X-Message-Number: 28108
From: 
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:39:32 EDT
Subject: Stodolsky's latest

David Stodolsky comes across as clearly a left-wing ideologue, but usually  

(if I remember correctly) he at least tries to cite evidence in a systematic or
 objective way. In his latest message, however, he resorts to using fragments 
of  "reports" as "evidence" of some alleged broad fact or trend.
 
For example, to "refute" the statement of someone else that America should  
not be blamed for Africa's plight, he writes:
 
>Dick Cheney is current wanted by a European judge for an interview  in  
>connection with a massive bribery in Nigeria. It appears the  KBR  
>subsidiary of his company, Halliburton, made payments to the  then  
>military dictator there.
 
So this "appearance" is supposed to bloom and blossom and bulge until it  

"proves" or at least strongly suggests that, without American oppression, Africa
would once again be Eden?
 
And:
 
>According to Pentagon accountants, overcharges by Halliburton in  Iraq  
>have exceeded expenditures on all wars prosecuted by the USA  prior to  
>WW1. The higher-ups in the Pentagon decided to let them  keep the  
>money, for the most part.
 
First, the cost of all our wars prior to WWI were also prior to inflation  

and prior to a large population and prior to a large military. Second, if there
was criminality involved in the alleged overcharges, why haven't the 

Democrats  demanded and obtained Congressional hearings and further actions? 
Third,  
the fact that the Pentagon allegedly "let them keep the money, for the most  

part"--but evidently not all of it--suggests that some impropriety was affirmed
and addressed, and the rest found non-existent or inconclusive.
 
And:
 
>The flow of dirty money from the underdeveloped countries exceeds  aid  
>to them by a factor of five.
 
"Dirty money" is merely a supremely vague allegation. And how does it  

compare with the "dirty money" inside those countries? Mainly, the implication  
here 
is that the underdeveloped countries would be better off in isolation, or  at 
least isolation from the U.S. So we are supposedly to infer that this  
suffering goes on only because we (the U.S., private or/and public sectors)  

manipulate the underdeveloped governments and businesses to allow us to loot  
them 
This is mud-slinging, plain and simple, not reasonable  argument. 

And finally:
 
>According to the 2002 policy document from the National Security   
>Council, any challenge (not necessarily of a military nature) to  the  
>USA will be met by military force.
 
This is belly-laugh stuff, and anyone who can't see this needs  more help 
than I can provide.
 
Robert Ettinger




 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28108