"I'd be able to make up my own mind..."
Billy Beck
January 10, 2000
Commentary
What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
By Michael Gonzalez, deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe's
editorial page.
When I was seven or eight years old, not much older than Elian
Gonzalez is today, the principal at my school in Cuba forced me to
wear a Young Pioneer scarf. He simply announced, in front of the whole
class, that he'd had it with my refusal to join, and that I couldn't
say no any longer. The Pioneers are the communist version of the
Hitler Youth. All those kids you see on television, wearing
blue-and-white scarves around their neck and taking part in
government-staged demonstrations for Elian's return, are Pioneers.
I had again and again, for two years, told my teachers and the
principal that I would not join the Pioneers. I was the lone holdout
in a classroom that included the children of political prisoners and
others from known anticommunist families. My conscientious objection
cost the class a 100% participation rate and therefore perks such as
field trips. I wasn't the most popular kid in school.
But my new status as a Pioneer also did not make me very popular with
my father, as I had feared. Dad had his ear glued to his (highly
illegal) shortwave radio when I arrived home for lunch. I can still
picture him, sitting in his rocking chair. He was home because he was
very ill; he had two to three years left at most and he (and all of
us) knew it. Just after the revolution he had walked away from a post
as a professor of law at the University of Havana, an institution he
loved, because--the words still ring in my ears--"you can't teach law
in a country not ruled by it." He died soon after because lack of a
proper diet aggravated his diabetes.
It didn't take too long for me to explain to my father why I was
wearing the Pioneer scarf, or for him to renounce me for my weakness.
He also decided that if they were going to take his family away, there
was nothing left, so he would have to go to the school and kill the
principal. Since this was the agent of government who had transgressed
his family's freedom, he was the obvious choice. Killing the
principal's boss would have made no sense, and killing Fidel Castro
was impossible. I don't fault my father's logic in the slightest.
Castro had forced Cubans to hand over all their private weapons very
early in his rule, but Dad had kept his father's gun, thinking the
ability it gave him to take one last stand for his family against
tyranny was a thread of freedom to cling on to. Again, I admire him
for thinking this way.
My grandmother had other ideas. She promptly locked her son up in his
room as he was getting the gun, and announced to him that he would
have to go through her on his way out. Mother soon was fetched from
her office, and she informed my father that he would have to do away
with two women in his family. While he remained pathetically locked in
his room, my mother walked me back to school, still empty of
schoolchildren at lunchtime, and had a quick word with the principal
as she handed back the Pioneer neckwear. The essence of it was that
her husband was very upset and that the principal had better not try
this sort of thing again. Until I left Cuba three or four years later,
I was not bothered on this score again.
My father and I made up that evening, of course, and he explained to
me that once I was living in freedom, I'd be able to make up my own
mind, and that if I then turned into a communist, that was my
business. I didn't--far from it--and I'm glad my father decided to try
to get us out, though he did not live to see the day.
Even if you think my father may have been right about wanting to shoot
the principal, you might wonder if he was not a bit too severe with
me. I was, after all, just a kid, and the principal had forced the
thing on me. In fact, Dad understood all too well that I had had it
with resistance, for otherwise the principal really couldn't have
forced anything on me. Dad knew that after putting up a good fight for
some time, I too had had enough, and that I was more than happy to
join in, not to stand out, not to have to fight after school or suffer
the taunts of others, including teachers. That's why he acted the way
he did, and why I remain so grateful to him.
In totalitarian systems it takes desperate measures to remain an
individual, to have any degree of autonomy even within the most
narrowly defined private sphere. Our natural instinct for survival
militates against fighting the system; we have to overcome human
nature just to resist.
This is the kind of world that produced Elian Gonzalez's father, the
man who, after Castro organized anti-American rallies, said he wanted
his son back--even though he knows that his ex-wife, Elian's mother,
died taking the boy out, and that Elian would have a better life in
America, and not just materially. This is the world that produced the
people at the rallies, very many of whom would escape Cuba if given
the chance.
And much, much worse, this is the kind of world President Clinton is
sending Elian Gonzalez back to. If he's strong, he will survive, but I
somehow think his father is very different from mine.
I am an American today, and I love America as only someone with my
kind of background can. It's going to take a lot more than a wrong
decision by a discredited administration for me even to begin to feel
disappointed in this vast, generous country. But, knowing as I do what
kind of place Elian is being sent back to, I can't help but wince at
the thought of what we're about to do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>
>January 10, 2000
>
>Commentary
>
>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
His sole parent. Seems logical.
You should think twice before you urge rules letting the govt take
kids away from their parents.
Ok. Start your thinking NOW..........
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
rose...@idt.net
>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
Doesn't make any fucking difference, beckloon
The treaty with Cuba was actively sought by cubans, specifically Floridians,
signed and enacted into law.
We either subscribe to a "rule of law" or we don't.
Manipulating an outcome to satisfy you fucking right wing assholes is getting
tiresome.
bre...@no-spam.com
principal of his son's school as "one last stand." But the grandmother and
mother locked the gun nut in the bedroom and went and talked to the
principal and settled it all peacefully.
Maybe we could get her to come up here and deal with the NRA.
Cheers,
Bredon
---
>My grandmother had other ideas. She promptly locked her son up in his
>room as he was getting the gun, and announced to him that he would
>have to go through her on his way out. Mother soon was fetched from
>her office, and she informed my father that he would have to do away
>with two women in his family. While he remained pathetically locked in
>his room, my mother walked me back to school, still empty of
>schoolchildren at lunchtime, and had a quick word with the principal
>as she handed back the Pioneer neckwear. The essence of it was that
>her husband was very upset and that the principal had better not try
>this sort of thing again. Until I left Cuba three or four years later,
>I was not bothered on this score again.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:42:35 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
--------------------
Classic Moral Principles Message Board:
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb303987
http://www.geocities.com/athens/thebes/4809
I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)
Tim Starr
wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>January 10, 2000
>
>Commentary
>
>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>
>By Michael Gonzalez, deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe's
>editorial page.
>
>When I was seven or eight years old, not much older than Elian
>Gonzalez is today, the principal at my school in Cuba forced me to
>wear a Young Pioneer scarf. He simply announced, in front of the whole
>class, that he'd had it with my refusal to join, and that I couldn't
>say no any longer. The Pioneers are the communist version of the
>Hitler Youth. All those kids you see on television, wearing
>blue-and-white scarves around their neck and taking part in
>government-staged demonstrations for Elian's return, are Pioneers.
>
>I had again and again, for two years, told my teachers and the
>principal that I would not join the Pioneers. I was the lone holdout
>in a classroom that included the children of political prisoners and
>others from known anticommunist families. My conscientious objection
>cost the class a 100% participation rate and therefore perks such as
>field trips. I wasn't the most popular kid in school.
Wow, shades of "The Chocolate War" - which just happened to be on the
Independent Film Channel last night, an excellent film adaptation of the
classic young-adult novel. Funny, I appreciated the story much more as
an adult than when I was required to read it a high school English
class. :-)
Ah, the irony abounds. Here in America, "The Land of the Free", kids
are forced to be educated, mostly in schools where they're forced to
read classic novels about the evils of tyranny - "1984", "Brave New
World", "The Chocolate War", etc. Whereas in totalitarian regimes like
Cuba, scenarios like that of "The Chocolate War" are real life, except
that they're not merely confined to elite private Catholic boarding
schools - they're everywhere.
Tim Starr
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tim Starr
>
What treaty? When did the US sign any treaty abrogating the legal right
of Cuban refugees to stay in the USA?
Tim Starr
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:42:35 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>wrote:
>
> >
> >January 10, 2000
> >
> >Commentary
> >
> >What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>
> His sole parent. Seems logical.
Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies en
route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His master
requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his father,
organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave families
together.
You would naturally be urging Canada to return the boy to his father,
and his father's master.
I can recall many times when we libertarians have asked you statists
whether you'd support enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act because it
was "the law", the way you ask us to support whatever happens to be "the
law" today. Thanks for making your answer so clear: you'd not only
support the Fugitive Slave Act, but you'd advocate its enforcement even
in the absence of any such law in the jurisdiction in question.
No U.S. law requires the return of Cuban refugee children to Cuba if one
of their parents dies in the act of fleeing that tyranny, & one parent
remains in Cuba. But you want political refugees from totalitarian
tyranny returned to the tyranny they ran away from, anyways. Just like
when your hero FDR sent that shipload of Jewish refugees from the Nazis
back to Europe, with a U.S. Naval escort to make sure that none of them
would try to escape in any of the lifeboats.
Tim Starr
wrote:
>This is a really funny story. A gun nut father was going to shoot the
>principal of his son's school as "one last stand." But the grandmother
>and mother locked the gun nut in the bedroom and went and talked to the
>principal and settled it all peacefully.
>
>Maybe we could get her to come up here and deal with the NRA.
The principal agreed not to force the boy to wear the "Young Pioneer"
scarf. If you would agree not to force your tyranny upon other people's
children, I'm sure no one in the NRA would have any motive to shoot you,
either.
BTW, your enthusiasm for locking up those who would shoot tyrants is
duly noted, for the public record.
rose...@idt.net
>In article <387a9f87....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net wrote:
>> wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>
>> >What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>
>> Doesn't make any fucking difference, beckloon
>>
>>The treaty with Cuba...
>
>What treaty? When did the US sign any treaty abrogating the legal right
>of Cuban refugees to stay in the USA?
right after cuba dumped those thousands of criminals, unstable, during the
mcreagan years.
A treaty was signed by Cuba and the US.
Eric da Red
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>His sole parent. Seems logical.
>
>You should think twice before you urge rules letting the govt take
>kids away from their parents.
But but but ... his parent lives in a Kommie Kountry. I'll bet he
worships Satan, too.
>>By Michael Gonzalez, deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe's
>>editorial page.
>>
>>When I was seven or eight years old, not much older than Elian
>>Gonzalez is today, the principal at my school in Cuba forced me to
>>wear a Young Pioneer scarf. He simply announced, in front of the whole
>>class, that he'd had it with my refusal to join, and that I couldn't
>>say no any longer. The Pioneers are the communist version of the
>>Hitler Youth. All those kids you see on television, wearing
>>blue-and-white scarves around their neck and taking part in
>>government-staged demonstrations for Elian's return, are Pioneers.
When I was that age, I and all of my classmates were forced to say prayers
aloud in class. Saying "no" was not an option. Personally, I would have
preferred a scarf.
--
Helpful Advice Of The Week: "The Libertarian Party needs to demonstrate
that it's not a party of chattering ideologues. That will be difficult,
because it largely IS a party of chattering ideologues." - me.
SemiScholar
wrote:
>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:42:35 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >January 10, 2000
>> >
>> >Commentary
>> >
>> >What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>
>> His sole parent. Seems logical.
>
>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies en
>route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His master
>requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his father,
>organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave families
>together.
Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
boy here. I have to admit, that would be a tricky situation.
>
>You would naturally be urging Canada to return the boy to his father,
>and his father's master.
>
>I can recall many times when we libertarians have asked you statists
>whether you'd support enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act because it
>was "the law", the way you ask us to support whatever happens to be "the
>law" today. Thanks for making your answer so clear: you'd not only
>support the Fugitive Slave Act, but you'd advocate its enforcement even
>in the absence of any such law in the jurisdiction in question.
I don't know that the answer to your hypothetical situation is "so
clear" - it's certainly not in my mind. That's a very fuzzy
situation.
>
>No U.S. law requires the return of Cuban refugee children to Cuba if one
>of their parents dies in the act of fleeing that tyranny, & one parent
>remains in Cuba. But you want political refugees from totalitarian
>tyranny returned to the tyranny they ran away from, anyways. Just like
>when your hero FDR sent that shipload of Jewish refugees from the Nazis
>back to Europe, with a U.S. Naval escort to make sure that none of them
>would try to escape in any of the lifeboats.
Yes, the SS St. Louis thing was a dark spot in US history, IMHO. It
is not quite analagous to the Elian Gonzales situation, though, as
they were adult refugees who could make their own decisions. That was
more of a simple denial of asylum.
The boy's age makes a big difference in the current case. And
actually, I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
father unless the father is unfit. But then, I'm not a lawyer, so I
don't know. Sounds like we may find out in a real court.
- SemiScholar
bre...@no-spam.com
>In article <3888afb7...@news.sonic.net>, bre...@no-spam.com
>wrote:
>>This is a really funny story. A gun nut father was going to shoot the
>>principal of his son's school as "one last stand." But the grandmother
>>and mother locked the gun nut in the bedroom and went and talked to the
>>principal and settled it all peacefully.
>>
>>Maybe we could get her to come up here and deal with the NRA.
>
>The principal agreed not to force the boy to wear the "Young Pioneer"
>scarf. If you would agree not to force your tyranny upon other people's
>children, I'm sure no one in the NRA would have any motive to shoot you,
>either.
>
>BTW, your enthusiasm for locking up those who would shoot tyrants is
>duly noted, for the public record.
Only in their own bedrooms, by their own mothers. :-)
So they can foldle their little guns and shout "Mine, mine!" all they like.
While mother goes and straightens things out.
Cheers,
Bredon
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>father unless the father is unfit.
And US law also required returning slaves.
We hold that all men are born with inalienable rights...
...unless Cuba wants them back.
Tim Starr
> Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>The treaty with Cuba...
> >
> >What treaty? When did the US sign any treaty abrogating the legal
right
> >of Cuban refugees to stay in the USA?
>
> right after cuba dumped those thousands of criminals, unstable, during
the
> mcreagan years.
>
> A treaty was signed by Cuba and the US.
That's what I like, a nice specific, informative citation. No treaty
name, signing date, nor any quote of any provision requiring that any
Cuban nationals be returned to Cuba under any circumstances whatever,
much less the particular circumstances in question.
The really silly part of your claim is that the Cuban-American community
would EVER have supported any treaty requiring that any Cuban refugees
be returned to Castro's rule.
If you were around in Harriet Tubman's time, you'd be arguing for her
arrest in Canada & extradition to South Carolina, so she could be
punished for stealing slaves.
Tim Starr
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:33:26 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>January 10, 2000
>>>>
>>>>Commentary
>>>>
>>>>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>>
>>>His sole parent. Seems logical.
>>
>>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
>>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
>>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
>>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>>families together.
>
>Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>boy here.
Thank you.
>I have to admit, that would be a tricky situation.
What's tricky about it?
>>You would naturally be urging Canada to return the boy to his father,
>>and his father's master.
>>
>>I can recall many times when we libertarians have asked you statists
>>whether you'd support enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act because
>>it was "the law", the way you ask us to support whatever happens to
>>be "the law" today. Thanks for making your answer so clear: you'd
>>not only support the Fugitive Slave Act, but you'd advocate its
>>enforcement even in the absence of any such law in the jurisdiction
>>in question.
>
>I don't know that the answer to your hypothetical situation is "so
>clear" - it's certainly not in my mind. That's a very fuzzy
>situation.
What's "fuzzy" about it?
>>No U.S. law requires the return of Cuban refugee children to Cuba if
>>one of their parents dies in the act of fleeing that tyranny, & one
>>parent remains in Cuba. But you want political refugees from
>>totalitarian tyranny returned to the tyranny they ran away from,
>>anyways. Just like when your hero FDR sent that shipload of Jewish
>>refugees from the Nazis back to Europe, with a U.S. Naval escort to
>>make sure that none of them would try to escape in any of the
>>lifeboats.
>
>Yes, the SS St. Louis thing was a dark spot in US history, IMHO. It
>is not quite analagous to the Elian Gonzales situation, though, as
>they were adult refugees who could make their own decisions.
There were no children on board?
>That was more of a simple denial of asylum.
>
>The boy's age makes a big difference in the current case.
Why? Is he not old enough to tell whether he'd prefer living in a
democratic republic to a totalitarian tyranny?
>And actually, I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>father unless the father is unfit.
Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back in
Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
Cuban refugees have the absolute legal right to stay in the US if they
make it to the US on their own, as the person in question has done.
Tim Starr
(Eric da Red) wrote:
>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
>>His sole parent. Seems logical.
>>
>>You should think twice before you urge rules letting the govt take
>>kids away from their parents.
>
>worships Satan, too.
Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border guard,
the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His father,
who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return of his
son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.
Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to protest
& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all wearing
their Swastika armbands.
You'd be right there, marching with them, wearing your Swastika armband,
demanding the boy's return.
>When I was that age, I and all of my classmates were forced to say
>prayers aloud in class. Saying "no" was not an option. Personally,
>I would have preferred a scarf.
A red scarf, with a white circle in the middle, with a swastika in the
white circle, no doubt.
SemiScholar
sez:
>In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:33:26 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:42:35 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>January 10, 2000
>>>>>
>>>>>Commentary
>>>>>
>>>>>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>>>
>>>>His sole parent. Seems logical.
