DontTreadOnMe wrote:Eloquent, but empty, thomas. and yes it is quite arrogant to imply that you, as a non-american, have a much better insight into what life in america is like. specifically if you've never been here.
Two points: Firstly, I'm curious how much time of my life you think I have spent in the USA, and what makes you believe so. Secondly, and more importantly, my intended point wasn't that Americans are as incapable of conscious thinking as birds, which of course they aren't. The intended point was that a) being closer to a phenomenon is not necessarily an advantage for making sense of it, and b) you're not that much closer to America, than, for example I am. As Lola points out, there are 300000000 unique Americans out there. A total ignorant has never met 300000000 of them, I have never met 299999900 of them, and assuming you know 1000 Americans personally, you have never met 299999000 of them. About these Americans, all the information you have comes from the media and from hearsay -- just like all the information I have about them. Even if knowing Americans helps understanding them -- are you sure your advantage is that big?
from the comments and responses i've read from you, it "appears" that your time in the u.s. centers around weeks of some number at universities. possibly more? not impossible that you are even an american living abroad. and, yes, it is arrogant of me to "assume" that i know more about you than yourself.
if i am correct about the first possibility, then i stand firmly with my assertion (which, btw, i do not mean as a personal attack), that you cannot know the full experience of daily life in america. as regards your comment about personally knowing every individual in the country; of course i don't, nobody does. (except, for some of the name dropping poseurs i meet at hollywood parties... lol ). however, i have had the privilege of traveling about most of the country and living long term in several areas. and very different places, geographical, political and religious, at that.
if you are an american living abroad, surely you understand that things change ever more rapidly in the modern world. the mood and tenor of an entire nation can change, literally overnight. 9/11 is the obvious example.even disgarding everything that's happened afterward, the events of that single day turned the american psyche on it's head. the america of 9/10 and 9/12 were and are very different countries in terms of human condition.
hopefully i've made my point clearer?
DontTreadOnMe wrote:iraq. wmd. saddam & al qaida. yellow cake from niger. unmanned drones. "met with candies and flowers". "the gratitude of the liberated iraqi people. "america was founded on christian principles". any of this ring a bell?
Absolutely, and thanks for clarifying what you meant about the fact thing.
's okay. i've never noticed or believed that you're a person that is making the "facts" up. you seem to have a very tight grasp on history. that certainly deserves respect.
I am curious as to what, in your opinion, should be the consequence of interested parties peddling bogus facts? In my opinion it should be that we as citizens make a greater effort in seperating from real facts, and basing political arguments on the real facts. Which I think is a feasible task even if it means work.
. . . . In 1979, TIME magazine named him one of 50 future leaders of America. In 1981, PEOPLE magazine named him one of the 25 most intriguing people of the year. Scheduled for publication this coming summer is his new book, AMERICA'S RIGHT TURN: HOW THE CONSERVATIVES USED NEW AND ALTERNATIVE MEDIA TO TAKE POWER, written with David Franke. It is the first in-depth look at how direct mail, talk radio, cable TV, and the Internet have changed American politics.[/[/b]QUOTE]
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Viguerie
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4162182
[quote]"Probably, No. 1 is judicial appointments," Viguerie says. "Many problems that we experience as a country have come about because we've had unelected judges legislating from the bench. And that needs to be corrected... We're very excited about that possibility of turning the judiciary in a more conservative direction."
Does President Bush's victory with strong support from the right mean he owes something to the conservative movement?
"I don't look at this as the president owing us," Viguerie says. "This is a president who campaigned on conservative issues, some conservative values. This president is fond of saying that he means what he says and says what he means. And so consequently, we're excited about the opportunity to help this president implement his conservative campaign promises."
Little is new about the strategic decisions PACs make or the technology at their disposal. Christian PACs have learned the tricks of the trade quickly, largely because of the mentors in the secular right.
"To a remarkable extent, the Christian activist have found skilled allies in one and only one place, among one and only one group of organizations - - the groups loosely known as the New Right" (Marshner, 1980:iii).
Two principle consultants are Paul Weyrich, National Director of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, and Howard Phillips, founder of the Conservative Caucus (Keller, 1980: 2,629).
Weyrich prompted Robert Billings to start a group in Washington to represent conservative Christians, a suggestion which led to the National Christian Action Coalition. Phillips in turn hired Edward McAteer as his field director before McAteer left to found Roundtable.
Together these four men cemented ties to most of the key evangelical preachers now in the New Christian Right (Cleninen, 1980: B7).
Richard Viguerie, direct mail expert of the New Right, credits Weyrich and Phillips with persuading ministers Jerry Falwell, Jim Robison, and Pat Robertson to get involved in convervative politics (Viguerie, 1980: 56).
Before Rush Limbaugh, there was Richard Viguerie.
Many conservatives today listen, learn, and heed the advice articulated by the radio talk show icon. But before Rush, conservatives for nearly 40 years looked to Richard Viguerie, the funding father of the conservative movement, for the "right word" on policy and politics. Before Limbaugh, it was Viguerie whose mail was delivered over hill and dale, through rain, sleet, and snow, to conservative donors and activists, prodding them to take action.
While he no longer funds an estimated 70 percent of the conservative movement's revenues - a calculation made by his political enemies - Viguerie, who turns 70 this month, no longer has to, because Viguerie-trained acolytes are active from coast to American coast. As a "graduate" of the Viguerie school of conservative activism, I attest to the influence he had, not only on U.S. politics, but on the many young men and women fortunate enough to have learned at his side. In fact, Morton Blackwell, another well-known graduate, deserves credit for the "funding father" tag.
Vigurie pioneered political "direct mail" four decades ago as the newly hired Executive Secretary for Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). Shy about personally visiting contributors, Viguerie realized he could contact 1,000 or 10,000 potential donors by mail without spending any more time, effort, or money than it would take to personally solicit a single contribution from one potential donor. Thus was launched a storied career as the guru of direct mail political fundraising.
Legions of candidates, from the courthouse to the White House, have benefited from Viguerie's expertise, and legions of others have tasted defeat as a direct result of his ability to raise money and promote action simply by sitting down at his typewriter.
This one-man financier of the U.S. Postal Service has mailed an estimated two billion letters during his careers. Some of them have been humdingers!
The "New Right" movement was kicked off in the early 1970s by a group of conservative activists which included Paul Weyrich, Joseph Coors and Richard Viguerie. It was Weyrich, founder of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, and Richard Viguerie, direct-mail/fund-raising maven, who first saw the potential of politically organizing church members from a variety of denominations around the abortion issue. It was Weyrich who brought Jerry Falwell into the fold with the formation of the Moral Majority and convinced Pat Robertson to run for president in 1988. Weyrich and Viguerie believed that social conservatives could be organized into a group that would form a constituency larger than the politically active in either the Democratic or Republican parties. Viguerie has been quoted as saying, "I organize discontent."
In 1973, Weyrich and Joseph Coors established the Heritage Foundation, a right- wing think tank, to develop public policy. Later, Weyrich established the Free Congress Foundation (FCF) to promote right-wing public policy. The Heritage Foundation and associated organizations have a hidden agenda for America. Articles written by Heritage staff members are printed in major newspapers promoting the concept that Heritage is a benign think tank, when in fact it has ties to most major right-wing activists such as: Mel & Norma Gabler, who influence schoolbook selection nationally; Robert Simonds' Citizens for Excellence in Education; Mountain States Legal Foundation, an anti-environmental organization which is also against affirmative action, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and the ERA; and Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. In addition to heading up Free Congress, Weyrich is also permanent Secretary and Treasurer of the Council for National Policy (CNP).
The CNP was started in 1982 as an ultra-conservative answer to the Council for Foreign Relations. Membership is by invitation only and dues are upwards of $2,000 a year. Sara Diamond, a well-known researcher of the radical religious right, describes the CNP as "a highly secretive coalition which represents the entire spectrum of New Right corporate executives, TV preachers, legislators, and former high-ranking government and military leaders. The Council for National Policy is considered the primary coordinating body - and funding conduit - for Christian Right projects." (Spiritual Warfare, Sara Diamond, South End Press, 1989.)
Other prominent CNP members are: Ralph Reed, Jr., Executive Director, Christian Coalition; Pat Robertson, Founder, Christian Coalition; Phyllis Schlafly, The Eagle Forum; James Dobson, Focus on The Family; GOP Congressman, Robert K. Dornan; GOP Congressman, William Dannemeyer; once and future GOP candidate, Oliver North; Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority; Louis P. Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition; Burton Pines, Heritage Foundation; R. J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon, Inc.; T. Cullen Davis (Ft. Worth millionaire who was tried for the murder of his step-daughter); and Texas GOP party chairman, Tom Pauken. Recent additions to CNP membership include GOP Congressman Steve Stockman (Texas). Two well-known Houston CNP members are Ed Young, pastor of the Second Baptist Church and Judge Paul Pressler.
