From: root@lotka.Stanford.EDU (Operator)
Subject: Re: Bush For (Ex)President in '92!
Reply-To: minch@lotka.stanford.edu (Eric Minch)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 02:01:07 GMT

Geoff Miller writes
> 
> Yes.  Our government has been guilty of excess, and those particular 
> instances are certainly worthy of condemnation.  But that doesn't imply
> that the government is therefore wrong to act in what it perceives to
> be the country's best interests.  If we can manipulate foreign governments
> in ways that would be beneficial to America, and do it without supporting
> death squads and such, then let's do it.  We'd be dumb not to.  Sure, we
> fucked up by supporting repressive dickheads like Pinochet and the Shah, 
> but that doesn't mean that the overall policy that that spawned those
> decisions is necessarily a faulty one.  That policy can be served with 
> other, less harmful and less shortsighted, methods.
> 
Very graciously and reasonably put. I think we'd probably resent others  
interfering with our government, but I won't quibble; besides, they might do  
less damage than our homegrown dickheads.

> The point of my asking "so what?" wasn't to justify or trivialize the
> bad things that our government has done, but to ask Don what that had to
> do with the topic at hand, which was nuclear proliferation.  It seems
> that you saw a few key words and popped all your circuit breakers before
> you had a chance to engage in much cogitation.
> 
Actually, the topic started off with you and M Holmes making analogies between  
schoolyard bullies and world nuclear powers. Hold that thought.
 
> >SimplePeeve: People who can't see past the nose on their face, and  
> >assume everyone else wants to enjoy the same view. 
> 
> SimplePeeveCominBackAtcha:  Likewise.  That wisdom cuts both ways, my
> whiny friend.
> 
I see the problem now: I'm attacking ideas instead of you personally. What have  
you got against Stanford? Did they beat your team? Did they reject your  
application? Or is it only something against academia in general? Maybe you  
couldn't hack university? Regardless, I don't whine and I've got considerably  
more experience in what you're pleased to call the real world than you do.  
Stereotyping academics as a group is stupid enough--I've seen as much variety  
among them as in the copper mines, railroads, and factories I've worked in--but  
assuming I conform to the stereotype is enough to qualify you as fool of the  
week.
> 
> There's nothing like an emotional issue to turn people into semantic
> absolutists, is there?  I don't recall saying anything about keeping
> the world as it is.  Do you exist in some kind of binary mental universe,
> in which there are only two extreme possibilites for everything, with no
> middle ground?  I wrote that the US is perfectly justified in its overall
> strategy of looking out for itself.  (Which, from what I've seen, is appar-
> ently considered an acceptable policy for everybody except the United 
> States.)
> 
Don't get your little neurons all tuckered out trying to recall what you said  
or didn't say. No-one claimed you said that. I wrote a sentence with what's  
known as a conditional clause: "Of course you're right about all this, GM, if  
all we want to do is to make our way in the world as it is." The implied  
alternative is that we work for change.

> And even that was a digression from the original issue, which is the 
> desirability of Third World governments gaining posession of atomic weapons.
> Let's get back on track, shall we?  We're straying farther and farther 
> afield and getting bogged down in irrelevant side issues.  I'm sure you're
> having a grand time making a righteous lunge for the moral high ground, 
> but you're really missing the point.
> 
Which is...? Keep in mind what the origin of this discussion was; schoolyard  
bullies and nuclear proliferation.

> I see no reason why the world can't become a better place for all, with
> the US (and other countries) still looking out for their own interests.
> With peace, justic, altruism, bright sunshine and fluffy little bunnies
> for all.  And plenty of state-of-the-art military hardware for us. 
> Remember TR's famous words about spaeking softly and carrying a big stick?
> They're as applicable now as ever.  But for some reason you're only 
> choosing to focus on the stick.
> 
> ------
Hey, focus this! I got yer stick right here. :->

> 
> >If peace and freedom and justice are ever to be established as the norm 
> >of international  behavior--and it's not only weepy wimps who want this, 
> >but many men greater than you or maybe even me, some of whom perhaps you  
> >admire--then why should we waste our chance? 
> 
> "Many men greater than you or maybe even me" -- ooh, I've been cut to
> the quick!  Medic!  Medic!  :->
> 
> Sure, what the hey -- but let's do it with a strong America as first
> among equals.  I just can't see this country emasculating itself and 
> putting itself at the mercy of a bunch of pissant little fifth-rate
> undeveloped countries in the arena of internal relations.  Screw them;
> let `em build their *own* arsenals, and then, maybe, they can come play
> with the big kids.  Until then they have zero credibility.
> 
> ------
Zero credibility because of their inferior hardware? Is credibility only a  
matter of military strength? Maybe you really believe that, but if so, is that  
the way you like it? In my eyes a people can also gain credibility through  
artistic, athletic, economic, scientific, and other accomplishments. And  
America will be strong again when we start accomplishing again, instead of  
ignoring our problems and throwing more money at the DoD.
> 
> >If we're in a position of  strength, should we use it to aggrandize 
> >ourselves or to make the world  a better place? 
> 
> Why do you assume that those goals are mutually exclusive?  
> 
I don't; let me rephrase: "should we use it only to aggrandize ourselves at the  
expense of others, or to make the world a better place". I think it's entirely  
possible for us to become stronger and richer while helping the world. We've  
been doing it for most of our history. We only got swellheaded and bullying  
after WWII, when we were indeed Numbuh One and 
> ------
> 
> >What would you do in your neighborhood: swagger around  intimidating 
> >everybody? 
> 
> Yeah.  And it gives me a *raging* hard-on, you can be sure.
> 
> ------
> 
> >I believe you had a peeve the other day about  people being scared of 
> >you because of your size; is this how you want  the rest of the world
> >to perceive us? 
> 
> My peeve was about that phenomenon on an individual level, which doesn't
> readily translate to the context of internations.  I've seen this sort
> of argument before, and quite honestly, I think the people who use it are
> blinkered simpletons.
> 
Recall now the origin of the discussion: *your* analogy between schoolyard  
bullies and nuclear powers.

> You're attempting to connect an individual's physical size with the polit-
> ical demeanor of a nation, and that's embarrasingly ludicrous.  The point
> of that posting was that size alone is no indicator of one's mindset or 
> intentions.  And as I'm sure even you would agree, how other nations
> perceive us has nothing to do with the land area of our country.  I've 
> known lots of small guys who were hostile assholes, and lots of big guys 
> who were laid back and at peace with the world. Ergo, that was an awfully 
> lame analogy.  Gee, maybe if we gave up a few states, the rest of the 
> world wouldn't be quite so frightened of us.  Yeah, right.  
> 
> ------
> 
> >And what if we get a bit weaker  (as our industrial and financial 
> prospects currently indicate)? What  will the neighborhood do with 
> >its bully when he gets old?
> 
> I don't understand why you equate diplomatic assertiveness with bullying.
> That gives me a certain amount of insight into your apparent prejudices
> about this country.
> 
Prejudice my eye. I've seen this country end to end, from inside and outside. 
I've lived abroad and come back to stay because I love it. What I don't love is  
the ignorant jingoes who derive the whole of their self-esteem from the  
accident of having been born within its borders.
> 
> >BoringPeeve: Having to repeat the obvious to people who will understand  
> >it on their own eventually, but too late and only after they've done  
> >their damage and perpetuated their attitudes.
> 
> You, sir, are a smug, arrogant, muddleheaded twit.  Of course, I take a 
> lot of comfort from the fact that there are a hell of a lot more people 
> like me than there are people like you, and that politically speaking, 
> our collective boot is planted quite firmly on your collective throat.
> 
I could hardly have put it better myself: you take comfort from membership in  
an oppressive majority. Am *I* smug and arrogant? 
Newsgroups: alt.peeves