oaf@mit-vax.UUCP ([Oded Anoaf Feingold]) (05/11/85)
References: <93@mit-vax.UUCP> <1340059@acf4.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: oaf@mit-vax.UUCP ([Oded Anoaf Feingold]) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, Mass. Keywords: Mr. Michael Sykora quotes me... >> In particular, he [Reagan] meant to gouge the money for his >> programs out of the bellies of hungry children, the salaries of >> teachers, the medicare and social security checks of the old, the >> weak, and the defenseless. and decides to be sarcastic: > I had no idea there was so much money in the bellies of hungry > children! Actually, neither did I. Nor did Reagan. But that was his ostensible policy, namely to finance our military buildup by cutting apparent waste, specifically school lunches, federal aid to education, caps and cuts on welfare, social security benefits, etc. Never mind that the sizes of new expenses far outweighed any possible savings from those quarters, as evidenced by the current deficit. Whatever the benefits of our military buildup, there is no doubt that Mr. Reagan has spread misery and despair among the people least able to absorb further blows. A trivial example is the increased rate of infant mortality among poor people since the present administration took office. [Sources include annual reports of the Cook County Medical Examiner, and "Mortality and Morbidity," published by the Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga.] In my opinion, such cruelty toward the poor and weak do not fit in with a decnt or moral person's behavior. For that and other reasons, I contend that Mr. Reagan's morality is (at best) fatally flawed. The point of my message was to show the irony in Mr. Reagan's second inaugural address -- those Israelites in exile (and vassalized) in Babylon thought for a while about what it takes to be moral, and those three lines were an attempt on their part to codify the competing demands of selfishness and altruism. Mr. Reagan _dropped_ the line mentioning altruism, but otherwise lifted his lines straight from Pirkei Avot. [Actually, I think it was his speechwriter -- I don't think Mr. Reagan can read Hebrew. I'd be surprised if he can even read English, but that's another flame.] There's more to it, of course. Reagan has very little political or personal honesty, as can be seen in his continuing and deliberate lies. A recent example, in which he "misinterpreted" a telegram from Beth Flom and announced to the world that it supported his trip to Bitburg, seems particularly crass. Does the man who can end the world really NEED to stuff lies into a 13-year old girl's mouth to justify his policies? Such omissions inversions and are clearly part of the man's persona, where truth counts for nothing unless it's a tool for furthering their policies. In that he shows similarities with great men in history. I leave it to the reader to decide which ones. > Hmmm, that gives me an idea . . . > I suppose it never occurred to you that he may be returning some of > the money to those to whom it belongs, who may or may not be "old, > weak or defenseless." I guess the point of Mr. Sykora's message was to show me up as an unthinking, unfeeling asshole. I'll even rise (briefly) to the bait: Unlike you, Mr. Sykora, I am willing to pay some additional increment in taxes to help the poor, the sick, the people who have little opportunity and less hope in this world. I am willing to give up some part of my lifestyle so that others may simply live. I have little sympathy with those who are so selfish that they will do _anything_, including pervert any claim they have to consistency and personal integrity, to save a little tax money while others suffer and die for lack of it. It may seem "tough," heroic and in the best tradition of Spencerian survivalism to be as selfish as you proclaim to be, but social development is a shared project. Mr. Sykora, I don't envy the people in your idea of paradise, nor those who have to share space or network bandwidth with you. That's also my answer to your "So what?" in response to the plea for civility. When I hire people, one consideration I have is whether they spread happiness among the people they're working with. I would do my colleagues a great disservice if I invited you into their midst. I would never do such a thing. Mr. Sykora quotes my message regarding Reagan's second inaugural... >> In particular, he [REAGAN] meant to gouge the money for his >> programs out of the bellies of hungry children, the salaries >> of teachers, the medicare and social security checks of the >> old, the weak, and the defenseless. and responds sarcastically: > I had no idea there was so much money in the bellies of > hungry children! Nor did I. Nor did Mr. Reagan. But the ostensible financing for his arms buildup and tax cuts was to come from cutting out "waste" in programs such as school lunches, federal aid to education, caps and cuts in social security, welfare and similar programs. The size of the federal deficit shows the mismatch between such "savings" and the expenditures he has undertaken. To my mind, that deficit typifies the unrealistic nature of Mr. Reagan's claims Whatever the value of our current arms buildup, the cuts in social services have caused pain and despair to those people least capable of absorbing further economic blows. A trivial proof of that assertion can be found in the increased rates of infant mortality and malnutrition-related diseases among the poor. [Sources include the Cook County Medical Examiner's annual reports, as well as Mortality and Morbidity, published by the Center for Disease Control.] To my mind, a person willing to cause such pain to the weak and defenseless as a ploy to convince the populace of the economic soundness of his plans has abrogated morality. The point of my message was that > Hmmm, that gives me an idea . . . You planning on wandering around Harlem with a knife? > I suppose it never occurred to you that he may be returning > some of the money to those to whom it belongs, who may or may > not be "old, weak or defenseless." -- Oded Feingold {decvax, harvard}!mitvax!oaf MIT AI Lab oaf%oz@mit-mc.ARPA 545 Tech Sq. 617-253-8598 work Cambridge, Mass. 02139 617-371-1796 home
