Apology for EXPO posting.
and...@ubc-cs.uucp
>PS. Do come and visit EXPO 86. It's crowded but then so is Disneyland.
Right on!
Come and visit EXPO 86!
Spend massively on three days of decadence while people on welfare
fish pop cans out of garbage bins outside the fairgrounds!
Support the self-publicity campaign of the most socially insensitive
government this side of Maggie Thatcher (i.e. the so-called "Social
Credit" provincial government of Bill Bennett)!
Support the provincial government that has presided over massive
spending cuts and enrolment drops at universities, and then
appointed one of its publicity men to a post at UBC!
Support the provincial government which made huge spending cuts in
social services and then gave free handouts to foreign coal interests!
Support the only provincial government which still sells South
African wines in its liquor stores!
Support a political party which has absolutely no political
philosophy except to get re-elected and keep out the "socialists"
(a political party approximately equivalent to the SDP in Britain)!
Above all, come and wait in hour-long lineups to get into the good-
quality exhibits and then get so p***ed off that you go into the
other pavilions and see some kind of 8mm travelogue and get the local
wares of the country pushed on you and then get ripped off for food
at one of the several Macdonalds that form the main form of nutrition
at the fairgrounds, and then go home without seeing any more of
the rest of Vancouver, the rest of British Columbia, or the rest of
Canada!
I know about that last bit only second-hand, of course. I'm boycotting it.
--Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"Que es mas macho: `lightbulb' o `schoolbus'?"
Timothy Lee
> African wines in its liquor stores!
You mean the provincial government owns all the liquor stores? Besides,
no one said that you had to BUY wines that are made in South Africa.
("What? You mean to say that Johannesburg Repression isn't the same as
Johannisberg Reisling?" :-)
Jim Tubman
>In article <2...@mdivax1.UUCP> nel...@mdivax1.UUCP (nelson) writes:
>>PS. Do come and visit EXPO 86. It's crowded but then so is Disneyland.
>
>Right on!
>
> Come and visit EXPO 86!
>
>
> Above all, come and wait in hour-long lineups to get into the good-
> quality exhibits and then get so p***ed off that you go into the
> other pavilions and see some kind of 8mm travelogue and get the local
> wares of the country pushed on you and then get ripped off for food
> at one of the several Macdonalds that form the main form of nutrition
> at the fairgrounds, and then go home without seeing any more of
> the rest of Vancouver, the rest of British Columbia, or the rest of
> Canada!
>
>I know about that last bit only second-hand, of course. I'm boycotting it.
>
>--Jamie.
>...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
>"Que es mas macho: `lightbulb' o `schoolbus'?"
Actually, a friend of mine who actually went and checked it out said that
the prices at the Expo McDonald's are exactly the same as the prices at
all the other McDonald's in Vancouver, and that these prices are significantly
cheaper than those in Saskatoon (my current home).
Everybody that I know that went (>= 20 people) said it was great.
I'm going.
Jim Tubman
Just Visiting at the
University of Waterloo
tubman@skorpio,
tubman@skvlsi,
jbtubman@watdragon
Jim Robinson
> African wines in its liquor stores!
Not only do they sell South African wines, but also Russian vodka!!!!
When will these horrors cease :-)?
> Support a political party which has absolutely no political
> philosophy except to get re-elected and keep out the "socialists"
> (a political party approximately equivalent to the SDP in Britain)!
Actually, there is something to be said for keeping the socialists (note
the lack of quotation marks) out. Also, in my opinion it would be more
fair to compare the NDP (Canada's socialist party) to Britain's Labour
party. If for no other reason than both parties are basically the political
arms of the labour unions.
>
> Above all, come and wait in hour-long lineups to get into the good-
> quality exhibits and then get so p***ed off that you go into the
> other pavilions and see some kind of 8mm travelogue and get the local
> wares of the country pushed on you and then get ripped off for food
> at one of the several Macdonalds that form the main form of nutrition
> at the fairgrounds, and then go home without seeing any more of
> the rest of Vancouver, the rest of British Columbia, or the rest of
> Canada!
>
>I know about that last bit only second-hand, of course. I'm boycotting it.
>
What is really kinda interesting is that the leader of the provincial
socialist party is *not* telling people to boycott EXPO. In fact, he
says that even though he was against it, now that it's a reality it
behooves British Columbians to try to make it as much a success as
possible.
J.B. Robinson
P.S. Nearly everyone that I've talked to who has been to EXPO thought
it was great. I'll be there next month.
Jamie Andrews
>You mean the provincial government owns all the liquor stores?
Yes. This is Canada; the provincial governments license all sales
of liquor, and only in Quebec can you get liquor outside government-owned
stores (and then it's only beer and wine, in corner groceries). Of
course all you God-fearing capitalists out there should be up in arms
about this.
> ... Besides,
>no one said that you had to BUY wines that are made in South Africa.
Neither does the provincial government.
--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"Let the flesh instruct the mind"
Jamie Andrews
back and he's mostly harmless. :-)]
In article <23...@hcrvx2.UUCP> ji...@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Not only do they sell South African wines, but also Russian vodka!!!!
>When will these horrors cease :-)?
I would believe JBR's comments along these lines (of which he's made
many before) if he truly believed in doing anything about *either* South
Africa *or* Russia. In fact he uses this feeble line of argument to
support taking no action at all.
>Actually, there is something to be said for keeping the socialists (note
>the lack of quotation marks) out. Also, in my opinion it would be more
>fair to compare the NDP (Canada's socialist party) to Britain's Labour
>party. If for no other reason than both parties are basically the political
>arms of the labour unions.
Which shows that JBR has not much understanding of either the NDP or
Britain's Labour party. We can excuse this since he's basically an American.
Most NDPers say they're "social democrats". What's ironic is that the
coalition of right-wing opportunists which is now in government calls
itself the "Social Credit" ("Socred") party.
>What is really kinda interesting is that the leader of the provincial
>socialist [sic] party is *not* telling people to boycott EXPO. In fact, he
>says that even though he was against it, now that it's a reality it
>behooves British Columbians to try to make it as much a success as
>possible.
Actually, as JBR knows, he's just doing the politically expedient
thing. The Socreds knew that since the BC electorate was dumb enough
to elect *them*, they would be dumb enough to be dazzled by a money-losing
world fair and support it to the last. The NDP leader knows this too,
so doesn't want to be seen as being against it. This is called politics.
I think JBR is just frustrated since he lives in a province run by
the Liberals and the NDP now, and he doesn't have a chance to vote for his
beloved Socreds anymore. Too bad the rest of the world doesn't have access
to the newsgroup can.politics, wherein we discuss all kinds of things like
this. However, we should probably not turn net.followup into another
can.politics.
--Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh"
Don Acton
> Spend massively on three days of decadence while people on welfare
> fish pop cans out of garbage bins outside the fairgrounds!
pop cans out of the garbage bins, that is too much work. More likely it
is someone, who for whatever reason chooses not to collect welfare or is
ignorant that it exists. I have probably been to the Expo site more than
Jamie has and I can't say I have ever seen anyone hunting through the
garbage outside the grounds.
> Support the provincial government that has presided over massive
> spending cuts and enrollment drops at universities
Massive enrollment drops at universities? I seem to recall it being the
other way around except for perhaps this past academic year. I thought
it was the enrollment increases combined with reduced grants to
universities that caused a problem in some areas.
> Support the provincial government which made huge spending cuts in
> social services and then gave free handouts to foreign coal interests!
Cuts in social spending? The Socreds on a percentage and constant dollars
basis spend more on social services then the NDP did in 1975. Education,
health care and welfare make up about 75% of the provincial budget.
> African wines in its liquor stores!
This is typical NDP thinking. If I don't think that you should have
something, for whatever the reason then you won't. Why don't you try and
convince the people not to buy something instead of saying I won't give
you the choice.
> Above all, come and wait in hour-long lineups to get into the good-
> quality exhibits and then get so p***ed off that you go into the
> [more of a diatribe against expo]
....and then go home without seeing any more of
> the rest of Vancouver, the rest of British Columbia, or the rest of
> Canada!
> I know about that last bit only second-hand, of course. I'm boycotting it.
As you yourself say the last bit is second hand. What have you been
reading the Ubyssey? I have been to Expo quite a few times (>10) and
can't say that waiting in lines was an unpleasant experience as far as
that goes. I did wait an hour once to get into the Ontario Pavilion but
that was because my folks wanted to see it. If we had waited until later
in the day the wait was only a half hour. Other than that I have never
waited more than about 10 minutes and I have seen all the major
pavilions and the minor ones too. But there is more to Expo than the
pavilions there are the free concerts, street entertainment and theme
plazas which in themselves can occupy a whole day.
>Most NDPers say they're "social democrats".
People can say they are anything they want but that doesn't mean that
is what they are. The NDP is that just like all political parties
support those who got them into power. The trouble is that this always
ends up costing the taxpayers more money. Their power base lies with the
unions and professionals like teachers and social workers :-) who are
dependent upon the provincial government for their jobs. Obviously we
need these type of people in society but the NDP goes out of their way
to make life more comfortable for them at the expense of others. For
example when the NDP was in power they passed legislation that said that only
unionized firms could supply certain services and as everyone knows
union wages are much higher then the market is willing to pay. Just ask
a unionized construction worker how much he has worked lately. If he has
worked at all it has probably been on Expo, the Coquihalla (sp) Highway,
the Skytrain or one of the other mega-projects that Jamie despises so
much. But the unions weren't happy with doing 80% of the work on these
projects they wanted it all. No doubt the NDP would be more than happy
to oblige if they ever got into power again. How is excluding a large
segment of society from bidding on government contracts democratic? Any
just what is a "social democrat"?
> The Socreds knew that since the BC electorate was dumb enough
>to elect *them*, they would be dumb enough to be dazzled by a money-losing
>world fair and support it to the last.
If the population is dumb when they elect the Socreds then they are as
equally dumb when they elect the NDP. The election of an NDP governemnte
wouldn't signal a sudden increase in the IQ of the general population.
Although the fair itself may loss money how much money is going to be
spent in BC by the tourists? The fair is half over and there has been an
increase of 5 million tourists over last year. Let's say 2 million of that is
because of Expo. When those people are in Canada they are going to spend
money which will go to more salaries and yes that dirty word profits.
This will result in increased tax revenues and general economic
activity and no doubt that will more than offset any debt the fair has.
But then again the fair is being funded through the provincial lottery
so it is only the lottery players who are footing the bill.
I think the fair is great and invite all of you to come to it. But as
Jamie said it would be a shame if you didn't see the rest of Vancouver
or British Columbia. If you come to the fair this year and look around
a bit then it will just whet your appetite for more of Super Natural BC
and you will be back again next year.
Donald Acton
Jamie Andrews
>If the population is dumb when they elect the Socreds then they are as
>equally dumb when they elect the NDP. The election of an NDP governemnte
>wouldn't signal a sudden increase in the IQ of the general population.
On the other hand, if Don Acton moved to Ontario from BC, it would
cause a sudden increase in the average IQ of both provinces. (badaboom)
This debate is getting to be a silly can.politics rehash, and is
certainly no longer appropriate for net.followup. But I **ABJURE** the
practice of "getting the last word" by posting a massive article to one
newsgroup that the entire world can see, and then restricting followups
to an extremely restricted newsgroup!!!!!
I was simply letting the world know that not everyone in BC
supports Expo; some people seem to think I should be shouted down for
doing it. Well, that's Usenet, eh?
--Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"I asked him to say what had happened, how it all began"
Jim Robinson
> back and he's mostly harmless. :-)]
Harmless, eh? Good thing we're separated by the Rockies. :-)
>In article <23...@hcrvx2.UUCP> ji...@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>Not only do they sell South African wines, but also Russian vodka!!!!
>>When will these horrors cease :-)?
>
> I would believe JBR's comments along these lines (of which he's made
>many before) if he truly believed in doing anything about *either* South
>Africa *or* Russia. In fact he uses this feeble line of argument to
>support taking no action at all.
Not true. I merely find it ironic that after watching the Soviet Union
treat its 275 million citizens in a decidedly undemocratic manner for
decades, I am suddenly supposed to get all worked up over 25 million
South Africans. If Canada is going to impose economic sanctions against
S.A. because Apartheid is wrong, then it has a moral obligation to do
likewise with the S.U. To claim that that the Soviet system is any less
repugnant is to insult those who were:
a) killed in the 1956 Hungary uprising
b) killed trying to cross the Berlin Wall
c) sent to asylums for the insane because they did not voice the "correct"
ideology.
d) etc, etc, etc.
Ontario no longer sells S.A. wine, but, it still imports S.A. manganese.
Why this hypocritical situation? Because, by refusing to sell S.A. wine
the gov't gives the appearance of doing something about S.A. *and* gets
to help the local wine industry to boot; manganese, on the other
hand, is needed by the Ontario steel industry and would thus actually
cause some economic pain if no longer imported. When push comes to
shove votes are the only things that count - even in Ontario.
So, to put it bluntly, what is the justification for a ban on S.A.
wines but allowing Russian vodka free run of the liquor stores?
[While we're on a role here, why don't we impose sanctions against
those countries in the Middle East that treat women only somewhat
better than furniture? - that's actually just a trick question since
we all know what the answer is]
>>Actually, there is something to be said for keeping the socialists (note
>>the lack of quotation marks) out. Also, in my opinion it would be more
>>fair to compare the NDP (Canada's socialist party) to Britain's Labour
>>party. If for no other reason than both parties are basically the political
>>arms of the labour unions.
>
> Which shows that JBR has not much understanding of either the NDP or
>Britain's Labour party. We can excuse this since he's basically an American.
>Most NDPers say they're "social democrats". What's ironic is that the
>coalition of right-wing opportunists which is now in government calls
>itself the "Social Credit" ("Socred") party.
And I have heard/read many NDPers describe themselves as socialists.
Just out of curiosity how do the NDP and Britain's labour party differ.
Are both not beholden to the labour unions? Are both not non-militaristic
to the point of pacificism? Do both not believe in the nationalization
of the major industries of their respective countries? Do both not strongly
disdain capitalism?
J.B. Robinson
Admiral Dorothy Lamour
>> I would believe JBR's comments along these lines (of which he's made
>>many before) if he truly believed in doing anything about *either* South
>>Africa *or* Russia. In fact he uses this feeble line of argument to
>>support taking no action at all.
>Not true. I merely find it ironic that after watching the Soviet Union
>treat its 275 million citizens in a decidedly undemocratic manner for
>decades, I am suddenly supposed to get all worked up over 25 million
>South Africans. If Canada is going to impose economic sanctions against
>S.A. because Apartheid is wrong, then it has a moral obligation to do
>likewise with the S.U.
That's not true. There are many variables which affect the morality of
sanctions, of which the repugnance of the relevant government is only
one. The Soviet government is not going to be brought down by economic
or military force, and it would be both dangerous and counter-productive
to try. The South African government is going to be overthrown; the only
questions are when? and at what human cost? If you believe, as I do, that
the participation of the West in removing the present system will make it
happen quicker and with less suffering, then you should support economic
and military action to that end.
>Just out of curiosity how do the NDP and Britain's labour party differ.
>Are both not beholden to the labour unions? Are both not non-militaristic
>to the point of pacificism? Do both not believe in the nationalization
>of the major industries of their respective countries? Do both not strongly
>disdain capitalism?
>J.B. Robinson
I can only speak about the British labour party. No, though there are
certainly organic and emotional links. No: don't confuse a policy of
*nuclear* disarmament with a policy of pacificism. Partially; depends
on the industry.
As for `disdaining capitalism', what do you mean? If you mean that they
don't regard pure capitalism as a desirable way of running a society,
I'll give you that one - but who does?
--
ihnp4!oddjob!apak
| oddjob!ap...@lbl-csam.arpa
oddjob!ap...@UChicago.bitnet
This is not a pipe apak%uk.ac.cambr...@ucl-cs.arpa
Jeff Lee
>sanctions, of which the repugnance of the relevant government is only
>one. The Soviet government is not going to be brought down by economic
>or military force, and it would be both dangerous and counter-productive
>to try. The South African government is going to be overthrown; the only
>questions are when? and at what human cost? If you believe, as I do, that
>the participation of the West in removing the present system will make it
>happen quicker and with less suffering, then you should support economic
>and military action to that end.
Over and over again I am amazed by the selective myopia that exists
among folks that believe that we should boycott South African apartheid
out of existence but yet not do the same to the Soviets for their own
violations of human rights. If we are going to be idealistic, then let's
go all the way. If we are going to be laissez faire, then let's leave
people alone. Let's stop landing rights, no selling of grain, no
purchasing of vodka, wine, or gold, etc...
The previous article seems to suggest, though, that we should modify
our enthusiasm by doing this only to
1) Countries that are weaker than we are, thus eliminating
any possibility of successful retaliation;
2) Countries that are already in bad shape (hit them while
they're down).
In these cases, it is "morally" right to support economic and militaristic
action to force these countries to do our bidding.
I'm sorry... I am not impressed. This is as cowardly a policy as I
have seen in a long time. At least be consistent in your idealism.
I have much more respect for someone that believes in an idea and takes
it to its logical conclusion despite the fact it will make them
"uncomfortable" than someone who does it only when it can't hurt them
or it's convenient.
--
Jeff Lee
CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff
Barry Shein
Re: boycotting South Africa but not the USSR
>The previous article seems to suggest, though, that we should modify
>our enthusiasm by doing this only to
>
> 1) Countries that are weaker than we are, thus eliminating
> any possibility of successful retaliation;
>
> 2) Countries that are already in bad shape (hit them while
> they're down).
Exactly. But if the goal is noble, what is wrong with doing what you
can? Certainly if the outcome is to end Apartheid there is nothing
wrong with that, even if -you- happen to be aware of other, perhaps
even larger, problems in the world. You border here on playing off the
current regime in South Africa as some sort of underdog, worthy of
pity. What crap.
Would you refuse food to one hungry person simply because there are
so many other, hungrier people in the world? Of course not, that's
not hypocrisy, that's just pragmatism, you do what you can.
>I'm sorry... I am not impressed. This is as cowardly a policy as I
>have seen in a long time. At least be consistent in your idealism.
Wrong. Yours is a policy of cowardice, moral cowardice. The inability
to concentrate on a worthwhile goal in the face of other goals. You
choose to refuse to do anything until you can solve everything, or
worse, to criticize with unrealistic, lofty demands that one cannot
condemn the horror in South Africa without making an equal effort
against other horrors. Every effort has the potential to help a lot of
people, what in the hell is exactly wrong with that?!
No one is arguing with your point about the USSR denying human rights
to people. They are simply doing what they can, and what they think
will be effective to relieve some suffering in this world. There are
plenty of people working on problems in the USSR (I know, your mind
will suddenly go blank in defense and say 'oh yeah, who?!', ok, the
USA [massive nuclear and conventional military deployment to contain
Russian expansionism], Voice of America, Voice of Freedom, people who
have been working on and succeeding in getting Jewish emigres out,
Amnesty International, efforts by international scientists to free
people like Sakharov, the arms talks in Geneva, other European
countries, NATO etc etc, not good enough for you? maybe nothing is.)
What are you doing? Nothing probably, except weaving rationalizations
for your indecisiveness.
-Barry Shein, Boston University
apak
> In article <14...@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob (apak) writes:
>> There are many variables which affect the morality of
>>sanctions, of which the repugnance of the relevant government is only
>>one. The Soviet government is not going to be brought down by economic
>>or military force, and it would be both dangerous and counter-productive
>>to try. The South African government is going to be overthrown; the only
>>questions are when? and at what human cost? If you believe, as I do, that
>>the participation of the West in removing the present system will make it
>>happen quicker and with less suffering, then you should support economic
>>and military action to that end.
>go all the way. If we are going to be laissez faire, then let's leave
>people alone. Let's stop landing rights, no selling of grain, no
>purchasing of vodka, wine, or gold, etc...
>our enthusiasm by doing this only to
> 1) Countries that are weaker than we are, thus eliminating
> any possibility of successful retaliation;
> 2) Countries that are already in bad shape (hit them while
> they're down).
>action to force these countries to do our bidding.
Wrong. I suggest we should impose economic sanctions only on countries that:
(1) have governments which are immoral and which are perceived to be immoral
by a majority of their population.
(2) are likely to be affected for the better by such action.
I don't understand (or hope I don't) your lament about how unfair this would
be on the poor South African government, which you somehow confuse with the
country. Nor do I see why it's inconsistent to support particular remedies
against tyranny when and only when they're effective. The Soviet Union will
have to be dealt with, as best we can, by other means. Sanctions won't be
widely supported in the world, and wouldn't change the system for the better
if they were.
>This is as cowardly a policy as I
>have seen in a long time. At least be consistent in your idealism.
>I have much more respect for someone that believes in an idea and takes
>it to its logical conclusion despite the fact it will make them
>"uncomfortable" than someone who does it only when it can't hurt them
>or it's convenient.
The idea is clear and consistent. Fight tyranny as best you can. The sensible
means depend on the situation. Lobbing grenades at invading troops may be
useful; lobbing grenades at aircraft on bombing runs probably isn't. Agreed?
Jeff Lee
>>our enthusiasm by doing this only to
>>
>> 1) Countries that are weaker than we are, thus eliminating
>> any possibility of successful retaliation;
>>
>> 2) Countries that are already in bad shape (hit them while
>> they're down).
>
>Exactly. But if the goal is noble, what is wrong with doing what you
>can? Certainly if the outcome is to end Apartheid there is nothing
>wrong with that, even if -you- happen to be aware of other, perhaps
>even larger, problems in the world. You border here on playing off the
>current regime in South Africa as some sort of underdog, worthy of
>pity. What crap.
This seems to be the second response that says that I am implying
pity for the current South African government. I evidently did not
express myself clearly enough as this is not my intention. When the
neighborhood bully gets beat up by someone and someone else comes
along and gives him an additional kick, it doesn't mean that I have
any more sympathy for him. It means that I just think that some other
bully came along and kicked him too. I do not defend Apartheid or
the South African governments application of it. I just think that
it is hypocritical to apply it selectively when we are perfectly
capable of performing exactly the same sanctions on others of those
whom we recognize as being abusers of human rights.
>Would you refuse food to one hungry person simply because there are
>so many other, hungrier people in the world? Of course not, that's
>not hypocrisy, that's just pragmatism, you do what you can.
No but if you make up your mind to feed hungry you spread what you
can as far as it will go. In this case we are not talking about an
expendable resource (such as food) but sanctions which can be spread
evenly across all abusers.
>>I'm sorry... I am not impressed. This is as cowardly a policy as I
>>have seen in a long time. At least be consistent in your idealism.
>
>Wrong. Yours is a policy of cowardice, moral cowardice. The inability
>to concentrate on a worthwhile goal in the face of other goals. You
>choose to refuse to do anything until you can solve everything, or
>worse, to criticize with unrealistic, lofty demands that one cannot
>condemn the horror in South Africa without making an equal effort
>against other horrors. Every effort has the potential to help a lot of
>people, what in the hell is exactly wrong with that?!
I disagree (obviously :-)).
I just think that to choose a certain country (goverment, corporation,
child down the street...) simply because they can do very little in
retaliation and avoiding another because they might do something "bad
to us" is no better than the neighborhood bully. I have not said that
I opposed doing anything. My posting is simply in response to all
those individuals who see apartheid as "the absolute worst evil in
the world and this should be the absolute highest priority of anybody
in the civilized world... or else they are the slime at the bottom
of the barrel". I don't go for that.
>No one is arguing with your point about the USSR denying human rights
>to people. They are simply doing what they can, and what they think
>will be effective to relieve some suffering in this world. There are
>plenty of people working on problems in the USSR (I know, your mind
>will suddenly go blank in defense and say 'oh yeah, who?!', ok, the
>USA [massive nuclear and conventional military deployment to contain
>Russian expansionism], Voice of America, Voice of Freedom, people who
>have been working on and succeeding in getting Jewish emigres out,
>Amnesty International, efforts by international scientists to free
>people like Sakharov, the arms talks in Geneva, other European
>countries, NATO etc etc, not good enough for you? maybe nothing is.)
>
>What are you doing? Nothing probably, except weaving rationalizations
>for your indecisiveness.
>
> -Barry Shein, Boston University
Like I said before, I do not oppose doing things. I just oppose folks
who really seem to get their priorities out of whack (which is fine
with me) but then put me down for not having their same priorities.
This South African thing is great for people who like to yell and picket.
As far as what I am doing, I vote for people whom I think will attempt
to limit the abuses. This is the bare minimum that anyone should be
doing and (sadly enough) we had less than 25% of registered voters vote
in my county. Of the blacks that were registered and voted in the
election 2 years ago, they figured that only 11% voted in the primary
and that they will be a limited factor in the outcome of the election.
This is sad, and is about the only thing that I liked about Jesse
Jackson. He could sure stir people up to vote.
The other things I take part in are getting food to people in my local
area and (during shortages) sending food to Poland. Politics doesn't
mean much to you if you're hungry. Not that any of this is important,
but you asked...
Clayton Cramer
> >action to force these countries to do our bidding.
>
> Wrong. I suggest we should impose economic sanctions only on countries that:
> (1) have governments which are immoral and which are perceived to be immoral
> by a majority of their population.
So you wouldn't argue for sanctions against a country like Nazi Germany.
> (2) are likely to be affected for the better by such action.
>
"...likely to be affected for the better by such action" is a pretty
vague statement. Can you see why a lot of people could argue that
sanctions against South Africa might not fit this definition? Can
you see why a lot of people aren't sure what you are trying to
achieve.
> I don't understand (or hope I don't) your lament about how unfair this would
> be on the poor South African government, which you somehow confuse with the
> country.
Sanctions affect the population first -- the government last. Economic
hardships ALWAYS fall on the people hardest, and usually the poorest
people. The South African government will just raise taxes if it finds
itself in need of more money.
> Nor do I see why it's inconsistent to support particular remedies
> against tyranny when and only when they're effective. The Soviet Union will
Just don't argue for sanctions on a "moral" basis -- argue for them
pragmatically. (Of course, you can't generate the same level of self-
righteous anger that way.)
> have to be dealt with, as best we can, by other means. Sanctions won't be
> widely supported in the world, and wouldn't change the system for the better
> if they were.
>
If there was the same amount of energy being spent by the Left to promote
hostility to the Soviet Union that is currently being spent on South
Africa, sanctions WOULD be widely supported in the world. Of course,
the Left wouldn't be allowed by their masters in Moscow to start such
a campaign.
Clayton E. Cramer
Adam Quantrill
>Are both not beholden to the labour unions? Are both not non-militaristic
>
>J.B. Robinson
I can't speak for the NDP but our beloved Labour party isn't
non-militaristic, on the contrary they would support a conventional army.
They (quite rightly) just want to wash their hands of nuclear weapons.
David Canzi
net.followup, where it doesn't belong, won't mind moving to
net.politics, eh?]
Whether it is hypocritical to support sanctions against South Africa
while not opposing the sale of wheat to the USSR at bargain prices
depends on what the alleged hypocrites see as the purpose of the
sanctions. There seem to be two commonly given reasons for taking
punitive actions against other countries:
1) They are evil, and so deserve to be punished.
This is usually the point being made when people dwell at length on
some government's mibehaviour, using highly emotional language.
Once we are convinced that the government in question is evil, it is
then supposed to follow that we have a duty to harm them, even when
doing so can't be reasonably expected to do anybody any good. In
this view, then it follows that punishing SA but not USSR is
hypocritical.
2) The sanctions (or other punitive action) will result in good.
If it is believed that the sanctions against South Africa will
likely lead to the government improving its treatment of blacks
(presumably in return for an end to the sanctions), while it is
believed that punitive actions against the USSR will not have any
such beneficial effect on that government's victims, then it makes
perfect sense to punish the South African government while
continuing to sell the USSR cheap wheat.
In a nutshell, one policy is based on judging people morally and
hurting those we disapprove of in the name of punishment, the other is
based on attempting to help their victims and/or reduce the numbers of
future victims.
Subscribers to the first view seem to me to be motivated by a desire
for justice (of the retributive variety). They feel obliged to take
certain actions even if those actions benefit nobody and harm some
people. Subscribers to the second view seem to be motivated by concern
for the welfare of others. They judge their actions by the results,
ie. Machiavelli's standard.
Pick one. Choose carefully.
--
David Canzi
"Freedom of speech does not mean that you can simply say what you
want to say or what you like saying." -- The People's Daily, Peking
c...@entropy.berkeley.edu
>If there was the same amount of energy being spent by the Left to promote
>hostility to the Soviet Union that is currently being spent on South
>Africa, sanctions WOULD be widely supported in the world. Of course,
>the Left wouldn't be allowed by their masters in Moscow to start such
>a campaign.
>
>Clayton E. Cramer
Hey, I've been a Leftist for years and my Masters in Moscow are way behind
in their payments so I just don't care anymore what they want me to do....
I'd go out and promote hostility to the Soviet Union except for the fact
that it takes all my energy to deal with the government I've got at home.
charlotte allen
Jim Robinson
> Wrong. I suggest we should impose economic sanctions only on countries that:
> (1) have governments which are immoral and which are perceived to be immoral
> by a majority of their population.
In a country in which access to outside information is denied and
the only source of news is a state controlled media it is quite
possible for the citizenry to live in the most abominable of conditions,
yet believe that they have it good compared to others elsewhere, or that
their sacrifices are required in order to "sustain the revolution".
At the risk of being somewhat unoriginal - "ignorance is bliss".
J.B. Robinson
PS Would one of those who believes that political freedom (including free
elections) is any less important than other human rights please
explain this position?
Jim Robinson
Question: are they for unilateral or multilateral disarmament? - there is
a big difference.
Also, would they do as our NDP say they would, and pull your country out
of NATO?
J.B. Robinson
Mike Williams
> elections) is any less important than other human rights please
> explain this position?
have free elections. The choice of candidates is however somewhat limited
but everyone can vote. Democratic elections are another matter. Most
western countries claim to have democratic elections (at least they are
more democractic than the so called elections in the east). All countries
with the Anglo Saxon version of elections (including the USA, Britain etc)
can hardly be called fully democratic. Look at the turn out at the polls! How
is it that Britain has a Conservative majority when the actual majority of the
voters voted for other parties? Only countries with some form of proportional
representation can claim to be democratic. (By proportional representation
I mean a system where the number of seats allocated to each political party
is in direct proportion to the total number of votes cast for that party).
