From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:10:05 GMT

hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

>In article <1992Apr11.013907.17882@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>In article <larryd.702886151@milton> larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
>>>...
>>>>>> ... armed bodyguards ...
>>>
>>>The amusing thing in the entire Rushdie episode is he spent a good deal
>>>of his time his prior to the Iranian threat expounding on how the
>>>British government was fascist.  I suspect 1) he hasn't endeared himself
>>
>>I don't see anything amusing about this. Everyone has a right
>>to the services of their government regardless of whether they
>>voted for them.

...Services of their government---three full-time, live-in, armed bodyguards
ho ho ho...

The ironic thing is that you aren't going to get those "services" if
you are not politically connected, or in Rushdie's case, going to be
an embarassment if you get bumped off.  Rushdie spent years telling
and maybe even believing that the British (and US) governments were
uncivilized.  Somewhere along the way, he lost sight of the fact that
there *are* institutionally uncivilized governments.  Now he is in a
pickle and *demanding* protection from a government he claimed was
uncivilized.  Even better yet, he has lately been in the USA trying to
get a little official help with his problem from Uncle Sam.

Maybe having brass balls is the way to go.  He got a level of protection
that is usually afforded only to visiting heads of state and well connected
local pols.  Having obtained a level of protection completely unavailable
to most people, he has the nerve to rant on about the "cowboy" mentality
that has the audacity to assume their lives are just as important as
his.  Worse yet, the unwashed, being unable to get the kind of protection
he is getting, seem to think they have the right to try as best they
can to protect themselves.

>  Will everyone who is in danger of being attacked be provided with
>armed bodyguards?  If that service is available to all then I see
>no inconsistency in Rushdie being provided these services.  However
>if bodyguards are not provided to all, and the government prevents
>people from effectively defending themselves, then inconsistencies
>abound. 

>  Where were the full time armed bodyguards when Dr. Chang needed
>them?  Where are the full time armed bodyguards who should be 
>protecting all these Australian women who are shot by their
>husbands?
>>
>>>with his full-time bodyguards and 2) his perspective has changed.  Maybe
>>>not...self proclaimed intellectuals are often fairly stupid.
>>
>>SR is not a self-proclaimed intellectual. You are
>>obviously anti-intellectual.

Why?  Because I think you are stupid?  A compilation of the drivel you
have posted to this net is proof QED of that.  Tell us David/Katie,
just what exactly do you do at vut?  Student/staff? What department?  
Cleaning lady?  Spell it out for us.  I will take you out of my kill file
for a couple of days just to see.  Put up or shut up.  

>  Wow - what an effective rejoinder!  Is he "obviously
>anti-intellectual" because you disagree with him or because he is
>amused by Rushdie?

>--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns