From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (The Insensitive Eurocentric Oppressor)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Bush For (Ex)President in '92!
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:03:18 GMT
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (The Insensitive Eurocentric Oppressor)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



Eric Minch writes:

 
>Actually, the topic started off with you and M Holmes making analogies 
>between  schoolyard bullies and world nuclear powers. Hold that thought.

You may be right about my making the analogy, but I certainly don't 
remember making that point myself.  What did I say?  Can you quote the 
article?

Despite what the topic started off with, it evolved into a discussion 
about nuclear proliferation.  This particular conversation started 
when Don Balwin posted a followup and changed the subject line.  My
subsequent comments were addressed to his points, not Mike Holmes's.

------

>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? 

None of the above, I'm afraid.  Why do you think I have anything against
Stanford, or against academia in general?  There was nothing in my previous
article that could reasonably be expected to lead you to such a conclusion.
Growing up in Mountain View and Atherton, I always looked at Stanford as
the hometown U.  If anything, I'm prejudiced *in favor* of Stanford for
that reason.

As for my attacking you personally, yes, I confess to a certain, ah, 
impatience with people who hold left-leanibng geopolitical views, as you
quite obviously do for people who hold views similar to mine.  So what
else is new?  Are you not big enough to handle that without getting all
huffy?  I think you're a bit misguided, and you think I'm the same.  Now 
that we've established that, what do you have to contribute to the topic
under discussion?  You seem to have gone off on quite a tangent.

------

>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.  

Whether or not you whine is not something that you yourself are qualified 
to pass judgment on.

As for "having more experience" in what I'm "pleased to call the real world,"
how could you possibly know?  You have zero basis for making such an asser-
tion.  If you're going by the impression of me that you've gained from this
newsgroup, you're way out on a limb.  And a very, very thin and brittle
limb, to be sure.

------

>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.

When did I stereotype academics?  Are you thinking of my alteration of
your email address?  Hell, that was nothing more than a cheap shot I 
made in passing, a little touch that's become almost an alt.peeves cliche.

But since you mentioned it, yes, It's quite well known that as a group, 
for whatever reason, academics tend to be decidedly left of center. You 
aren't going to even attempt to argue that point, are you?  If that were
not the case, how else could the PC movement have found such fertile 
ground in academia, for one well-known example?

------

>Don't get your little neurons all tuckered out trying to recall what you `
>said  or didn't say. 

Don't stress your little brainlet by trying to second-guess me about what
I might be thinking.  You'll probably be wrong.

------

>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.

To hell with change.  I *like* being top dog, don't you?  It makes Mr.
Happy stand up and wear his purple hat.

------

>> 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.

Wrong-o.  You're really into this "schoolyard bully" thing, aren't you?
What I might've said to Mike Holmes was part of a separate conversation than
the one being carried on between Don and myself.  But then, as I recall,
you're the guy whose always going into archive mode, bringing up material
from earlier postings of mine and taking it out of context, so it's not 
too surprising that you'd try that angle.

The conversation is about nuclear proliferation, not schoolyard bullies.
How we arrived at that current topic is immaterial.

------

>Zero credibility because of their inferior hardware? 

Not exactly; zero credibility because of the limited political objectives
they're able to achieve because of that inferior hardware and their
limited arsenals.  Mao was right: "Political power grows out of the barrel
of a gun."  ("Problems Of War and Strategy," Nov. 6, 1938, _Selected Works_,
Vol. III, p. 224.)  

------

>Is credibility only a  matter of military strength? 

Yes.

------

>Maybe you really believe that, but if so, is that the way you like it? 

Yes.  

------

>In my eyes a people can also gain credibility through artistic, athletic, 
>economic, scientific, and other accomplishments. 

Those are certainly valid and admirable things.  (Especially the "scien-
tific" part, since that enables a country to develop better weapons. :)

But we're talking apples and oranges here; your examples are areas of
*cultural* credibility, which is certainly okay as far as it goes.  But
I'm talking about *geopolitical* credibility, which ain't got nothin' to
do with painters and ballerinas and bassaball players.  It has more to 
do with having the capability of turning our adversaries' cities into
rubble if they don't do what we want `em to.  That's an extreme example, 
of course, and admittedly (and thankfully) a bit farfetched in terms of 
day-to-day reality.  But it *is* the reality lurking behind common 
diplomacy, much like the gold in Fort Knox is the reality lurking behind
that green paper in your wallet.  In fact, it's diplomacy taken to its 
logical conclusion under certain circumstances.

------

>And  America will be strong again when we start accomplishing again, 
>instead of  ignoring our problems and throwing more money at the DoD.

Why not both?  I think both are valid, and indeed necessary.

------

>>>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. 

I could accept that, if we could do it without sacrificing national
security to any meaningful degree.

------

>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 

[words missing from original posting]

I think that's overstating the case a bit.  We had every reason to be
asserive, and since we had the resources (e.g., the CIA), every reason
to try and manipulate world events to our advantage.  Within certain
limits, of course.  As I've said before, I didn't support our policy
against Nicargua, for example.  And I was against the war in Vietnam.
Chile was definitely a mistake, too.  But in general, I see nothing immoral
about supporting certain governments when it's to our potential advantage
to do so, or to exert dimplomatic pressure for various reasons, e.g., the
issue of Israel's West Bank settlements.

-------
 
>>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? 

I'll restate my answer to this, since you evidently misunderstood the point
of that earlier post.  My peeve was not due to whatever feeling I get from
people being scared of me because of my size; that doesn't bother me, per
se.  Rather, it was due to the silly, rampant skittishness I've noted on
the rise among much of the population, which I find annoying purely out of
principle.

------

>Recall now the origin of the discussion: *your* analogy between schoolyard  
>bullies and nuclear powers.

Again, that was a different discussion with a different person.  The Subject
line of this discussion is "Bush For (Ex)President in '92!," which was
started by Don Baldwin, not Mike.
 
------

>>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?

Another restated answer: That's an imperfect metaphor because nations
don't "age" in the same sense that individuals do.  Previously powerful
nations have of course been known to get weaker, but I have yet to see
any evidence of political retribution.  Two good examples are the UK and
the former Soviet Union.  While some people no doubt harbor grudges
against whatever excesses these nations committed in their respective
heydays, there was no rush of diplomatic revenge in either case.

------

>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.

But it's awfully risky to assume that those with more nationalistic polit-
ical leanings hold their views simply out of ignorance or jingoism.  That's
one possible explanation, of course, but only one.




Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-