From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Aug 27 2001 - 17:47:14 MDT
Brian D Williams wrote,
> Lets see, your comparing Heston to Clinton, a drug dealer, and a
> prostitute. I think I know political propaganda when I hear it.
You are projecting your conservative biases onto me. I don't lump Clinton,
drugs and sex together in a single continuum of liberal sin. I thought I
was giving unrelated examples of "plausible deniability", where the speaker
dances around a topic without specifically admitting anything. They all
believe in their cause, but don't want to admit it publicly to the
authorities.
> >When he says his Creator gave him a gift which might be used in
> >the political process, he implies that God will guide him to run
> >for president and guide his decisions while he is president.
>
> He never says any such thing in this speech. Retraction please.
"If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of
those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to reconnect you with
your own sense of liberty of your own freedom of thought ... your own
compass for what is right."
> >When he says we are fighting a great civil war and cultural war
> >that is trying to hijack our birthright, he is implying that he
> >wants to turn back history to earlier political times and have
> >rights based on birth.
>
> He says nor implys any such thing
"I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war
that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your
heart."
> The "birthright" he is refering to is the birth of our nation, and
> the right of free speech.
His quote of Lincoln was referring to the birth of our nation and the right
of free speech. However, Heston said we are about to fight *another* such
war today when he said, "Those words are true again. I believe that we are
again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war...." This second war is
not referring to the first one.
> >When he says that he that our problems are bigger than the gun
> >issue, he implies that the gun issue is at its core.
>
> Nonsense, he's saying there are more important issues than guns and
> that he should be listed to for what he is saying, not because he
> is the elected president of the NRA.
He clearly describes his realization of this bigger issue in terms of his
being president of the NRA and being "in the cross hairs of those who target
Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only
issue."
> he's saying that if there is such a thing as black pride then
> white pride, red pride, is equally valid. He is correct.
He is correct. But he doesn't say all pride is equally valid. He is
specifically arguing for the validity of white pride. He singles it out and
implies that it needs to be bolstered up compared to the others. He implies
that whites need more pride now while blacks and other races have enough
pride.
> Yes, sometimes these groups do try to get special treatment laws
> passed, hate crimes are an example. When someone who is gay refers
> to themselves as gay they have drawn a distinction, it is equally
> ok for anyone else to make that distinction.
Hate crime laws are not an example of gay rights. They are racial laws
which sometimes include sexual orientation or gender. These laws give
sentencing guidelines for criminals not rights to citizens. Gay
equal-rights laws would be ones advocating marriage, cohabitation,
insurance, joint tax returns, inheriting property, joint ownership of
property, etc.
> >When he spoke against the Axis Powers in World War II, and draws
> >a parallel between the holocaust and what is currently happening
> >to gun owners, he implies the holocaust was less than it was or
> >that gun control equals Nazi atrocities.
>
> He implies no such thing, he said "But during a speech, when I drew
> an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out
> innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite." He is arguing
> against singling out those who haven't done anything wrong, he is
> talking about unreasoned prejudice.
Give me a break. He compares gun-owners' persecution to the Holocaust. He
compares gun-control advocates to Nazis. This is inflammatory hyperbole at
best. I can't believe anyone would argue for the validity of this analogy.
It was a stupid PR blunder, period.
> >When he gives an example of dental patients who got AIDS from
> >dentists who didn't disclose it, he implies that AIDS patients
> >must be publicly disclosed and kept away from the general public.
>
> He did not say anything about keeping them away, but he does feel
> their patients have a right to know. Shall we take a vote?
No, but you make my point for me. You think you know what he said, but read
it carefully. He never said the patients have a right to know. He merely
implied it. He said it was bad that they didn't know. You are taking the
ball and running with it. You are deriving conclusions from the speech that
were not explicitly spelled out as part of his agenda. This is the exact
kind of implications I was talking about. I think you caught this one
because you agreed with it. I think you would catch more of the other ones
if you were inclined to agree with them as well.
> >When he points out that Dr. King said "negroes" but its not
> >allowed now, he implies that we should be allowed classify people
> >into another race by the color of their skin.
He was specifically arguing against hyphenated terminology like
African-American which refers to their geographical origin. He was
specifically arguing for the terms "black" or "negro" which refers to the
color of their skin. He wants to classify these people by the color of
their skin and not by their geographical origin. It seems obvious from the
words.
> COME ON NOW! How do you derive that from what he said! From now on
> anyone referring to me as "white" is a racist. Now do you see?
I agree. If someone didn't want to call people Scottish, British, Irish,
Swedish, but insisted that they all be called "white" because they look
alike, I think that would be racist. It's more than just a passing
adjective. Heston is actually arguing against one set of terminology and
for another. This is not a statement out of context. He is actually giving
a speech to the NRA about their right to use the word "negro" instead of
"African-American" because they prefer the term.
> >When he claims to be a Native American because he was
> >blood-initiated into a tribe, he implies that we should discount
> >any racism that native Americans see because he is one and doesn't
> >see any discrimination.
>
> He referred to this in a very brief discussion as to the
> awkwardness of hyphenated names. Mr. Heston believes citizens of
> this country are "Americans", period.
Then why does he want to distinguish between race, sex, or sexual
orientation then? Why not call them all American? They are all "American"
when he doesn't want to recognize differences, but they are all different
groups when he does want to recognize differences. Likewise, he wants
freedom of speech for some topics, but then argues against freedom of speech
for certain songs, teachers or entertainers.
> >When he says one can talk about race without being a racist, he
> >implies that he wants to talk about race and make decisions based
> >on race.
>
> No, he means what he said, I can refer to someone as black or
> Hispanic or white or anything else, imparting information without
> negatively discriminating.
"Talking about race" is more than just referencing someone. He wants to
"recognize" the difference, "discuss" the differences, and by implication
act on the differences.
> >When he says that one can see distinctions between genders without
> >being sexist, it implies that he wants to observe differences
> >between genders and probably make decisions based on gender.
>
> No, once again he is saying that you can refer to the obvious
> differences in people without meaning anything negative.
Again, no. See above.
> >When he says you can think critically about a denomination without
> >being anti-religion, it implies that he wants to criticize
> >specific religions for their beliefs without criticizing others.
>
> Again he is saying that you can make observations based on
> difference without implying any sort of negativity.
Same as above.
> >When he says you can accept but not celebrate homosexuality
> >without being a homophobe, he implies that we can accept that it
> >exists but we don't have to like it or even cooperate with it.
>
> He didn't say the second part but in this case I think that's a
> pretty good implication based on the facts.
Again, he didn't say it, but it sure is implied. Why did you feel compelled
to agree that it's a pretty good implication based on the facts? Because it
is clear what the implication is, even if he doesn't say it. Again, I
believe that you would see more of the other implications if you were
inclined to agree with them. Or, let me ask this in a more leading way: Do
you think a racist would read more of these implications into this speech
than you would? I think the code-words and possible implications are there
for those who want to latch onto them.
> >When he says disobedience is in our DNA and follows the awesome
> >power of Gandhi, Thoreau, and Jesus, he implies a racial rights
> >and manifest destiny for certain groups.
>
> For Indians, writers and a christian mystic?
No. He said who he was addressing. "You are the best and the brightest.
You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of
learning on the Charles River, you are the cream."
> You mean the part about the ICE-T song about murdering an innocent
> cop? He was taking that position as a stockholder that it was wrong
> for the company to profit from such a thing, and he put his
> reputation on the line to defend what he thought was right.
Exactly. He argues for his right to use terms and say things that people
don't want him to say, but then he also brags that he got Ice-T's contract
cancelled because he didn't like the lyrics of a song. I thought this was
inconsistent.
> Heston's speech was about free speech, not the political correct
> jargon that passes for free speech these days, period.
I wish. If he had argued for free speech for everybody, I would have
agreed. But he seemed to criticize the speech of others as much as he
argued for his own right to speak. I did not feel like he was arguing for
my right to speak on any issues I might speak out on.
As I read this, I felt like Heston would classify me as one of the liberals,
as one of the politically correct, as one of the non-Christians, or in some
other way as one of the enemy in the "cultural war" or second "civil war"
that he is fighting. I certainly did not feel that he was arguing for my
rights. In fact, I got the distinct impression that he was against gay
rights, women's rights, blacks rights, native American rights and many other
rights for groups that were somehow different than his own. In fact, the
only rights he specifically supported seemed to be for white, males in the
U.S. who shared a birthright of revolution. This was not an inclusive
speech.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:09 MST