Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Changing Realities in South Africa
Message-ID: <397@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 13:46:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.397
Posted: Fri Sep  6 13:46:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 16:36:51 EDT
References: <1168@ihlpg.UUCP> <175@batman.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Distribution: net
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 48
Summary: 

In article <175@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes:

>Your ignorance of what I said is typical of the American Left--
>you never seem to be particularly interested in what I or anybody
>else has to say, unless it hits one of your "hot buttons" so that
>you can launch into a left-wing diatribe.  This is typical of you
>leftists--you only hear what you want to hear.  I guess this is where
>the term "knee-jerk liberal" comes from.  The Soviets use your
>selective hearing to manipulate you people like putty.

Try the following experiment: replace all occurrences in the above
paragraph of the syllable 'left' with 'right,' the word 'liberal' with
the word 'conservative,' and the word 'Soviets' with the phrase
'ultraconservative Christian right.' Aren't sweeping generalizations
fun? ;-)

What you say is true of many people on the left side of the 
political spectrum. For example, a few months ago "The Nation" printed
an article by someone (I think the name was Manning) that suggested
that maybe the Sandinistas might not be entirely the Good Guys so many
people on the left want to think they are. The screams of outrage at
this suggestion have to be read to be believed. And we all remember
the naive elevation of the Viet Cong to a position of untouchable moral
correctness during the Viet Nam sadness. 

However, I also believe the right is responsible for a lot of
'knee-jerking' of its own. For example, the Sandinistas are frequently
called 'thugs' by the right, which they very well may be. The right
takes great glee in pointing out the many sins of our Boys From
Managua. But I've yet to have anyone explain to me exactly WHY the
Contras are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers, as the Great
Communicator tells us. I mean, why shouldn't I consider them thugs
too? I much prefer Harry Truman's honesty when referring to one of our
more dictatorial allies: "He may be a sonofabitch but he's OUR
sonofabitch." (Note: I *think* it was Harry Truman, but I don't have a
source handy to check it out) Oh, you tell me it's true because the
Great Communicator sez so? Sorry, I forgot that I should believe 
everything he tells me without question because if I don't it proves 
I'm not a good American. I guess my liberal knee's jerking the way 
it sometimes does distracted me for a second. :-)

And if you don't think the right has its own set of 'hot buttons,'
consider any one of a number of issues sure to rile up the most staid
conservative: abortion clinics, school prayer, the Panama canal
treaty, welfare moochers, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Your claim of superior
objectivity on the part of the right is hardly convincing.

                          -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly