Re: future president?

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Wed Aug 29 2001 - 10:20:04 MDT

Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > How do you know what Heston thinks his creator is?
> I think it is clear from Heston's other discussions that he believes in a
> Christian God as creator. I'm not sure this is germane to the discussion.

Well, you quoted him saying 'the Creator', which could be anything, and
I think that irrespective of his own religious views, he said this
specifically to appeal to those who may have other opinions of who the
'creator' is.

> > Well, why not? US civilization was not predominantly created by the
> > minds of africans, chinese, or native americans. Why not give credit
> > where credit is due?
> I don't think Heston implying that whites deserve more credit for US
> civilization than blacks, native Americans, etc. You are reading some
> implications even farther than I would have imagined.

What he was asking is why blacks are given so much more of a prominent
place in current history books than whites like George Washington and
Thomas Jefferson. I think that he was trying to show that excluding the
founding fathers is at least as unjust as excluding later civil rights
leaders, and that all should be represented in history books
proportionate to their actual contribution to the history of the
> > > 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.
> >
> > But they don't generally do this, they set sentencing guidelines for
> > those who exercise their own rights to not be forced into accepting
> > lifestyles they view as abhorrent. When these include proscriptions
> > against using words in speech which gays use as a matter of course in
> > their own intra-gay communications, then the line is crossed into
> > thought repression, equal protection, and first amendment violations.
> That's why I make it clear that hate-crime laws are NOT an example of
> equal-rights laws. They do not have the same purpose or effect.

Actually, they ARE equal rights laws. They are intended to eliminate the
unequal living conditions that minorities are subjected to by bigots
through harassment. Just why they are needed when ordinary harassment
laws have worked for the rest of us is beyond me.
> I'm not even going to get into the comparison of gun-owners with Holocaust
> victims. I think this is extreme hyperbole. Trying to argue that
> gun-owners are victimized as much as Jews is a losing argument in any event.
> Even if you're right, it just sounds whiny at best and anti-Semitic at
> worst. Why not just say you are unfair victims? Comparisons to the
> Holocaust or comparing your opponents to Nazis never enlightens a debate.

The reason why we can and do make the comparison, Harvey, is because the
primary gun control law in this country, the Gun Control Act of 1968,
has been documented (by a Jewish gun-rights group) to have been
purposely translated from the 1938 revised National Weapons Law of
Germany which was used to disarm the Jews, and put into effect here by
Democrat Senator Thomas Dodd. We can compare ourselves to jews because
we are living under anti-semitic originated laws right now.

> > Do you or do you not think that it is right for a person to not know
> > when their body tissues are being exposed to an HIV carrier under
> > conditions which have been proven to be communicable for the virus?
> I do.

So you think it is alright for HIV carriers to willfully expose others
to the virus without telling them? Excuse me? Maybe you misunderstood my
original statement, but if you do think this way, it is no wonder you
think Heston is your enemy, you would be mine too.

> But this is irrelevant to my point. My point is that this was never
> stated by Heston. Everybody keeps jumping on this because Heston implied
> his position on this without stating it. This is the perfect example of
> what I was trying to point out. He gives an example and leaves it up to the
> audience to interpret conclusions from it. You are arguing for your
> conclusion, which may be correct. But you are missing the fact that you are
> reading your conclusion into his words. Heston never stated this position
> explicitly. Likewise, other implications can be read into his other
> examples that weren't specifically stated. Some people seem to be insisting
> that their interpretations and conclusions from each example are the only
> possible ones to derive. I am pointing out that there are no clear
> conclusions from his examples, and different audience members with interpret
> them differently. Some of those interpretations might be excessively
> reactionary.

That Heston is drawing attention to a situation that he feels is an
unjust one is irrelevant to his own implied opinion about it. It doesn't
matter if different people have different opinions about how important
or severe this situation is, so long as they see it as unjust as well.

> > Which is more accurate? I mean, if a white fellow who was born in South
> > Africa or Rhodesia immigrated to the US, does he or does he not have the
> > right to call himself an 'African-American'??? Does he then have the
> > right to apply for positions in college and employment that are
> > determined by the fact that he is 'African-American', to the exclusion
> > of other white fellows who were born here in the US, or who immigrated
> > from european nations? If he doesn't have this right, then please
> > explain why...
> Very good point. Such a person would be an African-American by geographical
> origin. This could be confusing. However, African-American as a race
> implies descended from original Africans, just as native Americans implies
> descended from original Americans. Of course there were earlier and later
> peoples in both places, and history and breeding are blurring all such
> lines. These definitions all end up meaningless if they are analyzed.

Yes, they are quite meaningless. What expiration date do you put on
having a status as 'original Africans'??? We are all African if you go
far back enough (even native Americans are). So what date do you decide
determines what one's 'Africanness' is? Jews lived in Egypt for hundreds
of years, and later migrated all over europe, asia, and africa. It is
nearly impossible for a person of european extraction to have absolutely
no jewish blood in them, so therefore most europeans can be found to
have African ancestry that is less than 3000 years old. Even later, many
Italians, Greeks, Albanians, Spaniards, etc have african blood that
dates only back to the Moorish conquests of the middle ages.

Furthermore, what about africans who never lived here in the US under
slavery or Jim Crow, who are only recent immigrants whose families never
suffered from American prejudice (merely the even greater tribal
prejudices of their homeland in africa. Why should they enjoy
preferential treatment under affirmative action when their families
never suffered the injustices of slavery here?
> > Since you've decided that 'white' is bad, what about 'european'?
> Where did you get the idea that I think "white" is bad?

You said that using the term 'white' is as racist as using the term
'black' instead of 'African-American'

> > Do the Basques or Lithuanians, who have
> > little or no common cultural or linguistic connection to other european
> > cultures, get excluded or are they the default?
> Excluded from what? Default what? I don't know what you are talking about.
> I am arguing AGAINST dividing people up by race, gender or sexual
> orientation.

To what degree? Are you opposed to simply describing someone by such
characteristics, or are you just opposed to treating people according to
such characteristics? There is the line between free speech and
discriminatory acts.

In the second case, do you mean under all circumstances, public and

> > Apples and oranges, Harvey. He hates rap because rap encourages violence
> > against police, against the state, and for war and bigotry against
> > whites in general. Rap IS racist, and therefore, should be treated at
> > least as much a 'hate crime' as anything said by the KKK. It should not
> > be celebrated by popular culture.
> All true, but it seems inconsistent to claim the right to talk about
> "negros" without being called racist, while then working to stop rap music.
> Freedom of speech is freedom to say bad things as well as good. Just as
> Heston is describing how political correctness prevents him from saying what
> he wants, he turns around and says rap musicians shouldn't say what they
> want.

Heston is not talking about committing violent crimes against innocent
people. Rappers are. End of story.

> I also think you have an inflated idea of what a hate crime is. Hate crimes
> give tougher sentences on criminals who commit violent crimes. They do not
> arrest people for mere words or ideas. Even if one disagrees with hate
> crime laws, I think you are exaggerating their effect. I will pay $100 if
> you show me an actual law that proscribes a punishment for mere speech
> without the threat or act of real violence. I think this is another urban
> legend.
> > Discussion and action are completely different things, Harvey.
> Agreed. But he has a definite call to action at the end of the speech. He
> calls for civil disobedience and for people to "act" when these kinds of
> things occur. Now he doesn't specify what exact acts should be taken, but
> it is clear that some kind of action is being requested.

Of course. And is this wrong? Why is it that unjust laws are to be
resisted unless they are unjust toward white males? Furthermore, how is
a gun owner supposed to peacefully resist unjust gun laws when any
violation of a gun law is considered a violent crime?

> > This 'code word' term is one more catch phrase of political correctness
> > police doing their typical hate baiting. And why is what he said wrong?
> > We are all entitled to our own values, we just are not entitled to act
> > on them all. We cannot be compelled to act contrary to our values (with
> > a few obvious exceptions required by citizenship).
> You miss my point again. I didn't say this viewpoint was bad. My point is
> that Heston never made this statement. He gave an example and everybody get
> the implication that we don't have to like homosexuality. He never said
> this. My point is that if this "implication" is clear from the example
> without him saying it, what other examples are clear from the other examples
> about blacks, Jews, African-Americans, women, transvestites, transsexuals,
> etc.? Do these examples also imply that we don't have to like them or
> cooperate with them? This is my point, that the implications being read
> into his speech go beyond what the literal words can be shown to say.

His point is that the government is forcing people by statute,
jack-boot, and expenditure of taxpayer dollars, to act in ways contrary
to their values, and to punish people for their beliefs with their own
money. His point is that the injustice of a minority of rich white males
upon the rest of society in the past does not justify the injustice
today by a majority of blacks, women, poor people, and other formerly
disadvantaged groups. Our country was structured in such a way as to
protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the
majority, but that tyranny is exactly what is occuring today, with
prettied up 'code words' for revenge like 'affirmative action',
'set-asides', and 'racial quotas'.
> > I imagine you mean that 'cream' is one more 'code word' for 'elite white
> > people'.
> No, but I did assume that Harvard scholars are mostly rich white straight
> males.
> > No, it's not. It was his money being invested in ICE-T's work, and it
> > was his right to express his displeasure at how his money was being
> > spent. By expressing his displeasure, he was able to illuminate other
> > stockholders as to how their own money was being invested, and they made
> > their own decisions. Pop music is not speech, it is commerce.
> Why did this example appear in a song about free speech? He clearly was
> showing that he would not tolerate this kind of speech as an example of the
> kind of free speech he was advocating. What was this whole example about
> and why was it in this speech about freedom of speech if he wasn't talking
> about freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech does not mean that you have the right to force others
to pay for (or listen to) your freedom of speech. Get it? At the Warner
Bros stockholders meeting, I don't think he even stated his opinion, he
merely asked if the following lyrics were what the stockholders wanted
the company to represent, and then proceeded to recite the lyrics of the
song in question. The stockholders drew their own conclusions about how
they wanted their company and their money to be represented to the

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT