From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 09:55:07 MDT
>From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
>>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.
You were inferring by comparison that Mr Heston is less than honest
and forthright. I don't have conservative biases, remember my
results from the worlds shortest political quiz? I'm a liberal.
>>>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."
He doesn't say anything about being president, those are your
words. You are putting words in his mouth and attempting to erect
a strawman.
Have some fire strawman....
>>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 implies 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 referring 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.
As I indicated.
>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.
Correct, he is referring to the subject of his speech, free speech
vs politically correct speech.
>>>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."
Correct, but he is not saying nor implying that guns are at the
core of the issue, you did that.
>> 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.
Yes he does " But when I told an audience last year that white
pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's
pride, they called me a racist."
"just as valid" equally valid, same thing.
>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.
He neither said nor implied any such thing as clearly quoted above,
he said all were "just as valid."
>> 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.
Hate crime laws are most certainly special treatment. Laws which
seek to hire gays to achieve some sort of arbitrarily defined
multiculturality are also special treatment.
I support equal rights for gay/lesbians on marriage, cohabitation,
insurance, joint tax returns, inheriting property, joint ownership
of property etc, but not special treatment.
>>>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 singling out of innocent Jews to the singling out of
innocent gun owners, there is no mention of the Holocaust.
>He compares gun-control advocates to Nazis.
Where does he do that? I can't find it.
>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.
You try giving us the break, you're the one on a witch hunt here.
>>>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.
"a.. In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients
nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed
their AIDS --- the state commissioner announced that health
providers who are HIV-positive need not....need not..... tell their
patients that they are infected".
Your right, he did not specifically say that patients had a right
to know, he said that a law which allowed dentists to conceal the
fact that they were HIV-positive was wrong.
The opposite of conceal is to reveal.
For the record I do think dentists need to inform their patients if
they're HIV positive, my dentist sticks himself all the time....
>>>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.
He said we used to use these terms but they are no longer allowed.
He makes no such arguments about classifying people by the color of
their skin. He argues against race related hyphenation.
> 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.
Busted! He was not giving a speech to the NRA, but to the Harvard
law school forum.
>>>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.
Because these are area all covered by politically correct speech,
he does recognize differences, in fact he states that it is
perfectly okay to talk about differences in free speech, not
politically correct speech.
At no point does he argue against free 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.
In politically correct speech, one has to speak differently about
minorities, gender, and sexual preference than one does to talk
about white heterosexual males. He is saying this is wrong.
>>> 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 he clearly said it? "We don't have to like it or even
cooperate with it".
"We" he has included himself.
>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.
I agreed with the above implication because he clearly included
himself in the reference when he said "we".
I think racists will infer whatever they wish to.
Are you saying there is a secret society of racists amongst the
members of the Harvard Law School Forum? This is where he gave this
speech.
>>>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."
So you do think there is a secret racist society at Harvard? ( ;)
)
>> 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 canceled because he didn't like the lyrics of a
>song. I thought this was inconsistent.
He said as a stockholder that Time Warner shouldn't be profiting
from this song, a song about murdering police officers, so he did
something about it, he shamed the board into stopping it's
profiteering, well within his rights.
I think ICE-T had a right to write/sing it, but I wouldn't ever buy
it, and quite honestly would think less of anyone who did.
> 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.
But Harvey he WAS! He was arguing for the right of free speech, and
against political correctness.
>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.
Heston has a long history of fighting for civil rights, that in
most peoples books would make him a liberal. He is reported to be
a very religious man, most people would call that conservative. I
believe him to be for equal rights for everyone. I believe the
evidence is in my favor.
I understand that you don't see this as inclusive, it probably was
not intended that way, he was arguing that political correctness
is wrong, that advocates of free speech need to take a tough stand,
and his speech was a shot across the bow of those we fight.
There is a low grade war going on in this country, and has been for
awhile, it is a cultural war, and the Second Amendment protectors
and the anti-gun people are on opposite sides. A good evaluation of
this conflict can be found in "The Samurai, The Mountie, and The
Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun Controls of other
Democracies?" by David Kopel, a must read for anyone interested in
the conflict.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
Disclosure notice: currently "plonked"
"Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com>
"Party of Citizens"<citizens@vcn.bc.ca>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:11 MST