes to respond
>> to it, but I assure you that even the most attractive woman won't make it
>> into high-level business or govermental office without the push of feminism.
>> Ugly men have been making it big for a long time. <etc.>

>So have ugly women, but they've had to be born monarchs.
><<Zing!>>
>"It's a joke, son."--Foghorn Leghorn

Ha.
Didn't address my assertion.  You do a lot of that, don't you?

>                
>>>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.            
>> 
>> Limbaugh seems to control it well enough.

>I'm not so sure about this one myself. But go ask Woody Allen.

Ha.
Do you plan on being relevant any time soon?

>>>26. The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous        
>>>    Soviet leaders is that he is alive.                            
>> 
>> The only difference between Rush Limbaugh and George Wallace is that he's
>> overweight.

>The only difference between the above and humor is... well...

It wasn't humor.  Note the lack of smiley.  I was countering Limbaugh's
gross oversimplification with a gross oversimplification of my own.

>The only difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton hasn't been
>voted out. Yet. <Subtle irony>

Ha.  Yet again.  Boy oh boy, was that irony subtle as all get out.

>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.               
>> 
>> Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>>

>The only difference between someone who says the above and a Soviet
>leader is... they're not Communist. The Soviet leader, I mean. 

Gee, was this more of your hecka-subtle irony?  Whoosh, it went right over
my head.  Let's analyze, shall we?  It appears that you're saying that a
Soviet leader is not Communist, and I am.  Why do you say this?  Because
I assert that Soviet leaders vary in ideology.  Now comes the hard part.
How does asserting that members of a government have different ideologies
make me a Communist?  I have to admit, I'm stumped.  Must be more of that 
juicy, succulent irony.

>>>28. Despite what they are teaching at the University of Missouri,  
>>>    Abraham Lincoln saved this nation.                             
>> 
>> Debatable.  He didn't fight the CW single-handed.  He was also a racist,
>> a waffler, and many other lovely things.

>Despite Clinton's (and others) attempts at comparison, I'm not living in
>the Confederate States Of America.

Really?  Neither am I.  Bully for us.
That doesn't change the fact that Lincoln, who was basically a decent Joe,
wasn't singlehandedly responsible for the fate of the CW.

>>>30. The United States will again go to war.                        
>> 
>> No doubt.
>> 
>>>31. To more and more people, a victorious United States is a       
>>>    sinful United States.                                          
>> 
>> To me, a sinful United States is a victorious United States!!!

>Guess what! You're one of THEM! (No surprise.)

Yup.  I'm one of those atheistic Communistic left-handed pinko pondscum suckers
who likes to sodomize puppies.  Like to come sacrifice a goat to the God of
Nothingness?  (VERY, VERY SUBTLE IRONY SOMEWHERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH.)

>>>32. This is frightening and ominous.                               
>> 
>> Rush Limbaugh is frightening and ominous.

>Only to one of THEM! (Again, no surprise.)
>But what do you want to DO about it?

Hurt him.  :)

>>>33. There will always be poor people.                              
>> 
>> Only as long as there is capitalism.
>> 
>>>34. This is not the fault of Malcolm Forbes, Ronald Reagan, Rush   
>>>    Limbaugh, or any other rich person.                            
>> 
>> No, it is the fault of the system which Forbes, Reagan, et al take
>> advantage of.
>>

>A Communist. Q.E.D. (No wonder they thought there was nothing wrong
>in the "worker's paradise." Say hi to Fidel for me!)

Say hi to Ayn for me!
(Hint:  I'm not a Communist.  I don't agree with Communist reasoning.
I'm also not an atheist.  And yet neither am I a Christian, and neither
do I believe that Capitalism is without flaw.  Confusing, isn't it?)

>"If nobody said anything unless he knew what he was talking about,
>a ghastly hush would descend upon the Earth."--Sir Alan Herber	

And the Net would be obsolete...

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh