tim@unc.UUCP (07/04/83)
I could never vote for anyone who has repeatedly shown a lack of
commitment to the principle of freedom, as Reagan has. Freedom to him
is just what makes us better than the Commies, not a thing that needs
to be practiced in real life.
Let us not forget that this man was an eager participant in the
hysterical excesses of McCarthyism in the early fifties. He
deliberately caused the black listing of many alleged "Communist dupes
and fellow travellers" in the entertainment industry. "Evidence?
Hell, what are yuh, a Commie? We don't go fer that nonsense round here."
What's more, he's still using the same overly-simplistic Commie-baiting
lines today! The only thing that's changed is that he doesn't have HUAC,
but I hear they're reviving that one -- just rumors, though.
Then of course there was his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. A charming thing, that. I have little doubt that this man is
either a racist, or not inclined to disfavor racism. Look at his
attitude towards Welfare. Why is it that blacks are so strongly
against Reagan? Because in his scheme, what happens to them is really
not that important. And if you doubt still, look at the Bob Jones
University atrocity -- advocating tax-exempt status for practicing
racists. It'll probably help with the laundry bills there. Those
damn countoured sheets are hard to move around in, though....
There was that amusing moment when he was being briefed by Jimmy
Carter on the critical issues facing his new presidency. Reagan took
little interest except to admire the political climate in Korea that
allowed the President to respond to university striking by shutting
down the universities and drafting the protestors. Shades of
Berkeley! (By the way, whatever else you might say about Carter, I
don't think you would call him a liar.)
I particularly like the way that he declared this National Bible
Year. Great! Now when is the year for MY scriptures, guy? "Freedom
of religion" carries an implicit modifier of "provided it's Christian
(or Jewish) and not too strange" when charming folks like Reagan come
into town. Or were you unaware that that the New Right is into making
the Bible an explicit and binding guidebook for legislators and
justices in this country? Since when is it the government's business
to honor an establishment of religion? Before answering that, you
might want to re-read the First Amendment.
And lest we forget -- the Squeal Laws. Yes, you too can cause great
and needless human suffering for no reason, and in the privacy of your
own government! It was particularly warming to see Reagan justify this
by saying that NON-notification was an untoward meddling in family
affairs. Say what, friend? And if I don't give nuclear secrets to
the Russians, that is untoward meddling in international affairs,
right? How about if I don't give your briefing books to the Democrats
-- is that untoward meddling in the campaign? For Reagan and friends,
there is no place for rationality except to justify what they've
already decided to do. The toll in teenage pregancies is an abstraction
to them -- what is important is Fighting The Rising Wave Of Sexual
Permissiveness, using ignorance and fear because that's all the little
sluts understand. I find this genuinely appalling.
I could go on for a while, but if these didn't convince you
nothing will. This is a very frightening time for me. I treasure my
freedoms above all else, and I see them eaten away slowly with each
passing month. These new random "drunk driver" tests that lead to
less than a 1% conviction rate are very worrisome. Since when do the
police have the right to stop cars and subject drivers to tests
without probable cause? Since the New Right came into power. When
will it stop? Will it?
The fact that this is America and we have this really neat
Constitution doesn't mean that "It can't happen here". Americans are
human, and one human trait is the willingness of many people to trade
their freedoms, or even better other people's freedoms, for
conveniences without even thinking about the matter. It happens in
other countries, and, yes, it happens here! "The price of freedom is
eternal vigilance" -- this has become a war chant against the Russians
in the hands of the right-wing elements of this country. The true
meaning has been swamped, but listen -- the one who has to be vigilant
is you. Eternally. You are not above flaw or suspicion any more than
I am. When a new law is proposed, when the power of the police is
extended, think deeply on the matter. Does the potential gain offset
the risks of yet more freedom loss? Many small things sum to one
large thing, you know.
There seems to me a very good chance that this country will become
much like Soviet Russia unless people start to speak out for their
freedoms. This is not presented to scare you. It is my honest
belief, and one of my greatest fears. Look around you with an eye to
your freedoms. How do you think they were lost elsewhere? By
degrees; by human frailty; by lack of vigilance. Don't let it happen
here. Don't vote for Reagan in 1984 -- he has repeatedly and
unashamedly acted to destroy freedoms in the name of convenience, and
for the sake of archaic ideas about "proper" and "improper" behavior
(which, regardless of their value, should never be forced on any person).
Freedom is fragile, but infinitely more precious than any other thing.
________________________________________
The hard-working keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hilltim@isrnix.UUCP (07/05/83)
Well good ole Ronnie RayGuns is a bundle of contradictions in more than
just his support for Solidarity vs his union-busting against the
air traffic controllers. He also wants to "reduce gov't spending" but
yet has had the highest White House staff expenses of any president in
history-the White House budget was some $27,000 over its allocated budget
which was already higher than any previous administration. Shouldn't
thrift begin at home? Not when Ronnie has to give jobs to his cronies.
Overall there is the fact that for all his ranting and raving about
"cutting gov't spending" in fact he is spending more than any administration
in history-basically because of his wonderful plan to spend $1.6 trillion
(yes that is Trillion!) on new war toys over the next 5 years-even after
adjusting for inflation that is more than we spent during all of World War
2 ! Or let's talk about "de-regulation" and taking the gov't out of
business. Why then has he increased the budget to promote nuclear power
plants? Why hasn't he lobbied for removal of the Price-Anderson Act
without which nuclear power plants probably would not exist? The Price-
Anderson Act provides a limit of $300 million in liability in case of
any nuclear accident. Know who picks up the rest of the tab? That's
right, we taxpayers! Thus in the case of 3 Mile Island we will probably
be spending over $2 billion to clean up the mess. I am glad to see my
tax dollars go to subsidize the potential poisoning of the planet!
One could go on-tobacco subsidies are affordable but lunches for
schoolkids are not, tuition credits for private schools are affordable
but aid to public education or loans for those who aren't rich to go
to college are not. Oh yes, and let's not forget tax exemptions for
a blatantly segregated college, Bob Jones University. (which his
administration fought for but lost in the Supreme Court) Does this
tell us anything about what Reagan's support of "private school
tax exemptions" eally means? Here's an easy way to get out of all that
mess about integrating schools and forcing good white kids to live
with those scummy blacks- just let them have separate schools and then
give the taxpayers money for it!
I agree Reagan is also ignorant-look how many times he has either
1)lied or 2)failed to know the facts. His statement that "trees cause
pollution" was of course a classic, but then there was his stattement
that there were more employed after a year or so than during Carter's
last year-of course he was wrong by several tens of thousands of people
NOT employed at that time that WERE employed under Carter. Or his
latest statement that he had increased education-not true either, and in
fact the only reason education wasn't axed further was because the Congress
reacting to the howls of protests from constituents who didn't want to
see American education go down the tubes and their own children have a
chance to go to college, refused to grant the axcuts he wanted.
Were these lies or just no knowing the facts? Regardless, they are not
very inspiring from a president! But I just wonder, given that Reagan is
a senile old dingbat, who is really behind him? Who really has the
power behind the throne?
Tim Sevener
decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!timtim@isrnix.UUCP (07/07/83)
Cliff Shaffer suggests that Reagans succes in getting Congress to
vote his way is evidence of his intelligence or at least lack of
stupidity. There may be some grounds for that assessment. In which
case then his public statements about the number of people employed
or his administrations education spending are not a question of
ignorance but of baldfaced lies. But there is another thing to
be considered here: there is a vast array of corporate lobbyists
in Washington who will push for their interests. Given the alliance
of these forces and the executive branches forces (e.g. I believe
the Pentagon has a force of some 1000 lobbyists just for itself)
it is no wonder that Reagan gets what he wants when it invariably
favors corporate interests over the public interest. Who funds
Congressional campaigns? Who takes Congressmen out to dinner
or for vacations in Bermuda or what have you? Most Americans would
be amazed at the amount and type of stuff that is outright given to
Congressmen. One of my friends worked in a Congressmen's office
and he was surprised to find this Congressmen receiving all sorts of
records from record companies, among them Frank Zappa!
"we'll send him anything, and SOMETHING will appeal to his tastes"
must be the record companies philosophy. I wonder how many other
companies do that? Probably many.......
So it is no surprise when Congress votes for corporate interests!
It takes major struggles on the part of citizens to get Congress
to vote against corporate interests.
Tim Sevener
decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!timlarry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (07/08/83)
From: tim@isrnix.UUCP But I just wonder, given that Reagan is a senile old dingbat, who is really behind him? Who really has the power behind the throne? For an interesting articles on at least two of "the men behind the throne" read this week's (7/4) Village Voice. It details how his good friend and now national security advisor William Clark, while a Cal. suprememe court justice, made a mockery of judicial procedure ethics. Especially interesting is the part where Reagan and Meese try to bribe the Chief Justice of the court. The fact the William Clark has any position of power in the foreign policy aparatus is an outrage. Clark flunked out of both Stanford and Loyala law schools and passed the California bar exam on his second try. This man was unable to identify the words "Detente" and "Third World" at his confirmation hearing. According to Senator Charles Percy, Republican of Ill., Clark was totally unqualified for job of National Security Advisor. Percy voted for him anyway because Reagan wanted him so much. As he voted he said something to the effect of "Never Again will I voted for such an incompetent". Too late. -- Larry Kolodney #13 (I try harder) (USENET) decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai
rung@ihuxw.UUCP (07/08/83)
Tim Sevener seems to object to the Reagan Presidency being that of a pro-business nature. He seems to have forgotten that if business does not profitably flourish in this country, the country itself gets into economic trouble. The Reagan administration has the support of business behind it today because this administration, from a business view, has done what it said it would do when they were all back on the campaign trail 3 and 4 years ago. President Reagan's ability to _c_o_m_m_u_n_i_c_a_t_e with Congress should be considered as an example for future administrations. It's been 20 years since this quality of communication has taken place between Congress and the Executive Branch regardless of partisanship! Mr. Sevener seems to suggest that the citizens view is not the same as that of business' view: "So it is no surprise when Congress votes for corporate interests! It takes major struggles on the part of citizens to get Congress to vote against corporate interests." Mr. Sevener should remember that 95% of income earning people in this country work for a business of some sort and that if the company he works for doesn't flourish (corporations are allowed to make a profit you know, otherwise they wouldn't need you), he might not be very excited around salary review time, regardless of the good quality producer he probably is for his company. Pete Rung BTL, Naperville, Ill. #
tim@isrnix.UUCP (07/08/83)
The Duke of deNet talks about Reagan's efforts to "stay the course"
and thus "inspire business confidence". So long as you make over $50000
a year and don't care about anybody making less I suppose that's
reasonable-Reagan has given more tax breaks to the rich than any
President in a LOOOOONNNG time. However ultimately that course won't
benefit even the rich. Why? Because if income is not redistributed to
those who will spend it there will be no market for many consumer
goods, business will fall ,and ultimately profits will fall too.
There is a great myth perpetrated in the media that Reagan has cut
gov't spending. He hasn't- rather he's "staying the course" right into
the biggest deficits in this nation's history. Once again in the short
term it may be great for the big, capital-intensive corporations that
Reagan plans on spending $1.6 trillion, more than we spent in ALL OF
WORLD WAR II on war, and preparations for war. However imagine if that
were spent developing solar or other alternate energy supplies so we
won't get zapped like in 1973 again? We wouldn't have to worry about the
Middle East and all their oil and turmoil if we got our energy act
together. But no, instead we spend trillions to be able to go over
and protect a few billion dollars in oil and other resources. That
doesn't make much economic sense to me! The FED has just announced
a new rise in interest rates--so much for the economic boom.
Meanwhile the latest figures show we still have 10% unemployment.
So long as one has a job who cares? Well, if you care about people
being able to work rather than be forced to receive gov't handouts
to survive you should care! If those people are not working it means
1) the gov't (that's us!) has to pay half their unemployment benefits
as long as they last (one thing which has added greatly to the current
deficit I might add)
2)if they still don't get a job and their unemployment runs out then
the gov't provides food stamps and aid so they don't starve to death.
Unemployment costs us money! Besides the psychological impact it has
on people's feelings of self-worth and initiative. Some people get in
a rut they find it very difficult to get out of because they begin to
'feel they are useless human beings.
Thus I think Reagan's economic policies have been an unmitigated disaster.
Right now we are cruising on the temporary oil glut. What's being done
to prepare for the next energy shortage? Nothing. Instead Americans are
buying bigger cars again, and the gov't is doing nothing to encourage
energy conservation itself. Instead of energy conservation Reagan
axed the railroads which are the most efficient forms of transportation
over medium distances. When asked why they chopped AMTRAK, David
Stockman said "well, nobody wants to ride the trains anyway".
It just so happens that those "nobodies" many routes booked solid for
months in advance! I think it is instructive that Reagan replaced
the portrait of Thomas Jefferson with one of Calvin Coolidge in the
White House. Like Coolidge and Hoover , Reagan's policies will bring
us long-run economic disaster.
Tim Sevener
decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!tim