Peter Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.; Pro-Castro Bias Dissected; Gore Exaggerations
Bill Nalty
Media Research Center CyberAlert
Thursday April 13, 2000 (Vol. Five; No. 65)
Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.; Pro-Castro Bias Dissected; Gore
Exaggerations
1) Would Elian be "better off" in Cuba or the U.S.? "There's not a
simple answer," insisted ABC's Peter Jennings. Morton Dean touted
the "free" medical care and lack of crime in Cuba, though he also
noted the bread lines, but did not mention political repression.
2) "Geez," Morton Kondracke exclaimed after hearing FNC's Brit
Hume read aloud from a Newsweek article on how Elian can expect "a
nurturing life in Cuba." He conceded liberal bias and even NPR's
Mara Liasson was perplexed by the pro-Castro reporting.
3) ABC, CBS and NBC all reported how Elian was taken to the home
of Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, but none reminded viewers how after
seeing Elian with his grandmothers she had decided he should stay.
4) After updating viewers on the case of Walter Polovchak, Dan
Rather assured viewers "it is not our intention to take sides or
advocate any particular solution to the Elian Gonzalez case."
5) NBC Nightly News relayed without skepticism the claim that
4,223 children a year are killed by guns, but then devoted a whole
story to discrediting the claim of gun advocates for how often a
gun is used to prevent a crime.
6) Another Gore "exaggeration" was caught by abcnews.com and the
Boston Globe detailed Gore's record of "embellishing truth," but
ABC-TV instead focused on how Bush's "record as Governor raises
questions about his commitment" to spending enough on health care.
7) Letterman's "Top Ten Signs President Clinton is Bored."
> 1) "There's not a simple answer," judged ABC's Peter
Jennings to the question of whether Elian Gonzalez would have "a
better life" in the democratic and free United States or the
communist and bereft Cuba. Reporter Morton Dean described what
kind of life awaits Elian in Cuba, touting the "free" medical care
and lack of crime, but also highlighting the bread lines. Without
mentioning political repression or the lack of freedom of speech,
Dean concluded by acknowledging how Cubans "know they cannot match
the material things available in the United States," but they
"promise a warm welcome and a normal life for Elian."
World News Tonight anchor Jennings set up Dean's April 12
piece after stories on the day's latest developments in south
Florida with Janet Reno's arrival:
"Beyond the questions of custody, the Cuban-American community
in Miami has always argued, almost everyday in fact, that Elian
Gonzalez would have a better life here in the United States than
in Cuba. It's been argued before, and there's not a simple answer.
But at this late date ABC's Morton Dean has been again to the
boy's hometown of Cardenes."
Let's pause here for emphasis. The star of a U.S. television
news operation, which is able to tilt its news to the left all it
wants because of the First Amendment, believes there's "not a
simple answer" to whether someone would be "better off" in a
democratic and free nation or in a repressive communist one where
free thought is not allowed and the command economy causes
widespread poverty and misery.
From Havana, Dean began by showing Cubans looking a pictures
of Elian inside a new "Elian room" in the Cardenes city museum.
Upon his return, Dean related, "Elian will quickly learn his
old classmates chant his name daily and that his desk became a
place of honor and the subject of billboards urging his return."
Over video of a cinder block structure painted aqua, Dean
continued: "Other than a new government paint job on the Gonzalez
home, Elian would find little else has changed. Ask Cubans what
the pluses are in this society and they'll quickly mention free
medical care, free education, the lack of serious crime and that
their children live in a safe environment.
"Cardenes, like all of Cuba, shows ample signs of the central
government's economic mismanagement and the severe effect of the
U.S. embargo. Today, as everyday, a few blocks from the Gonzalez
house, a bread line. The rum factories are a principal employer in
Cardenes and a principal cause of pollution [video of belching
smokestack]."
Over video of a man talking Dean relayed his word: "選 earn
224 pesos, about $10 dollars a month.' He says it's not enough,
even teachers and doctors earn no more than $30 a month."
What kind of quality health care do you get for "free" from a
doctor paid $30 a month?
Dean went on to outline how the "dollar economy," which
included Elian's father, has improved things in Cuba: "The
relatively new dollar economy makes a difference. Elian's father,
and others from Cardenes, work at a nearby resort and are paid and
tipped in dollars."
Over video of another man, Dean noted: "践aving dollars,' he
said, 疎llows me to buy some necessary things.'" Dean then
concluded: "People here know they cannot match the material things
available in the United States, but they promise a warm welcome
and a normal life for Elian."
A "normal life" by communist standards. Dean failed to utter
one syllable about political or religious freedom or human rights,
nor what Elian has to look forward to in Castro's youth
indoctrination group, the Young Pioneers, whose meetings he will
attend without having any milk to drink.
> 2) "I don't understand why the news magazines and the
networks...weren't all down in Cuba to figure out what is it like,
what kind of life can Elian Gonzalez expect to live in Cuba in the
Young Pioneers, you know, and all that kind of stuff." So wondered
Roll Call Executive Editor and proud "moderate" Morton Kondracke
on FNC Wednesday night after acknowledging that recent media
coverage, which has admired Castro's Cuba, can only be explained
by liberal bias. NPR's more liberal Mara Liasson was equally
perplexed by the contention that life would be better for Elian in
Cuba: "I can't think of anyone in the United States who would
agree with that."
Well, several reporters for major media outlets do, especially
NBC's Jim Avila as shown in previous CyberAlerts.
Picking up on some of the same news magazine quotes cited in
this week's MRC MagazineWatch, FNC's Brit Hume raised in his
show's panel segment with the "Fox All Stars" the issue of media
coverage of Castro and Cuban-Americans. To watch a hunk of this
discussion via RealPlayer, go to the MRC home page late Thursday
morning where MRC Webmaster Andy Szul will post it: http://www.mrc.org
Hume introduced the April 12 segment on his 6pm ET/9pm PT
Special Report with Brit Hume:
"Let's talk about another issue that's come up, and that is
the portrayal in the media of the Cuban American community in
Miami, which is, I think it raises the question of whether this is
the one ethnic group in America that it's okay to bash. Let's look
at a couple of quotes from the current round of newsweeklies.
Here's what Time magazine says:
"禅he 礎anana republic' label sticking to Miami in the final
throes of the Elian Gonzalez crisis is a source of snide humor for
most Americans.' And now from Newsweek: 選n some ways, young Elian
might expect,' this is if he went back to Cuba, 疎 nurturing life
in Cuba, sheltered from the crime and social breakdown that would
be part of his upbringing in Miami.' Now, is it, what is that?"
The latter quote caused Morton Kondracke to start laughing as
he exclaimed "geez!" Kondracke, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad
Wilmouth, answered Hume by conceding bias exists: "You know, half
the time when Fred [Barnes], when Fred beats up on the press as
being, you know, automatic chronically left-wing, I sort of scoff
at that. I gotta say that there's not much else that, I don't
understand why the news magazines and the networks, for that
matter, weren't all down in Cuba to figure out what is it like,
what kind of life can Elian Gonzalez expect to live in Cuba in the
Young Pioneers, you know, and all that kind of stuff."
(Reporters are there for Time and Newswek, but they like the
network reporters are using their stories to tout the "Cuban good
life," as NBC Jim Avila put it, with five free gallons of gas a
month and a bag of beans and deodorant. See the April 5 CyberAlert
for details.)
Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard explained what's behind the
media take, suggesting reporters are indulging in "an old genre
that some people have recognized for a half century anyway, and it
is 疎nti-anti-Communism.' Mort, you remember it during the whole
Nicaraguan Contras thing where then the thing was the Contras,
they're worse than the Sandinistas. In Vietnam, you know, Diem,
he's worse than the Viet Cong and so on. The American Left always
attacks any group that is anti-communist by saying they're worse
than the communists, and here we see it again. And the Cuban
Americans are the latest victims of that. There's all this, or at
best there's moral equivalence, you know, gee, it's totalitarian
in Cuba, it's totalitarian in Little Havana, which is nonsense."
Even panelist Mara Liasson of National Public Radio was
befuddled by the Newsweek view: "To make those kinds of
assertions, that somehow his life would be better in Cuba. It's
one thing to say that a child belongs with his father, it's
another to say that growing up in a communist country is somehow
better than being in Miami. I can't think of anyone in the United
States who would agree with that."
Memo to Liasson: Please talk to Peter Jennings. He's unsure.
Hume quickly reminded her of the media quotes he had read
earlier, adding: "You heard this out of the mouth of Katie Couric
on NBC about Miami being the place where, she set up a description
of what most people would say about Cuba and said well they were
talking about Miami, that there is this equivalence thing out
there."
Indeed, Couric opened the April 3 Today by announcing: "Some
suggested over the weekend that it's wrong to expect Elian
Gonzalez to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom
of political expression. They were talking about Miami. All eyes
on South Florida and its image this morning. Another writer this
weekend called it 'an out of control banana republic within
America.' What effect is the Elian Gonzalez story having on
perception of Miami? We will talk with a well known columnist for
the Miami Herald about that."
Back to the FNC discussion, Kondracke reminded viewers: "When
you're seven years old in Cuba, you cease to get your milk
allotment because they don't have enough milk down there. Now
that's something I haven't seen. Cuba is regarded as some sort of
paradise for workers and health care and stuff like that."
I haven't seen it either on network television from their
reporters in Havana.
To hear something about the downsides of growing up in Cuba,
check out a rare network outlet for a less than glowing assessment
of Cuba from actor Andy Garcia whose comments astonished Matt
Lauer last week on Today. Garcia described the indoctrination of
the Young Pioneers and maintained that he'd rather have his son in
the U.S. if he were trapped in Cuba. To watch and read Garcia, go to:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/2000/cyb20000405.html#4
For much more from the two magazine articles quoted by Hume,
go to this week's MRC MagazineWatch painstakingly compiled by Tim
Graham. (This is the same edition sent Wednesday via CyberAlert.)
Go to: http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/magwatch/mag20000411.html
> 3) ABC, CBS and NBC all led with stories Wednesday night
about how Elian's relatives took him to stay at the home of Sister
Jeanne O'Laughlin, but none mentioned how after seeing Elian meet
with his grandmothers a few months ago she had changed her mind
and decided he should stay with the Miami family.
ABC's Peter Jennings opened the April 12 World News Tonight by
boosting Reno's abilities: "Good evening. Can she do it. That's
the question. Can the Attorney General bring this chapter in Elian
Gonzalez'z life to a close gracefully with the force of her
personality or will she have to use the declarative power of the
law?"
Introducing a story on the day's activities, Jennings
announced: "The Miami relatives of Elian Gonzalez have taken the
boy to the home of a nun, who is to some extent sympathetic to
their cause. ABC's Ron Claiborne is there this evening. Ron, do
the Miami relatives know the time is almost up?"
Yes, he answered, before running a soundbite from O'Laughlin,
President of Barry University. But he didn't remind viewers of
how, after seeing the fear the grandmothers had of the Cuban
security personnel who accompanied them, she had changed her mind
and decided Elian should stay.
Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by intoning: "Attorney
General Janet Reno flew to Miami this evening intent on persuading
the boy's relatives to obey the law and give him up."
CBS's Jim Axelrod, as well as NBC's David Bloom on NBC Nightly
News, both featured soundbites from O'Laughlin but didn't mention
her change of view.
> 4) "It is not our intention to take sides" in the Elian case
Dan Rather assured viewers after running a piece recalling the
1980 case of Walter Polovchak.
For the Fidelity-sponsored "The American Dream" segment on the
April 12 CBS Evening News Rather profiled Polovchak, now 32, who
as at age 12 asked to stay in the U.S. and not return with parents
to Ukraine. Six years later, at 18, he was granted citizenship.
After explaining how, like Elian, Polovchak was at the center of
media attention back in 1980, Rather updated viewers, though he
didn't mention what kind of career Polovchak has pursued: "Today,
Palovchak is married with a six-year-old son and a new house. He
is living his American dream."
Polovchak observed: "American dream means to me freedom, the
ability to practice any religion you want to, the freedom of
speech. The American dream is what I got when a government allowed
me to stay in this country."
Back on camera after the taped piece ended, Rather noted how
Polovchak has twice visited the now independent Ukraine and "re-
established warm relations with his parents."
Rather then added this unusual advisory: "And this editor's
note. In reporting Polovchak's story tonight, it is not our
intention to take sides or advocate any particular solution to the
Elian Gonzalez case."
> 5) After running highlights from Tom Brokaw's afternoon town
meeting in Denver on guns with President Clinton shown on MSNBC,
NBC Nightly News Wednesday night relayed without skepticism the
claim that 4,223 children a year are killed by guns, but then
devoted a whole story to discrediting the claim of gun advocates
for how often a gun is used to prevent a crime.
Reporter Roger O'Neil began his story by showing how by going
to a private dealer it's easy to buy a gun in Colorado without a
background check. O'Neil then, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad
Wilmouth, looked at two men with opposing views:
"When the Colorado legislature convened in January, it killed
a proposal to close that [gun show] loophole, and for two fathers
with very different views, it's the new moving target in the gun
war. Kelly Barnett, teaching his six-year-old about guns, NRA
member, says more laws won't stop more Columbines."
Kelly Barnett: "I believe that it's the, America's moral fiber
that's in decay."
O'Neil: "But Tom Mauser, whose son was killed at Columbine, is
dedicating his life to sensible gun control."
Tom Mauser: "I'm sure he would say, 船ad, I'm glad you're
walkin' in my shoes. Keep up the fight.'"
In the media's world is any gun control not "sensible"?
O'Neil proceeded to promote a publicity gimmick as he walked
among thousands of little shoes: "This week at the State Capitol,
4,223 pairs of shoes were laid out, pressure on lawmakers to pass
more gun control legislation. Why 4,223? That many children are
killed in a year by guns."
He added that all the shoes show a "sobering picture" of gun
violence.
4,223 would be 81 "children" a week. I don't have the numbers
to cite here, but I'm quite sure the "children" number includes
those up to age 19 or 20, so includes older teenagers killed in
drug fights and gang violence, not the picture conveyed by NBC in
showing small shoes worn by elementary school age kids.
But NBC wasn't interested in dissecting that number. They had
to make time for Pete Williams to discredit a number forwarded by
gun rights advocates. Williams opened his piece by recounting the
story of a man who used a gun to thwart an intruder by pointing it
at him. Williams noted that the NRA says self defense with gun
happens 2.5 million times a year, or 6,800 ties a day. He allowed
Gary Kleck, who did the phone survey which came up with those
numbers, to say the actual number might be higher.
Then Williams countered: "But many criminologists think
there's no way to be sure and that the number is likely much
smaller. They say a phone survey is a bad way to estimate
something that happens to a small segment of the population."
Professor Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University: "Especially rare
events like defensive gun use, where people view them as a heroic
or a laudable act, and so there's some tendency for people, or
there may be some tendency or temptation for people to exaggerate
or brag."
Williams: "In fact, few scholars think the number of guns used
for self-defense each year is in the millions. Many say it's more
like several hundred thousand, and Kleck notes that he counts not
only the time a gun owner actually points or fires it, but also
when the owner just threatens to use it without even showing it."
Williams repeated another anti-gun argument: "But even
counting those examples, advocates of gun control warn that it's
actually more dangerous to have a gun at home. They cite figures
that show the risk of suicide is five times higher in homes with
guns, and they say accidental deaths are higher, too."
Concluding, Williams did return to the case made by the man in
his original anecdote: "Still the debate is over for Mike Merz.
For him the only number that counts is one -- the number of times
he thinks a gun made him safer."
Some legitimate criticisms of the pro-gun arguments, but
where's the equal scrutiny of the clams made by the other side?
> 6) Monday brought another Gore "exaggeration" as detailed by
abcnews.com and on Tuesday a front page Boston Globe headline
read, "Record Shows Gore Long Embellishing Truth," but ABC's TV
news broadcasts ignored both. Instead, on Tuesday night ABC
focused on how George W. Bush's "record as Governor raises
questions about his commitment" to spending enough taxpayer money
on government health care programs.
Peter Jennings introduced the April 11 World News Tonight
story, the only full campaign report run so far this week by a
broadcast network:
"In Ohio today, presidential candidate George W. Bush took his
first stab at a health care plan for the nation. Mr. Bush proposed
tax credits to help the working poor buy health insurance.
Anything approaching universal health care is an issue that the
Democratic candidate Al Gore would claim is his. Mr. Bush is
trying to move in."
Instead of approaching Bush's big spending plan from the right
and questioning the need for another program transferring money
from earners to the poor, reporter Dean Reynolds took on Bush from
the left for not having made enough people in Texas rely on
government. Reynolds opened, as transcribed by MRC analyst Jessica
Anderson:
"His aides have long claimed Bush is a different kind of
Republican candidate, one who reaches out to those who've seldom
voted Republican in the past. Today in Ohio was a perfect example.
The Texas Governor toured a job training center catering to
Latinos in Cleveland and then unveiled a $40 billion proposal to
help low income Americans buy health insurance from private
companies."
After a soundbite from Bush saying low income families must
have access to health insurance, Reynolds pounced, measuring
commitment by how much of other people's money he had spent: "But
Bush's record as Governor raises questions about his commitment.
While he has raised spending for some health care programs, a
quarter of his state's people still lack health insurance, and the
state health commissioner Bush picked is quoted as saying he
doubts insurance coverage makes much real difference to health.
Moreover, Texas ranks near the top of the nation in the rates of
AIDS, diabetes and tuberculosis, and near the bottom in
immunization, mammograms and access to doctors. To win the
election, Governor Bush will need support of independents and
conservative Democrats, but while his rhetoric reaches out to
those voters, his record in Texas on key issues of concern to them
may undermine his appeal."
World News Tonight this week skipped Gore's latest
misstatement of fact and they didn't have to go far to learn about
it. The abcnews.com Web page featured an article: "At it Again?
Gore Prone to Exaggeration." In the April 10 piece, Kendra Gahagan
relayed:
>From inventing the Internet to inspiring the film Love Story, Al
Gore's penchant for exaggeration is well known. Today, he may have
stretched the facts again.
In a speech honoring his mother at the Nashville City Club in
Tennessee, the Vice President told an anecdote about how Pauline
LaFon Gore was invited for lunch at the club in 1971, only to be
summarily kicked out of the main dining room due to the club's
all-male policy.
Gore went on to recount how his mother's ouster drew local outrage
and she was a key instigator in the club's changing its rules
toward women: "The resulting outrage, especially among young
professional women here in Nashville, caused a revolution -- a
minor one, albeit -- but a major change in the life of this club
and a few days later, this city club was opened to women and the
charter was changed."
It was a speech by a doting son honoring his mother, who was also
being awarded a bachelor of arts degree 67 years after she
attended, but never completed, university classes. And Mrs. Gore
was indeed ahead of her time, as one of the first 10 women to earn
a law degree from Nashville's Vanderbilt University in 1936.
But what the vice president didn't mention was that the minor
"revolution" his mother sparked at the Nashville City Club did not
open the club's membership to women, as his comments implied --
only its dining rooms -- and even that didn't happen until weeks
after Mrs. Gore's visit, not a mere "few days later," as Gore
claimed. The Nashville City Club did not go on to admit women as
members until September 1985, 14 years after Mrs. Gore's visit....
END Excerpt
To read the entire story, go to:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/gore_mother000410.html
"Record Shows Gore Long Embellishing Truth," announced the
headline over a lengthy April 11 Boston Globe story by Walter V.
Robinson and Michael Crowley, which began:
Vice President Al Gore brings a remarkable life story to the
presidential race: His father was such an unwavering supporter of
civil rights that it cost him his Senate seat. His older sister
was the first-ever volunteer in the Peace Corps, that heroic
outpost on President Kennedy's New Frontier.
By Gore's account: He was raised in hardscrabble Tennessee farm
country. He was a brilliant student, in high school and at
Harvard. And despite his political pull, he received no special
treatment, opting instead to go to Vietnam where he was "shot at."
After his Army service, he spent seven years as a journalist, and
his reporting at the Tennessean in Nashville put corrupt officials
in prison.
As a junior member in the US House, he was a major force: He wrote
and then spearheaded passage of the Superfund law. He even
authored the US nuclear negotiating position. And at a time when
President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev faced off on
the superpower stage, Gore had his own meeting with Gorbachev.
And, of course, he created the Internet.
At various times in his political career, Gore, the presumptive
Democratic presidential nominee, has said all those things about
himself and his family.
None are quite true.
Some are exaggerations grown up around kernels of biographical
fact. Others are simply false. A few, like the boastful claim
about the Internet, have become comic fodder, even for Gore....
END Excerpt
To read the entire story, go to:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Record_shows
_Gore_long_embellishing_truth+.shtml
The Globe also provided a list of 18 of Gore's assertions with
counterpoints for each. To read "A long history of questionable
statements and claims," go to:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/A_long-Histo
ry_of_questionable_statements_and_claims.shtml
Both pieces are featured on the Globe's campaign page, which
has a normal length URL: http://www.boston.com/campaign2000/
> 7) From the April 11 Late Show with David Letterman, the
"Top Ten Signs President Clinton is Bored." Copyright 2000 by
Worldwide Pants, Inc.
10. Spent weekend alphabetizing thousands of lawsuits pending
against him
9. Weekly radio address features less talk, more rock
8. Every twenty minutes, calls Area 51 to ask "Any new aliens?"
7. Often cuts cabinet meetings short to catch "Judge Judy"
6. Hefty intern starts working in Oval Office, and he doesn't even
grab her ass
5. Watched every episode of "Falcone"
4. To stir up controversy, gave Delaware to the Dutch
3. In addition to Leonardo DiCaprio, agreed to do an interview
with little girl in Pepsi commercials
2. Has started smoking cigars
1. Actually tried to sleep with Hillary
And, from the Late Show Web page, some of "the also-rans"
which didn't make the final cut:
-- Keeps complaining to staff, "There's no one to do"
-- Installed some windows in the damn corridor
-- Says nailing 300-pound interns "Just not what it used to be"
-- He's now harassing himself
-- Finds himself looking forward to daily chats with Al Gore
-- Calls in Secret Service several times a day to frisk him
-- While having sex with interns, does crossword puzzles
Well, that's better than discussing troop deployment with a
Congressman. -- Brent Baker
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
mrc-cybe...@list.us.net. Put "subscribe" or "unsubscribe"
in the BODY of the message, NOT in the subject line. Problems and
comments can be addressed to: cy...@mediaresearch.org <<<
Lynette Warren
Elian' bandwagon forget the one true thing about this case:
It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to Cuba to live in a
mud hut. He belongs with his father.
Lynette
---
John T. Kennedy
It's not about quality of life, it's about inalienable rights.
The boy's right to freedom is primary.
Would his father have a right to sell him into slavery?
If not, how can he have a right to deliver him to a slave state?
Let the father stay here, or is he not free to?
--
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kipawa Condor
> Liberals who want to kiss Castro's butt and conservatives on the 'Save
> Elian' bandwagon forget the one true thing about this case:
>
> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to Cuba to live in a
> mud hut. He belongs with his father.
>
Why?
>
> Lynette
> ---
Lynette Warren
John T. Kennedy <kenne...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The boy's right to freedom is primary.
> Would his father have a right to sell him into slavery?
If you feel that Juan Gonzalez will sell his children into slavery upon
his return to Cuba, then by that logic, would you also feel we're
obligated to take custody of his baby who is currently in the United
States?
Would you advocate not allowing Mr and Mrs Gonzalez to take their infant
back to Cuba because you believe they'll inevitably sell the child into
slavery?
> If not, how can he have a right to deliver him to a slave state?
Gonzalez has the moral and legal right to take both his children home
with him, if he chooses to.
> Let the father stay here, or is he not free to?
He's had several opportunities to ask for asylum and he hasn't. If he
chooses to stay in Cuba with his family, that's his choice to make, not
yours, not mine, and not the Cuban community in America- regardless of
how loud their voices are.
Lynette
--
Gary Cruse
The separation of children from their parents by
government needs its defenders, I suppose.
But for KC to be one is surprising. Is the
parent-child bond inferior to the society-child
bond? That is, should children be removed
from societies considered inferior to others?
Against the desires of the parents?
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
The future ain't what it used to be.
Lynette Warren
>> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to
>> Cuba to live in a mud hut. He belongs with his father.
>
> Why?
Because there is nothing to show that his father is unfit in any way.
Because he is the legal custodial parent of the child.
Because Elian Gonzalez's Miami cousins, in their justifiable hatred for
Castro, are using the boy as a pawn in a political power play.
Because it's the height of arrogance for Americans to say they know
what's best for a Cuban boy whose immediate family want him back in
Cuba.
But mostly because it's a dangerous precendant for the state to procure
children from their parents based on the parents' political ideology.
America has no business dictating child policy to Cuba, a sovereign
nation. Our concern should be in maintaining the rights of American
parents and children and it's hypocritical to allow the confiscation of
a Cuban child from his father for idealogical reasons when we would
oppose political confiscation of children from their American parents.
Lynette
--
John T. Kennedy
"Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>
> John T. Kennedy <kenne...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > The boy's right to freedom is primary.
> > Would his father have a right to sell him into slavery?
>
>If you feel that Juan Gonzalez will sell his children into slavery upon
>his return to Cuba,
He won't have to, they're slaves the moment they're under Castro's
power.
>then by that logic, would you also feel we're
>obligated to take custody of his baby who is currently in the United
>States?
Let's be precise. We have not taken Elian from him, not you nor I nor
the state. We are not obligated to *secure* Elian's rights nor the
rights of his sibling. Our obligation in this case is purely negative,
the moral obligation not to compromise Elian's current relative
freedom, the freedom his mother died to give him.
>
> Would you advocate not allowing Mr and Mrs Gonzalez to take their
>infant back to Cuba because you believe they'll inevitably sell the
>child into slavery?
The child is a slave right now. The child has a right to be free and
ought to be free but nobody has a moral obligation to secure his
freedom for him.
Nobody had an obligation to free Elain, but his mother gave her life to
do it. Your obligation now is to keep your hands off this boy whose
freedom has been bought with his mother's life, and to keep the hands
of your employees off him.
>
> > If not, how can he have a right to deliver him to a slave state?
>
> Gonzalez has the moral and legal right to take both his children home
> with him, if he chooses to.
Cuba is a lawless state, it is ruled by a man, not law. Nobody can have
a moral right to deliver anyone there.
>
> > Let the father stay here, or is he not free to?
>
> He's had several opportunities to ask for asylum and he hasn't.
The typical Cuban strategy would be to simply let him know what will
happen to his family and friends in Cuba if he defects. They use
hostages all the time.
I don't think Juan is free to stay here at all, and that is the reason
he can't be with his son. But if he can stay then let him be welcome
here.
>If he chooses to stay in Cuba with his family, that's his choice to
>make, not yours, not mine, and not the Cuban community in America-
>regardless of how loud their voices are.
It's not a legitimate choice for anyone to take from the boy his
current freedom.
There are limits to a parent's rights and authority over a child, are
there not?
Since the father has *limited* authority over Elian, it follows that he
cannot have any right to deliver Elian to an *unlimited* authority like
Fidel Castro. To deliver him to an unlimited authority is to *exercise*
unlimited authority and he does not have the right to do that.
The father must relinquish authority over Elian when he becomes a man,
must he not? Yet in Cuba Elian would still be trapped unter the
unlimited authority to which his father had delivered him.
The father cannot have a right to compromise his son's rights.
John T. Kennedy
Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
> > Why?
>
> The separation of children from their parents by
> government needs its defenders, I suppose.
Because the Government has to do something, right Gary? It can't just
stand here and let the kid be free.
The government didn't separate Elian from his father.
> But for KC to be one is surprising. Is the
> parent-child bond inferior to the society-child
> bond? That is, should children be removed
> from societies considered inferior to others?
> Against the desires of the parents?
There is no society-child bond. The boy's inalienable rights
necessarily trump any parental authority. This boy was removed from a
slave society *by* a parent, a parent who gave her life to free him.
Anything else?
You don't have an obligation to free slave children but you don't have
a moral right to return escaped slaves to their master either.
John T. Kennedy
"Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
> Kipawa Condor wrote:
> >> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to
> >> Cuba to live in a mud hut. He belongs with his father.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because there is nothing to show that his father is unfit in any way.
>
> Because he is the legal custodial parent of the child.
>
>Because Elian Gonzalez's Miami cousins, in their justifiable hatred for
> Castro, are using the boy as a pawn in a political power play.
>
> Because it's the height of arrogance for Americans to say they know
> what's best for a Cuban boy whose immediate family want him back in
> Cuba.
Oh I guess it's impossible to know that freedom is best for all men?
But who says anyone has to say what's best for him anyway? Nothing is
required of you here, nor of the state you employ. Do nothing. Just
keep your hands off the escaped slave. It's none of your business.
>
>But mostly because it's a dangerous precendant for the state to procure
> children from their parents based on the parents' political ideology.
Now you are manufacturing. The state has not procured this child,
nobody has. His mother got him free.
No such precedent is being set.
> America has no business dictating child policy to Cuba,
A slave state.
>a sovereign nation.
What the hell gives Fidel Castro legitimate authority over anyone?
There were free and slave states in this union once. The authority of
slavers was once perfectly legal here, but was it ever legitimate?
> Our concern should be
...returning escaped slaves?
>in maintaining the rights of American
>parents and children and it's hypocritical to allow the confiscation of
> a Cuban child from his father for idealogical reasons when we would
> oppose political confiscation of children from their American parents.
Who confiscated him?
Yeah, it's terrible to decline to return an escaped slave for
"ideological" reasons. Because by inalienable rights we nowadays just
mean "ideology" don't we?
>
> Lynette
> --
Gary Cruse
<kenne...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>There are limits to a parent's rights and authority over a child, are
>there not?
"The father can't be allowed to raise his child.
It takes our village."
"My God. Koresh has kids in there. They are
better off dead than living like that. Burn it down."
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
I'm fond of children -- except for boys.
Gary Cruse
<kenne...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <9occfs4jp8708dgca...@4ax.com>,
> Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> > Why?
>>
>> The separation of children from their parents by
>> government needs its defenders, I suppose.
>
>Because the Government has to do something, right Gary? It can't just
>stand here and let the kid be free.
>
>The government didn't separate Elian from his father.
>
>> But for KC to be one is surprising. Is the
>> parent-child bond inferior to the society-child
>> bond? That is, should children be removed
>> from societies considered inferior to others?
>> Against the desires of the parents?
>
>There is no society-child bond.
Thak you.
> The boy's inalienable rights
>necessarily trump any parental authority.
What are a child's inalienable rights?
>This boy was removed from a
>slave society *by* a parent, a parent who gave her life to free him.
He floated two days on an inner tube. The amazing
thing is that he is not dead, himself. Had he died,
and the mother lived, would she be a murderer?
>You don't have an obligation to free slave children but you don't have
>a moral right to return escaped slaves to their master either.
When his father comes to you and asks
for his child, you will do what?
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
You took my breath away and now I want it back.
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <4xqJ4.6$gz3....@news.callamer.com>,
> "Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
> > Kipawa Condor wrote:
> > >> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to
> > >> Cuba to live in a mud hut. He belongs with his father.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because there is nothing to show that his father is unfit in any way.
> >
> > Because he is the legal custodial parent of the child.
> >
> >Because Elian Gonzalez's Miami cousins, in their justifiable hatred for
> > Castro, are using the boy as a pawn in a political power play.
> >
> > Because it's the height of arrogance for Americans to say they know
> > what's best for a Cuban boy whose immediate family want him back in
> > Cuba.
>
> Oh I guess it's impossible to know that freedom is best for all men?
And if someone rationally determines that funding the state is an immoral
act, should we then take children away from parents who pay taxes, John?
<snip>
> Who confiscated him?
Who first called for his return?
> Yeah, it's terrible to decline to return an escaped slave for
> "ideological" reasons. Because by inalienable rights we nowadays just
> mean "ideology" don't we?
>
> >
> > Lynette
> > --
> >
> >
>
> --
> -
> John Kennedy
> The Wild Shall Wild Remain
> http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
_
Rob
Billy Beck
"Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>Kipawa Condor wrote:
>>> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to
>>> Cuba to live in a mud hut. He belongs with his father.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because there is nothing to show that his father is unfit in any way.
I disagree, Lynette, and only more emphatically after he's been
here in the United States. Nobody in their right mind would choose to
return a child to Cuba after even a glance outside the fence.
>Because he is the legal custodial parent of the child.
That is an absurdity with reference to Cuba.
And if you don't believe that now, you might later, if you keep
your usually incisive eye on what happens to him after he goes back.
You'll have to be sharp, though, in order to see through the
inevitable puppet-show.
Mark my words.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Kipawa Condor
> Kipawa Condor wrote:
> >> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to
> >> Cuba to live in a mud hut. He belongs with his father.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because there is nothing to show that his father is unfit in any way.
>
To my way of thinking, the fact that he (apparently) wants the boy to return
to Cuba is prima facie evidence of unfitness. Seems to me a father who cared
about the boy would want him to remain in a relatively free and open society,
instead of greedily wanting to drag him back to Castro's playground.
But setting that aside, there's nothing to show that, e.g., his great-uncle
is unfit in any way. Heck, I don't know of anything that shows that Nathan Lane
is unfit; might as well send the boy to live with him.
That is, "boy should be sent to live with X" does not follow from "X is not
unfit".
>
> Because he is the legal custodial parent of the child.
>
OK; I think that's your strongest argument here. But legal custody can
change, and really says nothing (except in the legal sense) about why the boy
"belongs" with him. Why *should* the father, as opposed to one of the Miami
relatives, be the legal guardian? Because the boy belongs with him?
>
> Because Elian Gonzalez's Miami cousins, in their justifiable hatred for
> Castro, are using the boy as a pawn in a political power play.
>
That's likely so, but I don't see how you get from there to "boy belongs
with father", even if you add that his pawn value is the only reason they want
him (which may or may not be the case; I think neither of us is in a position to
know). You may be able to get to "boy doesn't belong with Miami relatives", but
I think you need to fill in some steps.
>
> Because it's the height of arrogance for Americans to say they know
> what's best for a Cuban boy whose immediate family want him back in
> Cuba.
>
Maybe. Personally, I don't really know what's best for the boy, although I
suspect he'd be "happier", by most any measure, staying in the US. I'm also not
convinced that what his family in Cuba "wants" is necessarily related to his
best interests.
But anyhow I don't see how you get from "Americans are arrogant" to "the boy
belongs with his father"; you'll have to fill in a few steps for me.
>
> But mostly because it's a dangerous precendant for the state to procure
> children from their parents based on the parents' political ideology.
I don't think the state should procure anything from anyone based on
anything. Refraining from action is not action. Let the family work it out.
Perhaps pressure from Castro makes that impossible, but that doesn't mean we
have to facilitate his interference.
But even so (and I hope you'll forgive my being so dense here), I don't see
how "boy belongs with his father" follows from "state should not procure
children". The strongest claim I think you can get is "the state gets no say in
where the boy belongs", which is a completely different thing.
>
> America has no business dictating child policy to Cuba, a sovereign
> nation. Our concern should be in maintaining the rights of American
> parents and children and it's hypocritical to allow the confiscation of
> a Cuban child from his father for idealogical reasons when we would
> oppose political confiscation of children from their American parents.
>
> Lynette
> --
Kipawa Condor
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:07:37 GMT, Kipawa Condor
> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Lynette Warren wrote:
> >
> >> Liberals who want to kiss Castro's butt and conservatives on the 'Save
> >> Elian' bandwagon forget the one true thing about this case:
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to Cuba to live in a
> >> mud hut. He belongs with his father.
> >>
> >
> > Why?
>
> The separation of children from their parents by
> government needs its defenders, I suppose.
> But for KC to be one is surprising.
Is that what I was "being"? I thought I was just asking a question.
For a government to refrain from forcibly repatriating an individual (child
or adult) strikes me as remarkably dissimilar to separating that individual from
someone. I don't advocate the US gubmint taking any action to prevent the
father from taking the boy, but neither do I think it should act to facilitate
the repatriation.
'Course, I don't advocate that bunch doin' much o' nothin' nohows.
> Is the
> parent-child bond inferior to the society-child
> bond? That is, should children be removed
> from societies considered inferior to others?
Depends who's doing the removing. I don't recognize any "society-child
bond", but young children form bonds with lots of people: father, mother,
step-parent, grandparent, guardian, great-uncle, elder sibling, etc. What
determines which "bond" takes precedence? Closeness of relation? Time spent
together? Child's preference? Child's well-being (by whatever measurement you
prefer)?
I have no idea of the details of E.G.'s relationship with his father vs.
those of that with, e.g., his great-uncle (or whoever's got him now), but if the
boy is happier and better off (I have no clue whether that's so) with a male
guardian who happens to be a slightly more distant relation than his father,
then what the heck is the point of the "parent-child bond".
Which comes back to my original question: *why* does the boy belong with his
father?
Tradition?
Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
Because the father has a "right" to the child? Does that supersede the
boy's right to live (relatively) free of oppression?
Seems to me it should be (in a just world) a matter for the family to work
out on their own. That Castro & Reno insist on stepping into the role of
arbitrators doesn't lend that role any credibility.
>
> Against the desires of the parents?
>
> --
>
> Corporate State Alumni Association
> "Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
>
Gary Cruse
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
> Depends who's doing the removing.
> I don't recognize any "society-child
>bond", but young children form bonds with lots of people: father, mother,
>step-parent, grandparent, guardian, great-uncle, elder sibling, etc. What
>determines which "bond" takes precedence? Closeness of relation? Time spent
>together? Child's preference? Child's well-being (by whatever measurement you
>prefer)?
>
> I have no idea of the details of E.G.'s relationship with his father vs.
>those of that with, e.g., his great-uncle (or whoever's got him now), but if the
>boy is happier and better off (I have no clue whether that's so) with a male
>guardian who happens to be a slightly more distant relation than his father,
>then what the heck is the point of the "parent-child bond".
>
> Which comes back to my original question: *why* does the boy belong with his
>father?
>
<cite>
> Depends who's doing the removing.
</cite>
I have internalized a core of principles and
apply them when deciding how to
live my life. "Depends on who's
doing the removing" doesn't do
it for me, John, and I don't think
you work that way, either.
This is one of the worst exploitations of
a child I have ever seen. The child is
obviously getting a significant amount
of suasion while he is, basically, being
held captive in that house in Miami.
This child needs to be reunited with his
father as soon as possible.
> Tradition?
> Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
> Because the father has a "right" to the child? Does that supersede the
>boy's right to live (relatively) free of oppression?
>
> Seems to me it should be (in a just world) a matter for the family to work
>out on their own. That Castro & Reno insist on stepping into the role of
>arbitrators doesn't lend that role any credibility.
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
This is the most amazing loaf of bread I've ever owned.
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>John T. Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> In article <4xqJ4.6$gz3....@news.callamer.com>,
>> "Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>> > Kipawa Condor wrote:
>> > >> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to
>> > >> Cuba to live in a mud hut. He belongs with his father.
>> > >
>> > > Why?
>> >
>> > Because there is nothing to show that his father is unfit in any way.
>> >
>> > Because he is the legal custodial parent of the child.
>> >
>> >Because Elian Gonzalez's Miami cousins, in their justifiable hatred for
>> > Castro, are using the boy as a pawn in a political power play.
>> >
>> > Because it's the height of arrogance for Americans to say they know
>> > what's best for a Cuban boy whose immediate family want him back in
>> > Cuba.
>>
>> Oh I guess it's impossible to know that freedom is best for all men?
>
> And if someone rationally determines that funding the state is an immoral
>act, should we then take children away from parents who pay taxes, John?
I am getting pretty sick and tired of this straw man Rob.
Who took Elian from his father?
Who asked asked you to take anyone's kid away?
The kid is free, do you have a responsibility to deliver him back to
Cuba?
>
><snip>
>
>> Who confiscated him?
>
> Who first called for his return?
His return to a slave state? Doesn't matter, nobody has a right to
send him there.
>
>> Yeah, it's terrible to decline to return an escaped slave for
>> "ideological" reasons. Because by inalienable rights we nowadays just
>> mean "ideology" don't we?
>>
>> >
>> > Lynette
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Updated 2/13/00
John T. Kennedy
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:35:45 GMT, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>There are limits to a parent's rights and authority over a child, are
>>there not?
>
> "The father can't be allowed to raise his child.
> It takes our village."
It doesn't take are villiage, and he most certainly has a right to
raise his son.
What he doesn't have is a right to do is deliver his son into bondage.
Aren't there limts to parental authority Gary? Or can a parent treat
his children like pets or property?
All men are endowed with inalianable rights and you don't have a right
to piss away someone else's, not even your own son's.
>
> "My God. Koresh has kids in there. They are
> better off dead than living like that. Burn it down."
>
>
Yeah that must be what I'm saying.....
John T. Kennedy
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:47:40 GMT, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9occfs4jp8708dgca...@4ax.com>,
>> Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Why?
>>>
>>> The separation of children from their parents by
>>> government needs its defenders, I suppose.
>>
>>Because the Government has to do something, right Gary? It can't just
>>stand here and let the kid be free.
>>
>>The government didn't separate Elian from his father.
>>
>>> But for KC to be one is surprising. Is the
>>> parent-child bond inferior to the society-child
>>> bond? That is, should children be removed
>>> from societies considered inferior to others?
>>> Against the desires of the parents?
>>
>>There is no society-child bond.
>
> Thak you.
>
>> The boy's inalienable rights
>>necessarily trump any parental authority.
>
> What are a child's inalienable rights?
Start with life and liberty.
>
>
>>This boy was removed from a
>>slave society *by* a parent, a parent who gave her life to free him.
>
> He floated two days on an inner tube. The amazing
> thing is that he is not dead, himself. Had he died,
> and the mother lived, would she be a murderer?
For trying to free her son from tyranny?
How can you even ask?
>
>
>>You don't have an obligation to free slave children but you don't have
>>a moral right to return escaped slaves to their master either.
>
>
> When his father comes to you and asks
> for his child, you will do what?
It so happens I'll be taking care of my own children, it's a prior and
freely chosen responsibility.
John T. Kennedy
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>Gary Cruse wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:07:37 GMT, Kipawa Condor
>> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Lynette Warren wrote:
>> >
>> >> Liberals who want to kiss Castro's butt and conservatives on the 'Save
>> >> Elian' bandwagon forget the one true thing about this case:
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to Cuba to live in a
>> >> mud hut. He belongs with his father.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> The separation of children from their parents by
>> government needs its defenders, I suppose.
>> But for KC to be one is surprising.
>
> Is that what I was "being"? I thought I was just asking a question.
>
> For a government to refrain from forcibly repatriating an individual (child
>or adult) strikes me as remarkably dissimilar to separating that individual from
>someone. I don't advocate the US gubmint taking any action to prevent the
>father from taking the boy, but neither do I think it should act to facilitate
>the repatriation.
> 'Course, I don't advocate that bunch doin' much o' nothin' nohows.
Of course. Just leave the boy alone.
See, these folks get used to wielding government against their fellow
man and eventully they can't imagine *not* using it in every
situation. Governm *has* to do something right? If they do *nothing*
they're stealing the boy. What rubbish.
It's none of your business people, leave the boy alone.
(But you carry on Kip. (Good 'ol net-screw!))
>
>
>
>
>> Is the
>> parent-child bond inferior to the society-child
>> bond? That is, should children be removed
>> from societies considered inferior to others?
>
> Depends who's doing the removing. I don't recognize any "society-child
>bond", but young children form bonds with lots of people: father, mother,
>step-parent, grandparent, guardian, great-uncle, elder sibling, etc. What
>determines which "bond" takes precedence? Closeness of relation? Time spent
>together? Child's preference? Child's well-being (by whatever measurement you
>prefer)?
>
> I have no idea of the details of E.G.'s relationship with his father vs.
>those of that with, e.g., his great-uncle (or whoever's got him now), but if the
>boy is happier and better off (I have no clue whether that's so) with a male
>guardian who happens to be a slightly more distant relation than his father,
>then what the heck is the point of the "parent-child bond".
1. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Elian's current guardians did
*not* remove him from his society or his parents although people are
saying they dis about 80 times an hour.
They did nothing of the sort.
2. It ain't about quality of life, it's about inalienable rights.
>
> Which comes back to my original question: *why* does the boy belong with his
>father?
>
> Tradition?
> Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
> Because the father has a "right" to the child? Does that supersede the
>boy's right to live (relatively) free of oppression?
>
> Seems to me it should be (in a just world) a matter for the family to work
>out on their own. That Castro & Reno insist on stepping into the role of
>arbitrators doesn't lend that role any credibility.
>
>
>>
>> Against the desires of the parents?
John T. Kennedy
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:22:46 GMT, Kipawa Condor
><raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> This child needs to be reunited with his
>>> father as soon as possible.
>>>
>>
>> Uh, why?
>>
>> Tradition?
>>
>> Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
>
> It is more important that he be with his father at
> that age until his age of majority. A kid of six
> doesn't know one system of government from the
> other.
But you'll get him his freedom back when he needs it, right Gary?
>
> The rationale here resonates with the debunking of astrology, KC.
> The setting of the planets and their gravitational influence on at
> the time of birth are said to determine things about the newborn.
> One problem this is that the planets are so far away, the
> gravitation of the delivering doctor has a stronger affect than
> Jupiter, say.
And whe he's 18 and want's his current freedom back? How's he supposed
to make escape velocity off Planet Communism? He almost died on the
first attempt.
>
> The effect of government on a six-year-old is vastly overshadowed
> by that of the parent.
>>
>> Because the father has a "right" to the child?
>
> When they father comes to get his son, would
> you turn him away?
I'd let him stay if he wanted.
>
>> Does that supersede the boy's
>>right to live (relatively) free of oppression?
>
> 'Tis *too* relative. See below.
>
>
>How Bad, Really?
>
>
>What Kind of Life Could
>Elian Have in Cuba?
>
>By Nina Alvarez and Dorian Benkoil
>
>April 13 — Elian Gonzalez’ Miami relatives insist that if the boy
>returns to Cuba, he’ll live a meager, repressed existence, with no
>freedom and few opportunities.
>
>But would his life there really be all that bad?
>
>Not only has Cuba been changing quickly in recent years, but visitors
>to the island often marvel at how healthy and carefree the children
>there can seem.
>
>Health care that is available is free for all, and the streets are
>largely void of the street crime for which Miami is so well known.
>Children play outside on the streets and live without the fear of
>abduction that’s a common concern of urban Americans.
>
>Children don’t have the wealth of toys that are for sale in the United
>States, and are therefore forced to be more creative in finding and
>making playthings. They gather for impromptu games of baseball and
>kick the can … the kinds of activities that American children used to
>love.
>
>Plenty of Toys and Food
>
>And even without some of the easy access to material goods that
>6-year-old Elian has in Miami, it’s not unusual for Cuban kids to own
>a few of the hottest, modern toys, sent to them by States-based
>relatives. Food is not hard to come by, and Elian’s father, a member
>of the ruling Communist Party, has a higher standard of living than
>the average Cuban, with access to valuable U.S. dollars through his
>job as a cashier at a popular beach park for tourists.
>
>There are, to be sure, problems.
DO YA THINK?
MAYBE THAT'S WHY PEOPLE LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES TO GET THEIR CHILDREN
OUT!
Gary, there is a world of difference between here and the unlimited
government of Cuba.
When he can get out?
>
>“You don’t visually see starving people, you see children that they
>see a tourist and — like in many countries throughout the world —
>they’ll be asking for spare change or to sell something,” says John
>Kavulich, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, a
>group that gathers information on business between the two countries.
>
>Opponents of Elian’s return to Cuba cite the island’s record of
>political repression at the hands of leader Fidel Castro (see related
>story, right). “If we send him back to Cuba, he will be tortured,”
>Elian’s 21-year-old cousin and caretaker, Marisleysis Gonzalez, her
>voice choked with emotion, told ABCNEWS recently before she was
>hospitalized for exhaustion. “We’ll see it on TV, how they brainwash
>him.”
>
>Elian’s Opportunity
>
>The average Cuban does not have the opportunities of the average
>American. Doctors, paid by the state, can earn as little as $20 a
>month, and people without access to dollars sometimes are forced into
>prostitution or other illegal activities to try to support themselves.
>Yet, it seems unlikely that little Elian, who was rescued after a
>shipwreck that killed his mother last Thanksgiving and brought to
>Miami, would lead an average life if he goes back.
>
>State media has churned out hours of coverage on his case, and
>throughout Cuba, he is hailed as a hero, his face plastered on
>T-shirts and posters. At the Marcelo Salado elementary school in his
>hometown of Cardenas, Elian’s desk has been converted into a political
>shrine. The local museum has opened an Elian exhibition room, and an
>army of Cuban doctors and psychiatrists is standing by to help with
>Elian’s “reinsertion” into life in Cuba.
>
>Changing Times
>
>Elian now knows the “good life” in the United States, Marisleysis
>said, and will miss that if he goes back. Perhaps.
>
>But he will surely outlive Castro, 73, and could grow up in a Cuba
>that’s radically different from the one in which his father, 31, has
>lived. Dollars have been legal on the island for only about seven
>years, and more than 3,000 representatives of U.S. businesses are
>expected to visit Cuba this year — 2 ½ times the number five years
>ago.
>
>Newly allowed direct flights bring American tourists to the former
>haunts of author Ernest Hemingway, sports teams from both countries
>play in both countries, and American and Cuban musicians are freer
>than at any time in recent decades to interact and practice their
>craft. Whether or not Elian’s life in Cuba would be worse than in
>Miami, it would surely different than had he grown up there even a
>decade ago.
>
>ABCNEWS’ Morton Dean in Havana and Reuters contributed to this report.
>
>Copyright ©2000 ABC News Internet Ventures. Click here for Terms of
>Use and Privacy Policy and Internet Safety Information applicable to
>this site.
John T. Kennedy
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:18:57 -0400, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> When his father comes to you and asks
>>> for his child, you will do what?
>>
>>It so happens I'll be taking care of my own children, it's a prior and
>>freely chosen responsibility.
>
> The father is in this country. He
> wants his six-year-old. And you demur.
He can have his six year old. What he cannot do is deliver him into
bondage.
John T. Kennedy
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:47:48 -0400, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:35:29 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:22:46 GMT, Kipawa Condor
>>><raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This child needs to be reunited with his
>>>>> father as soon as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, why?
>>>>
>>>> Tradition?
>>>>
>>>> Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
>>>
>>> It is more important that he be with his father at
>>> that age until his age of majority. A kid of six
>>> doesn't know one system of government from the
>>> other.
>>
>>But you'll get him his freedom back when he needs it, right Gary?
>
> Let's go bomb and invade Cuba right now, John.
Anybody do anything of the sort to get him out?
> Letting people live under the conditions there
> is a sin of omission by the US, isn't it?
No it is not , you have no obligation to secure the rights of others.
> We
> can do something about their intolerable
> existence now. What we do by allowing
> Cuba to exist as such is no different than
> allowing the Hutus to slaughter the Tutus.
> Or is it up to the Cubans to overthrow Castro?
> And Elian, when he comes of age.
Seeing as Elian is free here now, overthrowing Castro need not be his
problem.
Unless you send him there.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> The rationale here resonates with the debunking of astrology, KC.
>>> The setting of the planets and their gravitational influence on at
>>> the time of birth are said to determine things about the newborn.
>>> One problem this is that the planets are so far away, the
>>> gravitation of the delivering doctor has a stronger affect than
>>> Jupiter, say.
>>
>>And whe he's 18 and want's his current freedom back? How's he supposed
>>to make escape velocity off Planet Communism? He almost died on the
>>first attempt.
>
> How can Castro be overthrown if all the
> oppressed opposition comes to America?
Ah, you're doing Cubans a favor when you return them to their tyrant.
Why does Elian have any more responsibility to overthrow Castro than,
say...., Gary Cruse?
At the moment you're both free of Castro's power. Would you go in his
place to overthrow Castro?
(I know, I know, if the Cubans didn't want a totalitarian communist
dictator they shouldn't have voted for him.)
>
>>
>>>
>>> The effect of government on a six-year-old is vastly overshadowed
>>> by that of the parent.
>>>>
>>>> Because the father has a "right" to the child?
>>>
>>> When they father comes to get his son, would
>>> you turn him away?
>>
>>I'd let him stay if he wanted.
>
> But you'd deny him his son
> unless he promised to stay?
I think I've been clear on this.
Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell the
boy as a slave?
How is that different from making him Cuba's slave?
John T. Kennedy
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>Gary Cruse wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:22:46 GMT, Kipawa Condor
>> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> This child needs to be reunited with his
>> >> father as soon as possible.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Uh, why?
>> >
>> > Tradition?
>> >
>> > Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
>>
>> It is more important that he be with his father at
>> that age until his age of majority.
>
> <hack>
>
> Specifically, in what way will being with his father be "better" for him
>than being with, say, his great uncle or cousin? If it's not "better", why is
>it "more important"?
>
> I can sympathize with Juan Gonzalez somewhat.
Sure.
>It must be painful, seeing
>his son in a foreign country saying he doesn't want to go back home.
Yes.
> Maybe he's
>a great and loving father, and maybe he's the best caretaker for the boy.
Let's assume so.
> Maybe
>his wife was a vindictive witch who took the boy out of spite.
Let's assume so.
> Maybe Juan truly
>believes indoctrination into Castro-style communism will be less harmful to the
>boy than living apart from his father, and it's not inconceivable that he could
>be right about that.
Let's assume so.
> Maybe all those things are so . . . and maybe not. And if
>not, I find bald assertions that "the boy belongs with his father" (at the risk
>of sounding Twerbesque) unpersuasive.
Let's say they're all true.
Does Juan Gonzalez then have a right to compromise his son's freedom
by delivering him to an unlimited authority?
Could he be right to do that?
>
> I think those are things that it's nigh impossible for those outside the
>family to judge. The matter is rightly between Elian, Juan, and the family in
>Florida.
>
>
Yes but it'snot about quality of life in the current sense, it's about
the fact that nobody can have a right to compromise the liberty of
another.
John T. Kennedy
> We've come full circle. I'm oughtta here.
One request first.
I honestly answered your question about what I would do, so I'd
appreciate it if you would answer mine.
Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell him
into slavery?
Gary Cruse
Oooops. Sorry. I lapsed into thinking
I was addressing John Kennedy. Sorry, KC.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:48:40 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:20:22 GMT, Kipawa Condor
><raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Depends who's doing the removing.
>
>
>> I don't recognize any "society-child
>>bond", but young children form bonds with lots of people: father, mother,
>>step-parent, grandparent, guardian, great-uncle, elder sibling, etc. What
>>determines which "bond" takes precedence? Closeness of relation? Time spent
>>together? Child's preference? Child's well-being (by whatever measurement you
>>prefer)?
>>
>> I have no idea of the details of E.G.'s relationship with his father vs.
>>those of that with, e.g., his great-uncle (or whoever's got him now), but if the
>>boy is happier and better off (I have no clue whether that's so) with a male
>>guardian who happens to be a slightly more distant relation than his father,
>>then what the heck is the point of the "parent-child bond".
>>
>> Which comes back to my original question: *why* does the boy belong with his
>>father?
>>
>
> <cite>
>> Depends who's doing the removing.
> </cite>
>
> I have internalized a core of principles and
> apply them when deciding how to
> live my life. "Depends on who's
> doing the removing" doesn't do
> it for me, John, and I don't think
> you work that way, either.
>
>
> This is one of the worst exploitations of
> a child I have ever seen. The child is
> obviously getting a significant amount
> of suasion while he is, basically, being
> held captive in that house in Miami.
>
> This child needs to be reunited with his
> father as soon as possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Tradition?
>> Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
>> Because the father has a "right" to the child? Does that supersede the
>>boy's right to live (relatively) free of oppression?
>>
>> Seems to me it should be (in a just world) a matter for the family to work
>>out on their own. That Castro & Reno insist on stepping into the role of
>>arbitrators doesn't lend that role any credibility.
--
Kipawa Condor
Oooh, I don't like the way this is developing at all.
1st, my name is not "John".
((hmm, just prior to hitting send, I do a quick download and note you've corrected
this. Think nothing of it, my good man. That said, 3 points seem stronger than 2, so
I'll jest leave thet objection in thar.))
-----
2nd, you cut the question to my response:
<cite>
> That is, should children be removed
> from societies considered inferior to others?
Depends who's doing the removing.
</cite>
Now, I don't know what you thought I meant there. Should a conscientious
parent/guardian remove a child from an "inferior" society? IMO It depends on what the
meaning of "should" should be, and on how inferior the society actually is. I think
Cuba and North Korea, e.g., qualify as "inferior" enough, and that "should" does not
justify compulsion.
Should anyone other than the child's guardian presume to "remove" him? I'd say
no. (Note that "remove" <> "decline to return")
I don't think that's such an insidious thing to say, especially as a comment
incidental to my main point
-----
3rd, I don't see how anything you wrote addresses my points. Argument by repeated
assertion doesn't do
it for me, Hubert, and I don't think you work that way, either.
>
> This is one of the worst exploitations of
> a child I have ever seen. The child is
> obviously getting a significant amount
> of suasion while he is, basically, being
> held captive in that house in Miami.
>
> This child needs to be reunited with his
> father as soon as possible.
>
Uh, why?
Gary Cruse
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> This child needs to be reunited with his
>> father as soon as possible.
>>
>
> Uh, why?
>
> Tradition?
>
> Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
It is more important that he be with his father at
that age until his age of majority. A kid of six
doesn't know one system of government from the
other.
The rationale here resonates with the debunking of astrology, KC.
The setting of the planets and their gravitational influence on at
the time of birth are said to determine things about the newborn.
One problem this is that the planets are so far away, the
gravitation of the delivering doctor has a stronger affect than
Jupiter, say.
The effect of government on a six-year-old is vastly overshadowed
by that of the parent.
>
> Because the father has a "right" to the child?
When they father comes to get his son, would
you turn him away?
> Does that supersede the boy's
>right to live (relatively) free of oppression?
'Tis *too* relative. See below.
How Bad, Really?
“You don’t visually see starving people, you see children that they
Elian’s Opportunity
Changing Times
>
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
Overall, there was a smell of fried onions.
Kipawa Condor
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:22:46 GMT, Kipawa Condor
> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> This child needs to be reunited with his
> >> father as soon as possible.
> >>
> >
> > Uh, why?
> >
> > Tradition?
> >
> > Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
>
> It is more important that he be with his father at
> that age until his age of majority.
<hack>
Specifically, in what way will being with his father be "better" for him
than being with, say, his great uncle or cousin? If it's not "better", why is
it "more important"?
I can sympathize with Juan Gonzalez somewhat. It must be painful, seeing
his son in a foreign country saying he doesn't want to go back home. Maybe he's
a great and loving father, and maybe he's the best caretaker for the boy. Maybe
his wife was a vindictive witch who took the boy out of spite. Maybe Juan truly
believes indoctrination into Castro-style communism will be less harmful to the
boy than living apart from his father, and it's not inconceivable that he could
be right about that. Maybe all those things are so . . . and maybe not. And if
not, I find bald assertions that "the boy belongs with his father" (at the risk
of sounding Twerbesque) unpersuasive.
I think those are things that it's nigh impossible for those outside the
family to judge. The matter is rightly between Elian, Juan, and the family in
Florida.
> > Because the father has a "right" to the child?
>
> When they father comes to get his son, would
> you turn him away?
>
I don't have the boy.
>
> > Does that supersede the boy's
> >right to live (relatively) free of oppression?
>
> 'Tis *too* relative. See below.
>
> How Bad, Really?
>
> What Kind of Life Could
> Elian Have in Cuba?
>
<snip story about how Cuba could be worse, read it at
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/cuba000412_elianlife.html >
You forgot to include the "related story, right":
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/cuba000331.html
Gary Cruse
<kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> When his father comes to you and asks
>> for his child, you will do what?
>
>It so happens I'll be taking care of my own children, it's a prior and
>freely chosen responsibility.
The father is in this country. He
wants his six-year-old. And you demur.
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
My friend Goo has a real time too; she always knows just what to do
Gary Cruse
<kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:35:29 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:22:46 GMT, Kipawa Condor
>><raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This child needs to be reunited with his
>>>> father as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, why?
>>>
>>> Tradition?
>>>
>>> Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
>>
>> It is more important that he be with his father at
>> that age until his age of majority. A kid of six
>> doesn't know one system of government from the
>> other.
>
>But you'll get him his freedom back when he needs it, right Gary?
Let's go bomb and invade Cuba right now, John.
Letting people live under the conditions there
is a sin of omission by the US, isn't it? We
can do something about their intolerable
existence now. What we do by allowing
Cuba to exist as such is no different than
allowing the Hutus to slaughter the Tutus.
Or is it up to the Cubans to overthrow Castro?
And Elian, when he comes of age.
>
>>
>> The rationale here resonates with the debunking of astrology, KC.
>> The setting of the planets and their gravitational influence on at
>> the time of birth are said to determine things about the newborn.
>> One problem this is that the planets are so far away, the
>> gravitation of the delivering doctor has a stronger affect than
>> Jupiter, say.
>
>And whe he's 18 and want's his current freedom back? How's he supposed
>to make escape velocity off Planet Communism? He almost died on the
>first attempt.
How can Castro be overthrown if all the
oppressed opposition comes to America?
>
>>
>> The effect of government on a six-year-old is vastly overshadowed
>> by that of the parent.
>>>
>>> Because the father has a "right" to the child?
>>
>> When they father comes to get his son, would
>> you turn him away?
>
>I'd let him stay if he wanted.
But you'd deny him his son
unless he promised to stay?
>>> Does that supersede the boy's
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
We find the defendant innocent by reason of being generally clueless.
Gary Cruse
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>Gary Cruse wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:22:46 GMT, Kipawa Condor
>> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> This child needs to be reunited with his
>> >> father as soon as possible.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Uh, why?
>> >
>> > Tradition?
>> >
>> > Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
>>
>> It is more important that he be with his father at
>> that age until his age of majority.
>
> <hack>
>
> Specifically, in what way will being with his father be "better" for him
>than being with, say, his great uncle or cousin? If it's not "better", why is
>it "more important"?
Chris Matthews had some insight
on the *nature* of the controversy
today. It takes very little to swing
opinion in this, which is an
indication that strong rhetoric
on either side is political.
All it takes to swing this is
gender shift. If it was the father
drowned, and the mother wanted
the boy back home, the boy
goes home.
Or would you stand firm and
say an aunt or cousin is better
than the kid's mother?
>
> I can sympathize with Juan Gonzalez somewhat. It must be painful, seeing
>his son in a foreign country saying he doesn't want to go back home. Maybe he's
>a great and loving father, and maybe he's the best caretaker for the boy. Maybe
>his wife was a vindictive witch who took the boy out of spite. Maybe Juan truly
>believes indoctrination into Castro-style communism will be less harmful to the
>boy than living apart from his father, and it's not inconceivable that he could
>be right about that. Maybe all those things are so . . . and maybe not. And if
>not, I find bald assertions that "the boy belongs with his father" (at the risk
>of sounding Twerbesque) unpersuasive.
>
> I think those are things that it's nigh impossible for those outside the
>family to judge. The matter is rightly between Elian, Juan, and the family in
>Florida.
>
>
>> > Because the father has a "right" to the child?
>>
>> When they father comes to get his son, would
>> you turn him away?
>>
>
> I don't have the boy.
Yeah, I get the same handwashing
from Kenney.
>
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
I'm making a home movie called "The Thing That Grew in My
Refrigerator".
Gary Cruse
<kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think I've been clear on this.
>
>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell the
>boy as a slave?
>
>How is that different from making him Cuba's slave?
We've come full circle. I'm oughtta here.
>
>
>-
>
>John Kennedy
>The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
>http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
>Updated 2/13/00
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
Yes, this is a strange craft; a strange history, too, and strange
folks on board. But - nothing more. (Herman Melville)
Gary Cruse
<kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:40:28 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:30:45 -0400, John T. Kennedy
>><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>I think I've been clear on this.
>>>
>>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell the
>>>boy as a slave?
>>>
>>>How is that different from making him Cuba's slave?
>>
>> We've come full circle. I'm oughtta here.
>
>One request first.
>
>I honestly answered your question about what I would do, so I'd
>appreciate it if you would answer mine.
>
>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell him
>into slavery?
>
No. That would make him an unfit parent. Taking
Elian home, though, does not equate to being
sold into slavery.
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A harp is a nude piano.
John T. Kennedy
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:46:14 -0400, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:40:28 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:30:45 -0400, John T. Kennedy
>>><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>I think I've been clear on this.
>>>>
>>>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell the
>>>>boy as a slave?
>>>>
>>>>How is that different from making him Cuba's slave?
>>>
>>> We've come full circle. I'm oughtta here.
>>
>>One request first.
>>
>>I honestly answered your question about what I would do, so I'd
>>appreciate it if you would answer mine.
>>
>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell him
>>into slavery?
>>
>No. That would make him an unfit parent. Taking
>Elian home, though, does not equate to being
>sold into slavery.
It does.
What authority did the American slave owner have over his slaves that
Castro will lack over Elian?
In truth Gary there are *less* limits on the authority of the Cuban
dictatorship than there were on any Virginian slaveholder.
What limits will there be on Castro's authority over the boy?
Gary Cruse
<kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:55:37 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:46:14 -0400, John T. Kennedy
>><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:40:28 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:30:45 -0400, John T. Kennedy
>>>><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>I think I've been clear on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell the
>>>>>boy as a slave?
>>>>>
>>>>>How is that different from making him Cuba's slave?
>>>>
>>>> We've come full circle. I'm oughtta here.
>>>
>>>One request first.
>>>
>>>I honestly answered your question about what I would do, so I'd
>>>appreciate it if you would answer mine.
>>>
>>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell him
>>>into slavery?
>>>
>>No. That would make him an unfit parent. Taking
>>Elian home, though, does not equate to being
>>sold into slavery.
>
>It does.
>
>What authority did the American slave owner have over his slaves that
>Castro will lack over Elian?
>
>In truth Gary there are *less* limits on the authority of the Cuban
>dictatorship than there were on any Virginian slaveholder.
>
>What limits will there be on Castro's authority over the boy?
As I said, I am oughtta here.
>
>
>-
>
>John Kennedy
>The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
>http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
>Updated 2/13/00
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
If you are sure your code is free from bugs but the aplication still
crashes, try debugging the comments.
Kipawa Condor
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 02:46:10 GMT, Kipawa Condor
> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Gary Cruse wrote:
>
> >> It is more important that he be with his father at
> >> that age until his age of majority.
> >
> > <hack>
> >
> > Specifically, in what way will being with his father be "better" for him
> >than being with, say, his great uncle or cousin? If it's not "better", why is
> >it "more important"?
>
> Chris Matthews had some insight
> on the *nature* of the controversy
> today. It takes very little to swing
> opinion in this, which is an
> indication that strong rhetoric
> on either side is political.
>
> All it takes to swing this is
> gender shift. If it was the father
> drowned, and the mother wanted
> the boy back home, the boy
> goes home.
What a bizarre thing to say.
>
> Or would you stand firm and
> say an aunt or cousin is better
> than the kid's mother?
a) I didn't say the uncle or cousin was better than the father; I asked you
why you claimed the father was better. You've stiffed that question 3 times now, by
my count. A convincing answer to that question might well change my mind on the
issue (with the caveat that "convincing" may not mean to me what it does to you).
b) I can't imagine what the sex of those involved has to do with anything.
*Of course* my position would be exactly the same if it were mother/aunt instead of
father/uncle. Would yours reverse?? What possible difference could it make? If
anything, I'd think a mother would be less likely than a father to objectively weigh
the well-being of the boy vs. her desire to have him with her, which would weaken,
slightly, the argument for sending him back.
> >>
> >> When they father comes to get his son, would
> >> you turn him away?
> >>
> >
> > I don't have the boy.
>
> Yeah, I get the same handwashing
> from Kenne[d]y.
Uh, what handwashing?
Do you mean: would I prevent Juan Gonzalez from entering the U.S.? No, I
wouldn't, even if that were in my power.
Do you mean: would I interfere in a custody dispute about which I know little or
nothing? Not unless the parties involved asked me to arbitrate the dispute for them
(and compensated me accordingly).
Do you mean: if I had the boy, would I give him up? Depends on what I thought
was best for him, and for the father, and for me, in that order.
Do you mean: do I think it's my duty to ensure that every parent may freely
exercise his Cruse-given right to reclaim his son from a situation in which the boy
may or may not be better off than with the parent? No, I don't.
If you ask me a clear question, I'll try to give you a clear answer.
>
> --
>
> Corporate State Alumni Association
> "Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
>
John H. McCloskey
>
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:07:36 -0400, John T. Kennedy
> <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:55:37 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:40:28 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>I think I've been clear on this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell the
> >>>>>boy as a slave?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How is that different from making him Cuba's slave?
> >>>>
> >>>> We've come full circle. I'm oughtta here.
> >>>
> >>>One request first.
> >>>
> >>>I honestly answered your question about what I would do, so I'd
> >>>appreciate it if you would answer mine.
> >>>
> >>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell him
> >>>into slavery?
> >>>
> >>No. That would make him an unfit parent. Taking
> >>Elian home, though, does not equate to being
> >>sold into slavery.
> >
> >It does.
> >
> >What authority did the American slave owner have over his slaves that
> >Castro will lack over Elian?
> >
> >In truth Gary there are *less* limits on the authority of the Cuban
> >dictatorship than there were on any Virginian slaveholder.
> >
> >What limits will there be on Castro's authority over the boy?
>
> As I said, I am oughtta here.
A sensible place to be.
Gary Cruse
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>Gary Cruse wrote:
> Do you mean: do I think it's my duty to ensure that every parent may freely
>exercise his Cruse-given right to reclaim his son from a situation in which the boy
>may or may not be better off than with the parent? No, I don't.
>
> If you ask me a clear question, I'll try to give you a clear answer.
I have no more questions for you. Thanks for you comments.
--
Corporate State Alumni Association
"Bill Clinton, Trailblazer of the New Corruption"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
Any cat that behaves like a dog is welcome in my universe. (Jonathan
Carroll)
John T. Kennedy
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:07:36 -0400, John T. Kennedy
><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:55:37 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:46:14 -0400, John T. Kennedy
>>><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:40:28 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:30:45 -0400, John T. Kennedy
>>>>><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>I think I've been clear on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell the
>>>>>>boy as a slave?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How is that different from making him Cuba's slave?
>>>>>
>>>>> We've come full circle. I'm oughtta here.
>>>>
>>>>One request first.
>>>>
>>>>I honestly answered your question about what I would do, so I'd
>>>>appreciate it if you would answer mine.
>>>>
>>>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell him
>>>>into slavery?
>>>>
>>>No. That would make him an unfit parent. Taking
>>>Elian home, though, does not equate to being
>>>sold into slavery.
>>
>>It does.
>>
>>What authority did the American slave owner have over his slaves that
>>Castro will lack over Elian?
>>
>>In truth Gary there are *less* limits on the authority of the Cuban
>>dictatorship than there were on any Virginian slaveholder.
>>
>>What limits will there be on Castro's authority over the boy?
>
> As I said, I am oughtta here.
That's fair enough, you answered my one request. Just ponder my last
questions.
John T. Kennedy
<j...@iName.com> wrote:
>Gary Cruse wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:07:36 -0400, John T. Kennedy
>> <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:55:37 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:46:14 -0400, John T. Kennedy
>> >><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:40:28 GMT, Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:30:45 -0400, John T. Kennedy
>> >>>><kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>I think I've been clear on this.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell the
>> >>>>>boy as a slave?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>How is that different from making him Cuba's slave?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We've come full circle. I'm oughtta here.
>> >>>
>> >>>One request first.
>> >>>
>> >>>I honestly answered your question about what I would do, so I'd
>> >>>appreciate it if you would answer mine.
>> >>>
>> >>>Would you let him have the child if you knew he intended to sell him
>> >>>into slavery?
>> >>>
>> >>No. That would make him an unfit parent. Taking
>> >>Elian home, though, does not equate to being
>> >>sold into slavery.
>> >
>> >It does.
>> >
>> >What authority did the American slave owner have over his slaves that
>> >Castro will lack over Elian?
>> >
>> >In truth Gary there are *less* limits on the authority of the Cuban
>> >dictatorship than there were on any Virginian slaveholder.
>> >
>> >What limits will there be on Castro's authority over the boy?
>>
>> As I said, I am oughtta here.
>
>A sensible place to be.
Now Gary's gonna think you're on my payroll.
Rob Robertson
>
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:20:01 -0400, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John T. Kennedy wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <4xqJ4.6$gz3....@news.callamer.com>,
> >> "Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
> >> > Kipawa Condor wrote:
> >> > >> Cuba to live in a mud hut. He belongs with his father.
> >> > >
> >> > > Why?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Because he is the legal custodial parent of the child.
> >> >
> >> >Because Elian Gonzalez's Miami cousins, in their justifiable hatred for
> >> > Castro, are using the boy as a pawn in a political power play.
> >> >
> >> > Because it's the height of arrogance for Americans to say they know
> >> > what's best for a Cuban boy whose immediate family want him back in
> >> > Cuba.
> >>
> >> Oh I guess it's impossible to know that freedom is best for all men?
> >
> > And if someone rationally determines that funding the state is an immoral
> >act, should we then take children away from parents who pay taxes, John?
>
> I am getting pretty sick and tired of this straw man Rob.
I don't see it as a strawman argument, John. You're stating that freedom
is best for the boy as justification for keeping him here in the U.S. and
as an argument against the father bringing him back to Cuba. You're arguing
that the father's political decision is a basis for action, and I'm
pointing out that *that* argument can take on a life of its own.
> Who took Elian from his father?
Who "took" him? I don't know the details and circumstances of the boy
being with the mother and not the father. I don't know what transpired
between the two adults before she made the decision to risk her life
and the life of her son in order to escape to freedom.
This this has been batted around enough for some of the questions to
be answered with at least a bit of certainty at this point, no?
> Who asked asked you to take anyone's kid away?
>
> The kid is free, do you have a responsibility to deliver him back to
> Cuba?
*I* am not taking or keeping him from his father based on ideology.
And besides, don't you mean 'relatively free'?
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Who confiscated him?
> >
> > Who first called for his return?
>
> His return to a slave state? Doesn't matter, nobody has a right to
> send him there.
Of course it matters. It goes right to the motivation of the father
in reclaiming his son.
Look; if I split with my wife, giving her custody of our son, and
she tells me she's going to make a break for freedom by swimming to
Martha's Vineyard and I agree, then she didn't "take" our son, and
any subsequent claim I might make would become suspect, especially
if Governor Cellucci has a gun to the head of the rest of my family
and my claim has been coerced by the state.
Who first called for his return? If it was Castro (or 'the state')
then I say "Go to hell". If Cuba then rummages around for a handle
and comes up with the father who willingly allowed his (ex- ?) wife
and son to escape, then the father is being coerced. But if the
*first* response was from the father then that tends to make his
claim for his own child appear legitimate, and I'm wary of interfering
in a parent's right to custody of their own children for political
reasons, and *that* is why my first question to you was legitimate,
and not a strawman.
> >
> >> Yeah, it's terrible to decline to return an escaped slave for
> >> "ideological" reasons. Because by inalienable rights we nowadays just
> >> mean "ideology" don't we?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Lynette
>
> -
>
> John Kennedy
> The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
> http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
> Updated 2/13/00
_
Rob
John T. Kennedy
rr...@gte.com wrote:
>>>And if someone rationally determines that funding the state is an
>>>immoral act, should we then take children away from parents who pay
>>>taxes, John?
> >
> > I am getting pretty sick and tired of this straw man Rob.
>
>I don't see it as a strawman argument, John.
It is because in this situation the mother got him free, so this has
nothing to do with taking children away from parents. A parent took him
out of Cuba.
>You're stating that freedomis best for the boy as justification for
>keeping him here in the U.S.
It's always moral to defend anyone's freedom.
But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
> and as an argument against the father bringing him back to Cuba.
>You're arguing that the father's political decision is a basis for
>action, and I'm pointing out that *that* argument can take on a life
>of its own.
It does not follow that anyone has an obligation to secure the freedom
of another, so what's the problem?
>
> > Who took Elian from his father?
>
> Who "took" him?
It's crucial to your analogy.
> I don't know the details and circumstances of the boy
> being with the mother and not the father. I don't know what transpired
> between the two adults before she made the decision to risk her life
> and the life of her son in order to escape to freedom.
>
> This this has been batted around enough for some of the questions to
> be answered with at least a bit of certainty at this point, no?
>
> > Who asked asked you to take anyone's kid away?
> >
> > The kid is free, do you have a responsibility to deliver him back to
> > Cuba?
>
> *I* am not taking
Did his current guardians take him?
>or keeping him from his father based on ideology.
Inalienable rights are simply ideology, eh?
Disappointing Rob.
It's not about ideology Rob, the guy can have any ideology he wants and
indoctrinate his son in any ideology he wants. That's compatible with
the temporary, limited, but substantial authority required to raise
your child.
What the father *cannot* have a right to do is to put the boy's liberty
beyond the boy's reach.
A father has *limitied* authority over his child, and thus no right to
commit that child to an *unlimited* authority.
>
> And besides, don't you mean 'relatively free'?
Yes. Unlimited authority is fully implied in any government but
currently the boy is free to leave here.
>
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >> Who confiscated him?
> > >
> > > Who first called for his return?
> >
> > His return to a slave state? Doesn't matter, nobody has a right to
> > send him there.
>
> Of course it matters. It goes right to the motivation of the father
> in reclaiming his son.
>
> Look; if I split with my wife, giving her custody of our son, and
> she tells me she's going to make a break for freedom by swimming to
> Martha's Vineyard and I agree,
Then you would both be nuts because Martha's Vineyard is not
significantly more free.
But there is a rather profound difference between the unlimited
authority exercised in Cuba and the limited authority currently
exercised here.
You analogy fails. Which is why people swim from Cuba to the US but not
fro tha mainland to the Vineyard.
>then she didn't "take" our son, and
> any subsequent claim I might make would become suspect, especially
> if Governor Cellucci has a gun to the head of the rest of my family
> and my claim has been coerced by the state.
>
> Who first called for his return? If it was Castro (or 'the state')
> then I say "Go to hell". If Cuba then rummages around for a handle
> and comes up with the father who willingly allowed his (ex- ?) wife
> and son to escape, then the father is being coerced. But if the
> *first* response was from the father then that tends to make his
> claim for his own child appear legitimate, and I'm wary of interfering
> in a parent's right to custody of their own children for political
> reasons, and *that* is why my first question to you was legitimate,
> and not a strawman.
It doesn't matter, since that father can't have a right to return his
son to a slave state.
--
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SemiScholar
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>Lynette Warren wrote:
>
>> Kipawa Condor wrote:
>> >> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to
>> >> Cuba to live in a mud hut. He belongs with his father.
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> Because there is nothing to show that his father is unfit in any way.
>>
>
> To my way of thinking, the fact that he (apparently) wants the boy to return
>to Cuba is prima facie evidence of unfitness. Seems to me a father who cared
>about the boy would want him to remain in a relatively free and open society,
>instead of greedily wanting to drag him back to Castro's playground.
>
> But setting that aside, there's nothing to show that, e.g., his great-uncle
>is unfit in any way. Heck, I don't know of anything that shows that Nathan Lane
>is unfit; might as well send the boy to live with him.
>
> That is, "boy should be sent to live with X" does not follow from "X is not
>unfit".
>
For a guy who claims that self-evident inalienable human rights exist
- and pre-exist any government, you are quite surprising. After all,
if these universal and inalienable rights do indeed exist, I would
think the right of parents to raise their kids as they see fit without
the interference of government - and a foreign one at that - would be
one of the MOST BASIC of those rights.
But here you are arguing against it. So which is it:
1) these rights exist independently of any government and therefore
the ultimate answer is that the boy belongs with his father, morally
speaking.
2) There really is no such thing as universal rights that exist
outside of government
3) Parent's right to raise their children as they see fit is not one
of the basic, universal and inalienable rights.
If 3, then where can I get the Official List of rights that _do_
exist?
>
>>
>> Because he is the legal custodial parent of the child.
>>
>
> OK; I think that's your strongest argument here. But legal custody can
>change,
But it hasn't.
>and really says nothing (except in the legal sense) about why the boy
>"belongs" with him. Why *should* the father, as opposed to one of the Miami
>relatives, be the legal guardian? Because the boy belongs with him?
Because he is the child's only living parent, and the MOST BASIC,
BIOLOGICAL AND SACRED bond throughout all history is that of family -
particularly parents and small children. If there are ANY candidates
for a undeniable, objective "natural law", this is surely one of them.
>
>
>>
>> Because Elian Gonzalez's Miami cousins, in their justifiable hatred for
>> Castro, are using the boy as a pawn in a political power play.
>>
>
> That's likely so, but I don't see how you get from there to "boy belongs
>with father", even if you add that his pawn value is the only reason they want
>him (which may or may not be the case; I think neither of us is in a position to
>know). You may be able to get to "boy doesn't belong with Miami relatives", but
>I think you need to fill in some steps.
The boy belongs somehwere. There are really only two options on the
table here:
1) with the father who has raised the boy his whole life and his
grandmothers and other members of the immediate family and the
extended family. The father has been credibly shown to be fit - and
there's no evidence to sthe contrary - and he was the custodial parent
in Cuba for most of the boy's life.
2) with distant relatives who are almost total strangers to the boy.
One is an alcoholic with multiple drunk-driving arrests and another is
an unstable young woman who has been hospitalized at least 8 times in
the last year or so for mental problems - at least 3 of which were
before the whole Elian thing happened.
This doesn't seem like a difficult choice.
>
>
>>
>> Because it's the height of arrogance for Americans to say they know
>> what's best for a Cuban boy whose immediate family want him back in
>> Cuba.
>>
>
> Maybe. Personally, I don't really know what's best for the boy, although I
>suspect he'd be "happier", by most any measure, staying in the US. I'm also not
>convinced that what his family in Cuba "wants" is necessarily related to his
>best interests.
>
> But anyhow I don't see how you get from "Americans are arrogant" to "the boy
>belongs with his father"; you'll have to fill in a few steps for me.
What makes you think there's a line of reasoning FROM one To the
other? They are both correct, but they don't necessarily form links
in any particular chain. One could say "Americans speak English" and
"the boy should have some new shoes". Perhaps they're both true - but
why would anybody think there was some sort of link between them?
>
>
>
>>
>> But mostly because it's a dangerous precendant for the state to procure
>> children from their parents based on the parents' political ideology.
>
> I don't think the state should procure anything from anyone based on
>anything. Refraining from action is not action. Let the family work it out.
Ahhh... "Might Makes Right", huh? Whichever part of the family is
the strongest wins? "Possession is 9/10ths of the law"? You don't
believe in any higher power ensuring that a fair result occurs - it's
just the lowest Law of the Jungle for you, eh? No concept of social
justice - just the raw fighting power of individuals?
> Perhaps pressure from Castro makes that impossible, but that doesn't mean we
>have to facilitate his interference.
>
> But even so (and I hope you'll forgive my being so dense here), I don't see
>how "boy belongs with his father" follows from "state should not procure
>children". The strongest claim I think you can get is "the state gets no say in
>where the boy belongs", which is a completely different thing.
The state mediates claims of rights. That is what states do, and that
is the nature of "rights". They can work it out privately, perhaps.
But if they can't agree on things, the state will ultimately be
required to make the decisions about which rights of which parties
prevail.
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
<kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 02:46:10 GMT, Kipawa Condor
><raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Gary Cruse wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:22:46 GMT, Kipawa Condor
>>> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> This child needs to be reunited with his
>>> >> father as soon as possible.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Uh, why?
>>> >
>>> > Tradition?
>>> >
>>> > Because it will be 'better" for him. By what criteria?
>>>
>>> It is more important that he be with his father at
>>> that age until his age of majority.
>>
>> <hack>
>>
>> Specifically, in what way will being with his father be "better" for him
>>than being with, say, his great uncle or cousin? If it's not "better", why is
>>it "more important"?
>>
>> I can sympathize with Juan Gonzalez somewhat.
>
>Sure.
>
>>It must be painful, seeing
>>his son in a foreign country saying he doesn't want to go back home.
>
>Yes.
>
>> Maybe he's
>>a great and loving father, and maybe he's the best caretaker for the boy.
>
>Let's assume so.
>
>> Maybe
>>his wife was a vindictive witch who took the boy out of spite.
>
>Let's assume so.
>
>> Maybe Juan truly
>>believes indoctrination into Castro-style communism will be less harmful to the
>>boy than living apart from his father, and it's not inconceivable that he could
>>be right about that.
>
>Let's assume so.
>
>> Maybe all those things are so . . . and maybe not. And if
>>not, I find bald assertions that "the boy belongs with his father" (at the risk
>>of sounding Twerbesque) unpersuasive.
>
>Let's say they're all true.
>
>Does Juan Gonzalez then have a right to compromise his son's freedom
>by delivering him to an unlimited authority?
>
>Could he be right to do that?
>
>>
>> I think those are things that it's nigh impossible for those outside the
>>family to judge. The matter is rightly between Elian, Juan, and the family in
>>Florida.
>>
>>
>
>Yes but it'snot about quality of life in the current sense, it's about
>the fact that nobody can have a right to compromise the liberty of
>another.
Yes. Very good. Let's make all those same arguments about Juan
Miguel's other kid - the baby boy with him and his wife in Bethesda
right now. "Does Juan Gonzalez then have a right to compromise his
son's freedom by delivering him to an unlimited authority?"
Should we prevent Juan Miguel from "delivering [the baby] to an
unlimited authority"? Is there a difference?
- SemiScholar
Lynette Warren
>
> It's always moral to defend anyone's freedom.
> But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
Here's a hypothetical. You don't have to play, but it would help me to
understand where you're coming from with the 'you don't have to lift a
finger' aspect. Let's say I have custody of my son. My ex-husband
picks him up for a visit and takes the boy for a long drive across the
state line to visit the ex's relatives. The ex dies in transit. I
phone my in-laws and ask them to take care of my son in until I can come
and get him. They magnamously take my child in and then announce that
they intend to permantly keep my son for the good of the child.
My son likes it there and says he wants to say. The in-laws buy him new
clothes and take him to McDonalds and Disneyland. They treat him like a
prince. The in-laws are wealthy, they can give him a better education
and a much better environment to live in. I, on the other hand, am dumb
as a rock, live on a dirt poor reservation where unemployment, alcholism
and domestic violence is rife. I insist that my son work for 6 hours a
day. Most people would agree hands down that it would be in the best
interest of the child to stay with his affluent relatives.
Would you lift a finger to help me to get my son back?
Lynette
Lynette Warren
>
> A slave state.
Juan Rodriguez doesn't consider himself to be a slave. So far he choses
to continue to live in Cuba with his wife and children. They're his
kids, John. It's wrong for Americans to dictate to Gonzalez where he
should live.
Lynette
--
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <38F714...@gte.com>,
> rr...@gte.com wrote:
>
> >>>And if someone rationally determines that funding the state is an
> >>>immoral act, should we then take children away from parents who pay
> >>>taxes, John?
> > >
> > > I am getting pretty sick and tired of this straw man Rob.
> >
> >I don't see it as a strawman argument, John.
>
> It is because in this situation the mother got him free, so this has
> nothing to do with taking children away from parents. A parent took him
> out of Cuba.
>
> >keeping him here in the U.S.
>
>
> But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
I'm not lifting any fingers. I'm glad the mother managed to escape
Castro's Cuba and brought her son to (relative) freedom. The only
thing I'm looking at here is the father's claim to his son and what
is preventing him from taking custody of him. That he chooses to
bring him back to Cuba is *not* justification for keeping his son
here in the Death Star.
> > and as an argument against the father bringing him back to Cuba.
> >You're arguing that the father's political decision is a basis for
> >action, and I'm pointing out that *that* argument can take on a life
> >of its own.
>
> It does not follow that anyone has an obligation to secure the freedom
> of another, so what's the problem?
The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
blackmailed into claiming him.
> > > Who took Elian from his father?
> >
> > Who "took" him?
>
> It's crucial to your analogy.
Yes, it is.
> > I don't know the details and circumstances of the boy
> > being with the mother and not the father. I don't know what transpired
> > between the two adults before she made the decision to risk her life
> > and the life of her son in order to escape to freedom.
> >
> > This this has been batted around enough for some of the questions to
> > be answered with at least a bit of certainty at this point, no?
> >
> > > Who asked asked you to take anyone's kid away?
> > >
> > > The kid is free, do you have a responsibility to deliver him back to
> > > Cuba?
> >
> > *I* am not taking
>
> Did his current guardians take him?
>
> >or keeping him from his father based on ideology.
>
> Inalienable rights are simply ideology, eh?
>
> Disappointing Rob.
No, what's disappointing is you not answering a straight-up question
about the validity of the father's claim to his son. That's what my
line of questioning is all about.
> It's not about ideology Rob, the guy can have any ideology he wants and
> indoctrinate his son in any ideology he wants. That's compatible with
> the temporary, limited, but substantial authority required to raise
> your child.
>
> What the father *cannot* have a right to do is to put the boy's liberty
> beyond the boy's reach.
>
> A father has *limited* authority over his child, and thus no right to
> commit that child to an *unlimited* authority.
*You* have no say in the matter, John. If he wants to bring his son
back to Cuba you have no right to stop him because you think it would
be better for him here.
> > And besides, don't you mean 'relatively free'?
>
> Yes. Unlimited authority is fully implied in any government but
> currently the boy is free to leave here.
Authority is *expressly* limited by the U.S. Constitution, whether
or not the government or the populace recognize that fact, and being
free to leave is not the sum total of freedom.
> > > ><snip>
> > > >
> > > >> Who confiscated him?
> > > >
> > > > Who first called for his return?
> > >
> > > His return to a slave state? Doesn't matter, nobody has a right to
> > > send him there.
> >
> > Of course it matters. It goes right to the motivation of the father
> > in reclaiming his son.
> >
> > Look; if I split with my wife, giving her custody of our son, and
> > she tells me she's going to make a break for freedom by swimming to
> > Martha's Vineyard and I agree,
>
> Then you would both be nuts because Martha's Vineyard is not
> significantly more free.
>
> But there is a rather profound difference between the unlimited
> authority exercised in Cuba and the limited authority currently
> exercised here.
>
> You analogy fails. Which is why people swim from Cuba to the US but not
> fro tha mainland to the Vineyard.
So by *your* judgement the father could claim his son, as long as he
doesn't return to Cuba?
> >then she didn't "take" our son, and
> > any subsequent claim I might make would become suspect, especially
> > if Governor Cellucci has a gun to the head of the rest of my family
> > and my claim has been coerced by the state.
> >
> > Who first called for his return? If it was Castro (or 'the state')
> > then I say "Go to hell". If Cuba then rummages around for a handle
> > and comes up with the father who willingly allowed his (ex- ?) wife
> > and son to escape, then the father is being coerced. But if the
> > *first* response was from the father then that tends to make his
> > claim for his own child appear legitimate, and I'm wary of interfering
> > in a parent's right to custody of their own children for political
> > reasons, and *that* is why my first question to you was legitimate,
> > and not a strawman.
>
> It doesn't matter, since that father can't have a right to return his
> son to a slave state.
You have no right to stop him.
> --
> -
> John Kennedy
> The Wild Shall Wild Remain
> http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
_
Rob
Kipawa Condor
> John T. Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > It's always moral to defend anyone's freedom.
> > But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
>
This isn't addressed to me, but I'd like to take a cut at it.
You don't mention whether the hypothetical Lynette is a devoted parent who
has done a conscientious job of instilling integrity and values in the boy, or
whether she's a neglectful slob.
In the former case, and assuming I were close enough to the principals to
have all the information: sure, I'd do what I reasonably could to help you get
the boy back. Material advantages don't carry much weight as far as I'm
concerned.
In the latter case, I don't see how returning the boy would benefit either
mother or son. Maybe you should have him back, or maybe not, and if I couldn't
make an informed judgment I don't think I'd be lifting any fingers.
I don't recognize any kind of inalienable right of a parent to claim custody
of a child, under any conceivable circumstances, simply by reason of biology.
I'd never advocate any kind of state action to separate kids from parents, but
there are conditions (serious abuse or neglect, endangerment) under which
parties (grandparents, uncles, etc.) who have an interest in a child's well
being may have a legitimate claim to custody, and may even, in extreme cases, be
justified in physically removing the child. I don't know if any of those
circumstances apply in the E.G. case, although I'd say subjecting the boy to
totalitarian conditions in Cuba is at least arguably abuse.
That is to say, I don't know that such circumstances apply and I don't know
that they don't, and I think a statement like "the boy belongs with his father"
needs to take into account whether they do or don't.
>
> Lynette
SemiScholar
<kenne...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38F714...@gte.com>,
> rr...@gte.com wrote:
>
>>>>And if someone rationally determines that funding the state is an
>>>>immoral act, should we then take children away from parents who pay
>>>>taxes, John?
>> >
>> > I am getting pretty sick and tired of this straw man Rob.
>>
>>I don't see it as a strawman argument, John.
>
>It is because in this situation the mother got him free, so this has
>nothing to do with taking children away from parents. A parent took him
>out of Cuba.
But she's dead, so that's irrelevant. She might have made the journey
for "love" - wanting to be with her boyfriend, for purely economic
reasons, or whatever. She didn't leave a note, so we don't know. And
we don't know what she would say in this situation - perhaps she would
say "if I can't get to the US with Elian, then my second choice is at
least to have Elian with his father."
But since we can't know any of this, it's irrelevant. She's dead.
She has nothing more to say about it.
>
>>You're stating that freedomis best for the boy as justification for
>>keeping him here in the U.S.
>
>It's always moral to defend anyone's freedom.
Yeah? You want to let Charlie Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Mark Chapman and
John Hinckley have their freedom?
>
>But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
>
>> and as an argument against the father bringing him back to Cuba.
>>You're arguing that the father's political decision is a basis for
>>action, and I'm pointing out that *that* argument can take on a life
>>of its own.
>
>It does not follow that anyone has an obligation to secure the freedom
>of another, so what's the problem?
>
>>
>> > Who took Elian from his father?
>>
>> Who "took" him?
>
>It's crucial to your analogy.
His mother took him. Illegally and immorally. She kidnapped him -
removed him from the father's care without permission. And now she's
dead.
>
>> I don't know the details and circumstances of the boy
>> being with the mother and not the father. I don't know what transpired
>> between the two adults before she made the decision to risk her life
>> and the life of her son in order to escape to freedom.
>>
>> This this has been batted around enough for some of the questions to
>> be answered with at least a bit of certainty at this point, no?
>>
>> > Who asked asked you to take anyone's kid away?
>> >
>> > The kid is free, do you have a responsibility to deliver him back to
>> > Cuba?
>>
>> *I* am not taking
>
>Did his current guardians take him?
>
>>or keeping him from his father based on ideology.
>
>Inalienable rights are simply ideology, eh?
Yup. This case is a good lesson for you. If that boy has an
"inalienable right" to be free, doesn't his little half-brother have
the same? Does that mean we should prevent Juan Miguel from taking
the baby back to Cuba wioth him too?
And if there ARE such things as "inalienable rights", isn't a parent's
right to raise children as they see fit without interference from
others one of those "rights"? So which is it - does Juan Miguel have
the inalienable right to make decisions for his own child or not? If
not - then how exactly do YOU come up with a list of which of these
rights are "inalienable" and which are not?
>
>Disappointing Rob.
>
>It's not about ideology Rob, the guy can have any ideology he wants and
>indoctrinate his son in any ideology he wants. That's compatible with
>the temporary, limited, but substantial authority required to raise
>your child.
>
>What the father *cannot* have a right to do is to put the boy's liberty
>beyond the boy's reach.
Why not? Who says? Aside from which, liberty is NOT beyond a Cuban's
reach. Ask any of the exiles who ARE Cuban and who live in the US and
consider themselves free. Sure, they had to work for it, but it was
within reach. Sometimes you have to fight for your rights - they're
not god-given and inalienable, you know.
>
>A father has *limitied* authority over his child, and thus no right to
>commit that child to an *unlimited* authority.
??? Jeeze - where do you get this stuff?
So we should grab Juan Miguel's baby and not let it be returned to
Cuba either, eh? All the arguments you make about Elian apply to the
baby, too. Not to mention the children of the Cuban diplomats in the
Cuban Interest Section. Shall we nab them, too?
>
>>
>> And besides, don't you mean 'relatively free'?
>
>Yes. Unlimited authority is fully implied in any government but
>currently the boy is free to leave here.
>
>>
>> > >
>> > ><snip>
>> > >
>> > >> Who confiscated him?
>> > >
>> > > Who first called for his return?
>> >
>> > His return to a slave state? Doesn't matter, nobody has a right to
>> > send him there.
>>
>> Of course it matters. It goes right to the motivation of the father
>> in reclaiming his son.
>>
>> Look; if I split with my wife, giving her custody of our son, and
>> she tells me she's going to make a break for freedom by swimming to
>> Martha's Vineyard and I agree,
>
>Then you would both be nuts because Martha's Vineyard is not
>significantly more free.
>
>But there is a rather profound difference between the unlimited
>authority exercised in Cuba and the limited authority currently
>exercised here.
>
>You analogy fails. Which is why people swim from Cuba to the US but not
>fro tha mainland to the Vineyard.
Well, Ted Kennedy swam from the Vineyard to the mainland. Does that
count?
>
>>then she didn't "take" our son, and
>> any subsequent claim I might make would become suspect, especially
>> if Governor Cellucci has a gun to the head of the rest of my family
>> and my claim has been coerced by the state.
>>
>> Who first called for his return? If it was Castro (or 'the state')
>> then I say "Go to hell". If Cuba then rummages around for a handle
>> and comes up with the father who willingly allowed his (ex- ?) wife
>> and son to escape, then the father is being coerced. But if the
>> *first* response was from the father then that tends to make his
>> claim for his own child appear legitimate, and I'm wary of interfering
>> in a parent's right to custody of their own children for political
>> reasons, and *that* is why my first question to you was legitimate,
>> and not a strawman.
>
>It doesn't matter, since that father can't have a right to return his
>son to a slave state.
Says who? That's an "inalienab;e right", gawd-given and beyond the
ability of any government to revoke. They can *violate* it, but they
cannot make it go away. Eh?
See how your ridiculous claims about "natural law", and "universal,
inalienable rights" falls apart? You can make up all the "rights" and
"non-rights" you want, but it's only your imagination.
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
<ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>John T. Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> It's always moral to defend anyone's freedom.
>> But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
>
>Here's a hypothetical. You don't have to play, but it would help me to
>understand where you're coming from with the 'you don't have to lift a
>finger' aspect. Let's say I have custody of my son. My ex-husband
>picks him up for a visit and takes the boy for a long drive across the
>state line to visit the ex's relatives. The ex dies in transit. I
>phone my in-laws and ask them to take care of my son in until I can come
>and get him. They magnamously take my child in and then announce that
>they intend to permantly keep my son for the good of the child.
>
>My son likes it there and says he wants to say. The in-laws buy him new
>clothes and take him to McDonalds and Disneyland. They treat him like a
>prince. The in-laws are wealthy, they can give him a better education
>and a much better environment to live in. I, on the other hand, am dumb
>as a rock, live on a dirt poor reservation where unemployment, alcholism
>and domestic violence is rife. I insist that my son work for 6 hours a
>day. Most people would agree hands down that it would be in the best
>interest of the child to stay with his affluent relatives.
>
>Would you lift a finger to help me to get my son back?
>
Good analogy. But Kennedy wouldn't "lift a finger" to help anybody do
anything - if "lifting a finger" means government-enforced rules. In
his world, the government has no right to do anything - it's just
lowest-common-denominator Law of the Jungle - every man for himself.
No Rule of Law. So if your relatives have bigger guns than you do,
you lose.
- SemiScholar
SemiScholar
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>Lynette Warren wrote:
>
>> John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> >
>> > It's always moral to defend anyone's freedom.
>> > But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
>>
>> Here's a hypothetical. You don't have to play, but it would help me to
>> understand where you're coming from with the 'you don't have to lift a
>> finger' aspect. Let's say I have custody of my son. My ex-husband
>> picks him up for a visit and takes the boy for a long drive across the
>> state line to visit the ex's relatives. The ex dies in transit. I
>> phone my in-laws and ask them to take care of my son in until I can come
>> and get him. They magnamously take my child in and then announce that
>> they intend to permantly keep my son for the good of the child.
>>
>> My son likes it there and says he wants to say. The in-laws buy him new
>> clothes and take him to McDonalds and Disneyland. They treat him like a
>> prince. The in-laws are wealthy, they can give him a better education
>> and a much better environment to live in. I, on the other hand, am dumb
>> as a rock, live on a dirt poor reservation where unemployment, alcholism
>> and domestic violence is rife. I insist that my son work for 6 hours a
>> day. Most people would agree hands down that it would be in the best
>> interest of the child to stay with his affluent relatives.
>>
>> Would you lift a finger to help me to get my son back?
>>
>
> This isn't addressed to me, but I'd like to take a cut at it.
>
> You don't mention whether the hypothetical Lynette is a devoted parent who
>has done a conscientious job of instilling integrity and values in the boy, or
>whether she's a neglectful slob.
>
> In the former case, and assuming I were close enough to the principals to
>have all the information: sure, I'd do what I reasonably could to help you get
>the boy back. Material advantages don't carry much weight as far as I'm
>concerned.
>
> In the latter case, I don't see how returning the boy would benefit either
>mother or son. Maybe you should have him back, or maybe not, and if I couldn't
>make an informed judgment I don't think I'd be lifting any fingers.
>
> I don't recognize any kind of inalienable right of a parent to claim custody
YOU don't recognize?? LOL!! So YOU get to do the recognizing, eh?
You have loudly argued that there ARE inalienable, universal natural
rights, beyond anybody's "recognizing" them. But you were never able
(nor willing to try) to identify those rights. Now here comes one -
the parent's right to raise children as THEY see fit, without
interference from others. And because YOU don't "recognize" it, you
claim it doesn't exist.
And yet, when I claim the non-existance of other "rights" that you DO
"recognize", you squawk and squeal. So how DO you decide what rights
exist and which don't?
You are terribly inconsistent in your "philosophy". That's what I was
trying to show you a while ago, before you got so scalded that you ran
away. Are you finally starting to get it now? Even a little bit?
>of a child, under any conceivable circumstances, simply by reason of biology.
>I'd never advocate any kind of state action to separate kids from parents, but
>there are conditions (serious abuse or neglect, endangerment) under which
>parties (grandparents, uncles, etc.) who have an interest in a child's well
>being may have a legitimate claim to custody, and may even, in extreme cases, be
>justified in physically removing the child. I don't know if any of those
>circumstances apply in the E.G. case, although I'd say subjecting the boy to
>totalitarian conditions in Cuba is at least arguably abuse.
> That is to say, I don't know that such circumstances apply and I don't know
>that they don't, and I think a statement like "the boy belongs with his father"
>needs to take into account whether they do or don't.
There has been no credible claim of abuse, and there has already been
a determination that Juan Miguel is indeed fit. If your assertion
that living in Cuba constitutes abuse were true, every Cuban parent
would be guilty.
- SemiScholar
Billy Beck
"Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>Here's a hypothetical. You don't have to play, but it would help me to
>understand where you're coming from with the 'you don't have to lift a
>finger' aspect. Let's say I have custody of my son. My ex-husband
>picks him up for a visit and takes the boy for a long drive across the
>state line to visit the ex's relatives. The ex dies in transit. I
>phone my in-laws and ask them to take care of my son in until I can come
>and get him. They magnamously take my child in and then announce that
>they intend to permantly keep my son for the good of the child.
>
>My son likes it there and says he wants to say. The in-laws buy him new
>clothes and take him to McDonalds and Disneyland. They treat him like a
>prince. The in-laws are wealthy, they can give him a better education
>and a much better environment to live in. I, on the other hand, am dumb
>as a rock, live on a dirt poor reservation where unemployment, alcholism
>and domestic violence is rife. I insist that my son work for 6 hours a
>day. Most people would agree hands down that it would be in the best
>interest of the child to stay with his affluent relatives.
The state wouldn't put you in *jail* for teaching the kid about
liberty, Lynette.
The difference is that you're free to *act* on the kid's best
intersest here (as long as Yezhov-Reno approves the look of your
church, of course), and that ain't so in Cuba.
I just now had to explain to a poster at CAS that there is no
question that Elian will be a ward of the state.
His *father* is.
You people are sitting around here looking at your own kids -
hypothetical or otherwise - deciding that you know what's best for
them, and projecting that perspective on this affair, and it's simply
nonsense. Among some people who I've considered have a fair grip on
the principles of liberty, I've seen an amazing amount of
high-hierarchy (logically far downstream of principles) hair-waving &
splitting, and it's just emotional sophistry. There isn't any other
way for me to attribute it. There is no rational way whatever to
consider Elian's father a free man. Not even remotely, like us here
in America. There is *no way* that his life in Cuba will compare to
what it would be in America, and that's for all the reasons having to
do with "ideology", which includes the fact that his father will never
be a free man who could, thus, *act* on his estimation of what's best
for his son in a context of all possible choices.
But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
back. And if you get to keep your eye on things as they go in the
future (depending on what Castro is going to show you and what you can
ferret-out between the lines, which is the perennial pastime among
observers of communist regimes), you're going to live to regret that
you ever thought it best to send him back.
And that will be *cheap*, and god bless you for it, too, because
that kid is going to *live* it.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>John T. Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> In article <38F714...@gte.com>,
>> rr...@gte.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>And if someone rationally determines that funding the state is an
>> >>>immoral act, should we then take children away from parents who pay
>> >>>taxes, John?
>> > >
>> > > I am getting pretty sick and tired of this straw man Rob.
>> >
>> >I don't see it as a strawman argument, John.
>>
>> It is because in this situation the mother got him free, so this has
>> nothing to do with taking children away from parents. A parent took him
>> out of Cuba.
>>
>> >You're stating that freedom is best for the boy as justification for
>> >keeping him here in the U.S.
>>
>> It's always moral to defend anyone's freedom.
>>
>> But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
>
> I'm not lifting any fingers. I'm glad the mother managed to escape
>Castro's Cuba and brought her son to (relative) freedom. The only
>thing I'm looking at here is the father's claim to his son and what
>is preventing him from taking custody of him. That he chooses to
>bring him back to Cuba is *not* justification for keeping his son
>here in the Death Star.
He's not being kept "here", his liberty is being defended. "Here" is a
place he is entirely free to leave when he comes of age, Cuba is not.
I've detailed a sound moral justification for defending the boy's
inalienable rights, you merely assert there is no justification to do
so.
It is entirely moral to defend the boy's liberty.
>
>> > and as an argument against the father bringing him back to Cuba.
>> >You're arguing that the father's political decision is a basis for
>> >action, and I'm pointing out that *that* argument can take on a life
>> >of its own.
>>
>> It does not follow that anyone has an obligation to secure the freedom
>> of another, so what's the problem?
>
> The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
>for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
>stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
>blackmailed into claiming him.
The justification is the very real harm that regime will do to him.
If some delivers you to an unlimited power so that your liberty is
lost, is that harm?
Is it okay to harm the boy just because he may not recognize the harm
for a few years?
>
>> > > Who took Elian from his father?
>> >
>> > Who "took" him?
>>
>> It's crucial to your analogy.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>> > I don't know the details and circumstances of the boy
>> > being with the mother and not the father. I don't know what transpired
>> > between the two adults before she made the decision to risk her life
>> > and the life of her son in order to escape to freedom.
>> >
>> > This this has been batted around enough for some of the questions to
>> > be answered with at least a bit of certainty at this point, no?
>> >
>> > > Who asked asked you to take anyone's kid away?
>> > >
>> > > The kid is free, do you have a responsibility to deliver him back to
>> > > Cuba?
>> >
>> > *I* am not taking
>>
>> Did his current guardians take him?
>>
>> >or keeping him from his father based on ideology.
>>
>> Inalienable rights are simply ideology, eh?
>>
>> Disappointing Rob.
>
> No, what's disappointing is you not answering a straight-up question
>about the validity of the father's claim to his son. That's what my
>line of questioning is all about.
His claim is limited, not by ideology but by his son's inalienable
rights. They exist quite apart from ideology. Sorry if I have not made
that clear.
His claim fails not because he or Cuba have bad ideas, but because
they will necessarily do the boy real harm by taking his liberty.
>
>> It's not about ideology Rob, the guy can have any ideology he wants and
>> indoctrinate his son in any ideology he wants. That's compatible with
>> the temporary, limited, but substantial authority required to raise
>> your child.
>>
>> What the father *cannot* have a right to do is to put the boy's liberty
>> beyond the boy's reach.
>>
>> A father has *limited* authority over his child, and thus no right to
>> commit that child to an *unlimited* authority.
>
> *You* have no say in the matter, John. If he wants to bring his son
>back to Cuba you have no right to stop him because you think it would
>be better for him here.
It is quite moral to prevent him from doing so.
He can't have a right to harm his son this badly.
>
>> > And besides, don't you mean 'relatively free'?
>>
>> Yes. Unlimited authority is fully implied in any government but
>> currently the boy is free to leave here.
>
> Authority is *expressly* limited by the U.S. Constitution, whether
>or not the government or the populace recognize that fact, and being
>free to leave is not the sum total of freedom.
Oh I bet it's expressly limited by the Cuban Constitution too, on
paper, but so what?
>
>> > > ><snip>
>> > > >
>> > > >> Who confiscated him?
>> > > >
>> > > > Who first called for his return?
>> > >
>> > > His return to a slave state? Doesn't matter, nobody has a right to
>> > > send him there.
>> >
>> > Of course it matters. It goes right to the motivation of the father
>> > in reclaiming his son.
>> >
>> > Look; if I split with my wife, giving her custody of our son, and
>> > she tells me she's going to make a break for freedom by swimming to
>> > Martha's Vineyard and I agree,
>>
>> Then you would both be nuts because Martha's Vineyard is not
>> significantly more free.
>>
>> But there is a rather profound difference between the unlimited
>> authority exercised in Cuba and the limited authority currently
>> exercised here.
>>
>> You analogy fails. Which is why people swim from Cuba to the US but not
>> fro tha mainland to the Vineyard.
>
> So by *your* judgement the father could claim his son, as long as he
>doesn't return to Cuba?
He certainly has a right to raisse his boy, he doesn't have a right to
do his boy harm he cannot undo.
>
>> >then she didn't "take" our son, and
>> > any subsequent claim I might make would become suspect, especially
>> > if Governor Cellucci has a gun to the head of the rest of my family
>> > and my claim has been coerced by the state.
>> >
>> > Who first called for his return? If it was Castro (or 'the state')
>> > then I say "Go to hell". If Cuba then rummages around for a handle
>> > and comes up with the father who willingly allowed his (ex- ?) wife
>> > and son to escape, then the father is being coerced. But if the
>> > *first* response was from the father then that tends to make his
>> > claim for his own child appear legitimate, and I'm wary of interfering
>> > in a parent's right to custody of their own children for political
>> > reasons, and *that* is why my first question to you was legitimate,
>> > and not a strawman.
>>
>> It doesn't matter, since that father can't have a right to return his
>> son to a slave state.
>
> You have no right to stop him.
There is nothing wrong with defending the boy's liberty.
-
John Kennedy
John T. Kennedy
<ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>John T. Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> A slave state.
>
>Juan Rodriguez doesn't consider himself to be a slave.
Things are what they are. He's a slave or a slaver.
> So far he choses
>to continue to live in Cuba with his wife and children.
Irrelevant to the issue, but I must also point out that your evidence
he has chosen any such thing is highly compromised since he's
currently on loan from a slave state that has control of his parents
and other loved ones.
> They're his
>kids, John.
Yes, and as such his legitimate authority over them is limited, is it
not?
> It's wrong for Americans to dictate to Gonzalez where he should live.
I'm not proposing that they do.
But it's certainly moral to prevent him from harming his boy by taking
his liberty.
John T. Kennedy
<ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>John T. Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> It's always moral to defend anyone's freedom.
>> But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
>
>Here's a hypothetical. You don't have to play,
I'll play.
> but it would help me to
>understand where you're coming from with the 'you don't have to lift a
>finger' aspect. Let's say I have custody of my son.
I assume this mean's you're raising your son. "Custody" means nothing
to me in and of itself.
>My ex-husband
>picks him up for a visit and takes the boy for a long drive across the
>state line to visit the ex's relatives. The ex dies in transit. I
>phone my in-laws and ask them to take care of my son in until I can come
>and get him. They magnamously take my child in and then announce that
>they intend to permantly keep my son for the good of the child.
>
>My son likes it there and says he wants to say. The in-laws buy him new
>clothes and take him to McDonalds and Disneyland. They treat him like a
>prince. The in-laws are wealthy, they can give him a better education
>and a much better environment to live in. I, on the other hand, am dumb
>as a rock, live on a dirt poor reservation where unemployment, alcholism
>and domestic violence is rife. I insist that my son work for 6 hours a
>day. Most people would agree hands down that it would be in the best
>interest of the child to stay with his affluent relatives.
>
>Would you lift a finger to help me to get my son back?
You give me no reason to think you are unfit, nor that the child would
not be safe in your care, so I assume a siginficant injustice has been
done you. Under the circumstances you're entitled to recover your
child, and it's perfectly morally defensible to help you.
But I'd need a considrerably better reason to expend much effort on
your behalf, my own plate is full with freely chosen responsibilities
that are quite a bit more important to me than fixing your life.
If your child had been kidnapped by hoods with bad intentions that
would be one thing, but I don't see that your son is in danger or that
your in-laws are a terrible threat to harm anyone else, so I'm going
to leave it up to you to secure your own rights here.
I see no reason to put my own prorities on hold until every injustice
of this magnitude is put to right, and I seriously doubt you can live
that way. Do you help everyone who has been wronged? Or do you
prioritize in favor or your own interests?
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>
>"Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>
>>Here's a hypothetical. You don't have to play, but it would help me to
>>understand where you're coming from with the 'you don't have to lift a
>>finger' aspect. Let's say I have custody of my son. My ex-husband
>>picks him up for a visit and takes the boy for a long drive across the
>>state line to visit the ex's relatives. The ex dies in transit. I
>>phone my in-laws and ask them to take care of my son in until I can come
>>and get him. They magnamously take my child in and then announce that
>>they intend to permantly keep my son for the good of the child.
>>
>>My son likes it there and says he wants to say. The in-laws buy him new
>>clothes and take him to McDonalds and Disneyland. They treat him like a
>>prince. The in-laws are wealthy, they can give him a better education
>>and a much better environment to live in. I, on the other hand, am dumb
>>as a rock, live on a dirt poor reservation where unemployment, alcholism
>>and domestic violence is rife. I insist that my son work for 6 hours a
>>day. Most people would agree hands down that it would be in the best
>>interest of the child to stay with his affluent relatives.
>
> The state wouldn't put you in *jail* for teaching the kid about
>liberty, Lynette.
>
> The difference is that you're free to *act* on the kid's best
>intersest here (as long as Yezhov-Reno approves the look of your
>church, of course), and that ain't so in Cuba.
>
> I just now had to explain to a poster at CAS that there is no
>question that Elian will be a ward of the state.
>
> His *father* is.
All the Cubans in Cuba are, except Castro and perhaps a few other
slaveholders.
>
> You people are sitting around here looking at your own kids -
>hypothetical or otherwise - deciding that you know what's best for
>them, and projecting that perspective on this affair, and it's simply
>nonsense. Among some people who I've considered have a fair grip on
>the principles of liberty, I've seen an amazing amount of
>high-hierarchy (logically far downstream of principles) hair-waving &
>splitting, and it's just emotional sophistry. There isn't any other
>way for me to attribute it. There is no rational way whatever to
>consider Elian's father a free man. Not even remotely, like us here
>in America. There is *no way* that his life in Cuba will compare to
>what it would be in America, and that's for all the reasons having to
>do with "ideology", which includes the fact that his father will never
>be a free man who could, thus, *act* on his estimation of what's best
>for his son in a context of all possible choices.
>
> But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>back.
Of course he is.
I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>And if you get to keep your eye on things as they go in the
>future (depending on what Castro is going to show you and what you can
>ferret-out between the lines, which is the perennial pastime among
>observers of communist regimes), you're going to live to regret that
>you ever thought it best to send him back.
>
> And that will be *cheap*, and god bless you for it, too, because
>that kid is going to *live* it.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
John T. Kennedy
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>Lynette Warren wrote:
>
>> John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> >
>> > It's always moral to defend anyone's freedom.
>> > But nobody is asking you to lift a finger.
>>
>> Here's a hypothetical. You don't have to play, but it would help me to
>> understand where you're coming from with the 'you don't have to lift a
>> finger' aspect. Let's say I have custody of my son. My ex-husband
>> picks him up for a visit and takes the boy for a long drive across the
>> state line to visit the ex's relatives. The ex dies in transit. I
>> phone my in-laws and ask them to take care of my son in until I can come
>> and get him. They magnamously take my child in and then announce that
>> they intend to permantly keep my son for the good of the child.
>>
>> My son likes it there and says he wants to say. The in-laws buy him new
>> clothes and take him to McDonalds and Disneyland. They treat him like a
>> prince. The in-laws are wealthy, they can give him a better education
>> and a much better environment to live in. I, on the other hand, am dumb
>> as a rock, live on a dirt poor reservation where unemployment, alcholism
>> and domestic violence is rife. I insist that my son work for 6 hours a
>> day. Most people would agree hands down that it would be in the best
>> interest of the child to stay with his affluent relatives.
>>
>> Would you lift a finger to help me to get my son back?
>>
>
> This isn't addressed to me, but I'd like to take a cut at it.
>
> You don't mention whether the hypothetical Lynette is a devoted parent who
>has done a conscientious job of instilling integrity and values in the boy, or
>whether she's a neglectful slob.
>
> In the former case, and assuming I were close enough to the principals to
>have all the information: sure, I'd do what I reasonably could to help you get
>the boy back. Material advantages don't carry much weight as far as I'm
>concerned.
>
> In the latter case, I don't see how returning the boy would benefit either
>mother or son. Maybe you should have him back, or maybe not, and if I couldn't
>make an informed judgment I don't think I'd be lifting any fingers.
>
> I don't recognize any kind of inalienable right of a parent to claim custody
>of a child, under any conceivable circumstances, simply by reason of biology.
>I'd never advocate any kind of state action to separate kids from parents, but
>there are conditions (serious abuse or neglect, endangerment) under which
>parties (grandparents, uncles, etc.) who have an interest in a child's well
>being may have a legitimate claim to custody, and may even, in extreme cases, be
>justified in physically removing the child. I don't know if any of those
>circumstances apply in the E.G. case, although I'd say subjecting the boy to
>totalitarian conditions in Cuba is at least arguably abuse.
Arguably?
If it is not terrible harm to take the boy's liberty, then I don't
want to hear any more chin music from Lynette, Robertson, or Cruse
about their own liberty, because after all it's just ideology we're
talking about here, not inalienable rights or anything serious.
If it doesn't hare Elian to take his liberty then it won't harm them
when their's is taken.
> That is to say, I don't know that such circumstances apply and I don't know
>that they don't, and I think a statement like "the boy belongs with his father"
>needs to take into account whether they do or don't.
>
>
>>
>> Lynette
Kipawa Condor
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:12:52 GMT, Kipawa Condor
> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >although I'd say subjecting the boy to
> >totalitarian conditions in Cuba is at least arguably abuse.
>
> Arguably?
>
" . . . at least arguably."
John T. Kennedy
Oh, you want an argument? You're looking for an argument?
Fine pal, 'cause it's GO TIME!
--
-
John Kennedy
Ernest Brown
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:01:27 -0400
> From: John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Subject: Re: Peter Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.; Pro-Castro Bias
Dissected; Gore Exaggerations
>
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:18:26 -0700, "Lynette Warren"
> <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>
> >John T. Kennedy wrote:
> >>
> >> A slave state.
> >
> >Juan Rodriguez doesn't consider himself to be a slave.
>
> Things are what they are. He's a slave or a slaver.
>
> > So far he choses
> >to continue to live in Cuba with his wife and children.
>
> Irrelevant to the issue, but I must also point out that your evidence
> he has chosen any such thing is highly compromised since he's
> currently on loan from a slave state that has control of his parents
> and other loved ones.
>
> > They're his
> >kids, John.
>
> Yes, and as such his legitimate authority over them is limited, is it
> not?
>
>
> > It's wrong for Americans to dictate to Gonzalez where he should live.
>
> I'm not proposing that they do.
>
> But it's certainly moral to prevent him from harming his boy by taking
> his liberty.
>
>
>
> -
>
> John Kennedy
> The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
> http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
> Updated 2/13/00
>
>
It's sad to see Lynette and Rob actually prove Roselle's nonsense true by
making the fascist "'Blood' trumps liberty and human rights" argument in
re Elian.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
Ernest Brown
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
> >back.
>
> Of course he is.
>
> I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
Castro is overthrown). That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state. Once
the boy's soul is destroyed in this manner, they'll have their
justification for not keeping him in this country. "See, look how he
turned out once we 'freed' him!"
Shame would imply a principled committment to freedom and Elian's
well-being. Don't look for that with these wowsers.
Ernest Brown
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Ernest Brown wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> > >
> > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
> > >back.
> >
> > Of course he is.
> >
> > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
What you are really seeing is the upshot of the Libertarian Party's notion
of "participation" in the system. I'd like to think that most members of
that organization would be as outraged as you and I about this
anti-humanistic fiasco. Mr. Robertson's response, however, leaves no doubt
as to what his conception of freedom would have been in, say, 1851. Unlike
the Elian case, there would be a clear Constitutional mandate for him to
act in those circumstances, and after the shock and disappointment of
seeing his collaborationist mentality revealed, I have no doubt that he
would do so with great glee and gusto.
"Land of the Brave, Home of the Free..."
ebr...@my-deja.com
John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(to McCloskey)
> Now Gary's gonna think you're on my payroll.
At least McCloskey, Erb & Co. can honestly say that they -consistently-
oppose the classical liberal justifications for liberty and the
portrayal of Communism as "anti-freedom." I suppose that Lynette and
Rob truly want to agree with them that it was all Cold War propaganda,
and that Castro doesn't put gays and political opponents into slave
labor camps, or have informers everywhere...
Ernest Brown
What Reno wont tell you" -A.M. Rosenthal
The NY Daily News 4/14/00
Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by President Fidel Castro, who is chief
of state, head of government, First Secretary of the Communist Party and
commander in chief of the armed forces.
"President Castro exercises control over all aspects of Cuban life through the
Communist Party and its affiliated mass organizations, the government
bureaucracy and the state security apparatus."
"The judiciary is completely subordinate to the government and to the Communist
Party."
"The government does not allow criticism of the revolution or its leaders. If
President Castro or members of the National Assembly or Council of State are
the objects of criticism, the sentence can be extended to three years. Charges
of disseminating enemy propaganda (which includes merely expressing opinions at
odds with those of the government) can bring sentences of up to 14 years.
"In the government's view, such material as the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, international reports of human rights violations and mainstream foreign
newspapers and magazines constitute enemy propaganda."
Those are verbatim statements from the report on Cuba in 1999 by the State
Department's human rights bureau. They are based entirely on Cuban law and
regulation. The report is available to every member of the Clinton government
and of Congress, which made annual human rights reviews mandatory and generally
ignores them. In fact, it is available to every American and foreigner through
the State Department Web site. Well, not Cubans, of course. Their computers
have been declared the property of the government, and their access to
computers and the Internet are naturally controlled by it.
(snipped for fair use)
(In conclusion...)
But to those Americans and foreigners who use the boy to display their
unlimited compassion, who never use Fidel's word "Communist" for his regime but
pick something more delicate ^× you know, Socialist ^× and who say how do we know
our society is really better for children than Fidel's dictatorship, may I tell
you in all courtesy that you make me sick to my stomach.
(end quote)
Amen to that, Mr. Rosenthal. It's too bad that there are "Libertarians"
who have less appreciation for freedom than you do...
Ernest Brown
> From: ebr...@my-deja.com
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Subject: Re: Peter Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.; Pro-Castro Bias
Dissected; Gore Exaggerations
>
> John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> (to McCloskey)
> > Now Gary's gonna think you're on my payroll.
One should also point out to Mr. Cruse that evasion is only heroic if
you're a submarine captain.
The Jeffersonian hypocrisy of Robertson, Warren, etc. is the "sleep of
reason" that breeds "monsters" such as McCloskey. Nothing causes more
glee in the sight of such enemies of freedom as this "I've got mine, now
you don't get yours" treatment of "liberty" by its erstwhile champions.
Ernest Brown
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Gary Cruse wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:57:29 GMT
> From: Gary Cruse <gcr...@att.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Subject: Re: Peter Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.; Pro-Castro Bias
Dissected; Gore Exaggerations
>
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:07:37 GMT, Kipawa Condor
> <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Lynette Warren wrote:
> >
> >> Liberals who want to kiss Castro's butt and conservatives on the 'Save
> >> Elian' bandwagon forget the one true thing about this case:
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter if the boy is being taken back to Cuba to live in a
> >> mud hut. He belongs with his father.
> >>
> >
> > Why?
>
> The separation of children from their parents by
> government needs its defenders, I suppose.
> But for KC to be one is surprising. Is the
> parent-child bond inferior to the society-child
> bond? That is, should children be removed
> from societies considered inferior to others?
> Against the desires of the parents?
> --
"Parents?" Elian's mother brought him here, no one went to Cuba and drug
Elian out.
Does the "parent-child" bond entitle Juan to throw Elian in a pool of
sharks as an exercise of his parental authority? (Yes, I know that
it's a disanalogy. Sharks would only want to -eat- Elian [and that out of
legitimate hunger], not control every facet of his life and crush his will
to freedom.)
Kipawa Condor
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> > >
> > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
> > >back.
> >
> > Of course he is.
> >
> > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>
> No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
> at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
> Castro is overthrown). That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
> of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
> like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state.
That's not what they really want to see.
From a recent Robertson post:
"The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
blackmailed into claiming him."
Robertson's record here has established that he can be taken at his word
(ditto for Lynette and Cruse). There's plenty o' Castro Catamites your argument
may apply to, but it's beneath you to lump these guys in for the sake of
rhetoric.
> Once
> the boy's soul is destroyed in this manner, they'll have their
> justification for not keeping him in this country. "See, look how he
> turned out once we 'freed' him!"
>
> Shame would imply a principled committment to freedom and Elian's
> well-being. Don't look for that with these wowsers.
>
John T. Kennedy
>In article <JQH3OAGFBg7tlO...@4ax.com>,
> John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> (to McCloskey)
>> Now Gary's gonna think you're on my payroll.
>
>
>At least McCloskey, Erb & Co. can honestly say that they -consistently-
>oppose the classical liberal justifications for liberty and the
>portrayal of Communism as "anti-freedom." I suppose that Lynette and
>Rob truly want to agree with them that it was all Cold War propaganda,
>and that Castro doesn't put gays and political opponents into slave
>labor camps, or have informers everywhere...
No I'm sure that's not what they want but they've made a big mistake
going all fuzzy over this.
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> >
>> > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>> >back.
>>
>> Of course he is.
>>
>> I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>
>No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
>at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
>Castro is overthrown).
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey..............................
Though they are making a terible mistake on this issue, and I have
been harsh with them for it, Rob, Lynette and Gary have certainly
earned a better judgement than that over the years.
It's a blind spot, a very disappointing blind spot but it's not the
least bit fair to say to rejoice over a boot in anyone's face.
They don't get lumped in with the weasels for a blind spot.
> That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
>of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
>like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state. Once
>the boy's soul is destroyed in this manner, they'll have their
>justification for not keeping him in this country. "See, look how he
>turned out once we 'freed' him!"
I think there will be enough shame , no need to fabricate their
motives. These folks are making an error, a bad error, but they have
not earned this.
>
>
>Shame would imply a principled committment to freedom and Elian's
>well-being. Don't look for that with these wowsers.
>
>
>Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
>Submissions welcomed.
Ernest Brown
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Kipawa Condor wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:34:22 GMT
> From: Kipawa Condor <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Subject: Re: Peter Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.; Pro-Castro Bias
Dissected;Gore Exaggerations
>
> Ernest Brown wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
> > > >back.
> > >
> > > Of course he is.
> > >
> > > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
> >
> > No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
> > at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
> > Castro is overthrown). That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
> > of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
> > like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state.
>
> That's not what they really want to see.
>
> From a recent Robertson post:
>
> "The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
> for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
> stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
> blackmailed into claiming him."
Then, if that truly is the case, then there is no "problem," is there?
I have no problem with an unhappy resignation/acceptance of the
inevitable, I have -tons- of problems with morally compromising the
concept of freedom.
One's moral acceptance of freedom and liberty is only as good as one's
willingness to also accept the potential unpleasantness that results from
embracing them.
Under the principles of classical libertarianism (however inconsistent
their advocates might have been in reality), there is no "freedom to
enslave," -period-.
> Robertson's record here has established that he can be taken at his word
> (ditto for Lynette and Cruse). There's plenty o' Castro Catamites your argument
> may apply to, but it's beneath you to lump these guys in for the sake of
> rhetoric.
>
My point about "Jeffersonian hypocrisy" goes to what you are trying to
defend in Robertson here. No one doubts that Jefferson "could be taken at
his word" when he advocated liberty for "some." Whether or not he truly
wanted "liberty and justice for -all-" was tested by his own life and
actions. He was tried and found wanting even by the standards of his own
time. It is just that sort of poisonous attitude that McCloskey and Co.
take up and spew around to discredit the -principles- of liberty, and not
the willful failings of the individual.
Look, I don't pretend to be any better than I am, but I know what I
-should- do if I'm confronted by this sort of anti-freedom mentality -when
I am directly and unavoidably confronted with it and it will cost me
something.-
Ernie
Ernest Brown
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> >
> >At least McCloskey, Erb & Co. can honestly say that they -consistently-
> >oppose the classical liberal justifications for liberty and the
> >portrayal of Communism as "anti-freedom." I suppose that Lynette and
> >Rob truly want to agree with them that it was all Cold War propaganda,
> >and that Castro doesn't put gays and political opponents into slave
> >labor camps, or have informers everywhere...
>
> No I'm sure that's not what they want but they've made a big mistake
> going all fuzzy over this.
>
Well, if there is a "big mistake" that makes them non-culpable, it lies in
not thinking through what they advocate. That -might- be true of Warren,
but Kipawa just gave me a quote from Robertson that (unfortunately) shows
it to not be true for him.
It saddens me, but the truth of the matter is that the test for genuine
commitment to liberty lies in how one handles the hard cases. Robertson
just got an "F-."
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Ernest Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>> > >back.
>> >
>> > Of course he is.
>> >
>> > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>
>
>What you are really seeing is the upshot of the Libertarian Party's notion
>of "participation" in the system. I'd like to think that most members of
>that organization would be as outraged as you and I about this
>anti-humanistic fiasco. Mr. Robertson's response, however, leaves no doubt
>as to what his conception of freedom would have been in, say, 1851. Unlike
>the Elian case, there would be a clear Constitutional mandate for him to
>act in those circumstances, and after the shock and disappointment of
>seeing his collaborationist mentality revealed, I have no doubt that he
>would do so with great glee and gusto.
I don't believe that for a minute.
Rob would not do that.
>
>"Land of the Brave, Home of the Free..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
>Submissions welcomed.
>
John T. Kennedy
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>Ernest Brown wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>> > >back.
>> >
>> > Of course he is.
>> >
>> > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>>
>> No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
>> at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
>> Castro is overthrown). That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
>> of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
>> like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state.
>
> That's not what they really want to see.
>
> From a recent Robertson post:
>
> "The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
>for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
>stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
>blackmailed into claiming him."
>
> Robertson's record here has established that he can be taken at his word
>(ditto for Lynette and Cruse). There's plenty o' Castro Catamites your argument
>may apply to, but it's beneath you to lump these guys in for the sake of
>rhetoric.
Hear, hear.
>
>
>> Once
>> the boy's soul is destroyed in this manner, they'll have their
>> justification for not keeping him in this country. "See, look how he
>> turned out once we 'freed' him!"
>>
>> Shame would imply a principled committment to freedom and Elian's
>> well-being. Don't look for that with these wowsers.
>>
Ernest Brown
-explicitly- links his name to 'libertarianism?'
I'm sorry if my tone offends you or anyone else, but disgusted sarcasm
seems to be the only rational response when I'm confronted by something
like this. Words really can't express my disappointment.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:13:34 -0400
> From: John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Subject: Re: Peter Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.; Pro-Castro Bias
Dissected; Gore Exaggerations
>
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 03:50:02 -0500, Ernest Brown
> <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> >> >
> >> > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
> >> >back.
> >>
> >> Of course he is.
> >>
> >> I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
> >
> >No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
> >at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
> >Castro is overthrown).
>
> Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey..............................
>
> Though they are making a terible mistake on this issue, and I have
> been harsh with them for it, Rob, Lynette and Gary have certainly
> earned a better judgement than that over the years.
>
> It's a blind spot, a very disappointing blind spot but it's not the
> least bit fair to say to rejoice over a boot in anyone's face.
>
> They don't get lumped in with the weasels for a blind spot.
>
> > That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
> >of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
> >like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state. Once
> >the boy's soul is destroyed in this manner, they'll have their
> >justification for not keeping him in this country. "See, look how he
> >turned out once we 'freed' him!"
>
> I think there will be enough shame , no need to fabricate their
> motives. These folks are making an error, a bad error, but they have
> not earned this.
>
> >
> >
Ernest Brown
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> >Ernest Brown wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
> >> > >back.
> >> >
> >> > Of course he is.
> >> >
> >> > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
> >>
> >> No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
> >> at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
> >> Castro is overthrown). That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
> >> of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
> >> like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state.
> >
> > That's not what they really want to see.
> >
> > From a recent Robertson post:
> >
> > "The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
> >for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
> >stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
> >blackmailed into claiming him."
> >
> > Robertson's record here has established that he can be taken at his word
> >(ditto for Lynette and Cruse). There's plenty o' Castro Catamites your argument
> >may apply to, but it's beneath you to lump these guys in for the sake of
> >rhetoric.
>
> Hear, hear.
I'm afraid that I'm compelled to take Rob "at his word" when he says the
the boy -should- be sent back to slavery.
John T. Kennedy
>
>
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> >
>> > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>> >back.
>>
>> Of course he is.
>>
>> I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>
>No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
Rob, my friend, though I have been harshly critical of you on this
issue I hope you know I want no part of *this*. You've stood up for me
many times against similar baseless charges, never think for a minute
I won't stand up for you.
You're as good a man as I've ever met.
Gary and Lynette are not "blood facists" either.
You folks have made a serious error and I fully intend to continue
raking you over the coals for it, but not but I can't Ernest Brown's
baseless accusations pass in silence.
Ernest has made a serious error now too.
Ernest Brown
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:45:39 -0400
> From: John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Subject: Attention Robertson
Which I apologized for before you posted this, John.
However, the argument as presented is that Elian's blood relationship with
his father somehow 'trumps' Elian's ostensible right to liberty.
Ernest Brown
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Ernest Brown wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:09:13 -0500
> From: Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Subject: Re: Attention Robertson
Ernest Brown
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> (snip)
> I don't believe that for a minute.
>
> Rob would not do that.
I must agree and apologize.
Based on what Kipawa posted, Rob would merely shake his head sadly and
say, "I -wish- that fugitive slaves could remain free, but..."
This, however, doesn't make me any less livid...
but it also doesn't justify trying to metaphorically "slap some sense"
into Rob & Co. either, which was my explicit intention. Upon further
review and with all honesty, I caught myself -enjoying- what I was doing,
and that's just not right.
Rob, I apologize for letting my anger at what you wrote dictate the
-style- of my responses to you. The argumentative substance, which John
has done a better job of explicating, still holds true, unfortunately.
Ernie
Ernest Brown
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> (snip)
> Ernest has made a serious error now too.
Mea culpa, I can hardly have the "face" to criticize Gary Cruse for
"emotional rhetoric" three weeks ago only to engage in it now myself.
Ernest Brown
Northbrook's way and wish him "good reading" with Bastiat's THE LAW.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Ernest Brown wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:30:11 -0500
> From: Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Subject: Re: Attention Robertson
>
>
>
Kipawa Condor
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> > >Ernest Brown wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
> > >> > >back.
> > >> >
> > >> > Of course he is.
> > >> >
> > >> > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
> > >>
> > >> No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
> > >> at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
> > >> Castro is overthrown). That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
> > >> of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
> > >> like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state.
> > >
> > > That's not what they really want to see.
> > >
> > > From a recent Robertson post:
> > >
> > > "The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
> > >for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
> > >stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
> > >blackmailed into claiming him."
> > >
> > > Robertson's record here has established that he can be taken at his word
> > >(ditto for Lynette and Cruse). There's plenty o' Castro Catamites your argument
> > >may apply to, but it's beneath you to lump these guys in for the sake of
> > >rhetoric.
> >
> > Hear, hear.
>
> I'm afraid that I'm compelled to take Rob "at his word" when he says the
> the boy -should- be sent back to slavery.
It's very simple:
I provided a quote from Robertson saying, in part, that he wants the boy to stay
here. You claim that's not the case. Whom to believe? I take Rob at his word
regarding the contents of his own mind. I'd extend you the same courtesy, were the
roles reversed.
You know quite well what I meant, and I think you know enough of the character of
Robertson (et al.) to know that you're misrepresenting his support of the parent-child
relationship as support of communist totalitarianism. Why are you mangling the
concepts to score cheap rhetorical points?
Kipawa Condor
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:45:39 -0400
> > From: John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com>
> > Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> > Subject: Attention Robertson
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 03:50:02 -0500, Ernest Brown
> > <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
> > >> >back.
> > >>
> > >> Of course he is.
> > >>
> > >> I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
> > >
> > >No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
> >
> > Rob, my friend, though I have been harshly critical of you on this
> > issue I hope you know I want no part of *this*. You've stood up for me
> > many times against similar baseless charges, never think for a minute
> > I won't stand up for you.
> >
> > You're as good a man as I've ever met.
> >
> > Gary and Lynette are not "blood facists" either.
> >
> > You folks have made a serious error and I fully intend to continue
> > raking you over the coals for it, but not but I can't Ernest Brown's
> > baseless accusations pass in silence.
> >
> > Ernest has made a serious error now too.
> >
>
> Which I apologized for before you posted this, John.
>
> However, the argument as presented is that Elian's blood relationship with
> his father somehow 'trumps' Elian's ostensible right to liberty.
>
Yes, that appears to be the argument. I think that argument is wrong, but
not self-evidently so.
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>
>> >
>> >At least McCloskey, Erb & Co. can honestly say that they -consistently-
>> >oppose the classical liberal justifications for liberty and the
>> >portrayal of Communism as "anti-freedom." I suppose that Lynette and
>> >Rob truly want to agree with them that it was all Cold War propaganda,
>> >and that Castro doesn't put gays and political opponents into slave
>> >labor camps, or have informers everywhere...
>>
>> No I'm sure that's not what they want but they've made a big mistake
>> going all fuzzy over this.
>>
>
>Well, if there is a "big mistake" that makes them non-culpable,
I never suggested they are not responsible for their error.
> it lies in
>not thinking through what they advocate. That -might- be true of Warren,
>but Kipawa just gave me a quote from Robertson that (unfortunately) shows
>it to not be true for him.
>
>It saddens me, but the truth of the matter is that the test for genuine
>commitment to liberty lies in how one handles the hard cases. Robertson
>just got an "F-."
Flunking a test does not a weasel make. He's earned as much time as he
needs to get this one right. Far be it from me to say you can't give
him both barrels for being wrong, but the blood facist stuff is beyond
the pale in this case.
What Rob is doing is recognizing a right tof parents to raise their
children, which is well enough, but he is failing to recognize proper
limits to parental authority which is a big mistake.
It is surely disappointing but it doesn't put him out with the
garbage.
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Kipawa Condor wrote:
>
>> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:34:22 GMT
>> From: Kipawa Condor <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net>
>> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
>> Subject: Re: Peter Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.; Pro-Castro Bias
> Dissected;Gore Exaggerations
>>
>> Ernest Brown wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>> > > >back.
>> > >
>> > > Of course he is.
>> > >
>> > > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>> >
>> > No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
>> > at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
>> > Castro is overthrown). That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
>> > of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
>> > like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state.
>>
>> That's not what they really want to see.
>>
>> From a recent Robertson post:
>>
>> "The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
>> for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
>> stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
>> blackmailed into claiming him."
>
>Then, if that truly is the case, then there is no "problem," is there?
>
>I have no problem with an unhappy resignation/acceptance of the
>inevitable, I have -tons- of problems with morally compromising the
>concept of freedom.
What is at stake her is not any concept of liberty but the boy's
actual liberty itself.
His liberty is not an idea, it is a real condition.
>
>One's moral acceptance of freedom and liberty is only as good as one's
>willingness to also accept the potential unpleasantness that results from
>embracing them.
Yes.
>
>Under the principles of classical libertarianism (however inconsistent
>their advocates might have been in reality), there is no "freedom to
>enslave," -period-.
Just so.
>
>
>> Robertson's record here has established that he can be taken at his word
>> (ditto for Lynette and Cruse). There's plenty o' Castro Catamites your argument
>> may apply to, but it's beneath you to lump these guys in for the sake of
>> rhetoric.
>>
>
>My point about "Jeffersonian hypocrisy" goes to what you are trying to
>defend in Robertson here. No one doubts that Jefferson "could be taken at
>his word" when he advocated liberty for "some." Whether or not he truly
>wanted "liberty and justice for -all-" was tested by his own life and
>actions. He was tried and found wanting even by the standards of his own
>time.
That's fair.
> It is just that sort of poisonous attitude that McCloskey and Co.
>take up and spew around to discredit the -principles- of liberty, and not
>the willful failings of the individual.
Yet I have not the slighttest difficulty discerning a profound
difference between McCloskey & Co. on the one side and Jefferson,
Robertson, Warren, and Cruze on the other.
>
>Look, I don't pretend to be any better than I am, but I know what I
>-should- do if I'm confronted by this sort of anti-freedom mentality -when
>I am directly and unavoidably confronted with it and it will cost me
>something.-
It's fair to give them both barrels, but not to equate them with the
weasels.
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>How can this be an excusable mistake -now-, John, especially by one who
>-explicitly- links his name to 'libertarianism?'
I'm not excusing Rob of *anything*. I'm counting on his character to
get this right in time, and his character is a known quality to me.
>
>I'm sorry if my tone offends you or anyone else, but disgusted sarcasm
>seems to be the only rational response when I'm confronted by something
>like this.
If as sarcasm it was merely intended to be a shock to the system, a
wake up call, that's okay. I can accept it as disgusted sarcasm, as
long as at the end of the day you make clear that Rob, Lynette, and
Cruse are not any sort of facists.
>Words really can't express my disappointment.
I understand that, I am disappointed too.
>
>
>
>Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
>Submissions welcomed.
>
>
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>
>> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:13:34 -0400
>> From: John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
>> Subject: Re: Peter Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.; Pro-Castro Bias
> Dissected; Gore Exaggerations
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 03:50:02 -0500, Ernest Brown
>> <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>> >> >back.
>> >>
>> >> Of course he is.
>> >>
>> >> I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>> >
>> >No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
>> >at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
>> >Castro is overthrown).
>>
>> Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey..............................
>>
>> Though they are making a terible mistake on this issue, and I have
>> been harsh with them for it, Rob, Lynette and Gary have certainly
>> earned a better judgement than that over the years.
>>
>> It's a blind spot, a very disappointing blind spot but it's not the
>> least bit fair to say to rejoice over a boot in anyone's face.
>>
>> They don't get lumped in with the weasels for a blind spot.
>>
>> > That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
>> >of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
>> >like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state. Once
>> >the boy's soul is destroyed in this manner, they'll have their
>> >justification for not keeping him in this country. "See, look how he
>> >turned out once we 'freed' him!"
>>
>> I think there will be enough shame , no need to fabricate their
>> motives. These folks are making an error, a bad error, but they have
>> not earned this.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Shame would imply a principled committment to freedom and Elian's
>> >well-being. Don't look for that with these wowsers.
>> >
>> >
>> >Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
>> >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
>> >Submissions welcomed.
>>
>>
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> >Ernest Brown wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>> >> > >back.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course he is.
>> >> >
>> >> > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>> >>
>> >> No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
>> >> at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
>> >> Castro is overthrown). That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
>> >> of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
>> >> like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state.
>> >
>> > That's not what they really want to see.
>> >
>> > From a recent Robertson post:
>> >
>> > "The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
>> >for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
>> >stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
>> >blackmailed into claiming him."
>> >
>> > Robertson's record here has established that he can be taken at his word
>> >(ditto for Lynette and Cruse). There's plenty o' Castro Catamites your argument
>> >may apply to, but it's beneath you to lump these guys in for the sake of
>> >rhetoric.
>>
>> Hear, hear.
>
>I'm afraid that I'm compelled to take Rob "at his word" when he says the
>the boy -should- be sent back to slavery.
>
That's fair, but it's an error, however serious, and does not destroy
the respect of a sensible person for Rob's record here.
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>
>> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:45:39 -0400
>> From: John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
>> Subject: Attention Robertson
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 03:50:02 -0500, Ernest Brown
>> <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>> >> >back.
>> >>
>> >> Of course he is.
>> >>
>> >> I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>> >
>> >No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
>>
>> Rob, my friend, though I have been harshly critical of you on this
>> issue I hope you know I want no part of *this*. You've stood up for me
>> many times against similar baseless charges, never think for a minute
>> I won't stand up for you.
>>
>> You're as good a man as I've ever met.
>>
>> Gary and Lynette are not "blood facists" either.
>>
>> You folks have made a serious error and I fully intend to continue
>> raking you over the coals for it, but not but I can't Ernest Brown's
>> baseless accusations pass in silence.
>>
>> Ernest has made a serious error now too.
>>
>
>
>Which I apologized for before you posted this, John.
That's fine. I'm very emotionally engaged in this issue too, and if I
step over the line I expect you to tell me so.
>
>
>However, the argument as presented is that Elian's blood relationship with
>his father somehow 'trumps' Elian's ostensible right to liberty.
Yes that is their argument and it fails as you point out. So tell them
the unvarnished truth about it, but don't make them out to be facists.
John T. Kennedy
<raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>Ernest Brown wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> > >Ernest Brown wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > But none of you should worry about it. Elian is going to go
>> > >> > >back.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Of course he is.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I hope all of these folks hot to send him back learn some shame.
>> > >>
>> > >> No, Lynette, Rob and the other "blood fascists" will be too busy rejoicing
>> > >> at the notion of "a boot stamping into Elian's face forever" (or until
>> > >> Castro is overthrown). That's if Elian is lucky and retains some measure
>> > >> of appreciation of freedom. What they really want to see is Elian become
>> > >> like his father, an informant and shill for the totalitarian state.
>> > >
>> > > That's not what they really want to see.
>> > >
>> > > From a recent Robertson post:
>> > >
>> > > "The problem is using the political structure of Cuba as justification
>> > >for keeping his father from reclaiming his son. I *want* the boy to
>> > >stay here in the U.S., and I think the father has been essentially
>> > >blackmailed into claiming him."
>> > >
>> > > Robertson's record here has established that he can be taken at his word
>> > >(ditto for Lynette and Cruse). There's plenty o' Castro Catamites your argument
>> > >may apply to, but it's beneath you to lump these guys in for the sake of
>> > >rhetoric.
>> >
>> > Hear, hear.
>>
>> I'm afraid that I'm compelled to take Rob "at his word" when he says the
>> the boy -should- be sent back to slavery.
>
> It's very simple:
>
> I provided a quote from Robertson saying, in part, that he wants the boy to stay
>here. You claim that's not the case. Whom to believe? I take Rob at his word
>regarding the contents of his own mind. I'd extend you the same courtesy, were the
>roles reversed.
>
> You know quite well what I meant, and I think you know enough of the character of
>Robertson (et al.) to know that you're misrepresenting his support of the parent-child
>relationship as support of communist totalitarianism. Why are you mangling the
>concepts to score cheap rhetorical points?
For Ernest: You're right in everything you say about Elian and
slavery, but wrong about Rob. Good people make bad mistakes and when
they do we should target the error not the person.
Of course with weasels feel free to target anything you like, but Rob
is nothing like a weasel as his long record exhaustively demonstrates.
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>
>> (snip)
>> Ernest has made a serious error now too.
>
>
>Mea culpa, I can hardly have the "face" to criticize Gary Cruse for
>"emotional rhetoric" three weeks ago only to engage in it now myself.
>
This is the Ernest I like and respect. I knew it was you all along.
I think it's important to marshal our emotional energy in service to
our reason, but sometimes it marshals us.
Carry on sir.
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>While we're on the subject of apologies, let me send one Andrew
>Northbrook's way and wish him "good reading" with Bastiat's THE LAW.
Oh no, don't *you* go all bleeding heart now!
John T. Kennedy
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
>
>> (snip)
>> I don't believe that for a minute.
>>
>> Rob would not do that.
>
>
>I must agree and apologize.
>
>Based on what Kipawa posted, Rob would merely shake his head sadly and
>say, "I -wish- that fugitive slaves could remain free, but..."
I don't believe that either. Astonishing as it seems to you and me,
Rob has not fully integrated the fact that the Cubans *are* slaves.
Few have. Until you showed up I think Schneider and I have been the
only ones here calling a spade a spade and a slave a slave. Nobody
else wants to use the word slave. Condor and Beck have been
respectable, but neither has seen fit to use the word in this context,
unless I missed it.
Now a pinhead like semi will argue that they are not slaves for all
sorts of stupid reasons, but Rob, Lynette, and Gary have at least the
sense not to go there. When I challenge them to explain the difference
in principle between slavery and life under Castro's totalitarian
dictatorship they uniformly drop the subject without answering.
I got furthest with Cruse, he said he would not return a boy to
slavery, but Elian was not facing slavery. He's completely at a loss
though to explain why it's not slavery.
Keep hammering and give it a chance to sink in. These folk are worth
the effort.
>
>
>This, however, doesn't make me any less livid...
It's okay to be livid.
>
>
>
>but it also doesn't justify trying to metaphorically "slap some sense"
>into Rob & Co. either, which was my explicit intention. Upon further
>review and with all honesty, I caught myself -enjoying- what I was doing,
>and that's just not right.
>
>Rob, I apologize for letting my anger at what you wrote dictate the
>-style- of my responses to you. The argumentative substance, which John
>has done a better job of explicating, still holds true, unfortunately.
>
Can't say fairer than that.
Billy Beck
John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>>While we're on the subject of apologies, let me send one Andrew
>>Northbrook's way and wish him "good reading" with Bastiat's THE LAW.
>
>Oh no, don't *you* go all bleeding heart now!
*I* never liked *any* youse motherfuckers.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>
>John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>While we're on the subject of apologies, let me send one Andrew
>>>Northbrook's way and wish him "good reading" with Bastiat's THE LAW.
>>
>>Oh no, don't *you* go all bleeding heart now!
>
> *I* never liked *any* youse motherfuckers.
>
Don't you have to just hate someone who can *never* leave well enough
alone?
Billy Beck
John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>Based on what Kipawa posted, Rob would merely shake his head sadly and
>>say, "I -wish- that fugitive slaves could remain free, but..."
>
>I don't believe that either. Astonishing as it seems to you and me,
>Rob has not fully integrated the fact that the Cubans *are* slaves.
>Few have. Until you showed up I think Schneider and I have been the
>only ones here calling a spade a spade and a slave a slave. Nobody
>else wants to use the word slave. Condor and Beck have been
>respectable, but neither has seen fit to use the word in this context,
>unless I missed it.
>Now a pinhead like semi will argue that they are not slaves for all
>sorts of stupid reasons, but Rob, Lynette, and Gary have at least the
>sense not to go there. When I challenge them to explain the difference
>in principle between slavery and life under Castro's totalitarian
>dictatorship they uniformly drop the subject without answering.
>
>I got furthest with Cruse, he said he would not return a boy to
>slavery, but Elian was not facing slavery. He's completely at a loss
>though to explain why it's not slavery.
>
>Keep hammering and give it a chance to sink in. These folk are worth
>the effort.
Last evening in a good friend's home his wonderful wife inquired
of my views of this as we sipped.
It reached a point where I was reiterating America as the last
hope of liberty in the world (a concept defensible into the digital
age, BTW, so shut up, Broward), as a matter of breaking through this
nonsense of "parental rights" *in *this* *case* because of the *fact*
of *Communist* *Cuba*.
Elian is not going home to his father.
That fact is not the same as saying that he should not be with
his father, which is where all the noise is focused.
Don't buy the premise.
Billy Beck
John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>While we're on the subject of apologies, let me send one Andrew
>>>>Northbrook's way and wish him "good reading" with Bastiat's THE LAW.
>>>
>>>Oh no, don't *you* go all bleeding heart now!
>>
>> *I* never liked *any* youse motherfuckers.
>Don't you have to just hate someone who can *never* leave well enough
>alone?
Well, yeah, but at least I'm good at it, too. And *really*
humble about it. If I was to spell out how humble I really am about
how good I am at hating all kinds of stuff, why, I'd be the most
lovable guy you know.
Ernest Brown
reasons.
Lynette has never, to my knowledge, set herself up as a champion of
classical liberalism or modern "libertarianism." The fact that she has
said pro-liberty things in the past is no justification for lumping her in
with my disappointment with Rob and acting in such an ungentlemanly
fashion. For this reason, I actually owe her more of an apology since
neither the "fact" or the form of my little "venting" was appropriate.
I owe Gary an apology for a different reason. Unless my memory is faulty,
I don't think I -directly- lumped him in with Ron and Lynette. My "and
Co." remark was directed more towards Objectivists (yes, Objectivists!)
that I saw online making the same arguments. I actually was expecting Gary
to support sending Elian back, which is why my direct post to him argues
against the notion that parental authority is unlimited rather than
making appeals to a "libertarian" notion of freedom. One of the problems
with that sort of intemperate rhetoric is that it can tar others in a way
unintended even by the writer!
BTW, Beck -fils-'s calm and diplomatic reference to "people" whom he
expected to have a more consistent notion of freedom was a clue that I had
overstepped myself.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:28:04 -0400
> From: John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Subject: Re: A General Apology (Re: Peter Unsure Elian Better Off in U.S.;
Pro-Castro Bias Dissected; Gore Exaggerations)
>
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:01:55 -0500, Ernest Brown
> <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, John T. Kennedy wrote:
> >
> >> (snip)
> >> I don't believe that for a minute.
> >>
> >> Rob would not do that.
> >
> >
> >I must agree and apologize.
> >
> >Based on what Kipawa posted, Rob would merely shake his head sadly and
> >say, "I -wish- that fugitive slaves could remain free, but..."
>
> I don't believe that either. Astonishing as it seems to you and me,
> Rob has not fully integrated the fact that the Cubans *are* slaves.
> Few have. Until you showed up I think Schneider and I have been the
> only ones here calling a spade a spade and a slave a slave. Nobody
> else wants to use the word slave. Condor and Beck have been
> respectable, but neither has seen fit to use the word in this context,
> unless I missed it.
>
>
> Now a pinhead like semi will argue that they are not slaves for all
> sorts of stupid reasons, but Rob, Lynette, and Gary have at least the
> sense not to go there. When I challenge them to explain the difference
> in principle between slavery and life under Castro's totalitarian
> dictatorship they uniformly drop the subject without answering.
>
> I got furthest with Cruse, he said he would not return a boy to
> slavery, but Elian was not facing slavery. He's completely at a loss
> though to explain why it's not slavery.
>
> Keep hammering and give it a chance to sink in. These folk are worth
> the effort.
>
> >
> >
> >This, however, doesn't make me any less livid...
>
> It's okay to be livid.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >but it also doesn't justify trying to metaphorically "slap some sense"
> >into Rob & Co. either, which was my explicit intention. Upon further
> >review and with all honesty, I caught myself -enjoying- what I was doing,
> >and that's just not right.
> >
> >Rob, I apologize for letting my anger at what you wrote dictate the
> >-style- of my responses to you. The argumentative substance, which John
> >has done a better job of explicating, still holds true, unfortunately.
> >
>
> Can't say fairer than that.
>
Ernest Brown
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Billy Beck wrote:
>(snip)
> Well, yeah, but at least I'm good at it, too. And *really*
> humble about it. If I was to spell out how humble I really am about
> how good I am at hating all kinds of stuff, why, I'd be the most
> lovable guy you know.
>
>
> Billy
>
> VRWC Fronteer
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
>
>
How humble is that?
(running for cover)