Filed under: American Activism
Question:
April 21, 2001 Verdict a relief for family By Michele Ames and Peggy Lowe, News Staff Writers By any measure, it has been a long road. Mary and David Davis made the more-than-1,500-mile trip from their North Carolina home and sat through a week of an emotional trial to watch two Evergreen therapists judged guilty in the death of the couple’s biological granddaughter, Candace. They proclaimed Friday’s verdict justice. "Candace had no say in this. She tried to talk, and they didn’t listen," said David Davis. "Now she’s had her say." Read the rest here: http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_340269,… — Fight CPS And Win http://www.geocities.com/clearwater19/cws
Response:
In alt.activism.children Fight CPS And Win <Fight_CPS_And_…@hotmail.com> wrote: > Mary and David Davis made the more-than-1,500-mile trip from their North > Carolina home and sat through a week of an emotional trial to watch two > Evergreen therapists judged guilty in the death of the couple’s biological > granddaughter, Candace.
I’ll break out the champagne AFTER I see how long the sentences are. Also, this case is a drop in the bucket as far as getting rid of the "medicalization of dissent" created by the mental health industry on the behest of controlling parents, and the forced druggings, bullying, suffocation, and other things done to kids under the smokescreen of therapy" for various invented behavior and attachment disorders. Parents in the US can still legally pay to have their kids forcibly abducted to foreign concentration camps, for the purpose of evading child abuse laws. No minor in the US can access any court in his own right, nor prevent a parent from accessing the court in the minor’s name. — Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Response:
> Also, this case is a drop in the bucket as far as getting rid of the > "medicalization of dissent" created by the mental health industry on the > behest of controlling parents, and the forced druggings, bullying, > suffocation, and other things done to kids under the smokescreen of > therapy" for various invented behavior and attachment disorders. > Parents in the US can still legally pay to have their kids forcibly > abducted to foreign concentration camps, for the purpose of evading child > abuse laws. > No minor in the US can access any court in his own right, nor prevent a > parent from accessing the court in the minor’s name.
Eric, I think you missed the point. All this abuse of Candace was done by therapists and others AFTER she was wrongfully taken away from her true mother at the age of five. The reason for the detention of this child in state custody was poverty. It started because one day her mother had no transportation to pick her daughter up from Head Start. Instead of helping her, they called CPS and this child’s life was traumatized and ruined. The people giving her drugs and therapies were not family members at all…… She was killed by too much therapy at the age of ten. Linda Martin — Fight CPS And Win http://www.geocities.com/clearwater19/cws
Response:
In article <WooE6.1678$%L5.29744@insync>, Eric Cordian says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->In alt.activism.children Fight CPS And Win <Fight_CPS_And_…@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Mary and David Davis made the more-than-1,500-mile trip from their North >> Carolina home and sat through a week of an emotional trial to watch two >> Evergreen therapists judged guilty in the death of the couple’s biological >> granddaughter, Candace. >I’ll break out the champagne AFTER I see how long the sentences are. >Also, this case is a drop in the bucket as far as getting rid of the >"medicalization of dissent" created by the mental health industry on the >behest of controlling parents, and the forced druggings, bullying, >suffocation, and other things done to kids under the smokescreen of >therapy" for various invented behavior and attachment disorders. >Parents in the US can still legally pay to have their kids forcibly >abducted to foreign concentration camps, for the purpose of evading child >abuse laws.
Adoptive mother." " un " >No minor in the US can access any court in his own right, nor prevent a >parent from accessing the court in the minor’s name.
Adoptive parents, and/or temp. state care providers are a fine line. Eric. Where have you been hiding? Or is it me? Because your input seems invaluable.(prefer soda, over bubbley, tho.)(tears. : ) >– >Eric Michael Cordian 0+ >O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division >"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
"..and that you may never experience the humility that the power of the American Government has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself." Black Hawk, 1833
Response:
In alt.activism.children Fight CPS And Win <Fight_CPS_And_…@hotmail.com> wrote: > Eric, I think you missed the point. All this abuse of Candace was done by > therapists and others AFTER she was wrongfully taken away from her true > mother at the age of five.
But everything that was done to her would have been equally legal for a biological parent to have done, and she would have had as little right to refuse the forced medication and brutality disguised as therapy had it been done by a biological parent. The problem here is that kids don’t have the right to say "no" to abuse, and that kids have the legal status of property. The problem here is that the mental health profession manufactures bogus syndromes by the dozens, so every parent who doesn’t like their kid disagreeing with them, can take the kid in and "get them diagnosed." This verdict does zero to solve those problems, and making it into a "CPS is Bad" case study does nothing to illuminate the issues either. — Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Response:
In article <elrE6.1681$%L5.29825@insync>, Eric Cordian says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->In alt.activism.children Fight CPS And Win <Fight_CPS_And_…@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Eric, I think you missed the point. All this abuse of Candace was done by >> therapists and others AFTER she was wrongfully taken away from her true >> mother at the age of five. >But everything that was done to her would have been equally legal for a >biological parent to have done, and she would have had as little right to >refuse the forced medication and brutality disguised as therapy had it >been done by a biological parent. >The problem here is that kids don’t have the right to say "no" to abuse, >and that kids have the legal status of property. The problem here is that >the mental health profession manufactures bogus syndromes by the dozens, >so every parent who doesn’t like their kid disagreeing with them, can take >the kid in and "get them diagnosed." >This verdict does zero to solve those problems, and making it into a "CPS >is Bad" case study does nothing to illuminate the issues either. >– >Eric Michael Cordian 0+ >O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division >"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Sadly enough. I agree. "..and that you may never experience the humility that the power of the American Government has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself." Black Hawk, 1833
Response:
Eric Cordian <e…@artifact.psychedelic.net> writes: >In alt.activism.children Fight CPS And Win <Fight_CPS_And_…@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Eric, I think you missed the point. All this abuse of Candace was done by >> therapists and others AFTER she was wrongfully taken away from her true >> mother at the age of five. >But everything that was done to her would have been equally legal for a >biological parent to have done,
I assume you’re assuming that the parents would not have performed rebirthing therapy on their daughter. and she would have had as little right to >refuse the forced medication and brutality disguised as therapy had it >been done by a biological parent.
Mos of the medication people squawk about is prescription medication, so a pediatrician would have been involved too. >The problem here is that kids don’t have the right to say "no" to abuse, >and that kids have the legal status of property.
Which is how the state views them. If parents don’t measure up to the state’s standards, the state will give the kid to one of their care providers. (Who seem not to be held to the same standards!) The problem here is that >the mental health profession manufactures bogus syndromes by the dozens, >so every parent who doesn’t like their kid disagreeing with them, can take >the kid in and "get them diagnosed."
Yeah, but I think it’s the schools (learning disabilities) and CPS (fancy syndrome) who seek the majority of the labeling. There’s money in them thar labels! >This verdict does zero to solve those problems, and making it into a "CPS >is Bad" case study does nothing to illuminate the issues either.
The trial reminds people that kids can be suffocated by sitting on them, the verdict reminds people that they are responsible for their actions. Not a solution, I suppose, but is there a way to ensure parents raise kids in a fashion that will keep CPS off their back? I suspect not. In a less free society, perhaps the state could force that. China has the most severe restrictions on who can give birth, but apparently don’t hold much value to baby girls. Admittedly, China’s goal is to control population, not protect children, so it’s a highly flawed example. -Ric Werme — Ric Werme | we…@nospam.mediaone.net http://people.ne.mediaone.net/werme | ^^^^^^^ delete
Response:
> What was done to Candance was criminal negligence resulting in death. > Biological parents do not have the right to kill their own children, > anymore than adoptive parents do, anymore than therapists do.
Of course you’re right. But most God-chosen parents don’t drug their children with multiple psychotropics intended for adults and force expensive offbeat therapies on them. It has become clear that this is fairly common for foster and adopted children who have been terribly traumatized by being ripped away from their birth parents. The point is — Candace was drugged and forced into therapies and suffocated by non-family members. This is a case that should be showing the people of the USA what is really going on with foster children. It wasn’t her natural mother that abused her — it was the state of North Carolina that allowed her to be harmed. Linda — Fight CPS And Win http://www.geocities.com/clearwater19/cws
Response:
Maybe I just perceive things oddly, but nobody here has addressed the twisted premise of the "re-birthing". Years ago I encountered an extremely obsessive grandmother who was mentally sick, but not on paper, (undiagnosed). She claimed that her grand daughter was "sent to her by her dead mother". She is one of two grandmothers I know of who were present at a childs birth and did a mental "flip" where they "project" themselves as the birth mother. In both cases, the grandmother endlessly and inappropriately second guessed her adult daughters parenting skills, and in both cases attempted to remove the child illegally. One obsessor claimed rescue while leaving younger sibling behind. (If you’re "protecting", you don’t take one & leave younger behind.) The other obsessor is basically estranged from 5 other grandchildren while obsessing about the one. I have NO DOUBT that these two obsessive grandmothers would love to "Re-Birth" the child as "their child".
Response:
Question:
My thanks to the few of you who were courteous and recognized our right to free speech. While I may disagree with you it is heartening to know that some of you are consistent with your principles. Perhaps it will not be too late for you to take a closer look before this government and system collapses. For the rest of you flamers, jews and airheads, it is my absolute conviction that you will get exactly what you deserve. Thanks, Michael Michael "http://www.natall.com" "http://www.natvan.com" National Vanguard Books P.O. Box 330 Hillsboro, WV 24946 "No man has come to true greatness who has not felt in some degree that his life belongs to his race." —-Phillips Brooks Get the text of American Dissident Voices broadcasts by e-mail! Subscribe to our mailing list by sending an e-mail message to: word _subscribe_ as the subject of your message. You may also get them from our FTP site at: ftp://natvan.com
Response:
You have a right to free speech "Michael", but unfortunately you abuse that right in the newsgroups. Not because your speech is hate speech, but your volume of speech has relegated you to the status of spammer. Your consistent bombardment of the news servers with a message that repeatedly re-states the same tired theme is boring, unproductive, abusive, and not useful to your cause. Say for instance I occupied 80% of your television with "black power" public service messages. While you may support free speech, you would likely be very irritated by this abuse of the airwaves. Please don’t be a hypocrite and say you deserve free speech, and then drown out the free speech of others. The hypocrisy of others, like corporations, does not justify your actions. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My thanks to the few of you who were courteous and recognized our right to free speech. While I may disagree with you it is heartening to know that some of you are consistent with your principles. Perhaps it will not be too late for you to take a closer look before this government and system collapses. For the rest of you flamers, jews and airheads, it is my absolute conviction that you will get exactly what you deserve. Thanks, Michael Michael "http://www.natall.com" "http://www.natvan.com" National Vanguard Books P.O. Box 330 Hillsboro, WV 24946 "No man has come to true greatness who has not felt in some degree that his life belongs to his race." —-Phillips Brooks Get the text of American Dissident Voices broadcasts by e-mail! Subscribe to our mailing list by sending an e-mail message to: word _subscribe_ as the subject of your message. You may also get them from our FTP site at: ftp://natvan.com
– "The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys; Power, like a desolating pestilence, Pollutes whate’er it touches, and obedience Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame, A mechanized automaton." – Percy Bysshe Shelly
Response:
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – have you heard of her new "reinventing daycare" plans? I think she (another over-sized corrupt federal agency) wants to adopt all of our children. How true… The Broomrider has now decided to be the nanny for the nation… And her plans now also include providing breakfast for all school age children, thereby eliminating the need for parents to feed their kids in the morning. Luckily she won’t have another term, or they would have supper and dormitories for the kids, eliminating the parents altogether. Bill Washington DC is just showbiz for those too ugly to make it in Hollywood!
If you want to read something scary, read some of the stuff about the Russian "day-care" provided to all working families (both parents were frequently REQUIRED to work). Bill & Hill are taking a page right out of the Communist Manifesto and trying to force it down our throats as being about "caring". It’s just another spin to try to gain control and power over others. Nothing this pair does is for anything else but power. Pop Baslim
Response:
Clinton should really be impeached. http://www.impeachment.org — Clark, in Round Rock Always drink upstream from the herd! http://xld.com/ — XLData Net – Let us create and host your web site! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the White House. The man was elected by the American people and should be given the respect that supposed come with that position. If you don’t like what Clinton or Hillary are doing, make sure you register to vote next time around you Bozo’s. You *thought* Slick Willie meant that he’d have the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas ‘96? He meant 2096! And I’ll bet you thought he meant 1995. When do we start seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Bosnia?
Response:
typed: =All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the White House. =The man was elected by the American people and should be given the respect =that supposed come with that position. If you don’t like what Clinton or =Hillary are doing, make sure you register to vote next time around you =Bozo’s. Wow. Grandpa Simpson posts to Usenet… Bill Kasper, Purveyor of Fine Opinions on Various Topics. Author, Consultant, Cowboy. misc.activism.militia – Piping hot statists served fresh daily! "People should make sure to check the ‘no’ box on the 1040 form where it asks, ‘Would you like to have your home raided in the middle of the night by armed federal agents?’" "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." – Thomas Jefferson Find Waldo: bill Dot kasper at U S A Dot Net
Response:
All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the White House. The man was elected by the American people and should be given the respect that supposed come with that position.
He has disgraced the position. He deserves no respect. I am no longer proud to be an American and now ashamed to be an American. He is not legally the president. His oath of office was invalid. He has abused the powers of the office so many times; he has violated the constitution so many times; he has committed so many felonies; that he could not has possibly had any intention of " protecting and defending the constitution". Anyone who voted for him must be a supporter of theft and murder. Anyone who voted for him deserve nothing better than curses. bob hunt ps: I did not like President Carter, but I saw in him someone who meant well for the country and was basically honest, which put him miles above Bush, hundreds of miles above Dole, and millions of miles above klinton. If you don’t like what Clinton or – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hillary are doing, make sure you register to vote next time around you Bozo’s. You *thought* Slick Willie meant that he’d have the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas ‘96? He meant 2096! And I’ll bet you thought he meant 1995. When do we start seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Bosnia?
Response:
: All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the : White House. The man was elected by the American people and should : be given the respect that supposed come with that position. I don’t care who is in the White House. The position itself has grown so powerful that *any* occupant is a danger to peace. Abolish it! — Anton Sherwood *\* +1 415 267 0685 *\* DASher at netcom point com "How’d ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" –Porky Pine 70.6.19
Response:
All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the White House.
So you would be comfortable with Hitler in our oval office. What one won’t do for a little dicktator! The man was elected by the American people and should be given the respect
Ya, lets see. 1/2 of the people voted and Clinton got 43% of that. Hmmm, could it be a whopping 21% of the possible voting public? that supposed come with that position. If you don’t like what Clinton or Hillary are doing, make sure you register to vote next time around you
I’ve voted since 1972 and since. I’ve become more politically savvy and drifted from very liberal socialist to my present position of little "l" Libertarian. Bozo’s.
Ahhh, another tolerant and understanding liberal thinker. Whats the matter… can’t you take a few political jokx at the expense of your chief? I hear Clinton bend over backwards for a few good ones. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You *thought* Slick Willie meant that he’d have the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas ‘96? He meant 2096! And I’ll bet you thought he meant 1995.
Response:
Loewe, Jr.) was _way too tired when he formulated this message: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – commanded the electrons to form this message: : : All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the : : White House. The man was elected by the American people and should : : be given the respect that supposed come with that position. : commanded the electrons to form this message: : I don’t care who is in the White House. The position itself has grown : so powerful that *any* occupant is a danger to peace. Abolish it! : _That’s_ utterly ridiculous. Exactly what do you propose _replacing_ : it with? And if you don’t think we need an Executive Branch, then : you’re living in some sort of dream world. Well, I know which group Mr Loewe is *not* posting from. <g And which group would that be, Anton? The alt.realist group, perhaps?
Sorry for the confusion, Anton. I meant to ask if you thought I was posting _FROM_ alt.realist. I want the federal government (including the presidency) put back in the cage of the Constitution, or (better yet) dissolved. So do you proclaim to be an anarchist?
– "There are _still_ FOUR lights!" Jean-Luc Picard
Response:
commanded the electrons to form this message: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the : : White House. The man was elected by the American people and should : : be given the respect that supposed come with that position. : commanded the electrons to form this message: : I don’t care who is in the White House. The position itself has grown : so powerful that *any* occupant is a danger to peace. Abolish it! : _That’s_ utterly ridiculous. Exactly what do you propose _replacing_ : it with? And if you don’t think we need an Executive Branch, then : you’re living in some sort of dream world. Well, I know which group Mr Loewe is *not* posting from. <g
And which group would that be, Anton? The alt.realist group, perhaps? I want the federal government (including the presidency) put back in the cage of the Constitution, or (better yet) dissolved.
So do you proclaim to be an anarchist? — "He can’t even run his own life, I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine." Jonathan Edwards
Response:
: : [...] And if you don’t think we need an Executive Branch, then : : you’re living in some sort of dream world. : Well, I know which group Mr Loewe is *not* posting from. <g : And which group would that be, Anton? The alt.realist group, perhaps? Well, *I* wasn’t going to be the one to say you’re not a realist. (Neither am I, if you mean philosophical realism.) : I want the federal government (including the presidency) put back in : the cage of the Constitution, or (better yet) dissolved. : So do you proclaim to be an anarchist? Dang, my secret’s out. ha ha ha ha — Anton Sherwood *\* +1 415 267 0685 *\* DASher at netcom point com "How’d ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" –Porky Pine 70.6.19
Response:
: : [...] And if you don’t think we need an Executive Branch, then : : you’re living in some sort of dream world. : Well, I know which group Mr Loewe is *not* posting from. <g : And which group would that be, Anton? The alt.realist group, perhaps? Well, *I* wasn’t going to be the one to say you’re not a realist. (Neither am I, if you mean philosophical realism; though JD thinks I am.) : I want the federal government (including the presidency) put back in : the cage of the Constitution, or (better yet) dissolved. : So do you proclaim to be an anarchist? Not necessarily, I could be a devolutionist or secessionist. Hey, show of hands: how many people think I’m an anarchist? <g — Anton Sherwood *\* +1 415 267 0685 *\* DASher at netcom point com "How’d ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" –Porky Pine 70.6.19
Response:
: I don’t care who is in the White House. The position itself has grown : so powerful that *any* occupant is a danger to peace. Abolish it! : That is a consistant position to hold. However, many others seem : to think that some occupants of the White House are worthy of : sycophantic respect and others are worthy of vitriolic abuse. What’s inconsistent about that? Maybe they lack an unthinking trust in the wisdom of the electorate, or maybe they think an unworthy candidate was elected by deceit. — Anton Sherwood *\* +1 415 267 0685 *\* DASher at netcom point com "How’d ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" –Porky Pine 70.6.19
Response:
Very funny… Honest Truth-Telling Guy wrote in article and spake unto the people: [snip] BTW, Hillary, where is that baby that you and Slick Willie were thinking about adopting before the election? 50’s kind of old to be adopting, ain’t it? But it’s a great vote getter! What do you mean? They adopted little Webster Hubbell, an "at-risk" child. Sadly, Webbie was very sick, so they brought in the best spin-doctors money can buy. World-class lawyers helped Webbie stay out of the "hospital", and Bill and Hillary showed that it didn’t matter that he wasn’t their biological son. They even gave him a much bigger allowance than they’d ever give Chelsea. Of course, it "takes a village to raise a child", so the Clintons made sure all their friends gave Webbie lots of money to help him fight off the "talking sickness". You should be ashamed of yourself for saying anything bad about these model parents. They’re doing it for the CHILDREN! Sluggo I think Bill and Hilary are both sick in the head. I think they are both as gay as anyone I have ever seen. I can`t stand either one of those two people. He spoke at a gay convention of some sort, and said that the gays can work like anyone else, can vote like anyone else, etc. Does he know what the bible says about gays? That creep has no moral values at all.
Response:
: All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the : White House. The man was elected by the American people and should : be given the respect that supposed come with that position. I don’t care who is in the White House. The position itself has grown so powerful that *any* occupant is a danger to peace. Abolish it!
That is a consistant position to hold. However, many others seem to think that some occupants of the White House are worthy of sycophantic respect and others are worthy of vitriolic abuse. — "A full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach" – Franklin D. Roosevelt *Attn: A thread with ‘APWP’ in its subject line has been posted to *both* talk.politics.libertarian and alt.politics.white-power
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the White House. So you would be comfortable with Hitler in our oval office. What one won’t do for a little dicktator! The man was elected by the American people and should be given the respect Ya, lets see. 1/2 of the people voted and Clinton got 43% of that. Hmmm, could it be a whopping 21% of the possible voting public? that supposed come with that position. If you don’t like what Clinton or Hillary are doing, make sure you register to vote next time around you I’ve voted since 1972 and since. I’ve become more politically savvy and drifted from very liberal socialist to my present position of little "l" Libertarian.
I also voted in every election since 1972. The only time I voted for the winner, I regret and am ashamed of, and that was in 1972; for I came out of the right. PS I present my figure 8 theory of politics: x impossible zero point government less governament xxx unknown anarchist utopia xxxxx left/rt libertarian/minarchist ACLU – x x <-GOA Ron Paul x x conservative Carter- x x <- Reagon xxx center left- x x <-right x x moral majority kennedy- x x <- bush clinton- x x <- nixon fdr- xxx hitler/stalin- x total government control (please use non-proportional font for this) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Bozo’s. Ahhh, another tolerant and understanding liberal thinker. Whats the matter… can’t you take a few political jokx at the expense of your chief? I hear Clinton bend over backwards for a few good ones. You *thought* Slick Willie meant that he’d have the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas ‘96? He meant 2096! And I’ll bet you thought he meant 1995.
Response:
You *thought* Slick Willie meant that he’d have the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas ‘96? He meant 2096! And I’ll bet you thought he meant 1995. Kind of what Adm Snuffy Smith told the Hartford Courant all along … where is he now anyway? Oh … he got forced to resign after that interview!! BTW, Hillary, where is that baby that you and Slick Willie were thinking about adopting before the election? 50’s kind of old to be adopting, ain’t it? But it’s a great vote getter! Politically Correct response when the first family has the Y2K bug, a runny, pinnochiotic nose, pasty forked tongue, campaign finance/bribe fever, impeachment chills and ah-ah-ah-fubscates! Hand them a tissue and say: "(Insert appropriate deity, or not, here) Bless You!"
Response:
BTW, Hillary, where is that baby that you and Slick Willie were thinking about adopting before the election? 50’s kind of old to be adopting, ain’t it? But it’s a great vote getter!
They probably got turned down by the agency because of low morals or for failing the pee test. But, on the other hand, have you heard of her new "reinventing daycare" plans? I think she (another over-sized corrupt federal agency) wants to adopt all of our children. 
Carl
Response:
and spake unto the people: [snip] BTW, Hillary, where is that baby that you and Slick Willie were thinking about adopting before the election? 50’s kind of old to be adopting, ain’t it? But it’s a great vote getter!
What do you mean? They adopted little Webster Hubbell, an "at-risk" child. Sadly, Webbie was very sick, so they brought in the best spin-doctors money can buy. World-class lawyers helped Webbie stay out of the "hospital", and Bill and Hillary showed that it didn’t matter that he wasn’t their biological son. They even gave him a much bigger allowance than they’d ever give Chelsea. Of course, it "takes a village to raise a child", so the Clintons made sure all their friends gave Webbie lots of money to help him fight off the "talking sickness". You should be ashamed of yourself for saying anything bad about these model parents. They’re doing it for the CHILDREN! Sluggo
Response:
: : All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the : : White House. The man was elected by the American people and should : : be given the respect that supposed come with that position. : commanded the electrons to form this message: : I don’t care who is in the White House. The position itself has grown : so powerful that *any* occupant is a danger to peace. Abolish it! : _That’s_ utterly ridiculous. Exactly what do you propose _replacing_ : it with? And if you don’t think we need an Executive Branch, then : you’re living in some sort of dream world. Well, I know which group Mr Loewe is *not* posting from. <g I want the federal government (including the presidency) put back in the cage of the Constitution, or (better yet) dissolved. — Anton Sherwood *\* +1 415 267 0685 *\* DASher at netcom point com "How’d ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" –Porky Pine 70.6.19
Response:
commanded the electrons to form this message: : All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the : White House. The man was elected by the American people and should : be given the respect that supposed come with that position. I don’t care who is in the White House. The position itself has grown so powerful that *any* occupant is a danger to peace. Abolish it!
_That’s_ utterly ridiculous. Exactly what do you propose _replacing_ it with? And if you don’t think we need an Executive Branch, then you’re living in some sort of dream world. — "He can’t even run his own life, I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine." Jonathan Edwards
Response:
Very funny… Honest Truth-Telling Guy wrote in article – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – and spake unto the people: [snip] BTW, Hillary, where is that baby that you and Slick Willie were thinking about adopting before the election? 50’s kind of old to be adopting, ain’t it? But it’s a great vote getter! What do you mean? They adopted little Webster Hubbell, an "at-risk" child. Sadly, Webbie was very sick, so they brought in the best spin-doctors money can buy. World-class lawyers helped Webbie stay out of the "hospital", and Bill and Hillary showed that it didn’t matter that he wasn’t their biological son. They even gave him a much bigger allowance than they’d ever give Chelsea. Of course, it "takes a village to raise a child", so the Clintons made sure all their friends gave Webbie lots of money to help him fight off the "talking sickness". You should be ashamed of yourself for saying anything bad about these model parents. They’re doing it for the CHILDREN! Sluggo
Response:
You *thought* Slick Willie meant that he’d have the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas ‘96? He meant 2096! And I’ll bet you thought he meant 1995.
When do we start seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Bosnia?
Response:
BTW, Hillary, where is that baby that you and Slick Willie were thinking about adopting before the election? 50’s kind of old to be adopting, ain’t it? But it’s a great vote getter! They probably got turned down by the agency because of low morals or for failing the pee test. But, on the other hand, have you heard of her new "reinventing daycare" plans? I think she (another over-sized corrupt federal agency) wants to adopt all of our children.
How true… The Broomrider has now decided to be the nanny for the nation… And her plans now also include providing breakfast for all school age children, thereby eliminating the need for parents to feed their kids in the morning. Luckily she won’t have another term, or they would have supper and dormitories for the kids, eliminating the parents altogether. Bill Washington DC is just showbiz for those too ugly to make it in Hollywood!
Response:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the White House. The man was elected by the American people and should be given the respect that supposed come with that position. If you don’t like what Clinton or Hillary are doing, make sure you register to vote next time around you Bozo’s. You *thought* Slick Willie meant that he’d have the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas ‘96? He meant 2096! And I’ll bet you thought he meant 1995. When do we start seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Bosnia?
– Clark, in Round Rock Always drink upstream from the herd! http://xld.com/ — XLData Net – Let us create and host your web site! Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="impeach.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="impeach.htm" Content-Base: "http://xld.com/public/aa/impeach.htm" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN" <HTML <HEAD <TITLEImpeach Clinton Now!</TITLE </HEAD <BODY TEXT="Navy" <FONT SIZE="3" FACE="Arial" <CENTER <A HREF="http://www.impeachment.org" <IMG SRC="http://xld.com/public/aa/ACTIONA.GIF" WIDTH=500 HEIGHT=50 BORDER=0 ALT=""</A </CENTER </FONT </BODY </HTML
Response:
Fancy meeting you on this topic… call me a friend from *Prodigy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Clinton should really be impeached. http://www.impeachment.org — Clark, in Round Rock Always drink upstream from the herd! http://xld.com/ — XLData Net – Let us create and host your web site! All you idiots must be republicans. I don’t care who is in the White House. The man was elected by the American people and should be given the respect that supposed come with that position. If you don’t like what Clinton or Hillary are doing, make sure you register to vote next time around you Bozo’s. You *thought* Slick Willie meant that he’d have the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas ‘96? He meant 2096! And I’ll bet you thought he meant 1995. When do we start seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Bosnia?
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Path: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!newsr elay.i astate.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.co m!darw in.sura.net!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!RacerX.mse.jhu.edu!news.jhu.edu!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.discrimination,alt.education.research,alt.journalism,alt. online -service.american-online,alt.online-service.compuserve,alt.online-service. delphi ,alt.online-service.free-net,alt.sci.sociology,cle.jobs,courts.usa.state.o hio.su pre Organization: Homewood Academic Computing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md, USA Lines: 35 Distribution: world NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.220.2.5 Keywords: discrimination, minorities, jobs, Ohio State, OSU, faculty, education Xref: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu alt.activism:193068 alt.discrimination:67066 alt.education.research:7668 alt.journalism:51361 alt.online-service.compuserve:15734 alt.online-service.delphi:4712 alt.sci.sociology:4378 cle.jobs:4290 Is that because Ohio State is a small local college? Nooooo, sir! OSU is a large university with almost 3,000 faculty, close to 45,000 students, and some 12,000 staff. According to the new Vice Chairman of its Board of Trustees, Mr. Alex Shumate, is goal is "to truly have Ohio State recognized as an outstanding national and international teaching, research, and service institution." What does the ethnicity of its faculty have to do with that goal?
For an answer, see below, please. I do no know how promotions are among black and woman faculty at Ohio State but I know how they are among Hispanic: 32% of all faculty are OSU are full professor but only 15% of Hispanic faculty are full professors. THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION IS THAT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY NOT ONLY HIRES FEWER HISPANICS THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN COLLEGE BUT ALSO PROMOTES FEWER HISPANICS THAN THEY PROMOTES WHITE FACULTY. That’s not the obvious conclusion. Your comparison is suspect. One would need to compare within cohorts, not across them, to uncover any ethnic bias in promotions. Your data suggest that you have just calculated percentages of the total teaching population rather than breaking them out by cohort.
The valid cohort is Faculty at the Ohio State University. It seems to me that you are suggesting that I should compare percentage of Hispanic full professors at OSU with percentage Hispanic full professors at other institutions. This would not be valid because the criteria for promotion at OSU and at the other institutions may be different. However, the criteria for promoting non-minority or minority professors WITHIN OSU should be the same, unless there is discrimination. I’m not unsympathetic towards your goal of racial diversity on the OSU faculty, but you haven’t made a case for it. Just how big is the Hispanic population in Ohio anyway? How many Hispanic students attend OSU?
The size or proportion of the Hispanic population in Ohio is irrelevant to the subject under discussion. It would be relevant if we were talking about hiring people to serve hamburgers at MacDonalds because these people are recruited locally. But faculty at Ohio State are recruited internationally. My quote from Mr. Shumate (see above)was precisely to illustrate that point. Finally, my goal is not racial diversity on the OSU faculty but simple fairness. I am NOT advocating quotas but equal opportunity for QUALIFIED minorities. That’s why I did not quote the percentage of Hispanics, blacks, or women in the United States but the percentage of Hispanics, blacks, or women found qualified for faculty positions in other American colleges. Is it not surprising to you that thousands of American colleges found 3% of qualified Hispanic professors, 5% of qualified black professors, and 40% of qualified woman professor but Ohio State found only about half of that? Sincerly, Omar O. Barriga
Response:
(in response to Tom Brown) HELLO!! The ethnic diversity of those we entrust to teach our future leaders compassion, understanding and the basic comprehension that there is much more the white majority and its needs in this country, is absolutely IMPORTANT! Not only for the goal of diversifying for the sake of diversity but also to ensure that students do not get the lopsided, ethnocentric view of our society that has been the song-and-dance of academia since academia existed. And Mr Barriga’s point wasn’t that Hispanics were a goddamn majority but that the few that are qualified to be promoted at Ohio State (along with blacks and females), are not being promoted at the same rate as white people at Ohio State. It is obvious that being a minority does not exactly put you on the fast track to promotion, because if minorities and women are any fast track, the injuries from crashing into that glass ceiling are enough to stop them. Why is discrimination constantly being justified by whites and why is it even a question! IT IS A FUCKEN’ REALITY AND WE, MINORITIES AND WOMEN, NEED TO BEGIN TO SLOWLY, BUT SURELY, MAKE SURE THAT DISCRIMINATION AT ALL LEVELS IS UNACCEPTABLE. It is for me and if anyone tries to stop me or put obstacles in my path, they had better realize they are not dealing with some moron ready to swallow the disgusting, rose colored view of the US that’s been shoved down our throats since infancy. They are dealing with someone who sees the real truth everyday. WAKE UP!
Response:
Oh great. Yeah, that’s what we need alright. A bigoted professor to pass on those warped values and prejudices to their students. Yep, that would sure make me want to send my kid to Ohio State (or any other school). At least she isn’t teaching little kids whose minds are too easily warped by bigoted racist fanatics. Get a clue already: bigotry and racism isn’t a one-way street; there’s no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is racism, it’s just as wrong coming from one direction as the other. If you think the solution to these problems is more of the same, you’re mistaken.
Response:
Listen up !!! First of all, there is an obvious shortage of qualified minority professors at all levels of academia. And those there are discriminated against are not and never will be part of any good ol’ boys network ( no matter how they try to kiss ass and be "white"). Without affirmative action to encourage the ascendancy of qualified minorities to not only get that appointment at Ohio State but to also even attempt graduate school, this lack of diversity will become an even more sensitive point of contention among those few minorities who are qualified to be professors. The insidious discrimination at all levels of society is not a shock to me, we’ve got to get in there and fuck things up for WASP’s, because no one is going to do it for us. Although you can probably count the number of Native American Indian professors on one hand ( I will be one of them in the future), all minorities need to begin a conscious attempt to change this society that is slowly destroying our children and our futures. Dear Miss: Thank you for your mail. From your letter I asume that you are an Native American Indian. I certaianly hope that you will make as a professor. There is not a single Native American Indian faculty at Ohio State and there has not been for a few years. I met here a couple of Native American Indian young fellows, however, that were very bright and aggresive. Unfortunatelly, they were identified as such by the white establishmente which, I am sure, will try to neutralize them in the bud. Miss, do me, yourself, and the minorities a favor, and post your comments in the osu-faculty newsgroup. If you can reply to my posting as "Follow" instead or "Reply" it will go directly to the newsgroups where I posted my comments. I have received some private mail that is very supportive of my position but most of the posting to the newsgroups has ran strongly agasint my position. We need to show the public that I am not alone in this quest. Affectionately, Omar O. Barriga HE IS NOT ALONE.
Response:
The valid cohort is Faculty at the Ohio State University. It seems to me that you are suggesting that I should compare percentage of Hispanic full professors at OSU with percentage Hispanic full professors at other institutions. This would not be valid because the criteria for promotion at OSU and at the other institutions may be different. However, the criteria for promoting non-minority or minority professors WITHIN OSU should be the same, unless there is discrimination.
No, Thomas’ point is a good one. It takes time to reach full professorship and a more accurate statistic would be to examine teachers that started at the same time. I *don’t* think that this will negate your initial conclusion. Richard www.primenet.com/~rspear
Response:
The Lantern (student newspapers at the Ohio State University) published a piece of news yesterday (6 May 1996) informing that The Ohio State University did not hire as many minority faculty as other American Universities. The title of the article is "Women, minorities representation still low among OSU faculty." The information is that the proportion of minority faculty at OSU is: Hispanics 1.4% Black 3.4% Women 26.3% What the article does not say is that the corresponding average figures for all American colleges (according to the US Department of Education) are: Hispanics 3% Blacks 5% Women 40% THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION IS THAT THE OHIO STATGE UNIVERSITY HIRES FEWER HISPANIC, BLACK, OR WOMAN FACULTY THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN COLLEGE. Is that because Ohio State is a small local college? Nooooo, sir! OSU is a large university with almost 3,000 faculty, close to 45,000 students, and some 12,000 staff. According to the new Vice Chairman of its Board of Trustees, Mr. Alex Shumate, is goal is "to truly have Ohio State recognized as an outstanding national and international teaching, research, and service institution." I do no know how promotions are among black and woman faculty at Ohio State but I know how they are among Hispanic: 32% of all faculty are OSU are full professor but only 15% of Hispanic faculty are full professors. THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION IS THAT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY NOT ONLY HIRES FEWER HISPANICS THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN COLLEGE BUT ALSO PROMOTES FEWER HISPANICS THAN THEY PROMOTES WHITE FACULTY. (I would appreciate information about promotions of other minorities at OSU) There is more but I will leave it for a nex posting. Have a nice day, my fiends Omar O. Barriga, DVM, PhD Associate Professor The Ohio State University
Response:
Question:
All I’m saying that I’ve heard of violence towards U.S. citizens peacefully traveling around the world, and while I do not agree with the violence I can understand some of the motivations for it, and think that if the violence exists it should at least be targetted at the right people, ie. people like Norman Yarvin who think that it is OK for U.S. troops to go anywhere for any reason whatsoever and shoot anyone who opposes them.
So as long as this violence "exists", you wouldn’t mind enlisting it in your own private intellectual crusade. Well, I am sending you notice that the violence doesn’t just "exist". On the contrary, it has to be conjured up by an effort of will each time it occurs. And if you were to "target it" at me, you would be helping to create it where it was not previously. Incidentally, you are tilting against windmills. I have no moral objection in general to people opposing our forces. However if some individual takes a potshot at one of our soldiers, as happened to our helicopter, it in no way opposes us effectively. That would require much more effort. Instead it falls into the category of senseless violence. Even in wartime, civilized people usually try to minimize senseless violence, and to use only those forms of violence which are ultimately productive. This idea is embodied in the Geneva Convention. If "us" here means U.S. government, the difference is that it is more hypocritical than most governments and tends to be more aggressive and more violent in it’s action than most. Not to mention that the propaganda system seems to be more effective than in most countries,
Give me a break. Our government propaganda system is _less_ effective than that of hardly every other country. That is why you have so many examples of our government’s infidelity. If we had a propaganda system worth beans, you would never have heard about them. — "Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as opposed to the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." — Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil’s Dictionary_
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yarvin) writes: If I were the praying type, I would prefer to pray that anyone who shoots at our troops will meet a quick death, so as to be a good example to all the other meatballs thinking of trying the same thing. It is comments like this that make it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world. No, what makes it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world is terrorism. Done by terrorists. The terrorists are usually armed and financed by governments hostile to us. For instance the Communist Bloc used to be a heavy supporter of terrorists.
The key phrase here is "…hostile to us.". Why do you think many countries are hostile to the U.S.A? Could it be that the U.S.A tends to interfere in other people’s affairs (for good and bad reasons)? While I by no means support terrorism, a lot of the anger directed at the U.S.A is surely due to its foreign policy and its "world police" thinking.
Response:
<No, what makes it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the <world is <terrorism. Done by terrorists. The terrorists are usually armed and <financed by governments hostile to us. For instance the Communist Bloc used <to be a heavy supporter of terrorists. < <The key phrase here is "…hostile to us.". Why do you think many <countries are hostile to the U.S.A? Could it be that the U.S.A tends to <interfere in other people’s affairs (for good and bad reasons)? While I by <no means support terrorism, a lot of the anger directed at the U.S.A is <surely due to its foreign policy and its "world police" thinking. < What amazes me is that some people still don’t believe this, and some actually think the U.S. has been a stabilizing influence around the world. A relatively simple example regarding terrorism in the Middle East is our support of Israel. Arabs do not like Israelis (and vice versa), and we consistenly supply very large amounts of weapons and money to the government of Israel which is used against the Arabs. The Arab peoples and countries that have clashed with Israel have every right to feel that the U.S. is an enemy. The Arabs are at war, and they choose terrorism as their battleground. Again, this is only one example. However, our relationships with many other countries are colored by similar situations. This is especially true in South America. Conspirator against long answering machine announcents and .sigs
Response:
I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons. You know, I wonder if Jyrki realizes that he is saying violent harm should be done to me for expressing my beliefs.
No, he said you deserved to be treated as you would have others treated. I can see why this might disturb you, however. That he is expressing his dislike for freedom of speech.
Or his preference for intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, civilized speech … I love it the way mealymouthed little slimeballs go all ballistic when someone appears to threaten _their_ civil rights, after they’ve just finished engaging in some sort of wishy-washed, sophistical nonsense about how nobody else has Constitutional guarantees of freedom of ex- -pression just because they aren’t an American. Like rights and responsibilities changed when you crossed a border. Ptui. That he is saying the beliefs of people like myself should be changed not by persuasion, but by persecuting us, nay, killing us, until we decide we were wrong.
Like you would do to anyone who did the same thing in Somalia. Self-righteous little twerps make me ill. < insert sound of large wastebasket being filled to the brim with lunch — richard — ===== oracle data center – unix systems & network administration Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Response:
I think you mistake pride for hypocrisy. I’m proud that my country is helping save the lives of the Somali victims of their civil war. I’m willing to support my country if we decide to do the same in Bosnia- Hercegovinia. The concepts of freedom and equality we trumpet so loudly have their roots in the lives of victimized innocents. Letting these innocent people die would be hypocritical.
I think you mistake propaganda for truth and confuse nationalism with pride. America has watched and even assisted with the slaughter of innocent people in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Nicaragua, Chile, Peru, Ethiopia, East Timor, Malaysia, and South Africa (to name but a few). Letting the innocent people in Somalia and Bosnia die would be morally reprehensible but quite consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past few decades. — aaron
Response:
I think you mistake propaganda for truth and confuse nationalism with pride.
You only think this because you’ve read more into what I wrote than was originally there. See below. America has watched and even assisted with the slaughter of innocent people in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Nicaragua, Chile, Peru, Ethiopia, East Timor, Malaysia, and South Africa (to name but a few).
I don’t recall listing any of these in the U.S. actions that I support/supported. Herein lies your misinterpretation of what I wrote. You can dwell on these actions all you want. Hell, the U.S. government sat idly by up until 130 years ago while people owned slaves. I’m not proud of that, but I don’t have to run around apologizing for my ancestors all the time, either. In fact, _some_ of my ancestors were here thousands of years ago. I don’t hold a grudge with the current government because its predecessors were responsible for all but wiping out the Cherokees. Letting the innocent people in Somalia and Bosnia die would be morally reprehensible but quite consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past few decades.
So you’re saying that because the U.S. hasn’t run to the aid of helpless people in the past — and in fact has admittedly helped to create some of those helpless people — that we shouldn’t do so now? Strange reasoning… — "I think I’ve reached that point / Where every word that you write / Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes / And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" — The Cure
Response:
I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons. You know, I wonder if Jyrki realizes that he is saying violent harm should be done to me for expressing my beliefs. That he is expressing his dislike for freedom of speech. That he is saying the beliefs of people like myself should be changed not by persuasion, but by persecuting us, nay, killing us, until we decide we were wrong.
I am saying no such thing. First, let’s take my comment in context: ——begin quote——- If I were the praying type, I would prefer to pray that anyone who shoots at our troops will meet a quick death, so as to be a good example to all the other meatballs thinking of trying the same thing.
It is comments like this that make it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world. I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons. //Jyrki Norman Yarvin is saying that Somalian people should be quickly killed just for shooting at U.S. troops – which are there to keep peace, I hear. Hardly sounds like a mission of peace to take an army into a place and then shoot and kill anyone who offers resistance to the army for any reason. Some shooting is expected, and it hardly makes sense from any viewpoint to kill all the shooters. All I’m saying that I’ve heard of violence towards U.S. citizens peacefully traveling around the world, and while I do not agree with the violence I can understand some of the motivations for it, and think that if the violance exists it should at least be targetted at the right people, ie. people like Norman Yarvin who think that it is OK for U.S. troops to go anywhere for anyreason whatsoever and shoot anyone who opposes them. In brief, he is a fascist. He will no doubt protest mightily, but it is true nevertheless.
Nothing mighty needed here. I think it’s this ‘us’ business, as if we were different, as if our needs should always have priority, as if being an American placed one at the right hand of God. I will hand that question right back to you. Every other nation acts to further its own interests; what is different about us that we should not? You talk about freedom, but there has never been any freedom between nations, only individual freedoms within a nation.
If "us" here means U.S. government, the difference is that it is more hypocritical than most governments and tends to be more aggressive and more violent in it’s action than most. Not to mention that the propaganda system seems to be more effective than in most countries, so many of the citizens really appear to believe that all is for the "good of humanity", for God, for "family values" or whatever the current worshipped deity happens to be. //Jyrki
Response:
No, what makes it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world is terrorism. Done by terrorists. The terrorists are usually armed and financed by governments hostile to us. For instance the Communist Bloc used to be a heavy supporter of terrorists. And what _motivates_ them, dear boy ?
The motivation is that terrorism against U.S. citizens gets the attention of the only remaining world superpower. It worked for Iran, who got arms for hostages. It didn’t work for Libya, who got Mavericks shoved down their throats. According to today’s news some Somali technicals learned a bit about what happens when you shoot at a U.S. helicopter. I only hope that any others who are thinking about trying it get a chance to view the burned-out carcasses of those trucks before they try — it could save their lives, not to mention some U.S. tax dollars. TOWs and Hellfires aren’t cheap. Enough of us have been killed so that the rest _have_ started doing something about the reasons. Units dedicated to counterterrorist operations are a relatively new part of our military. I think it’s this ‘us’ business, as if we were different, as if our needs should always have priority, as if being an American placed one at the right hand of God. Which is directly contraventional to the concepts of freedom and equality we trumpet so loudly … which makes ‘us’ look like hypocrites. Which is reasonable. Many of us _are_ hypocrites.
You’re way off track. We’re _not_ particularly better. We’re simply a good target. Stop looking for reasons why we bring terrorism upon us because we don’t. The difference is that we also don’t _ignore_ terrorism. I think you mistake pride for hypocrisy. I’m proud that my country is helping save the lives of the Somali victims of their civil war. I’m willing to support my country if we decide to do the same in Bosnia- Hercegovinia. The concepts of freedom and equality we trumpet so loudly have their roots in the lives of victimized innocents. Letting these innocent people die would be hypocritical. — "I think I’ve reached that point / Where every word that you write / Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes / And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" — The Cure
Response:
I have a son that is on Tripoli, currently stationed 25 miles off the coast of Somalia. He will be in the first group of 1800 Marines [...] I am a proud mother of one of those brave Marines, the first to fight.
Yipes. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I find this posting rather disturbing; and I’d appreciate it if you’d clarify this statement if I’m inferring something you didn’t mean to imply. Unless you and your son know something I don’t, this isn’t suppose to be a war we’re waging; it’s a relief mission. By saying "the first to fight", you seem to imply that your son is getting himself involved in a war over there. I’d hope any fighting, if any, is really rare, and I’d suspect that just because he’s going there first does not imply that he’ll be "the first to fight". Do you have any indication that your son is going over there to get in a fight with anyone? If so, please keep him home. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Colin Powell suggested that this is "an army of peace", and that "the faction leaders [...] have indicated that they will welcome us and work with us." Please, lets not go start another war. I respect the stated goals of the mission, "to help deliver supplies to starving people", and support such use of our military. However I fear that too often: we send our military somewhere, those "proud … of … the first to fight" cheer as we kill a bunch of people, and then we call them home to give them medals without having solved any real problems. I pray that "Operation Restore Hope" is really a relief mission and doesn’t just end up being a front for "Operation Somalia Storm", just an exercise to see how effective our military is against "gangs" as we like to refer to the waring factions in Somalia. It’s good to see that we’ll be trying to use the marines to do something other than killing people. Be proud that your son is going there to help people, and leave fighting out of it for a change. When the rest of the troops get there they will have the protection of this regiment of brave Marines. [...] Say a prayer that none of them is injured or killed.
This sounds awfully narrow too. Say a prayer that noone over there, (relief worker, Somalian civilian, Somalian soldier, or foreign soldier) will be be injured or killed. Ron Mayer "Saddam Hussein still has a job. Do you?"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.activism Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California I have a son that is on Tripoli, currently stationed 25 miles off the coast of Somalia. He will be in the first group of 1800 Marines [...] I am a proud mother of one of those brave Marines, the first to fight. Yipes. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I find this posting rather disturbing; and I’d appreciate it if you’d clarify this statement if I’m inferring something you didn’t mean to imply. Unless you and your son know something I don’t, this isn’t suppose to be a war we’re waging; it’s a relief mission. By saying "the first to fight", you seem to imply that your son is getting himself involved in a war over there. I’d hope any fighting, if any, is really rare, and I’d suspect that just because he’s going there first does not imply that he’ll be "the first to fight".
[etc..] You’re reading too much into this. The people associated with the military (ie family members) hear a lot of the boasting that goes on publicly. I believe csmith was repeating what she’s no doubt read in letters or heard between her son & friends. To be honest, most soldiers I’ve met are openly boastful of readiness levels ("first to fight, last to fall, 1st Platoon’s always the best"; etc) but between ourselves are more cautioned than civilians (or at least civilian leaders) when it comes to deployment of military forces. Most of us truely believe our job is to maintain readiness (with constant training and proper maintenance of equipment) to prevent flare-ups (basically through fear and intimidation) and to act decisively when called upon (ie: Florida Hurrican Disaster Relief, Somalia). When the rest of the troops get there they will have the protection of this regiment of brave Marines. [...] Say a prayer that none of them is injured or killed. This sounds awfully narrow too. Say a prayer that noone over there, (relief worker, Somalian civilian, Somalian soldier, or foreign soldier) will be be injured or killed.
We’re only human… It might not be P.C. (486DX-50MHz Gateway is my fav.) to say this, but I would value a loved one more. They have to be there, so support them, wish them well, and hope the people they’re helping will benefit in the long run. Put yourself in her position. We’re all relatively safe… Her son is in a high risk area (I assume soldiers in that area will get danger pay), and despite her support for the mission, she’s obviously concerned for his safety. Ron Mayer
"Saddam Hussein still has a job. Do you?" I have a friend who can truely claim "I got my job because of Saddam Hussein." (I was recalled into the US Army, my employer needed to hire someone to fill in, I returned to work with him.) —
Response:
Mayer) writes: In a recent posting to alt.current-events.somalia I have a son that is on Tripoli, currently stationed 25 miles off the coast of Somalia. He will be in the first group of 1800 Marines [...] I am a proud mother of one of those brave Marines, the first to fight. Yipes. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I find this posting rather disturbing; and I’d appreciate it if you’d clarify this statement if I’m inferring something you didn’t mean to imply.
First to fight is a slogan of the Marines. I guess you were never a Marine. Maybe I should have said the "first in", I’m sorry you misunderstood my posting. But the Marines are traditionally the first ones in so if there is a confrontation they have to deal with it. All I was inferring is that I have concern for the danger they face. My only son is in that first bunch in and we don’t really know if we will face opposition or be welcomed with open arms. Stay tuned to the news tonight and you’ll know. I can only hope it is with open arms. Unless you and your son know something I don’t, this isn’t suppose to be a war we’re waging; it’s a relief mission.
Yes this is supposed to be a humanitarian effort and I hope noone from any country is injured or killed. But when you have a bunch of drug crazed teenagers and young men running around with all types of assault weapons, it does present an element of danger to the troops and the UN workers. After all they are killing each other on a daily basis to steal food. Do you have any indication that your son is going over there to get in a fight with anyone? If so, please keep him home.
I wish I could have, he only has 5 months left in the Corps. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Colin Powell suggested that this is "an army of peace", and that "the faction leaders [...] have indicated that they will welcome us and work with us." Please, lets not go start another war.
I don’t believe anyone is trying to start a war, but our troops should be able to defend themselves if necessary. Do you by any chance remember Beirut? [...] I pray that "Operation Restore Hope" is really a relief mission and doesn’t just end up being a front for "Operation Somalia Storm", just an exercise to see how effective our military is against "gangs" as we like to refer to the waring factions in Somalia.
These gangs have guns and they chew chat all day to stay high. They are not your typical starving Somalian. They do represent danger to all the troops, relief workers and the starving people. And, they have been stealing food sent to feed starving people because it represents power to them. Do you really think they want us there stopping this and distributing it the people? We will be stopping there little black market operations. It’s good to see that we’ll be trying to use the marines to do something other than killing people. Be proud that your son is going there to help people, and leave fighting out of it for a change.
Certainly I don’t want any killing going on, and I am proud that my son is doing something to help those poor starving people. But on the other hand there is enough food over there so they shouldn’t be starving if the people in their own country would distribute it to them. When the rest of the troops get there they will have the protection of this regiment of brave Marines. [...] Say a prayer that none of them is injured or killed. This sounds awfully narrow too.
Maybe, but as a parent I reserve that right. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ron Mayer "Saddam Hussein still has a job. Do you?"
Response:
|I have a son that is on Tripoli, currently stationed 25 miles off the |coast of Somalia. He will be in the first group of 1800 Marines | [...] |I am a proud mother of one of those brave Marines, the first to fight. |Yipes. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I find this posting rather |disturbing; and I’d appreciate it if you’d clarify this statement if |I’m inferring something you didn’t mean to imply. I believe you have misinterpreted the comment. She is just echoing part of the Marine Corp ethos. Which is basically that whenever there is fighting to be done, the Marines will be the first group sent in. This is a tradition that they are justifiably proud of. — Mob rule doesn’t become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself a government. It ain’t charity if you are using someone else’s money.
Response:
It’s good to see that we’ll be trying to use the marines to do something other than killing people. Be proud that your son is going there to help people, and leave fighting out of it for a change.
This sentiment is ridiculous. Using the military to fight a war can be the very best way to help people. The current situation is an example. Not of fighting a war, but of how controlled violence can be socially useful. We do not expect heavy battles. But if we did not expect SOME shit we would not be sending in the Marines. This sounds awfully narrow too. Say a prayer that noone over there, (relief worker, Somalian civilian, Somalian soldier, or foreign soldier) will be be injured or killed.
If I were the praying type, I would prefer to pray that anyone who shoots at our troops will meet a quick death, so as to be a good example to all the other meatballs thinking of trying the same thing. "Saddam Hussein still has a job. Do you?"
The mass media has lied about the economy. Have you? —
Response:
If I were the praying type, I would prefer to pray that anyone who shoots at our troops will meet a quick death, so as to be a good example to all the other meatballs thinking of trying the same thing.
It is comments like this that make it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world. I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons. //Jyrki
Response:
tes: I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons. //Jyrki
Bravo. There speaks the unfiltered voice of what sometimes passes for left-activism. Could have been uttered by Pat Buchanan or Tom Metzger. Norman Miller
Response:
Has anyone considered that the UN is setting precedent for *uninvited* operations in troublespots? The UN action in Somalia is noteworthy in that their relief effort was not requested by the (defunct?) Somali gov’t.– the Somali relief effort is a *unilateral* effort by the un. So: could the Somali relief effort actually be setting precedent for a UN action against Bosnia-Herzogovina? just-wondering.max
Response:
If I were the praying type, I would prefer to pray that anyone who shoots at our troops will meet a quick death, so as to be a good example to all the other meatballs thinking of trying the same thing. It is comments like this that make it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world.
No, what makes it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world is terrorism. Done by terrorists. The terrorists are usually armed and financed by governments hostile to us. For instance the Communist Bloc used to be a heavy supporter of terrorists. I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons.
Enough of us have been killed so that the rest _have_ started doing something about the reasons. Units dedicated to counterterrorist operations are a relatively new part of our military. — "We are here to do counterterrorism. Do you know what counterterrorism is? It is fucking doing it to them before they fucking do it to us." — Richard Marcinko, founding speech to SEAL Team 6
Response:
Has anyone considered that the UN is setting precedent for *uninvited* operations in troublespots? So: could the Somali relief effort actually be setting precedent for a UN action against Bosnia-Herzogovina?
Against? For the crime of defending against military aggression? 1/2 The main problem with an active UN involvement there (i.e., one that goes beyond the current no-shooting-back mission) is that there *is* a government with assorted military and guerillas actively involved there, namely the Serbian one, and this government would be strongly opposed to such an intervention. They can put up much more resistance than the Somali warlords. (Yes, there’s also a Bosnian and a Croatian government involved there, but they probably would welcome an UN intervention, though again, one can’t be sure about Croatian plans.) If there would be a precedent for an intervention in Bosnia, then it would be the Gulf War, not the relief operation in Somalia. — Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria …mcsun!vexpert!mst
Response:
tes: I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons. //Jyrki Bravo. There speaks the unfiltered voice of what sometimes passes for left-activism. Could have been uttered by Pat Buchanan or Tom Metzger.
This was in response to Norman Yarvin’s article: If I were the praying type, I would prefer to pray that anyone who shoots at our troops will meet a quick death, so as to be a good example to all the other meatballs thinking of trying the same thing.
I don’t know who Pat Muchanan or Tom Metzger are or what "left-activism" is, but when someone thinks that it’s good to shoot and kill people just for opposing the mighty U.S. armed forces which invade their country supposedly to "restore hope", it’d only be fair to treat them (ie. people like Norman Yarvin) the same way. //Jyrki
Response:
< stupid, bigoted nationalist pap eliminated here by I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons. //Jyrki Bravo. There speaks the unfiltered voice of what sometimes passes for left-activism. Could have been uttered by Pat Buchanan or Tom Metzger.
Actually, as an American citizen with some experience of other places, I agree with Jyrki. If he’s any representative of what Finnish people are like, they sound both intelligent and civilized. — richard — ===== oracle data center – unix systems & network administration Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Response:
If I were the praying type, I would prefer to pray that anyone who shoots at our troops will meet a quick death, so as to be a good example to all the other meatballs thinking of trying the same thing. It is comments like this that make it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world. No, what makes it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world is terrorism. Done by terrorists. The terrorists are usually armed and financed by governments hostile to us. For instance the Communist Bloc used to be a heavy supporter of terrorists.
And what _motivates_ them, dear boy ? I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons. Enough of us have been killed so that the rest _have_ started doing something about the reasons. Units dedicated to counterterrorist operations are a relatively new part of our military.
I think it’s this ‘us’ business, as if we were different, as if our needs should always have priority, as if being an American placed one at the right hand of God. Which is directly contraventional to the concepts of freedom and equality we trumpet so loudly … which makes ‘us’ look like hypocrites. Which is reasonable. Many of us _are_ hypocrites. "We are here to do counterterrorism. Do you know what counterterrorism is? It is fucking doing it to them before they fucking do it to us." – Richard Marcinko, founding speech to SEAL Team 6
Note the repressed sexuality in this statement. Real civilized, eh ? — richard — ===== oracle data center – unix systems & network administration Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Response:
No, what makes it dangerous for U.S. citizens to travel around the world is terrorism. Done by terrorists. The terrorists are usually armed and financed by governments hostile to us. For instance the Communist Bloc used to be a heavy supporter of terrorists. And what _motivates_ them, dear boy ?
What motivates who? You are either wondering about the terrorists, or about the supporting nations. I cannot tell which; you might consider being more specific in the future. What motivates the terrorists themselves: Who cares? They believe some sort of anti-US propaganda, and sometimes they have been treated roughly by us (we are no angels.) But it is mainly the propaganda. You can find someone to do any sort of dirty work. Shooting a President, blowing up a building, whatever it is, there is some man who will do it. The warped minds of such men contain little of value. What motivates the governments is our own restraint. They know that through terrorism they can damage us, whereas we are more civilized and will refrain from retaliating in kind. By damaging us they can make us seem to be wimps. This is good for their anti-American propaganda. I just wish the hatred and violence would be targeted at the right target, ie. people like you, instead of any random U.S. citizen. Perhaps if enough of people like you were killed, the rest would start doing something about the reasons.
You know, I wonder if Jyrki realizes that he is saying violent harm should be done to me for expressing my beliefs. That he is expressing his dislike for freedom of speech. That he is saying the beliefs of people like myself should be changed not by persuasion, but by persecuting us, nay, killing us, until we decide we were wrong. In brief, he is a fascist. He will no doubt protest mightily, but it is true nevertheless. I think it’s this ‘us’ business, as if we were different, as if our needs should always have priority, as if being an American placed one at the right hand of God.
I will hand that question right back to you. Every other nation acts to further its own interests; what is different about us that we should not? You talk about freedom, but there has never been any freedom between nations, only individual freedoms within a nation. — "Honesty is the rarest commodity in this university." – V. I. Fabrikant, (ex-)Concordia U.
Response:
Question:
Strange that it never occurred to you – the whole history of U.S. invasions is always that they claim humanitarian reasons. Hitler also always claimed humanitarian reasons. Do you suppose that an invader will every tell the world this is an invasion?
It does NOT follow from this that sometimes when humanitarian motives are claimed they don’t actually exist. If Ms. Hauben has some reason to think that humanitarian issues are *not* the main motivating force for the US (and UN) action perhaps she would tell us why. Are all those starving Somalis just a fabrication, some propaganda ploy? We can debate the wisdom and risks of the US decision all day, but I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that a sincere desire to prevent further starvation is not the main reason for the decision. Also note that I do volunteer work for a local homeless shelter so I’m well aware of the problem the US faces in poverty and homelessness. And it’s *nothing* compared to the mass death going on right now in Somalia. —peter
Response:
## ## ##writes: ##I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, ##as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their ##own country. ## ##Norman Miller is wrong. Going to war is always a serious question ##deserving full discussion and debate by the people of every country. ##Especially the people being asked to fight the war and back it and ##the people in the area of the war need to analyze the situation ##and respond to it. ## ##The American people have a long tradition of opposing war and the ##imposition of solutions to internal problems by forces from outside Ha Ha Ha hahahahhahahhh……. Here is a quote from Cheney: "There will be peace in Somalia, even if we have to use force to create it." Vietnam, Korea, Iran-Iraq, Israel, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, and you honestly believe that our tradition is one of opposing war? Puhleeeese! Save this for rec.humor.funny -S ##will stop the anti-war, anti-militarism, pro-peace American tradition ##from finding and asserting itself. All efforts to reseach and analyze For years and years, we have been feeding our economy on building a military machine, by selling arms and armoury to nations around the world, for oil, money and "strategic" favours. Now there is no one to use it against, the economy starts to collapse. I get the point that you mean "American people" but isn’t this a democracy? Then what is represented by the people is (should be) reflected in the military policy that the country holds, n’cest pas? When was the last time you wrote to your congressman giving him/her your views about the countries policy? For the longest time, I wished there was some oil in Somalia, we could have intervened in Jan of 1991. ##the forces behind this military move will help strengthen this ##tradition and the American people’s contribution to a better world ##order. ##Norman Miller
Response:
writes: I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their own country. There’s no point in even trying to discuss the matter with the author of those lines, but they certainly sum up for some of us how silly and vacuous left-activism has become.
What I really love about them is the Catch-22 they put a Republican Administration in. If you go in, you’re flexing your muscles, acting fascist, whatever. If you don’t go in, you don’t care about humanitarian issues – after all, you went in to Kuwait, so clearly all you cared about was the oil, not the poor starving people. Give me strength! Norman Miller
– #include <std_disclaimer.h Dan S.
Response:
The same U.S. government which throws U.S. people out on the streets to starve clearly has no humanitarian reasons to invade Somalia to bring humanitarian aid to people.
Just how many people do you think are starving in the U.S.? –Tim Smith
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -obert Hauben) writes: ) writes: I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their own country. There’s no point in even trying to discuss the matter with the author of those lines, but they certainly sum up for some of us how silly and vacuous left-activism has become. Norman Miller is wrong. Going to war is always a serious question deserving full discussion and debate by the people of every country. Especially the people being asked to fight the war and back it and the people in the area of the war need to analyze the situation and respond to it.
For your information, I was actively anti-war as far back as 1937, and I’m still anti-war. What I was talking about was the fatuous language of the original poster. You don’t have to make preposterous and pinheaded claims ("domestic attack" indeed) in order to oppose war. nm
Response:
writes: I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their own country. There’s no point in even trying to discuss the matter with the author of those lines, but they certainly sum up for some of us how silly and vacuous left-activism has become.
Norman Miller is wrong. Going to war is always a serious question deserving full discussion and debate by the people of every country. Especially the people being asked to fight the war and back it and the people in the area of the war need to analyze the situation and respond to it. The American people have a long tradition of opposing war and the imposition of solutions to internal problems by forces from outside a country. The civil war in Somolia is a problem for the Somolian people to solve. Humanitarian aid and military intervention should be different responses to this internal problem. After Granada, Panama, and Iraq, the American people can not be expected to think that the US military is used for humanitarian reasons. It may take a while but no cover of the invasion of Somolia with humanitarian rhetoric will stop the anti-war, anti-militarism, pro-peace American tradition from finding and asserting itself. All efforts to reseach and analyze the forces behind this military move will help strengthen this tradition and the American people’s contribution to a better world order. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Norman Miller
Response:
writes: I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their own country.
There’s no point in even trying to discuss the matter with the author of those lines, but they certainly sum up for some of us how silly and vacuous left-activism has become. Norman Miller
Response:
[...stuff deleted...] Strange that it never occurred to you – the whole history of U.S. invasions is always that they claim humanitarian reasons.
Once again I personally have no idea what is going on. All argument pro and con the Somalian rescue/invasion is based on information being put out by the mass media. And we all know what a good job they did in keeping us "informed" during the gulf war hysteria. Maybe Bush really does want to do something good before he leaves office. Or maybe this is just a "safety valve" to divert attention away from our problems here in the U.S. Who knows? All argument is based on what we are told by the mass media, and *they* are not entirely to be trusted. [...stuff deleted...] Brian Redman "If there is a worse place than Hell, I am in it." — Abraham Lincoln
Response:
My sincere apologies if sci.econ gets this twice. The same U.S. government which throws U.S. people out on the streets to starve clearly has no humanitarian reasons to invade Somalia to bring humanitarian aid to people.
Let’s see the numbers, Ronda. How many people have starved to death in Michigan since general assistance disappeared? By comparison, the U.N. estimates that a quarter of a million people die of starvation in Somalia every month. The very limited social programs that have traditionally existed in the U.S. are cut. Factories are being closed. Unemployment funds raided (as in a recent bill passed in N.J. where tax on unemployment is reduced for employers in the name of providing some kind of health care)
Another canard. "Some kind of health care" happens to be health care for people with no insurance and no money to pay their hospital bills. I too consider it a ridiculous and cowardly looting of the unemployment fund, but the people who benefit happen to be the same type of people as the ones in Michigan you are whining about. Norbert
Response:
The supposed claim that the U.S. govt has humanitarian reasons for invading Somalia is false. ….. other stuff….. See here Ronda. I oppose going into Somolia at least as much as you do (See my posting in t.p.m NO GOOD DEED WILL GO UNPUNISHED), but it never once ocurred to me were invading the place.
Strange that it never occurred to you – the whole history of U.S. invasions is always that they claim humanitarian reasons. Hitler also always claimed humanitarian reasons. Do you suppose that an invader will every tell the world this is an invasion? What is to be gained by an invasion?. I think our motives for going in are well intesioned, but wrong-headed. Wromantic but Wrong you might say.
Well obviously the U.S. govt feels there is something to be gained or they wouldn’t be invading a soverign country. I guess I feel that its aim is a domestic attack on the American people, as well as an attack on the Somalians and their efforts to run their own country. As far as the reasons domestically for the attack on us at home, the election made clear that the domestic economic problems are very deep and none of the parties put forward any real way to deal with the problems. Isn’t that the kind of situation when Hitler undertook his invasions? But the American people made clear that they wanted the economic problems at home addresssed during the election. What better excuse is there to cover up that the problems will not be addressed by the so called candidate of "change" than to have the U.S. involved in a war in Somalia — also, war is an excuse to allow the govt to stifle dissent in the name of protecting the boys abroad (as happened in the Gulf War) Thus the efforts of the American people to have open discussion and debate over economic issues now becomes *subversive* and *anti-american* and *costing american lives* etc. I haven’t heard any dissent from Clinton about Bush’s invasion. Instead, I have heard the news claim that Clinton welcomes the action. What evidence do you have this is an invasion (which implies territorial or other material gains)?
An invasion means going into a sovereign country. That is what I understand is the plan with regard to Somalia – a military force of another country entering a sovereign nation. There are always excuses given to supposedly justify the breach of another nation’s sovereignty. In the days of Vietnam it was the humanitarian cause of bringing *Democracy* to Vietnam – but it was an invasion, despite the words. Conan the Libertarian
But the particular horror of it all is that there is a need to have the significant breakthroughs represented by the personal computer and computer networks be used to help to solve the real economic and political problems in the U.S. It seems that the U.S. govt is fearing that the fate of the former Soviet Union is its fate if it doesn’t move to distract the American people from the sense that came through during the recent election that the American political and economic processes had failed. Everyone I talked to said that they didn’t like any of the candidates. And they said that none of the candidates had any proposals for how to deal with the deep economic and political problems the U.S. is facing. Wasn’t that the sentiment in the former Soviet Union before the breakup? Ronda — Amateur Computerist Newsletter or Dearborn, MI 48126
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The supposed claim that the U.S. govt has humanitarian reasons for invading Somalia is false. Last year the Michigan Govt. (with Governor Engler leading the assault) cut general assistance welfare relief for people in Michigan who had no work. That threw people out on the street with no place to live. The same U.S. government which throws U.S. people out on the streets to starve clearly has no humanitarian reasons to invade Somalia to bring humanitarian aid to people. If the U.S. government were interested in humanitarian causes, it would open up discussion and action on dealing with the economic problems in the U.S. economy.
Very different things are at stake in responding to humanitarian needs in Somalia vs those in the US. The US govt is assuming a low cost for responding in Somalia in that they do not expect significant violence. They expect it to be easy. We all hope that they are right. Responding to needs in the US is much more controversial. I share your concern over the actions listed above, but these are opposed by powerful interests in the US. The very limited social programs that have traditionally existed in the U.S. are cut. Factories are being closed. Unemployment funds raided (as in a recent bill passed in N.J. where tax on unemployment is reduced for employers in the name of providing some kind of health care), labor laws have been weakened so that the Americans who do have jobs have very little protection against employer abuses. Given all the trouble in the U.S. the claim that the U.S. is leading some humanitarian venture in Somalia is clearly false as a country that has no regard for its own people, clearly has no regard for any other people.
This is simplistic. There is regard for US citizens, but the powers that be have prioritized economic and trade interests over people interests. These powers will lose power and money by responding forcefully to humanitarian needs in the US but will not lose in responding in Somalia. So why is the U.S. invading Somalia? Why has it gotten the UN to authorize this new war? It’s the last thing needed by people in the U.S. The previous military invasion of Iraq by the U.S. sent the U.S. economy into a nosedive. With the bad economic conditions in the U.S., it seems a new war is being presented to distract attention from the bad economic conditions within the U.S. But it will only make everything worse.
I opposed the war in the Gulf but this is not the same. While I am not sure whether it is wise, it is certainly different. There is no major villain, as in Saddam Hussein. The various "warlords" are not equivalent, and are supporting this intervention, for now at least. Those who believe that most uses of the US military have been wrong or morally unsupportable, as I do, tend to have an automatic reaction when word of US troops is mentioned. I think a reaction more specific to the use is needed in this case. Ronda — Amateur Computerist Newsletter or Dearborn, MI 48126
–
Response:
The supposed claim that the U.S. govt has humanitarian reasons for invading Somalia is false.
….. other stuff….. Ronda — Amateur Computerist Newsletter or Dearborn, MI 48126
See here Ronda. I oppose going into Somolia at least as much as you do (See my posting in t.p.m NO GOOD DEED WILL GO UNPUNISHED), but it never once ocurred to me were invading the place. What is to be gained by an invasion?. I think our motives for going in are well intesioned, but wrong-headed. Wromantic but Wrong you might say. What evidence do you have this is an invasion (which implies territorial or other material gains)? Conan the Libertarian — "If you can’t love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The supposed claim that the U.S. govt has humanitarian reasons for invading Somalia is false. Last year the Michigan Govt. (with Governor Engler leading the assault) cut general assistance welfare relief for people in Michigan who had no work. That threw people out on the street with no place to live. The same U.S. government which throws U.S. people out on the streets to starve clearly has no humanitarian reasons to invade Somalia to bring humanitarian aid to people. If the U.S. government were interested in humanitarian causes, it would open up discussion and action on dealing with the economic problems in the U.S. economy. The very limited social programs that have traditionally existed in the U.S. are cut. Factories are being closed. Unemployment funds raided (as in a recent bill passed in N.J. where tax on unemployment is reduced for employers in the name of providing some kind of health care), labor laws have been weakened so that the Americans who do have jobs have very little protection against employer abuses. Given all the trouble in the U.S. the claim that the U.S. is leading some humanitarian venture in Somalia is clearly false as a country that has no regard for its own people, clearly has no regard for any other people. So why is the U.S. invading Somalia? Why has it gotten the UN to authorize this new war? It’s the last thing needed by people in the U.S. The previous military invasion of Iraq by the U.S. sent the U.S. economy into a nosedive. With the bad economic conditions in the U.S., it seems a new war is being presented to distract attention from the bad economic conditions within the U.S. But it will only make everything worse.
After posting the above the sci.econ I realized that it is an important subject that needs to be discussed and soon. So I am posting it a bit more broadly and welcome other people reposting it – and adding to the discussion. It seems the U.S. govt. has learned that it can manipulate the UN to declare war thus by passing the U.S. Congress and any debate among the U.S. people. At a time when there is a need for the development of more broad based computer networks so people can make more input into decisions that affect them, the U.S. govt instead is taking more unilateral actions with no input or oversight allowed by the American people. Ronda — Amateur Computerist Newsletter or Dearborn, MI 48126
Response:
Question:
"WASHINGTON– 90% of American families pay more in federal taxes now than they would if the tax laws existing in 1977 had been left in place, Citizens for Tax Justice reported Thursday.
You know, if you would crosspost, I wouldn’t have to respond to this a hundred times. Or are you simply posting it a hundred times? Bogus stats in, bogus results out. (First law of bogusity.) Brett Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING! Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two Disclaimer: NOT!
Response:
The Decline of America: Elites Wage Class-War Against Middle-Class & Poor Study: 90% Pay More due to Tax Changes "WASHINGTON– 90% of American families pay more in federal taxes now than they would if the tax laws existing in 1977 had been left in place, Citizens for Tax Justice reported Thursday. But the very rich, as a result of tax-law changes over the last 13 years, are paying up to 36 percent less than they would have, the group said. The results are similar to finding reported two weeks ago by the Congressional Budget Office. Several congressional Democrats cited the report as additional proof of their contention that the Reagan and Bush administrations pushed changes in the tax law that reward the rich and penalize everyone else." "Read My Lips" etc as front-page material, this little fact, affecting only 90% of their readers, was reported by the Tribune in the tiny note I’ve just reproduced, near the bottom of page 12.]
Response:
"WASHINGTON– 90% of American families pay more in federal taxes now than they would if the tax laws existing in 1977 had been left in place, Citizens for Tax Justice reported Thursday.
The study is bogus. Shall we repost the figures yet again? Posting this N+1 times will not make it come true. Brett Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING! Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two Disclaimer: NOT!
Response:
… "WASHINGTON– 90% of American families pay more in federal taxes now than they would if the tax laws existing in 1977 had been left in place, Citizens for Tax Justice reported Thursday.
It seems like only yesterday that we debunked this "report". Okay, so it was last month. Guess the map crowd is experiencing a dearth of new propaganda. "Why the courts don’t tell a husband who has been living off his wife to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension."–Joan Lunden
Response:
Question:
misc.activism.progressive Auto-Poster writes Another defense witness, Israeli Col. William Northrup, testified that American-made weapons were shipped to Iran via Israel "within a fortnight" of the Paris meetings, implying that they were part of the deal not to release the hostages
Unless this is YAOST (yet another october surprise theory), this statement clearly demonstrates the confused state of mind of the Auto-Poster (at least H*r*l B*rz*l** has choosen an apropriate synonym for himself here). Those Paris meetings are alleged to have taken place months before the inauguration (after all, if they happend after the election the whole theory would break down once again). So if arms shipments started two weeks after that meeting, then _obviously_ it wasn’t Regean or Bush or Casey or North or any republican who initiated them, but rather Jimmy Carter. Does the phrase ’shooting yourself in the foot’ ring any bells ? As for Bush and Casey, prosecutor O’Rourke failed to demonstrate that they could NOT have been in Paris on the relevant days.
So much for the standards of justice of the hard left. Unless you can prove that you could not _possibly_ have commited the crime, you are automatically assumed to be guilty. I like that. "Mr Barzilai, can you _prove_ that you were not the mastermind behind the labour union firebombings against the New York Post news stands ? The labour union shootings of Greyhound busses ? The labour union hand grenade attacks against the homes of drywallers ?" "… No, you can’t ? Well, in that case the V E R D I C T I S M U R D E R Lets go and execute you.". Carl Edman
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – misc.activism.progressive Auto-Poster writes As for Bush and Casey, prosecutor O’Rourke failed to demonstrate that they could NOT have been in Paris on the relevant days. So much for the standards of justice of the hard left. Unless you can prove that you could not _possibly_ have commited the crime, you are automatically assumed to be guilty. I like that. "Mr Barzilai, can you _prove_ that you were not the mastermind behind the labour union firebombings against the New York Post news stands ? The labour union shootings of Greyhound busses ? The labour union hand grenade attacks against the homes of drywallers ?" "… No, you can’t ? Well, in that case the V E R D I C T I S M U R D E R Lets go and execute you.".
I’m not up on the Oct Suprise, but the if The Auto-Poster’s statement just means they didn’t have an alibi – not enough to prove guilt, but usually used (along with plenty of other information) to help build a case for guilt.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – misc.activism.progressive Auto-Poster writes As for Bush and Casey, prosecutor O’Rourke failed to demonstrate that they could NOT have been in Paris on the relevant days. So much for the standards of justice of the hard left. Unless you can prove that you could not _possibly_ have commited the crime, you are automatically assumed to be guilty. I like that. "Mr Barzilai, can you _prove_ that you were not the mastermind behind the labour union firebombings against the New York Post news stands ? The labour union shootings of Greyhound busses ? The labour union hand grenade attacks against the homes of drywallers ?" "… No, you can’t ? Well, in that case the V E R D I C T I S M U R D E R Lets go and execute you.". I’m not up on the Oct Suprise, but the if The Auto-Poster’s statement just means they didn’t have an alibi – not enough to prove guilt, but usually used (along with plenty of other information) to help build a case for guilt.
The Dem. committe investigating the alleged October Surprise got the Secret Service logs for the days in question. They proved that Mr. Bush was not in Paris. (Indeed, like a private citizen could get an SR-71 without Carter’s people knowing about it.) Brett Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING! Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two Disclaimer: NOT!
Response:
Another defense witness, Israeli Col. William Northrup, testified that American-made weapons were shipped to Iran via Israel "within a fortnight" of the Paris meetings, implying that they were part of the deal not to release the hostages - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – …Gregg swore he did not go to Paris on October 18, 1980, but had been vacationing with his family at Bethany Beach, Delaware. To prove his point, Gregg presented photographs of himself, his wife and their daughter, on a sunny beach that he said were taken on the weekend in question. - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – …Gregg’s claims were easily disproved by Robert Lynott, a veteran meteorologist for the National Weather Service, the National Forest Service and a Portland TV station - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – As for Bush and Casey, prosecutor O’Rourke failed to demonstrate that they could NOT have been in Paris on the relevant days. This inexplicable lack of accurate record keeping is all the more remarkable for a campaign manager and candidate at the height of a presidential race. - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – T h e V e r d i c t i s T r e a s o n by David Armstrong and Alex Constantine Z Magazine, July/August 1990 [excerpts] "Z is an independent, progressive monthly magazine of critical thinking on political, cultural, social, and economic life in the United States. It sees the racial, sexual, class, and political dimensions of personal life as fundamental to understanding and improving contemporary circumstances; and it aims to assist activist efforts to attain a better future." - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Subscriptions: One Year $25; Two Years $40; Three Years $55 $18 student/low-income // Sample issue: $3.00 - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Z Magazine, // 150 W Canton St., // Boston MA 02118 // (617)236-5878 [Some 100 pages per issue, no advertisements] [Z is a project of the nonprofit Institute for Social & Cultural Change] [ c o n t i n u a t i o n ] A S t a r i s S w o r n The government’s star witness was Donald Gregg, who was flown in from South Korea to testify. But Gregg has never been a credible witness. During the Congressional Iran-contra hearings, Gregg testified under oath that despite being vice President George Bush’s National Security Adviser at the time, he had not learned of the Reagan Administration’s efforts to resupply the Nicaraguan Contras until August 1986. During his Senate confirmation hearing in 1989, however, information surfaced that clearly contradicted Gregg’s earlier statements. An entry in one of Oliver North’s notebooks that somehow escaped the shredder indicates that Gregg attended a meeting on the illegal resupply operation in September 1985. In addition, a memo from Gregg’s on office initialed by Gregg himself, reveals that on May 1, 1986, Gregg met with Vice President Bush to discuss "resupply of the Contras." Gregg attributed the discrepancy to a secretarial error, claiming the meeting had actually concerned "resupply of the Copters." A New York Times editorial a the time ran under the heading "Mr. Gregg Still Lacks Credibility." During the Brenneke trial, Gregg swore he did not go to Paris on October 18, 1980, but had been vacationing with his family at Bethany Beach, Delaware. To prove his point, Gregg presented photographs of himself, his wife and their daughter, on a sunny beach that he said were taken on the weekend in question. Gregg’s claims were easily disproved by Robert Lynott, a veteran meteorologist for the National Weather Service, the National Forest Service and a Portland TV station. After comparing the photographs with reports from the Indian River weather station–ten miles from Bethany Beach–Lynott concluded that "These pictures were not taken on those days. I’m 100 percent sure that they weren’t taken on the 18th and I’m 90 percent sure they weren’t taken on the 19th." As for Bush and Casey, prosecutor O’Rourke failed to demonstrate that they could NOT have been in Paris on the relevant days. This inexplicable lack of accurate record keeping is all the more remarkable for a campaign manager and candidate at the height of a presidential race. More damning testimony came from Richard Allen, a former Reagan-Bush campaign official who later served as President Reagan’s National Security adviser. Allen told the court that during the fall of 1980, he had set up a secret committee within the campaign to monitor the Carter Administration’s progress in their hostage negotiations. Two internal campaign memos were presented as evidence to support Allen’s testimony. The first, dated October 15, 1980, was from Allen to Reagan, Casey, campaign strategist Richard Wirthlin, and Edwin Meese III, who later became Reagan’s attorney general. According to the memo, a person referred to as "ABC XYZ" had informed the campaign that the hostages could be freed "at any moment, as a bolt from the blue." Allen testified that "ABC XYZ" was in fact Edmund Muskie, who at the time was President Carter’s secretary of state. [note Muskie served with John Tower and Brent Scowcroft on the presidential commission which investigated the Iran/Contra scandal. --Rich Winkel] A second memo, dated October 24, 1980, named Bob Garrick, a high ranking campaign official, as the sole spokesperson on the hostage issue. Another defense witness, Israeli Col. William Northrup, testified that American-made weapons were shipped to Iran via Israel "within a fortnight" of the Paris meetings, implying that they were part of the deal not to release the hostages. In his closing argument defense attorney Michael Scott stressed the timing of the hostages release which came on January 20, 1981, just minutes after Reagan was sworn in as president. [ T o b e c o n t i n u e d ]
Response:
As for Bush and Casey, prosecutor O’Rourke failed to demonstrate that they could NOT have been in Paris on the relevant days. This inexplicable lack of accurate record keeping is all the more remarkable for a campaign manager and candidate at the height of a presidential race.
This is a bunch of bullshit. The recent congressional investigation into the October Surprise yielded a decision several weeks back that there is no evidence to even suggest that Bush was involved in such a scheme. T h e V e r d i c t i s T r e a s o n
T h e V e r d i c t i s M a n u r e MD — — Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.) / "Its okay dear, — UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz / I’m a Doctor…"
Response:
Question:
Re "PBS’s Anti-Labor Bias — An Exception?" just posted which noted: Despite the absence of public-TV programming about U.S. workers, PBS itself does not distribute We Do the Work as part of its regular schedule. Instead, the show is distributed through the Central Education Network, a small independent distributor. As a result, it currently airs on only 30 of PBS’s 300 affiliates, and is often broadcast during odd hours, when most working people are0 at work or asleep. Please call your PBS station to protest this. For documentation and supporting background info, please refer to the original FAIR article. Harel Topic 513 INFO: PBS List RTFC507%UTXVM.bi misc.activism.progressive 5:05 pm Feb 8, 1992 (at UMCVMB.missouri.edu) (From News system) PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS Geographical Listings & Phone Numbers Alabama: all PBS affiliatesTel: 205 328 8756 Alaska: Anchorage Tel: 907 563 7070 Bethel Tel: 907 543 3131 Fairbanks Tel: 907 474 7491 Juneau Tel: 907 586 1670 American Samoa: Tel: 684 633 4191 Arizona: Phoenix Tel: 602 965 3506 Tucson Tel: 602 621 5828 Arkansas: All PBS Affiliates Tel: 501 682 2386 California: Eureka Tel: 707 445 0813 Fresno Tel: 202 266 1800 Huntington Tel: 714 895 5623 Los Angeles Tel: 213 666 6500 Tel: 213 625 6958 Redding Tel: 916 243 5493 Rohnert Park Tel: 707 585 8522 Sacramento Tel: 916 929 5843 San Bernardino Tel: 714 888 6511 San Diego: Tel: 619 594 1515 San Francisco Tel: 415 864 2000 San Jose Tel: 408 437 5454 Colorado Broomfield Tel: 303 825 1212 Denver Tel: 303 892 6666 Pueblo Tel: 303 543 8800 2400 Connecticut Hartford Tel: 203 278 5310 Stamford Tel: 203 965 6080 Washington D.C. Tel: 703 998 2600 Tel: 202 636 5600 Florida Bonita Springs Tel: 813 598 5737 Daytona Beach Tel: 904 254 3045 Gainesville Tel: 904 392 5551 Jacksonville Tel: 904 353 7770 Miami Tel: 305 376 1717 Tel: 305 949 8321 Orlando Tel: 407 273 2300 Pensacola Tel: 904 484 1200 Tallahasee Tel: 904 487 3170 Tampa Tel: 813 253 2736 Tel: 813 974 4000 West Palm Beach Tel: 407 732 7850 Georgia All PBS AffiliatesTel: 404 756 4700 404 827 8900 Guam Tel: 617 734 2207 Hawaii Tel: 808 955 7878 Idaho Boise Tel: 208 385 3344 Idaho Cont. Moscow Tel:208 885 6723 Pocatello Tel:208 236 2857 Illinois Carbondale Tel: 618 453 4343 Charleston Tel: 217 581 5956 Chicago Tel: 312 583 5000 Moline Tel: 309 796 2424 Olney Tel: 618 395 3422 Peoria Tel: 309 676 4747 Springfield Tel: 217 786 6647 Urbana Tel: 217 333 1070 Indiana Bloomington Tel: 812 855 5900 Evansville Tel: 812 423 2973 Fort Wayne Tel: 219 484 8839 Indianapolis Tel: 317 636 2020 MerrillvilleTel: 219 756 5656 Muncie Tel: 317 285 1249 South Bend Tel: 219 674 5961 Vincencess Tel: 812 885 4345 Iowa All PBS AffiliatesTel: 515 281 4500 Kansas Bunker Hill Tel: 913 483 6990 Topeka Tel: 913 272 8181 Wichita Tel: 316 838 3090 Kentucky Bowling Green Tel: 502 745 Lexington Tel: 606 233 3000 Louisville Tel: 502 459 9572 Louisiana Baton Rouge Tel: 504 767 5660 New Orleans Tel: 504 486 5511 Maine Bangor Tel: 207 941 1010 Lewiston Tel: 207 783 9101 Portland Tel: 207 874 6570 Maryland All PBS AffiliatesTel: 301 356 5600 Massachusettes Boston Tel: 617 492 2777 Springfield Tel: 413 781 2801 Michigan Detroit Tel: 313 873 7200 East Lansing Tel: 517 355 2300 Flint Tel: 313 762 3028 Grand Rapids Tel: 616 771 6666 Marquette Tel: 906 227 1300 Mt. Pleasant Tel: 517 774 3105 Montana Tel: 406 994 3437 Nebraska Tel: 402 472 3611 Nevada Las Vegas Tel: 702 737 1010 Reno Tel: 702 784 4555 New Hampshire Tel: 603 868 1100 New Jersey Tel: 609 530 5252 New Mexico Albaquerque Tel: 505 277 2121 Las Cruces Tel: 505 646 2222 Portales Tel: 505 562 2112 New York Binghampton Tel: 607 775 0100 Brooklyn Tel: 718 935 4480 Buffalo Tel: 716 881 5000 5611 New York Tel: 212 560 2000 Plainview Tel: 516 454 8924 Plattsburgh Tel: 518 563 9770 Rochester Tel: 716 325 7500 Schenectady Tel: 518 356 1700 Syracuse Tel: 315 453 2424 Watertown Tel: 315 782 3142 North Carolina Chapel Hill Tel: 919 962 8191 Charlotte Tel: 704 372 2442 North Dakota Tel: 701 241 6900 Ohio Akron Tel: 216 678 1656 Athens Tel: 614 593 4555 Bowling Green Tel: 419 372 2700 Cincinnati Tel: 513 381 4033 Cleveland Tel: 216 398 2800 Columbus Tel: 614 292 9678 Dayton Tel: 513 220 1600 Toledo Tel: 419 243 3091 Oklahoma Claremore Tel: 918 341 7510 Oklahoma City Tel: 405 848 8501 Oregon Medford Tel: 503 772 3122 Portland Tel: 503 244 9900 Pennsylvania Allentown Tel: 215 867 4677 Erie Tel: 814 864 3001 Harrisburg Tel: 717 236 6000 Philadelphia Tel: 215 351 1200 Pittsburgh Tel: 412 622 1300 Scranton Tel: 717 826 6144 University Park Tel: 814 863 4010 Puerto Rico Hato Rey Tel: 809 764 2036 Rio Piedras Tel: 809 766 2600 Rhode Island Providence Tel: 401 277 3636 South Carolina Beaufort Tel: 803 524 0808 Columbia Tel: 803 737 3200 Rock Hill Tel: 803 324 3184 Spartanburg Tel: 803 599 0201 Sumter Tel: 803 773 5546 South Dakota Brookings Tel: 605 688 4191 Vermillion Tel: 605 677 5861 Tennessee Chattanooga Tel: 615 629 0045 Cookeville Tel: 615 528 2222 Knoxville Tel: 615 974 5281 Martin Tel: 901 587 7561 Memphis Tel: 901 458 2521 Nashville Tel: 615 259 9325 Texas Amarillo Tel: 806 371 5222 Austin Tel: 512 471 4811 College Station Tel: 409 845 Corpus Christi Tel: 512 855 2213 Dallas Tel: 214 871 1390 El Paso Tel: 915 747 6500 Harlingen Tel: 512 421 4111 Houson Tel: 713 749 2304 Killeen Tel: 817 526 1176 Lubbock Tel: 806 742 2209 Odessa Tel: 915 335 6336 San Antonio Tel: 512 270 9000 Utah Provo Tel: 801 378 5298 Salt Lake City Tel: 801 581 7777 Virgin Islands Tel: 809 774 7879 Vermont Tel: 802 655 4800 Virginia Falls Church Tel: 703 698 9682 Harrisonburg Tel: 703 434 5391 Norfolk Tel: 804 489 9476 Richmond Tel: 804 320 1301 Roanoke Tel: 703 344 0991 Washington Pullman Tel: 509 335 6588 Seattle Tel: 206 728 6463 Spokane Tel: 509 353 5777 Tacoma Tel: 206 596 1528 Yakima Tel: 509 452 4700 West Virginia Beckley Tel: 304 255 1501 Huntington Tel: 304 696 6630 Morgantown Tel: 304 293 6511 Wisconsin Madison Tel: 608 263 2121 Milwaukee Tel: 414 271 1036 Wyoming Riverton Tel: 307 856 9291
Response:
Question:
Topic 513 INFO: PBS List RTFC507%UTXVM.bi misc.activism.progressive 5:05 pm Feb 8, 1992 (at UMCVMB.missouri.edu) (From News system) Sorry for the lack of formatting. This is posted in conjunction with the Fernea film on PBS, but should be helpful for things like Agran censorship as well. Steve Carr PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS Geographical Listings & Phone Numbers Alabama: all PBS affiliatesTel: 205 328 8756 Alaska: Anchorage Tel: 907 563 7070 Bethel Tel: 907 543 3131 Fairbanks Tel: 907 474 7491 Juneau Tel: 907 586 1670 American Samoa: Tel: 684 633 4191 Arizona: Phoenix Tel: 602 965 3506 Tucson Tel: 602 621 5828 Arkansas: All PBS Affiliates Tel: 501 682 2386 California: Eureka Tel: 707 445 0813 Fresno Tel: 202 266 1800 Huntington Tel: 714 895 5623 Los Angeles Tel: 213 666 6500 Tel: 213 625 6958 Redding Tel: 916 243 5493 Rohnert Park Tel: 707 585 8522 Sacramento Tel: 916 929 5843 San Bernardino Tel: 714 888 6511 San Diego: Tel: 619 594 1515 San Francisco Tel: 415 864 2000 San Jose Tel: 408 437 5454 Colorado Broomfield Tel: 303 825 1212 Denver Tel: 303 892 6666 Pueblo Tel: 303 543 8800 2400 Connecticut Hartford Tel: 203 278 5310 Stamford Tel: 203 965 6080 Washington D.C. Tel: 703 998 2600 Tel: 202 636 5600 Florida Bonita Springs Tel: 813 598 5737 Daytona Beach Tel: 904 254 3045 Gainesville Tel: 904 392 5551 Jacksonville Tel: 904 353 7770 Miami Tel: 305 376 1717 Tel: 305 949 8321 Orlando Tel: 407 273 2300 Pensacola Tel: 904 484 1200 Tallahasee Tel: 904 487 3170 Tampa Tel: 813 253 2736 Tel: 813 974 4000 West Palm Beach Tel: 407 732 7850 Georgia All PBS AffiliatesTel: 404 756 4700 404 827 8900 Guam Tel: 617 734 2207 Hawaii Tel: 808 955 7878 Idaho Boise Tel: 208 385 3344 Idaho Cont. Moscow Tel:208 885 6723 Pocatello Tel:208 236 2857 Illinois Carbondale Tel: 618 453 4343 Charleston Tel: 217 581 5956 Chicago Tel: 312 583 5000 Moline Tel: 309 796 2424 Olney Tel: 618 395 3422 Peoria Tel: 309 676 4747 Springfield Tel: 217 786 6647 Urbana Tel: 217 333 1070 Indiana Bloomington Tel: 812 855 5900 Evansville Tel: 812 423 2973 Fort Wayne Tel: 219 484 8839 Indianapolis Tel: 317 636 2020 MerrillvilleTel: 219 756 5656 Muncie Tel: 317 285 1249 South Bend Tel: 219 674 5961 Vincencess Tel: 812 885 4345 Iowa All PBS AffiliatesTel: 515 281 4500 Kansas Bunker Hill Tel: 913 483 6990 Topeka Tel: 913 272 8181 Wichita Tel: 316 838 3090 Kentucky Bowling Green Tel: 502 745 Lexington Tel: 606 233 3000 Louisville Tel: 502 459 9572 Louisiana Baton Rouge Tel: 504 767 5660 New Orleans Tel: 504 486 5511 Maine Bangor Tel: 207 941 1010 Lewiston Tel: 207 783 9101 Portland Tel: 207 874 6570 Maryland All PBS AffiliatesTel: 301 356 5600 Massachusettes Boston Tel: 617 492 2777 Springfield Tel: 413 781 2801 Michigan Detroit Tel: 313 873 7200 East Lansing Tel: 517 355 2300 Flint Tel: 313 762 3028 Grand Rapids Tel: 616 771 6666 Marquette Tel: 906 227 1300 Mt. Pleasant Tel: 517 774 3105 Montana Tel: 406 994 3437 Nebraska Tel: 402 472 3611 Nevada Las Vegas Tel: 702 737 1010 Reno Tel: 702 784 4555 New Hampshire Tel: 603 868 1100 New Jersey Tel: 609 530 5252 New Mexico Albaquerque Tel: 505 277 2121 Las Cruces Tel: 505 646 2222 Portales Tel: 505 562 2112 New York Binghampton Tel: 607 775 0100 Brooklyn Tel: 718 935 4480 Buffalo Tel: 716 881 5000 5611 New York Tel: 212 560 2000 Plainview Tel: 516 454 8924 Plattsburgh Tel: 518 563 9770 Rochester Tel: 716 325 7500 Schenectady Tel: 518 356 1700 Syracuse Tel: 315 453 2424 Watertown Tel: 315 782 3142 North Carolina Chapel Hill Tel: 919 962 8191 Charlotte Tel: 704 372 2442 North Dakota Tel: 701 241 6900 Ohio Akron Tel: 216 678 1656 Athens Tel: 614 593 4555 Bowling Green Tel: 419 372 2700 Cincinnati Tel: 513 381 4033 Cleveland Tel: 216 398 2800 Columbus Tel: 614 292 9678 Dayton Tel: 513 220 1600 Toledo Tel: 419 243 3091 Oklahoma Claremore Tel: 918 341 7510 Oklahoma City Tel: 405 848 8501 Oregon Medford Tel: 503 772 3122 Portland Tel: 503 244 9900 Pennsylvania Allentown Tel: 215 867 4677 Erie Tel: 814 864 3001 Harrisburg Tel: 717 236 6000 Philadelphia Tel: 215 351 1200 Pittsburgh Tel: 412 622 1300 Scranton Tel: 717 826 6144 University Park Tel: 814 863 4010 Puerto Rico Hato Rey Tel: 809 764 2036 Rio Piedras Tel: 809 766 2600 Rhode Island Providence Tel: 401 277 3636 South Carolina Beaufort Tel: 803 524 0808 Columbia Tel: 803 737 3200 Rock Hill Tel: 803 324 3184 Spartanburg Tel: 803 599 0201 Sumter Tel: 803 773 5546 South Dakota Brookings Tel: 605 688 4191 Vermillion Tel: 605 677 5861 Tennessee Chattanooga Tel: 615 629 0045 Cookeville Tel: 615 528 2222 Knoxville Tel: 615 974 5281 Martin Tel: 901 587 7561 Memphis Tel: 901 458 2521 Nashville Tel: 615 259 9325 Texas Amarillo Tel: 806 371 5222 Austin Tel: 512 471 4811 College Station Tel: 409 845 Corpus Christi Tel: 512 855 2213 Dallas Tel: 214 871 1390 El Paso Tel: 915 747 6500 Harlingen Tel: 512 421 4111 Houson Tel: 713 749 2304 Killeen Tel: 817 526 1176 Lubbock Tel: 806 742 2209 Odessa Tel: 915 335 6336 San Antonio Tel: 512 270 9000 Utah Provo Tel: 801 378 5298 Salt Lake City Tel: 801 581 7777 Virgin Islands Tel: 809 774 7879 Vermont Tel: 802 655 4800 Virginia Falls Church Tel: 703 698 9682 Harrisonburg Tel: 703 434 5391 Norfolk Tel: 804 489 9476 Richmond Tel: 804 320 1301 Roanoke Tel: 703 344 0991 Washington Pullman Tel: 509 335 6588 Seattle Tel: 206 728 6463 Spokane Tel: 509 353 5777 Tacoma Tel: 206 596 1528 Yakima Tel: 509 452 4700 West Virginia Beckley Tel: 304 255 1501 Huntington Tel: 304 696 6630 Morgantown Tel: 304 293 6511 Wisconsin Madison Tel: 608 263 2121 Milwaukee Tel: 414 271 1036 Wyoming Riverton Tel: 307 856 9291
Response:
Next page
Previous page