JMS CIS Digest: 02-Mar-99 00:17 through 02-Mar-99 00:17 (3 msgs)
John D. Hardin
J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
02-Mar-99 00:17 through 02-Mar-99 00:17 (3 messages)
WARNING: This digest may contain information about shows
you haven't seen yet ("spoilers"). Proceed with caution.
Subjects in digest:
Elia Kazan?
Crusade Gone For Now
Administrivia:
South Park fans may wish to visit:
http://www.infinicorp.com/babylonpark/
The administrivia for this digest may be read at
http://www.wolfenet.com/~jhardin/JMS-Digest-Administrivia.txt
It was last updated Sat Feb 13 10:21:30 1999
Replies to this digest go to John Hardin.
obSpoiler-space...
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Feb 1999 20:22:08 -0700
From: Andy Ihnatko <7251...@compuserve.com>
To: JMS <71016...@compuserve.com>
Subject: Elia Kazan?
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
Was wondering if you had any thoughts or reactions regarding the
honorary Oscar that's going to be presented to Elia Kazan during this
year's Academy Awards. There's been a long and lively thread about it
in Roger Ebert's section on SHOWBIZ and in light of your previous
statements regarding the Blacklist I wonder what your opinion is.
(I'm aghast, and have only become more so with each new book I've
sought and read about Kazan and other Friends of the Committee. The
only possible good thing that could come from this is perhaps it'll
make people more aware of what had happened...)
------------------------------
Date: 02 Mar 1999 00:17:07 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: Andy Ihnatko <7251...@compuserve.com>
Subject: Elia Kazan?
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
I will almost certainly be out of the TV room during the
presentation.
jms
------------------------------
Date: 02 Mar 1999 00:17:07 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: (blocked)
Subject: Crusade Gone For Now
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
Your words are most kind, and appreciated...thank you.
jms
------------------------------
End of JMS CIS Digest 02-Mar-99 00:17 through 02-Mar-99 00:17
*************************************************************
Support the anti-Spam bill - join at http://www.cauce.org
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info <*> Submissions: b5-...@plage.stanford.edu
Another fine service of ISN Mars Comments: b5-info...@plage.stanford.edu
Ronald P. Peterson
Ron
John D. Hardin (jha...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
: RFC 1153 Digest of messages from
Mark Alexander
>
> Er, who is Elia Kazan?
>
> Ron
He's the guy who *named names* of Hollywood people and writers attending
Communist meetings during the 1950's House on UnAmerican Activities
Committee hearings.
He's widely regarded in Hollywood as a weasal and a rat fink.
What people rarely talk about is the fact that those who supported
Stalin and Communist propoganda were waaaaaaaay wrong. Their thoughtless
idealism (or conscious in some cases) contributed to the slaughter of
millions.
If Kazan were in Nazi Germany, he would have named names of those quiet
supporters of the Nazis. Funny how today we are aghast at those who
*failed to speak up* (read *failed to be weasals and rat finks*) when
the Nazis slaughtered but we hold Kazan in contempt for naming the quiet
supporters of Stalin and the Communists who conducted a much larger
slaughter.
But idealistic *artistes* are often duped by the duplicitous seekers of
power.
Mark *wearing an flameproof suit* Alexander
Mike Van Pelt
Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Ronald P. Peterson" wrote:
>>
>> Er, who is Elia Kazan?
>
>Communist meetings during the 1950's House on UnAmerican Activities
>Committee hearings.
>
>He's widely regarded in Hollywood as a weasal and a rat fink.
>
>What people rarely talk about is the fact that those who supported
>Stalin and Communist propoganda were waaaaaaaay wrong. Their thoughtless
>idealism (or conscious in some cases) contributed to the slaughter of
>millions.
>
>If Kazan were in Nazi Germany, he would have named names of those quiet
>supporters of the Nazis. Funny how today we are aghast at those who
>*failed to speak up* (read *failed to be weasals and rat finks*) when
>the Nazis slaughtered but we hold Kazan in contempt for naming the quiet
>supporters of Stalin and the Communists who conducted a much larger
>slaughter.
>
>But idealistic *artistes* are often duped by the duplicitous seekers of
>power.
I find it rather grimly amusing that those who profess the
greatest horror at "The Black List" now demand that Elia Kazan
remain blacklisted, forty years later, and get indignant, bent
out of shape, and even violent at any cracks in *that* black list.
--
"There is something about the underhanded use | Mike Van Pelt
of power that makes it seem so shrewd, even | m...@netcom.com
when it is abysmally stupid." -- Thomas Sowell | KE6BVH
****WARNING: I complain to your ISP if you send me spam! ******
Scott Johnson
:
: If Kazan were in Nazi Germany, he would have named names of those quiet
: supporters of the Nazis. Funny how today we are aghast at those who
: *failed to speak up* (read *failed to be weasals and rat finks*) when
: the Nazis slaughtered but we hold Kazan in contempt for naming the quiet
: supporters of Stalin and the Communists who conducted a much larger
: slaughter.
There is a big difference between speaking out against government policies
that are unjust, and turning in colleagues to be persecuted by an
extra-legal body for participating in totally legal activities. The
people who were turned in by Kazan and others often did not have any
involvement with the communist party other than maybe having a couple of
the wrong friends. Of course that didn't save them from getting
blacklisted and not being able to work. But that's ok, because we don't
agree with their politics.
: But idealistic *artistes* are often duped by the duplicitous seekers of
: power.
That is a rather generalistic statement about a large group of people I
doubt you have ever met.
--
Scott Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
and Merit Network, Inc. (734) 763-5363
Finger for PGP public key.
Mark Alexander
Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> Mark Alexander (mark...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> :
> : If Kazan were in Nazi Germany, he would have named names of those quiet
> : supporters of the Nazis. Funny how today we are aghast at those who
> : *failed to speak up* (read *failed to be weasals and rat finks*) when
> : the Nazis slaughtered but we hold Kazan in contempt for naming the quiet
> : supporters of Stalin and the Communists who conducted a much larger
> : slaughter.
>
> There is a big difference between speaking out against government policies
> that are unjust, and turning in colleagues to be persecuted by an
> extra-legal body for participating in totally legal activities. The
> people who were turned in by Kazan and others often did not have any
> involvement with the communist party other than maybe having a couple of
> the wrong friends. Of course that didn't save them from getting
> blacklisted and not being able to work. But that's ok, because we don't
> agree with their politics.
No, it's not OK. It's very easy for us to look back and Monday-morning
quarterback the events. It was an obviously smarmy time, and it cannot
be reduced to all good guys and bad guys. As a former leftist (which
does not mean I am now a *rightest*...I no longer buy into the
left/right liberal/conservative dichotomies), I bought into much of the
anti-Kazan propaganda, but because I knew from experience how often
*history* is reworked, after some time I delved into a number of
historical studies and reframed my anchor points.
Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and he did not have
our retrospective view on the activities of the committee. But he knew
enough to recognize the truth of Stalin and communism, so he made his
choice. Partly bad, I agree. But also partly good. I don't know if I
would have that courage if I were in his place. But it was a principled
stand. Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism never took
responsibility for the slaughter.
We have the same thing going on today in a different context with Linda
Tripp and Monica. So many people revile Tripp because she took the
principled stand that said, "A friend who asks me to violate federal
laws is no friend, especially when she has the President behind her...I
better get evidence to protect myself."
The media spin today is powerful now, just as it was in the 1950s. Tripp
is today's Kazan, and much of Hollywood is right there sliming her.
>
> : But idealistic *artistes* are often duped by the duplicitous seekers of
> : power.
>
> That is a rather generalistic statement about a large group of people I
> doubt you have ever met.
My statement was qualified enough not to be a simple general statement.
I was one of those artistes. Musician, composer, poet, writer...(Still
am a professional writer, who is sending off his latest book proposal to
his literary agent in two weeks. I'll let you know when the book is
bought, if you really want my *artiste* credentials. <g> )
I even bought into President Clinton in 1991 thinking he was the real
thing, even though the evidence was already out there that he lies
pathologically. Now there is compelling evidence that he is a rapist.
And much of the Hollywood community averts its gaze. I guess it's now OK
to be a rapist if you are Pro-choice. (I am Pro-choice as well, but I
think there should be a general outcry for his resignation.)
Mark *missed me with your flamethrower* Alexander
Mark Alexander
background.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/frontlines/feb99/nyt2-24-99.htm
Scott Johnson
:
: Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and he did not have
: our retrospective view on the activities of the committee. But he knew
: enough to recognize the truth of Stalin and communism, so he made his
You keep tying Stalin and communism together. It seems to me that Stalin
was a good old-fashioned military dictator who just happened to do what he
did in the name of communism because it was the easiest way for him to
rise to power at the time. I'm not saying that communism is a workable
system of government (that's a completely different debate for another
time). I will also be the first to admit that I don't know the actual
views of the particular people that Kazan turned in, but I bet it's a safe
bet that if they were involved with communism at all, it was because they
thought that the ideals of what communism were supposed to be were good,
as opposed to actually supporting Stalin and his slaughter, if they were
even aware of it at the time.
: choice. Partly bad, I agree. But also partly good. I don't know if I
: would have that courage if I were in his place. But it was a principled
: stand. Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism never took
: responsibility for the slaughter.
And again, I don't know about Kazan in particular, but there is
substantial evidence that the names that people like him turned in as
"commie sympathizers" were actually not involved in communist politics at
all. If not Kazan himself, many of the people who named names were more
interested in saving their own skin at the expense of anyone else than
they were in taking a principled stand against people they thought were
doing something wrong. This isn't about leftist or rightist philosophy --
it's about justice, and the terrible miscarriage of justice that was the
McCarthy trials.
If the government came to your door and asked you for names of people that
believed in a particular idea, and you knew from watching the trials that
those people would be ruthlessly persecuted, and that if you didn't give
them names that you also would be persecuted, is that taking a stand for
something you believe in? Or is it giving in and participating in an
injustice to save your skin (at best), or for personal profit (at worst)?
I think that is a much more accurate description of what happened. I am
also willing to admit, however, that I don't know if in his case in
particular that was his motivation, but there is certainly a lot of
precedent for others behavior to think that this might be the case with
him.
If you think someone is wrong, fine. Debate them, stand up against them
in public, whatever. But if you participate in the persecution of someone
for a *belief*, then you are participating in an injustice. It is not
illegal in the U.S. to believe anything, or to peaceably assemble for any
purpose. Turning in someone's name to a government committee for doing
those things is no less than actively helping the government break it's
own laws and consitution to commit injustice. That is what Kazan did.
: I even bought into President Clinton in 1991 thinking he was the real
: thing, even though the evidence was already out there that he lies
: pathologically. Now there is compelling evidence that he is a rapist.
Alright, let's not even go there -- that is another thread entirely, and
one probably left undisturbed. Although I don't see how you got from
Monica Lewinsky to rapist, especially with the "compelling evidence" part.
That's the kind of statement that should only be made with some serious
citation to back it up. But please don't do it here -- this thread is
probably off-topic enough as it is.
: Mark *missed me with your flamethrower* Alexander
<looks at pen, shakes a few times, holds it up to the light.>
Hmm, must be the ink. I'll try a different brand.
Steve Brinich
> Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and he did not
> have our retrospective view on the activities of the committee. But
> he knew enough to recognize the truth of Stalin and communism, so he
> made his choice. Partly bad, I agree. But also partly good. I don't
> know if I would have that courage if I were in his place. But it was
> a principled stand. Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism
> never took responsibility for the slaughter.
Unless you can tell us that Kazan presented evidence relating to
activities which the government may *legitimately* suppress (e.g.
espionage, sabotage), your argument is not persuasive.
Certainly, your suggestion that he could not have known better at the
time ("our retrospective view") is silly -- notwithstanding all the
threads on this newsgroup about linguistic drift, the phrase "Congress
shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" meant the same thing in
1952 that it meant in 1790 or means in 1999.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
James A. Wolf
>"Ronald P. Peterson" wrote:
>>
>> Er, who is Elia Kazan?
>>
>> Ron
>
>He's the guy who *named names* of Hollywood people and writers attending
>Communist meetings during the 1950's House on UnAmerican Activities
>Committee hearings.
>
He was also a brilliant director and was one of the founders of the
Actor's Studio. His most famous work was 'On The Waterfront'.
<*> James A. Wolf - jaw...@tiac.net - www.tiac.net/users/jawolf <*>
"The jawbone of an ass is | "You really shouldn't |"There is no law for those
just as dangerous a weapon | encourage my socio- |who make the laws and no
today as in Samson's time."| pathic tendencies." |law for the incorrigibly
Richard Nixon | Florence King |lawless." Terry Prachett
[PLEASE BUY 'THE ULTIMATE HULK' ANTHOLOGY, WITH MY FIRST PUBLISHED STORY!]
James A. Wolf
>You keep tying Stalin and communism together. It seems to me that Stalin
>was a good old-fashioned military dictator who just happened to do what he
>did in the name of communism because it was the easiest way for him to
>rise to power at the time.
In those days, Stalin WAS Communism. If they could not
dissasociate themselves from Stalin's regime after the purges, then to
Hell with them.
James A. Wolf
>Mark Alexander wrote:
>
>> Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and he did not
>> have our retrospective view on the activities of the committee. But
>> he knew enough to recognize the truth of Stalin and communism, so he
>> made his choice. Partly bad, I agree. But also partly good. I don't
>> know if I would have that courage if I were in his place. But it was
>> a principled stand. Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism
>> never took responsibility for the slaughter.
>
> Unless you can tell us that Kazan presented evidence relating to
>activities which the government may *legitimately* suppress (e.g.
>espionage, sabotage), your argument is not persuasive.
The infiltration of Hollywood by Communist agents during the
30s ("Comrade, let's do lunch!") was part of the massive espionage
effort. Granted they were a 'propoganda' arm, rather than real spies,
but the principle is the same. The Red Scare was brought on, in no
small part by the realization of how much Soviet espionage was
occouring in the US during the 30s and 40s.
Mark Alexander
Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> Mark Alexander (mark...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> :
> : Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and he did not have
> : our retrospective view on the activities of the committee. But he knew
> : enough to recognize the truth of Stalin and communism, so he made his
>
> You keep tying Stalin and communism together.
You have not read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago
1918-1956 : An Experiment in Literary Investigation". Just read volume
one. It will not only cause you to reappraise your notions of Stalin and
communism, but also will help fill in your blank spots of what Kazan was
aware of and responding to.
It is also a fine literary read with profound ironic humor. Only go on
to volumes two and three if you can stomach deep horror.
Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander
>
> Mark Alexander wrote:
>
> > Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and he did not
> > have our retrospective view on the activities of the committee. But
> > he knew enough to recognize the truth of Stalin and communism, so he
> > know if I would have that courage if I were in his place. But it was
> > a principled stand. Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism
> > never took responsibility for the slaughter.
>
> Unless you can tell us that Kazan presented evidence relating to
> activities which the government may *legitimately* suppress (e.g.
> espionage, sabotage), your argument is not persuasive.
> time ("our retrospective view") is silly -- notwithstanding all the
> threads on this newsgroup about linguistic drift, the phrase "Congress
> shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" meant the same thing in
> 1952 that it meant in 1790 or means in 1999.
And have you read Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago
1918-1956 : An Experiment in Literary Investigation Vol 1"?
Recognizing the surreptitious activities of a real enemy *and* trying to
defend against them raises all kinds of troubling issues with the
Constitution and our guaranteed freedoms. I suspect that until our
government has an extremely clear position on when to wage War (which by
definition involves a suspension of the Constitution, at least for those
we war against), then there will never be any clarity.
I am not saying the U.S. government at that time acted completely
honorable. But we must also accept that they were aware of a genuine
threat, one that by its nature was surreptitious.
You make good points, but they do not address the genuine dilemmas
associated with government actions when faced with certain kinds of
threats.
Unfortunately, the constitutional framers had no idea of the
technological society that would someday come into being. They had no
idea a President, say, could unilaterally launch dozens of cruise
missiles on an aspirin factory in the Sudan.
It would have been nice if they had thought to extend Constitutional
rights to other nations to protect them from our President, who cannot
launch those same missiles into an aspirin factory in Kansas.
The Constitution is not clear cut on matters of internal threats.
Mark
Steve Brinich
> The infiltration of Hollywood by Communist agents during the
> 30s ("Comrade, let's do lunch!") was part of the massive espionage
> effort. Granted they were a 'propoganda' arm, rather than real
> spies, but the principle is the same.
*BZZZTT* Thank you for playing.
A person who spreads propaganda, but does not engage in unlawful
*actions* (e.g. sabotage, espionage) is excersizing rights protected by
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Any general association between the propagandists and the real spies is
irrelevant, unless one can show that a given "propagandist" has criminal
knowledge concerning a given "spy", in which case the former may be
subpoenaed to testify about the latter. This is highly unlikely, since no
spymaster in his right mind would allow the highly visible propagandists
to know anything about the covert ops.
Steve Brinich
> Recognizing the surreptitious activities of a real enemy *and*
> trying to defend against them raises all kinds of troubling issues
> with the Constitution and our guaranteed freedoms. I suspect that
> until our government has an extremely clear position on when to
> wage War (which by definition involves a suspension of the
> Constitution, at least for those we war against), then there will
> never be any clarity.
The people against whom we wage war are, by definition, foreigners, to
whom the Constitution does not apply. Or are you referring to suspension
of the Constitutional rights of citizens alleged to be sympathetic to an
enemy power (e.g. the WWII Nisei internments)?
> I am not saying the U.S. government at that time acted completely
> honorable. But we must also accept that they were aware of a genuine
> threat, one that by its nature was surreptitious.
Many ordinary crimes are by their nature surreptitious. The police are
nevertheless expected to catch the perpetrators and gather evidence with
which to convict them within the constraints set by the Constitution. In
general, they manage to do so.
> You make good points, but they do not address the genuine dilemmas
> associated with government actions when faced with certain kinds of
> threats.
Nor can I, unless you are more specific about the nature of these
"dilemmas".
> The Constitution is not clear cut on matters of internal threats.
In fact, these very issues came up in the first decade of the Republic,
while most of the authors of the Constitution were still in public life,
with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Fortunately, the
argument that national security is the root password to the Constitution
was ultimately rejected in that case. Unfortunately, it keeps coming
back.
Jms at B5
>greatest horror at "The Black List" now demand that Elia Kazan
>remain blacklisted, forty years later, and get indignant, bent
>out of shape, and even violent at any cracks in *that* black list.
Langauge and words have specific meaning.
To be blacklisted means that you cannot work, cannot pursue your livelihood.
Kazan has worked successfully for his entire life.
Further, most of those prosecuted under the blacklist were totally innocent and
never did the things they were accused of doing. No one has ever said that
Kazan didn't name names.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Mark Alexander
>
> In fact, these very issues came up in the first decade of the Republic,
> while most of the authors of the Constitution were still in public life,
> with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Fortunately, the
> argument that national security is the root password to the Constitution
> was ultimately rejected in that case. Unfortunately, it keeps coming
> back.
So I assume from your answer that you hae not read Solzhenitsyn's "The
Gulag Archipelago." Too bad. It's an incredibly enlightening experience,
intellectually rich darkly humorous, and demonstrates the very
particular nature of communism and what it inevitably leads to.
The dilemma as I see it is somewhat analogous to this: A village has as
part of its constitution the right of every tribe to use the village
well in any kind of bucket they choose.
One tribe, the Refomers, comes along espousing the belief that the right
should be abolished and members of that tribe use a bucket made of lead.
Not all members of the Reformers are aware of that.
The village elders discover that the well is slowly being poisoned and
they have compelling evidence that the bucket of the Reformers is made
of lead. They discover a secret Reformer document that urges slow
poisoning of the well.
They hold hearings. They love their founding right to the well, but they
are disturbed by poisoning by the Reformers. One man comes along and
names names of associates who have partcipated in tribal meetings though
they may not have know the bucket was made of lead.
Many innocents are hurt and many who are guilty are exposed with the
secret Reformer agenda.
The man is reviled by his associates. But he sticks with his principles,
saying that the Reformer conspiracy had to be exposed because too many
remained quiet about the threat. Years later, when proof comes out that
the Reformers have poisoned, killed, and taken over numerous other
villages, the man's associates and their descendents are still more
appalled at the man than at their own support of such a tribe.
Mark
Mark Alexander
******************************************
Hollywood Hypocrisy
by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
New York Times | February 28, 1999
ELIA KAZAN IS A WONDERFULLY CREATIVE DIRECTOR who has contributed
brilliantly to the arts of drama and film in the Twentieth Century. He
is also a man who in 1952 gave the House Committee on Un-American
Activities the names of people he had known during his brief membership
in the Communist Party sixteen years before. And he is a man whose
impending recognition by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
is driving some people into orgies of self-righteous frenzy. Mr. Kazan,
they say, is a scoundrel who should apologize for past misdeeds in
politics before he receives an honorary Oscar for his lifetime
achievement in the arts.
Mr. Kazan, the protesters say, is an informer, and his offense is
unforgivable. But is that what the protesters really mean? Is informing
unforgivable in all circumstances? Had Mr. Kazan been a member of the
German-American Bund naming underground Nazis, would they have condemned
him just as much? Or a former Klansman who informed on his hooded
brethren? Or a former Mafia thug who informed on the mob? Or a member of
the Nixon White House who informed during Watergate? Or a whistleblower
who disclosed government malfeasance? No, informing per se is not Mr.
Kazan's offense. His true offense in the minds of the Hollywood
protesters is that he informed on the Communist Party.
Now, informing on former associates is not an easy choice, even though
Mr. Kazan named no names not already known to the committee. Under the
pressure of the time, Mr. Kazan searched his conscience and went one
way. Others searched their consciences and went another way. Those who
were not subject to the pressures of the time should not rush to
judgment. "No one knows what he'd do," Lee Strasberg, the director of
the Actors Studio, told Mr. Kazan, "until he's in it."
Mr. Kazan's critics are those—or latter-day admirers of those—who
continued to defend Stalin after the Moscow trials, after the pact with
Hitler, through the age of the gulag. One wonders at their presumption
in condemning others for recognizing the horrors of Stalinism—horrors
that the entire world, including Russia, acknowledges today.
The presumption is especially acute when it comes from those who, when
they testified before HUAC, declined to declare their true beliefs.
(Bartley Crum, one of their lawyers, urged that they declare them.)
Instead they preserved secrecy, refused to argue their beliefs, and
posed as champions of a Bill of Rights that a Stalinist regime would
instantly have abolished. If the Academy's occasion calls for apologies,
let Mr. Kazan's denouncers apologize for the aid and comfort they gave
to Stalinism.
Those were horrid times. Little has disgraced Congress more than the
House Committee on Un-American Activities. Its inquiry into Communism in
Hollywood was among the most indefensible, scandalous, and cruel
episodes in the entire history of legislative investigations. The idea
that the presence of a few Stalinists and fellow-travelers in the film
industry was a grave threat to the republic rates high in the annals of
Congressional asininity. Collaboration with these Congressional clowns
had its elements of disgust and shame, as Mr. Kazan himself admits in
his memoir.
But was it worse than collaboration with the Communist Party—the party
that for years, as Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in 1945, "taught the
philosophy of the lie."
"They taught that allegiance to the party and acceptance of orders from
party heads, whose interests were not just those of the United States,
were paramount" she said. "Because I have experienced the deception of
the American Communists, I will not trust them."
These were indeed horrid years—horrid for HUAC's unhappy targets, horrid
for HUAC's unhappy collaborators. In 1970 Dalton Trumbo, a major target,
spoke interesting words to the Screenwriters Guild.
"Caught in a situation that had passed beyond the control of mere
individuals," he said, "each person reacted as his nature, his needs,
his convictions, and his particular circumstances compelled him to.
There was bad faith and good, honesty and dishonesty, courage and
cowardice, selflessness and opportunism, wisdom and stupidity, good and
bad on both sides."
Mr. Trumbo concluded: "When you who are in your 40s or younger look back
with curiosity on that dark time, as I think occasionally you should, it
will do no good to search for villains or heroes or saints or devils
because there were none; there were only victims."
Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
E N D
John W Kennedy
> Further, most of those prosecuted under the blacklist were totally innocent and
> never did the things they were accused of doing.
Is this actually so? That is -- I have no doubt that the overwhelming
majority of them never worked for the overthrow of the United States,
and I wholeheartedly agree that McCarthy and the HUAC had no damn
business doing what they were doing, but of those who were "accused"
merely of attending a Communist Party meeting or so in the 30's, were a
majority, as a matter of fact, not even "guilty" of that? (Lord knows,
in the 30's, there were plenty of good reasons to attend them, at least
if you didn't know the truth about Stalin.)
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
> Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism never took
> responsibility for the slaughter.
[blank stare]
Are you seriously asserting that the men who had their lives ruined by
HUAC were, in *any* way, shape, or form, responsible for Stalin's
genocidal policies? Do you really think they would have condoned the
murder of 50 million people?
Get real. The leftist elements in Hollywood had been making pro-worker
"social protest" movies decades before the alleged "communist
infiltration"...little films like "The Grapes of Wrath" and "I Am a
Fugitive from a Chain Gang". The fact that the people who made these
may concievably have associated with the wrong element did not,
incidentally, make these films any less valid as works of art or as
political statements.
And while those who opposed communism may well have been horrified by
the goings-on in the USSR, that didn't seem to make them think twice
about using their own totalitarian tactics, and it will never justify
their ruinous treatment of *loyal American citizens*.
Why is it so hard to accept that HUAC was just another symptom of that
universal human disease, reasonless fear? It was nothing more or less
than an attempt by Congress to divert attention from US foreign policy
failures such as the "loss of China" to an arena where they were less
impotent (especially when that pesky old Constitution was thrown out the
window).
Keep in mind, this had little to no bearing on whether or not Kazan's
artistic works merit him a lifetime achievement award (I personally feel
that he deserves at least some recognition).
Jacob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
ImRastro
>
>The Constitution is not clear cut on matters of internal threats.
>
>Mark
WRONG. The Constitution is clear that each and every one of us has the right
to express political views including communist views. Political views, whether
expressed through verbal speech, symbolic speech....hell even the movies, is
considered the form of speech granted the highest standard of protection under
the Constitution. Don't talk to me about Stalinism and how "bad" it was. That
is a red herring. This is a freedom of speech issue. Read the First
Amendment. Read Cohen v. US. Read the accompanying cases (Rosenfeld etc).
Read the more recent decisions. Read the cases concerning freedom of
association. (You want cites, no problem....give me a day to get back to my
office and I will cite you all the legal authority you need). The framers of
the Constitutoin were aware of this issue and specifically addressed it as the
first and most important right of a FREE society. The market place of ideas is
large enough to allow nazi's to march through Skoki and communists to meet in
Manhatten cells and TALK. Last I checked, no-one denounced by Kazan or ANYONE
ELSE destroyed in that whitch-hunt were building bombs or otherwise committing
illegal acts. They were driven from their careers and often their holmes based
on nothing but rumour and innuendo. History is clear that this was
orchestrated for the greater good of some politician's and some hollywood
personalities careers (All hail Ronald Reagan) NOT the law.
If you don't know the law, don't purport to expound on it.
Tammy Smith
weren't communists, and their careers were ruined. It was just a lot of
hysteria.
Tammy
Joe Schulte
<yadda yadda snipped>
: unforgivable. But is that what the protesters really mean? Is informing
: unforgivable in all circumstances? Had Mr. Kazan been a member of the
: German-American Bund naming underground Nazis, would they have condemned
: him just as much? Or a former Klansman who informed on his hooded
: brethren? Or a former Mafia thug who informed on the mob? Or a member of
: the Nixon White House who informed during Watergate? Or a whistleblower
: who disclosed government malfeasance? No, informing per se is not Mr.
: Kazan's offense. His true offense in the minds of the Hollywood
: protesters is that he informed on the Communist Party.
If he informed on someone who happened to be *friends* with a member of
the KKK/Nazis/Mafia? Knowing that the person would be destroyed because of
who they *knew*?
This wasn't a trial, it was a witch hunt.
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
> The man is reviled by his associates. But he sticks with his
> principles, saying that the Reformer conspiracy had to be exposed
> because too many remained quiet about the threat. Years later, when
> proof comes out that the Reformers have poisoned, killed, and taken
> over numerous other villages, the man's associates and their
> descendents are still more appalled at the man than at their own
> support of such a tribe.
The problem with your analogy is the same one that faced HUAC all those
decades ago: you have yet to provide any arguments that even remotely
associates the Red Scare scapegoats with the real-life Communists,
except for vague comments about their political alignments.
Who gives a flying blanketty-blank if one or two of these people
attended Socialist rallies in the 30s? They had good reason to, then.
The hard cold fact is that not one of the accused men was engaged in the
active subversion of America; in fact, the greater danger to American
freedoms was, and always has been the trashing of the Constitution by
the zealots-of-the-moment.
Michael J. Hennebry
>Communist meetings during the 1950's House on UnAmerican Activities
>Committee hearings.
>
>
>What people rarely talk about is the fact that those who supported
>Stalin and Communist propoganda were waaaaaaaay wrong. Their thoughtless
>idealism (or conscious in some cases) contributed to the slaughter of
>millions.
>
>supporters of the Nazis. Funny how today we are aghast at those who
If Kazan were in Nazi Germany, he would have named names of those quiet
supporters of those whom the Nazis wanted to send to the gas chambers.
The UnGerman Activities Committee would not have been asking for Nazis.
It would have been asking for Jews and their quiet supporters.
This one suspects that the comment was supposed to be about Kazan in
post-Nazi Germany. In that case, Kazan might have had names of people
who had actually killed people or had them killed. Naming such names
would be a good thing.
>*failed to speak up* (read *failed to be weasals and rat finks*) when
>the Nazis slaughtered but we hold Kazan in contempt for naming the quiet
>supporters of Stalin and the Communists who conducted a much larger
>slaughter.
I rather doubt that anyone in Hollywood had anything to speak up about.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"There won't be a full moon for months." -- Randi Wallace
Michael J. Hennebry
John W Kennedy <rri...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>
>> Further, most of those prosecuted under the blacklist were totally innocent and
>> never did the things they were accused of doing.
>
>Is this actually so? That is -- I have no doubt that the overwhelming
>majority of them never worked for the overthrow of the United States,
>and I wholeheartedly agree that McCarthy and the HUAC had no damn
>business doing what they were doing, but of those who were "accused"
>merely of attending a Communist Party meeting or so in the 30's, were a
>majority, as a matter of fact, not even "guilty" of that? (Lord knows,
>in the 30's, there were plenty of good reasons to attend them, at least
>if you didn't know the truth about Stalin.)
Some HUAC victims were "guilty" of being a friend of someone else.
Some blacklisted were just "guilty" of not naming names.
Some who attended meetings probably weren't "guilty" of them.
One doesn't necessarily know the nature of a meeting until
one gets there.
I vaguely remember a religious dinner meeting I went to.
The lecture was virulent anti-communism. After the "huh"
factor went away, I smiled a lot at what they called religious.
Nobody seemed smart enough to be dangerous. I doubt I was "guilty"
of that meeting. If the House UnSerious Lectures Committee demanded
that I tell them who else attended, I couldn't do it. I didn't
know many names even at the time. I don't know any now. If
squeezed hard enough, I suppose I could think of a lie to tell.
Steve Brinich
> I find it rather grimly amusing that those who profess the
> greatest horror at "The Black List" now demand that Elia Kazan
> remain blacklisted, forty years later, and get indignant, bent
> out of shape, and even violent at any cracks in *that* black list.
Shunning by private citizens is fundamentally different from an outcast
status dictated by the government. The former is an inherent part of the
right of free association; the latter is a punishment by the state.
Kazan's case is an example of the former.
Steve Brinich
> So I assume from your answer that you hae not read Solzhenitsyn's "The
> Gulag Archipelago."
The old witticism to the contrary notwithstanding, when you "assumed",
you made an "ass" of only "u", not "me".
Since your curiosity is evidently making it impossible for you to stay
on the subject, I will close the subject by revealing that I read "The
Gulag Archipelago" in high school.
> [lengthy attempt at analogy snipped]
I fail to see what this parable has to do with the issue at hand, which
is the distinction between the expression of an *opinion* (which is
supposed to be guaranteed by the First Amendment) and the commission of a
criminal *act*.
As for the implied equation between circulating undesirable ideas and
poisoning the water supply:
"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press
be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it
believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would
not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more
fatal things than guns."
-- attributed to V. I. Lenin*
*According to Paul F. Boller and John George's book _They Never Said
It_, Lenin, well, never said it. A pity, since it would be more effective
if I could cite it as an actual Lenin quote, but I trust that the point
stands on its own merit.
Mark Alexander
Thank you for raising the decibel level and expounding an absolutist,
closed-ear position.
Nothing more needs to be said, since this cannot possibly lead to a
thoughtful exchange of ideas.
Mark
j...@gte.net
>
> What people rarely talk about is the fact that those who supported
> Stalin and Communist propoganda were waaaaaaaay wrong. Their thoughtless
> idealism (or conscious in some cases) contributed to the slaughter of
> millions.
>
> If Kazan were in Nazi Germany, he would have named names of those quiet
> supporters of the Nazis. Funny how today we are aghast at those who
> the Nazis slaughtered but we hold Kazan in contempt for naming the quiet
> supporters of Stalin and the Communists who conducted a much larger
> slaughter.
>
> power.
>
Actually, it isn't that straightforward. The McCarthyites weren't just
interested in rooting out the communist conspirators in the government.
They started out that way, but like many reformers do they went way
afield.
If you attended one informational meeting when you were a college
freshman, and what you heard made you want to never have anything to do
with the communists again, too late. You were a communist or a "fellow
traveler" and the HUAC would destroy you. Someone who was your roommate
at grad school 5 years later could be hauled in, "interrogated" by the
committee, and attacked in print as a proven communist. ("Can you
honestly tell me that you lived with a communist for 2 years and never
knew? Do you really expect reasonable people to believe that?") If you
knew anyone who they thought was a communist, you were one too. If you
were dragged in and accused, there was only one way to avoid being
destroyed, and that was to give them a list of names. Whether anyone on
that list had even ever heard of Joseph Stalin was immaterial. Being
fingered by someone (anyone) in one of those hearings was the end of a
career. "I am not and never have been a communist" was nothing but a
pinko lie to get you off.
Jon
Philip R. Columbus
the opinion that:
# Mark Alexander (mark...@earthlink.net) wrote:
#
# <yadda yadda snipped>
#
# : unforgivable. But is that what the protesters really mean? Is informing
# : unforgivable in all circumstances? Had Mr. Kazan been a member of the
# : German-American Bund naming underground Nazis, would they have condemned
# : him just as much? Or a former Klansman who informed on his hooded
# : brethren? Or a former Mafia thug who informed on the mob? Or a member of
# : the Nixon White House who informed during Watergate? Or a whistleblower
# : who disclosed government malfeasance? No, informing per se is not Mr.
# : Kazan's offense. His true offense in the minds of the Hollywood
# : protesters is that he informed on the Communist Party.
#
# If he informed on someone who happened to be *friends* with a member of
# the KKK/Nazis/Mafia? Knowing that the person would be destroyed because of
# who they *knew*?
#
# This wasn't a trial, it was a witch hunt.
#
#
That is not what Mr. Schlesinger said. If you criticise something, please
get it right.
Philip R. Columbus
philipc...@home.com
http://members.home.com/philipcolumbus/
AOL IM: mr1492
ICQ# 4786099
Powered by OS/2 Warp Ver. 4
* Cum Dignitate Otium - Leisure With Dignity *
Steve Brinich
> Thank you for raising the decibel level and expounding an absolutist,
> closed-ear position.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
> Nothing more needs to be said, since this cannot possibly lead to a
> thoughtful exchange of ideas.
I suspect that this is the case, and will refrain from further comment
unless this thread shows signs of becoming worthwhile again.
Philip R. Columbus
opinion that:
# Mark writes:
#
# >
# >The Constitution is not clear cut on matters of internal threats.
# >
# >Mark
#
# WRONG. The Constitution is clear that each and every one of us has the right
# to express political views including communist views. Political views, whether
# expressed through verbal speech, symbolic speech....hell even the movies, is
# considered the form of speech granted the highest standard of protection under
# the Constitution. Don't talk to me about Stalinism and how "bad" it was. That
# is a red herring. This is a freedom of speech issue. Read the First
# Amendment. Read Cohen v. US. Read the accompanying cases (Rosenfeld etc).
# Read the more recent decisions. Read the cases concerning freedom of
# association. (You want cites, no problem....give me a day to get back to my
# office and I will cite you all the legal authority you need). The framers of
# the Constitutoin were aware of this issue and specifically addressed it as the
# first and most important right of a FREE society. The market place of ideas is
# large enough to allow nazi's to march through Skoki and communists to meet in
# Manhatten cells and TALK. Last I checked, no-one denounced by Kazan or ANYONE
# ELSE destroyed in that whitch-hunt were building bombs or otherwise committing
# illegal acts. They were driven from their careers and often their holmes based
# on nothing but rumour and innuendo. History is clear that this was
# orchestrated for the greater good of some politician's and some hollywood
# personalities careers (All hail Ronald Reagan) NOT the law.
#
However, doesn't the First Amendment apply to Mr. Kazan. If he believed
that Communism was inherently evil, did he not have the same right to
discuss it when asked? Also, who in government TOLD the studio's to
blacklist those mentioned? Or is it private employers making a decision
on who they want to pay. And before you respond, think about the radio DJ
fired for making insensitive remarks about the Texas man killed by being
dragged behind a truck. Think before answering.
# If you don't know the law, don't purport to expound on it.
Funny. I made the same remark about "ramming speed" and engineering but
was denounced. Amazing how it works.
#
#
HOOPTY2112
in Kazan's situation----and if we are so sure-----what brand of polish do you
use on your halo?
"What fools these mammals be!!"-----My iguana quoting Shakespeare
Philip R. Columbus
the opinion that:
# Certainly, your suggestion that he could not have known better at the
# time ("our retrospective view") is silly -- notwithstanding all the
# threads on this newsgroup about linguistic drift, the phrase "Congress
# shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" meant the same thing in
# 1952 that it meant in 1790 or means in 1999.
#
# --
# Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
# http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
# 89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
#
Steve,
I don't think such arguments are silly at all. Just look at all the
aphorisms that exist describing that very same thing; "Monday morning
quarterback", "hindsight is 20/20", etc. I think it's very true that in
the heat of the moment we make decisions we wish, later in life, we could
have done different. Can you honestly say that you never made a mistake
or made a decision you wish you could have taken a mulligan on?
And finally, in this country, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme
Court says it does. Or have you forgotten the meaning of the Second,
Ninth, and Tenth Amendments?
Thanks for an interesting post.
Andy Ihnatko
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
In article <36DDA663...@earthlink.net>, Mark Alexander
<mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and he did not have
> our retrospective view on the activities of the committee. But he knew
> enough to recognize the truth of Stalin and communism, so he made his
> choice. Partly bad, I agree. But also partly good. I don't know if I
> would have that courage if I were in his place. But it was a principled
> stand. Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism never took
> responsibility for the slaughter.
I'm sorry, but what _rubbish_. There were indeed plenty of people who
appeared before the Committee because they believed that members of the
Communist Party were a clear and present danger to the United States (I'll
charitably set aside the fact that so many of those named had done nothing
more than attent a meeting or two decades earlier, or had been involved in
trade unions, or once had a roomate who had been Named, or that there was
once, according to the person on the stand, a rumor going around that maybe
this person had leftist leanings, or...). There were also people who were
subpoenaed and hauled in, and more or less blackmailed into supplying the
Committee with names.
Kazan did neither. All of the books I've read which discuss Kazan's
involvement in detail agree that his appearance before the Committee was
merely business. Studio head Daryl Zanuck was prepared to hand Kazan the
keys to the studio, in a deal worth upwards of a million dollars. But Kazan
was involved with the Party in the Thirties, and so Zanuck didn't want to
risk investing huge amounts of money on a talent that he might not be able
to use later. Kazan was told to "take care" of the problem. Soon after, he
was appearing as a Friend Of The Committee.
Other independent accounts claim that Kazan used the Committee to settle
old scores, only naming people he personally disliked. But I suppose you
can't actually prove that.
In the decades since, Kazan has never apologized and never suggested that
he had done anything less than take a heroic and principled stand.
As one of Kazan's namees put it when asked about the idea of Kazan
receiving any sort of a Lifetime Achievement Award, "He made some fantastic
films, and he did that as a member of the filmmaking community. But when he
testified before the Committee, he did _that_ as a member of the filmmaking
community, too."
Applaud Kazan's films, sure. But there's no way that sort of person should
be honored for his "contributions" to film.
What he did was WRONG. Period.
Michael Bell
HOOPTY2112 wrote:
>
> My take on this issue is: How sure are we of what we *think* we would have done
> in Kazan's situation----and if we are so sure-----what brand of polish do you
> use on your halo?
>
Now, that's a rather limited perspective don't you think? Followed to
the conclusion, it means no one can make any sort of judgement on
another person's actions unless they've been in the exact same
situation. That simply isn't rational. Sure one can cut slack in certain
cases but...
Or to choose an (admittedly extreme) example, criticizing Hitler would
be inappropriate unless I were Austrian, a billboard painter, nuts,
racist, one-testicled [let's not dig into this old argument], and a
dictator. Then MAYBE I'd have rights to comment on Hitler's behavior.
John W Kennedy
> Some HUAC victims were "guilty" of being a friend of someone else.
Oh, I know that well enough. No, I was just wondering whether, contrary
to my impression (I have never made a serious study of the business),
the HUAC testimony was significantly false even as to objective fact; I
had always understood that the business at least managed to be honest in
that limited sense. (Of course, there's McCarthy's famous magic
expanding piece of paper.)
James A. Wolf
>Mark Alexander wrote:
>
>> Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism never took
>> responsibility for the slaughter.
>
>[blank stare]
>
>Are you seriously asserting that the men who had their lives ruined by
>HUAC were, in *any* way, shape, or form, responsible for Stalin's
>genocidal policies? Do you really think they would have condoned the
>murder of 50 million people?
In some cases, they did. All to often they turned a willing
blind eye to the truth. Some, like Walter Durranty helped to cover up
Stalin's murderous nature. Others attacked anyone who dared to tell
the truth.
<*> James A. Wolf - jaw...@tiac.net - www.tiac.net/users/jawolf <*>
"The jawbone of an ass is | "You really shouldn't |"There is no law for those
just as dangerous a weapon | encourage my socio- |who make the laws and no
today as in Samson's time."| pathic tendencies." |law for the incorrigibly
Richard Nixon | Florence King |lawless." Terry Prachett
[PLEASE BUY 'THE ULTIMATE HULK' ANTHOLOGY, WITH MY FIRST PUBLISHED STORY!]
ImRastro
>
>Thank you for raising the decibel level and expounding an absolutist,
>closed-ear position.
>
>Nothing more needs to be said, since this cannot possibly lead to a
>thoughtful exchange of ideas.
The last refuge of those who have no response. Your right, I'm ticked off
about this. People died because of this issue and I am not referring to those
in the USSR. People faught wars for these principles and others were crucified
here at home when they were ignored. This isn't just some Hollywood issue nor
is it one to be lightly bantered about in a news group. If you are going to
purport to state that the law in this country as written supports or is even
less than clear on principles of political speech, your statement needs to be
refuted. That is what I have done. Responding with legal authority to
incorrect representations is neither absolutist nor a closed-ear position.
There are valid responses to what I have stated. Yours is not one of them.
ImRastro
>However, doesn't the First Amendment apply to Mr. Kazan. If he believed
>that Communism was inherently evil, did he not have the same right to
>discuss it when asked?
Yes, absolutely. My post was in response to one suggesting that this was not a
freedom of speech issue, that somehow the "internal threat" of communism
changes the Constitution on this point. Actually, the right to denounce
communists is probably the most protected form of speech since the Supreme
Court has specifically held that speech in support of communism may be
considered "fighting words" which would justify government action to stop it.
This precident is probably no longer good, but it was once the law of the land.
>Also, who in government TOLD the studio's to
>blacklist those mentioned? Or is it private employers making a decision
>on who they want to pay. And before you respond, think about the radio DJ
>fired for making insensitive remarks about the Texas man killed by being
>dragged behind a truck. Think before answering.
>
Labor law is my area of practice and you are right again that an employee has a
very limited right to speech in the workplace. If you are an at-will employee
(and ain't we all unless you happen to belong to a union) you can be fired for
damn near anything. Being a communist is not a protected classification, so
you can't claim discrimination. The freedom of speech issue here involves
government influence over and involvement in the decision to blacklist.
># If you don't know the law, don't purport to expound on it.
>
>Funny. I made the same remark about "ramming speed" and engineering but
>was denounced. Amazing how it works.
Have to confess, I could never get into that thread. :)
Rastro
(who thinks Zero Mostell was a truely great talent and has seen Spartikus four
times).
Tammy Smith
Tammy
(In other words, good post!)
ImRastro
>If Kazan were in Nazi Germany, he would have named names of those quiet
> supporters of the Nazis. Funny how today we are aghast at those who failed to
speak up* (read *failed to be weasals and rat finks*) when the Nazis
slaughtered but we hold Kazan in contempt for naming the quiet
supporters of Stalin and the Communists who conducted a much larger
slaughter.>>
Later he said:
>
>Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and he did not have our
retrospective view on the activities of the committee. But he knew enough to
recognize the truth of Stalin and communism, so he made his choice. Partly bad,
I agree. But also partly good. I don't know if I would have that courage if I
were in his place. But it was a principled stand. Too bad his colleagues who
*did* support communism never took responsibility for the slaughter.>
I find these comments somewhat horrifying given that it is 1999.
There is a long and painful history associated with red baiting in this country
that Mark appears to be unaware of. It was not limited to the black listing in
Hollywood, and it was horrible. I cannot begin to name the number of early
labor leaders who were beaten, jailed and killed in THIS COUNTRY, not some
third world dictatorship, after being labeled communist. (They weren't...like
the Molly McGuires). In fact, the very people that Mark compares Kazan to,
those who oppossed facism at an early stage were denounced as communists and
persecuted for the rest of thier lives not treated as heros (the Lincoln
Brigade). It happened HERE not in Germany. I know some of you are aware of
this history and some aren't. (I suspect JMS is given some of the B5
episodes). I can suggest some books to anyone who wants to know more.
The point is that this is not a matter of revisionist history. These are
FACTS. Many people have died as a result of the same caliber of slander that
Mark now attempts to justify. Stalin was bad. Ok. Not all those who support
or once supported communism are Stalinists. Not all those who were "named" by
Kazan and others were communists, let alone Stalinists. Yet they were smeared
just the same.
And Mark...even if they had been communists, since when has that been a crime?
Oh, I forgot, it was a crime for almost 25 years until the legislature realized
their error and eliminated most (but not all) of those laws. (Read the
Taft-Hartley Act some day...and keep reminding yourself that this is an
American Law if you can).
I believe that Kazan is set to recieve a life achievment award. That life
includes the cowardly acts of denouncement referenced above. Some life.
watkins julia k
an...@aol.com (Andy Ihnatko) writes:
>As one of Kazan's namees put it when asked about the idea of Kazan
>receiving any sort of a Lifetime Achievement Award, "He made some fantastic
>films, and he did that as a member of the filmmaking community. But when he
>testified before the Committee, he did _that_ as a member of the filmmaking
>community, too."
>Applaud Kazan's films, sure. But there's no way that sort of person should
>be honored for his "contributions" to film.
This is a curiosity question: How was Kazan chosen to be given a
"special achievements" Oscar. What is the process? I'm surprised that
the controversary seems to have begun after the decision was made, not
when the decision was being considered.
Julie Watkins
Steve Brinich
> Also, who in government TOLD the studio's to blacklist those
> mentioned? Or is it private employers making a decision
> on who they want to pay.
Really, I can't believe that you're this naive. Nominally private
actions taken because of clear and present government arm-twisting are no
different from direct government mandates.
> And before you respond, think about the
> radio DJ fired for making insensitive remarks about the Texas man
> killed by being dragged behind a truck. Think before answering.
After thinking, I have concluded that you are dragging in an irrelevant
sidebar. I see no indication of government involvement in the Greaseman
incident -- no threats to the station's license, no nastygrams from the
FCC, and certainly no Congressional committees. The pressure in that case
is from private citizens, which, as I said before, is an excersize of free
speech and free association rights.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
WWS
"James A. Wolf" wrote:
>
> "The Reverend Jacob Corbin" <jaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark Alexander wrote:
> >
> >> Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism never took
> >> responsibility for the slaughter.
> >
> >[blank stare]
> >
> >Are you seriously asserting that the men who had their lives ruined by
> >HUAC were, in *any* way, shape, or form, responsible for Stalin's
> >genocidal policies? Do you really think they would have condoned the
> >murder of 50 million people?
>
> In some cases, they did. All to often they turned a willing
> blind eye to the truth. Some, like Walter Durranty helped to cover up
> Stalin's murderous nature. Others attacked anyone who dared to tell
> the truth.
And this deception and lying on the part of the American communists
and leftists, such as Alger Hiss, is a matter of historical record
for anyone who wants to take the time to do some research. The
American communist party was owned by and completely loyal to Stalin.
That has been documented time and time again.
>
> [PLEASE BUY 'THE ULTIMATE HULK' ANTHOLOGY, WITH MY FIRST PUBLISHED STORY!]
Does it have Bill Bixby in it?
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It takes considerable knowledge to realize the extent of your
own ignorance. - Thomas Sowell
WWS
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >I find it rather grimly amusing that those who profess the
> >greatest horror at "The Black List" now demand that Elia Kazan
> >remain blacklisted, forty years later, and get indignant, bent
> >out of shape, and even violent at any cracks in *that* black list.
>
> Langauge and words have specific meaning.
>
> To be blacklisted means that you cannot work, cannot pursue your livelihood.
>
> Kazan has worked successfully for his entire life.
>
> Further, most of those prosecuted under the blacklist were totally innocent and
> never did the things they were accused of doing. No one has ever said that
> Kazan didn't name names.
But this discussion isn't about "most of those on the list". It's
about Kazan, and what he said. Did the people he named do the things
he said they did, or did he lie? Evidence suggests that he told the
truth, insofar as he knew it. And so the knock on him is that he went
against the good old boy club in the film industry and answered a
government investigating committee honestly. What that committe did
with it is wrong, but Kazan himself behaved morally and ethically.
He obeyed the law at the time. You can say that you yourself would
have done differently, and that's a personal choice everyone makes.
But how can you say someone is unethical for refusing to lie to what
constitutes an official body with investigative authority? Especially
since he, through personal experience, was convinced the communist
threat was real and posed a danger to the country.
But there's one thing the left has really never forgiven Kazan for -
and that is the fact that he was right, and they were wrong.
Communism and socialism were corrupt and evil fantasies that a lot
of the addle brained left leaning establishment had bought into.
They were wrong, and this act of trying to deny Kazan an award he
richly deserves for his work is their last little sad gasp of
revenge for that insult.
Scott Johnson
:
: However, doesn't the First Amendment apply to Mr. Kazan. If he believed
: discuss it when asked?
Leaving aside for the moment the question of his intentions (which is a
very important part of this I think), speaking up for a position is a far
different thing than naming names of people you know will be persecuted
because you named them. By your reasoning, at the very least we then have
the right to despise what he did, and say so as well, which is what we are
doing here.
--
Scott Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
and Merit Network, Inc. (734) 763-5363
Finger for PGP public key.
Scott Johnson
: the opinion that:
:
: # If he informed on someone who happened to be *friends* with a member of
: # the KKK/Nazis/Mafia? Knowing that the person would be destroyed because of
: # who they *knew*?
: #
: # This wasn't a trial, it was a witch hunt.
: #
: That is not what Mr. Schlesinger said. If you criticise something, please
: get it right.
No, but that's what Kazan *did*. Much more relevant to the discussion
than a false analogy in an article somewhere.
WWS
Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> Philip R. Columbus (philipc...@home.com) wrote:
> : On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 19:32:47, moon...@execpc.com (Joe Schulte) expressed
> : the opinion that:
> :
> : # Mark Alexander (mark...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : #
> : # If he informed on someone who happened to be *friends* with a member of
> : # the KKK/Nazis/Mafia? Knowing that the person would be destroyed because of
> : # who they *knew*?
> : #
> : # This wasn't a trial, it was a witch hunt.
> : #
> :
> : That is not what Mr. Schlesinger said. If you criticise something, please
> : get it right.
>
> No, but that's what Kazan *did*. Much more relevant to the discussion
> than a false analogy in an article somewhere.
And what evidence do you have that any of Schlesinger's article
is false? It matches perfectly with all historical evidence
that I have ever seen. Show your "evidence" that Schlesinger
deliberately lied in a coyrighted and published article, or
retract that ridiculous claim.
Go back and re-read Schlesinger's article which is posted here,
and then come back with one single line that you can refute
with historical evidence.
I won't hold my breath.
And Schlesinger is no knee-jerk conservative, never has been.
He's just a man who still has some integrity, and is willing
to look at things honestly without being blinded by ideology.
Scott Johnson
:
:
: Scott Johnson wrote:
: >
: > No, but that's what Kazan *did*. Much more relevant to the discussion
: > than a false analogy in an article somewhere.
:
: And what evidence do you have that any of Schlesinger's article
: is false? It matches perfectly with all historical evidence
: that I have ever seen. Show your "evidence" that Schlesinger
: deliberately lied in a coyrighted and published article, or
: retract that ridiculous claim.
First of all, Schlesinger's article has very little to do with this
discussion. It is mostly an opinion piece, using hyperbole and
hypothetical characterization of people who complain about Kazan to paint a
negative picture of them without actually saying anything. I see only one
"fact" in the entire article that could be supported or refuted, and it is
one that I doubt *anyone* has the evidence to definitively state one way
or the other. Mr. Schlesinger never said where he got his "evidence"
either. Since he didn't cite anything, I have no way to refute it, as it
would require proving a negative.
BTW, that "fact" was that Kazan only gave names to the committee that he
knew they already had. The author never states that he has evidence to
support this fact, he merely presents it as given and expects us to
believe it without further support.
If you want another supposed "fact" he presents that I can refute, try this
one:
"Mr. Kazan's critics are those\027or latter-day admirers of those\027who
continued to defend Stalin after the Moscow trials, after the pact with
Hitler, through the age of the gulag."
We have seen JMS in this very forum criticize the actions of Mr. Kazan. I
doubt even you could accuse him of being an admirer or defender of Stalin
or those who were. This is another example of the type of straw-man
argument that is pretty much the only content of this article.
: Go back and re-read Schlesinger's article which is posted here,
: and then come back with one single line that you can refute
: with historical evidence.
You're right; there aren't any. That's because there are no points in the
article which depend on historical evidence -- it's all hearsay and
characterization.
: And Schlesinger is no knee-jerk conservative, never has been.
: He's just a man who still has some integrity, and is willing
: to look at things honestly without being blinded by ideology.
That's your opinion. I don't know the man, but based on this article I'm
not sure I'd give him that much benefit of the doubt.
James A. Wolf
>
>
>"James A. Wolf" wrote:
>> [PLEASE BUY 'THE ULTIMATE HULK' ANTHOLOGY, WITH MY FIRST PUBLISHED STORY!]
>
>Does it have Bill Bixby in it?
>
>--
I refer to Bixby with a quick injoke.
<*> James A. Wolf - jaw...@tiac.net - www.tiac.net/users/jawolf <*>
"The jawbone of an ass is | "You really shouldn't |"There is no law for those
just as dangerous a weapon | encourage my socio- |who make the laws and no
today as in Samson's time."| pathic tendencies." |law for the incorrigibly
Richard Nixon | Florence King |lawless." Terry Prachett
[PLEASE BUY 'THE ULTIMATE HULK' ANTHOLOGY, WITH MY FIRST PUBLISHED STORY!]
Christopher M. Conway
>>
[ some snipped ]
>>
>> If Kazan were in Nazi Germany, he would have named names of those quiet
>> supporters of the Nazis. Funny how today we are aghast at those who
>> the Nazis slaughtered but we hold Kazan in contempt for naming the quiet
>> supporters of Stalin and the Communists who conducted a much larger
>> slaughter.
Nope, sorry, you've got this wrong. Kazan collaborated with the
governmental power to root out people defined by the government as
its enemies.
The correct parallel would have Kazan fingering Jews. Just as
contemptible.
I suspect that this completes the Godwinization of this thread.
--
Christopher M. Conway U*IX and C Guru
wom...@prickly-wombat.com Don't Tread on Me
We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we will all hang separately.
I'll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.
Mark Alexander
"James A. Wolf" wrote:
>
> "The Reverend Jacob Corbin" <jaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Are you seriously asserting that the men who had their lives ruined by
> >HUAC were, in *any* way, shape, or form, responsible for Stalin's
> >genocidal policies? Do you really think they would have condoned the
> >murder of 50 million people?
>
> In some cases, they did. All to often they turned a willing
> blind eye to the truth. Some, like Walter Durranty helped to cover up
> Stalin's murderous nature. Others attacked anyone who dared to tell
> the truth.
I somewhat agree with this. I admit I am actually more ambiguous in my
thoughts about Kazan than I have hitherto admitted.
But, to give it a B5 spin, I admire certain qualities of Kazan's
character. Like Sheridan and others (yes, I can hear the general
groaning...sorry JMS <g>) Kazan, I think, stands on principle in the
face of losing the respect of a vast majority of his peers.
In fact, I think that if he were genuinely a coward, he would have taken
the easy way out these last several years by apologizing. But it seems
to me that he has stuck to his guns in a way that even his detractors
might appreciate. He made a tough decision, took a principled stand, and
has stuck by it all these years despite heaps of vilification.
Few can withstand that onslaught.
Ideas have consequences, and Kazan recognized the ultimate destructive
nature of communist ideas, even when promoted by the idealists. He did
not ask for HUAC, but he did have to choose. Better that he choosed on
principle than on peer pressure.
Mark Alexander
Steve Brinich
> [blank stare]
>
> Are you seriously asserting that the men who had their lives ruined by
> HUAC were, in *any* way, shape, or form, responsible for Stalin's
> genocidal policies? Do you really think they would have condoned the
> murder of 50 million people?
American conservatives of all people should know better than to equate
the expression of *opinions* in support of an belief with criminal
*actions* in the name of that belief.
After only five years, have they forgotten the use of this equation in
smarmy attempts to smear them with the blood of Oklahoma City?
ELurio
was in fact a Soviet spy. Apparently it existed to make martyrs.
eric l.
Doug Berry
Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> pass this message on to me:
> The people against whom we wage war are, by definition, foreigners, to
>whom the Constitution does not apply. Or are you referring to suspension
>of the Constitutional rights of citizens alleged to be sympathetic to an
>enemy power (e.g. the WWII Nisei internments)?
Huh? I took an oath to defend againsy all enemies, foreign and
domestic when I enlisted. Please explain where you get that we
can only war against foreigners? Congress could declare war on
Texas, if it wanted to.
> Many ordinary crimes are by their nature surreptitious. The police are
>nevertheless expected to catch the perpetrators and gather evidence with
>which to convict them within the constraints set by the Constitution. In
>general, they manage to do so.
They manage to do so inside the law. Destroying careers on
inneundo and smars is not normal police procedure.
--
+-------------------------------------------+
| Douglas E. Berry dbe...@hooked.net |
| http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/ |
|-------------------------------------------|
| "Hear the voices in my head, swear to God |
| it sounds like they're snoring." |
| -Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta" |
+-------------------------------------------+
just~pat
thought I'd come back and take a look - While I agree with parts of this, I've
got a few problems with Mr. Schlesinger's reasoning, which I'll detail below.
In article <36DE9E52...@earthlink.net>,
Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Mr. Schlesinger is a certified progressive.
First of all, what exactly is a "certified progressive"? Who certifies them
thus? Can I apply? :-)
> Hollywood Hypocrisy
>
> by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
>
> New York Times | February 28, 1999
>
> ELIA KAZAN IS A WONDERFULLY CREATIVE DIRECTOR who has contributed
> brilliantly to the arts of drama and film in the Twentieth Century.
No argument from me, there. It's an opinion, and one I happen to agree
with...
> ... driving some people into orgies of self-righteous frenzy.
There's an old saying regarding lawyers: "If you have no defense,
attack the plaintif."
Describing the people who disagree with you as being in "orgies of self-
righteous frenzy" is a clear case of "attacking the plaintif" and makes
your argument seem weaker because of it.
However, you do have actual arguments later here, so I'll respond to them
instead:
> Mr. Kazan, the protesters say, is an informer, and his offense is
> unforgivable. But is that what the protesters really mean? Is informing
> unforgivable in all circumstances? Had Mr. Kazan been a member of the
> German-American Bund naming underground Nazis, would they have condemned
> him just as much? Or a former Klansman who informed on his hooded
> brethren? Or a former Mafia thug who informed on the mob? Or a member of
> the Nixon White House who informed during Watergate? Or a whistleblower
> who disclosed government malfeasance? No, informing per se is not Mr.
> Kazan's offense. His true offense in the minds of the Hollywood
> protesters is that he informed on the Communist Party.
Several problems, here.
One: He did NOT inform on the Communist Party, he informed on several people
who may or may not have even been members of the Communist Party. To protect
his own career.
Also, you try to make it seem as if all these types of informing are the
same. They are NOT. And the difference is not, as you try to make it out to
be, the difference between liberal and conservative, but rather between
criminal and not. The people whose lives were destroyed by HUAC were not
accused of any criminal behavior, but only of holding certain beliefs which
were not popular at the time. This is a far cry from the Nazis (genocide),
or the Klan (murder, kidnapping, torture, terrorism), or the mob (murder,
extortion, torture, smuggling, etc.), or the Nixon White House (burglary,
illegal surveillance, bribery, terrorism, gross misuse of presidential power,
etc.), or general "government malfeasance" - which could include anything
from influence peddling, or bribery, extortion, etc - just plain old
fashioned corruption. All these are NOT the same as believing that communism
might be an acceptable form of government, OK?
> Now, informing on former associates is not an easy choice, even though
> Mr. Kazan named no names not already known to the committee. Under the
> pressure of the time, Mr. Kazan searched his conscience and went one
> way. Others searched their consciences and went another way.
And, it is actually possible that his conscience, rather than merely an
attempt to save himself (and to hell with all the rest) was a motivating
factor.
> Those who
> were not subject to the pressures of the time should not rush to
> judgment.
>"No one knows what he'd do," Lee Strasberg, the director of
> the Actors Studio, told Mr. Kazan, "until he's in it."
This I agree with completely. As I stated elsewhere, I believe Mr. Kazan
merely failed to be a hero. He had the opportunity, and he turned it down.
I think he was a coward, but this is only my own opinion, and I'm not one of
the biggest experts on the facts of this individual case. Also, given the
magnitude of McCarthy's witchhunt, I can't honestly say that I know for
certain I would be any braver in its face.
> Mr. Kazan's critics are those^×or latter-day admirers of those^×who
> continued to defend Stalin after the Moscow trials, after the pact with
> Hitler, through the age of the gulag. One wonders at their presumption
> in condemning others for recognizing the horrors of Stalinism^×horrors
> that the entire world, including Russia, acknowledges today.
This here is one of the biggest logical fallacies of this article. It was
not STALIN who was being attacked by McCarthy. It wasn't STALIN who those
who had, years earlier, gone to Communist meetings, were supporting. To draw
an analogy, the people who right now are killing doctors providing abortions
are Christians. Does this mean that all Christians are evil murderers? Or
that all people who oppose abortion are hypocrites because they say that
killing is wrong? And most of those accused weren't even Communists. They
were merely people who had, at one time or another in their lives, been
interested in the ideals of communism. And, even if they were actually
Communists, very much against the whole idea of a free society to persecute a
person for having certain beliefs, or speaking about them.
> The presumption is especially acute when it comes from those who, when
> they testified before HUAC, declined to declare their true beliefs.
Perfectly reasonable for people to stand together on this and refuse to
declare their individual beliefs. If everyone who wasn't a communist spoke
up and said so, it would be easy to assume that the silent ones were
communists. And, for those who were communists, it makes sense to remain
silent rather than speak the truth and god-knows-what happens to you, or to
lie. There should never be laws against having certain beliefs in this
country. The question should never have been asked and they were right not to
answer it.
> If the Academy's occasion calls for apologies,
> let Mr. Kazan's denouncers apologize for the aid and comfort they gave
> to Stalinism.
They gave no aid and comfort to Stalinism. They weren't even accused of doing
so. All they were accused of was believing that Communism (NOT the same thing
as Stalin!) had some good ideas.
> But was it worse than collaboration with the Communist Party^×the party
> that for years, as Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in 1945, "taught the
> philosophy of the lie."
Yes. Far worse. Collaborating with a group of people bent on destroying other
people's lives to garner more personal wealth and power for themselves is,
IMHO far worse than collaborating with a group of people who want to try to
convince everyone that their ideas are worthwhile. Regardless of Eleanor
Roosevelt's opinion (or mine. Or yours) of those ideas.
??pat
--
Pat Luther --- http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~pluther
"...and, when all men are hastening to become either tyrants or slaves,
that is when we make Liberalism the prime bogey."
- Screwtape (C.S. Lewis)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
just~pat
WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
>
> But how can you say someone is unethical for refusing to lie to what
> constitutes an official body with investigative authority?
Well, it's only common law, not officially written everywhere, but the
Neuremberg (sp?) trials did conclude that people have not only a right, but a
responsibility to disobey an unjust order. Even if it comes from an official
body with investigative authority.
> But there's one thing the left has really never forgiven Kazan for -
> and that is the fact that he was right, and they were wrong.
Wow! You're the first person I've ever heard claim that McCarthy and the HUAC
were right to go to the extremes they did, and that those who opposed them
were wrong. Or is that not what you meant by "he was right, and they were
wrong." ?
> Communism and socialism were corrupt and evil fantasies that a lot
> of the addle brained left leaning establishment had bought into.
Communism and socialism are not the same thing.
And neither is, by itself, a "corrupt and evil fantasy". They're just
different ideals. Capitalism is another one. The fact that some people
can use them for corrupt and evil purposes doesn't mean that everyone
who believed (or believes even now) that communism might be a good idea
is addle-brained. Hell, even after the last 2000 years, there are still
Christians around, despite it being proven over and over again to be a
corrupt and evil fantasy! (Note to Christians who aren't WWS, this last
line is merely intended to show the folly of trying to claim that all who
follow a particular ideology are wrong because some people can do evil in
it's name. I am aware that there are many Christians who have not, and
would not, intentionally kill people who are guilty of providing abortions,
having sex within their gender, or being Jewish or Moslem.)
> They were wrong, and this act of trying to deny Kazan an award he
> richly deserves for his work is their last little sad gasp of
> revenge for that insult.
You're in violation of Pat's Corrolary: "When you can't defend your
argument, attack those with whom you're arguing."
Daryl Nash
> Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and
he did not have
> our retrospective view on the activities of the committee.
But he knew
> enough to recognize the truth of Stalin and communism, so
he made his
> choice. Partly bad, I agree. But also partly good. I don't
know if I
> would have that courage if I were in his place. But it was
a principled
> stand. Too bad his colleagues who *did* support communism
never took
> responsibility for the slaughter.
Huh? American Communists were as bad as Nazi supporters?
Ohh-kay. Point me to the "slaughter" in the States that
these so-called Communists were responsible for. There are
quite a few ovens in Germany that speak eloquently to Nazi
responsibility.
And I think you have twisted the subject anyway. We're
talking about Elia Kazan here.
What you're looking for is the difference between
whistleblowers and ratfink snitches. If Elia Kazan had
uncovered a Hollywood plot by Communists to blow up the U.S.
Capitol, he would be a sainted whistleblower. Instead, he
named the names of people who WERE NOT EVEN COMMUNISTS, just
to save his own sorry ass. And then made a movie "On the
Waterfront" which twists the facts just like you do to
excuse his behavior.
Elia Kazan is a talented director. But he's still a
ratfink.
Daryl
Andy Ihnatko
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
In article <7bofaq$d9c$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, juli...@staff.uiuc.edu
(watkins julia k) wrote:
> an...@aol.com (Andy Ihnatko) writes:
>
> >Applaud Kazan's films, sure. But there's no way that sort of person should
> >be honored for his "contributions" to film.
>
> This is a curiosity question: How was Kazan chosen to be given a
> "special achievements" Oscar. What is the process? I'm surprised that
> the controversary seems to have begun after the decision was made, not
> when the decision was being considered.
There's a 40-member board that can decide to bestow a Lifetime Achievement
Oscar. There has been a push in recent years to get Kazan an award, and
this year, Karl Malden, a former president of the Academy, gave a stirring
speech to the board on Kazan's behalf.
-- A.
WWS
Daryl Nash wrote:
>
> Mark Alexander wrote:
>
> > Kazan found himself between a rock and a hard place, and
> he did not have our retrospective view on the activities of
> the committee.
>
> But he knew enough to recognize the truth of Stalin and communism,
> so he made his choice. Partly bad, I agree. But also partly good.
> I don't know if I would have that courage if I were in his place.
> But it was a principled stand. Too bad his colleagues who *did*
> support communism never took responsibility for the slaughter.
>
> Huh? American Communists were as bad as Nazi supporters?
Yes, they were exactly that.
> Ohh-kay. Point me to the "slaughter" in the States that
> these so-called Communists were responsible for.
??? Non Sequiter - There was no "slaughter in the States"
that Nazi sympathizers were responsible for, either. It all
took place overseas - and almost all historians now agree that
through the purges, the elimination of the landed class, and the
great government enforced starvation in the Ukraine, Stalin's
regime was responsible for more civilian casualties than even
Hitler's was. (Stalin had more years to work on his totals, for
one thing) And this is not to lessen Hitler's crimes any - but
on any absolute moral scale, they stand side by side as equals.
Here's a quote from a recent lecture:
> The NKVD employed millions of secret informers who infiltrated
> every workplace. Most academics and writers came to expect arrest,
> exile and prison as part of their lives. A historian could be sent
> to exile for describing Joan of Arc as nervous and tense just when
> the general party line wished her described as calm in the face of
> death. When a linguistic theory that held that all language was
> derived from four sounds was accepted as official, professors who
> opposed this view had their books confiscated. By 1938 at least one
> million people were in prison, some 8.5 million had been arrested and
> sent to the GULAG and nearly 800,000 had been executed. In fact, before
> the KGB was dissolved in 1991, it was revealed that 47 million Soviet
> citizens had died as a result of forced collectivization and the purges.
> That figure, of course, represents the recorded tally. How many more
> people died without being recorded is a matter of conjecture.
Hitler is usually only credited with about 20 million civilian casualties.
And this is not to diminish any mention of the Holocaust, but to point
out that Stalin's NKVD had no more use for Jews than Hitler's gestapo
did. The Russian state has always been intensely antisemitic, and
Stalin was certainly no exception. It's just that he was so busy
arresting and executing *everyone* that he didn't have time to
concentrate on any particular group too much.
> are quite a few ovens in Germany that speak eloquently to Nazi
> responsibility.
Unclear why you bring that up, but no one denies that. It's just
that Stalin's graveyards are just as big as Hitler's. And his
supporters just as guilty. Or do you think that the modern
American Nazi Party has no connection to any of Hitler's crimes,
and is a purely intellectual political movement? That's what they
say, I'm curious if you agree with them.
>
> And I think you have twisted the subject anyway. We're
> talking about Elia Kazan here.
We're talking about what the American Communist Party stood for.
Reams and reams of evidence have showed that it was funded by
and loyal to Stalin's communist organization. Many of those who
quit did so when they found out how subservient the leadership
was to the Soviet contacts who instructed them. The people who
supported them and their movement were every bit as morally
reprehensible as those Bund members who supported Hitler during
the 30's. And communist sympathizers were not different from
Nazi sympathizers in any way whatsoever.
>
> What you're looking for is the difference between
> whistleblowers and ratfink snitches. If Elia Kazan had
> uncovered a Hollywood plot by Communists to blow up the U.S.
> Capitol, he would be a sainted whistleblower. Instead, he
> named the names of people who WERE NOT EVEN COMMUNISTS, just
> to save his own sorry ass. And then made a movie "On the
> Waterfront" which twists the facts just like you do to
> excuse his behavior.
Do you have a list of the people he named? Who did he personally
name who had not done the things that he said they did? Did he
lie on the stand? I thought even his worst detractors were
angry at him for telling truths they didn't want told, not
for telling lies. And he says he did what he did because he
believed it was right - didn't he have the right to do that?
(Others of course have the right to disagree with him) His real
crime, as always, was in having the wrong opinion in the minds
of the Hollywood intellectual establishment.
>
> Elia Kazan is a talented director. But he's still a
> ratfink.
That's a valid opinion. But if his film work was good, then he
deserves the award. The real controversy is that those
protesting the award want there to be some PC litmus test
that only "their" kind of people can pass. No awards for
people they don't like, regardless of their accomplishments.
What would your feelings be if this was the Catholic Church
campaigning to block his award because he was Jewish? Or
if Newt Gingrich was campaigning to block the award because
he was too "liberal"? It's the same thing.
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: In article <7bofaq$d9c$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, juli...@staff.uiuc.edu
: (watkins julia k) wrote:
:> an...@aol.com (Andy Ihnatko) writes:
:>
:> >Applaud Kazan's films, sure. But there's no way that sort of person should
:> >be honored for his "contributions" to film.
:>
:> This is a curiosity question: How was Kazan chosen to be given a
:> "special achievements" Oscar. What is the process? I'm surprised that
:> the controversary seems to have begun after the decision was made, not
:> when the decision was being considered.
: There's a 40-member board that can decide to bestow a Lifetime Achievement
: Oscar. There has been a push in recent years to get Kazan an award, and
: this year, Karl Malden, a former president of the Academy, gave a stirring
: speech to the board on Kazan's behalf.
Of course, this controvery has been going on for years, as anyone with a
clue knows.
--
Copyright 1999 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Tom Maddox
>Mark Alexander wrote:
>
>> Thank you for raising the decibel level and expounding an absolutist,
>> closed-ear position.
>
Of course, isn't this the very attitude that led to the McCarthy witch hunts
in the first place?
"Those you cannot teach to fly, teach to fall faster." -- Nietzsche
<mailto:tma...@dnai.com> | I'd use a spam trap, but I have enough.
WWS
just~pat wrote:
>
> In article <36DFF475...@tyler.net>,
> WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > But how can you say someone is unethical for refusing to lie to what
> > constitutes an official body with investigative authority?
>
> Well, it's only common law, not officially written everywhere, but the
> Neuremberg (sp?) trials did conclude that people have not only a right,
> but a responsibility to disobey an unjust order. Even if it comes from
> an official body with investigative authority.
And what if someone honestly believes the law they are following is
just? What if they don't know what the people in charge of it will
do with it?
And who decides whether a law is unjust or not? David Koresh and the
Branch Davidians believed with no doubt whatsoever that they had the
Moral right to disobey the law and shoot 4 government agents who came
onto their property. What makes their moral judgement wrong, and the
judgement of those who choose to follow their conscience and disobey
the law anywhere else right?
(In case you're unsure, the correct answer is the legislature and the
courts)
Of course, maybe you believe that anyone who follows their conscience
and disoberys the law is always right. Just like David Koresh.
>
> > But there's one thing the left has really never forgiven Kazan for -
> > and that is the fact that he was right, and they were wrong.
>
> Wow! You're the first person I've ever heard claim that McCarthy and the HUAC
> were right to go to the extremes they did, and that those who opposed them
> were wrong. Or is that not what you meant by "he was right, and they were
> wrong." ?
Nice try at a strawman. I am not defending McCarthy and the HUAC,
just the morality of one man who recognized them as a (like it or not)
legal authority at the time. What I meant by "he was right" is that
Communism was indeed a dangerous historical perversion that was going
to cause death, destruction, and decay wherever it took root. That
is the judgement of history - it was an absolute, catastrophic, failure -
including China, it was easily responsible for the premature and violent
deaths of well over 100 million people in this century alone. That was
the system it's supporters were trying to introduce here.
>
> > Communism and socialism were corrupt and evil fantasies that a lot
> > of the addle brained left leaning establishment had bought into.
>
> Communism and socialism are not the same thing.
> And neither is, by itself, a "corrupt and evil fantasy". They're just
> different ideals. Capitalism is another one. The fact that some people
> can use them for corrupt and evil purposes doesn't mean that everyone
> who believed (or believes even now) that communism might be a good idea
> is addle-brained.
Anyone who believes that communism might be a good idea is not only a
fool, but a Damn Fool.
> Hell, even after the last 2000 years, there are still
> Christians around, despite it being proven over and over again to be a
> corrupt and evil fantasy! (Note to Christians who aren't WWS, this last
> line is merely intended to show the folly of trying to claim that all who
> follow a particular ideology are wrong because some people can do evil in
> it's name. I am aware that there are many Christians who have not, and
> would not, intentionally kill people who are guilty of providing abortions,
> having sex within their gender, or being Jewish or Moslem.)
If you had read Hayek's seminal work "The Road to Serfdom" you would know
why Communism must always denigrate into totalitarianism, coercion, and
a brutal police state. It cannot survive any other way. Really, a little
bit of education goes a long way - it is an easy book to find, and
every prediction that book made in 1944 has been borne out and validated
by History.
>
> > They were wrong, and this act of trying to deny Kazan an award he
> > richly deserves for his work is their last little sad gasp of
> > revenge for that insult.
>
> You're in violation of Pat's Corrolary: "When you can't defend your
> argument, attack those with whom you're arguing."
You followed that quite well, I thought.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the
Y1K problem.
WWS
Tom Maddox wrote:
>
> In article <36DF3AA5...@radix.net>, Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> wrote:
> >Mark Alexander wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you for raising the decibel level and expounding an absolutist,
> >> closed-ear position.
> >
> > Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
>
> Of course, isn't this the very attitude that led to the McCarthy witch hunts
> in the first place?
Actually, that was Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign slogan. (really!)
Old joke - "My wife told me that if I voted for Goldwater the
country would go to Hell in a Handbasket, and I did, and it did."
Goldwater lost the battle, but won the war.
ImRastro
>And this deception and lying on the part of the American communists
>and leftists, such as Alger Hiss, is a matter of historical record
>for anyone who wants to take the time to do some research. The
>American communist party was owned by and completely loyal to Stalin.
>That has been documented time and time again.
I find myself in the odd position of appearing to defend communism (a
political/economic system I believe to be fundimentally flawed...) nonetheless,
it depends on whose "documentation" you rely. The "communist party" here in
the US has historically been a many splintered splender. Some arms of the ACP
were/are Stalinist while other would spit on his grave while pledging thier
faith in Trotsky (sp?) I happen to know some of both. Still others disavow
the entire Soviet experience.
There is just as much "documentaion" supporting the opinion that the right in
this country has always oversimplified leftist views and politics not out of
fear of the Soviets, but in an on going effort to prevent collective action on
the part of the working class here and abroad. As for the unrepentent support
of murderous dictators......how 'bout the US involvement in Chili. Had to
overturn that pesky popular election which voted in a socialist government by
any means neccessary right? Was that for the good of the Chilian people? Has
anyone here apologized? Oh yeah, and our justification was the allegation that
the Allende administration was communist....
All I'm saying is this is a very complicated matter. I don't care that much
about Kazan personally. I do care about the oversimplification of history, and
I care a lot about basic freedom of expression.
I am also curious: WWS, are you just goofing here? Generally, I like your
posts but sometimes I can't tell if you are just baiting people.
ImRastro
>And who decides whether a law is unjust or not? David Koresh and the
>Branch Davidians believed with no doubt whatsoever that they had the
>Moral right to disobey the law and shoot 4 government agents who came
>onto their property. What makes their moral judgement wrong, and the
>judgement of those who choose to follow their conscience and disobey
>the law anywhere else right?
>
>(In case you're unsure, the correct answer is the legislature and the
>courts)
Read any Martin Luther King lately? And just to really escalate the discussion
totally out of bounds.....there are many people who think the Branch Dividians
had violated no laws, that the innitial assault by the ATF was illegal and
politically motivated (not to mention poorly planned) and that final assault
was deliberately geared to end in the mass killings of Koresh and his
followers. :)
Sincerely Rastro
who loves a good conspiracy but can't believe she keeps being drawn back into
this discussion and should probably go watch the Great Dictator again instead.
ImRastro
>> Huh? American Communists were as bad as Nazi supporters?
>
>Yes, they were exactly that.
>
Okay, I'm not sure where you are coming from. Are you saying that HUAC was
correct? Are you suggesting that communists (the real ones) in this country
should have been blacklisted and persecuted? I'm asking because I can't tell
from what you are saying.
If you are saying that, well.....I don't really know what to say. Muslim
fundimenatlists are a serious threat to the national interest right now.
Should we fingering them and blacklisting them? I could go on and on..
I know My posts on this are a litle emotional. I'm wondering if you or Mark
Alexander have any persoanl experience with this. i don't know any Hollywood
types, but I do know some average folks who were blacklisted or who's parents
were blacklisted in the same witch-hunt. They weren't building bombs or
otherwise committing illegal acts. Nonetheless, they lost their jobs were
repeatedly subjected to illegal searches (which turned up nothing) followed,
harrassed, physically threatened, and in more than one case, attacked and
injured. All for their suppossed political beliefs. That's wrong in this
country. End of story.
James A. Wolf
>
>
>Tom Maddox wrote:
>>
>> In article <36DF3AA5...@radix.net>, Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>> >Mark Alexander wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thank you for raising the decibel level and expounding an absolutist,
>> >> closed-ear position.
>> >
>> > Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
>>
>> Of course, isn't this the very attitude that led to the McCarthy witch hunts
>> in the first place?
>
>Actually, that was Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign slogan. (really!)
>
>Old joke - "My wife told me that if I voted for Goldwater the
>country would go to Hell in a Handbasket, and I did, and it did."
The 1964 election was a choice between a stateman and an egotistical
war monger. The latter won.
>Goldwater lost the battle, but won the war.
As opposed to LBJ...
Getting back to Kazan, it was not obvious to Kazan, nor anyone
else at the time that the Committee was behaving in an unlawful
fashion. Nor was it obvious (to the general public) as so many smugly
assert that the Hollywood communists were harmless.
Oh, and one more thing to consider. Kazan could have very
well have been making what he considered the correct ethical decision.
Communist inspired civil war tore apart Greece (Kazan immigrated from
there), and he, unlike his former comrades, would not blind himself to
Communism's totalitarian nature. In fact he left the party in `33 for
the sake of his own intelectual freedom. While he did reluctantly
name names, self interest was not his only motivation.
Cronan
>And who decides whether a law is unjust or not? David Koresh and the
>Branch Davidians believed with no doubt whatsoever that they had the
>Moral right to disobey the law and shoot 4 government agents who came
>onto their property. What makes their moral judgement wrong, and the
>judgement of those who choose to follow their conscience and disobey
>the law anywhere else right?
To date there is no proof the Branch Davidians violated any law.
Cronan
Brian Watson
I seem to recall members of the Branch Davidians firing a considerable
number of rounds at members of the ATF. Do you not consider attempting to
kill members of the federal government illegal? I'm sure that'll be a
convincing arguement at your defense some day after you murder a federal
agent. I suppose the stockpiling and attempted purchase of grenades and
kits upgrading firearms to fully automatic firing is also perfectly legal
in your version of the United States.
Russ Taylor
<h...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>To date there is no proof the Branch Davidians violated any law.
You might need to reread the postal statutes, then -- unless you're
sticking to the technicality that it never went to court, since they were
barbecued before it could.
--
Russ Taylor (http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
CMC Tech Support Manager
"Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought"
-- Dennis Moore
Mike Van Pelt
Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>But, to give it a B5 spin, I admire certain qualities of Kazan's
>character. Like Sheridan and others (yes, I can hear the general
>groaning...sorry JMS <g>) Kazan, I think, stands on principle in the
>face of losing the respect of a vast majority of his peers.
To give it even more B5 spin...
Were all the people that Sheridan bundled up and deported from
Babylon 5 *really* Night Watch members? Weren't many of them
mostly innocent, perhaps naive people like Zack, who just hadn't
gotten around to making a break with Night Watch yet? Or were
some of the people whose livlihoods Sheridan destroyed just
completely innocent folks who had happened to go to one or two
Night Watch meetings?
We're never told how Sheridan knew who all the suspected Night
Watch sympathizers were. I suppose Zack "Named Names"?
Who else was required to "Name Names" to avoid deportation?
Alas, we didn't get to see how Sheridan's deportation list was
arrived at.
--
"There is something about the underhanded use | Mike Van Pelt
of power that makes it seem so shrewd, even | m...@netcom.com
when it is abysmally stupid." -- Thomas Sowell | KE6BVH
****WARNING: I complain to your ISP if you send me spam! ******
Steve Brinich
> Unclear why you bring that up, but no one denies that. It's just
> that Stalin's graveyards are just as big as Hitler's. And his
> supporters just as guilty. Or do you think that the modern
> American Nazi Party has no connection to any of Hitler's crimes,
> and is a purely intellectual political movement? That's what they
> say, I'm curious if you agree with them.
The American Nazi Party is, quite properly, free to go about its
contemptible business unless and until that business crosses the line
between propaganda and crime.
I keep resolving to killfile this thread. However, defenders of the
House Un-American Activities Committee keep obfuscating this basic issue,
forcing me to reiterate it ad nauseam.
Daryl Nash
<lots of interesting info on Stalin's crimes snipped>
Whew. I don't want to argue either the relative merits of
Nazism or Stalinism. Hitler and Stalin are two of the few
people in
history that I would willingly point to and call monsters.
I really don't have enough information on the American
Communist Party early this century to make a reasonable
comparison between them and any American Nazis there may
have been during Hitler's Reich. (Were there any? That's
certainly a bit of history that's never mentioned.) But if
you expect me to believe that the Communists in Hollywood in
the 30's and 40's were sympathetic to Stalin's slaughter,
you're going to have to come up with some hard evidence.
>From what I know of the period, people were looking for a
solution to a difficult time in American economic
history--not to support Stalin's crimes. Most were probably
unaware of the slaughter. Most were probably
just looking for hope and new ideals. A few may have been
propaganda agents, but not the vast majority who were
fingered in the HUAC.
> > are quite a few ovens in Germany that speak eloquently
to Nazi
> > responsibility.
>
> Unclear why you bring that up, but no one denies that.
It's just
> that Stalin's graveyards are just as big as Hitler's. And
his
> supporters just as guilty. Or do you think that the
modern
> American Nazi Party has no connection to any of Hitler's
crimes,
> and is a purely intellectual political movement? That's
what they
> say, I'm curious if you agree with them.
Is the modern American Nazi Party equivalent to the American
Communist Party of the early part of this century? I don't
think so. For the sake of arguement, however....
I'm certainly more sympathetic to the Communists than the
Nazis (does that make me a Commie sympathizer?), but they
are both ideologies guaranteed protection under the
Constitution. Until individuals or a conspiracy of persons
holding those views commits or plans a criminal act, neither
the modern Communist nor Nazi would be guilty of Stalin's or
Hitler's crimes. Guilty of bad taste, perhaps, but not mass
murder.
> > And I think you have twisted the subject anyway. We're
> > talking about Elia Kazan here.
>
> We're talking about what the American Communist Party
stood for.
> Reams and reams of evidence have showed that it was funded
by
> and loyal to Stalin's communist organization. Many of
those who
> quit did so when they found out how subservient the
leadership
> was to the Soviet contacts who instructed them. The
people who
> supported them and their movement were every bit as
morally
> reprehensible as those Bund members who supported Hitler
during
> the 30's. And communist sympathizers were not different
from
> Nazi sympathizers in any way whatsoever.
I obviously don't have the "reams and reams of evidence"
that you do, but as stated above, I simply do not believe
that the vast majority of those who were Communists or who
attended meetings or who were interested in the party were
aware of the atrocities of Stalin. Those who did were
morally repugnant, yes, but free to their notions as long as
they did not attempt any physically destructive acts in the
States.
And you say that many quit when they found out about the
atrocities. Those persons were also the targets of the
HUAC.
The strangest thing about this thread is how many people
seem to divert this conversation away from one of the
fundamental points. The HUAC was as bad as any of the
totalitarian practices of Communist Russia. It was an
effort to find and stamp out an ideology that was deemed
unhealthy by the American government. Just as the Soviet
Union persecuted and jailed many of its dissidents, during
this period in America, the government did the SAME THING.
Kazan's "real crime" is not "having the wrong opinion," but
in cooporating with a corrupt, totalitarian govermental
body. Unless those persons he named were guilty of actual
criminal destruction, it would have been respectable to lie
to save himself, and it would have been honorable to refuse
to testify, even if that meant imprisonment or the end of
his career.
I don't know how Kazan is defended by having told the
truth. A destructive truth is often worse than a lie.
> > Elia Kazan is a talented director. But he's still a
> > ratfink.
>
> That's a valid opinion. But if his film work was good,
then he
> deserves the award. The real controversy is that those
> protesting the award want there to be some PC litmus test
> that only "their" kind of people can pass. No awards for
> people they don't like, regardless of their
accomplishments.
> What would your feelings be if this was the Catholic
Church
> campaigning to block his award because he was Jewish? Or
> if Newt Gingrich was campaigning to block the award
because
> he was too "liberal"? It's the same thing.
I don't think anyone is campaigning against Kazan because
he's too "conservative" or "Catholic", so it's not the same
thing. I
don't think it's a PC issue at all.
Kazan commited a cowardly act. If he would admit to that,
it would be forgivable.
Does he deserve a lifetime achievement award? I'm still
divided. His film work does. But the actions of his life
do not. Hell, I'd probably grit my teeth and give it to
him, were it my choice.
Daryl
Steve Brinich
> I seem to recall members of the Branch Davidians firing a considerable
> number of rounds at members of the ATF. Do you not consider
> attempting to kill members of the federal government illegal?
According to the initial accounts from all sides (the ATF changed its
story later, for obvious reasons), the agents came in shooting, without
identifying themselves, despite the fact that they had a normal warrant
(which is to be served with a polite knock on the door, not a "dynamic
entry").
When people come in the guise of a bandits, it is perfectly appropriate
to treat them as bandits.
Brian Watson
[MODERATOR'S NOTE: There are other groups where this discussion would
be much more appropriate. It would probably be a benefit to the group
if all who want to continue this discussion would do so elsewhere. CLM]
"Christopher M. Conway" wrote:
> In article <36E33BBC...@cris.com>, Brian Watson <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
> >Cronan wrote:
> >
> >> To date there is no proof the Branch Davidians violated any law.
> >
> >I seem to recall members of the Branch Davidians firing a considerable
> >number of rounds at members of the ATF. Do you not consider attempting to
> >kill members of the federal government illegal?
>
> Not when:
> 1. The officers have not identified themselves;
I guess the big yellow ATF letters on their jumpers was not very informative, eh?
And I suppose the fact that they had been surrounded for 2 months by the federal
government precludes any chance of robbers sneaking through the lines to break
into their house.
> 2. They fired first;
Proof of this? If the Davidians pointed any weapon in the direction of the
officers (even if they didn't fire them) then the officers had every right to blow
them out of their shoes.
> 3. They were executing an invalid warrant (procured through
> perjured testimony);
And when was this perjury discovered? Before or after the search? If before,
then you may have a point. If after, then what they did was perfectly legal at
the time. It isn't the fault of the officers executing the search that the DA and
Judge were incompetent in their job.
> and 4. They executed it in a fashion that was not permitted by the
> warrant (no knock, military style, etc.)
Oh please. The knock that police use when entering a home with a search warrent,
loaded with arms is immediately followed in the next second with a hammer blow to
the door with a battering ram. The knock is just redundant. Military style? If
you mean efficient to cover the most area and use surprise to shock inhabitants in
the home to prevent them from resisting with lethal force (thus endangering their
own lives and the lives of the officers) then it's an extremely good method to
use.
> > I'm sure that'll be a
> >convincing arguement at your defense some day after you murder a federal
> >agent. I suppose the stockpiling and attempted purchase of grenades and
> >kits upgrading firearms to fully automatic firing is also perfectly legal
> >in your version of the United States.
>
> 2. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not
> be infringed.
>
> So, yes. All of this is legal. Koresh did not have the proper $200 tax stamps;
> that was his only illegal act. I can purchase grenades and full auto firearms
> right now, should I choose, as long as I'm not a convicted felon and pay the
> $200 tax.
EXCUSE ME??? Fully automatic weapons are ENTIRELY illegal to be owned by ANY
private citizen. Only the US Military has any right to own such weapons, with
good reason. No private individual has any kind of legitimate need to own a weapon
that can fire 200 rounds in a few seconds. I also know of no such law that allows
the purchase of hand grenades in the US, and would happily see any actual statute
that says so.
Michael J. Hennebry
>That's a valid opinion. But if his film work was good, then he
>deserves the award. The real controversy is that those
>protesting the award want there to be some PC litmus test
>that only "their" kind of people can pass. No awards for
>people they don't like, regardless of their accomplishments.
>What would your feelings be if this was the Catholic Church
>campaigning to block his award because he was Jewish? Or
>if Newt Gingrich was campaigning to block the award because
>he was too "liberal"? It's the same thing.
No, it's not. Elia Kazan's award is a lifetime achievement award
or some other award given on an ad hoc basis. Contributing to
blacklisting is one of his achievements. Blacklisting is a bit
more serious than betting on baseball and Pete Rose is not going
to get his lifetime achievement award.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"There won't be a full moon for months." -- Randi Wallace
Michael J. Hennebry
James A. Wolf <jaw...@tiac.net> wrote:
> Just to add more fuel to the fire... The following is an
>editorial from the NY Post, 3/7/99.
>
>
>
>
>
> ELIA KAZAN'S COURAGE
What did he do that required courage?
Mike Van Pelt
Daryl Nash <dary...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The strangest thing about this thread is how many people
>seem to divert this conversation away from one of the
>fundamental points. The HUAC was as bad as any of the
>totalitarian practices of Communist Russia. It was an
>effort to find and stamp out an ideology that was deemed
>unhealthy by the American government. Just as the Soviet
>Union persecuted and jailed many of its dissidents, during
>this period in America, the government did the SAME THING.
Here was see idiocy on parade:
Blacklisting is exactly equivalent to the mass murder of
tens of millions of people.
Yeah, right.
And the lefties wonder why they get treated with such contempt.
Mike Van Pelt
>In article <36E40531...@worldnet.att.net>,
>Daryl Nash <dary...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>totalitarian practices of Communist Russia.
>>Union persecuted and jailed many of its dissidents, during
>>this period in America, the government did the SAME THING.
>
>
>Blacklisting is exactly equivalent to the mass murder of
>tens of millions of people.
And just to make the magnitude of the blacklist clear, as
compared to Stalinism: I looked up
THE AGE OF MCCARTHYISM: A BRIEF HISTORY WITH DOCUMENTS
by Ellen Schrecker
This is by no means a pro-HUAC or pro-McCarthy book. In fact,
one of her conclusions is that the loss of influence in the US
of the left in general, and communism in particular, was a
horridly bad thing.
She says:
Obviously the congressional hearings, loyalty programs, and
blacklists affected the lives of the men and women caught up
in them. But beyond that, it is hard to tell. The statistics
are imprecise. Ten thousand people may have lost their jobs.
Ten thousand people lost their jobs.
Vs. tens of millions of murders.
Oh, gee, I just don't see how we can decide which one is worse.
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: And the lefties wonder why they get treated with such contempt.
"The lefties."
There's a useful generalization.
Just as useful as "the righties." You know: Von Mise, Louis XVIth,
Patrick Buchanan, Gary Bauer, George W. Bush, Jr., Margaret Thatcher,
William Hague, James Callaghan, Jacque Chirac, Francisco Franco, Augusto
Pinochet, Efraim Rios Montt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, William Harding, Robert
Taft -- all similar opinions.
Just like "the lefties" are equally similar and homogenous in opinion.
Emma Goldman, V. I. Lenin, Adlai Stevenson, John F. Kennedy, Norman
Thomas, Abbie Hoffman, Michael Foot, Robin Cook, Francois Mitterand, Pol
Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Franklin D. Roosevelt -- all basically the same.
Darn, why don't I get look for yet more insightful political analysis on a
Babylon 5 newsgroup?
Next question: Mohandas Gandhi -- leftist or rightist?
James A. Wolf
>In article <36e3651f...@news.tiac.net>,
>James A. Wolf <jaw...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> Just to add more fuel to the fire... The following is an
>>editorial from the NY Post, 3/7/99.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ELIA KAZAN'S COURAGE
>
>What did he do that required courage?
>
Since you did not care to read the editorial, perhaps I could persuade
you to watch 'On The Waterfront' for your answer.
Bill Newkirk
Mike Van Pelt wrote in message ...
>We're never told how Sheridan knew who all the suspected Night
>Watch sympathizers were. I suppose Zack "Named Names"?
>Who else was required to "Name Names" to avoid deportation?
>Alas, we didn't get to see how Sheridan's deportation list was
>arrived at.
>
before the clean up of NW, they were all running around with their armbands
and such.
and B5 had lots of security cameras and storage of data to be mined...and
computers that could do pattern matching on something like the nightwatch
armband.
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
> In article <36E40531...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Daryl Nash <dary...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >The strangest thing about this thread is how many people
> >seem to divert this conversation away from one of the
> >fundamental points. The HUAC was as bad as any of the
> >totalitarian practices of Communist Russia. It was an
> >effort to find and stamp out an ideology that was deemed
> >unhealthy by the American government. Just as the Soviet
> >Union persecuted and jailed many of its dissidents, during
> >this period in America, the government did the SAME THING.
>
>Here was see idiocy on parade:
>
>Blacklisting is exactly equivalent to the mass murder of
>tens of millions of people.
Q: What was the Soviet Union engaged in when it jailed and murdered
countless millions of its citizens?
A: The repression of ideas that conflicted with the status quo.
Q: What was the United States engaged in when it ruined the livelihoods
of thousands of people without just cause, due process, habaeus corpus,
sanctum sanctorum, quo vadis, or de profundis?
A: The repression of ideas that conflicted with the status quo.
Q: What do you call it if someone kills a hundred innocent people?
A: Murder.
Q: What do you call it if someone kills one innocent person?
A: Murder.
Q: Well, gee, I don't get it. Isn't there a difference between killing
a hundred people and just killing one person?
A: Only one of degree. Besides, as the man said, every journey begins
with a single step...and every would-be totalitarian regime has to start
somewhere.
>
>Yeah, right.
>
>And the lefties wonder why they get treated with such contempt.
The lefties? I didn't know you'd be dragging comparative physiology
into this. I'm a lefty, and I don't get treated with contempt. Of
course, when I write, I keep putting the heel of my hand into the fresh
ink, so I always have to be careful what I touch lest I inadvertently
smear an unholy mix of lead, graphite, and eraser fibers all over
everything. And in grade school I could never use the safety scissors
they passed out for art projects; I suppose that my teachers might have
begun to wonder if I'd ever learn how to clean up those nasty jagged
edges of construction paper. But "contempt" is such a strong word, one
I normally reserve for television and Danielle Steel novels.
Jacob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
ImRastro
>Ten thousand people lost their jobs.
>
>Vs. tens of millions of murders.
>
>Oh, gee, I just don't see how we can decide which one is worse.
>
Like others, I keep trying to pull out of this thread, but the insistance of
the pro-Kazan crowd on comparing apples to oranges keeps dragging me back in.
This is not about comparing who was worse, HUAC, Stalin or the Nazis. It is
about the basic freedom to associate and to speak as protected by the first
amendment. Obviously Stalin and Hitler were "worse" than McCarthy. Then
again, they were in countries who never puported to adhere to our set of
policies and beliefs, the freedom of expression among them.
we do. As a result, McCarthism was bad. Rounding up the Japanese in WWII was
also bad. Was it worse than acts by various dictators? Who cares. Not the
issue unless you are trying to justify Huac's actions. If you are, then I ask
again, would not the same theory justify rounding up, blacklisting, jailing or
deporting American Muslims?
As to to the 10k number in the post, it is incorrect, or at least too limited.
As I have also noted elsewhere, HUAC was but one instance in along painful
history of red baiting that involved many more victims. Even were this not
so, however, the principle remains the same. We live in a free society. That
right is gaurenteed to each individual not just the majority. We don't add the
numbers here to decide how great a breach of that doctrine we are willing to
accept.
Cronan
[. . .]
>Darn, why don't I get look for yet more insightful political analysis on a
>Babylon 5 newsgroup?
Because I am hand moderated.
Cronan
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
>All to often they turned a willing blind eye to the truth. Some, >like
Walter Durranty helped to cover up Stalin's murderous nature. >Others
attacked anyone who dared to tell the truth.
But then James A. Wolf wrote:
> Getting back to Kazan, it was not obvious to Kazan, nor anyone
> else at the time that the Committee was behaving in an unlawful
> fashion. Nor was it obvious (to the general public) as so many
> smugly assert that the Hollywood communists were harmless.
So the public was totally ignorant that their own government was
targeting American citizens for harassment and slander, but everyone in
Hollywood was fully aware that a paranoid and secretive dictator
thousands of miles away was busily slaughtering his own citizens? Um,
ok...if you say so.
Given the USSR's vicious treatment of Jews and Eastern Europeans,
and the ethnic backgrounds of many of those who were slandered (hell,
even the Greek Kazan) I find it very hard to believe that most of the
accused could have had anything to do with Stalinism had they known of
its atrocities. That's assuming, of course, that they were even *on*
the USSR's payroll, which has yet to be demonstrated in this thread.
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
> Just to add more fuel to the fire...
Gee, just when this thread was in danger of becoming tame...
>The following is an editorial from the NY Post, 3/7/99.
>
>
> ELIA KAZAN'S COURAGE
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> The pathetic remnants of the Hollywood Popular Front
I'm glad to see that the Post remains THE source for thoughtful,
levelheaded analysis on the pressing issues of the day. "Hollywood
Popular Front"? Good lord, the only political messages H-wood seems
able to send anymore is "pwease don't hurt the pwetty liddle animals"
and "all Moslems and Irishmen are terrorists". Godless Commies were
made of sterner stuff back in The Day.
>To these unrepentent Stalinists, Kazan committed the unforgivable
>"sin" of naming names of Communists to a congressional committee in
>1952.
This writer needs to spend more time hanging out at the Political
Baskin-Robbins, where every ideology comes in at least 31 flavors. How
many times does it have to be repeated before it sinks in? Communists
are not necessarily Stalinists, socialists are not necessarily
Communists, progressives are not necessarily socialist, and most
Democrats sure as hell aren't always progressive.
(Perhaps this notion comes easier to me, living as I do in Johnson
County, KS. A few blocks from my house are conservatives who live in
million-dollar mansions and read the Wall Street Journal. A few miles
from my house are conservatives who live in one-bedroom ranch houses and
read the Watch Tower. Any resemblance between these two breeds is
strictly hilarious.)
[snip]
>
>As a result, he decided to pursue "the better of two mean
>alternatives. The only other option was to remain silent and pretend
>I didn't know better when people said there's no Communist
>conspiracy. Nonsense - there was a conspiracy."
In a week of debate, no one taking HUAC's side has produced a single
coherent allegation against the accused parties. 1) What was the aim of
their "conspiracy"? 2) What did they accomplish? 3) What effect did
their collaboration have on the relative positions of the US and the
USSR? And most importantly...
4) What federal or State of California laws or statues did they violate?
While someone gets back to me on that, I'll apply those questions to the
HUAC. The answers are as follows: 1) to divert the American public from
policy failures abroad by finding a suitable group of scapegoats (and
who better than a bunch of rich Jews?), 2) the ruination of hundreds of
people's livelihoods, as well as the slander of thousands of their
otherwise-innocent intimates and associates, 3) there was no discernable
change in US power or prestige due to HUAC's actions, and 4) the First
and Fifth Amendments, the right to due process, the right to trial by a
jury of one's peers, and--probably a good basis for a class-action suit
by the survivors--the "reasonable expectation of privacy" established
after the Sam Sheppard case.
If Kazan sincerely thought that he was doing the right thing, then he
was guilty of nothing but exceedingly poor judgment. If, as some have
alleged, he used the situation as an opportunity to advance his personal
vendettas, then he will have to answer to his God and his conscience.
And the issue of whether he deserves a lifetime achievement award should
rightly be left up to the industry, who must weigh the tangible merits
of ON THE WATERFRONT and GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT with the movies that
might have been made by those whose jobs were wrongfully taken from
them.
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
>In <mvpF8A...@netcom.com> Mike Van Pelt <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>: And the lefties wonder why they get treated with such contempt.
>
>"The lefties."
>
>There's a useful generalization.
>
>Just as useful as "the righties." You know: Von Mise, Louis XVIth,
>Patrick Buchanan, Gary Bauer, George W. Bush, Jr., Margaret Thatcher,
>William Hague, James Callaghan, Jacque Chirac, Francisco Franco,
>Augusto Pinochet, Efraim Rios Montt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, William
>Harding, Robert Taft -- all similar opinions.
This is absolutely the most lucid post I've yet seen on the inane
Left/Right dichotomy.
Sadly, it seems most people, even most of the people on this ng, still
subscribe to the 2-point political spectrum as a matter of course, not
even stopping to consider that a system that ranks Hitler and Stalin as
polar opposites just might--maybe, possibly--be the teensiest bit out of
whack.
Cronan
>>To date there is no proof the Branch Davidians violated any law.
>
>sticking to the technicality that it never went to court, since they were
>barbecued before it could.
No proof of those assertions has ever been found, and no reliable witnesses
have ever come forward concerning the presence of illegal weapons. The BATF
deposition that elicited the search warrant can be found at
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/waco.affidavit.html And never were the
the violations implied in the affidavit ever proven to have actually
happened outside of the imaginations of Gestapo-like Federal officers. One
of those implied pedos in the compound - who was only accused of such during
a very nasty divorce - had a license (Federal Firearms) and stuff via mail-
order(nothing illegal there); he shipped and received a bunch of stuff, all
of the paperwork for it was in place and fully legal. The guy bought and sold
lots of AR-15 parts and bought a lot of inert "pineapple" hand grenades.
(They sold then as novelties.) What this is in violation of I have no idea.
I would also take this opportunity to point out that sending in tanks,
lying to the DEA about the presence of illegal substances on the
compound to allow their power to be brought to bear, and burning a
building they knew was full of children isn't what I'd call a rational
response to the purporting violations of a few postal regulation.
I'd also reccomend you want "WACO: RULES OF ENGAGEMENT". It's an
excellent documentary that shows exactly what our government did to
those admitted eccentric people.
Brian Watson said:
>I seem to recall members of the Branch Davidians firing a considerable
>number of rounds at members of the ATF. Do you not consider attempting to
>kill members of the federal government illegal? I'm sure that'll be a
>convincing arguement at your defense some day after you murder a federal
>agent. I suppose the stockpiling and attempted purchase of grenades and
>kits upgrading firearms to fully automatic firing is also perfectly legal
>in your version of the United States.
Err... wrong on all counts. See above. The Davidians were acting by
the most sacred right given the people of the United States: self-
defense. I realize that it's often hard to accept that people may
need to defend themselves from an overzealous government but please,
Brian, do us both a favor and do some damn research on the subject.
It's scary as hell and you may not like what you find but, damn it,
do it and realize exactly how many people can die when the people
stop watching their government.
Cronan
Mike Van Pelt
ImRastro <imra...@aol.com> wrote:
>MVP writes:
>
>>Ten thousand people lost their jobs.
>>
>>Vs. tens of millions of murders.
>>
>>Oh, gee, I just don't see how we can decide which one is worse.
>>
>
>
>Like others, I keep trying to pull out of this thread, but the insistance of
>the pro-Kazan crowd on comparing apples to oranges keeps dragging me back in.
>
>This is not about comparing who was worse, HUAC, Stalin or the Nazis. It is
>about the basic freedom to associate and to speak as protected by the first
>amendment. Obviously Stalin and Hitler were "worse" than McCarthy. Then
>again, they were in countries who never puported to adhere to our set of
>policies and beliefs, the freedom of expression among them.
I was, in my posting, specifically addressing Daryl Nash's comments
which I quoted, but you cut in your response. Those comments were:
>In article <36E40531...@worldnet.att.net>,
>Daryl Nash <dary...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> ... The HUAC was as bad as any of the
>>totalitarian practices of Communist Russia.
>>... Just as the Soviet
>>Union persecuted and jailed many of its dissidents, during
>>this period in America, the government did the SAME THING.
Get that. "HUAC was as bad as any of the totalitarian practices of
Communist Russia." *THAT* is what I was addressing. Not whether
HUAC was a wonderful thing (it was not) or whether Joe McCarthy had
an ounce of decency or brains in him (he manifestly did not.)
Mike Van Pelt
The Reverend Jacob Corbin <jaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Q: What do you call it if someone kills a hundred innocent people?
>
>A: Murder.
>
>Q: What do you call it if someone kills one innocent person?
>
>A: Murder.
>
>Q: Well, gee, I don't get it. Isn't there a difference between killing
>a hundred people and just killing one person?
What innocent person did the United States government kill?
(And before you say "Rosenberg", the Venona documents released after
the collapse of the Soviet Union proved that they were indeed engaged
in espionage, shipping critical nuclear weapons design information
to the Soviet Union. That is not "innocent".)
Mike Van Pelt
>subscribe to the 2-point political spectrum as a matter of course, not
>even stopping to consider that a system that ranks Hitler and Stalin as
>polar opposites just might--maybe, possibly--be the teensiest bit out of
>whack.
You have a point here. Hitler and Stalin had a whole lot more
similarities than differences. (Then again, what was the National
Socialist German Worker's Party but a slightly different brand of
totalitarian socialism, with a heaping helping of nationalism and
racism stirred in?)
Mark Alexander
>
> In article <1999030904204...@hotmail.com>,
> The Reverend Jacob Corbin <jaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Sadly, it seems most people, even most of the people on this ng, still
> >subscribe to the 2-point political spectrum as a matter of course, not
> >even stopping to consider that a system that ranks Hitler and Stalin as
> >polar opposites just might--maybe, possibly--be the teensiest bit out of
> >whack.
>
> You have a point here. Hitler and Stalin had a whole lot more
> similarities than differences. (Then again, what was the National
> Socialist German Worker's Party but a slightly different brand of
> totalitarian socialism, with a heaping helping of nationalism and
> racism stirred in?)
In Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" he makes a
particularly interesting distinction between Nazi's and Communists, a
distinction that is still relevant because of the continuing actions of
the Communist Chinese:
We can all agree that the fundamental *evil* of many -isms is the
turning of human beings into objects to be manipulated without regard to
basic humanity.
Racism is objectification based on race.
Sexism is objectivifaction based on sex.
Solzhenitsyn makes a case that though Nazis committed many horrendous
evils of objectivication, the Nazi ideology still allowed room for a
humanistic non-objective response to certain groups (obviously Aryan is
included in that).
Communist ideology, on the other hand, turned everyone, including
Communists, into objects. Communism as practiced in the Soviet Union
eats its own. He makes a strong case that this is not simply a special
case in the Soviet Union, but is *inherent* in Communist ideology, and
that every Communist system that uses the coercive power of government
to achieve its ends will inevitably lead to mass slaughter. The *ideal*
of Communism so overtakes the mind that all is subordinated to it, and
every human body may be sacrificed to achieve the abstraction.
You can see similar patterns begin to emerge in Night Watch.
Mark
Debora Offer
>"Christopher M. Conway" wrote:
[...]
>> So, yes. All of this is legal. Koresh did not have the proper $200 tax stamps;
>> that was his only illegal act. I can purchase grenades and full auto firearms
>> right now, should I choose, as long as I'm not a convicted felon and pay the
>> $200 tax.
>EXCUSE ME??? Fully automatic weapons are ENTIRELY illegal to be owned by ANY
>private citizen. Only the US Military has any right to own such weapons, with
>good reason. No private individual has any kind of legitimate need to own a weapon
>that can fire 200 rounds in a few seconds. I also know of no such law that allows
>the purchase of hand grenades in the US, and would happily see any actual statute
>that says so.
Sorry, you're wrong. I saw a fully automatic gun at a shop not that long
ago and they hold machine gun meets at a local range a couple of times
a year. If you like, I could try to find the meet reports off of Deja News.
As for need... sigh, I just don't have the words to describe how this
argument of "need" ticks me off. The best I can do is
Who the hell are you to tell me what I need?
--
Debora Offer dao...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Austin, Texas
"The power of fuzzy-bunny emotionalist group-think liberalism to turn
an otherwise normal human being's brain to an irrational pile of
oatmeal mush never ceases to amaze me." -- Julie Cochrane 19990129
Andrew Wendel
The Reverend Jacob Corbin <jaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1999030904204...@hotmail.com...
<SNIP>
>Sadly, it seems most people, even most of the people on this ng, still
>subscribe to the 2-point political spectrum as a matter of course, not
>even stopping to consider that a system that ranks Hitler and Stalin as
>polar opposites just might--maybe, possibly--be the teensiest bit out of
>whack.
Hitler and Stalin were opposites in the way things were economicly. With
the former, the private sector owned things (for the most part) with the
government mearly dictating what they wanted. With the later, the state
owned everything and they tried to predict demand and control supply.
Politically, they were more alike.
BTW: How finds it funny that inspite of the Plege of Alegiance, most
Americans still think we live in a democracy instead of a republic?
Andy
------
Andrew Wendel
Mechanical Engineering
Kansas State University
mailto:h...@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~h38
-------------------------------------------
It is only possible to live happily
ever after on a day to day basis.
-Margaret Bonnano
NukeMarine
>
>What innocent person did the United States government kill?
>
>(And before you say "Rosenberg", the Venona documents released after
>the collapse of the Soviet Union proved that they were indeed engaged
>in espionage, shipping critical nuclear weapons design information
>to the Soviet Union. That is not "innocent".)
>
Well, let's start with the obvious, choctaw, cherokee, crow, blackfoot et al.
that had peace treaties with the United States yet were masacred either
physically, biologically and other horrors such as the killing of the buffalo
to get at the Indians. Now yes, the US is one of the few nations still guilty
of genocide, but reparations are still being handed out.
Plus there are document cases (around 76, most likely more, the library would
have a true number) of people executed on death row later found not to have
committed the crime they were punished for.
Of course this is irrelevent. We are talking about an autonomous nation here
not held to the same penalties of its citizens. Might as well ask if the B5
station is guilty of any death caused within its confines.
well, this can start to get a little philosophical on the political side so
I'll leave it at that for now.
---------------------
Bad doggy, that's momma's vibrator.