RE: WARNING: Off Topic

[Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>]

Hi Laura;

On Friday, February 12, 1999 2:11 PM, Laura Walker 
[SMTP:LJW6626@worldnet.att.net] wrote:
> Aum to the High Priest Peisert...

  How could I be a "priest"?  I'm an atheist. ;-)

>
> The only difference between the rhetoric you espouse (and print pages of 
for
> the rest of us to swallow) is the party line you have chosen.  You are no
> different from any Democrat, Republican or any other politically 
affiliated
> individual, nor do your ideas smack of anything that even resembles NEW
> solutions to our problems.  These are hackneyed, overused, simplistic
> "intellectual" rhetoricisms that do nothing to solve the problems.  Your
> "ideas" are just as grounded in tired phrases and worn-out mantras as 
many
> of our current political leaders' are.

  And what is your basis for that claim? You haven't addressed the 
specifics of the FairTax or the proposed privatization of the Social 
Security system based on the Chile model? I think those are new, fresh 
ideas. They are not worn out mantras.

> How much do you know about how polling is conducted?  How polls must meet
> external and internal validity tests before they are even used? 
 Apparently
> not a lot, otherwise you wouldn't insert your foot in your mouth and show
> your ignorance on the topic.

  I don't think I claimed anything about polls. Perhaps you inferred as 
much because I liked the Rockwell article and he mentioned the polling 
issue. That was probably his weakest point, and I do take issue with him on 
that, but it was a minor point, a nit, with respect to the overall scope of 
his speech. I liked his speech particularly for the historical perspective, 
although I didn't agree with _everything_ he said. Just with _most_ of what 
he said.

  With respect to the polls, for example those giving Clinton a high 
"favorable job rating," my personal opinion is that they are pretty 
accurate. I agree that polls are scientific, and are often within their 
stated accuracy. Sometimes they prove to be wrong, and sometimes public 
opinion can change swiftly, but by and large, they're not too far off the 
mark. I've answered a few of them myself (oops...now you KNOW they're 
skewed!).

  So, I believe the polls. They say that Americans, by a wide majority 
agree that:

  a. Clinton is a slimeball whom they would not
     want to leave alone with their daughter

  b. That he is a chronic liar, a pathological liar,
     who cannot even tell the truth when it is in
     his interest to do so

  c. That they can't believe what he tells them about
     anything; you never know with Slick

  d. That he lied to the American people blatantly,
     wagging a finger in their face, that he lied in
     his deposition, that he lied to a Grand Jury, that
     he is sorry only that he got caught, and that he
     has engaged in the biggest smear campaign since
     Hoover ran the FBI. People know all that.

  e. That what Feinstein et al put together as a censure
     with respect to Clinton is all true. His behavior
     is reprehensible, inexcusable, and he has brought
     disgrace on himself and on the office, and that it
     is "indefensible." Further that he lied ('misled'?)
     the American people, lied before ('misled'?)
     a grand jury, etc.

  f. That every thinking Democrat in the Senate agrees with
     Byrd when he said, "Who's kidding who here?" and the
     people know what he meant and agree with him.

  f. That Clinton is a laughingstock and that his
     'legacy' is irreparably tarnished and linked
     inextricably to 'that woman, Miss Lewinsky.'

  g. And finally, that things are going reasonably well
     and they'd rather have Clinton than Gore in there,
     so they're willing to hold their noses
     and let him live out his miserable term, hoping
     he (i) doesn't do anything more that is utterly
     reckless and stupid, and (ii) that he doesn't
     mess up a good economy.

>
> BTW:  Robert Heilbroner, a well-respected market theory economist -- and 
one
> of the 'classical' theorists -- has himself said that today's market
> economists are a FAR different breed than envisioned by the "Worldy
> Philosophers".  Early classical market economists knew that an "economy" 
was
> comprised of all aspects of people and its culture -- not just the 
dollars
> and cents, AND these factors were incorporated into "market economic"
> theories.  Today's 'market economists' refuse to look at any factors 
other
> than the measurable: income, wages, production, output, GNP.  In other
> words, real people don't exist in these "market theory" economic models.
> "Real" people and all the intricacies and mutlti-faceted aspects they 
bring
> to the market have been eliminated.

  Ah yes...the ever-present attempt to change the subject when the facts 
don't support the desired conclusions. By the MEASURES, you see, by the 
actual numbers, people at all levels of society are doing better than they 
ever have. By the NUMBERS the "growing gap between rich and poor" is a myth 
and does not exist. (I will be happy to relate those numbers to 
you...please challenge me on that point!)

  So, we change the subject. We say, "Ah, but those NUMBERS don't tell us 
the REAL story of REAL people." Well, the polls tell you the real story of 
real people, and they are, by the gazillions, telling us that they are 
happy with the numbers. You ask where the "humanity" is in the numbers. 
Well, I think there's a hell of a LOT of humanity in opportunity, in 
economic prosperity, in upward mobility, in the fact that only 5% (FIVE 
PERCENT, LAURA) of those who were poor in 1971 are poor today, and nearly 
60 percent (SIXTY PERCENT, LAURA) of those who were in poverty in 1971 are 
now in the top two quintiles, the top 40%, of the economy. I think that is 
EXTREMELY important from a qualitative and humanitarian perspective. It 
speaks volumes.


>
> For all your flag-waving, philosophical waxing about the "true" free
> market, you and your free market theory friends and proponents sure don't
> seem to give a whit about the individuals, or people as a whole, or an
> entire culture/society.  All you seem to want is more, at the expense of
> anybody who doesn't fit into your narrow view of a free market.  [I'll be
> happy to provide you with the specifics on Heilbroner's comments, as well 
as
> some other respected economists' views on why a pure free market TODAY
> doesn't work (and never will work) any better than it did 200 years ago].
> But, given your blinders, I imagine you will find ways to twist and 
pervert
> this information into something to support YOUR rhetoric.

  I'd like to see the evidence. Something other than anecdotal, Laura. 
People use "qualitative" evidence when they can't stand the facts. And 
again, like Margaret, it is amazing how you guys repeatedly fall back on ad 
hominem attack. You rail about what I do or don't care about, and as I told 
Margaret, you don't know two cents about me. Your moralistic judgments 
don't befit a competent journalist. (Since I assume you are a competent 
journalist, I assume you will cease and desist with the BS ad hominem 
attacks.)

  -- Greg