SOURCE: http://www.edwinaitken.com/
To the Editor of The Gazette:
Re: "Steyn speaks to full house," Nov. 3/10
I read with interest The Gazette's coverage of Mark Steyn's visit to London. North American society is deteriorating, he says, because we're too educated and infantlized, and because Islam is taking over. How original.
I can only assume that Steyn's been in hibernation for the last few decades. Otherwise he might have cited the real problem: corporate elites[1,2,3,4] and their politician puppets[5,6,7,8] who are driven by greed[9,10,11] and have therefore led humanity into wars without end[12,13,14,15,16,17], environmental destruction[18,19,20], gross inequality[21,22,23,24], and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression[25,26].
What the world needs is a democratized economic system that puts human needs and the ecosystem first.[27,28] Of course, that would cut into the mega-profits of the economic elites who are leading us all to doomsday. And that's where elites' lapdog mouthpieces, like Steyn, come in.
Unfortunately, it's surprisingly easy to get rich and famous by distracting people from the real source of society's problems. History is full of scapegoating.[29,30,31,32,33,34,35] Xenophobia and racism divide the masses[36,37] while elites continue to plunder the Earth, hoard the wealth, and drive down our living standards[38,39,40,41,42,43].
Thus, it's not surprising that Steyn would also attack education.[44,45,46] We just might learn something from history and start asking the most important question: Who's sailing this ship, anyway?
Rick Telfer
Related commentaries on this blog:
FURTHER/RELATED READING & EVIDENCE/EXAMPLES:
- http://goo.gl/WWbj3
- http://goo.gl/o03U
- http://goo.gl/nU7S
- http://goo.gl/jbpuv
- http://goo.gl/0JHFa
- http://goo.gl/jZqez
- http://goo.gl/C5wBF
- http://goo.gl/5TFfk
- http://goo.gl/36Pko
- http://goo.gl/Y1eQ3
- http://goo.gl/EevVq
- http://goo.gl/WTBhO
- http://goo.gl/0GEGV
- http://goo.gl/hdsVM
- http://goo.gl/EJFMZ
- http://goo.gl/ejLP
- http://goo.gl/3VmHP
- http://goo.gl/7sqyl
- http://goo.gl/PNHZ0
- http://goo.gl/vgkgp
- http://goo.gl/K9bg5
- http://goo.gl/I9IfZ
- http://goo.gl/rbWwf
- http://goo.gl/8scMT
- http://goo.gl/xx4f5
- http://goo.gl/4LfZn
- http://goo.gl/WJOd4
- http://goo.gl/sGzve
- http://goo.gl/T2d40
- http://goo.gl/RShcB
- http://goo.gl/59DpA
- http://goo.gl/K9KXZ
- http://goo.gl/AU2Q0
- http://goo.gl/P5YXX
- http://goo.gl/kJ9y
- http://goo.gl/euaJS
- http://goo.gl/ktulK
- http://goo.gl/mjCF
- http://goo.gl/5jtPO
- http://goo.gl/fI0zm
- http://goo.gl/PUi1Z
- http://goo.gl/FWeoI
- http://goo.gl/fsegr
- http://goo.gl/eqnI
- http://goo.gl/e88Q
- http://goo.gl/jbNAm
48 comments:
You wasted your money at university. Please. Don't teach.
Hilarious! You are the new P.J. O'Rourke.
Try reading Adam Smith. The free market works.
It would be far better if government didn't bail out businesses. It would teach future businesses not to count on it.
Chomsky! Zionist propaganda! Corporate elites... greed... environmental destruction... Xenophobia and racism!
Oh God - it's like someone typed "lefty cliche" into one of those random generator programs. And he teaches; oh hurray.
Well, I'm sure Mark Steyn will be crying himself to sleep tonight.
Island Breezes: That's not an argument.
Geoff Matthews: You have proof for "the free market works," or is that just a religious belief?
Black Mamba: That's not an argument.
I just typed in "lefty homosexual lunatic" into google and your name came up.
Sanwin: That's not an argument. http://goo.gl/SoYh
Sheesh.
There was a time when a Phd candidate would actually have at least half a brain.
But then, they recently found that Liberalism is a genetic disorder.
It wasn't meant to be, any more than your asserting: "Xenophobia and racism divide the masses while elites continue to plunder the Earth, hoarde the wealth, and drive down our living standards" was meant to be an argument. Are you under the impression that I'm submitting a paper for you to grade?
Sanwin: Still not an argument. Just more of this: http://goo.gl/SoYh
Black Mamba: Still no argument from you. And no, the sentence you quote is, in fact, an argument: X contributes to Y, Y enables Z. And it's a summing-up of previous arguments that are supported by references. Would you like more references?
Hah... no one is going to link to your other frothy-mouthed, leftist, crazy-eyed, buddies' websites. Even if you put 40 more in one post. Your internet research remind me of those guys who scrounge around the dump for anything they can find that isn't smashed into oblivion so they can cart it around with them.
Your precious sociology degree only exists because the "evil greedy corporations" enable it. Sociology... sheesh, do you have a job yet? Oh right, correcting sociology papers. Make sure they have all of their footnotes!
I'm curious, what do you think of what Steyn is fighting for these days about freedom of speech? That's certainly not a distraction. You like to read, right? Or did you review of Steyn's talk end with your reading the Gazette article?
More links to the Socialist Worker? No, I'm good. I suppose a string of flipily-connected assertions does count as an argument in a very pedantic, shallow sort of way, although why you think the people who popped by here via Five Feet of Fury came to play teacher with you rather than just mock is more than I know.
Well, here goes: Emotional problems can manifest themselves as radical lefty mindsets, which mindsets cause lefty academics to be all snidey towards brilliant writers whom they would never dare engage in real life (not that said writers would bother with them).
Bob: I saw no counter-arguments from you in response to the points in my critique. As such, you have contributed nothing to the debate that I am able to consider, or to which I could reply. To answer your tangential question, though: I am a proponent of free speech and, for the most part, the typical legal limitations upon it.
Black Mamba: You've advanced some quasi-arguments, but they're all logical fallacies of the ad hominem and red herring varieties. In other words, they do not address my arguments directly and, therefore, add nothing to the debate that I could consider or to which I could reply. "Mocking" is "treating [one] with contempt," and "contempt" is "the act of despising" -- but it's not arguing. Have you got something to offer other than sticks and stones -- or is the Tea Party stomp all you got?
Jim: ..."thanks"...?
Yep, you are correct Mamba, it is a random generator program.
I'm guessing that "student" is your main title, not "PhD"?
Larsen: "Mister" is just fine; e.g., "Mr. Steyn." Now that that's out of the way, did you have some arguments to add to the debate?
The "ad hominem" goes with the mocking, you see.
Black Mamba: You're learning. Sort of.
"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies." O enlightened one, is that why Lenin and Stalin slaughtered intellectuals by the millions?
Codger Bob: What do Lenin and Stalin have to do with my critique of Mark Steyn's speech? Since you have offered no evidence-based arguments that directly respond to my critique, you give me nothing to which I could reply.
You didn't actually do a "critique" of Mark Steyn's "speech", though, did you? You just complained that he hadn't rattled off a list of lefty buzz words - "corporate elites" etc. - while providing a bunch of links to other people which nobody will ever read.
Truely though, this is the funniest blog I've come across in ages. Kudos comrade!
Black Mamba: I'm afraid I can't help you with your inability to identify a line of argumentation, as clear as it may be. The opening paragraph is the summary of his speech. The subsequent paragraphs are my counter-argument. As to the brevity of the piece, surely you can appreciate that it was limited by newspaper requirements. That you will never consider the supporting references is further evidence of my concluding point: Some people prefer not to be challenged -- let alone educated. I'm not sure whether "emotional problems" explain such closed mindedness. I'll leave that question to some other expert.
Mr. Telfer,
I find it interesting how you seem to favour telling commenters that they either are not making any arguments or that their comments do not apply the topic of discussion in any way whatsoever.
And yet, when I read your blog entry, you are content to write Steyn's ideas off as unoriginal, xenophobic, and racist.
I'm sorry, but that's not an argument.
It is an attempt to discredit. And since the problem Steyn is talking about necessarily requires some thoughts concerning racial issues, you are being extremely obnoxious and ignorant to suggest that nothing but fear of alleged xenophobia and racism is enough to ignore anything he might have to say.
You then provide a barrage of links that have little do to with any issue Steyn raises, but do happen to make your rant on "a democratized economic system" almost seem relevant. not to relevant to Steyn's ideas, but to your own world view.
So you are not in fact offering an argument, or making any relevant contributions either.
next time, i hope you bring more to the intellectual table.
Jimmy: A "letter to the editor" -- like my posting -- is necessarily brief. Furthermore, I believe you missed my central argument -- perhaps because you do not know how to identify one -- which is: Steyn serves the interests of the economic elite by diverting attention from the real source of society's deterioration. I am referring, specifically, to undemocratic greed-driven decision-making. It's not a monograph; it's a brief commentary. The list of examples/evidence and further/related reading are provided to make clear the meaning of terms and to demonstrate the real-world basis of my concerns. Moreover, it's called debate, not discrediting. And it's not a question of "worldview," it's a simple matter of seeking/speaking the truth -- and exposing lies. Now, either you have something to counter the points that I have raised -- or you don't. Somehow I doubt you do -- believing, as you apparently do, that knowledge and debate are "obnoxious."
In other words: I don't like Steyn, so my "critique" of his speech consists of "arguing" that he's only saying what he's saying to distract attention from this bunch of other stuff here, which has nothing to do with anything Steyn's talking about but with which I happen to agree. I can't articulate this world-view myself, but here are a bunch of links to some writers I like. Read Chomsky!
I know I'm being mean, dude, but don't ban me, please. I want to come back in the future and check this place out as it continues to evolve. Heck, maybe you'll convert me!
So, now you are backtracking on xenophobia, but still heavy on an elite conspiracy to accumulate wealth. Still ignoring what Steyn is actually saying. And getting all huffy about it when I call you on it.
I hope you are aware that your intricate, detailed, unquestionably proven conspiracy theory complete with 12 shiny internet links is still an attempt to discredit Steyn, much like your talk of xenophobia and racism. It does not have anything to do with the issues, you are just trying to make hims seem like someone who we ought not to listen to.
i'm not surprised that you are self-centered enough to believe that when i call you obnoxious, i'm actually calling knowledge and debate obnoxious. I'm sure those are two ideas you are happy to equate with yourself.
So far, you have yet to prove to me that knowledge and debate have anything to do with what you have to offer.
Black Mamba: I think what I wrote was pretty clear and direct. How you wish to interpret/spin it is your choice, but since you've brought no arguments or evidence to the table, I am unable to reply to you.
Jimmy: Actually, I'm very calm and, so far, feeling rather unchallenged by your ramblings. (Indeed, I could use another coffee!) Nor am I "back-tracking"; what a strange conclusion. The central argument is as I've articulated it, while the point about xenophobia is a secondary/supporting argument. I have not alleged "conspiracy" but I have noted the gross (and rapidly growing) income inequality in the USA -- for additional evidence, see: http://goo.gl/jmjJ5 -- and both the history of public policy-making and the composition of Congress show a clear record of decisions that resulted in that inequality. Fact: The rich are getting richer. Fact: Government decision-making is influenced most heavily by the wealthiest class of people and by big corporations. That's not a "conspiracy" -- although we all know that get-rich-quick fraud is nothing new on Wall Street -- but it is indicative of a class war. Now, do you have evidence to suggest otherwise -- that everyday working people have sustained influence over government decision-making, or that they are gaining a bigger piece of the wealth-pie? If you do, then please share it; I would love to review it. Further, as I have noted, the links provided are, by and large, illustrative. They are but a small sampling from the internet; some of the references are fact-based reports, while others are commentaries, and still others are a combination of facts and commentary. My bookshelf, and the libraries I access routinely, are full of further evidence -- of the scientific and peer-reviewed kind. If you like -- and as time permits -- I'll suggest some additional sources for you that are very detailed, rigorous, and reputable. Maybe that could be a future posting for my blog.
Out of interest, does Steyn know he's a running-dog imperialist corporate shill, or does he really believe all the xenophobic Islamophobic stuff he comes out with to distract the ignorant masses?
Excellent Mr. Telfer. I'm sure you have put a lot of thought into this. But it's not relevant to a discussion about Steyn. If you were marking papers about class warfare and the wage gap, and someone submitted an essay about islamic birth rates and sharia law, i don't think you'd be as willing to imagine the two topics as being closely related.
In fact, by pretending that they are, you run the risk of appearing to be promoting an agenda. No matter how much it happens to be based on logic and reason, and the need to get past your thesis defence.
Black Mamba: How Steyn sees himself, and what he holds personally to be true, is irrelevant to the central argument. Deliberately or not, he plays a distractive and destructive role. As for the "ignorant" masses, that's not a nice word. I prefer something more accurate like "misinformed" -- a good example being this: http://goo.gl/I8752
Rick, welcome to the world of the Steynsheep trolls. They run in packs. So serious, so earnest and so filled with their master's voice.
See you made onto Shaidle's asshole of the day list. Feel honoured. It's a sign that you're making sense. They hate that.
Hmm, I wonder if you would define the tea party movement in the US as evidence of "everyday working people have sustained influence over government decision-making", or just write them off as being "misinformed".
Jimmy: You should re-read my letter. It isn't even really about Steyn or his beliefs. Rather, it's about the role he plays: a distractive and destructive role. That's the concern, and that was the basis of the central argument. To critique what another has overlooked is an entirely legitimate form of critique. He argued that over-education, infantilization, and Islam are causing the deterioration of society. I had 250 words to provide an alternative explanation. Take it or leave it, or counter it with a proper evidence-based argument. You could, for example, provide evidence to support Steyn's position and/or to refute mine. Or you could just keep heckling and mocking -- but, I have to say, that's getting really old, really fast.
Jimmy (again): The Tea Party is an interesting phenomenon, to be sure. We've seen large sections of populations misled and getting it wrong before, though, haven't we? Either way, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: economic/corporate elites are lovin' it. See, for example: http://goo.gl/joTQY & http://goo.gl/ZHkdR
I think it's fair to question funding sources. but realize democracy now! also happens to have funding sources:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman01.html
I personally am not surprised or shocked that their list of major contributers include the ford foundation, the rockefeller institute, and george soros.
Naturally, i doubt you think THOSE corporate elites are part of the problem. Have you ever considered questioning why they are so interested in funding you're logical reasoning that can only result in left-wing interpretation? Have you ever wondered if they too, are trying to create divisions and distractions from which they can profit?
Why is it that you would question the motives of any rich person or entity which funds positions which disagree with your conclusions, purely on the basis that they are encouraging division for their own gain, without examining any of the positions they take, and yet are silent on the other rich people and entities who happen to fund the groups which support your logical conclusions?
More importantly, how do you expect a neutral observer to look at that kind of position and not suspect bias?
It is fair and crucial to examine just who is funding these various groups. To identify the puppet masters as it were. But people who fund groups which support your logical conclusions are puppet masters as well, profiting from your goals as well. So if you insist on delegitimizing people who disagree with your views, I would suggest you take your precise logic and make sure you apply it with the same rigour to those around you.
"Jimmy":
The credibility of your source is questionable--at best. Who is "Bob Feldman"? What is "questionsquestions.net"? And what are its sources? Citations? And, ironically, I'll note: The document you provide argues that elite interests are using their money to influence the media -- to benefit elite interests. So, if anything, your reference strengthens my argument.
The Democracy Now! website states: "Democracy Now! is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations. We do not accept advertisers, corporate underwriting, or government funding. This allows us to maintain our independence." Given that statement, your task is to provide credible evidence that refutes the claim of "independence." So far, I haven't seen any such evidence.
In any case, it is quite true that elites donate to various individuals/organizations. Beyond donations, though, we must investigate: Are strings attached to those donations? Is there evidence that the actions of recipients of such donations serve elite interests? Do those elites donate to competing/opposing individuals/organizations? Overall, to what extent do some individuals/organizations receive elite donations as compared to others? Are their histories/patterns of relationships, influence, and decision-making to be discerned?
You see, in addition to logical reasoning it is also very important to engage in critical thinking -- and evidence-based debate. That's rigor.
And again, as I've noted before, my commentary is a letter to the editor. It therefore had to be brief. It is not a monograph or a treatise: it is merely one opinion with logically connected statements that is guided by a theoretical framework and supported with illustrative references. Labels like "left-wing" and "right-wing" are often useless unless we define what we mean by those terms and how we are using them.
I question the motives of wealthy people -- as a social class, not as individuals -- in accordance with a theoretical framework. Theory guides inquiry; evidence validates -- or calls into question -- theory. From the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology: "A theory is an account of the world which goes beyond what we can see and measure. It embraces a set of interrelated definitions and relationships that organizes our concepts of and understanding of the empirical world in a systematic way."
In short, Theory + Observation = Validation or Invalidation of Theory. My short letter did not fall from the sky: It is based upon years of study and observation -- i.e., of theory and evidence. If my commentary piqued your interest or raised your ire, then the rational thing to do would be to explore the topic more fully or to present alternative theories and evidence -- in an open exchange that is respectful. Just imagine all the rigorous research and writing you could have completed by now had you not been ranting here on my blog, instead.
You might also reveal your identity rather than casting criticisms anonymously. Anonymity tends to weaken perceptions about your own credibility. For all I know, you could be working for Mark Steyn.
To get back to the original three points of Steyn's that you dispute, I'll reiterate them:
(1) we're too educated and (2)infantlized, and (3) because Islam is taking over.
First off you misstate Steyn. He doesn't claim that too much education is the problem, but that people putting off adulthood by staying semi-permanent students until their 30's is a problem. That is his actual argument, and I'd have to agree that a Peter Pan complex is not good for a society's long-term interests.
Secondly, the infantilization he refers to is a result of the State taking over the functions that adult citizens used to perform themselves. Staying in school until one's thirties is part of the problem, but so is the State's determining what health care one will receive, one's "retirement age," and even the terms of the contract between you and your employer. In most social democracies there is little that the State feels is beyond their purview, and taking that decision-making away from the citizen infantilizes them: parent:child::state:citizen.
Third, Islam is "taking over" as a result of the West's current problems, and is not the cause of them. You're putting the cart before the horse on that one. When a civilization no longer believes in the superiority of that civilization, or even the positive aspects of that civilization, then what reason do they have to defend it against outside influences?
The Left believes that economic issues are always the problem because of its inability to believe that people might really have spiritual beliefs that are their primary drivers. Thus the fact that the Left ignores the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were well-educated men from comfortable backgrounds, who were actually taking professional flying lessons that they could have parlayed into good careers. Instead they used that knowledge for nothing but destruction and death.
Until the Left understands that religious and spiritual belief comes not from economic hardship or "gross inequality," but is actually a fundamental part of many people's lives regardless of these things, they will continually delude themselves as to the real place religion holds in men's lives.
As a final thought, I'd recommend that you not disparage people's arguments merely on the grounds that they choose not to fully identify themselves on a public forum. Try to deal with the arguments themselves, and not use ad hominem arguments in place of actually addressing their comments.
"James":
Well written and clarifying, although you provide no evidence.
To respond, quickly, as I have other pressing things to do tonight:
(1) In my necessarily short letter, I did not address Steyn's arguments directly. Rather, I articulated an alternative perspective.
(2) Each of the arguments you delineate and clarify are worth debating -- at length -- but for the time being I'll merely state my own positions.
First, "putting off adulthood" is not merely an individual choice or the result of a "Peter Pan complex." I refer you to http://goo.gl/kEOGF for an alternative and evidence-based perspective.
Second, the Parent:Child::State:Citizen analogy is a common metaphor but, quite clearly, it's a false analogy. Sure, it's simplistic and catchy, and serves particular political aims, but it's absurd. It's hard to take you seriously when your starting point is "entire social systems (nation-states) operate just like sub-units of those social systems (families)." Just imagine the broad range of proposals and justifications that could emerge from such an analogy--across the entire political spectrum. Useless.
Third, there's so much to say about the idea that "Islam is 'taking over' as a result of the West's current problems." So much. It's an incredibly grand and sweeping argument. It badly needs explication. And why the focus on Islam? What about other fundamentalisms, including evangelical Christianity? What about political ideologies -- like the steady drift to the far right all around the Western world? Are these trends not also concerning? The continuous focus on Islam has to be put into context; it routinely provides a cover for imperialist exploits abroad (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan).
