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
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) (06/24/85)
<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