thekid (03/01/83)
to Mike:
You bring up some interesting points.
For the interested, I've reprinted the parts of your statement
that I wanted to discuss.
1) SAINTES is no less dedicated. They feel, however, that they have
just about exhausted marching, protesting (of the "polite" sort), forming
church groups, raising money, writing congressmen and canvassing. They
have done all those things, and the administration CONTINUES on its course.
So? Well, that is the administration's choice, is it not?
Do you feel that escalation should continue without check until
your point is won? Perhaps assassination would be a reasonable
next move. This is close to the end justifying the means, I think.
2) There is a limit to what can be done "constructively" when you don't
have the resources of the government, which itself makes no more than a
pretense of acting "constructively".
Almost the same comment. Just because the government fails to act
constructively, SAINTES is released from any such responsibility.
You say the government makes no more than a pretense of acting
constructively. I think we need to define what constructively
means here. I think we both mean right in a moral sense rather
than in an expedient manner. If you subscribe to any implicit theory
of social obligation, the government acting in ANY manner does not
release SAINTES from its obligation. I point out: the government's
behavior MAY be `moral right' in the government's eyes, in which case,
SAINTES would be morally wrong without excuse. Right
and wrong is certainly not absolute between groups. To be
(intentionally) naive, the reason you don't have the government's
resources is because you have failed to convince the majority of
the populace that you are right. Correct? Or are you crying "unfair"?
Sorry, but I don't ever recall it being fair. For anybody.
3) So what is "the better way", here? Can you think of one that hasn't
been exhausted? To suggest that we simply persevere, that we did wrong
by losing our patience, places the burden totally on us. Innocent people
will go on being maimed, killed and imprisoned because WE stepped outside
the bounds of PROPRIETY?! I respectfully and politely request a big,
fat break.
DAMN STRAIGHT!!!!!! Now, I'm mad. FLAMES ON!!! You have just said
that YOU have evaluated a situation and decided that it JUSTIFIES
any action that YOU feel to be `proper'. (Your word, not mine.)
flames off. Mike, honestly, I understand, it hurts like hell to see
someone (especially an innocent someone) hurt. Tell me, if you could
wave a magic wand and eliminate (such a nice clean word) the entire
El Salvadoran government, would you? Since I'm sure you would ...
2nd question: What about the `innocent' people you just eliminated?
Is it the greatest good of the greatest number? And who decides?
Why you instead of who is currently deciding (the US government,
that is)? Why not me? Because you are `right'? Sure.
4) The second thing that irked me about point 7 is this: I have seen
riots. I have lived in Berkeley most of my life, and seen most of the
worst disturbances, and let me tell you: what happened in that auditorium
was nothing like a riot. There was no provocation of the kind that I
witnessed in the late 60's and early 70's on the part of both the police
and ultraleft terrorist/provocateurs. You implicitly and wrongfully put
SAINTES in the latter category when you talk of "riots". Please look
this word up in a dictionary. Then skip toward the front and find the
word "apologist". (The word "apology" will be right near by, if you feel
a sudden need for it.)
[there was more, but all in this vein]. thekid.
riot: to make a disturbance, to make an uproar. (Webster's New World).
I used the word correctly. I admit the current connotation is
one of violence. I did not intend that connotation.
You've been at Berkeley, Mike? Then you know that the line between
a heckler and a "rioter" is so thin as to be non-existent.
Shall we note as read the "riots" that started off as heckling?
Mike, you ended your letter referencing the German student movement, and
asked me where I'd stand in such a situation. I've been in SE Asia on one
side, and I've been in protest lines on the other. In general, I think we
agree on a lot of things. My only feeling is that you should argue either
idealistically (we are right, they are wrong, we may do right things, we
are not allowed to do wrong things, they are unfair) or pragmatically (we
want this and we don't care how we get it etc.). I feel that you are combining
the two. My thinking is that if there is a `right', it must be absolute.
And you must subscribe to it. Or you are no different than `they' (whoever
the current `they' are). Here's to the attempt. I wish you luck.
Me, I don't know. That's why I subscribe to net.religion and net.singles.
afraid, one heckuva lot,
thekid
...![ seismo, mcnc, we13, lime ]!rlgvax!thekidmmt (03/03/83)
To throw some more oil on the flames between Michael Turner and "thekid" (Billy?), perhaps we should ask whether the US Government whose voice should be calmly heard by all the SAINTES is the same one that tries to discourage people from seeing films on acid rain? You never know, if you see one of those TERRIBLE Canadian Government propaganda pieces, you might wind up on a future McCarthy's hit list. I find myself on both sides of the heckling issue, and burned up. Martin Taylor PS But wouldn't it be nice if someday there was a US administration that tried to stop the Communists from taking over Central and South America instead of doing all they can to help? Carter at least tried, but from here, Reagan seems to be hell-bent for Moscow.