(3) Incorrect. "The Left" gives thorough consideration to religious beliefs and how they guide behaviour. But you can't eat faith, can you? We need food, shelter, and medicine. "Economics" provides such material things--which is why it's of primary importance. Change the material basis of people's lives and the shape and direction of their beliefs changes. The more secure and comfortable people are materially, the less weight they give to fanatical and mystical ideas. And I'm not talking about individual actors: I'm talking about groups. The terrorists didn't attack the USA because of their Islamic beliefs; they attacked the USA because of the (economic) destitution of millions of people abroad, and because of their allegiance to those people. And that destitution is the result of USA/Western policy and interventions. "Economics" -- and, by extension, the will to survive and feel safe -- is a far more powerful predictor of human behaviour than "religion." In the final analysis, and in an overall way, the history of humanity is not a story of conflict over religious ideas. It is, in the first instance, a story of conflict over resources. Religion shapes conflict -- but it's not the primary/root cause.
(4) I have not disparaged "people's arguments merely on the grounds that they choose not to fully identify themselves on a public forum." Tell me: Was it a conscious rhetorical strategy, on your part, to employ the words "disparage," "merely," and "fully"? It's a dishonest characterization. I merely pointed out that anonymity diminishes credibility. How often do journalists and researchers publish anonymously? Seldom. There should be a justification for the anonymity. And it's only an "ad hominem" argument if the criticism/questioning is irrelevant to the topic at hand. That's a basic principle of logic; see: http://goo.gl/SoYh
It's no use, Rick, they're not interested in discourse or learning anything other than their tea-bag masters have taught them.
Furthermore, they don't understand anything more than 2 syllables strung at the same time, and if there are no pictures, odds are, they can't read it properly.
CK: Probably true that they're not interested in learning, yes. But it's always an interesting exercise to draw out of them the prevailing right-wing ideology. Make us stronger when we know what we're fighting against. ;-)
"It's no use, Rick, they're not interested in discourse or learning anything other than their tea-bag masters have taught them.".... So CK I gather you have evidence for this argument? Or is it even an argument? What do you think, Rick?
As far as evidence goes, I don't know, Rick. I suspect that there are a lot fewer of 'you' around than you like to think. And given your staggering propensity for intellectual masturbation (with the appropriate web sites as "evidence" no less)any "fight" you engage in with right-wing, knuckle-dragging, two-syllable troglodytes will prove to be most entertaining.
LibertarianDave: Perhaps the most troubling aspect of your "contribution" is its intellectual-bashing framed as a war with the right-wing. Characteristic #11 of fascist regimes is "disdain for intellectuals and the arts" (http://goo.gl/oE3I7). I gather fact-based debates are just as disdainful to you. We certainly do live in dark times, don't we?
Funny is was you and not I who invoked the "fight" imagery:
("Make us stronger when we know what we're fighting against. ;-")
I am personally delighted that characteristics of fascist regimes have been quantified and that I seem to be responsible for encouraging them.
However, I have no disdain for the arts (I am in the music business) nor intellectuals (you're not the only one in the world with a PhD). Perhaps it is because I am in the arts that I can spot intellectual pretension a mile away.
I, as well as many of the commentators above, do welcome a fact-based debate. I just don't happen to see one coming from you. Instead there is a great deal of disparaging comments from you in an attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with you or any idea that is not in alignment with your own.
And yes, given the level of disdain you have for anyone stupid enough to not submit to your intellectual brilliance, it is clear we do live in dark times indeed.
I see no problem with discrediting (arguing to be false) unsubstantiated claims. Likewise, I welcome fact-based arguments that challenge my own. Feel free to post some.
Indeed.
You go first.
Smarmy, but falls short of clever in light of what's already been presented. I note that you have posed no challenges to the substance: not the thesis, not the examples/evidence, not the implied values/principles, and not the logic. Just empty derision -- about which I could not care less -- but it gets to a point where it's just boring and a waste of time.
Clearly, you take yourself far too seriously.
But it IS your blog and you can have the last word.
So go ahead.....
Post a Comment