From: email@example.com (Ben Burch)
Subject: Re: Religious Right in Politics
Date: 28 Apr 90 11:57:40 GMT
In article <1990Apr20.firstname.lastname@example.org>, jfklab@codon4
(The Kirsch Lab;330 Barker;x2-7373) writes...
> ... I have heard interviews with Phyllis Schlafly--it's really
>chilling to listen to her. Her opinions are simply proven facts to her. When
>she makes a gross blunder (this happened several times because she wasn't
>talking to some network reporter, but to an NPR reporter who knew a lot more
>names and facts than she did, and she tried her usual bluff routine anyway),
>she drops the subject immediately and pretends it never happened.
>Self-contradiction and denial of reality are unimportant when you're doing
I will go one step further on this issue, and assert that Ms. Schlafly almost
never has facts and names (Well, maybe names) at her disposal, because she
makes them up as she goes along. She quotes different numbers for the same
statistic at different points in the same interview. She presents anecdotal
"evidence" for her points without the ability to name a reference. (Clue: none
exists.) She names "studies" by various professors or research institutions
that either do not exist, or which deny ever doing the study, or for which she
has misconstrued, or lied about the results.
Apparently she thinks it is OK to bear false witness when doing the work of The
I recall that her training was as a lawyer. I am very glad that she does not
practice. Can you imagine her trying this in court against a half-competant
- Ben Burch
"The views expressed herein are not those of Digital Equipment Corporation."