seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (10/20/83)
Considering that this argument is taking place in net._p_o_l_i_t_i_c_s, it seems a little strange that noone has seen the *real* reason MLK is getting a holiday. POLITICS!!! Uncle Ronnie is seen (apparently) in an unfavorable light by blacks, and there's an election coming up so...presto! National Black Day! Of course we have to disguise it slightly by calling it MLK day. Whether MLK actually deserves a day, or whether he was a man of peace, or ... has nothing to do with it. Does MLK deserve a holiday? Sure, but _o_n_l_y if we have a holiday for everyone who a large group of people think did something wonderful for society. How about Louis Pastour day? Neil Armstrong day? Shouldn't we have a day for everyone who has won the Nobel prize? How about Babbage day? Only one slight problem. Not enough days in the year. What does MLK day mean to me? One more day that I won't get mail delivery. Dave Seifert ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert -- Dave Seifert ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
velu@umcp-cs.UUCP (10/22/83)
Yes, what seifert@ihuxl has said is correct, at the moment
MLK day is all the result of Politix.
But - getting back to how Reagan has treated blacks - dirt is too good a
term to use.
Especially - when on National TV - he is asked if MLK is a commie -
what does he say - We'll find out in 35 years, now won't we? -
I think that the guy is a real biggot. He goes and spens the weekend at
a country club in Atlanta - wit no Black or female members - but, ohh,
no, the club does not descriminate...
I think that Reagan has stuck his foot in his mouth one time to many. I
think that you have to a pretty good reason to even think about
supporting the guy...
Oh well. YABWA.
- Velu
--
Velu Sinha
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!velu
CSNet: velu@umcp-cs ARPA: velu.umcp-cs@UDel-Relayjj@rabbit.UUCP (10/24/83)
Velu, I don't think that the statements Reagan make regarding MLK were necessarily insulting or biggot(sic)ed. It is a fact that the US government has entered into a contract with the King estate and others regarding what can be done with the tapes in question. I don't think any answer that revealed the content of the tapes <regardless of what was revealed> would be either legal or ethical, unles permission was obtained from ALL concerned parties. I also think that Reagans comment did not support Jesse Helms' statements during that "worthy's" single handed fillibuster. <Now, then, why don't you go after Jesse Helms? It might not be so controversial, but at least you could attack without being dishonest.> While I do realize that what you intended in your article was not supposed to be fair, unbiased, or honest, (Thus the use of terms like bigot, dirt, etc) I don't understand what you WERE intending. If you really care about bigotry and racism, why don't you look into some members of congress whose records would support your accusations? Perhaps an analysis of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, or perhaps Orin Hatch? It's easy to take potshots at the President of the US. It's not so easy to BE the President. You must realize that your opposition to Reagan is not likely to inspire people to agree with you, as it is so strident and obviously violent that it encourages people to support Reagan (or anyone else who supports "law and order") out of fear. Unless you are in fact trying to bring about a police state, I suggest that you master your temper and try to explain (rather than force) your position to (on) other people. -- O o From the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/ (pyrolagnic- from pyro<=>fire and lagnic<=>eating.)