Free Congress Foundation has published a book entitled Cultural Conservatism: Theory and Practice (ISBN 0-942522-16-8) which was edited by William S. Lind and William H. Marshner whose wife, Connaught "Connie" Marshner, is a CNP member. The book contains chapters entitled Why the West? by William J. Bennett and Cultural Conservatism and The Conservative Movement by Paul Weyrich, in which he explores his theories including, for example, government vouchers to private citizens not only for schools but street repair and other municipal services.
In a joint publication of The Heritage Foundation, Empower America, and The Free Congress Foundation entitled The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, William Bennett, Education Secretary under Ronald Reagan, documents in alarming detail how "....violent crime has sky-rocketed; illegitimate births and divorce rates have quadrupled; teen suicide rates doubled; and scholastic aptitude test scores plummeted." Bennett warns that "....these modern day pathologies have risen from the wreckage of the Great Society - a time of booming prosperity." We must, he says, "return to the fundamental purpose of education - to engage in the architecture of souls." This book has been featured on "The Rush Limbaugh Show." Heritage Publications 1993/1994 states, "This book is required reading for anyone concerned about the future of America." Congressman Newt Gingrich is quoted in Heritage Foundation literature praising their publications.
Bennett has been chairman of FCF's National Empowerment Television (NET). According to the Anti-Defamation League's book, The Religious Right, "NET addresses the religious right's meat-and-potatoes issues - including coverage of abortion, gay rights (NET has broadcast the homophobic video, "The Gay Agenda"), school vouchers, and public school curricula developments." NET was a decisive factor in obtaining confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas by encouraging viewers to pressure their congressmen. Burton Pines, Vice-Chairman of NET, calls the project "C-Span with an attitude."
Behind this blizzard of cultural and religious extremism is the desire of the economically greedy for a no-holds-barred laissez faire commercial climate. This group of fiscal conservatives is interested primarily in the passage of legislation which fattens their pocketbooks. They feel insulated from extremism by their individual wealth and power. They care little about the freedoms and opportunities of this or future generations.
Power hungry politicians whose primary concern is winning elections are willing to concede to extremism in their political rhetoric in order to capture the bloc votes of single-issue fanatics. By pandering to right-wing extremism, they make it possible for unrestricted commercial interests to have their day. For example, bills are being introduced to dismantle the Pure Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which stand in the way of obscene and immoral profiteering. Those with robber baron mentalities are more than willing to trade our freedoms to religious fanatics for bloc votes. Recent efforts by the newly elected conservative Congress (1995) to reduce the national deficit and balance the budget at the expense of the poor and elderly are an example. Punishing welfare mothers who have children out of wedlock by refusing aid is a precursor of what is to come. Medicare and Medicaid reductions without implementing some kind of national health care program, while insisting upon a revival of the Strategic Defense Initiative, is pure political pandering to "fat cats" in the defense industry at the expense of the weakest in our society.
Using the Council For National Policy (CNP) as its board of directors; the Free Congress Foundation (FCF) as general manager; the Christian Coalition to control the GOP and to provide congressional representation; and Pat Robertson as chaplain, the Heritage Foundation has the instruments and orchestration to implement Paul Weyrich's compositions of "Cultural Conservatism."
With FCF's National Empowerment Television (NET); right-wing talk-show radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh; columnists like Cal Thomas; organizations such as the Christian Coalition; James Dobson's Focus On The Family; the Coalition On Revival (COR); Promise Keepers; Citizens for Excellence in Education (CEE); homophobes such as Jerry Falwell and Lou Sheldon; Christian Reconstructionists; and even anti-government militias and racist organizations, Heritage can propagandize and rally both collaborating and unsuspecting "ditto heads."
Voters with negative and/or selfish motives such as: racists (anti-Semites, skin-heads, survivalists, militias, white supremacists); anti-feminists; pro-lifers; pro-gun fanatics; home schoolers and voucher advocates fall prey to demagoguery and are being blatantly used to reduce this nation to an anti-democratic, two-class social and economic system. Diehard party supporters who ignore the demagogic positions taken and vote for the political party rather than the candidate are witless enablers in this scenario.
