SOME EMAILS FROM READERS

"Liberals" often reject any similarities between themselves and Communists. They reply "You should not label people with such a broad brush" or some such. My response: " YOU seem to do a lot of labeling: Labeling anyone who supports God (e.g. Bush) as a Christian fundamentalist; Or anyone who is on the Religious Right the "Christian Taliban". A tad hypocritical? Also: Liberals, Socialists and Communists hate being labeled as "fascists" by the Right, but they think that it's okay to be dependent on big government and label anyone different from that as a "fascist". Gee, how nice! I have also noticed that the Right is less conformist than those on the Left. Just look at anyone on the Left who has a different opinion on Bush and the war in Iraq (e.g. Joe Lieberman): They get booed by the crowd, because that crowd all conforms to the anti-war and anti-Bush position. The Right is more individualistic. The Right allows the Old Right to voice their opposition and don't seem to boo them the way the Left boo at anybody who disagrees with them -- even those from among their own ranks, such as Tony Blair. Consistently with their belief in the individual, the Right allows individualism in their ranks while the Left does not".

"I have met many lefties over the years who seemed completely oblivious to the very existence of any intellectual challenges to their position. This has included both the overtly political, even intellectual types as well as many far less-versed or even interested. It is this tendency on their part, I believe, which founds the core of their belief that their political opposition is essentially malicious, conspiratorial, and populated by those motivated by personal gain in association with business interests or as bribed apologists for such interests. On the other hand, I have met few conservatives (of any subdivision) similarly blinkered or intellectually isolated. Even conservatives of the most rigid and uncompromising sort are generally well-acquainted with most arguments contra and have reasoned responses, whether or not these are entirely satisfactorily constructed. Indeed, a significant portion of all those on the conservative side formerly occupied positions further to the left-- from which they had moved on the basis of quite rational considerations, sometimes occurring as a result of deliberate inquiry, sometimes gained through reflection on experience."

"To those who embrace the reigning conspiracy theory that the Iraq War is phony, that intel was at best bungled and at worst manipulated, that the U.S. lacks European alliances and can't go it alone in Iraq, that the abuses at abu Ghraib prison were suppressed, that courageous firefighters saved New York, that WMD's weren't used in Iraq (but apparently were in New York), that unlike Churchill or Roosevelt, Bush is an inept and uninspiring leader, but that we could get behind a real morally justified war like World War II but not a pre-emptive war like Iraq, I offer the following realities: In 1940 Britain was badly losing a war with Germany which had overrun Europe due to lack of pre-emption, did not believe Churchill was an inspiring leader, journalists were told to suppress knowledge of the fiasco of the British Expeditionary Force retreat across the channel from Dunkirk to Britain, the government fabricated German casualties figures, despite their heroism small fishing boats did not save many British troops in retreat from Dunkirk, the German Luftwaffe destroyed 800,000 homes in London, people were locked up for 5 years for criticizing the war, the only European ally Britain had was France which collapsed in the face of the Blitzkreig, and Churchill's famous speeches ("I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" and "we will fight on the beaches") were written by propaganda officers in the British Ministry of Information and delivered on the radio by a voice impersonator who was really a children's hour actor (like Mr. Rogers on TV in the U.S.). Later this was all considered Britain's "Finest Hour." All this is documented in the book 1940: Myth and Reality by Clive Ponting (1990). So much for the reigning preconception".

*********************************

ELSEWHERE

Dick McDonald is blogging up a storm about John Kerry. Lots of good stuff.

The system's working! "U.S. Sen. Edward M. 'Ted' Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret 'no-fly' list."

This is an amusing Leftist article to read. Take a look at the angry face of its author first. The core assertion of the article is that: "In fact, liberal bias in the academy is a fiction". And, in good Leftist fashion, that is just given as an assertion without proof or evidence. No mention is made of the fact that something like 9 out of 10 professors in the humanities and social sciences are registered Democrats. I guess Democrats are not liberals! Pathetic! But since when did Leftists ever care about the evidence? The one half-way reasonable point the author makes is that there are some academic disciplines -- e.g. accountancy, engineering etc -- that do tend towards the Right. But a careful academic study of just how far they tend to the Right is instructive. Nakhaie & Brym found that professors of accounting, finance and mechanical engineeering are indeed to the Right of centre but only marginally so. They are in fact centrists rather than Rightists. Disciplines such as sociology of course were way to the Left. More details of just how far Left academe is in general can be found here.

A fascinating piece of new research by some economists here confirms the Lynn & Vanhanen finding that national average IQ is an important predictor of national economic prosperity: "we show that national average IQ has a robust positive relationship with economic growth". So brains matter and not all human groups are equally brainy. In general, the countries with the brainiest people are not only the ones who are already richest (which is what Lynn & Vanhanen showed) but are also the ones who are getting even richer.

Arnold Kling hits back at the latest bout of drug-company bashing. One excerpt: "Marcia Angell is outraged that pharmaceutical companies earn profits and use advertising to encourage people to use their products. To her, these are evil forms of incentives. However, the alternative to using profits and advertising is to use taxes and regulation. Those are even more coercive forms of incentives. I can choose not to buy pharmaceuticals, but taxes are unavoidable. I can ignore drug company advertising, but I cannot ignore government regulation."

The drug bureaucracy at work: "On February 1, 2002, Cecil Knox was seeing patients in his Roanoke, Virginia, clinic when more than a dozen federal agents burst through the doors with guns drawn. Helmeted, shielded, and wearing bullet-proof vests, they terrified waiting patients and employees. ... Knox, a pain management specialist who had been practicing medicine in Roanoke for seven years, was dragged out in handcuffs and leg irons."

In case anybody is interested, I have just put up here some photos from my recent vacation in Far North Queensland.

For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH and GUN WATCH. Mirror sites here, here and here

********************************

Leftists acclaim "diversity" yet say "All men are equal". Figure that one out.

Why can those who claim to understand the dangers of meddling with a complex ecosystem like the natural environment, not understand that government interference with a complex system like the economy is perilous too?

The conflict between conservatives and Leftists is not usually a conflict between realists and idealists. Mostly it is a conflict between realists and people who will say anything to win applause

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************