>>>
>>>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
>>>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
>>>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
>>>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
>>>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>>>families together.
>>
>>Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>>boy here.
>
>Thank you.
>
>>I have to admit, that would be a tricky situation.
>
>What's tricky about it?
The principle of national sovereignty - if you want other countries to
observe YOUR sovereignty, you must observe theirs, even if their
system is not something you agree with. But your analogy does point
out that there are limits to how much I would be willing to overlook.
The more I think about it, the more I have to agree with you. In that
situation, I guess I would have to come down on the side of keeping
the boy from slavery.
But clearly if the situation involved a boy from, say, Canada, and it
was just some relatives in the US who wanted the boy (not all that
farfetched - custody battles happen all the time), I would say send
the boy to his father. Unless, of course, the father was abusive.
So the question is: is Cuba comparable to slavery? On that score, I
have to say that I really have no personal basis for judgement. Yes,
we all have heard stories of murder, torture and thuggery on the part
of Castro and his henchmen. But then, to hear some of the people on
the net tell it, those stories could be about Bill Clinton. And some
of the people who tell those horror stories about Castro are the SAME
people who froth about Clinton. So who knows what to believe? After
all, the US government massacred 80 religious people in Waco, didn't
they?
But the INS did send people to Cuba to look things over. And from
what I've seen and read about Cuba, as bad as it may be, it really
doesn't seem to me to be on par with slavery in the old South. Your
analogy was good - it really made me stop and think. But ultimately,
I just don't think that sending Elian back to Cuba is equivalent to
sending a black child back to Mississippi in 1850. The kid woudn't be
going back to Castro, after all, but to his father.
>
>>>No U.S. law requires the return of Cuban refugee children to Cuba if
>>>one of their parents dies in the act of fleeing that tyranny, & one
>>>parent remains in Cuba. But you want political refugees from
>>>totalitarian tyranny returned to the tyranny they ran away from,
>>>anyways. Just like when your hero FDR sent that shipload of Jewish
>>>refugees from the Nazis back to Europe, with a U.S. Naval escort to
>>>make sure that none of them would try to escape in any of the
>>>lifeboats.
>>
>>Yes, the SS St. Louis thing was a dark spot in US history, IMHO. It
>>is not quite analagous to the Elian Gonzales situation, though, as
>>they were adult refugees who could make their own decisions.
>
>There were no children on board?
If there were, they had their legal guardians with them to make those
decisions, I assume. I could be wrong - but in any case, that's a
whole 'nother issue.
>
>>That was more of a simple denial of asylum.
>>
>>The boy's age makes a big difference in the current case.
>
>Why? Is he not old enough to tell whether he'd prefer living in a
>democratic republic to a totalitarian tyranny?
He's not old enough to understand the concepts. That decision would
be for his parents.
>
>>And actually, I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>father unless the father is unfit.
>
>Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
>his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back in
>Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
That would be okay by me. But if Castro does not allow it, I don't
know that that should be a determining factor.
>
>Cuban refugees have the absolute legal right to stay in the US if they
>make it to the US on their own, as the person in question has done.
As I understand it, he did NOT make it on his own. Was he not rescued
at sea?
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
sez:
>In article <s7n49io...@corp.supernews.com>, berg...@drizzle.com
>(Eric da Red) wrote:
>>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:42:35 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>
>>>His sole parent. Seems logical.
>>>
>>>You should think twice before you urge rules letting the govt take
>>>kids away from their parents.
>>
>>But but but ... his parent lives in a Kommie Kountry. I'll bet he
>>worships Satan, too.
>
>Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border guard,
>the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His father,
>who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return of his
>son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.
>Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to protest
>& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all wearing
>their Swastika armbands.
Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
situation where they were guaranteed to be enslaved or killed. The
question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true. As bad as Cuba might
be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar jeopardy as the kids in
your examples.
>
>You'd be right there, marching with them, wearing your Swastika armband,
>demanding the boy's return.
>
>>When I was that age, I and all of my classmates were forced to say
>>prayers aloud in class. Saying "no" was not an option. Personally,
>>I would have preferred a scarf.
>
>A red scarf, with a white circle in the middle, with a swastika in the
>white circle, no doubt.
Gotta go over the line, eh? Those who disagree with you are Nazi's -
'zat it?
<sigh>
- SemiScholar
Myra Shinkman
: Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
: Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies en
: route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His master
: requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his father,
: organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave families
: together.
: You would naturally be urging Canada to return the boy to his father,
: and his father's master.
: I can recall many times when we libertarians have asked you statists
: whether you'd support enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act because it
: was "the law", the way you ask us to support whatever happens to be "the
: law" today. Thanks for making your answer so clear: you'd not only
: support the Fugitive Slave Act, but you'd advocate its enforcement even
: in the absence of any such law in the jurisdiction in question.
: No U.S. law requires the return of Cuban refugee children to Cuba if one
: of their parents dies in the act of fleeing that tyranny, & one parent
: remains in Cuba. But you want political refugees from totalitarian
: tyranny returned to the tyranny they ran away from, anyways. Just like
: when your hero FDR sent that shipload of Jewish refugees from the Nazis
: back to Europe, with a U.S. Naval escort to make sure that none of them
: would try to escape in any of the lifeboats.
: Tim Starr
Beautifully stated, Tim. Thank you.
Myra
Official Kvetch of the VRWC
____________________
Please direct e-mail to "myra [at] primenet [dot] com"
Mike J, Schneider
wrote:
> In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
> (SemiScholar) wrote:
> >>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
> >>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
> >>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
> >>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
> >>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
> >>families together.
> >
> >Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
> >boy here.
>
> Thank you.
Semi, if you can understand this analogy, you should have no trouble
understanding any number of the other ones advanced in recent discussions
with you.
Carry on.
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
The essence of lying is in deception, not in words; a lie may be told
by silence, by equivocation, by the accent on a syllable, by the glance
of the eyes attaching a peculiar significance to a sentence; and all these
kinds of lies are worse and baser by many degrees than a lie plainly worded.
-- John Ruskin
John H. McCloskey
>
> In article <85ggmj$u9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
> > (SemiScholar) wrote:
> > >>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
> > >>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
> > >>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
> > >>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
> > >>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
> > >>families together.
> > >
> > >Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
> > >boy here.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> Semi, if you can understand this analogy, you should have no trouble
> understanding any number of the other ones advanced in recent discussions
> with you.
>>>
"Slavery : Dred Scott :: Government : John Doe"
--Internet Statist
Billy Beck
SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> sez:
>>Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
>>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border guard,
>>the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His father,
>>who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return of his
>>son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.
>>Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to protest
>>& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all wearing
>>their Swastika armbands.
>
>Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
>with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
>situation where they were guaranteed to be enslaved or killed. The
>question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
>From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true. As bad as Cuba might
>be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar jeopardy as the kids in
>your examples.
Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
potential of his life. By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
gone, and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
won't matter anymore to him.
How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
be better off not being sent back?
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
John T. Kennedy
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:09:03 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>sez:
>
>>In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:33:26 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>>>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:42:35 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>January 10, 2000
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Commentary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>>>>
>>>>>His sole parent. Seems logical.
>>>>
>>>>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
>>>>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
>>>>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
>>>>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
>>>>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>>>>families together.
>>>
>>>Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>>>boy here.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>>I have to admit, that would be a tricky situation.
>>
>>What's tricky about it?
>
>The principle of national sovereignty - if you want other countries to
>observe YOUR sovereignty, you must observe theirs, even if their
>system is not something you agree with. But your analogy does point
>out that there are limits to how much I would be willing to overlook.
>The more I think about it, the more I have to agree with you. In that
>situation, I guess I would have to come down on the side of keeping
>the boy from slavery.
>
>But clearly if the situation involved a boy from, say, Canada, and it
>was just some relatives in the US who wanted the boy (not all that
>farfetched - custody battles happen all the time), I would say send
>the boy to his father. Unless, of course, the father was abusive.
>
>So the question is: is Cuba comparable to slavery? On that score, I
>have to say that I really have no personal basis for judgement.
Are the people coming over on homemade rafts a hint?
>Yes,
>we all have heard stories of murder, torture and thuggery on the part
>of Castro and his henchmen. But then, to hear some of the people on
>the net tell it, those stories could be about Bill Clinton. And some
>of the people who tell those horror stories about Castro are the SAME
>people who froth about Clinton. So who knows what to believe? After
>all, the US government massacred 80 religious people in Waco, didn't
>they?
>
>But the INS did send people to Cuba to look things over. And from
>what I've seen and read about Cuba, as bad as it may be, it really
>doesn't seem to me to be on par with slavery in the old South. Your
>analogy was good - it really made me stop and think. But ultimately,
>I just don't think that sending Elian back to Cuba is equivalent to
>sending a black child back to Mississippi in 1850. The kid woudn't be
>going back to Castro, after all, but to his father.
>
>>
>>>>No U.S. law requires the return of Cuban refugee children to Cuba if
>>>>one of their parents dies in the act of fleeing that tyranny, & one
>>>>parent remains in Cuba. But you want political refugees from
>>>>totalitarian tyranny returned to the tyranny they ran away from,
>>>>anyways. Just like when your hero FDR sent that shipload of Jewish
>>>>refugees from the Nazis back to Europe, with a U.S. Naval escort to
>>>>make sure that none of them would try to escape in any of the
>>>>lifeboats.
>>>
>>>Yes, the SS St. Louis thing was a dark spot in US history, IMHO. It
>>>is not quite analagous to the Elian Gonzales situation, though, as
>>>they were adult refugees who could make their own decisions.
>>
>>There were no children on board?
>
>If there were, they had their legal guardians with them to make those
>decisions, I assume. I could be wrong - but in any case, that's a
>whole 'nother issue.
>
>>
>>>That was more of a simple denial of asylum.
>>>
>>>The boy's age makes a big difference in the current case.
>>
>>Why? Is he not old enough to tell whether he'd prefer living in a
>>democratic republic to a totalitarian tyranny?
>
>He's not old enough to understand the concepts. That decision would
>be for his parents.
>
>>
>>>And actually, I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>>father unless the father is unfit.
>>
>>Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
>>his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back in
>>Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
>
>That would be okay by me. But if Castro does not allow it, I don't
>know that that should be a determining factor.
Why wouldn't he allow it, unless he's running a slave state?
He knows damn well they would defect, is why!
John T. Kennedy
(SemiScholar) wrote:
The argument is made that government servitude here, say through
taxation, is not slavery because you're free to leave.
But that argument doesn't work in Cuba, does it? So why isn't Cuba
slavery?
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:00:41 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:09:03 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>sez:
>>
>>>In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:33:26 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>But clearly if the situation involved a boy from, say, Canada, and it
>>was just some relatives in the US who wanted the boy (not all that
>>farfetched - custody battles happen all the time), I would say send
>>the boy to his father. Unless, of course, the father was abusive.
>>
>>So the question is: is Cuba comparable to slavery? On that score, I
>>have to say that I really have no personal basis for judgement.
>
>Are the people coming over on homemade rafts a hint?
They're coming on rafts from Haiti, too, where you can't use the
excuse of Castro. And they're coming similarly by land from Mexico
and just about every other central american country. Are ALL of those
places comparable to the South of slavery times?
I think the Cubans are primarily fleeing poverty and lack of
opportunity - caused by communism to be sure (and the US's embargo).
They see the US as the Land of Opportunity - Milk & Honey and all
that. And many of them find when they get here that they were quite
mistaken about how rich they would become. But I don't think they are
fleeing slavery.
>>>>And actually, I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>>>father unless the father is unfit.
>>>
>>>Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
>>>his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back in
>>>Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
>>
>>That would be okay by me. But if Castro does not allow it, I don't
>>know that that should be a determining factor.
>
>
>Why wouldn't he allow it, unless he's running a slave state?
Many reasons. But I would point out that the boy's father is a
communist party member and enjoys relatively high status in Cuba. The
boy would not be returned to squalid conditions.
>
>
>He knows damn well they would defect, is why!
The father is a commie. I don't know that he would defect. You know
- some people really believe in Castro and "the revolution". In any
case, the father shouldn't _have_ to come to the US - the US should do
the lawful thing and return the boy.
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
Schneider) wrote:
>In article <85ggmj$u9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>> (SemiScholar) wrote:
>> >>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
>> >>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
>> >>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
>> >>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
>> >>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>> >>families together.
>> >
>> >Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>> >boy here.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>
> Semi, if you can understand this analogy, you should have no trouble
>understanding any number of the other ones advanced in recent discussions
>with you.
>
> Carry on.
?? Like what did you have in mind?
Besides, the analogy doesn't really hold, anyway, because returning
the kid to a family with relatively high status and a position of
relative power in the Cuban system is NOT the equivalent of sending a
black child to a slave state, nor of sending a Jewish kid to Nazi
Germany. This kid will not be abused. In fact, he will enjoy a
situation better than that of most of his fellow Cuban six-year-olds.
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:42:47 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>wrote:
>
>>I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>father unless the father is unfit.
>
>And US law also required returning slaves.
>
>We hold that all men are born with inalienable rights...
Unless slave states want them back. Why quote something that was
obvious bullshit when it was written?
>
>...unless Cuba wants them back.
I would think you would argue that one of those "inalienable rights"
would be the right to raise your own children as you see fit, eh? How
do you square that with your argument that the State should intervene
and prevent a father from raising his own child? Sounds pretty
"statist" to me. What "rights", exactly, would be violated by
returning the kid to his rightful father, all 4 grandparents and
extended family?
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
wrote:
>
>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>>Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> sez:
>
>>>Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
>>>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border guard,
>>>the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His father,
>>>who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return of his
>>>son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.
>>>Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to protest
>>>& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all wearing
>>>their Swastika armbands.
>>
>>Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
>>with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
>>situation where they were guaranteed to be enslaved or killed. The
>>question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
>>From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true. As bad as Cuba might
>>be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar jeopardy as the kids in
>>your examples.
>
> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>potential of his life.
Actually, as the son of a Communist Party member, he'll probably do
pretty well in Cuba. But if your argument is that _everyone_ in Cuba
is destined to a life of poverty, then I have two comments:
1) So what? There are billions of people in the world in that same
boat - do you seriously think it's somehow OUR responsibility to lift
them all out of the poverty caused by their political systems? Sorry,
but I can't agree with that. You can't _give_ people prosperity -
they have to earn it themselves.
2) I'd like to see your crystal ball that you think allows you to see
the future, because I think it's defective. Mine tells me that Castro
isn't long for this earth, and when he goes, the walls will fall.
Soon afterwards, Cuba will change drastically (it already is making
big changes), and has every likelihood of prospering.
> By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>gone,
He's SIX YEARS OLD - he doesn't know anything of the two countries
now.
> and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>won't matter anymore to him.
It doesn't really matter to him NOW. It's just the adults who are
upset over all this.
>
> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>be better off not being sent back?
He would have to be in imminent bodily danger. Otherwise, why don't
we just go into Appalachian communities and yank kids away from their
parents and send them off to live with rich folks? Since when does
the poverty of a family justify stealing their children? Aside from
which - Elian Gonzalez's family in Cuba is middle class. There is NO
evidence that the kid would be mistreated in any way - in fact, all
the evidence we DO have suggests just the opposite.
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
If you think that's what slavery is, then you have NO idea what it
meant to be black in Mississippi in 1850. Sheesh!
Aside from which, your position seems to me to be the ULTIMATE in
statism - you're saying that a government - and a FOREIGN one at that
- has the right to keep a child from his loving, middle class,
non-abusive, biological custodial parent. I don't know how much more
statist you can get than that.
- SemiScholar
Eric da Red
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>>Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> sez:
>>>Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
>>>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border guard,
>>>the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His father,
>>>who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return of his
>>>son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.
>>>Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to protest
>>>& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all wearing
>>>their Swastika armbands.
>>Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
>>with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
>>situation where they were guaranteed to be enslaved or killed. The
>>question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
>>From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true. As bad as Cuba might
>>be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar jeopardy as the kids in
>>your examples.
> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>potential of his life.
A condition shared by millions of American kids.
Anyone concerned about the economic well-being of this Cuban child should
suggest that he live in a country with a solid infrastructure supporting
the development of children. Norway would be a good choice.
...
> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>be better off not being sent back?
He might be better off here. In the view of the INS, "being better off"
is usually given less weight than "living with parents."
If you'd like the US government to enact laws allowing it to decide where
children would be better off regardless of the location of the parents,
please let your Congressperson know. Based upon the actions of Congress
in the past couple of weeks, your suggestion will get a favorable
reception.
cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>If you think that's what slavery is, then you have NO idea what it
>meant to be black in Mississippi in 1850. Sheesh!
...and you do? ROTFLOL What an ignorant fool.
Ace
cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>When I was that age, I and all of my classmates were forced to say prayers
>aloud in class. Saying "no" was not an option. Personally, I would have
>preferred a scarf.
Oh, you poor little dear. <snicker>
Ace
Tim Starr
SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:09:03 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>sez:
>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>>>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>January 10, 2000
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Commentary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>>>>
>>>>>His sole parent. Seems logical.
>>>>
>>>>to Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She
>>>>dies en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina.
>>>>His master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to
>>>>his father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>>>>families together.
>>>
>>>Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>>>boy here.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>
>>What's tricky about it?
>
>The principle of national sovereignty - if you want other countries to
>observe YOUR sovereignty, you must observe theirs, even if their
>system is not something you agree with.
1) Cuban sovereignty isn't threatened by the US if the US doesn't do
Castro's bidding by returning one of his escaped slaves.
2) Castro has violated the sovereignty of many other countries during
his decades-long rule in Latin America & Africa. He's supported commie
terrorists in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, Venezuela,
Colombia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. He's sent military "advisors" to
Ethiopia, & engaged in a full-scale military invasion of Angola in
support of the MPLA. This is aside from Castro's request that the
Soviets launch a pre-emptive, first-strike, nuclear missle attack
against the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was arguably
provoked by US violation of Cuban sovereignty; even though I believe
that argument false, I'll stipulate it for the same of argument. But
none of the rest of the countries of Latin America or Africa ever
threatened Cuban sovereignty.
>But your analogy does point out that there are limits to how much I
>would be willing to overlook. The more I think about it, the more I
>have to agree with you. In that situation, I guess I would have to
>come down on the side of keeping the boy from slavery.
>
>But clearly if the situation involved a boy from, say, Canada, and it
>was just some relatives in the US who wanted the boy (not all that
>farfetched - custody battles happen all the time), I would say send
>the boy to his father. Unless, of course, the father was abusive.
>
>So the question is: is Cuba comparable to slavery? On that score, I
>have to say that I really have no personal basis for judgement. Yes,
>we all have heard stories of murder, torture and thuggery on the part
>of Castro and his henchmen. But then, to hear some of the people on
>the net tell it, those stories could be about Bill Clinton. And some
>of the people who tell those horror stories about Castro are the SAME
>people who froth about Clinton. So who knows what to believe? After
>all, the US government massacred 80 religious people in Waco, didn't
>they?
Forget who said what, & look at the political regimes in the societies
in question. Cuba is a totalitarian state, ruled by an unelected
dictator who came to power by force, who has proven willing to use
violence against the people of his own country & against those of other
countries through Latin America & Africa. There is no freedom of
speech, assembly, or religion in Cuba. There is no freedom from
unreasonable searches & seizures in Cuba. There is no right to due
process of law in Cuba. There is no right to trial by jury in Cuba,
nor any protection against excessive punishment. These are all the
parts of the Bill of Rights which left-wing civil libertarians
supposedly care about.
If you must go by who says what, what does Amnesty International have to
say about Cuba:
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/amr25.htm
AI tells a story of Cuba as a country where thoughtcrimes are punished
with prison sentences, where political dissidents are intimidated,
verbally & physically assaulted, where police routinely beat suspects,
where the accused has no right to legal representation in criminal
trials, & where hundreds of political prisoners have been held in recent
times, many of whom are still being held prisoner.
>But the INS did send people to Cuba to look things over. And from
>what I've seen and read about Cuba, as bad as it may be, it really
>doesn't seem to me to be on par with slavery in the old South. Your
>analogy was good - it really made me stop and think. But ultimately,
>I just don't think that sending Elian back to Cuba is equivalent to
>sending a black child back to Mississippi in 1850.
Why not?
>The kid woudn't be going back to Castro, after all, but to his father.
The slave child wouldn't be going back to his master, but to his father,
in my analogy. But he would end up under the rule of his master, just
as the boy will end up under the rule of Castro if he's returned to his
father in Cuba.
[snip]
>>>That was more of a simple denial of asylum.
>>>
>>>The boy's age makes a big difference in the current case.
>>
>>Why? Is he not old enough to tell whether he'd prefer living in a
>>democratic republic to a totalitarian tyranny?
>
>He's not old enough to understand the concepts.
How do you know? How old does one have to be to tell whether
totalitarianism is better than democracy?
>That decision would be for his parents.
It was decided by the parent that had custody of him - his mother. If
she were still alive, do you think she would want him returned to Cuba,
after she lost her life in the attempt to escape & bring her boy to
freedom?
>>>And actually, I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>>father unless the father is unfit.
>>
>>Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
>>his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back
>>in Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
>
>That would be okay by me. But if Castro does not allow it, I don't
>know that that should be a determining factor.
If Castro cares so much about reuniting the family, why doesn't he let
the family come to get the boy?
>>Cuban refugees have the absolute legal right to stay in the US if
>>they make it to the US on their own, as the person in question has
>>done.
>
>As I understand it, he did NOT make it on his own. Was he not rescued
>at sea?
He was found in US territorial waters off Miami, floating by holding
onto an inner tube. He made it to US territory without US help. That
means he automatically qualifies for political asylum.
Tim Starr
nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:52:16 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:00:41 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:09:03 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>sez:
>>>
>>>>In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:33:26 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>
>>>it was just some relatives in the US who wanted the boy (not all that
>>>farfetched - custody battles happen all the time), I would say send
>>>the boy to his father. Unless, of course, the father was abusive.
>>>
>>>So the question is: is Cuba comparable to slavery? On that score, I
>>>have to say that I really have no personal basis for judgement.
>>
>
>They're coming on rafts from Haiti, too, where you can't use the
>excuse of Castro.
Haiti suffered under the rule of the Duvalier dictatorship (Papa & Baby
Doc) for decades, just as Cuba has suffered under Castro. The remnants
of those decades is still alive & well in Haiti, unfortunately.
>And they're coming similarly by land from Mexico and just about every
>other central american country. Are ALL of those places comparable to
>the South of slavery times?
Why don't you ask those refugees? Besides, name another Latin American
country which is still ruled by a totalitarian dictator that refugees
are fleeing, risking their lives to get to freedom in the USA?
>I think the Cubans are primarily fleeing poverty and lack of
>opportunity...
12 out of 13 people on the boat Elian Gonzalez was on died when the boat
sank. Do you really think that they risked their lives just so they
could make a little more money?
>- caused by communism to be sure...
Yes.
>(and the US's embargo).
No. Taiwan is embargoed by China, but that hasn't stopped Taiwan from
getting rich.
>They see the US as the Land of Opportunity - Milk & Honey and all
>that. And many of them find when they get here that they were quite
>mistaken about how rich they would become.
Cuban-Americans are the most successful group of immigrants to the US
from Latin America. They're one of the most successful groups of
immigrants to the US, period.
>But I don't think they are fleeing slavery.
Cuba is a one-party totalitarian regime ruled by an unelected dictator,
a police state without civil liberties such as due process of law where
police routinely beat prisoners, where people are imprisoned for
thoughtcrimes, where there's no freedom of speech, religion, or
assembly. I won't repeat all that I've said about Cuba in a previous
post. Just ask Amnesty International, or look up the level of freedom
in Cuba on any international comparison of human rights.
How much worse would things have to be in Cuba for you to be willing to
call it "slavery"?
[snip]
>Many reasons. But I would point out that the boy's father is a
>communist party member and enjoys relatively high status in Cuba.
So is Castro's daughter. She hates him, & defected to the USA. Castro
abandoned his wife & his own son, until he wanted his son back. Then
he had his son taken away from his wife, who had left him. Why does he
care so much about the Gonzalez family, if he cared to little about his
own?
>The boy would not be returned to squalid conditions.
Better to be a poor man in a free country than an apparatchik in a
totalitarian regime.
>>He knows damn well they would defect, is why!
>
>The father is a commie.
Says he is, while under Castro's power, that is.
Joseph R. Darancette
wrote:
>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:42:35 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >January 10, 2000
>> >
>> >Commentary
>> >
>> >What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>
>> His sole parent. Seems logical.
>
Strip off all the social/political bullshit and you have to realize
that the fathers right and duty are being infringed. There should be
compelling reasons for taking a child from his biological parents. The
fact that Florida has Disney World and Cuba does not is not enough.
Because of who you are, Where you live, Because of your political
beliefs, None of those things gives you the right to steal my children
>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies en
>route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His master
>requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his father,
>organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave families
>together.
>
>You would naturally be urging Canada to return the boy to his father,
>and his father's master.
>
>I can recall many times when we libertarians have asked you statists
>whether you'd support enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act because it
>was "the law", the way you ask us to support whatever happens to be "the
>law" today. Thanks for making your answer so clear: you'd not only
>support the Fugitive Slave Act, but you'd advocate its enforcement even
>in the absence of any such law in the jurisdiction in question.
>
>No U.S. law requires the return of Cuban refugee children to Cuba if one
>of their parents dies in the act of fleeing that tyranny, & one parent
>remains in Cuba. But you want political refugees from totalitarian
>tyranny returned to the tyranny they ran away from, anyways. Just like
>when your hero FDR sent that shipload of Jewish refugees from the Nazis
>back to Europe, with a U.S. Naval escort to make sure that none of them
>would try to escape in any of the lifeboats.
>
>Tim Starr
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Joseph R. Darancette
Schneider) wrote:
>In article <85ggmj$u9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>> (SemiScholar) wrote:
>> >>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
>> >>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
>> >>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
>> >>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
>> >>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>> >>families together.
>> >
>> >Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>> >boy here.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>
> Semi, if you can understand this analogy, you should have no trouble
>understanding any number of the other ones advanced in recent discussions
>with you.
>
> Carry on.
>
The bottom line is that we are willing to take this child from his
father because we don't like Fidel Castro and we know what's better
for him. It's tough to justify theft.
>
>Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
>Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
>
>The essence of lying is in deception, not in words; a lie may be told
>by silence, by equivocation, by the accent on a syllable, by the glance
>of the eyes attaching a peculiar significance to a sentence; and all these
>kinds of lies are worse and baser by many degrees than a lie plainly worded.
> -- John Ruskin
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Joseph R. Darancette
wrote:
>
>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>>Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> sez:
>
>>>Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
>>>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border guard,
>>>the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His father,
>>>who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return of his
>>>son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.
>>>Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to protest
>>>& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all wearing
>>>their Swastika armbands.
>>
>>Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
>>with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
>>situation where they were guaranteed to be enslaved or killed. The
>>question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
>>From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true. As bad as Cuba might
>>be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar jeopardy as the kids in
>>your examples.
>
> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>potential of his life. By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>gone, and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>won't matter anymore to him.
>
> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>be better off not being sent back?
>
Could you justify going into say North Korea, stealing babies and
shipping them to the US solely on the grounds that they will have a
better life?
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Tim Starr
(SemiScholar) wrote:
[snip]
>Besides, the analogy doesn't really hold, anyway, because returning
>the kid to a family with relatively high status and a position of
>relative power in the Cuban system is NOT the equivalent of sending a
>black child to a slave state, nor of sending a Jewish kid to Nazi
>Germany.
Then why did his mother lose her life in the effort to bring him to a
free country?
Now, your argument is that the boy will be fine because he won't be
returned to be a slave, he'll be returned to be a slavemaster. So, I
will have to amend my analogy a bit: the slave woman's son was by the
master she ran away from, & her master wants his son back. You say that
won't be so bad, because his master will treat him well, & maybe even
let him whip the other slaves himself.
Which is more cruel, returning the boy to be a slave, or returning him
to be a slavemaster?
Tim Starr
nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:20:32 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:42:47 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>father unless the father is unfit.
>>
>>
>>We hold that all men are born with inalienable rights...
>
>Unless slave states want them back. Why quote something that was
>obvious bullshit when it was written?
The tacit exception was the bullshit, not the principle.
>>...unless Cuba wants them back.
>
>I would think you would argue that one of those "inalienable rights"
>would be the right to raise your own children as you see fit, eh?
Not if that means violating the rights of my children.
>How do you square that with your argument that the State should
>intervene and prevent a father from raising his own child?
The boy's not in the custody of his father, the boy was in the custody
of his mother, & she lost her life in the effort to get him to freedom.
Her wish should be honored. I'm sure there are plenty of people here in
the USA who would be willing to adopt him. I'm sure he'd have a much
better life here in the USA than he would back in Cuba.
>Sounds pretty "statist" to me. What "rights", exactly, would be
>violated by returning the kid to his rightful father, all 4
>grandparents and extended family?
The child's right to live in a relatively free country, instead of a
totalitarian dictatorship.
Billy Beck
dar...@uia.net (Joseph R. Darancette) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>>potential of his life. By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>>gone, and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>>won't matter anymore to him.
>>
>> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>>be better off not being sent back?
>>
>Could you justify going into say North Korea, stealing babies and
>shipping them to the US solely on the grounds that they will have a
>better life?
No, but that's a change of context. The plain fact that
conditions this matter is that people aren't swimming off the shores
of North Korea in order to escape with their children, some of them
dying in the process. They're swimming away from Cuba, with their
kids. "Solely" is a key point of the context change. It's not
"solely" about the quality of their lives: it's also about taking the
initiative to escape, which this kid's mother engaged. If she hadn't
died in the attempt, we never would have heard of him. That's the
only thing that opened any of this to scrutiny.
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
(snip)
>I think the Cubans are primarily fleeing poverty and lack of
>opportunity - caused by communism to be sure (and the US's embargo).
>They see the US as the Land of Opportunity - Milk & Honey and all
>that. And many of them find when they get here that they were quite
>mistaken about how rich they would become.
Hence the massive raft traffic BACK to Cuba.
> But I don't think they are fleeing slavery.
Why isn't it slavery if they can't leave?
(snip)
>>>>
>>>>Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
>>>>his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back in
>>>>Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
>>>
>>>That would be okay by me. But if Castro does not allow it, I don't
>>>know that that should be a determining factor.
>>
>>
>>Why wouldn't he allow it, unless he's running a slave state?
>
>Many reasons.
Many? Then you'll have no difficulty naming three.
The reasons would be?
>But I would point out that the boy's father is a
>communist party member and enjoys relatively high status in Cuba. The
>boy would not be returned to squalid conditions.
It's not about economic standard of living, it's about the child's
inalienable rights.
>
>>
>>
>>He knows damn well they would defect, is why!
>
>The father is a commie. I don't know that he would defect.
Bring the whole family over and you'll see massive defection. Again,
why aren't they free to come if they're not slaves?
Can the Cuban government conceivably have any right to prevent it's
citizens from emigrating?
>You know
>- some people really believe in Castro and "the revolution". In any
>case, the father shouldn't _have_ to come to the US - the US should do
>the lawful thing and return the boy.
Just as you would return a slave to his lawful owner? The law is the
law, eh?
-
John T. Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
John T. Kennedy
Darancette) wrote:
>The bottom line is that we are willing to take this child from his
>father because we don't like Fidel Castro and we know what's better
>for him. It's tough to justify theft.
No, the bottom line is that you don't have the right to deliver this
child into bondage under a totalitarian regime. He's here, you don't
have a right to put him back
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:33:47 -0600, im...@supertitan.com (Mike J,
>Schneider) wrote:
>
>>In article <85ggmj$u9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>> (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>> >>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
>>> >>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
>>> >>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
>>> >>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
>>> >>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>>> >>families together.
>>> >
>>> >Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>>> >boy here.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> Semi, if you can understand this analogy, you should have no trouble
>>understanding any number of the other ones advanced in recent discussions
>>with you.
>>
>> Carry on.
>
>
>?? Like what did you have in mind?
>
>Besides, the analogy doesn't really hold, anyway, because returning
>the kid to a family with relatively high status and a position of
>relative power in the Cuban system is NOT the equivalent of sending a
>black child to a slave state, nor of sending a Jewish kid to Nazi
>Germany.
Sure it is.
> This kid will not be abused. In fact, he will enjoy a
>situation better than that of most of his fellow Cuban six-year-olds.
Is that the test? If a house nigger is well cared for then he's not a
slave?
Laying asid their bondage for a moment, weren't there some slaves who
were fairly well treated, not particularly abused, who enjoyed better
standard of living than free many Africans of the same age?
Were they any less slaves because of their standard of living?
Take the alleged slave mistress of Thomas Jefferson. It seems clear
she had a much higher standard of living than most free Africans of
that time, and was apparently abused very little in the sense you
indicate. But you know what? She was still a slave. And if she
escaped would you have returned her to her "owner" because that was
the law?
That's what you want to do with this boy, redeliver him into bondage.
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:20:32 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:42:47 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>>father unless the father is unfit.
>>
>>And US law also required returning slaves.
>>
>>We hold that all men are born with inalienable rights...
>
>Unless slave states want them back. Why quote something that was
>obvious bullshit when it was written?
It wasn't bullshit, they simply looked the other way, to their
profound disgrace.
But thanks for making clear where you stand.
If men don't have inalienable rights, what was wrong with slavery?
>
>>
>>...unless Cuba wants them back.
>
>I would think you would argue that one of those "inalienable rights"
>would be the right to raise your own children as you see fit, eh?
Not to deliver them into slavery, no.
> How
>do you square that with your argument that the State should intervene
>and prevent a father from raising his own child? Sounds pretty
>"statist" to me.
Bullshit, you're grasping at straws. The boy is here, your state has
to intervene to put him back.
You and your gang don't have any right to deliver this boy back to a
totalitarian dictatorship. Just leave him alone.
> What "rights", exactly, would be violated by
>returning the kid to his rightful father, all 4 grandparents and
>extended family?
The boy's right to freedom.
John T. Kennedy
Darancette) wrote:
>Strip off all the social/political bullshit and you have to realize
>that the fathers right and duty are being infringed. There should be
>compelling reasons for taking a child from his biological parents. The
>fact that Florida has Disney World and Cuba does not is not enough.
You don't have any right to deliver this boy back into bondage under a
totalitarian dictatorship.
>
>Because of who you are, Where you live, Because of your political
>beliefs, None of those things gives you the right to steal my children
Do you have a right to send your children into slavery if you think
that's where they belong?
A parent's custodianship is important but temporary. Someday this boy
would be free of his parent's guidance, but if you send him back to
Cuba you steal a freedom from him that may never be restored. He may
be in thrall to that dictatorship for another century, you don't know.
All you know is that he's free of that now. And you have no right to
put him back in it.
The parent's right to raise his child cannot trump the child's right
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:30:31 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> sez:
>>
>>>>Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
>>>>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border guard,
>>>>the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His father,
>>>>who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return of his
>>>>son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.
>>>>Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to protest
>>>>& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all wearing
>>>>their Swastika armbands.
>>>
>>>Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
>>>with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
>>>situation where they were guaranteed to be enslaved or killed. The
>>>question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
>>>From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true. As bad as Cuba might
>>>be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar jeopardy as the kids in
>>>your examples.
>>
>> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>>potential of his life.
>
>Actually, as the son of a Communist Party member, he'll probably do
>pretty well in Cuba. But if your argument is that _everyone_ in Cuba
>is destined to a life of poverty, then I have two comments:
It's not about poverty, rest assured Beck's argument had nothing to do
with that.
>
>1) So what? There are billions of people in the world in that same
>boat - do you seriously think it's somehow OUR responsibility to lift
>them all out of the poverty caused by their political systems? Sorry,
>but I can't agree with that. You can't _give_ people prosperity -
>they have to earn it themselves.
No, it's not your responsibility to save anyone, including this boy.
But you have no right to deliver him into bondage.
>
>2) I'd like to see your crystal ball that you think allows you to see
>the future, because I think it's defective. Mine tells me that Castro
>isn't long for this earth, and when he goes, the walls will fall.
>Soon afterwards, Cuba will change drastically (it already is making
>big changes), and has every likelihood of prospering.
And if you're wrong, worst case the kid lives 80-90 years under a
totalitarian dictatorship. Well maybe that's not the worst case. Sure
I can see why you're willing to roll thiose dice, even though they're
not yours to roll.
>
>> By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>>gone,
>
>He's SIX YEARS OLD - he doesn't know anything of the two countries
>now.
>
>> and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>>won't matter anymore to him.
>
>It doesn't really matter to him NOW. It's just the adults who are
>upset over all this.
Right. So send him back to Cuba and if he doesn't like it when he's 21
he can just leave. Ooops, no....
>
>>
>> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>>be better off not being sent back?
>
>He would have to be in imminent bodily danger. Otherwise, why don't
>we just go into Appalachian communities and yank kids away from their
>parents and send them off to live with rich folks? Since when does
>the poverty of a family justify stealing their children?
It's not about poverty, pinhead, and we didn't steal him.
> Aside from
>which - Elian Gonzalez's family in Cuba is middle class. There is NO
>evidence that the kid would be mistreated in any way - in fact, all
>the evidence we DO have suggests just the opposite.
Isn't the fact that none of them can leave Cuba mistreatment?
Philip Bourgeois
that families were separated?
Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85j2j8$qkt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Martin McPhillips
>Isn't the fact that none of them can leave Cuba mistreatment?
Cut the child in half. Give one half to Fidel and the other half
to Clinton.
Neither will object.
John T. Kennedy
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:07:21 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:05:33 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>
>>The argument is made that government servitude here, say through
>>taxation, is not slavery because you're free to leave.
>>
>>But that argument doesn't work in Cuba, does it? So why isn't Cuba
>>slavery?
>
>If you think that's what slavery is, then you have NO idea what it
>meant to be black in Mississippi in 1850. Sheesh!
A slave COULD live in a nice mansion with Thomas Jefferson and be
treated very well. Did that make her any less a slave?
>
>Aside from which, your position seems to me to be the ULTIMATE in
>statism - you're saying that a government - and a FOREIGN one at that
>- has the right to keep a child from his loving, middle class,
>non-abusive, biological custodial parent.
I've said nothing of the sort. I've said you and your gang have no
right to deliver the child into bondage.
> I don't know...
...what you're talking about.
>how much more
>statist you can get than that.
-
John T. Kennedy
Darancette) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:30:31 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> sez:
>>
>>>>Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
>>>>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border guard,
>>>>the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His father,
>>>>who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return of his
>>>>son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.
>>>>Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to protest
>>>>& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all wearing
>>>>their Swastika armbands.
>>>
>>>Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
>>>with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
>>>situation where they were guaranteed to be enslaved or killed. The
>>>question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
>>>From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true. As bad as Cuba might
>>>be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar jeopardy as the kids in
>>>your examples.
>>
>> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>>potential of his life. By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>>gone, and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>>won't matter anymore to him.
>>
>> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>>be better off not being sent back?
>>
>Could you justify going into say North Korea, stealing babies and
>shipping them to the US solely on the grounds that they will have a
>better life?
If by better life you mean freedom from a totalitatian dictatorship,
there would be nothing immoral about liberating children. They're not
property and they have a right to freedom.
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>
>dar...@uia.net (Joseph R. Darancette) wrote:
>
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>>>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>>>potential of his life. By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>>>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>>>gone, and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>>>won't matter anymore to him.
>>>
>>> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>>>be better off not being sent back?
>>>
>>Could you justify going into say North Korea, stealing babies and
>>shipping them to the US solely on the grounds that they will have a
>>better life?
>
> No, but that's a change of context. The plain fact that
>conditions this matter is that people aren't swimming off the shores
>of North Korea in order to escape with their children, some of them
>dying in the process. They're swimming away from Cuba, with their
>kids. "Solely" is a key point of the context change. It's not
>"solely" about the quality of their lives: it's also about taking the
>initiative to escape, which this kid's mother engaged. If she hadn't
>died in the attempt, we never would have heard of him. That's the
>only thing that opened any of this to scrutiny.
North Korea is every bit the slave state Cuba is, what's immoral about
freeing a slave, Billy?
Not saying anyone has to do it, but that wasn't the question. Why
wouldn't it be justified?
John T. Kennedy
<Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>Interesting analogy Slavery, wasn't one of the horrors of slavery the fact
>that families were separated?
Analogy nothing, does Cuba have any right to prevent all it's citizens
from leaving?
John T. Kennedy
Semi & Co. look at the boy as an animal, as long as he's reasonably
well treated it's okay to put him in a pen.
Martin McPhillips
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:14:06 -0500, "Martin McPhillips"
><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>
>>John T. Kennedy wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Isn't the fact that none of them can leave Cuba mistreatment?
>>
>>
>>Cut the child in half. Give one half to Fidel and the other half
>>to Clinton.
>>
>>Neither will object.
>>
>
>Semi & Co. look at the boy as an animal, as long as he's reasonably
>well treated it's okay to put him in a pen.
The child is an animal. Did you not see him grab the eyeglasses
off of the face of his elderly guardian? Do we tolerate that kind of
*senior* *abuse* in the United States in this day and age?
I think not.
Halve the child. Fidel won't know the difference. And the Clintons
spoke a few years ago of having another child. They're so humble,
they'll settle for just a half.
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>In article <s7pegp...@corp.supernews.com>,
> berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
>> In article <387c6b40...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> > Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven.
>He's
>> >probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>> >potential of his life.
>>
>> A condition shared by millions of American kids.
>
>Bullshit. The average Cuban person is worse off now, economically, than
>they were when Castro took power in the late 1950s. The average poor
>person in America is much better off now than the average poor person
>was in the late 1950s.
You're right, but you know what? It's a just a diversion. If he were
facing poverty here still nobody would have a right to deliver him
back to a totalitarian dictatorship in Cuba even if he'd live a life
of luxury there.
"You know what? This runaway slave would be better of back at Mister
Jefferson's big fine house. He'll be treated well."
>
>Tim Starr
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
-
John T. Kennedy
Darancette) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:42:17 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:41:13 GMT, dar...@uia.net (Joseph R.
>>Darancette) wrote:
>>
>>>The bottom line is that we are willing to take this child from his
>>>father because we don't like Fidel Castro and we know what's better
>>>for him. It's tough to justify theft.
>>
>>
>>No, the bottom line is that you don't have the right to deliver this
>>child into bondage under a totalitarian regime. He's here, you don't
>>have a right to put him back
>
>I neither claim nor assert any rights in reguards to this child.
Then leave him alone.
>Those belong to his father.
His father has a right to deliver him into slavery?
John T. Kennedy
Darancette) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:59:10 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:41:11 GMT, dar...@uia.net (Joseph R.
>>Darancette) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Strip off all the social/political bullshit and you have to realize
>>>that the fathers right and duty are being infringed. There should be
>>>compelling reasons for taking a child from his biological parents. The
>>>fact that Florida has Disney World and Cuba does not is not enough.
>>
>>You don't have any right to deliver this boy back into bondage under a
>>totalitarian dictatorship.
>>
>Correct. I have no rights what so ever in reguards to this child. The
>rights belong to the father and the child.
Yes.
> >
>>>Because of who you are, Where you live, Because of your political
>>>beliefs, None of those things gives you the right to steal my children
>>
>>Do you have a right to send your children into slavery if you think
>>that's where they belong?
>>
>In a word ... Yes. As bad as it sounds. Yes.
Well you're wrong. Though a parent may have special rights with regard
to custodianship of the child, those rights cannot supercede the
fundamental inalienbale rights of the child.
The child is not property.
If the parent has the right to deliver the child into slavery, then
how about into an oven? A sausage grinder?
No.
>
>>A parent's custodianship is important but temporary. Someday this boy
>>would be free of his parent's guidance, but if you send him back to
>>Cuba you steal a freedom from him that may never be restored. He may
>>be in thrall to that dictatorship for another century, you don't know.
>>
>>All you know is that he's free of that now. And you have no right to
>>put him back in it.
>>
>I don't have that right, neither do you . Only the father.
No.
>
>>The parent's right to raise his child cannot trump the child's right
>>to freedom.
>>
>What freedom is this?
Freedom from bondage.
>The freedom of a foreign government to take his
>child?
No government took his child.
>Freedom to give Abortions to children without the parents
>consent?
Total non sequitor.
>Over half the children in the world live in non-free societies. Are
>the rights and responsibilites of their parents therefore null and
>void?
Of course not. But they do not have a right to deliver those children
into slavery.
John T. Kennedy
<cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>John T. Kennedy wrote in message
><8lhq7s4phbnmg63eb...@4ax.com>...
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:14:06 -0500, "Martin McPhillips"
>><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>
>>>John T. Kennedy wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>Isn't the fact that none of them can leave Cuba mistreatment?
>>>
>>>
>>>Cut the child in half. Give one half to Fidel and the other half
>>>to Clinton.
>>>
>>>Neither will object.
>>>
>>
>>Semi & Co. look at the boy as an animal, as long as he's reasonably
>>well treated it's okay to put him in a pen.
>
>
>The child is an animal. Did you not see him grab the eyeglasses
>off of the face of his elderly guardian? Do we tolerate that kind of
>*senior* *abuse* in the United States in this day and age?
>
>I think not.
>
>Halve the child. Fidel won't know the difference. And the Clintons
>spoke a few years ago of having another child. They're so humble,
>they'll settle for just a half.
You're a sick bastard Martin, I hope your parents read this.
Philip Bourgeois
John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:schq7skc57u52lf43...@4ax.com...
fact
> >that families were separated?
>
> from leaving?
John T. Kennedy
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:49:54 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>sez:
>
>>In article <387cc3dc....@news.visi.com>,
>>nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:52:16 -0500, John T. Kennedy
>>><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:00:41 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:09:03 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>>>sez:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>>>>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:33:26 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>But clearly if the situation involved a boy from, say, Canada, and
>>>>>it was just some relatives in the US who wanted the boy (not all that
>>>>>farfetched - custody battles happen all the time), I would say send
>>>>>the boy to his father. Unless, of course, the father was abusive.
>>>>>
>>>>>So the question is: is Cuba comparable to slavery? On that score, I
>>>>>have to say that I really have no personal basis for judgement.
>>>>
>>>>Are the people coming over on homemade rafts a hint?
>>>
>>>They're coming on rafts from Haiti, too, where you can't use the
>>>excuse of Castro.
>>
>>Haiti suffered under the rule of the Duvalier dictatorship (Papa & Baby
>>Doc) for decades, just as Cuba has suffered under Castro. The remnants
>>of those decades is still alive & well in Haiti, unfortunately.
>
>Fine. But if the boy were from Haiti, and his father was a
>middle-class security guard in Haiti who said he wanted his son back,
>would you send him back?
>
>>
>>>And they're coming similarly by land from Mexico and just about every
>>>other central american country. Are ALL of those places comparable to
>>>the South of slavery times?
>>
>>Why don't you ask those refugees?
>
>Are they on the net?
>
>> Besides, name another Latin American
>>country which is still ruled by a totalitarian dictator that refugees
>>are fleeing, risking their lives to get to freedom in the USA?
>
>Haiti. You said that Cuba was comparable to slavery, and your
>evidence was that people were risking their lives on rafts to get
>here. Well, Haitians are similarly risking their lives. So is Haiti
>a slave state also? ANd Mexicans and other Central Americans lose
>their lives trying to come in across the desert with more frequency
>than we care to admit. Those people are willing to risk their lives
>to come in from Mexico. Is Mexico a slave state also? If this kid's
>father was a middle class Mexican security guard, would you still keep
>him and his father apart?
Here is the test: Are people free to leave Haiti? If so, then there
would be nothing wrong with returning the child to a parent there.
Same for the other countries.
Cuba fails the test.
>
>
>>
>>>I think the Cubans are primarily fleeing poverty and lack of
>>>opportunity...
>>
>>12 out of 13 people on the boat Elian Gonzalez was on died when the boat
>>sank. Do you really think that they risked their lives just so they
>>could make a little more money?
>
>A vanful of mexicans dies in the desert. Did they risk their lives
>"just so they could make a little more money"? Besides, it doesn't
>matter - the kid belongs with his father. The kid is not in any
>physical danger in Cuba, and his family is middle class.
>
>>
>>>- caused by communism to be sure...
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>(and the US's embargo).
>>
>>No. Taiwan is embargoed by China, but that hasn't stopped Taiwan from
>>getting rich.
>
>Oh, please...
>
>>
>>>They see the US as the Land of Opportunity - Milk & Honey and all
>>>that. And many of them find when they get here that they were quite
>>>mistaken about how rich they would become.
>>
>>Cuban-Americans are the most successful group of immigrants to the US
>>from Latin America. They're one of the most successful groups of
>>immigrants to the US, period.
>
>Not all of them.
>
>>
>>>But I don't think they are fleeing slavery.
>>
>>Cuba is a one-party totalitarian regime ruled by an unelected dictator,
>>a police state without civil liberties such as due process of law where
>>police routinely beat prisoners, where people are imprisoned for
>>thoughtcrimes, where there's no freedom of speech, religion, or
>>assembly. I won't repeat all that I've said about Cuba in a previous
>>post. Just ask Amnesty International, or look up the level of freedom
>>in Cuba on any international comparison of human rights.
>
>Hey, I know what goes on in Cuba. But on a day-to-day living basis,
>it's not comparable to slave-era Alabama.
How about to Monticello? Would you return a slave to Mr. Jefferson? He
might live better there than some Cubans do today.
Is slavery okay if the human property is well treated?
>Aside from which - your
>analogy was for a black child to be returned to the slave states.
>Elian is not the equivalent of a minority slave boy marked by his
>color. He is of the ruling class in Cuba - his father is a communist
>party member. You might not like some of the atrocities that take
>plce there, but there's no indication that the boy would be subject to
>any particular cruelty.
He would have no freedom to leave Cuba, now would he?
The slaves on Thomas Jefferson's estate may not have been subject to
cruelty, would that make them any less slaves?
>
>>
>>How much worse would things have to be in Cuba for you to be willing to
>>call it "slavery"?
