rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/17/85)
Robert Orenstein's bigoted assertions speak for themselves. His speculation that White did not kill Milk because he way gay runs counter to the entire political environment of that time: for example, the behavior and senti- ments of the SF police, fire dept. and other peers and close friends of White before, during and after the murders paint quite a different picture other than mere political infighting. These are covered in Randy Shilts THE MAYOR OF CASTRO STREET and can also be traced via articles in the San Francisco press. But the main point here is that the mere existence of stress or inter- personal hostility hardly serves to fully explain an act as extreme as brutal multiple murder: I doubt many San Franciscans could be persuaded to believe that White would have killed anyone if there had been no gay Board members. Apart from whether the Milk-White relationship can be so characterized, political intrigue and personal feuds are hardly unknown in the City's politics; but they don't usually lead to murder & assassination. For example, Quentin Kopp, the Supervisor from Sunset (a middle class resi- dential neighborhood pretty much out of touch with the rest of San Fran- cisco), an incorrigible conservative & often White's sole ally on the Board, is no stranger to political bickering and backstabbing. According to the accounts I've read and what I saw & heard at the time (I lived in SF from 1977-1979), Ornstein's description is not only off the wall, but contains a murderous variety of homophobia, a kind of kneejerk compulsion to find apologies for any homophobic act, however vicious, under the guise of "understanding motivation" or "rising above partisan interpretations" (but what political coloration does Ornstein's reference to "Moscone's whoremongering" represent---neo- Puritan?). Ron Rizzo
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (06/20/85)
In article <1461@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >Robert Orenstein's bigoted assertions speak for themselves. His speculation >that White did not kill Milk because he way gay runs counter to the entire >political environment of that time: for example, the behavior and senti- >ments of the SF police, fire dept. and other peers and close friends of >White before, during and after the murders paint quite a different picture >other than mere political infighting. These are covered in Randy Shilts >THE MAYOR OF CASTRO STREET and can also be traced via articles in the >San Francisco press. > >But the main point here is that the mere existence of stress or inter- >personal hostility hardly serves to fully explain an act as extreme as >brutal multiple murder: I doubt many San Franciscans could be persuaded >to believe that White would have killed anyone if there had been no gay >Board members. Being a SF Bay Area resident at the time, and being very politically aware, I think Ron is leaping way overboard here. It is true that the behavior of the SF police was (and mostly still is, with only small improvement) homophobic, but I am one San Franciscan who is convinced that the murder of Moscone would have happened, and probably the murder of Milk, no matter who was or was not gay. First, the "mere existence of stress or interpersonal hostility" is a quite complete motive in itself. People shoot each other over parking spaces, for God's sake. People who don't like each other shoot each other without introduction of extra-normal stress. This is clearly an incorrect statement on Ron's part. Stress + hostility gets several people killed every year in this country, in so-called "crimes of passion" and otherwise. As has been described in this newsgroup in great detail, White was trying to regain his Supervisor's seat which he had just resigned, and considered (it seems correctly) Moscone and Milk as the main people standing in his way. So he did what every macho, ego centered, violence trained and inured person is supposed to do: he blew his opponents away. That Milk was gay may have entered into the equation, but it was hardly his driving force. (As was also mentioned before, Milk and White had at one point been friends, which would not have been possible had White been a knee-jerk massively violent homophobe.) Try stress, injury to pride, public humiliation, anger at having his will thwarted, basic over-macho, and family and financial problems (but whatever you do, don't try junk food; that's a well-paid lawyer's crock). If this doesn't seem like enough, see the mention of killing over parking spaces above. Now, it has admittedly struck Randy Shilts that Milk was murdered as primarily (though not exclusively) a homophobic act. But to interpret otherwise is surely not an act of bigotry, as Ron asserts. Many people in San Francisco approved of the killing of Milk because THEY were homophobic, but White's homophobia was not so compelling to drive him out of his skull and into Milk's office that day to shoot him. Two other points about this: (1) I, for one, would suspect that the reason White got off without even what I would count as a wrist slap for two murders, both of which were also violations of Civil Rights, is primarily because he looked like Every Mother's Son, and besides, "he'd only killed some bleeding-heart liberal and his fag friend." They jurors would never put it quite like this, but some of their comments sure sounded like this kind of shit. (2) Recent local press reports state that White's neighbors have seen him puttering around his garden in SF regularly. This guy must have a real death wish. The Mayor, the Chief of Police, the SF Sheriff, and both major local papers have recommended that he stay away, but I guess he can't stand the idea that some people will hold him responsible for killing somebody, and might take it personally enough to at least beat the shit out of him, if not kill him. I don't condone this kind of thing, but it's almost bound to happen. Ken Arnold
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (06/21/85)
> Robert Orenstein's bigoted assertions speak for themselves. > ... > According to the accounts I've read and what I saw & heard at the time > (I lived in SF from 1977-1979), Ornstein's description is not only off > the wall, but contains a murderous variety of homophobia, a kind of > kneejerk compulsion to find apologies for any homophobic act, however > vicious, under the guise of "understanding motivation" or "rising > above partisan interpretations" (but what political coloration does > Ornstein's reference to "Moscone's whoremongering" represent---neo- > Puritan?). > > Ron Rizzo I work with Robert Orenstein, and happen to know that he is not a bigot. He merely committed the sin of stating a "politically incorrect" point of view. I find your attack on him to be extremely disgusting. He said nothing in his original article that could be remotely considered an attack on homosexuals or homosexuality, except by a person who is so self-righteous to believe that his or her particular orthodoxy must not be questioned, and that anyone who does so must be an enemy. You have a lot of gall to make assumptions about Robert's motives for disagreeing with the prevailing dogma. I disagree with his point of view, but I don't jump to the conclusion that he is a bigot just because I disagree with him, or even because his point of view seems (to me) to be contrary to commonly known facts. Why is it not enough to simply disagree and explain your disagreement? If we refuse to listen to people who express unpopular points of view, and try to turn them into outcasts by labelling them as bigots, fascists, or the like, then we have no real freedom of speech; we only have the right to agree within one's own circle. And how will it ever be possible to cast off false orthodoxies if there are ideas which must never be expressed? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/21/85)
Ken's comments about White's motives are just as speculative as mine, Stephen Hutchison's, or Robert Orenstein's. Accounts of White's possible motives by others (the press, Shilts & Weiss, people who knew White) must be considered (maybe accounts by White himself as well, to see what kind of psychic alibis he uses). But they're only hypotheses about things not subject to direct inspection. We should look at the facts themselves & the situation in question. White seems to be strongly homophobic, to the point that it could be a compelling factor in his decisions & actions. White's own personality, statements, behavior, peers & associates indicates that. Milk's brief tentative & rather formal friendship with White at the outset of their Supervisorial (sp?) terms was initiated & cultivated almost entirely by Milk, who was riding on a crest of optimism & euphoria over his long-hoped-for election, & was probably engaged in a spirit of "watch me; I'll count even the Board's homophobes as my personal friends & make them not only respect but even like me", thus coopting opposition before it knew what was happening. It would've accorded with Milk's political style. Nearly all White's peers & associates were among those SF homophobes Ken Arnold describes. The "family & finance" motive in White's political career & behavior has always struck an odd note. White knew what Supervisorial salaries were before he even ran for office. If his money complaints were sincere, he simply couldn't afford to hold office. Blaming anyone for his economic troubles, & then using the rejection of his request to be given his inadequately paying Supervisor's job back is bizarre under the circumstances. Even the city press reported these matters with a slight air of disbelief. However much White himself may've believed he acted out of such motives (this sounds bizarre, doesn't it?), the whole "family finances" argument strikes me as a red herring. White's homophobia could have made it a lot easier for him to accept this rather wimpish argument himself, one he wouldn't ordinarily countenance as a "macho" male. At any rate, Ken's comments on my previous reactions (mea culpa, mea culpa, again) are valid, to the point, & accepted by this party, thank you. I now admit (Uncle!) the position I'm pushing is as controversial as the ones I so vehemently criticized. I should've separated objections to slurs against White & Moscone (in Stephen Hutchinson's posting) from disagreement with genuine debate about the matter (as in Robert Orn- stein's posting). Regards, Ron Rizzo
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/24/85)
<followup to Jeff Lichtman> Aside from being an exaggeration, your last paragraph contains a glaring non sequitur (as well as nonsensical uses of the term "right"): offering criticisms, however noxious, is not a suppression of free speech nor a denial of rights in any form. The next sentence about the "right to agree within one's own circle" is pure nonsense. Jeff's reaction is excessive & distorting (like my own if in a different way). His metaphorical use of "rights" & "free speech" degrades those already much degraded ideas. Good morning, world! Ron Rizzo
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/03/85)
I browsed thru an English language paperback edition (published by a major US publisher, I think) at Glad Day Bookstore (Boston) BEFORE the infamous fire. So an edition in English has been around for a number of years. Probably an American hardbound edition exists; the quality of the paper in the paperback was not high. Check BOOKS IN PRINT and PAPERBACK BOOKS IN PRINT. Wordsworth's (Harvard Square) should also have it at their usual discount. TRICKS' a treat, Ron Rizzo
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/13/85)
Although it may not make much sense making this offer, being on the same node as Steve, nevertheless, in the interests of encouraging people to contribute to net.motss and in relieving some of the bur- den from Steve, I also hereby offer to post articles anonymously for others and to send them net.motss mail. Ron Rizzo "U.S. out of my pants!"