Ultra-conservative politicians and Christian Coalition leaders often use the expression "a city on a hill" when describing what they have in store for America. This "city on a hill" would very closely resemble medieval Europe. In medieval times, the church was the largest landholder. The church collected taxes, maintained law courts, and punished criminals and non-believers. There were two classes: the nobility, which included church leaders, and the peasants, who were bound to the land and supported the elite with their labor. This two-class system is the direction in which ultra-conservatives would take us. The radical right would first discriminate against, then exclude by law, atheists and secular humanists. Before too long, religions unwilling to bend to their brand of fanatic fundamentalism would also be excluded.
Western culture's last experience with church-dominated government lasted over 1000 years. Three factors which brought an end to this oppression were the bubonic plague, the Reformation and the rise of humanism. The plague reduced the population so severely that simple supply and demand gave opportunity to the peasant classes to participate more freely as tradesmen, artisans and soldiers. The Reformation broke the hold of one religious group (the Vatican) over all Western monarchies and subsequently weakened absolutism in governments. Humanism gave philosophic value and hope to the common man. If we allow ultra-conservatives and the Christian Coalition to continue to win ever increasing control of our government, how many years will be required to throw off the yoke? What will be the cost in lives, hope and dollars to repair the damage these greedy fanatics will do to the country? Will the United States be able to maintain its presence as a first-world country with a third-world theocratic government?
If Cultural Conservatism and the regressive economic agenda it disguises is implemented by manipulating single-issue voter groups, will your beliefs and lifestyle pass the litmus tests of these organizations? Will you lose some of your freedoms? Will your neighbor lose all of his? Will you find yourself marching in a band which has the unmistakable beat of a fascist theme underscored by the sound of jack boots?
from the comments and responses i've read from you, it "appears" that your time in the u.s. centers around weeks of some number at universities. possibly more? not impossible that you are even an american living abroad. and, yes, it is arrogant of me to "assume" that i know more about you than yourself.
hopefully i've made my point clearer?
are we cool?
I have long contemplated what causes so much confusion.......
I know more about the subject of this thread than most of those posting. Lack of information can lead to false conclusions.
Surely you know me well enough by now to give some little credence to my word. I know a lot more about this subject than anyone else on this board that I know. I have years of intimate experience.
But I agree. My word only goes so far. Still, when I give you something to study, I appreciate not getting an immediate response saying that regardless, you don't think it's a problem at all.
blatham wrote:Hume not only wrote many political essays, but applied for chairs at two universities. Add in the projects he undertook in philosophy and one would have some trouble arguing convincingly that Hume would need a shotgun to his head to involve himself in contemporary issues or contemporary groups, particularly regarding the issues of religious dogma gaining greater foothold in the community or in the machinations of rule.
I'm sorry, but you're bashing a strawman. None of this refutes the claim you are attacking, which was:
Thomas wrote:If forced at gunpoint to choose between the ACLU and the Religious Right, I'm sure he would rather join the ACLU. But his obvious preference of reasoning over bullying seems so intense to me that he wouldn't have joined either organization unless forced at gunpoint. I guess he'd rather have an Op-Ed column in the New York times. I can see him blog, too. I am fairly certain he would have preferred turning people around by persuading them rather than through political pressure.
Or in other words: Contrary to your assertion, I am not denying that Hume, if he lived today, would "involve himself in contemporary issues". I just don't think that joining a political pressure group would have been his preferred way of involving himself politically. While I found it interesting to learn that Hume applied for chairs at two universities, I don't see how this supplies evidence against my point, since universities weren't thought of as political pressure groups at the time -- as well they shouldn't.
thomas
How could I...why would I...construct a strawman to stand in when you don't make an argument, you simply voice an opinion regarding how you think Hume would behave in this context? That's not an opinion I share and you haven't presented anything like a compelling case. Your certainty doesn't do the trick.
What I was pointing to however was your use of the metaphor 'with gun to head', as if it were the case or even likely that Hume would pay our imagined choice more than a few seconds' perusal. This may well be a description of how thomas might behave but not, in my view, how Hume would be expected to act. This isn't resolveable.
blatham wrote:How many anti-nuke individuals or environmentalists sought to gain power, though organization and activism, in thousands of school and hospital boards?
