ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (01/01/70)
> In article <726@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> omo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) writes: > > >On Americans in war zones deserving what they get: > > > >I can sort of see your point, but I find this attitude bothersome, > >because it seems to echo statments I heard in the 50s and 60s > >about how blacks who got beaten up for trying to enter all-white > >establishments or segregated schools were getting their just deserts. > >Also statements then and now about women wearing provocative clothing > >or walking alone at night deserving to get raped. > Under the laws governing the rights of freedom of speech, expression, religion, etc, a person in America has the right to expect to be protected, regardless of where that person travels IN the U.S. The violence encountered in the 50's and 60's was not instigated by the federal government rather by local gover- ments and individuals. We don't have the right to expect to be protected in a foriegn country where that guarantee of freedom of expression does not exist. And in some countries where the violence and terrorism is instigated at the highest levels of that countries federal government, we can expect to be treated no better then that countries citizens. If a citizen of that country lives in fear, why would a foreigner in that country expect to live in less fear. Our rights guaranteed us by our constitution are stripped from us as we leave our boarders. We then must live under the laws governing the country we travel to. In a war zone such as exists in the jungles of Nicaraqua, the laws must be primitive at best, i.e. kill or be killed. Although no one deserves injury or death through foolish acts, they may get what they ask for, and that is to be subjected to the harsh realities of the laws governing the situation they find themselves in and they can expect no help from the soft cushion of the Bill of Rights. > >
berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) (08/08/85)
-------------------------
For those who haven't heard, today's news reports indicate that
the Nicaraguan contras have kidnapped and are holding hostage 29 American
religious workers who were on a boat in the San Juan River in
Nicaragua.
The contras are the terrorists who are armed and trained by
the CIA, and defended by President Reagan as "freedom
fighters". They seek to overthrow the popular and
democratically elected government of Nicaragua.
According to the New York Times (August 8, 1985),
"Rebels fighting to overthrow the Nicaraguan
Government have been receiving direct military
advice from White House officials on the National
Security Council. ...The direction include[s] advice
and tactical influence on the rebels military operations
as well as help in raising money..."
In layman's terms, the terrorist scum holding Americans
hostage are the bosom buddies of the Reagan Adminsitration.
Some questions:
1) Will the outcry about Americans being held hostage
be promoted by the government and the media when those
responsible for the hostage taking are allies of the
Administration?
2) Will the dullards on the net who spouted know-nothing
attacks against the Shi'ites be heard from when Reagan's
pals are the terrorists?
3) How much longer will the American people stand for a bullying
foreign policy that shames our own heritage and helps
those who hold our own people as hostages?
Andy Berman
...ihnp4!ihlpg!berman
--------------------------tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/09/85)
Not so fast with the accusations Andy. The reports from the jungle are not all in yet. Depending on who you want to believe, the captors are either Contra or Sandinista. There have been no conformations of who the captors are, as of this writing. The only information I have heard so far is that the people were released late Thursday afternoon, unharmed. Now, until they get to someplace they can be interviewed and the identity of their captors ascertained, let us withhold judgement. T. C. Wheeler
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/11/85)
> ------------------------- > > For those who haven't heard, today's news reports indicate that > the Nicaraguan contras have kidnapped and are holding hostage 29 American > religious workers who were on a boat in the San Juan River in > Nicaragua. >... > 1) Will the outcry about Americans being held hostage > be promoted by the government and the media when those > responsible for the hostage taking are allies of the > Administration? A distinction must be made between innocent bystanders and a group that deliberately places themselves in a dangerous situation. I have no sympathy for the latter when they get into trouble. > 2) Will the dullards on the net who spouted know-nothing > attacks against the Shi'ites be heard from when Reagan's > pals are the terrorists? If the above distinction is made, there is no need for condemnation. (Of course all of this assumes that you know enough to be able to make the distinction.) > 3) How much longer will the American people stand for a bullying > foreign policy that shames our own heritage and helps > those who hold our own people as hostages? > > Andy Berman What bullying foreign policy? Which country greets its citizens returning from abroad in coffins? Which country promises retaliatory action against perpretrators of violent acts on its citizens, but fails do anything about it? Who's bullying who? Who's carrying the shame? Who's doing nothing about it because dullards gripe that hitting the guy that kicks your teeth in is a bullying act? Padraig Houlahan.
arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) (08/12/85)
> For those who haven't heard, today's news reports indicate that > the Nicaraguan contras have kidnapped and are holding hostage 29 American > religious workers who were on a boat in the San Juan River in > Nicaragua. > > The contras are the terrorists who are armed and trained by > the CIA, and defended by President Reagan as "freedom > fighters". They seek to overthrow the POPULAR and > DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Nicaragua. > > Andy Berman > ...ihnp4!ihlpg!berman > Glad to know the Sandinista thugs were democratically elected. But then , haven't you heard, so was Michael Gorbachev -- or have you cancelled your subscription to Pravda ??? Ari Gross
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/12/85)
In article <710@cvl.UUCP> arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) writes: [Andy Berman] >> For those who haven't heard, today's news reports indicate that >> the Nicaraguan contras have kidnapped and are holding hostage 29 American >> religious workers ... [Ari Gross] > Glad to know the Sandinista thugs were democratically elected. >But then , haven't you heard, so was Michael Gorbachev -- or have >you cancelled your subscription to Pravda ??? And I thought we buried Joe McCarthy years ago. I deeply resent, Mr. Gross, the way you and your 'buddies' on the right automatically condemn anyone to the left of Bill Buckley as a Bad American with ties to the Soviet Block. I, too, am a taxpayer and a voter in this country and intend to fight the attempts of a vocal minority to force an ultraconservative agenda on this country with my votes and political contributions. I find the left's breast-beating over people who deliberately placed themselves in a situation where they KNEW they would probably be kidnapped or worse by the Contras as naive as their bemoaning the murders of the Communist Workers Party members in Greensboro by the Klan a few years back (sane people do NOT hold a 'Death to the Klan' rally in Klan country!). This is no cause for your suggesting that someone you disagree with might be a Communist, however. I find your smug condemnation of anyone who disagrees with your politics revolting, Mr. Gross. You and your kind are no better Americans than those of us with more liberal aspirations. -- Bill Ingogly
bill@persci.UUCP (08/13/85)
In article <185@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: >[...]The reports from the jungle are >not all in yet. Depending on who you want to believe, the captors are >either Contra or Sandinista. There have been no conformations of who the >captors are, as of this writing. [...] >Now, until they get to someplace they can be interviewed and the >identity of their captors ascertained, let us withhold judgement. >T. C. Wheeler Do you think we can believe them even then? These people are not innocent bystanders, they have incurred the expense of going down there in the first place because of their political beliefs, and have now been given an excellent soapbox upon which to preach, no matter who 'captured' them. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/14/85)
> Not so fast with the accusations Andy. The reports from the jungle are > not all in yet. Depending on who you want to believe, the captors are > either Contra or Sandinista. There have been no conformations of who the > captors are, as of this writing. The only information I have heard so > far is that the people were released late Thursday afternoon, unharmed. > Now, until they get to someplace they can be interviewed and the > identity of their captors ascertained, let us withhold judgement. > T. C. Wheeler What difference does it make who the captors are? Americans have no business purposely traveling to a war zone. I consider those American as combatants. Andif they are hurt or killed, that is their fault as a result of their arrogance.
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (08/15/85)
> > What difference does it make who the captors are? Americans have no business > purposely traveling to a war zone. I consider those American as combatants. > Andif they are hurt or killed, that is their fault as a result of their > arrogance. > Does this also hold true for US citizens (nee ``Americans'') ``purposely traveling'' to Lebanon? Did the US Marines there get their just deserts? Do medical personel going into a combat zone deserve death because of their ``arrogance''? Think about what you are saying, man. My guess is that you're yet another Amurcan using double standards based on who your government says are the good guys and the bad. LL
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/15/85)
> > > > What difference does it make who the captors are? Americans have no business > > purposely traveling to a war zone. I consider those American as combatants. > > Andif they are hurt or killed, that is their fault as a result of their > > arrogance. > > > > Does this also hold true for US citizens > (nee ``Americans'') ``purposely traveling'' to Lebanon? > Did the US Marines there get their just deserts? Do medical personel going > into a combat zone deserve death because of their ``arrogance''? Think > about what you are saying, man. My guess is that you're yet another > Amurcan using double standards based on who your government says are the > good guys and the bad. > I said anybody going into a combat zone can be considered a combatant, even doctors. Remember the hostages? They were hijacked from Greece and taken to a war zone. They did not travel there of their own free will. Who said anything about anyone deserving death because they were in a combat zone? You did that's who. I'm simply making a comparison between innocent hostages in a war zone and those who of their own free will put themselves in danger by traveling to a war zone. If you can, try to remain calm, cool, and collected and READ my message and not jump to the outer limits and distort its context. One last thought. A doctor usually would be in a war zone to patch up the combatants. I would certainly not call this heroic measure arrogance like you did. Arrogance is carrying a sign down main street in Iran saying down with Islam. I would also call this action stupid not a heroic measure.
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (08/16/85)
> > > > Does this also hold true for US citizens > > (nee ``Americans'') ``purposely traveling'' to Lebanon? > > Did the US Marines there get their just deserts? Do medical personel going > > into a combat zone deserve death because of their ``arrogance''? Think > > about what you are saying, man. My guess is that you're yet another > > Amurcan using double standards based on who your government says are the > > good guys and the bad. > > > I said anybody going into a combat zone can be considered a combatant, even > doctors. Remember the hostages? They were hijacked from Greece and taken to > a war zone. They did not travel there of their own free will. > Who said anything about anyone deserving death because they were in a combat > zone? You did that's who. I'm simply making a comparison between innocent > hostages in a war zone and those who of their own free will put themselves in > danger by traveling to a war zone. In referring to US citizens traveling to Lebanon, I was not referring to those who were hijacked there. There have been a number of hostages who did travel there as obvious US citizens. In the words of the Sex Pistols, ``No One is Innocent''. However, non-combatant civilians (as distinguished from secret police, informants, &c.) do not deserve to be in a hostage situation regardless of their location or country of origin. Witness for Peace folks are mostly members of the religious community interested in stopping the murder of Nicaraguan civilians by protecting them with their physical presence as non-combatant US citizens (this is of most importance in the North, where the contras are most rabid and the border less defensible). They are NOT the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (which, incidently, has been sending ambulances to Nicaragua recently). LL
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (08/16/85)
>>> >>>What difference does it make who the captors are? Americans have no business >>>purposely traveling to a war zone. I consider those American as combatants. >>>Andif they are hurt or killed, that is their fault as a result of their >>>arrogance. {Ray} >>> >If you can, try to remain calm, cool, and collected and READ my message and >not jump to the outer limits and distort its context. Why read when I can rant? >One last thought. A doctor usually would be in a war zone to patch up the >combatants. I would certainly not call this heroic measure arrogance like you >did. Arrogance is carrying a sign down main street in Iran saying down with >Islam. I would also call this action stupid not a heroic measure. {Ray again} You brought in the word arrogance before I did -- and I was being satirical. Nyaah :-). People who go to Nicaragua to protect Nicaraguan civilians with their own US citizen bodies are hardly being arrogant, as you stated without satire (that I can detect). There are probably alot of people out there who should do a little reading about Witness for Peace (those rabid Marxist- Leninist Liberation Theologians, and, no doubt, faggot haters). -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.ARPA UUCP: ..!{harvard,ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers BitNet: MYERS at MACCWISC
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/18/85)
> > > > > > Does this also hold true for US citizens > > > (nee ``Americans'') ``purposely traveling'' to Lebanon? Personally, I think anyone voluntarily travelling to most of the middle east has to be out of their minds. That place is an insane asylum... -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
scott@SCIRTP.UUCP (Scott Crenshaw) (08/19/85)
> > What difference does it make who the captors are? Americans have no business > > purposely traveling to a war zone. I consider those American as combatants. > > Andif they are hurt or killed, that is their fault as a result of their > > arrogance. > > Does this also hold true for US citizens > (nee ``Americans'') ``purposely traveling'' to Lebanon? > Did the US Marines there get their just deserts? Do medical personel going > into a combat zone deserve death because of their ``arrogance''? Think > about what you are saying, man. My guess is that you're yet another > Amurcan using double standards based on who your government says are the > good guys and the bad. > Those who voluntarily place themselves in a war zone and cry when they get hurt are fools. They should have been aware of the risks. People who fail to exercise good judgement deserve the consequences. "If you want to jump in the lake, jump. but don't complain when you get wet." -- (Scott Crenshaw @ SCI Systems , Inc.) {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!scott The views expressed are my own, not necessarily those of SCI Systems, Inc., or Monty Python.
omo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) (08/19/85)
On Americans in war zones deserving what they get: I can sort of see your point, but I find this attitude bothersome, because it seems to echo statments I heard in the 50s and 60s about how blacks who got beaten up for trying to enter all-white establishments or segregated schools were getting their just deserts. Also statements then and now about women wearing provocative clothing or walking alone at night deserving to get raped. Do you also agree with these statements? Or do you perceive some real difference between principles that I'm not sure I do? Also, there seems to be an assumption that all Americans traveling or living in politically unstable areas are just tourists on a frivolous lark (for some, a wicked sin apparently, punishable by any barbarian torture popular with local insurgents that week). A substantial number of these people are involved in efforts to ameliorate the poverty and suffering of the local populations (Remember them? The ones everyone's been so concerned about in recent postings?) Whether their efforts meet with your approval or not, you must recognize that these people are knowingly exposing themselves to danger in order to help others. Although I myself hardly qualify for the do-gooder category (I'm safe at my little terminal, aren't I?), I can't see that these people deserve anything but respect and, should their efforts bring them harm, deepest sympathy. I would certainly extend this to the Marine who died at the Beirut airport, and I would never even momentarily consider serving in any branch of the armed forces, anywhere, anytime. In my own belief system, the fellow was a fool for joining up in the first place. But even fools don't `deserve' to have their hands tied behind their backs to be beaten, have their kneecaps broken, and then be shot and their bodies dumped out on a tarmack. Also, he wasn't functioning in MY belief system, he had his own. I don't see how we're ever going to get anywhere with anything if we can't learn the simple lesson that we're all in this stupid thing together (life, etc), and most of us are doing the best we can under circumstances as we perceive them, and that EVERYONE's perception is woefully lacking, so you better give the other guy his due. I should add that my perception of these and similar attitudes is that the people holding them can't deal with the randomness of death and disaster and want very badly to believe that, if they do everything just right, nothing bad will happen. Or, similarly, that they are just as distressed when these tragedies happen to others, and they are helpless to prevent them. So they want to find cause, lay blame, or find fault (the `If Only...' Syndrome). But bad things happen, sometimes without rhyme or reason. Nobody deserves it.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/20/85)
> > > > > > > > Does this also hold true for US citizens > > > > (nee ``Americans'') ``purposely traveling'' to Lebanon? > > Personally, I think anyone voluntarily travelling to most of the middle east > has to be out of their minds. That place is an insane asylum... > -- I don't think anyone goes to 'those' parts of the middle east on purpose any- more. If they do, they must realize that almost anything can and probably will happen to them, especially if they're Americans.
scott@SCIRTP.UUCP (Scott Crenshaw) (08/20/85)
> On Americans in war zones deserving what they get: > > I can sort of see your point, but I find this attitude bothersome, > because it seems to echo statments I heard in the 50s and 60s > about how blacks who got beaten up for trying to enter all-white > establishments or segregated schools were getting their just deserts. > Also statements then and now about women wearing provocative clothing > or walking alone at night deserving to get raped. > > Do you also agree with these statements? Or do you perceive some > real difference between principles that I'm not sure I do? > Julie, I think there's a crucial difference. Americans voluntarily going into a war zone are entering a place where there is a clear danger to *anyone* there. Do they have legitimate rights to be there ? Its different with the blacks you mentioned. The places they entered were not dangerous to everyone. They felt that they had a legitimate right to be there. And someone who was not black could go there without danger. That's the difference. An injustice was being committed against blacks. But a war zone doesn't discriminate. It just kills. And anyone voluntarily going into a war zone should know that. -- (Scott Crenshaw @ SCI Systems , Inc.) {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!scott The views expressed are my own, not necessarily those of SCI Systems, Inc., or Monty Python.
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/21/85)
In article <726@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> omo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) writes: >On Americans in war zones deserving what they get: > >I can sort of see your point, but I find this attitude bothersome, >because it seems to echo statments I heard in the 50s and 60s >about how blacks who got beaten up for trying to enter all-white >establishments or segregated schools were getting their just deserts. >Also statements then and now about women wearing provocative clothing >or walking alone at night deserving to get raped. I think the similarity you're commenting on is superficial. Around 1980, the Communist Workers' Party held a 'Death to the Klan' rally in Greensboro, North Carolina. In case you hadn't heard, North Carolina is the heart of Klan Country. As I recall, members of the CWP issued challenges to the Klan to confront them at the rally (I'm sure if I'm wrong 800 people will correct me :-). Now, calling for an end to the Klan's involvement in North Carolina society may be a political action that's admirable. But holding a 'Death to the Klan' rally in Greensboro is a clear call for violent confrontation and/or martyrdom (I'd also like to point out that at least some CWP members were armed and returned Klan fire). No one deserves to be shot for expressing his/her political opinions, but in the Greensboro case it's pretty clear (at least to me) that anyone who's surprised at the results of this march is either naive or an opportunist. Is there a qualitative difference between the Greensboro situation and the civil rights situations you cited in your posting? It seems to me the answer is yes, and the difference is one of intent. The CWP people deliberately placed themselves in a situation where it was highly likely that (a) the Klan would make an appearance and (b) there would be an exchange of gunfire. They may not have 'deserved what they got,' but the likelihood of something unfortunate happening in that situation was high. The case of the Christians visiting Nicaragua seems similar to me (and I'm sure to many other people) because these people were knowingly placing themselves in a situation where something Bad would probably happen. Recall, for example, that Eden Pastora threatened them with bodily harm. If we assume these people were rational about their actions we have to assume they knew they were probably in for a violent confrontation and possibly martyrdom. We KNOW what the contras are capable of; how many people haven't seen the film of the Sandinista's throat being cut while he lay in the grave he dug for himself? Anyone on the left who weeps and moans for the 'poor Christians' captured by the contras is either politically naive or an opportunist who's trying to milk the situation for all it's worth. They may not have gotten what they 'deserved,' but they certainly got what they asked for. Righteous indignation seems an appropriate response to me only when the victim is an unwilling victim. I find it hard to get worked up about 'martyrs' who are deliberately staging a media event. -- Bill Ingogly
omo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) (08/21/85)
On the similarities between 1) baiting the KKK and the Sandinistas and 2) 50s and 60s civil rights demonstrations: I appreciate your comments, but it still seems to me that this EXACTLY what was said about the blacks who demonstrated in the South in the 50's and 60's. Do you remember the Freedom Riders, who were beaten and burned and set on by police dogs)? For certain these people "knowingly placing themselves in a situation where Bad things would probably happen". We CAN "assume these people were rational about their actions" and that they "knew they were probably in for a violent confrontation and possibly martyrdom". They also (paraphrase of your words) "KNEW what the Southern whites were capable of". While I seriously doubt that most of them WANTED to get beaten or burned, I'm sure these people were WILLING to suffer these fates. At the time, this seemed to be the only way to force the law/govt/public to recognize that the rights they had been guaranteed were not being upheld--by purposely baiting this type of attack. (I think they were right in that assessment, too.) Also, while we weren't so media conscious in those days, they could certainly, in this sense, have been said to have been `staging a media event'. And that certainly WAS said at the time. Where's the real difference? I think there is NO real difference. You are asserting a truism (people who do such-and-so deserve this-and-that) based on a principle that you feel applies to a select number of instances. (Perhaps it does.) But I think it also applies to other cases, where it does not prove quite so true. So we are back to the basic truism (how did I get in this mess) that reality is not that simple. The actual application of ideals to specific instances is infinitely tricky and requires knowledge about personal motivations, circumstance and other details that neither you nor I can always judge accurately. Also, I gather your bottom line is that people do not deserve sympathy for the consequences of doing something stupid. Heaven help us all. This is the FIRST thing for which we humans deserve sympathy! (When all you other net.flamers get bored with this, let us know and we'll proceed to e-mail.)
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/21/85)
In article <739@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> omo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) writes: >I appreciate your comments, but it still seems to me that this EXACTLY >what was said about the blacks who demonstrated in the South in the >50's and 60's. >... >While I seriously doubt that most of them WANTED to get beaten or burned, >I'm sure these people were WILLING to suffer these fates. >At the time, this seemed to be the only way to force the law/govt/public >to recognize that the rights they had been guaranteed were not being >upheld--by purposely baiting this type of attack. ... >Also, while we weren't so media >conscious in those days, they could certainly, in this sense, have >been said to have been `staging a media event'. And that certainly >WAS said at the time. Where's the real difference? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ For me, clarity of the moral issues involved and a society that's changed to the point where anyone who has an axe to grind can stage a "media event." What do YOU think the Christians in Nicaragua ACCOMPLISHED by their actions? And in what way was the Nicaragua trip 'the only way to force the law/govt/public to recognize etc.'? The blacks in the '50s and '60s were up against a wall and had few options available to them other than civil disobedience. Your drawing a parallel between them and the Christian group seems similar to me to Reagan's comment about the contras being the 'moral equivalent of our founding fathers.' It sounds good, but where's the real similarity? Nicaragua ain't the U.S.A., and the South in those days wasn't a real battleground complete with ongoing guerrilla actions. To say "we weren't so media conscious in those days" is an underexaggeration, to say the least. Part of what I'm reacting to is a tendency on both ends of the political spectrum to manipulate the public consciousness on a superficial level through the mass media. In my younger and more idealistic days I expected more from the left. Now everyone indulges in an orgy of posturing: the group that's most skillful at presenting a good image wins the prize. Half-remembered quote from a Reagan aide just before the second debate with Mondale (I'm sure the shave-headed Moral Majority twerps will be more than glad to correct it): "We're going to steer him away from facts in the next debate and have him stick to the broad issues. He gets in trouble [or creates the wrong impression] when he deals with facts." >I think there is NO real difference. You are asserting a truism >(people who do such-and-so deserve this-and-that) based on a principle >that you feel applies to a select number of instances. (Perhaps it >does.) But I think it also applies to other cases, where it does >not prove quite so true. There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Please examine the following excerpt from my response and tell me again how I'm asserting that "people who do such-and-so deserve this-and-that:" >No one deserves to be shot for expressing his/her political opinions, > ... They may not >have 'deserved what they got,' but the likelihood of something >unfortunate happening in that situation was high. Let me see if I've got this right: you say I assert that people 'deserve' certain things in certain situations. Then you say this might be true in certain cases. Then you say it's also true in other cases, but in those cases it's not so true. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. :-) >So we are back to the basic truism (how >did I get in this mess) that reality is not that simple. The actual >application of ideals to specific instances is infinitely tricky and >requires knowledge about personal motivations, circumstance and other >details that neither you nor I can always judge accurately. So what's the proper response? Paralysis? Or maybe you're suggesting I should get on the bandwagon and accept unthinkingly anything anyone does to protest the contras' activities because the general moral stance is correct and hang the details? >Also, I gather your bottom line is that people do not deserve sympathy >for the consequences of doing something stupid. Heaven help us all. This >is the FIRST thing for which we humans deserve sympathy! Sympathy is one thing. Raising voices of righteous indignation over the consequences of someone's 'stupid' actions is another, especially when you suspect the 'stupid' actions were selected to create just that response and those raising their voices know it. My position is that we have no business supporting either the contra thugs OR the Sandinista thugs (I hope that satisfies both ends of the political spectrum :-). I fail to see WHAT the Christian group's actions accomplished, other than reinforcing the left's concept of the contra forces as Brutal Barbarians and the right's concept of the anti-contra-aid forces as Commie Pinkos. It's certainly not going to convince Mr. and Mrs. Potatohead from Midland, Ohio to write their congressman to work against aid to the contras. And it's certainly not going to change the contras' minds, is it? -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/21/85)
> I don't think anyone goes to 'those' parts of the middle east on purpose any- > more. If they do, they must realize that almost anything can and probably will > happen to them, especially if they're Americans. Aramco (tha Aram stands for Arab *American*) is a major source of our business, in fact if you work in the oil industry it's hard to avoid travelling to the middle east, and given some of the things that have happened to foreigners even in Saudi Arabia I'm inclined to think the only safe part of that area is well inside Israeli borders. I hope my boss gets back safely from his current trip. -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
csanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson) (08/22/85)
In article <726@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> omo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) writes: >On Americans in war zones deserving what they get: > >I can sort of see your point, but I find this attitude bothersome, >because it seems to echo statments I heard in the 50s and 60s >about how blacks who got beaten up for trying to enter all-white >establishments or segregated schools were getting their just deserts. >Also statements then and now about women wearing provocative clothing >or walking alone at night deserving to get raped. > >Do you also agree with these statements? Or do you perceive some >real difference between principles that I'm not sure I do? I don't think you are making proper analogies. The group was in the area for the express purpose of stopping contra attacks with their presence on the river. While I don't think they 'deserved' what they got, they knew the risks when they undertook the mission. A more consistant analogy is if I tried to stop the violence in Beirut by getting a group together and walking along the Green Line. My intentions would be good, but I should not be surprised if someone got shot. Nor should I complain too loudly, because that could be expected to happan. The analogy that was offered to the Americans in Lebanon who got kidnapped is not valid, because they were trying to educate the Lebanese, report the news, etc. but not trying to stop the violence by walking around during a rocket attack. > >Also, there seems to be an assumption that all Americans traveling >or living in politically unstable areas are just tourists on a >frivolous lark (for some, a wicked sin apparently, punishable >by any barbarian torture popular with local insurgents that week). > > >I would certainly extend this to the Marine who died at >the Beirut airport, and I would never even momentarily consider >serving in any branch of the armed forces, anywhere, anytime. >In my own belief system, the fellow was a fool for joining up the first place. I think you have a somewhat warped value system to call the people who are defending this nation 'fools'. They are paid (not too well) to put their lives on the line so we may continue to enjoy our freedoms back home. I am glad that there are a great many Americans, both past and present, who did consider serving in the armed forces when their country needed them. You unwillingness to serve 'anywhere, anytime' show that you are unwilling to fight, when necessary, for the benefits of living in the U.S. Freedom does not come for free. It must be paid for in blood. Craig Anderson csanders@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/22/85)
> >On Americans in war zones deserving what they get:
Am I missing something? These hostages knowingly put themselves
in positions of danger. They did so because they felt it was one
of the only ways to combat a condition they felt was unjust.
The group (Witnesses for Peace) is not asking for anyone to
pity their plight at the hands of the contras that held them,
they are demonstrating that perhaps our "founding father"
equivilents are less than noble.
-todd jonesberman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/23/85)
I deleted references to events in Nicaragua. > Around 1980, the Communist Workers' Party held a 'Death to the Klan' > rally in Greensboro, North Carolina. In case you hadn't heard, North > Carolina is the heart of Klan Country. As I recall, members of the CWP > issued challenges to the Klan to confront them at the rally (I'm sure > if I'm wrong 800 people will correct me :-). Now, calling for an end > to the Klan's involvement in North Carolina society may be a political > action that's admirable. But holding a 'Death to the Klan' rally in > Greensboro is a clear call for violent confrontation and/or martyrdom > (I'd also like to point out that at least some CWP members were armed > and returned Klan fire). > > No one deserves to be shot for expressing his/her political opinions, > but in the Greensboro case it's pretty clear (at least to me) that > anyone who's surprised at the results of this march is either naive or > an opportunist. Is there a qualitative difference between the > Greensboro situation and the civil rights situations you cited in your > posting? It seems to me the answer is yes, and the difference is one > of intent. The CWP people deliberately placed themselves in a > situation where it was highly likely that (a) the Klan would make an > appearance and (b) there would be an exchange of gunfire. They may not > have 'deserved what they got,' but the likelihood of something > unfortunate happening in that situation was high. > > Righteous indignation seems an appropriate response to me only when > the victim is an unwilling victim. I find it hard to get worked up > about 'martyrs' who are deliberately staging a media event. > > -- Bill Ingogly CWP people seem to be nuts. But to go ahead and claim that we should not be indignated by the fact that five people were shot to death, is shameful. In my opinion, CWP wanted to prove that KKK people are beasts, and, unfortunately, they have proven it. This fact however was obvious. CWP wanted also to prove that American judiciary system is a sham. That I did not believe, by they have proven it as well. I really do not think that Greensboro saga should be remembered as the case of publicity hungry radicals which got what they deserved. We should rather remember that some radicals managed to prove that in America equal protection under the law does not exists. Short reminder: KKK shot 5 people to death, and received some ineffective return fire. All involved were aquitted on: murder, exceeding reasonable limits of self-defence and rioting. Year earlier, in Tennesee, a robed KKK member was about to smash the windshield of a car with a black family inside. The driver shot him, and received a suspended prison sentence. Standing conclusion: in Carolina and Tennessee shoting to KKK is a crime, shooting to communists is not a crime. Bill seems te feel good. I believed in American justice and now I feel ashamed and naive. Piotr Berman
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/23/85)
In article <361@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >In article <726@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> omo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) writes: > >>On Americans in war zones deserving what they get: >> >>I can sort of see your point, but I find this attitude bothersome, >>because it seems to echo statments I heard in the 50s and 60s >>about how blacks who got beaten up for trying to enter all-white >>establishments or segregated schools were getting their just deserts. >>Also statements then and now about women wearing provocative clothing >>or walking alone at night deserving to get raped. > >I think the similarity you're commenting on is superficial. > >(Description of CWP "Death to the Klan" rally follows here; charge >is that CWP were willing victims because they should have anticipated >a violent Klan response.) > >The case of the Christians visiting Nicaragua seems similar to me (and >I'm sure to many other people) because these people were knowingly >placing themselves in a situation where something Bad would probably >happen. Recall, for example, that Eden Pastora threatened them with >bodily harm. If we assume these people were rational about their >actions we have to assume they knew they were probably in for a >violent confrontation and possibly martyrdom. > >Righteous indignation seems an appropriate response to me only when >the victim is an unwilling victim. I find it hard to get worked up >about 'martyrs' who are deliberately staging a media event. > > -- Bill Ingogly I see some difference between the "Death to the Klan" rally and the Christians visiting Nicaragua, since the CWP wanted violence and the Christians didn't. But the Christians ARE just like the blacks going into an all-white diner or a woman walking on a street at night. They are there to show the contradiction between "justice, law, and morality" and vigilante, bloody murderers (or rapists, as the case may be). In a state of law and respect for decency and civilians, anyone not threatening violence should be able to go about their affairs without inciting violence against them. The only way to demonstrate that a state of law and respect does not exist is to initiate nonviolent actions which generate violent responses. If Bill thinks we all know the contras are bloody murderers, then why doesn't the Congress know this and cut the funds to the butchers? Why should the Christians believe Bill? When there's a conspiracy of silence going on, often the more irrational acts break through and do great good. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (08/24/85)
> > [Unknown] > > Personally, I think anyone voluntarily travelling to most of the middle east > > has to be out of their minds. That place is an insane asylum... > > -- > [Ray Frank] > I don't think anyone goes to 'those' parts of the middle east on purpose any- > more. If they do, they must realize that almost anything can and probably will > happen to them, especially if they're Americans. --------------------------- The above are gross exaggerations. Outside of parts of Lebanon and the war zone on the Iran-Iraq border, Americans are safer in the Middle East than in many American cities after dark. This has been true even in countries with hostile governments, such as Libya. The danger to Americans in Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. is statistically slight. Remember, the famous hijacking took place in GREECE. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
musi@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (musi) (08/26/85)
Scott, you are a fool. To begin with, (or 'With which to begin', W. Churchill) Americans in war zones generally are aware of the risks they take, but does that reflect poor judgment? In the case of Peace Corps workers, it would sooner reflect a dedication to their work, and you should be inspired by their courage instead critical of their decision. And do you realize what you're saying when you say they shouldn't cry when they get hurt? Do you think the co-workers of they slaughtered nun and social workers in El Salvador (@ 2 years ago) simply whined about their deaths without cause? These volunteers didn't deserve death, as you pretend. They are representatives of the US who want to make the world a better place by helping others to stay alive and by reinforcing peaceful relations with third-world countries. You don't have to be shocked at their deaths, considering the brutality of war, but to be as indifferent as you is to take the side of the killers. Brad Music---
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/26/85)
In article <1696@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >CWP people seem to be nuts. But to go ahead and claim that we should not >be indignated by the fact that five people were shot to death, is shameful. >In my opinion, CWP wanted to prove that KKK people are beasts, and, >unfortunately, they have proven it. This fact however was obvious. The CWP people set themselves up to be martyrs. Most of the people in that march were from North Carolina and KNEW what the Klan's response to the march would be. I feel sorrow that these five people died, but no surprise. If you reread my posting you'll note that I stated no one should have to die for his/her beliefs. But my opinion is that these people deliberately set up a situation that would create an instant martyr for the CWP cause, and they got their wish. I lived in Charlottesville, VA. for about five years, and knew most of the people in that area who were political activists on the left. Most people in this group seemed to feel the CWP bordered on the lunatic fringe. At a couple of parties I met a fellow who had attended a Lutheran college in my home town back in the midwest before moving to Virginia for medical school; a couple of my friends back home who had attended that Lutheran college said to say hello to this person when I moved to Charlottesville. First time I met him was, as I said, at a party; I gave him my greetings from the folks back home and sat drinking Jack Daniels out of a bottle with him and chatting for a while. That person was Bill Sampson, one of the CWP members who was later killed in the "Death To The Klan" march. I am sorry a person I knew slightly died in this way. I never really knew Bill Sampson, or knew how he came to join the CWP lunatics. He seemed to be an average sort of a person and one who cared about other people. His death was a waste and I feel sorry for his family and friends who must go on without him. But if you deliberately go into the lion's den you have to accept the possibility that you will get eaten. Sympathy, yes; righteous indignation, no. I will not accept the banner of shame you want to lay on me. >CWP wanted also to prove that American judiciary system is a sham. >That I did not believe, by they have proven it as well. I don't see where they've proven anything about the American judicial system in general. North Carolina ain't Massachussetts, my friend. We have problems in this country but the USA in the '80s is not the same as the USA in the '50s. Real progress in human rights has been made and continues to be made in this country. If you doubt this, read your history books. >I really do not >think that Greensboro saga should be remembered as the case of publicity >hungry radicals which got what they deserved. We should rather remember >that some radicals managed to prove that in America equal protection >under the law does not exists. In some parts of the American South, sure. What's your argument for extrapolating to American society as a whole? Or even to all courts in the South, for that matter? Unless of course you're like the CWP paranoids who assume this society runs on monolithic secret conspiracies. Oh, and by the way, I made it perfectly clear in my posting that I didn't believe these people "got what they deserved." Their desire for publicity in this matter AND their desire for martyrs seems obvious, however. >Short reminder: KKK shot 5 people to death, and received some ineffective >return fire. All involved were aquitted on: murder, exceeding reasonable >limits of self-defence and rioting. Year earlier, in Tennesee, a robed >KKK member was about to smash the windshield of a car with a black family >inside. The driver shot him, and received a suspended prison sentence. >Standing conclusion: in Carolina and Tennessee shoting to KKK is a crime, >shooting to communists is not a crime. I haven't been following the North Carolina case closely, but I believe it's been taken to a higher court and that there may be a retrial (possibly in progress? I'm sure someone else can clarify this). I simply don't know about the other case. But to be surprised about the actions of the Klan or the sympathy shown toward the Klan in some Southern courts is naive in the extreme. We don't have a homogeneous or monolithic culture in this country, Piotr. And liberals in this country have been fighting for years to eradicate these injustices. The changes have been greatest, perhaps, in the South you seem to have such a loathing for. Jim Crow laws are dead; in most places, couples of mixed race walk freely on the street; I've yet to see a segregated restaurant in the South; George Wallace courts and gets the black vote in Alabama. There's been a mellowing trend in general in the South. Check it out sometime. We have a long way to go in this country, and it may sometimes seem with the return of ultraconservatism to Washington (and maybe soon new attacks of McCarthyism?) that we're backsliding at an alarming rate. But America has changed for the better since the mid-'50s, and my bet is that positive changes will continue over the long haul. >Bill seems te feel good. I believed in American justice and now I feel >ashamed and naive. I don't always 'feel good' about things that happen in this country. As far as American justice goes, I simply have no illusions about it. These are things we have to work to change, and it's a long drawn out process. If you doubt the effectiveness of working through established channels for change, compare our society today with society in the '50s. It's not perfect, but it's a better place for minorities. -- Bill Ingogly
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/26/85)
In article <309@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >In a state of law and respect for decency and civilians, anyone not >threatening violence should be able to go about their affairs without >inciting violence against them. The only way to demonstrate that a >state of law and respect does not exist is to initiate nonviolent >actions which generate violent responses. I think the lack of a state of law and respect in Nicaragua was abundantly clear without the Witness for Peace actions. Various brutal acts in both Nicaragua and El Salvador have been reported frequently on the nightly news and have failed to convince the average person on the street that the contras are Bad Guys. Mr. Reagan tells the public that the contras are the moral equivalents of our founding fathers. The contra leaders tell us that there is no conspiracy to rape, maim, and torture the Nicaraguan citizenry. People hear what they want to believe. Exactly who is being convinced by all of this? >If Bill thinks we all know >the contras are bloody murderers, then why doesn't the Congress know >this and cut the funds to the butchers? Why should the Christians >believe Bill? Read Jeanne Kirkpatrick's essay on the difference between Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism for a good laugh. Murder and rape appear to be O.K. as long as they're on the side of Truth, Justice and the American Way. And no one has to believe me; the evidence has been presented over and over again ad nauseum on the evening news (the public doesn't read any more, but I assume it still gets its news from the boob tube). >When there's a conspiracy of silence going on, often the more irrational >acts break through and do great good. I deny there's a conspiracy of silence. Everyone knows what's going on; it's just the INTERPRETATION of the facts that's at issue. Did you see that Nicaraguan peasant getting his throat cut? Sure. Too bad, but that was just some guy feeling his oats. I'm sure his 'morally superior' commander told him not to do it again... -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/26/85)
> > > [Unknown] > > > Personally, I think anyone voluntarily travelling to most of the middle east > > > has to be out of their minds. That place is an insane asylum... > > > -- > > [Ray Frank] > > I don't think anyone goes to 'those' parts of the middle east on purpose any- > > more. If they do, they must realize that almost anything can and probably will > > happen to them, especially if they're Americans. > --------------------------- > The above are gross exaggerations. Outside of parts of Lebanon and the > war zone on the Iran-Iraq border, Americans are safer in the Middle East > than in many American cities after dark. This has been true even in countries > with hostile governments, such as Libya. The danger to Americans in > Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. is statistically > slight. Remember, the famous hijacking took place in GREECE. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Remember, the terrorists were from Lebanon. The hostages were taken to Lebanon. Several Americans were brutalized and one American was killed in Lebanon.
janw@inmet.UUCP (08/27/85)
> The group (Witnesses for Peace) is not asking for anyone to > pity their plight at the hands of the contras that held them, > they are demonstrating that perhaps our "founding father" > equivilents [sic] are less than noble. > > -todd jones BUT they've proved the exact opposite, haven't they ? Were a group of, say, Prussian meddlers to sail for the American shores to shield king George's loyalists with their live bodies; and were general Washington to treat them as the Contras did - namely, detain for one day, then set free - why, people would have said that the general had lived up to his noble reputa- tion ... And, by the way, they *are* asking for pity. In today's (Aug 26) Boston Globe two of them are whining at length. Can you imagine, they were induced to actually *walk!* for *more than an hour!* with their captors, who had not even had the courtesy to pave the jungle road! As far as compromising the Contras goes (the too-obvious goal of the witless "Witnesses"), the trip was a flop. They had to go back to their Sandinista friends for a fresh earful of atrocity tales. Another small point: from all accounts, these people's safety or their release were never made conditional on any demands. So, who was it, on or off the net, who first labelled them "hostages" ? -Jan Wasilewsky
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/29/85)
> > Piotr Berman > Bill Ingogly > >CWP people seem to be nuts. But to go ahead and claim that we should not > >be indignated by the fact that five people were shot to death, is shameful. > >In my opinion, CWP wanted to prove that KKK people are beasts, and, > >unfortunately, they have proven it. This fact however was obvious. > The CWP people set themselves up to be martyrs. Most of the people in > that march were from North Carolina and KNEW what the Klan's response > to the march would be. I feel sorrow that these five people died, but > no surprise. If you reread my posting you'll note that I stated no one > should have to die for his/her beliefs. But my opinion is that these > people deliberately set up a situation that would create an instant > martyr for the CWP cause, and they got their wish. > >CWP wanted also to prove that American judiciary system is a sham. > >That I did not believe, by they have proven it as well. > I don't see where they've proven anything about the American judicial > system in general. North Carolina ain't Massachussetts, my friend. > We have problems in this country but the USA in the '80s is not the > same as the USA in the '50s. Real progress in human rights has been > made and continues to be made in this country. If you doubt this, read > your history books. > >I really do not > >think that Greensboro saga should be remembered as the case of publicity > >hungry radicals which got what they deserved. We should rather remember > >that some radicals managed to prove that in America equal protection > >under the law does not exists. > In some parts of the American South, sure. What's your argument for > extrapolating to American society as a whole? Or even to all courts in > the South, for that matter? Unless of course you're like the CWP > paranoids who assume this society runs on monolithic secret conspiracies. > > Oh, and by the way, I made it perfectly clear in my posting that I > didn't believe these people "got what they deserved." Their desire for > publicity in this matter AND their desire for martyrs seems obvious, > however. > >Short reminder: KKK shot 5 people to death, and received some ineffective > >return fire. All involved were aquitted on: murder, exceeding reasonable > >limits of self-defence and rioting. Year earlier, in Tennesee, a robed > >KKK member was about to smash the windshield of a car with a black family > >inside. The driver shot him, and received a suspended prison sentence. > >Standing conclusion: in Carolina and Tennessee shoting to KKK is a crime, > >shooting to communists is not a crime. > > I haven't been following the North Carolina case closely, but I > believe it's been taken to a higher court and that there may be a > retrial (possibly in progress? I'm sure someone else can clarify > this). I simply don't know about the other case. But to be surprised > about the actions of the Klan or the sympathy shown toward the Klan > in some Southern courts is naive in the extreme. We don't have a > homogeneous or monolithic culture in this country, Piotr. And liberals > in this country have been fighting for years to eradicate these > injustices. The changes have been greatest, perhaps, in the South > you seem to have such a loathing for. Jim Crow laws are dead; in most > places, couples of mixed race walk freely on the street; I've yet to > see a segregated restaurant in the South; George Wallace courts and > gets the black vote in Alabama. There's been a mellowing trend in > general in the South. Check it out sometime. > > We have a long way to go in this country, and it may sometimes seem > with the return of ultraconservatism to Washington (and maybe soon new > attacks of McCarthyism?) that we're backsliding at an alarming rate. > But America has changed for the better since the mid-'50s, and my bet > is that positive changes will continue over the long haul. > > >Bill seems te feel good. I believed in American justice and now I feel > >ashamed and naive. > > I don't always 'feel good' about things that happen in this country. > As far as American justice goes, I simply have no illusions about it. > These are things we have to work to change, and it's a long drawn out > process. If you doubt the effectiveness of working through established > channels for change, compare our society today with society in the > '50s. It's not perfect, but it's a better place for minorities. > > -- Bill Ingogly I admit that I put some slick rhetoric into my reply. My opinions about American justice changed because of Greensboro saga, but the change was from "very good" to "good". I have not felt ashamed and naive. I agree that America may serve as an example of overcoming injustices toward minorities. I agree with Bill that to change the system, one should play the game according to the existing rules. Yes, the success is visible, it is a better place. Yes, I know that the disparities between NC and MA are just a side effect of an intricate political system, designed to hold different parts together. However, Greensboro was an eye opener for me. I started to read newspapers more carefully. Here is what I noticed: 1. To a surprizing degree it is better to be black than white. As a small example, the routine practice of removing all blacks from juries is still valid. 2. To sadly insurprizing degree it is better to be rich than poor. This trend did not improve under Reagan. 3. Is better to be in North than is South. I have in mind some behaviors of policemen and judges. Summarizing, the American justice, with all its achievements, is not ideal. I am really glad to see that I share this assesment with Bill. Sadly, I see the same backsliding trend in this area. The Right pushes pseudosolutions and pseudoproblems. It would be worthwile to discuss what we see as the real problems and what should be done to "continue the positive changes over the long haul". Piotr Berman PS. I never been in the South. Bill wrote "they were from NC and they KNEW what KKK would do". How is it? How much the home state of Jesse Helms differs from PA or MA? I hope that an image of rednecks drinking beer with KKK, watching Helms TV station and hating militant nonsmokers is grossly undeserved. Can any eyewitness write something on that?