But then even proportional representation has its problems. It is hard for
voters to eliminate undesirable individuals.
I don't think one should be so niave to assume that ANY country has complete
political freedom (even if one could define what political freedom is). The
only thing one can say is that we have more such freedom in the west that
they have in the east. Given this perspective I value other freedoms like
free speech, freedom to travel a free press much more highly.
Mike Williams
Adam Quantrill
1: Yes and yes.
2: No, and you don't have to be a nuclear power to be in NATO.
Adam.
Jim Robinson
>In article <23...@hcrvx2.UUCP> ji...@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>PS Would one of those who believes that political freedom (including free
>> elections) is any less important than other human rights please
>> explain this position?
>.......................
>I don't think one should be so niave to assume that ANY country has complete
>political freedom (even if one could define what political freedom is). The
>only thing one can say is that we have more such freedom in the west that
>they have in the east. Given this perspective I value other freedoms like
>free speech, freedom to travel a free press much more highly.
But there is an interesting point that is being missed. Namely, that *in
practice* the best means of guaranteeing such freedoms as free speech
is to be able to kick out out of office the government that would take
that freedom away. If we look at those countries that do not have
free speech, freedom to travel, or a free press we find one glaring
common denominator - there is no means of holding the ruling government
accountable by way of elections. These governments may do what they
desire secure in the knowledge that the citizenry has no recourse.
I would thus submit that those freedoms that Mike values above
political freedom will in practice only exist if said political freedom
(in the form of the people being able to change governments) exists.
It is no accident that the west which Mike admits has more political
freedom than the east also has more of the other previously mentioned
freedoms.
As for proportional representation - the impression I get is that leads
to there being a thousand and one different parties being represented
in Parliament which leads to *unstable* coalition governments. Just
my impression which could very well be incorrect.
J.B. Robinson
Jim Robinson
>In article <23...@hcrvx2.UUCP> ji...@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>In article <1...@miduet.gec-mi-at.co.uk> adam@miduet (Adam Quantrill) writes:
>>>
>>> I can't speak for the NDP but our beloved Labour party isn't
>>>non-militaristic, on the contrary they would support a conventional army.
>>>They (quite rightly) just want to wash their hands of nuclear weapons.
>>
>>Question: are they for unilateral or multilateral disarmament? - there is
>>a big difference.
>>
>>Also, would they do as our NDP say they would, and pull your country out
>>of NATO?
>>
>>J.B. Robinson
>
>1: Yes and yes.
>2: No, and you don't have to be a nuclear power to be in NATO.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Labour party said it would
indeed toss Britain's nukes if it formed a government (probably the same
place I read that it would decrease unemployment by massively expanding
government services), however, I do not know whether they advocate such
action for all western countries. If so, I would have to conclude that they
are an extremely naive lot since there would be no means of
defending the west against nuclear blackmail.
BTW I am quite aware that a country does not have to be a nuclear power
to be in NATO as demonstrated by Canada's membership.
J.B. Robinson
PS Would a Labour government reopen the uneconomical coal mines?
Jim Reid
>I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Labour party said it would
>indeed toss Britain's nukes if it formed a government (probably the same
>place I read that it would decrease unemployment by massively expanding
>government services), however, I do not know whether they advocate such
>action for all western countries. If so, I would have to conclude that they
>are an extremely naive lot since there would be no means of
>defending the west against nuclear blackmail.
In comparison with the arsenals of the US and USSR, Britain's nuclear
weapons are insignificant (unless we end up with Trident). British
unilateral disarmament would have little or no impact on the balance of
terror. The Labour Party is for that and there is support in some sections
for the removal of US nuclear bases from our country. What the Labour Party
is really saying is "Britain doesn't count as a superpower - we'll disarm
unileterally and let the US and USSR get on with multilateral disarmament".
>PS Would a Labour government reopen the uneconomical coal mines?
I think not. The Labour party plan to reduce unemployment by increasing
government spending in key areas like the health service and education.
Most effort is planned for a programme of public works - building new
roads, schools, hospitals and so on. "Uneconomic" coal mines are unlikely
to stay open unless the cost of subsidising them is less than the lost
economic output if they were to close.
Jim
ARPA: jim%cs.stra...@ucl-cs.arpa, j...@cs.strath.ac.uk
UUCP: j...@strath-cs.uucp, ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jim
JANET: j...@uk.ac.strath.cs
"JANET domain ordering is swapped around so's there'd be some use for rev(1)!"