I am judging from my experience in two highschools, one near Chicago, one in a small university town in Oregon, each of which I visited for about two weeks. I admit this is an unimpressive statistical sample. But for what it's worth, the biology curriculum in both schools taught a version of ecology that came pretty close to Gaia worship. In the geography lessons, the textbook of both schools, and in the classroom teaching of one of them, Cuba under Batista was portrayed as a Third World country, and Cuba under Castro was portrayed as a successful effort in bringing a Third World country up to speed with the industrial nations. It was also said in the textbooks that the world was facing an overpopulation crisis and that measures in the spirit of China's one-child policy were the right way to counter it. Sure, the price of forced abortions and sterilizations seemed high to the Westerner, but hey -- who are we to impose our values on other cultures? Overall, China was made to look a lot better in the Geography textbook than the Pope, who was portrayed as an old fool for disagreeing with policies to tie development aid to implementation of population-control policies.
Don't ask me how they did it, but it seems the environmentalists and socialists did a pretty good job at pushing their agenda into school curriculuae, contrary to the facts of the matter.
In addition to that, I don't think the EPA would have been incorporated without political pressure from environmentalist pressure groups like Ralph Naders. Nor do I believe it would have grown to its current size without that influence. Do you? While I agree that the left-wing pressure groups didn't coopt the political institutions the way the right-wingers did. But they were successful at coopting different institutions, and I stand by my judgment that their political success was comparable to that of the Religious Right: substantial, but limited.
Your reluctance or refusal to acknowledge differences here as being anything more than superficial in their consequences is where your dogmatism shows, thomas. It's not the first time. On an earlier discussion, I relayed the text of a Britannica entry on the United Fruit Growing Company and your response to that bit of ugly, anti-democratic American history of collusion between state and a corporate interest was dismissed as being probably written by a leftist. If I were to gather up the figures for the exact number of school boards in the US and Canada which have been targeted by the Christian Right to the end - successful end - of gaining voting control, and even if that number was in the many hundreds (it is), you'd argue 'so what?'. If I added in the number of hospital boards and riding associations and court appointments and state positions and federal positions, it wouldn't much matter what those figures might be...nor how utterly different in comparison (in organization and in result) from what the environmental or womens' movements, for example, achieved, I'm quite confident you'd find nothing noteworthy about those differences. Left vs right, activism equals activism...ho hum. Like foxfyre in her defence of pragmatic torture, it becomes hard to imagine what set of circumstances might encourage thomas to acknowledge that what is maybe ain't what ought to be - and WHY it ought not to be.
blatham wrote:Who can tell us more that is 'true' about love, the bio-chemist or the poet? Who can better discern the 'truth' of political movements and consequences, Milton Friedman or George Orwell?
I'd say that depends on what you want to know about the phenomenon in question. For example, if you want to know what it was like to live through the Great Depression, Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath and Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier are hard to beat. But both are unreliable sources if you want to know what caused the Great Depression, and how we as a society can prevent a new one. To this end, Keynes' "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" will get you much farther. Milton Friedman's Monetary History of the United States is better still, but it's not a fair comparison. Friedman wrote in the fifties, not the thiries, so had access to information that the other three didn't.
Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if Tom Wolfe writes the definitive novel about the Religious Right some day, and if it will tell us exactly what it feels like to be part of it, and what it feels like to be missionized by it. But if I want to reach an informed judgment on what its likely impact will be and what, if anything, I ought to do about it, I'll trust peer-reviewed sociologists, economists and ethnologists over novelists hands-down. The former sell their texts on their strength in figuring out facts, the latter merely sell their text on their strength in writing entertaining fiction.
1984 or Animal Farm have as their singular strength the quality of 'entertainment'? Do you think it so?
An agenda so secret its out on the Web for everyone to see, and which is published in an array of well-selling books, some of which are named by your source. Finally, you treat yet another opinion piece as if it were a reliable source of primary information, perhaps not noticing that this only has an effect when you're preaching to the converted.
so have decided to let me surf and do my share of the work themselves. Does this change a single point I made in this forum? No. They continue to stand on their own merits, or to fall on their face for their lack thereof. And that's exactly what I want them to do.
How could I...why would I...construct a strawman to stand in when you don't make an argument, you simply voice an opinion regarding how you think Hume would behave in this context? That's not an opinion I share and you haven't presented anything like a compelling case. Your certainty doesn't do the trick.
Your reluctance or refusal to acknowledge differences here as being anything more than superficial in their consequences is where your dogmatism shows, thomas. It's not the first time. On an earlier discussion, I relayed the text of a Britannica entry on the United Fruit Growing Company and your response to that bit of ugly, anti-democratic American history of collusion between state and a corporate interest was dismissed as being probably written by a leftist.
United Brands Company:
American corporation formed in 1970 in the merger of United Fruit Company and AMK Corporation (the holding company for John Morrell and Co., meat-packers). It engages in the production and distribution of bananas and other fruits and produce, the processing and distribution of meats, the manufacture and distribution of other foods, fats, oils, and beverages, and the administration of diversified activities in plastics, animal feeds, telecommunications, and other areas. Headquarters for United Brands are in New York City.
United Fruit Company, the main company, was founded in 1899 in the merger of the Boston Fruit Company and other companies producing and marketing bananas grown in the Caribbean islands, Central America, and Colombia. The principal founder was Minor C. Keith, who had begun to acquire banana plantations and to build a railroad in Costa Rica as early as 1872. In 1884 he contracted with the Costa Rican government to fund the national debt and to lay about 50 more miles of track. In return he received, for 99 years, full rights to these rail lines and 800,000 acres (325,000 hectares) of virgin land, tax exempt for 20 years.
United Fruit Company was capitalized at $11,230,000 at its founding. The company then expanded its capitalization to $215,000,000 by 1930 by absorbing more than 20 rival firms, and it became the largest employer in Central America. From the time the company began, Caribbean and Latin-American governments made available vast undeveloped tracts of jungle lands, which United Fruit cleared, planted, and supplied with extensive railroad and port facilities. Marketing operations included a shipping arm, the Great White Fleet, one of the largest of private merchant navies. All these efforts were matched by an advertising campaign that was extremely successful in marketing bananas in North America and Europe.
As a foreign corporation of conspicuous size, United Fruit sometimes became the target of popular attacks. The Latin-American press often referred to it as el pulpo ("the octopus"), accusing it of exploiting labourers, bribing officials, and influencing governments during the period of Yankee "dollar diplomacy" in the first decades of the 20th century. The company's defenders, however, have pointed out that United Fruit's early excesses were somewhat mitigated later. Through the Associated Producers Program, the company gradually transferred title of portions of its landholdings to individual growers, provided them with reasonable credit terms and technological assistance, and acted as marketing agent for their produce; its workers were comparatively well paid and were provided with medical care.
United Brands still owns or leases extensive banana plantations in Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, and Colombia. It also has continued to produce, for the U.S. government, Jamaican sugar; Costa Rican, Panamanian, and Ecuadorian cocoa; and abaca in Guatemala. Throughout Central America and northern South America, it has maintained holdings that produced tropical woods, quinine, essential oils, and rubber.
Like foxfyre in her defence of pragmatic torture, it becomes hard to imagine what set of circumstances might encourage thomas to acknowledge that what is maybe ain't what ought to be - and WHY it ought not to be.
1984 or Animal Farm have as their singular strength the quality of 'entertainment'? Do you think it so?
I've never said it was secret.
The Heritage Foundation and associated organizations have a hidden agenda for America. Articles written by Heritage staff members are printed in major newspapers promoting the concept that Heritage is a benign think tank, when in fact it has ties to most major right-wing activists such as: Mel & Norma Gabler, who influence schoolbook selection nationally; Robert Simonds' Citizens for Excellence in Education; Mountain States Legal Foundation, an anti-environmental organization which is also against affirmative action, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and the ERA; and Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.
Consider for a moment if I know and have known many of the people involved in the organizing efforts of the Far Right. You of course don't know for sure if I do or not.
You don't strike me as a liar and I know people who have met you in person. So I have an idea about how dependable your word probably is. You're probably not a janitor.
I won't try to tell you about your areas of experience of which I am ignorant, and you shouldn't expect me to value your conclusions about mine.
Whenever I hear a person announce their conviction that they could have painted it themselves, I always wonder how they can be so sure, having never studied visual arts or more specifically modern art in their lives.
I know that while your arguments are logical as far as they go, they are still uninformed in significant enough ways as to qualify your conclusions to be false.