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/29/85)
> > > The group (Witnesses for Peace) is not asking for anyone to > > pity their plight at the hands of the contras that held them, > > they are demonstrating that perhaps our "founding father" > > equivilents [sic] are less than noble. > > > > -todd jones > > Another small point: from all accounts, these people's safety or > their release were never made conditional on any demands. So, > who was it, on or off the net, who first labelled them "hostages" ? > > -Jan Wasilewsky Were they not forcibly detained by a group of contra soldiers? This is my understanding. The contras obviously could have done much worse, but if they don't have the sense to leave American citizens alone, even when those citizens set themselves up as martyrs, they deserve all the bad press that results. -todd jones
eproj@burl.UUCP (eproj) (08/30/85)
> PS. I never been in the South. Bill wrote "they were from NC and they > KNEW what KKK would do". How is it? How much the home state of > Jesse Helms differs from PA or MA? I hope that an image of rednecks > drinking beer with KKK, watching Helms TV station and hating > militant nonsmokers is grossly undeserved. Can any eyewitness write > something on that? Since I live in North Carolina I reckon I can give ye an eyewitness account of what it's like down chere. Let me tell ye ... ya don't want ta come down this-a-way. Why it's just plain awful. Why tha beaches are the ugliest things yas ever seen and them outer banks...why they's hardly a big buildings on them. They's what ye call protected or sumpin'. No crowded beaches or hotdog stands and T-shirt shops. It's just so awful I can't go on. And them danged mountains to tha west...why they's some of tha tallest mountains east of tha Mississippi. Just awful ta try to climb over. Why in tha world all those people visit the Great Smokey Mtn. national park I'll never know. You know I heared that it was the mostest visited park in the confed...er uh U.S.. Just seems peoples enjoy ugliness. All the parts between tha mountains and the beaches is just as tarrible... Why tha city yall's is talkin bout ye know... Greensboro?.....why it is situated in an area that was voted #1 place to live in the confederacy..oops....er U.S. twice in a row. I just cain't understand it. And them danged schools ya know like Duke and Davidson and Wake Forest and UNC and N.C. State ect... gawd it's tha pits...and if that's not enuff the danged community college system is second only to Kaliforny...ya know ware's them communists live....And propurty taxes why they's almost .60 ta tha 100.00. How do ya get ahead in this area? No ye don't want ta come down this-a-way. The Climate is jest awfull too...why my few-ell bill last winter must a been $500.00 and this warm weather lasts fer so long...peoples is golfin year round down chere.Naw ya cain't really compare MA. to N.C.....I mean jest think 'bout south Boston when they's was tryin' ta bus them youngens up thar...why they had tha grandest ole time a throwin stuff an hollerin at each other...we never could party like thems peoples. Well my fingers is gettin tarred...I hopes I give ya fare enough warnin' 'bout N.C. and the south in general... bye now.:-)!!! so long, Dave Schumacher
csanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson) (08/31/85)
In article <1755@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> > Piotr Berman > > >I admit that I put some slick rhetoric into my reply. My opinions about >American justice changed because of Greensboro saga, but the change was >from "very good" to "good". I have not felt ashamed and naive. I agree >that America may serve as an example of overcoming injustices toward >minorities. I agree with Bill that to change the system, one should >play the game according to the existing rules. Yes, the success is >visible, it is a better place. Yes, I know that the disparities >between NC and MA are just a side effect of an intricate political >system, designed to hold different parts together. > >However, Greensboro was an eye opener for me. I started to read >newspapers more carefully. Here is what I noticed: > >1. To a surprizing degree it is better to be black than white. > As a small example, the routine practice of removing all > blacks from juries is still valid. Not in California anymore. This week, the state Supreme Court declared that the practice is illegal. One bit of clarification: in any jury trial, each attorney may use two types of 'challenges' to remove someone from a jury. One type is the challenge 'for cause'. The atorney (be it defense or prosecution) must show the judge that the potential juror would be biased against his/her client. If the judge finds there is cause, the juror is excused. The fact that the juror is black WOULD NOT be sufficient cause. The other type of challenge is the pre-emptive challenge. An attorney may object to a juror without showing cause using this challenge, and the juror is automatically excused. While an attorney may challenge for cause as much as he/she wishes, the lawyer get only a certain amount of pre-emptive challenges. The Supreme Court ruled that an attorney may not use the pre-emptive challenge to systematically exclude blacks from the jury. > >Piotr Berman > Craig Anderson csanders@ucbvax.ARPA
csanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson) (08/31/85)
In article <370@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >> >> > The group (Witnesses for Peace) is not asking for anyone to >> > pity their plight at the hands of the contras that held them, >> > they are demonstrating that perhaps our "founding father" >> > equivilents [sic] are less than noble. >> > >> > -todd jones >> >> Another small point: from all accounts, these people's safety or >> their release were never made conditional on any demands. So, >> who was it, on or off the net, who first labelled them "hostages" ? >> >> -Jan Wasilewsky > >Were they not forcibly detained by a group of contra soldiers? >This is my understanding. Being 'forcibly detained' is not the same as being held hostage. Generally, hostage takers want something in return for the safe delivery of the hostages, and threaten them with dire consequences if the demands are not met. This did not occur to those so-called 'Witnesses for Peace'. Also, if the contras are such evil, nasty people, and the Sandinistas are such great guys, why did 'Commandante Zero', a hero of the revolution, turn against the people he fought for? > > >-todd jones Craig Anderson csanders@ucbvax.ARPA
janw@inmet.UUCP (08/31/85)
> > Another small point: from all accounts, these people's safety or > > their release were never made conditional on any demands. So, > > who was it, on or off the net, who first labelled them "hostages" ? > > -Jan Wasilewsky [Todd Jones] > Were they not forcibly detained by a group of contra soldiers? "Hostage: a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge that promises will be kept or terms met by the other party" [Webster Collegiate Dictionary] Forcible detainment in itself is not enough: e.g., someone arrested for drunk driving is not a hostage. > The contras obviously could have done much worse, but if they don't have > the sense to leave American citizens alone, even when those citizens set > themselves up as martyrs, they deserve all the bad press that results. They could have done worse, *and still be within the rules of war*. They behaved responsibly, using minimum force, and deserve credit for it. Jan Wasilewsky
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/31/85)
In article <1755@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >However, Greensboro was an eye opener for me. I started to read >newspapers more carefully. Here is what I noticed: > >1. To a surprizing degree it is better to be black than white. > As a small example, the routine practice of removing all > blacks from juries is still valid. You're right, but I don't believe it's correct that all blacks are routinely removed from juries. As for it being better to be black than white, I'll wager many middle-class whites out there in the audience would stop for a white man in a Cadillac who has car trouble but pass by a black man in a Cadillac who has car trouble. You can't legislate racist attitudes out of existence. Statistics I've seen (no, I don't have a source) seemed to indicate that a black arrested for a crime is more likely to be convicted and serve a substantial sentence than a white arrested for the same crime. Is this due to racism? I don't know. I think it's just as likely to have economic roots: more whites in this situation may be able to afford something other than a court-appointed lawyer. (oh, oh, here come the indignant flames from the ex-law students! :-) >2. To sadly insurprizing degree it is better to be rich than poor. > This trend did not improve under Reagan. And it's not likely to improve in the near future. I'd like to see some of these right-wing nitwits actually have to LIVE as poor people in 1985. But then these are the people who declared that ketchup can be considered a vegetable in school lunches. It's rule by dubious anecdote, folks; Ronnie tells his gullible audience that he's heard of a young man [read: young black, ghetto blaster, $500 suit, Cadillac, etc. etc. ] who uses his food stamps to buy orange juice to mix with his vodka. Bingo: the Great Communicator strikes again. Tell the average middle-class white who thinks minorities have gone Far Enough a story like this and s/he'll follow you anywhere; it's just the thing to subtley feed the flames of latent racism. Oh, yes, and have you heard: anyone who disagrees with them is either a secular humanist or a Communist. :-) >3. Is better to be in North than is South. I have in mind some > behaviors of policemen and judges. You obviously haven't read much about past activities of Mayor Rizzo's boys in blue in Philadelphia or Mayor Daley's best in Chicago. I think police departments may have cleaned up their acts to some extent in the past 15-20 years due to media exposure, but there are still abuses in the North as well as the South. >... It would be worthwile >to discuss what we see as the real problems and what should be done >to "continue the positive changes over the long haul". The political climate in this country has changed in the past and it will change again primarily (I think) in response to economic factors. The conservatives have the '70s and the '80s, and laughingly dismiss the 'bankrupt' philosophies of liberalism and consign us (as a posting recently said) to the 'ashheap of history' (Yow! Where have we heard that before? Am I having fun yet!?). Classical liberalism and conservatism don't seem to work anymore. I see neoconservatism as heartless, and neoliberalism as an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of the (apparent) conservative tide that's sweeping the country. I've heard people talk about the failure of liberalism or the failure of conservatism in the past, and I'm sure I'll hear this sort of talk until the day I die. I know it's hard to Keep the Faith when conservatives yahoos all around you are busy glad-handing each other and congratulating themselves on finishing off the left, but anyone with a sense of history knows that the wheel will turn around again. What should be done? Open your mouths and get involved in Democratic party politics to change the party and make it more responsive to the realities of life in the '80s. If you can't stomach the Democratic party, work outside the party to educate the people and make your voices heard. The neoconservatives and fundamentalist Christians may ultimately see their right-wing agenda for America bear fruit, but we can sure as hell temper the results by our actions in the voting booth and on the streets and by financially supporting lobbyists for the causes we believe in. Don't let these creeps have America without a fight! I'm more conservative in many respects than I was at the age of 20, so I'm selective about the liberal 'goals' I support. I suppose I consider myself a political independent like so many people in this country. But I'm a little sick and tired of hearing the word 'liberal' pronounced with a knowing sneer. You smug and self-satisfied right-wingers out there are in for a BIG surprise one of these days. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/03/85)
In article <840@burl.UUCP> version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP rti-sel!mcnc!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!burl!eproj eproj@burl.UUCP (eproj) writes: >> PS. I never been in the South. Bill wrote "they were from NC and they >> KNEW what KKK would do". How is it? How much the home state of >> Jesse Helms differs from PA or MA? ... > >Since I live in North Carolina I reckon I can give ye an eyewitness account >of what it's like down chere. Let me tell ye ... ya don't want ta >come down this-a-way. Why it's just plain awful. Why tha beaches are >the ugliest things yas ever seen and them outer banks...why they's hardly >a big buildings on them. They's what ye call protected or sumpin'. >...Naw ya cain't really >compare MA. to N.C.....I mean jest think 'bout south Boston when >they's was tryin' ta bus them youngens up thar... Just to set the record straight, I don't want my responses to be taken by anyone as "South bashing." There were as many Klan rallies in CT. when I lived up there as there have been in NC. since I moved down here. And since I've lived 7.5 years in the South I can certainly testify to its attractions (although I'm hesitant to do so: the last thing we need is a whole lot more Yankees buying up land along the coast for condos and setting up apartment complexes in the Smokies :-). I contend there is a difference, though. In Connecticut a "Death To The Klan" rally would be much less likely to lead to violence, and the jury would probably contain no one sympathetic to the Klan or with friends or kinfolk who have Klan connections. And anyone who's lived in both places knows that's a fact. Compared to the Carolina Klan, the Connecticut Klan was a bunch of wimps. Why, its head was Eye-talian, and y'all KNOW they's almost as bad as the Jews ... ;-) The South is just great, and the nuttiness is confined to a minority just like up North. But that minority is much more likely to put its money where its mouth is where violence is concerned. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
michaelf@ISM780.UUCP (09/04/85)
Why would being excluded from juries be an advantage to blacks?
Is that not denying them access to a very important, perhaps the most
important, judicial tool?wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/04/85)
In article <10250@ucbvax.ARPA> csanders@ucbvax.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson) writes: >The other type of challenge is the pre-emptive challenge. An attorney may >object to a juror without showing cause using this challenge, and the juror >is automatically excused. While an attorney may challenge for cause as much >as he/she wishes, the lawyer get only a certain amount of pre-emptive >challenges. The Supreme Court ruled that an attorney may not use the >pre-emptive challenge to systematically exclude blacks from the jury. > >Craig Anderson So how is it proven that the lawyer is using his/her pre-emptive challenges on this basis? Since cause need not be stated, how is the racial cause determined? Is there a concomitant requirement to state the cause for challenging any rejected juror, even if this was a pre-emtive challenge rejection? (That is, does the court record have to include what reasons the lawyer determined were the grounds for the pre-emptive challenge? [This means that the lawyers would *have* to state a reason even for pre-emptive challenges. Is this what this court decision means?] Couldn't the lawyer simply use income, or job, or "general demeanor" as his/her reason?) Will
csanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson) (09/08/85)
In article Will Martin writes: >In article Craig S. Anderson writes: >>The other type of challenge is the pre-emptive challenge. An attorney may >>object to a juror without showing cause using this challenge, and the juror >>is automatically excused. While an attorney may challenge for cause as much >>as he/she wishes, the lawyer get only a certain amount of pre-emptive >>challenges. The Supreme Court ruled that an attorney may not use the >>pre-emptive challenge to systematically exclude blacks from the jury. >> >>Craig Anderson > >So how is it proven that the lawyer is using his/her pre-emptive >challenges on this basis? Since cause need not be stated, how is the >racial cause determined? Is there a concomitant requirement to state >the cause for challenging any rejected juror, even if this was a >pre-emtive challenge rejection? I really don't know how that would be determined. The state Supreme Court here is noted for its attitude of 'We are going to rule according to OUR personal preferences, and everone and everything else be damned'. I imagine they would use the same sort have to look for a pattern of discrimination, just as one would have to do in the case of, say, housing discrimination, since other factors might be a cause for the person being unacceptable. In any case, making the lawyer state his reason for pre-emptive challenge would turn the challenge into a challenge for cause. >(That is, does the court record have to >include what reasons the lawyer determined were the grounds for the >pre-emptive challenge? [This means that the lawyers would *have* to >state a reason even for pre-emptive challenges. Is this what this court >decision means?] Couldn't the lawyer simply use income, or job, or >"general demeanor" as his/her reason?) > >Will Craig Anderson. csanders@ucbvax