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/13/85)
>/* oaf@mit-vax.UUCP ([Oded Anoaf Feingold]) / 11:47 am May 11, 1985 */ >Mr. Michael Sykora quotes me... >>> In particular, he [Reagan] meant to gouge the money for his >>> programs out of the bellies of hungry children, the salaries of >>> teachers, the medicare and social security checks of the old, the >>> weak, and the defenseless. >and decides to be sarcastic: >> I had no idea there was so much money in the bellies of hungry >> children! >Actually, neither did I. Nor did Reagan. But that was his ostensible >policy, namely to finance our military buildup by cutting apparent >waste, specifically school lunches, federal aid to education, caps and >cuts on welfare, social security benefits, etc. Never mind that the >sizes of new expenses far outweighed any possible savings from those >quarters, as evidenced by the current deficit. No! He intended to finance the military buildup with taxes. Funds are not generated by these programs, so military spending cannot be financed by these programs. You don't finance X, by cutting Y. >Whatever the benefits of our military buildup, there is no doubt that >Mr. Reagan has spread misery and despair among the people least able to >absorb further blows. How one can spread misery by not giving people something is not clear to me! Please explain this? >In my opinion, such cruelty toward the poor and weak do not fit in with >a decnt or moral person's behavior. For that and other reasons, I >contend that Mr. Reagan's morality is (at best) fatally flawed. Why do you believe this? The reason is not apparent to me, and I therefore don't agree. In my opinion, human beings are not born into obligation, but rather are only obligated to do those tbings that they voluntarily agree to do. If this is not so, then where does one draw the line on what a human being is obligated to do, and why? (Note, that I do not agree with you that sush behavior is "cruel.") >There's more to it, of course. Reagan has very little political or >personal honesty, as can be seen in his continuing and deliberate lies. Do you really expect anything else from a politician? After all, he has an incentive to lie. >> Hmmm, that gives me an idea . . . >You planning on wandering around Harlem with a knife? Oh, sense of humor, where are you sense of humor . . . >> I suppose it never occurred to you that he may be returning some of >> the money to those to whom it belongs, who may or may not be "old, >> weak or defenseless." >I guess the point of Mr. Sykora's message was to show me up as an >unthinking, unfeeling asshole. I don't remember what this was in response to, but it was not my intention to depict you as such, and I don't believe that I in fact did. >Unlike you, Mr. Sykora, I am willing to pay some additional increment in >taxes to help the poor, the sick, the people who have little opportunity >and less hope in this world. I am willing to give up some part of my >lifestyle so that others may simply live. Note, that my political position on this matter does not presuppose that I am unwilling to help such people, only that I don't believe the government should be taking away my money and giving it to them (or anyone else). > I have little sympathy with >those who are so selfish that they will do _anything_, including pervert >any claim they have to consistency and personal integrity, to save a >little tax money while others suffer and die for lack of it. If you are referring to me, thanks just the same, but I don't want your sympathy. Please define selfish in somewhat more detail. I find that people often use the term to describe different attitudes. In fact, often these definitions turn out to be internally inconsistent. What do you mean by "pervert any claim they have to consistency and personal integrity, to save a little tax money ...?" Are you suggesting (among other things) that it is impossible for a person to be opposed to gov't. enforced "redistribution" (a misnomer if I've ever seen one) of wealth on principle? If so, you are treading on very thin ice indeed. > It may >seem "tough," heroic and in the best tradition of Spencerian survivalism >to be as selfish as you proclaim to be, but social development is a >shared project. It is considered bad form (for a good reason), and contributes nothing to an argument, to present your presumptions as to the motivations of the other participants. >Mr. Sykora, I don't envy the people in your idea of paradise, nor those >who have to share space or network bandwidth with you. I never stated what my idea of paradise is, though I suppose it's reasonable, based on the above, to conclude that you wouldn't like it. Since my ideal society would be one that (among other things) would be free of coercion, you are, of course, free not to participate. > That's also my >answer to your "So what?" in response to the plea for civility. When I >hire people, one consideration I have is whether they spread happiness >among the people they're working with. I would do my colleagues a great >disservice if I invited you into their midst. I would never do such a >thing. Perhaps you can refresh my memory. What is (was) this about? >Oded Feingold {decvax, harvard}!mitvax!oaf Have a nice day, Mike Sykora