>
>The boy would have to be confined to a plantation, in constant danger
>of physical mistreatment, treated like livestock, bred with females
>chosen by his owners for the purpose of producing livestock that can
>be sold, be owned by someone as a piece of property, removed from his
>family against the family's will, worked to the bone by overseers and
>not allowed to own anything but his pants and have no hope of ever
>being anything else. As bad as Cuba might be, it ain't as bad as
>being black in Alabama in 1850.
So the supposed slaves on Jefferson's estate were not slaves after all
if they don't meet all of those criteria? I don't think he treated
them as livestock, he may have let them have shirts as well as pants,
and I think some of them did have reasonble hopes they might be free
some day.
Either they weren't slaves, or your criteria for slavery are not
entirely appropriate. Which is it?
You also qualify some of thos criteria with "can". Which of those
things can't Cuba do to him?
>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Many reasons. But I would point out that the boy's father is a
>>>communist party member and enjoys relatively high status in Cuba.
>>
>>So is Castro's daughter. She hates him, & defected to the USA.
>
>And when Elian is an adult, he can make his own decision.
To ,leave Cuba?
Uh, no he can't. That's the point.
> In the
>meantime, I believe that one of mankind's most precious "rights" is to
>family. I believe that the State should only intervene in family
>matters in cases where the child is in imminent physical danger.
His father's right to raise him cannot trump his right to freedom.
You're state doesn't have to intervene, leave him alone.
>
>> Castro
>>abandoned his wife & his own son, until he wanted his son back. Then
>>he had his son taken away from his wife, who had left him. Why does he
>>care so much about the Gonzalez family, if he cared to little about his
>>own?
>
>Frankly, Castro has nothing to do with this. Whether Castro is alive
>or dead, the boy belongs with his loving father.
>
>>
>>>The boy would not be returned to squalid conditions.
>>
>>Better to be a poor man in a free country than an apparatchik in a
>>totalitarian regime.
>
>Perhaps. That's your opinion, and maybe mine. But I also think it's
>better to be a suburban child with a minivan and soccer practice than
>an Amish child being brought up with no modern technology. But I
>wouldn't dream of removing an Amish child from his family. Elian's
>father is a communist - he believes in that system. I don't think
>that ideology disqualifies him from being a father.
If you deliver the child into bondage you violate his rights. Hands
off.
>
>>
>>>>He knows damn well they would defect, is why!
>>>
>>>The father is a commie.
>>
>>Says he is, while under Castro's power, that is.
>
>Whatever. Where did you get the power to go around the world telling
>people how to live?
>
>
>
> - SemiScholar
Tim Starr
<my...@spam-no-more.com> wrote:
>Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>:Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states
>:to Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She
>:dies en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina.
>:His master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to
>:his father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>:families together.
>
>:and his father's master.
>
>:I can recall many times when we libertarians have asked you statists
>:whether you'd support enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act because
>:it was "the law", the way you ask us to support whatever happens to
>:be "the law" today. Thanks for making your answer so clear: you'd
>:not only support the Fugitive Slave Act, but you'd advocate its
>:enforcement even in the absence of any such law in the jurisdiction
>:in question.
>
>:No U.S. law requires the return of Cuban refugee children to Cuba if
>:one of their parents dies in the act of fleeing that tyranny, & one
>:parent remains in Cuba. But you want political refugees from
>:totalitarian tyranny returned to the tyranny they ran away from,
>:anyways. Just like when your hero FDR sent that shipload of Jewish
>:refugees from the Nazis back to Europe, with a U.S. Naval escort to
>:make sure that none of them would try to escape in any of the
>:lifeboats.
>
>:Tim Starr
>
>Beautifully stated, Tim. Thank you.
You're welcome, & thank you.
Tim Starr
SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:15:06 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>sez:
>
>>In article <s7n49io...@corp.supernews.com>, berg...@drizzle.com
>>(Eric da Red) wrote:
>>>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>>>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>>
>>>>His sole parent. Seems logical.
>>>>
>>>>kids away from their parents.
>>>
>>>But but but ... his parent lives in a Kommie Kountry. I'll bet he
>>>worships Satan, too.
>>
>>Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
>>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border
>>guard, the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His
>>father, who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the
>>return of his son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels'
>>Propaganda Ministry. Millions of German citizens turn out in the
>>streets of Berlin to protest & join in the demand for the immediate
>>return of the boy, all wearing their Swastika armbands.
>
>Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
>with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
>situation where they were guaranteed to be enslaved or killed.
Not in 1941, we wouldn't have. The decision to exterminate the Jews
wasn't made until 1942.
As for "enslaved", all that would require is for the boy's father to be
one of the capos in the concentration camps. Then you could argue that
the boy would lead a life of relative privilege compared to the rest of
the Jewish kids in the camps, just as you're arguing that Elian
Gonzalez' father's status as a Party member will elevate him above the
rest of the Cuban children.
>The question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
>From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true.
How is life in Cuba now better than it was in Germany in 1941, for the
average person?
>As bad as Cuba might be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar
>jeopardy as the kids in your examples.
How do you know? How do you know what Castro will decide to do to the
boy or his father in the future? How do you know that Castro won't
decide to purge the Party again, orphaning the boy, & cutting him off
from the source of privilege that leads you to approve his return to a
totalitarian dictatorship? Do you know what happens to the family
members of those who're purged from the Party in Communist regimes?
Castro purged the Party as recently as earlier this decade, murdering
his top General from the campaign in Angola, to prove that not even such
valorous military service would protect anyone who challenged Castro's
rule. Stalin was starting to purge people again in 1953, right before
he died. How do you know Castro won't purge anyone ever again before he
dies or leaves office?
To live in a totalitarian dictatorship is to live at the whim of the
dictator, your life depending upon the dictator's whim all the time.
Tim Starr
(SemiScholar) wrote:
[snip]
>Actually, as the son of a Communist Party member, he'll probably do
>pretty well in Cuba.
"Actually, as the son of a slavemaster, he'll probably do pretty well in
South Carolina. Probably be a house nigger in his master's house."
>But if your argument is that _everyone_ in Cuba is destined to a life
>of poverty, then I have two comments:
>
>1) So what? There are billions of people in the world in that same
>boat - do you seriously think it's somehow OUR responsibility to lift
>them all out of the poverty caused by their political systems?
No, but neither is it our responsibility to force them to go back to
those political systems if they choose to leave & come to ours.
>2) I'd like to see your crystal ball that you think allows you to see
>the future, because I think it's defective. Mine tells me that Castro
>isn't long for this earth, and when he goes, the walls will fall.
That's what lots of people thought back in '91, when the Soviet Union
collapsed.
>Soon afterwards, Cuba will change drastically (it already is making
>big changes), and has every likelihood of prospering.
Yes, but how do you know the boy & his father won't be murdered in
another one of Castro's purges before he dies?
Tim Starr
> Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
> >
> >>Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> sez:
>
> >>>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border
guard,
> >>>the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His
father,
> >>>who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return
of his
> >>>son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda
Ministry.
> >>>Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to
protest
> >>>& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all
wearing
> >>>their Swastika armbands.
>
> >>Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
> >>with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
> >>question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
might
> >>be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar jeopardy as the kids in
> >>your examples.
>
He's
> >probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
> >potential of his life.
>
> A condition shared by millions of American kids.
Bullshit. The average Cuban person is worse off now, economically, than
they were when Castro took power in the late 1950s. The average poor
person in America is much better off now than the average poor person
was in the late 1950s.
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:07:21 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:05:33 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>
>>The argument is made that government servitude here, say through
>>taxation, is not slavery because you're free to leave.
>>
>>But that argument doesn't work in Cuba, does it? So why isn't Cuba
>>slavery?
>
>If you think that's what slavery is, then you have NO idea what it
>meant to be black in Mississippi in 1850. Sheesh!
Even if you were a "house nigger"? After all, you've said that the
boy's fate in Cuba won't be so bad, just because his father is a Party
member.
>Aside from which, your position seems to me to be the ULTIMATE in
>statism - you're saying that a government - and a FOREIGN one at that
>- has the right to keep a child from his loving, middle class,
>non-abusive, biological custodial parent.
Who just happens to live in a hate-filled, poor, abusive totalitarian
dictatorship, from which the boy's mother lost her life trying to save
her boy.
Tim Starr
Darancette) wrote:
[snip]
>The bottom line is that we are willing to take this child from his
>father because we don't like Fidel Castro and we know what's better
>for him. It's tough to justify theft.
No one's talking about sending in a group of US Special Forces to kidnap
the boy from his father's house in Cuba. The boy can't be "taken from
his father", because he isn't in his father's custody. He wasn't in it
when he left Cuba, he was in his mother's custody. She lost her life in
the effort to bring her boy to freedom. Her sacrifice should be
honored.
If the boy's father wanted to be with his son so much, he should've been
on the same boat as his wife & son. He wasn't, he was relatively safe
back in Cuba, on dry land, while his wife drowned & his son only stayed
alive by holding into an inner tube.
Tim Starr
>
> >In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
> >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:42:35 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Commentary
> >> >
> >> >What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
> >>
> >> His sole parent. Seems logical.
>
>that the fathers right and duty are being infringed.
The father forfeited his "right and duty" by failing to help his wife &
son escape from Communist rule. That was his "right and duty", not to
cower back in Cuba under the rule of his totalitarian dictator & demand
that his son be returned from freedom to slavery, despite the courageous
sacrifice his wife made to get her son to freedom.
>There should be compelling reasons for taking a child from his
>biological parents.
What could be more compelling than the threat of being returned to a
slave state like Cuba?
>The fact that Florida has Disney World and Cuba does not is not
>enough.
How about the fact that the USA has freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition for redress of
grievances, freedom from unreasonable, warrantless searches & seizures,
due process of law, freedom from excessive punishment, & the right to
trial by jury - and Cuba does not?
How about the fact that the USA is a democratic republic, while Cuba is
a totalitarian, one-party, totalitarian police state?
>Because of who you are, Where you live, Because of your political
>beliefs, None of those things gives you the right to steal my children
If you live in a totalitarian dictatorship police state like Cuba, &
your wife manages to get your children out of the country into a free
country like the USA, you ought to be grateful. You ought to be proud
of your wife for sacrificing her live so your children could be free.
You should be ashamed to do your master's bidding by asking that your
children be returned to the slave state you live in.
Tim Starr
dar...@uia.net (Joseph R. Darancette) wrote:
[snip]
>Could you justify going into say North Korea, stealing babies and
>shipping them to the US solely on the grounds that they will have a
>better life?
No one invaded Cuba & stole any babies. A women who had left her
husband tried to escape from that totalitarian hellhole, & get her boy
to freedom. She drowned. Her boy made it to the US, alive. Her
courageous sacrifice ought to be honored. Her son ought to be allowed
to live in freedom in the USA, instead of being sent back to the slave
state she sacrificed her life to save him from.
Billy Beck
dar...@uia.net (Joseph R. Darancette) wrote:
>The bottom line is that we are willing to take this child from his
>father because we don't like Fidel Castro and we know what's better
>for him. It's tough to justify theft.
You really oughta clean that up, Joe. Nobody anywhere in America
"[took] this child from his father".
As for Castro, I'd be interested to hear what you think is so
"like[able]" about him.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Joseph R. Darancette
<kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:41:13 GMT, dar...@uia.net (Joseph R.
>Darancette) wrote:
>
>>The bottom line is that we are willing to take this child from his
>>father because we don't like Fidel Castro and we know what's better
>>for him. It's tough to justify theft.
>
>
>No, the bottom line is that you don't have the right to deliver this
>child into bondage under a totalitarian regime. He's here, you don't
>have a right to put him back
I neither claim nor assert any rights in reguards to this child. Those
belong to his father.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Joseph R. Darancette
<kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:41:11 GMT, dar...@uia.net (Joseph R.
>Darancette) wrote:
>
>
>>Strip off all the social/political bullshit and you have to realize
>>that the fathers right and duty are being infringed. There should be
>>compelling reasons for taking a child from his biological parents. The
>>fact that Florida has Disney World and Cuba does not is not enough.
>
>You don't have any right to deliver this boy back into bondage under a
>totalitarian dictatorship.
>
Correct. I have no rights what so ever in reguards to this child. The
rights belong to the father and the child.
>
>>Because of who you are, Where you live, Because of your political
>>beliefs, None of those things gives you the right to steal my children
>
>Do you have a right to send your children into slavery if you think
>that's where they belong?
>
In a word ... Yes. As bad as it sounds. Yes.
>A parent's custodianship is important but temporary. Someday this boy
>would be free of his parent's guidance, but if you send him back to
>Cuba you steal a freedom from him that may never be restored. He may
>be in thrall to that dictatorship for another century, you don't know.
>
>All you know is that he's free of that now. And you have no right to
>put him back in it.
>
I don't have that right, neither do you . Only the father.
>The parent's right to raise his child cannot trump the child's right
>to freedom.
>
What freedom is this? The freedom of a foreign government to take his
child? Freedom to give Abortions to children without the parents
consent?
Over half the children in the world live in non-free societies. Are
the rights and responsibilites of their parents therefore null and
void?
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Joseph R. Darancette
wrote:
>
>dar...@uia.net (Joseph R. Darancette) wrote:
>
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>>>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>>>potential of his life. By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>>>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>>>gone, and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>>>won't matter anymore to him.
>>>
>>> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>>>be better off not being sent back?
>>>
>>Could you justify going into say North Korea, stealing babies and
>>shipping them to the US solely on the grounds that they will have a
>>better life?
>
> No, but that's a change of context. The plain fact that
>conditions this matter is that people aren't swimming off the shores
>of North Korea in order to escape with their children, some of them
>dying in the process. They're swimming away from Cuba, with their
>kids. "Solely" is a key point of the context change. It's not
>"solely" about the quality of their lives: it's also about taking the
>initiative to escape, which this kid's mother engaged. If she hadn't
>died in the attempt, we never would have heard of him. That's the
>only thing that opened any of this to scrutiny.
>
The reason that people aren't leaving Korea in droves is that the
borders are much better guarded and the people are much too busy
starving to death.
The bottom line is that the father is the sole surviving parent of the
child and should not be denided his parental right because Castro is a
bad man. Dislike for Cuba is not a justification for theft.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Billy Beck
John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>dar...@uia.net (Joseph R. Darancette) wrote:
>>>Could you justify going into say North Korea, stealing babies and
>>>shipping them to the US solely on the grounds that they will have a
>>>better life?
>North Korea is every bit the slave state Cuba is, what's immoral about
>freeing a slave, Billy?
>
>Not saying anyone has to do it, but that wasn't the question. Why
>wouldn't it be justified?
You wouldn't have any evidence of human will. That's why. If
North Koreans were sneaking out to the beach in the middle of the
night and floating bottles into the ocean with notes saying, "Please
come take my children," it would be different, but there's no way I
could sanction unilateral intervention.
It's also important to note that unilateral intervention isn't
what's happened in the case of this boy leaving Cuba in the custody of
his mother. (Darancette's "theft".)
SemiScholar
sez:
>In article <387cc3dc....@news.visi.com>,
>nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:52:16 -0500, John T. Kennedy
>><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:00:41 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:09:03 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>>sez:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>>>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:33:26 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>
>
Oh, please...
Not all of them.
it's not comparable to slave-era Alabama. Aside from which - your
analogy was for a black child to be returned to the slave states.
Elian is not the equivalent of a minority slave boy marked by his
color. He is of the ruling class in Cuba - his father is a communist
party member. You might not like some of the atrocities that take
plce there, but there's no indication that the boy would be subject to
any particular cruelty.
>
>How much worse would things have to be in Cuba for you to be willing to
>call it "slavery"?
The boy would have to be confined to a plantation, in constant danger
of physical mistreatment, treated like livestock, bred with females
chosen by his owners for the purpose of producing livestock that can
be sold, be owned by someone as a piece of property, removed from his
family against the family's will, worked to the bone by overseers and
not allowed to own anything but his pants and have no hope of ever
being anything else. As bad as Cuba might be, it ain't as bad as
being black in Alabama in 1850.
>
>[snip]
>
>>Many reasons. But I would point out that the boy's father is a
>>communist party member and enjoys relatively high status in Cuba.
>
>So is Castro's daughter. She hates him, & defected to the USA.
And when Elian is an adult, he can make his own decision. In the
meantime, I believe that one of mankind's most precious "rights" is to
family. I believe that the State should only intervene in family
matters in cases where the child is in imminent physical danger.
> Castro
>abandoned his wife & his own son, until he wanted his son back. Then
>he had his son taken away from his wife, who had left him. Why does he
>care so much about the Gonzalez family, if he cared to little about his
>own?
Frankly, Castro has nothing to do with this. Whether Castro is alive
or dead, the boy belongs with his loving father.
>
>>The boy would not be returned to squalid conditions.
>
>Better to be a poor man in a free country than an apparatchik in a
>totalitarian regime.
Perhaps. That's your opinion, and maybe mine. But I also think it's
better to be a suburban child with a minivan and soccer practice than
an Amish child being brought up with no modern technology. But I
wouldn't dream of removing an Amish child from his family. Elian's
father is a communist - he believes in that system. I don't think
that ideology disqualifies him from being a father.
>
Billy Beck
dar...@uia.net (Joseph R. Darancette) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>>> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>>>>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>>>>potential of his life. By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>>>>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>>>>gone, and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>>>>won't matter anymore to him.
>>>>
>>>> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>>>>be better off not being sent back?
>>>>
>>>Could you justify going into say North Korea, stealing babies and
>>>shipping them to the US solely on the grounds that they will have a
>>>better life?
>>
>> No, but that's a change of context. The plain fact that
>>conditions this matter is that people aren't swimming off the shores
>>of North Korea in order to escape with their children, some of them
>>dying in the process. They're swimming away from Cuba, with their
>>kids. "Solely" is a key point of the context change. It's not
>>"solely" about the quality of their lives: it's also about taking the
>>initiative to escape, which this kid's mother engaged. If she hadn't
>>died in the attempt, we never would have heard of him. That's the
>>only thing that opened any of this to scrutiny.
>>
>The reason that people aren't leaving Korea in droves is that the
>borders are much better guarded and the people are much too busy
>starving to death.
So what? I know that, but it's not what we're talking about in
the Cuban case, which is what I pointed out.
>The bottom line is that the father is the sole surviving parent of the
>child and should not be denided his parental right because Castro is a
>bad man. Dislike for Cuba is not a justification for theft.
Who stole what? Please explain that to me.
There isn't any "theft" anywhere in this.
Billy Beck
berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>>potential of his life.
>A condition shared by millions of American kids.
<shrug>
Then let 'em swim to Cuba.
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:19:30 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>I think the Cubans are primarily fleeing poverty and lack of
>>opportunity - caused by communism to be sure (and the US's embargo).
>>They see the US as the Land of Opportunity - Milk & Honey and all
>>that. And many of them find when they get here that they were quite
>>mistaken about how rich they would become.
>
>Hence the massive raft traffic BACK to Cuba.
Mostly those being returned by US law, as applies to this boy. Why is
this boy different from all the others? Why is he the exception?
>
>> But I don't think they are fleeing slavery.
>
>Why isn't it slavery if they can't leave?
There are large differences. If you don't know what slavery was like,
I suggest you study up on it - I'm not here to teach you. If you
really can't see the difference between slavery in the US south and
Cuba, then I suspect that you just don't know much about one or the
other.
>
>(snip)
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
>>>>>his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back in
>>>>>Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
>>>>
>>>>That would be okay by me. But if Castro does not allow it, I don't
>>>>know that that should be a determining factor.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why wouldn't he allow it, unless he's running a slave state?
>>
>>Many reasons.
>
>Many? Then you'll have no difficulty naming three.
>
>The reasons would be?
>
1) Maybe the father's afraid because there are a lot of fanatic
anti-communists in Miami and America is the Land of Guns. If Gianni
Versace isn't safe, maybe he doesn't feel safe. Can't say as I blame
him - some of those Cuban exiles are VERY enthusiastic.
2) Maybe he doesn't like the relatives in the US. Hell, I got some
relatives I'd rather not be in the same room with.
3) Maybe Castro doesn't want to allow it because he doesn't want the
man subjected to intense hostile pressure.
4) Maybe Castro doesn't want to pay for the trip. (cheap SOB)
5) Propaganda. Maybe Castro thinks he's getting better press out of
the standoff - he likes being in the limelight. Maybe he likes having
the US look like bad guys keeping a kid from his father. Last poll I
heard, something like 60% of Americans think the kid should go back.
I suspect that in international polls, that opinion is even more
lopsided.
6) Maybe Castro is standing on principle - that the US should follow
its own law and international law and convention. Maybe he thinks a
child should be with his parent, and he expects nations to behave in
certain ways in order to expect to be treated that way in return.
7) Maybe Castro's got some other deal going on and the longer this
drags out, the more leverage he has in getting some concession on
something else he wants. He's done that sort of thing before - he's
even extracted concessions from the Reagan administration by releasing
people to the US.
etc.
>
>>But I would point out that the boy's father is a
>>communist party member and enjoys relatively high status in Cuba. The
>>boy would not be returned to squalid conditions.
>
>It's not about economic standard of living, it's about the child's
>inalienable rights.
If they are inalienable, then he has them in Cuba, to, eh? How is
this boy different from any of the other Cubans rescued at sea that we
send back? Other, of course, than the fact that he is not competent
to make his own decisions and his obvious "inalienable" legal
guardian is his father, who wants him back.
>>>He knows damn well they would defect, is why!
>>
>>The father is a commie. I don't know that he would defect.
>
>Bring the whole family over and you'll see massive defection. Again,
>why aren't they free to come if they're not slaves?
See above.
>
>Can the Cuban government conceivably have any right to prevent it's
>citizens from emigrating?
Maybe, maybe not. That's not my decision to make. Nor yours.
>
>
>>You know
>>- some people really believe in Castro and "the revolution". In any
>>case, the father shouldn't _have_ to come to the US - the US should do
>>the lawful thing and return the boy.
>
>Just as you would return a slave to his lawful owner? The law is the
>law, eh?
It takes exceptional circumstances to ignore the law. We are a nation
of laws, not of men. Those laws create the civilization that we have.
In this case, I don't believe the circumstances warrant breaking the
national and international laws, much less the "higher law" that I
believe in: that the family is more important than the state.
Just my opinion, I suppose, but there it is.
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
sez:
>In article <387cc5cd....@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Besides, the analogy doesn't really hold, anyway, because returning
>>the kid to a family with relatively high status and a position of
>>relative power in the Cuban system is NOT the equivalent of sending a
>>black child to a slave state, nor of sending a Jewish kid to Nazi
>>Germany.
>
>Then why did his mother lose her life in the effort to bring him to a
>free country?
Why do Mexicans sometimes die trying to get into the US? Do you think
Mexico is the same as Nazi Germany?
Elian was not in anywhere near the potnetial danger in Cuba as a
jewish kid was in Nazi Germany. Such hyperbole does not help your
case.
>
>Now, your argument is that the boy will be fine because he won't be
>returned to be a slave, he'll be returned to be a slavemaster.
Well, that shoots your supposed concern about how badly the boy will
be treated to hell, doesn't it?
> So, I
>will have to amend my analogy a bit: the slave woman's son was by the
>master she ran away from, & her master wants his son back. You say that
>won't be so bad, because his master will treat him well, & maybe even
>let him whip the other slaves himself.
Race plays an extra role in your example that is not present in the
Cuba situation, so the two situations are not analagous.
>
>Which is more cruel, returning the boy to be a slave, or returning him
>to be a slavemaster?
Uhhh... well, let's put it this way: which would YOU rather be?
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
sez:
>In article <387bda5d...@news.goldengate.net>,
>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:09:03 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>sez:
>>
>>>In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:33:26 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <mm5l7sg0vt2q2epiv...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:42:35 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>January 10, 2000
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Commentary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What Clinton Is Sending Elian Back To
>>>>>>
>>>>>>His sole parent. Seems logical.
>>>>>
>>>>>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states
>>>>>to Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She
>>>>>dies en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina.
>>>>>His master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to
>>>>>his father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>>>>>families together.
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>>>>boy here.
>>>
>>>Thank you.
>>>
>>>>I have to admit, that would be a tricky situation.
>>>
>>>What's tricky about it?
>>
>>The principle of national sovereignty - if you want other countries to
>>observe YOUR sovereignty, you must observe theirs, even if their
>>system is not something you agree with.
>
>1) Cuban sovereignty isn't threatened by the US if the US doesn't do
>Castro's bidding by returning one of his escaped slaves.
In order for one nation to expect that its sovereignty be honored, it
must honor the sovereignty of others. It's just like inter-personal
relations. The Golden Rule.
>
>2) Castro has violated the sovereignty of many other countries during
>his decades-long rule in Latin America & Africa.
How many wrongs make a right these days?
> He's supported commie
>terrorists in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, Venezuela,
>Colombia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.
And we have supported terrorists in Iran, Iraq, Chile, Guatemala,
Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and even Cuba. Note that we have invaded Cuba
- twice, in fact (although only once since Castro has been in power).
Cuba has never invaded us. We have plotted to murder Castro. Unless
you're Oliver Stone, you probably don't think Castro had Kennedy
killed. We have an embargo against Cuba and are doing everything in
our power to make life there miserable. We don't even do that with
China. We have military tropps stationed on their island. Do they
militarily occupy any of our land?
> He's sent military "advisors" to
>Ethiopia,
We sent 'em to Vietnam, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo,
etc. etc. etc.
> & engaged in a full-scale military invasion of Angola in
>support of the MPLA.
And we have invaded plenty of countries as well.
> This is aside from Castro's request that the
>Soviets launch a pre-emptive, first-strike, nuclear missle attack
>against the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Yeah, whatever you say.
> That was arguably
>provoked by US violation of Cuban sovereignty; even though I believe
>that argument false,
??? What was the Bay of Pigs? What was the blockade? A naval
blockade is an act of war, you know?
> I'll stipulate it for the same of argument. But
>none of the rest of the countries of Latin America or Africa ever
>threatened Cuban sovereignty.
Just the US - the Big One. Like that doesn't count...
>
>>But your analogy does point out that there are limits to how much I
>>would be willing to overlook. The more I think about it, the more I
>>have to agree with you. In that situation, I guess I would have to
>>come down on the side of keeping the boy from slavery.
>>
>>But clearly if the situation involved a boy from, say, Canada, and it
>>was just some relatives in the US who wanted the boy (not all that
>>farfetched - custody battles happen all the time), I would say send
>>the boy to his father. Unless, of course, the father was abusive.
>>
>>So the question is: is Cuba comparable to slavery? On that score, I
>>have to say that I really have no personal basis for judgement. Yes,
>>we all have heard stories of murder, torture and thuggery on the part
>>of Castro and his henchmen. But then, to hear some of the people on
>>the net tell it, those stories could be about Bill Clinton. And some
>>of the people who tell those horror stories about Castro are the SAME
>>people who froth about Clinton. So who knows what to believe? After
>>all, the US government massacred 80 religious people in Waco, didn't
>>they?
>
>Forget who said what, & look at the political regimes in the societies
>in question. Cuba is a totalitarian state, ruled by an unelected
>dictator who came to power by force, who has proven willing to use
>violence against the people of his own country & against those of other
>countries through Latin America & Africa.
No question. Castro Bad. But what's that got to do with this boy?
A child belongs with his parents.
> There is no freedom of
>speech, assembly, or religion in Cuba. There is no freedom from
>unreasonable searches & seizures in Cuba. There is no right to due
>process of law in Cuba. There is no right to trial by jury in Cuba,
>nor any protection against excessive punishment.
Neither is there in most of the world - including some of our closest
allies. The US is pretty unique in these kinds of "rights".
> These are all the
>parts of the Bill of Rights which left-wing civil libertarians
>supposedly care about.
Yes - and we fight to preserve them - for us. We can't go around
imposing our system of government and our values on other nations, as
much as we might think they're screwed up. Only when they threaten
others do we really have much right to intervene. Some people would
even say we have the right to intervene in a situation like Kosovo.
Do you?
>
>If you must go by who says what, what does Amnesty International have to
>say about Cuba:
>
>http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/amr25.htm
Yeah, yeah, we know. Cuba Bad.
>
>AI tells a story of Cuba as a country where thoughtcrimes are punished
>with prison sentences, where political dissidents are intimidated,
>verbally & physically assaulted, where police routinely beat suspects,
>where the accused has no right to legal representation in criminal
>trials, & where hundreds of political prisoners have been held in recent
>times, many of whom are still being held prisoner.
All of those things have been alleged in the US as well. People say
Clinton does those things.
>
>>But the INS did send people to Cuba to look things over. And from
>>what I've seen and read about Cuba, as bad as it may be, it really
>>doesn't seem to me to be on par with slavery in the old South. Your
>>analogy was good - it really made me stop and think. But ultimately,
>>I just don't think that sending Elian back to Cuba is equivalent to
>>sending a black child back to Mississippi in 1850.
>
>Why not?
People in Cuba are not treated as livestock. You might not like
communism, but believe it or not, some people do. Personally, I would
get on the inner tube and paddle for the US, but I'd rather live there
than as a black man in Mississippi in 1850.
>
>>The kid woudn't be going back to Castro, after all, but to his father.
>
>The slave child wouldn't be going back to his master, but to his father,
>in my analogy.
No - that's one big difference. He would be the master's property -
to be sold at will. Castro won't remove the boy from his family.
> But he would end up under the rule of his master, just
>as the boy will end up under the rule of Castro if he's returned to his
>father in Cuba.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>That was more of a simple denial of asylum.
>>>>
>>>>The boy's age makes a big difference in the current case.
>>>
>>>Why? Is he not old enough to tell whether he'd prefer living in a
>>>democratic republic to a totalitarian tyranny?
>>
>>He's not old enough to understand the concepts.
>
>How do you know? How old does one have to be to tell whether
>totalitarianism is better than democracy?
Older than six, that's for sure. The case several years ago about the
12 year old boy who didn't want to return to the USSR with his parents
was pushing it.
>
>>That decision would be for his parents.
>
>It was decided by the parent that had custody of him - his mother.
Actually, I have read that the father was the custodial parent - the
mother had weekly visitation rights. She kidnapped the boy and
removed him without the approval of the father.
> If
>she were still alive, do you think she would want him returned to Cuba,
>after she lost her life in the attempt to escape & bring her boy to
>freedom?
Obviously not. But even if she were alive, the father, as the
custodial parent would have a good legal case to get the boy back.
Even if he was NOT the custodial parent, as one with visitation
rights, he would have a case against the mother for removing the child
without his permission.
>
>>>>And actually, I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>>>father unless the father is unfit.
>>>
>>>Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
>>>his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back
>>>in Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
>>
>>That would be okay by me. But if Castro does not allow it, I don't
>>know that that should be a determining factor.
>
>If Castro cares so much about reuniting the family, why doesn't he let
>the family come to get the boy?
I gave 7 reasons in another post.
>
>>>Cuban refugees have the absolute legal right to stay in the US if
>>>they make it to the US on their own, as the person in question has
>>>done.
>>
>>As I understand it, he did NOT make it on his own. Was he not rescued
>>at sea?
>
>He was found in US territorial waters off Miami, floating by holding
>onto an inner tube. He made it to US territory without US help. That
>means he automatically qualifies for political asylum.
No - he was rescued at sea by fishermen, who turned him over to the
Coast Guard in the ocean. Territorial waters are not the current rule
for these cases - it's the "wet feet/dry feet" rule - and his whole
body was wet.
- SemiScholar
John T. Kennedy
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:26:36 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:19:30 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>>wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>I think the Cubans are primarily fleeing poverty and lack of
>>>opportunity - caused by communism to be sure (and the US's embargo).
>>>They see the US as the Land of Opportunity - Milk & Honey and all
>>>that. And many of them find when they get here that they were quite
>>>mistaken about how rich they would become.
>>
>>Hence the massive raft traffic BACK to Cuba.
>
>Mostly those being returned by US law, as applies to this boy.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>Why is
>this boy different from all the others? Why is he the exception?
You don't have any right to return any of them.
>
>>
>>> But I don't think they are fleeing slavery.
>>
>>Why isn't it slavery if they can't leave?
>
>There are large differences. If you don't know what slavery was like,
>I suggest you study up on it - I'm not here to teach you. If you
>really can't see the difference between slavery in the US south and
>Cuba, then I suspect that you just don't know much about one or the
>other.
What are the differences in principle?
Does Cuba have any right to prevent it's people from leaving?
>
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
>>>>>>his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back in
>>>>>>Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
>>>>>
>>>>>That would be okay by me. But if Castro does not allow it, I don't
>>>>>know that that should be a determining factor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why wouldn't he allow it, unless he's running a slave state?
>>>
>>>Many reasons.
>>
>>Many? Then you'll have no difficulty naming three.
>>
>>The reasons would be?
>>
>1) Maybe the father's afraid because there are a lot of fanatic
>anti-communists in Miami and America is the Land of Guns. If Gianni
>Versace isn't safe, maybe he doesn't feel safe. Can't say as I blame
>him - some of those Cuban exiles are VERY enthusiastic.
Not an answer to the question.
>
>2) Maybe he doesn't like the relatives in the US. Hell, I got some
>relatives I'd rather not be in the same room with.
Not an answer to the question.
>
>3) Maybe Castro doesn't want to allow it because he doesn't want the
>man subjected to intense hostile pressure
NOW THAT'S FUNNY! (That's 1)
>
>4) Maybe Castro doesn't want to pay for the trip. (cheap SOB)
Not a reason not to *allow* it.
>5) Propaganda. Maybe Castro thinks he's getting better press out of
>the standoff - he likes being in the limelight. Maybe he likes having
>the US look like bad guys keeping a kid from his father. Last poll I
>heard, something like 60% of Americans think the kid should go back.
>I suspect that in international polls, that opinion is even more
>lopsided.
Totalitarian dictator uses his chattel. Oops, that doesn't refute the
slave state premise!
>
>6) Maybe Castro is standing on principle - that the US should follow
>its own law and international law and convention. Maybe he thinks a
>child should be with his parent, and he expects nations to behave in
>certain ways in order to expect to be treated that way in return.
NOW THAT'S FUNNY! (That's 2)
Should people be allowed to leave Cuba freely.
>
>7) Maybe Castro's got some other deal going on and the longer this
>drags out, the more leverage he has in getting some concession on
>something else he wants. He's done that sort of thing before - he's
>even extracted concessions from the Reagan administration by releasing
>people to the US.
Ooops, again fails to refute the slave state premise!
I'll give you two out of seven, purely on entertainment value, you
still owe one.
>
>etc.
>
>
>
>>
>>>But I would point out that the boy's father is a
>>>communist party member and enjoys relatively high status in Cuba. The
>>>boy would not be returned to squalid conditions.
>>
>>It's not about economic standard of living, it's about the child's
>>inalienable rights.
>
>If they are inalienable, then he has them in Cuba, to, eh?
Yes. Cuba violates his rights.
> How is
>this boy different from any of the other Cubans rescued at sea that we
>send back?
You don't have a right to send any of them back.
>Other, of course, than the fact that he is not competent
>to make his own decisions and his obvious "inalienable" legal
>guardian is his father, who wants him back.
>
>
>>>>He knows damn well they would defect, is why!
>>>
>>>The father is a commie. I don't know that he would defect.
>>
>>Bring the whole family over and you'll see massive defection. Again,
>>why aren't they free to come if they're not slaves?
>
>See above.
Why aren't Cubans in general free to emigrate at all?
Your rationales above don't address this larger question at all.
>
>>
>>Can the Cuban government conceivably have any right to prevent it's
>>citizens from emigrating?
>
>Maybe, maybe not. That's not my decision to make. Nor yours.
What about the Cubans who want to leave? Is it THEIR decision to make?
Who has the right to decide if they can leave Cuba?
>
>>
>>
>>>You know
>>>- some people really believe in Castro and "the revolution". In any
>>>case, the father shouldn't _have_ to come to the US - the US should do
>>>the lawful thing and return the boy.
>>
>>Just as you would return a slave to his lawful owner? The law is the
>>law, eh?
>
>It takes exceptional circumstances to ignore the law. We are a nation
>of laws, not of men. Those laws create the civilization that we have.
>In this case, I don't believe the circumstances warrant breaking the
>national and international laws, much less the "higher law" that I
>believe in: that the family is more important than the state.
>
>Just my opinion, I suppose, but there it is.
I have to take that as a yes, you would return a slave to his
rightful owner.
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:18:24 -0600, "Philip Bourgeois"
><Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>>Interesting analogy Slavery, wasn't one of the horrors of slavery the fact
>>that families were separated?
>
>Analogy nothing, does Cuba have any right to prevent all it's citizens
>from leaving?
Note that the US has the "right" to deny its citizens passports as
well. And sometimes it does.
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:22:04 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:33:47 -0600, im...@supertitan.com (Mike J,
>>Schneider) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <85ggmj$u9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>>> (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>> >>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
>>>> >>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
>>>> >>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
>>>> >>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
>>>> >>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>>>> >>families together.
>>>> >
>>>> >Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>>>> >boy here.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Semi, if you can understand this analogy, you should have no trouble
>>>understanding any number of the other ones advanced in recent discussions
>>>with you.
>>>
>>> Carry on.
>>
>>
>>?? Like what did you have in mind?
>>
>>Besides, the analogy doesn't really hold, anyway, because returning
>>the kid to a family with relatively high status and a position of
>>relative power in the Cuban system is NOT the equivalent of sending a
>>black child to a slave state, nor of sending a Jewish kid to Nazi
>>Germany.
>
>Sure it is.
Nice assertion. But I don't agree.
>
>> This kid will not be abused. In fact, he will enjoy a
>>situation better than that of most of his fellow Cuban six-year-olds.
>
>
>Is that the test? If a house nigger is well cared for then he's not a
>slave?
The two situations are not at all the same. To say that everybody in
Cuba is the same as a black person in slavery in Mississippi in 1850
is just not true. See one of the recent National Geographics -
there's and interesting article and picture spread about Cuba.
>
>Laying asid their bondage for a moment, weren't there some slaves who
>were fairly well treated, not particularly abused, who enjoyed better
>standard of living than free many Africans of the same age?
>
>Were they any less slaves because of their standard of living?
>
>Take the alleged slave mistress of Thomas Jefferson. It seems clear
>she had a much higher standard of living than most free Africans of
>that time, and was apparently abused very little in the sense you
>indicate. But you know what? She was still a slave. And if she
>escaped would you have returned her to her "owner" because that was
>the law?
>
>That's what you want to do with this boy, redeliver him into bondage.
In your opinions. I think you way overstate that issue, and I think
you do a disservice to slaves by the comparison.
- SemiScholar
John T. Kennedy
<Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>What Government has the right to "separate families"?
None. And no government has separated any family in this case. The
boys mother took him out of Cuba. You don't have a right to put him
back.
Now having answered your question, lets go back to the one you dodged:
Does Cuba have any right to prevent it's citizens from leaving?
>John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>news:schq7skc57u52lf43...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:18:24 -0600, "Philip Bourgeois"
>> <Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Interesting analogy Slavery, wasn't one of the horrors of slavery the
>fact
>> >that families were separated?
>>
>> Analogy nothing, does Cuba have any right to prevent all it's citizens
>> from leaving?
SemiScholar
sez:
>
>dar...@uia.net (Joseph R. Darancette) wrote:
>
>>The bottom line is that we are willing to take this child from his
>>father because we don't like Fidel Castro and we know what's better
>>for him. It's tough to justify theft.
>
> You really oughta clean that up, Joe. Nobody anywhere in America
>"[took] this child from his father".
>
> As for Castro, I'd be interested to hear what you think is so
>"like[able]" about him.
Of course, Joseph _explicitly_ said "we don't like Fidel Castro", so
for you to imply that he finds him "likeable" is downright dishonest.
But then, we've learned to expect no principled behavior from Billy
Beck.
- SemiScholar
John T. Kennedy
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:26:17 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:18:24 -0600, "Philip Bourgeois"
>><Phi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting analogy Slavery, wasn't one of the horrors of slavery the fact
>>>that families were separated?
>>
>>Analogy nothing, does Cuba have any right to prevent all it's citizens
>>from leaving?
>
>Note that the US has the "right" to deny its citizens passports as
>well.
No it doesn't. It has no right to prevent free men from leaving.
> And sometimes it does.
The US frequently violates the rights of it's citizens, but in general
it does let citizens emigrate.
Does Cuba have a right to prevent all it's citizens from emigrating?
(You really don't want to answer this question, do you?)
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:25:51 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:20:32 -0500, John T. Kennedy
>><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:42:47 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>>>father unless the father is unfit.
>>>
>>>And US law also required returning slaves.
>>>
>>>We hold that all men are born with inalienable rights...
>>
>>Unless slave states want them back. Why quote something that was
>>obvious bullshit when it was written?
>
>It wasn't bullshit, they simply looked the other way, to their
>profound disgrace.
I fail to see the distinction.
>
>But thanks for making clear where you stand.
>
>If men don't have inalienable rights, what was wrong with slavery?
Lots of things. You don't need "inalienable rights" to have an
opinion about right and wrong. Are all rights "inalienable", or just
some? Which ones? Do you have some "inalienable right" to not have
your car stolen? If it's stolen, would it be right or wrong for
someone to steal it?
>>>...unless Cuba wants them back.
>>
>>I would think you would argue that one of those "inalienable rights"
>>would be the right to raise your own children as you see fit, eh?
>
>Not to deliver them into slavery, no.
You overstate the case. You libertarians also say taxes are slavery.
So given that both the US and Cuba are slave states, what's the
difference?
>
>> How
>>do you square that with your argument that the State should intervene
>>and prevent a father from raising his own child? Sounds pretty
>>"statist" to me.
>
>Bullshit, you're grasping at straws. The boy is here, your state has
>to intervene to put him back.
The state intervenes to uphold the father's "inalienable right" to
raise his son, not for the politicval purposes of the state. It is
YOUR scenario that uses the power of the State to override one of
mankind's most sacred and basic rights.
>
>You and your gang don't have any right to deliver this boy back to a
>totalitarian dictatorship. Just leave him alone.
If he was your boy, you'd let some Agent of The State just tell you to
go away and forget about your son?
>> What "rights", exactly, would be violated by
>>returning the kid to his rightful father, all 4 grandparents and
>>extended family?
>
>The boy's right to freedom.
What about the father's right to his son? Children are not granted
the rights of adults in any country.
- SemiScholar
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>
>John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>dar...@uia.net (Joseph R. Darancette) wrote:
>
>>>>Could you justify going into say North Korea, stealing babies and
>>>>shipping them to the US solely on the grounds that they will have a
>>>>better life?
>
>>North Korea is every bit the slave state Cuba is, what's immoral about
>>freeing a slave, Billy?
>>
>>Not saying anyone has to do it, but that wasn't the question. Why
>>wouldn't it be justified?
>
> You wouldn't have any evidence of human will. That's why. If
>North Koreans were sneaking out to the beach in the middle of the
>night and floating bottles into the ocean with notes saying, "Please
>come take my children," it would be different, but there's no way I
>could sanction unilateral intervention.
Let me put it another way. Would it be immoral? Would it violate any
rights?
I remember that you declined to sanction Captain John Brown, but you
also declined to say his actions were immoral.
> It's also important to note that unilateral intervention isn't
>what's happened in the case of this boy leaving Cuba in the custody of
>his mother. (Darancette's "theft".)
Understood.
SemiScholar
sez:
>In article <387cc75f....@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Actually, as the son of a Communist Party member, he'll probably do
>>pretty well in Cuba.
>
>"Actually, as the son of a slavemaster, he'll probably do pretty well in
>South Carolina. Probably be a house nigger in his master's house."
Different situation, and you know it.
>
>>But if your argument is that _everyone_ in Cuba is destined to a life
>>of poverty, then I have two comments:
>>
>>1) So what? There are billions of people in the world in that same
>>boat - do you seriously think it's somehow OUR responsibility to lift
>>them all out of the poverty caused by their political systems?
>
>No, but neither is it our responsibility to force them to go back to
>those political systems if they choose to leave & come to ours.
Six year old children don't make those kids of decisions.
>
>>2) I'd like to see your crystal ball that you think allows you to see
>>the future, because I think it's defective. Mine tells me that Castro
>>isn't long for this earth, and when he goes, the walls will fall.
>
>That's what lots of people thought back in '91, when the Soviet Union
>collapsed.
Yes - and?
>
>>Soon afterwards, Cuba will change drastically (it already is making
>>big changes), and has every likelihood of prospering.
>
>Yes, but how do you know the boy & his father won't be murdered in
>another one of Castro's purges before he dies?
That's pure speculation. How do you know the boy won't be killed by a
drug gang in Miami?
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
sez:
>In article <387cc679....@news.visi.com>,
>nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:20:32 -0500, John T. Kennedy
>><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:42:47 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>>>father unless the father is unfit.
>>>
>>>And US law also required returning slaves.
>>>
>>>We hold that all men are born with inalienable rights...
>>
>>Unless slave states want them back. Why quote something that was
>>obvious bullshit when it was written?
>
>The tacit exception was the bullshit, not the principle.
When a slave owner writes the words, the words are bullshit.
>
>>>...unless Cuba wants them back.
>>
>>I would think you would argue that one of those "inalienable rights"
>>would be the right to raise your own children as you see fit, eh?
>
>Not if that means violating the rights of my children.
???
>
>>How do you square that with your argument that the State should
>>intervene and prevent a father from raising his own child?
>
>The boy's not in the custody of his father, the boy was in the custody
>of his mother,
The father was the custodial parent after the divorce.
> & she lost her life in the effort to get him to freedom.
>Her wish should be honored. I'm sure there are plenty of people here in
>the USA who would be willing to adopt him. I'm sure he'd have a much
>better life here in the USA than he would back in Cuba.
I bet he would, too. So if any Cuban family visits the US, should we
just prevent the kids from returning to Cuba with the parents on the
grounds that they would be better off here?
>
>>Sounds pretty "statist" to me. What "rights", exactly, would be
>>violated by returning the kid to his rightful father, all 4
>>grandparents and extended family?
>
>The child's right to live in a relatively free country, instead of a
>totalitarian dictatorship.
Ahhh... so you get to decide which rights trump which other rights?
Ho do you get that job, anyway.
I have a question for all of you. If the father does come to Miami
and asks the court for his kid, should we let the kid go back then?
- SemiScholar
John T. Kennedy
Thus we must return escaped Jews to Nazi Germany to be incinerated.
The Golden Rule.
Why not Semi? It's the law.
>
>>
>>2) Castro has violated the sovereignty of many other countries during
>>his decades-long rule in Latin America & Africa.
>
>How many wrongs make a right these days?
>
>> He's supported commie
>>terrorists in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, Venezuela,
>>Colombia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.
>
>And we have supported terrorists in Iran, Iraq, Chile, Guatemala,
>Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and even Cuba. Note that we have invaded Cuba
>- twice, in fact (although only once since Castro has been in power).
>Cuba has never invaded us. We have plotted to murder Castro. Unless
>you're Oliver Stone, you probably don't think Castro had Kennedy
>killed. We have an embargo against Cuba and are doing everything in
>our power to make life there miserable. We don't even do that with
>China. We have military tropps stationed on their island. Do they
>militarily occupy any of our land?
>
>> He's sent military "advisors" to
>>Ethiopia,
TIM STARR:
You've made a total hash of this. It's a simple question of the kid's
rights and you drag in the entire history of communist Cuba. You give
him all this extraneous stuff to get bogged down in.
The people in Cuba aren't allowed to leave. That's all you need to
know to settle the issue of this kid's rights. Nobody has the right to
deliver him to Cuba.
-
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:34:05 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:30:31 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com> sez:
>>>
>>>>>Another analogy: a Jewish mother & her son try to escape from Nazi
>>>>>Germany to Switzerland. She gets shot & killed by a Nazi border guard,
>>>>>the boy lives & makes it across to safety in Switzerland. His father,
>>>>>who remained behind in a concentration camp, "demands" the return of his
>>>>>son. These "demands" are broadcast by Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.
>>>>>Millions of German citizens turn out in the streets of Berlin to protest
>>>>>& join in the demand for the immediate return of the boy, all wearing
>>>>>their Swastika armbands.
>>>>
>>>>Your slavery analogy was better. In the case of the Jewish kid, as
>>>>with the black kid, we would know that they were going back to a
>>>>situation where they were guaranteed to be enslaved or killed. The
>>>>question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
>>>>From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true. As bad as Cuba might
>>>>be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar jeopardy as the kids in
>>>>your examples.
>>>
>>> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>>>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>>>potential of his life.
>>
>>Actually, as the son of a Communist Party member, he'll probably do
>>pretty well in Cuba. But if your argument is that _everyone_ in Cuba
>>is destined to a life of poverty, then I have two comments:
>
>It's not about poverty, rest assured Beck's argument had nothing to do
>with that.
Oh, yes - the principled Beck. He who fantasizes about killing people
and who threatens violence pretty regularly. He whose philosophy
basically consists of "you will do what I say you will do or I will do
as much violence to you as necessary to get what I want". That Beck?
<snicker>
>
>>
>>1) So what? There are billions of people in the world in that same
>>boat - do you seriously think it's somehow OUR responsibility to lift
>>them all out of the poverty caused by their political systems? Sorry,
>>but I can't agree with that. You can't _give_ people prosperity -
>>they have to earn it themselves.
>
>No, it's not your responsibility to save anyone, including this boy.
>
>But you have no right to deliver him into bondage.
It's his father. That's the bottom line.
>
>
>>
>>2) I'd like to see your crystal ball that you think allows you to see
>>the future, because I think it's defective. Mine tells me that Castro
>>isn't long for this earth, and when he goes, the walls will fall.
>>Soon afterwards, Cuba will change drastically (it already is making
>>big changes), and has every likelihood of prospering.
>
>And if you're wrong, worst case the kid lives 80-90 years under a
>totalitarian dictatorship. Well maybe that's not the worst case. Sure
>I can see why you're willing to roll thiose dice, even though they're
>not yours to roll.
Nor yours. Thosae are the father's dice.
>
>>
>>> By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>>>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>>>gone,
>>
>>He's SIX YEARS OLD - he doesn't know anything of the two countries
>>now.
>>
>>> and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>>>won't matter anymore to him.
>>
>>It doesn't really matter to him NOW. It's just the adults who are
>>upset over all this.
>
>Right. So send him back to Cuba and if he doesn't like it when he's 21
>he can just leave. Ooops, no....
Ooops, yes. You gotta fight for your right to party.
>
>>
>>>
>>> How bad would it have to be, before you would agree that he would
>>>be better off not being sent back?
>>
>>He would have to be in imminent bodily danger. Otherwise, why don't
>>we just go into Appalachian communities and yank kids away from their
>>parents and send them off to live with rich folks? Since when does
>>the poverty of a family justify stealing their children?
>
>It's not about poverty, pinhead, and we didn't steal him.
Then why do you people keep making the argument that he'll be better
off here?
>
>> Aside from
>>which - Elian Gonzalez's family in Cuba is middle class. There is NO
>>evidence that the kid would be mistreated in any way - in fact, all
>>the evidence we DO have suggests just the opposite.
>
>Isn't the fact that none of them can leave Cuba mistreatment?
Not enough to trump the father's rights.
If the father comes to the US to get the boy, should he be allowed to
take him back?
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
<cay...@nyct.net> sez:
>John T. Kennedy wrote in message ...
>
>>Isn't the fact that none of them can leave Cuba mistreatment?
>
>
>Cut the child in half. Give one half to Fidel and the other half
>to Clinton.
>
>Neither will object.
This isn't about Clinton or Castro. It's about the boy and his
father. Why must you impose your political squabbles on this boy and
this man?
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:14:06 -0500, "Martin McPhillips"
><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>
>>John T. Kennedy wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Isn't the fact that none of them can leave Cuba mistreatment?
>>
>>
>>Cut the child in half. Give one half to Fidel and the other half
>>to Clinton.
>>
>>Neither will object.
>>
>
>Semi & Co. look at the boy as an animal, as long as he's reasonably
>well treated it's okay to put him in a pen.
>
Quite the contrary - people divide animals from their parents. That's
what YOU want to do. Seems to me it is YOU who treat the boy as an
animal. Human children belong with their parents.
- SemiScholar
John T. Kennedy
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:39:04 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:22:04 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:33:47 -0600, im...@supertitan.com (Mike J,
>>>Schneider) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <85ggmj$u9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <387bb051...@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>>>> (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>>> >>Analogy: a fugitive slave flees with her son from the slave states to
>>>>> >>Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Act. She dies
>>>>> >>en route. The boy's father is still a slave in South Carolina. His
>>>>> >>master requests that the Canadian government return the boy to his
>>>>> >>father, organizing mass slave protests in favor of keeping slave
>>>>> >>families together.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Hmmm... a good argument. The best I've seen in favor of keeping the
>>>>> >boy here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Semi, if you can understand this analogy, you should have no trouble
>>>>understanding any number of the other ones advanced in recent discussions
>>>>with you.
>>>>
>>>> Carry on.
>>>
>>>
>>>?? Like what did you have in mind?
>>>
>>>Besides, the analogy doesn't really hold, anyway, because returning
>>>the kid to a family with relatively high status and a position of
>>>relative power in the Cuban system is NOT the equivalent of sending a
>>>black child to a slave state, nor of sending a Jewish kid to Nazi
>>>Germany.
>>
>>Sure it is.
>
>Nice assertion. But I don't agree.
>
>>
>>> This kid will not be abused. In fact, he will enjoy a
>>>situation better than that of most of his fellow Cuban six-year-olds.
>>
>>
>>Is that the test? If a house nigger is well cared for then he's not a
>>slave?
>
>The two situations are not at all the same. To say that everybody in
>Cuba is the same as a black person in slavery in Mississippi in 1850
>is just not true. See one of the recent National Geographics -
>there's and interesting article and picture spread about Cuba.
What is the difference in principle?
Blank Out.
>
>>
>>Laying asid their bondage for a moment, weren't there some slaves who
>>were fairly well treated, not particularly abused, who enjoyed better
>>standard of living than free many Africans of the same age?
>>
>>Were they any less slaves because of their standard of living?
>>
>>Take the alleged slave mistress of Thomas Jefferson. It seems clear
>>she had a much higher standard of living than most free Africans of
>>that time, and was apparently abused very little in the sense you
>>indicate. But you know what? She was still a slave. And if she
>>escaped would you have returned her to her "owner" because that was
>>the law?
>>
>>That's what you want to do with this boy, redeliver him into bondage.
>
>In your opinions. I think you way overstate that issue, and I think
>you do a disservice to slaves by the comparison.
If Jefferson treats his slaves very well, aren't they still slaves?
If she escaped would you have retuned her to her owner because 1)
that's the law, and 2) she would have a better standard of living
with her owner than free Africans had?
Really Semi, is slavery so bad if you take good care of the property?
John T. Kennedy
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:55:02 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>sez:
>
>>In article <387cc5cd....@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com
>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Besides, the analogy doesn't really hold, anyway, because returning
>>>the kid to a family with relatively high status and a position of
>>>relative power in the Cuban system is NOT the equivalent of sending a
>>>black child to a slave state, nor of sending a Jewish kid to Nazi
>>>Germany.
>>
>>Then why did his mother lose her life in the effort to bring him to a
>>free country?
>
>Why do Mexicans sometimes die trying to get into the US? Do you think
>Mexico is the same as Nazi Germany?
>
>Elian was not in anywhere near the potnetial danger in Cuba as a
>jewish kid was in Nazi Germany.
What has danger got to do with it? The law is the law. If people don't
have inalienable rights, what possible objection can you have to the
incineration of jews in Germany? What business is it of yours?
SemiScholar
sez:
>In article <387be0be...@news.goldengate.net>,
>SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:15:06 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>>sez:
>>
>
>>The question is whether life in Cuba is equivalent to those situations.
>>From what I know of Cuba, that's just not true.
>
>How is life in Cuba now better than it was in Germany in 1941, for the
>average person?
The example was not for the "average person" - it was for a jewish
kid. If the kid was not Jewish, then yes, in 1941 I would have sent
him back.
>
>>As bad as Cuba might be, that kid is not in anywhere near similar
>>jeopardy as the kids in your examples.
>
>How do you know? How do you know what Castro will decide to do to the
>boy or his father in the future? How do you know that Castro won't
>decide to purge the Party again, orphaning the boy, & cutting him off
>from the source of privilege that leads you to approve his return to a
>totalitarian dictatorship? Do you know what happens to the family
>members of those who're purged from the Party in Communist regimes?
What if, what if. How do we know the boy won't be killed by a drug
gang? All those things are just baseless speculation.
>
>Castro purged the Party as recently as earlier this decade, murdering
>his top General from the campaign in Angola, to prove that not even such
>valorous military service would protect anyone who challenged Castro's
>rule. Stalin was starting to purge people again in 1953, right before
>he died. How do you know Castro won't purge anyone ever again before he
>dies or leaves office?
Do you really think Castro's going to kill Elian Gonzalez?
>
>To live in a totalitarian dictatorship is to live at the whim of the
>dictator, your life depending upon the dictator's whim all the time.
Yes. Understood. But that's still not enough.
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:36:26 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:07:21 -0500, John T. Kennedy
>><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:05:33 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
>>>(SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>
>>>The argument is made that government servitude here, say through
>>>taxation, is not slavery because you're free to leave.
>>>
>>>But that argument doesn't work in Cuba, does it? So why isn't Cuba
>>>slavery?
>>
>>If you think that's what slavery is, then you have NO idea what it
>>meant to be black in Mississippi in 1850. Sheesh!
>
>A slave COULD live in a nice mansion with Thomas Jefferson and be
>treated very well. Did that make her any less a slave?
Yes, actually. Which would YOU rather have been - Sally Hemmings of a
cotton-picker?
>
>>
>>Aside from which, your position seems to me to be the ULTIMATE in
>>statism - you're saying that a government - and a FOREIGN one at that
>>- has the right to keep a child from his loving, middle class,
>>non-abusive, biological custodial parent.
>
>I've said nothing of the sort. I've said you and your gang have no
>right to deliver the child into bondage.
>
>> I don't know...
>
>...what you're talking about.
Well, that's pretty honest debating, isn't it? Generally you do
pretty well - you and your compatriot Tim Starr have some good points
and this issue is not cut-and-dried. So don't ruin it and spin off
into Canyonesque childishness. Stick to your points, you support your
position better.
>
>
>>how much more
>>statist you can get than that.
- SemiScholar
John T. Kennedy
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:58:57 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>sez:
>
>>In article <387cc679....@news.visi.com>,
>>nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:20:32 -0500, John T. Kennedy
>>><kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:42:47 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I believe US law DOES require returning the kid to his
>>>>>father unless the father is unfit.
>>>>
>>>>And US law also required returning slaves.
>>>>
>>>>We hold that all men are born with inalienable rights...
>>>
>>>Unless slave states want them back. Why quote something that was
>>>obvious bullshit when it was written?
>>
>>The tacit exception was the bullshit, not the principle.
>
>When a slave owner writes the words, the words are bullshit.
You can say the framers were bullshitting, but the question remains:
Were the words true? They were.
>
>>
>>>>...unless Cuba wants them back.
>>>
>>>I would think you would argue that one of those "inalienable rights"
>>>would be the right to raise your own children as you see fit, eh?
>>
>>Not if that means violating the rights of my children.
>
>???
Do you suppose a parent has a right to do ANYTHING with his child?
>
>>
>>>How do you square that with your argument that the State should
>>>intervene and prevent a father from raising his own child?
>>
>>The boy's not in the custody of his father, the boy was in the custody
>>of his mother,
>
>The father was the custodial parent after the divorce.
>
>> & she lost her life in the effort to get him to freedom.
>>Her wish should be honored. I'm sure there are plenty of people here in
>>the USA who would be willing to adopt him. I'm sure he'd have a much
>>better life here in the USA than he would back in Cuba.
>
>I bet he would, too. So if any Cuban family visits the US, should we
>just prevent the kids from returning to Cuba with the parents on the
>grounds that they would be better off here?
I don't see any parent here returning with a kid.
And we've told you the grounds, it's not standard of living.
>
>>
>>>Sounds pretty "statist" to me. What "rights", exactly, would be
>>>violated by returning the kid to his rightful father, all 4
>>>grandparents and extended family?
>>
>>The child's right to live in a relatively free country, instead of a
>>totalitarian dictatorship.
>
>
>Ahhh... so you get to decide which rights trump which other rights?
>Ho do you get that job, anyway.
How did Fidel Castro get the job?
>
>
>I have a question for all of you. If the father does come to Miami
>and asks the court for his kid, should we let the kid go back then?
If the father comes here for the kid, I have little doubt he will be
able to drag the kid back into Cuba one way or another. And you may
get to see that happen. Cuba will have hostages though to insure the
Father will return, bet on that.
It would not be wrong to save the boy from returning once the
intention to return him became evident. But the guy could come here
and say I defect, give me my son, okay now wer're gong to Canada, okay
now I undefect and we're going to Cuba.
bre...@no-spam.com
> Okay; so he's probably not going to be tossed into an oven. He's
>probably just going to grow into grinding poverty, greyed out of the
>potential of his life. By the time he's 21 or so, anything he might
>have remembered of the differences between America and Cuba will be
>gone, and he'll be just about completely anesthetized to it all. It
>won't matter anymore to him.
Do you favor increasing the quota of Cubans allowed into the US on safe
transport? Opening our borders to all the teeming masses who want to get
away from grinding poverty?
If so, fine.
If not, why encourage others to set out on inner tubes?
Favoring free immigration would be a logical position. I hope the kid shows
up at Burton's hearing with a petition to let in all poor children, even if
they travel safely.
Bredon
--------------------
Classic Moral Principles Message Board:
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb303987
http://www.geocities.com/athens/thebes/4809
I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)
bre...@no-spam.com
open my borders and let everyone who wants to go to Florida."
He did this in the Reagan admin and Reagan begged him to keep them home.
It's a complicated situation. Probably Clinton and Reno are right in
supporting the INS. But imo as long as the boy doesn't want to go back, we
shouldn't force him.
But the people who are treating this like some sort of slavery or Berlin
Wall escape -- better be ready to open our borders to all the others, who
don't get publicity.
Cheers,
Bredon
---
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:43:36 GMT, SemiS...@IDontWantNoSpam.com
(SemiScholar) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:26:36 -0500, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hushmail.com> sez:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:19:30 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
>>wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>I think the Cubans are primarily fleeing poverty and lack of
>>>opportunity - caused by communism to be sure (and the US's embargo).
>>>They see the US as the Land of Opportunity - Milk & Honey and all
>>>that. And many of them find when they get here that they were quite
>>>mistaken about how rich they would become.
>>
>>Hence the massive raft traffic BACK to Cuba.
>
>Mostly those being returned by US law, as applies to this boy. Why is
>this boy different from all the others? Why is he the exception?
>
>>
>>> But I don't think they are fleeing slavery.
>>
>>Why isn't it slavery if they can't leave?
>
>There are large differences. If you don't know what slavery was like,
>I suggest you study up on it - I'm not here to teach you. If you
>really can't see the difference between slavery in the US south and
>Cuba, then I suspect that you just don't know much about one or the
>other.
>
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then let his father come to the US to get him, along with the rest of
>>>>>>his father's family, so Castro won't have anyone to hold hostage back in
>>>>>>Cuba if the father decides to also defect.
>>>>>
>>>>>That would be okay by me. But if Castro does not allow it, I don't
>>>>>know that that should be a determining factor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why wouldn't he allow it, unless he's running a slave state?
>>>
>>>Many reasons.
>>
>>Many? Then you'll have no difficulty naming three.
>>
>>The reasons would be?
>>
>1) Maybe the father's afraid because there are a lot of fanatic
>anti-communists in Miami and America is the Land of Guns. If Gianni
>Versace isn't safe, maybe he doesn't feel safe. Can't say as I blame
>him - some of those Cuban exiles are VERY enthusiastic.
>
>2) Maybe he doesn't like the relatives in the US. Hell, I got some
>relatives I'd rather not be in the same room with.
>
>3) Maybe Castro doesn't want to allow it because he doesn't want the
>man subjected to intense hostile pressure.
>
>4) Maybe Castro doesn't want to pay for the trip. (cheap SOB)
>
>5) Propaganda. Maybe Castro thinks he's getting better press out of
>the standoff - he likes being in the limelight. Maybe he likes having
>the US look like bad guys keeping a kid from his father. Last poll I
>heard, something like 60% of Americans think the kid should go back.
>I suspect that in international polls, that opinion is even more
>lopsided.
>
>6) Maybe Castro is standing on principle - that the US should follow
>its own law and international law and convention. Maybe he thinks a
>child should be with his parent, and he expects nations to behave in
>certain ways in order to expect to be treated that way in return.
>
>7) Maybe Castro's got some other deal going on and the longer this
>drags out, the more leverage he has in getting some concession on
>something else he wants. He's done that sort of thing before - he's
>even extracted concessions from the Reagan administration by releasing
>people to the US.
>
>etc.
>
>
>
>>
>>>But I would point out that the boy's father is a
>>>communist party member and enjoys relatively high status in Cuba. The
>>>boy would not be returned to squalid conditions.
>>
>>It's not about economic standard of living, it's about the child's
>>inalienable rights.
>
>If they are inalienable, then he has them in Cuba, to, eh? How is
>this boy different from any of the other Cubans rescued at sea that we
>send back? Other, of course, than the fact that he is not competent
>to make his own decisions and his obvious "inalienable" legal
>guardian is his father, who wants him back.
>
>
>>>>He knows damn well they would defect, is why!
>>>
>>>The father is a commie. I don't know that he would defect.
>>
>>Bring the whole family over and you'll see massive defection. Again,
>>why aren't they free to come if they're not slaves?
>
>See above.
>
>>
>>Can the Cuban government conceivably have any right to prevent it's
>>citizens from emigrating?
>
>Maybe, maybe not. That's not my decision to make. Nor yours.
>
>>
>>
>>>You know
>>>- some people really believe in Castro and "the revolution". In any
>>>case, the father shouldn't _have_ to come to the US - the US should do
>>>the lawful thing and return the boy.
>>
>>Just as you would return a slave to his lawful owner? The law is the
>>law, eh?
>
>It takes exceptional circumstances to ignore the law. We are a nation
>of laws, not of men. Those laws create the civilization that we have.
>In this case, I don't believe the circumstances warrant breaking the
>national and international laws, much less the "higher law" that I
>believe in: that the family is more important than the state.
>
>Just my opinion, I suppose, but there it is.
>
>
>
> - SemiScholar