Re: Future President?

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 15:15:02 MDT

>From: "Harvey Newstrom" <>

>You seem to have missed my original point. Heston's speech
>clearly does not say the things I list. It seems to imply these
>things by references to certain words or by listing certain groups
>or by describing unspecified actions to be taken in the future.
>I acknowledged in my very first post that I couldn't *prove* these
>things by his words. I felt that his words may evoke additional
>ideas in the audience that were not specifically stated.

I was following your post very closely. I was trying to suggest at
every turn that there are good honest alternatives to every point
you were trying to make.

The NRA has been heavily demonized for many years now, this of
course affects everything people hear from one of our members, much
more apparent when the president speaks.

We are trying to apply the light of reasom here.

>I can concede that this speech might have been intended to be
>against political correctness and not imply any negativity toward
>blacks, women, gays and other minorities. I also can concede that
>this was given to a group of predominately rich white males and
>spoke to their point of view, and probably wasn't intended to be
>addressed to other groups.


>But, can you concede that all of his examples of bad situations
>and good situations were not evenly distributed among minority
>groups? Maybe that is just a side-effect of how political
>correctness works, but all his "bad" examples were about blacks,
>gays, feminists, transsexuals, transvestites, people with AIDS,
>liberals, etc., while all of his "good" examples were about white
>pride, gun-owners, conservatives, NRA members, etc. Although he
>may see all ethnic groups as equally good, his examples only
>showed one group as good whereas all the others were shown as bad.
>Even if this was not intended, can you see where an implication
>might be derived from this?

It was clearly a "Rally round the flag and against the forces of
political correctness" speech. Since the speech was removed from
it's original context I can see where the implication could be

>> Laws which
>> seek to hire gays to achieve some sort of arbitrarily defined
>> multiculturality are also special treatment.

>Please. I will send you $100 if you can show me an actual enacted
>law that mandates quotas for hiring gays. I think this is just a
>straw-man argument. (Not invented by you.) I'm sure you heard
>about this from a friend of a friend, but I think this is just
>another urban legend.

No, I remember press reports of Gay/Lesbian groups arguing for such
quotas, whether or not they've been granted I'll look up.

>> 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.

>I agree totally. I wish Heston had said this as clearly. He
>didn't mention giving gays any of these equal rights. He only
>mentioned blocking unspecified special treatment. It is not clear
>from his speech if he supports any of these equal rights you list

I would tend to think he would, guess I'll ask him some time. ;)

Of course there are those who oppose this legally on religious
grounds. A good argument for seperation of church/state.

>> 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.

>This is the exact parallel that he uses in all his statements. I
>am surprised that you see it here, but not elsewhere. He gives an
>example of something that is "bad". It is up to the audience to
>interpret what would be good. As you point out, they will usually
>interpret the opposite event to be "good" because "good" is the
>opposite of "bad".

He was pointing out things that were wrong, but I don't think he
implied the opposite was therefore true.

>I fear that people will follow this same pattern when interpreting
>his other examples. When he says gays shouldn't be given more
>rights, someone might decide that they should be given less
>rights. When he says whites need more pride, someone might decide
>that blacks need less pride. When he says liberals shouldn't
>teach liberal propaganda in school, someone might decide that
>conservatives should teach conservative propaganda instead.

Theres no telling how it might be distorted, even well meaning
people might accomplish that. ;)

>> Busted! He was not giving a speech to the NRA, but to the
>> Harvard law school forum.

>Agreed. I referenced the wrong group here. It was not germane to
>my point.


>> At no point does he argue against free speech for certain songs,
>> teachers, or entertainers.

>Perhaps, but his clearly brags about getting Ice-T's contract
>canceled because of the bad lyrics. Someone could easily think
>that improper speech should be stopped.

I thought he made it clear that people who wrote songs advocating
killing cops should not be employed by the company of which he was
a stockholder.

>You are inadvertently proving my point again. Heston did not
>clearly say this. The words you are insisting are a quote from
>Heston are actually my words of what I thought he was implying.
>If you read the original speech, he doesn't say anything about not
>liking or cooperating with homosexuality. I just said that some
>people might think this was implied. You apparently got confused
>with this same implication when you strongly asserted that Heston
>clearly said it. I think the implication would be clear in some
>people's minds. This is the exact kind of "implied" material that
>concerns me.

Oops! your right he didn't say any such thing, strike that.

>No. But there does seem to be an unspecified agenda among these
>predominately rich white males that is causing them to prepare to
>fight a culture war over differences in race (whatever that

Actually a difference in speech, free vs politically correct
amongst others.

>I wouldn't call them secret, because they are well known. I
>wouldn't call them racist, because people here dispute what the
>word means. I do question the race-friendliness of a group of
>rich white males with white pride who refuse to call
>African-Americans anything but "negros" and are preparing for a
>cultural war over racial differences. But you can use any term
>for this that you see fit.

Actually he said King said "negro" he said they used the term
black. We are not fighting a cultural war over racial differences,
but things like free speech and gun control. He used the race
refferences to document the problems facing free speech advocates.

>I will even concede that he was arguing against political
>correctness. But I don't think he was arguing for blacks, gays
>and the like.

No, not in this speech, he was arguing against something (political
correct speech) and for something else (free speech).

>> 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.

>This I agree with totally. There is racial discrimination in all
>directions. There is sexual prejudice and unfairness to all
>genders and orientations. I even agree with everything you claim
>the speech said. I was worried over possible implications that
>were not quite said, but possibly alluded to. If these
>implications were there, I think you would
>condemn them as I have.

I agree totally that if the implication were there I would comdemn
them too.

I think this was come have dinner and give a speech time, I'm quite
sure this was not for mass consumption.

>So on basics, I think we agree. On this specific, we do not agree
>on how conservative or how liberal or exactly where Heston stands,
>or more specifically exactly what this speech was intended to
>accomplish. I still fear the rhetoric calling for a cultural war
>over race, gender or sexual orientation, but on equal rights for
>all I think we agree.

I really don't think it was ever meant that way, I think Mr Heston
would be horrified to think anyone actually thought that. The
cultural war he is referring to is about the future of our culture,
I'll post an appropriate quote that may help explain tomorrow.

Out of time

>Perhaps we can agree that the terminology relating to race, gender
>and sexual orientation have been so politicized and distorted that
>we may not be reading the same meaning when we reach the same
>words. I'm not sure what more can be gained by discussing
>Heston's individual speech. I am more heartened by the fact that
>we seem to agree on equal rights for all, and no special rights
>for some.

I agree completely.


Extropy Institute,
National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

Disclosure notice: currently "plonked"
"Joe Dees" <>
"Party of Citizens"<>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT