Posted by Kevin Bates on July 19, 2002, 10:56 am I suppose my view is also coloured at the moment having just read American journalist Mike Moore's book "Stupid White Men" in which he details the machinations behind Bush's non-election. Among other things, he gives great detail about the ways in which the electoral process was weighted/aborted in Florida - and so I suppose as I say, my comments were coloured by my recent reading. Again thanks for your note and I take your gentle admonition on board. --Previous Message--
G'day Magdalene - and thanks for your little corrective to my perceptions -I take your point about calling your man a "turkey' - it was not well used and not my normal approach - I was just steamed up at the blandness of what I saw as his comments in oru papers - and perhaps over-reacted accordingly. Re the meaning of Mr Bush's comment - if he meant what you say he meant, it could have been clearer. My reading of his statement was shared by a number of my confreres here in our community. Having read your explanation, I understand a little better the point being made. I, and I know I have some US friends who share this concern, am concerned about an unbridled super-power, making rules re trade, economic policy, justice (cf the International Court issue), just to suit its own ends and then recruiting God to its cause - a la Bob Dylan's old song "With God on our Side".
- Peace to you.
: Hi Father Bates,
: I'm an economist in the United States, and I
: was lead to your site from some discussion
: on the Catholic Telecommunications Board.
: I fear you have misread Mr. Bush on this
: matter. He's not saying that all wealth
: is a sign of morality. He is, on the
: contrary, saying that wealth that is
: gained through immoral means is not really
: wealth. He is also saying that capitalism
: cannot survive a wonton lack of ethics.
: One can share the concerns of critics who
: question Mr. Bush's sincerity on the
: matter, since he himself has close ties to
: the business world. But he certainly
: isn't making the argument you attribute to
: him here.
: I don't know if this present crisis in
: corporate America will provide the
: much-needed opportunity to separate out
: the good of capitalism from the bad. I,
: for one, hope that it might. Mr. Bush's
: remarks are a first move in that
: direction. In our country we say that
: only Nixon could have gone to China (let
: me know if you need a clarification on the
: underlying logic -- I'm never quite sure
: what American cultural references are
: understood in Australia). By a similar
: logic, a call for corporate responsibility
: will be much more effectively made from a
: President who has close ties to corporate
: America. Unfortunately, I fear that the
: rampant cynicism in our age might preclude
: Mr. Bush from having the same effect that
: Mr. Nixon did (with respect to opening
: relations with China).
: Since this is a shift in conscience that is
: urgent, it seems unfortunate to dismiss
: the person who has the best opportunity
: (at present) to effect that shift as a
: "turkey". And of course, the
: spirit of Christian charity would suggest
: that such language is not particularly
: useful in any case.
: Cheers,
: Maggie
: --Previous Message--
: Where does this turkey get off? George Bush
: has just pronounced solemnly in a speech
: this week that "there is no
: capitalism without conscience and no
: wealth without character".
: The poor guy is still working under the
: illusion that bedevils the whole US psyche
: - namely the claim that wealth is a sign
: of God's good favour and conversely
: poverty a sign of God's displeasure.
: How many more of these Helen
: Steiner-Rice-style inanities will we have
: to endure? More to the point, what a
: dangerous world the assumptions underling
: this nonsense create.
: :
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread