Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Gerald Abshez
>In article <1992Jul7.1...@ccu.umanitoba.ca> blu...@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>>Anchor: Well it was a problem at the University of Manitoba and it was
>> dealt with. But other universities across the country seem a
>> little slower to act. The issue is computer pornography, and
>> as Avi Lewis reports, some schools aren't following the example
>> set by the U of M because they're still questioning where to draw
>> the line on censorship.
>>
> Great example, isn't it? An educational institution censoring
>material based on someone's moral beliefs? It isn't as if everyone
>disagrees with everything in alt.sex.*
Wake up. Our "wonderful" educational institutions have become, more and
more, bastions for commercialism. It's too bad.
>
>>Reporter: Ok, I'm in the system, what do I do now?
>>Student: A L T dot S E X return
>>
> What newsreader is this? UofT has rn, doesn't it?
Well, where you can get news :-(.
>>----------------------------------
>>camera zooms in on terminal screen, shows listing of news articles
>>----------------------------------
>> Ok, Japanese bondage, video X-rated animation,
>> RAPE scenes LISTING update ?!!
>>
> Where are the topics about 'my wife is having pains, suggestions'?
>or the discussions on Aids? or the discussions on condoms? or safe sex?
>What they are showing, I think, only accounts for a small percentage of
>what goes through those newsgroups.
Not sensational enough. Come on, this is CITY! We don't have time to
explore signal to noise ratio, let alone the THOUSANDS of OTHER groups on
the net. LETS STICK WITH WHAT CAN ENHANCE THE BAD IMAGE OF THE U of M CASE!
>>Reporter: Alright, let's see what's in that.
>>Student: Look at THIS! An alphabetized LIST! With COMMENTS!
> How is this student? He sure doesn't seem like the kind who should
>be talking to a reporter...does he? He doesnt' seem to know much about
>net news, period!...he is shocked that people actually talk to each other
>this way??
Well, no one can restrict idiots from talking to the news media... or
the news media from distorting the facts.
>>Male: The University has taken the position that we are not censors,
>> and we are not going to control the type of information an
>> individual can seek out.
> As it should be...thumbs up to who ever this was...I hope that
>you don't bow down to the pressure as this is exactly what it is...censoring
>what individuals should have a choice of doing. Is this country of ours
>going so bad that we are no longer allowed to choose what we read or say?
Ah... sounds like the VP of computing. He's pretty realistic, and not as
much one to bow to the pressure of special interest groups and police. Good
to hear, as UofT is a *really* big commercial university.
>>Female: We're not talking about censorship. We're talking about material
>> which is extremely harmful to over half of the population, and
>> they're refusing to do anything about it.
> Then that half of the population doesn't have to read it. Nobody
>forces a user to enter alt.sex when they log on, it is by their own
>choice...just like noone forces you to go to a bookstore and buy a
>particular book...you do it because you want to. (unless it is for an
>english course, of course *smile*)
Well, I can tell you that 1/2 the population DOES read it. alt.sex is one
of the most read newsgroups, and is available at almost every news site.
I would say that many women probably read it, and as many post to it.
>
>>Reporter: Internet is an international computer information network, that
>> could be accessed by literally thousands of public and private
>> terminals on campus.
What's the difference between "public" and "private" terminals?
>> Although the pornography only occupies a
>> small fraction of the files in the system, in a system as big
>> as Internet that's a lot of files.
> What are these files that he is talking about? Could someone
>please get a reporter who has a clue in his head about these things? Or
>at least sit down with one and teach/explain to him what is going on?
>What netnews is all about...what the Internet is??
Well, it's easier to say that we're a porn smuggling ring then *actually*
explain the usefull information, even about (GASP) sex! that goes through
the internet. I mean, after all, it's really a lot more usefull to BAN the
whole thing then go through and see that 90% is usefull, right?
>>Reporter: The University of Manitoba, another Internet subscriber, doesn't
>> find this issue so complex. When files about torturing women
>> for sexual pleasure showed up on its system, the Winnipeg vice
>> squad labelled them pornographic, and the University had them
>> deleted from the system. Here at the University of Toronto,
>> it's being treated as an issue of censorship versus free speech.
Well, it's easier when the police are on your case to censor then to stand up
for the intellectual freedoms that a university stands for, right?
> Internet subscriber? Is that like subscribing to Omni or Penthouse?
Almost... but even then, YOU HAVE to INITIATE it... you don't have NetNews
pushed upon you as you log in.
>As for the torturing women...how often do you see stuff about that? once
>every couple of thousand articles (not files!!)? And people!! It is
>fiction...stuff that you can buy in paperback form (or magazine, for that
>matter)...
Well, I'd probably say that most of the stuff is pretty tame. Someone with
really radical beliefs must have alerted the Police to this, as I'm sure
that not a lot of them are attending U of Manitoba computer programs ;-).
Someone got their feathers ruffled, complained, police investigated and
U of Manitoba caved into the pressure. :-( What ever happened to Academic
Freedom?
>
>Sorry if this was long, but hey...I needed to get it off my chest :)
Well, if it was long, so be it... but I'm glad to know that my sys-admin
feels *this* way, and not the way U of Manitoba does.
Gerald
Adrian Mitu
>time and resources...and it goes against what our great (or used to be?)
>country stands for...freedom...to choose, to think, to speak. IMHO, it is
>getting to the point that it is the fanatics, the morally uptight, are
>controlling this country...and the remaining 95% of us are just along
>for the ride. How can one person, or group of people, define what is
>wrong or right for the rest of us...which is exactly what censorship is!
>
>
>Marc
>
>
>--
>| Marc Fournier R-Node Public Access Unix 416-249-5366 |
>| 1800+ newsgroups Running UnixBBS 1.03 network email |
>| 7 days/week shell accounts available 24 hrs/day |
>| Telebit T3000/SupraModem 2400/Cardinal 2400 |
>| ma...@r-node.gts.org r-node!marc ma...@r-node.uucp |
I agree with you, Marc. There are people around us that appear to have
nothing better to do other than listening, watching and reading stuff
they find offensive, and then trying to ban everybody else from
doing what they have done. Speaking for myself, I barely have time to
do the things I *like* to do, and I believe most people are like that.
But there exists this minority (a very LOUD minority nonetheless) which
is trying to make everybody think like they think. And they seemingly
put a lot of time in their activities - probably due to a lack of anything
better (or more constructive) to do. Face it: most of us simply cannot
afford the time to go and do things we hate only so we can later complain
about them.
On the other hand, I do not really believe that those students that
complained about alt.sex on TV really read the net. If they do where are
they? How come we haven't seen any comments on tor.general from anybody
who is offended by alt.sex? (Maybe they only read alt.sex ???)
For the rest of us, I think we burned enough bandwidth on this subject.
If we really care some of us should take the time and call CITY-TV and
straighten the whole matter. Enough crying on each other's electronic
Adrian
--
The MAD DOG (Grrrrrrrr....)
+----------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Adrian Mitu | |
| Willowdale, Ontario | Internet: mi...@r-node.gts.org |
| Canada | |
+----------------------------+---------------------------------------+
Marc Roussel
(Marc Fournier - Sys Admin) writes:
> I'm sorry...but I think this whole thing is a stupid waste of
>time and resources...and it goes against what our great (or used to be?)
>country stands for...freedom...to choose, to think, to speak.
If we, the supporters of Usenet, misunderstand Canadian political
and social history in this manner, we will find ourselves unable to
contribute in an intelligent way to this debate, just as the ignorant
reporters are unable to tell people what Usenet is really like. Canada's
political culture has always included significant authoritarian
features; this is an outgrowth of the British system on which our own
traditions are modeled. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an
astounding historical departure for Canada when it was introduced. Prior
to that, the basic premise was that Parliament made laws which the
courts interpreted as straightforwardly as possible. Note that even the
Bill of Rights introduced by Diefenbaker's government was very rarely
successfully used to override other legislation; being an ordinary law of
Parliament, there was very little opportunity for it to be used in this
manner. Even the Charter is not absolute; the rights set out therein can
be restricted when this is "justifiable in a free and fair society", i.e.
at the discretion of the courts. (And then there's the notwithstanding
clause... Hardly the work of rabid freedom lovers.)
If you asked a typical jurist or Parliamentarian, or even most
Canadians, what Canada stands and has stood for, I suspect you would
find that freedom is not the first thing that pops into their
minds; I'm sure most people would say the word "freedom" eventually, but
many would qualify it if and when they mentioned it. Rather, answers
would typically reflect a certain common belief in what one might call
Canadian civility; we would like to think that we respect one another, or
at least that we try to. Our Canadian political system, our
constitution and traditions, reflect this and not the relatively new (to
us) concept of personal freedoms.
Let me close this note with a few examples. Most Canadians seem to
support the hate literature laws. As an interesting coincidence, I note
that Jim Keegstra was sentenced to a fine last weekend. The judge's
reasons for not sending Mr. Keegstra to jail were not that the crime was
not considered serious, but that 10 years in court, along with the fine,
is roughly equivalent to the prison sentence he would have imposed had
the matter proceeded more expeditiously. Most Canadians also seem to
support laws restricting certain materials which we deem pornographic.
I dare say that few Canadians perceive any significant clash between
these values and their fundamental rights. Our political culture is
simply not such that we can easily see such clashes; the "individual
rights" religion invented by the U.S. and France hasn't yet penetrated
very deeply into our political consciousness. This is a considerably
different perspective than one finds in the U.S. where even the most
right wing politicians generally acknowledge that some of their programs
clash with basic constitutional rights.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Mother Nature
>On the other hand, I do not really believe that those students that
>complained about alt.sex on TV really read the net. If they do where are
>they? How come we haven't seen any comments on tor.general from anybody
>who is offended by alt.sex? (Maybe they only read alt.sex ???)
I'm sure they don't. It's most likely someone who never read the net, but just
happened to notice what was on it, and decided that they might have a story
out of it. Or whatever. Most sensible people realize that no one is forcing
them to read it.
>For the rest of us, I think we burned enough bandwidth on this subject.
>If we really care some of us should take the time and call CITY-TV and
>straighten the whole matter. Enough crying on each other's electronic
Yes, but are you sure that they would do justice to your story? While never
having been interviewed for anything on the news, I have had friends who
where. When they went to watch themselves, the news had cut a lot of stuff out
and made what they said into something totally different. Whatever you had to
say could just become more fuel for the sensationalist fires.
Richard Steven Walz
>In article <1992Jul10....@r-node.gts.org> ma...@r-node.gts.org
>(Marc Fournier - Sys Admin) writes:
>> I'm sorry...but I think this whole thing is a stupid waste of
>>time and resources...and it goes against what our great (or used to be?)
>>country stands for...freedom...to choose, to think, to speak.
>
> If we, the supporters of Usenet, misunderstand Canadian political
>and social history in this manner, we will find ourselves unable to
>contribute in an intelligent way to this debate,
Well, I think we did a damned good job of contributing to Panama's
"debate" about freedom, and I think Manuel Noriega can now appreciate
that. He learned a new song, "Welcome to the Jungle", and he now gets
his choice of 40 years in prison or military stockade.
I am afraid that I have noticed that the trend of the world over time
is not toward some fascist notion of "civility" which means nothing,
as in today's Canada, but that it is toward taking dictators and
dictatorial religion based cultures, like Canada and England out and
shooting them, Coucesceau-style. When your millions awake from their
religious opiate, they will also rise up and demand some guarantees
from their government, else it will be turned out or even simply told
to fuck off, depending how fast it happens. If it is like the sixties
here, it can be upside down in a fortnight.
In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
should be taken out and shot. We finally have that here now. I cannot
find a thing I can say which will get me arrested, unless I threaten
someone's life or follow them around haranguing them. This is in
contrast to you ridiculous excuse for a nation to the north. You can
still virtually be recommended for jail time by your local vicar, like
we could in the fifties! Religion based countries are vicious
countries, and you will learn that by and by. We might have agencies
trying to mildly scare people out of using their right to speak, but
those bunglers can only cowe the fools who don't know their rights.
Anyone who goes to the press if they are hounded by the government is
virtually ignored ever after here. And we have the right to a speedy
trial. If your docket is that full, then the man of which you spoke
who was fined after such a long time in the courts, had he lived here,
could have demanded a speedy trial and it would probably been dropped.
It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
I am ashamed to live next to you.
- Richard Steven Walz
Brad Shapcott
>
>I am ashamed to live next to you.
You could always move, then.
>- Richard Steven Walz
Brad
Mother Nature
>Rule #1 about talking on tape to the media- you KNOW you're not important
>enough to get more than 5 or 10 seconds, so give them no more than 15 seconds
>of comments. Of course this is hard to do when every dork would rather be
>on TV than say something quick and intelligent so everyone doesn't get
>misrepresented, but if you have the chance to be the only one in the light,
>then be so: quick and unambiguous. The worst they can do is NOT use the
>piece, and that would undermine the lgitimacy of their reporting.
Good advice, not that I think I'll be interviewed any time in the near
future. However, some things just can't be explained in 15 seconds,
especially something as complex as Usenet.
Brian Jenkins
>Well, I think we did a damned good job of contributing to Panama's
>"debate" about freedom, and I think Manuel Noriega can now appreciate
>that. He learned a new song, "Welcome to the Jungle", and he now gets
>his choice of 40 years in prison or military stockade.
True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
or military stockades (half a :)).
>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>should be taken out and shot. We finally have that here now.
As a Canadian I can relate to this. You have about ten times the
population and 800 times the number of firearm related deaths a
year. It is certainly good to see such a clear summary of the
philosophical and social stucture of the US.
> I cannot
>find a thing I can say which will get me arrested, unless I threaten
>someone's life or follow them around haranguing them. This is in
>contrast to you ridiculous excuse for a nation to the north.
You might try libel, treason, disturbing the peace and all those
other little things that can land you in the slammer. I think that
the only thing Canada has that the US doesn't is malicious libel
against an identifiable group. I gather that is what the guns are
for down there.
>You can
>still virtually be recommended for jail time by your local vicar, like
>we could in the fifties!
Like the vicar, I could recommend you for jail time too. Like the vicar,
it would mean nothing in Canada -- before or after the fifties.
>It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
>ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
>supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
>I am ashamed to live next to you.
Feel free to move. Panama is nice this time of year, I hear.
>- Richard Steven Walz
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the basement of br...@bkj386.uucp
Brian Jenkins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Mason
>I am ashamed to live next to you.
>- Richard Steven Walz
WE'RE not the ones who are making the property values go down.
Marc Riehm
deeptht == deep thought? :)
[ lunatic ranting deleted]
>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>should be taken out and shot. We finally have that here now. I cannot
>find a thing I can say which will get me arrested, unless I threaten
>someone's life or follow them around haranguing them. This is in
>contrast to you ridiculous excuse for a nation to the north. You can
>still virtually be recommended for jail time by your local vicar, like
>we could in the fifties! Religion based countries are vicious
>countries, and you will learn that by and by.
Recently at my company we had a "personal growth" seminar, conducted by
someone from head office (in California). As part of the exercise, we had to
rank our personal values from a set of 28. As it turned out, in our group
10 out of 15 people ranked religion in the bottom 3 of their set of values.
The American who conducted the course remarked on this, and said that it was
typical of the Canadian groups he had given the course to. By contrast,
the Americans who he gave the course to were far more religious.
Casual observation leads me to believe that Canadians are less religious than
Americans, and have more separation between Church and State. We tend to
be less demonstrative in our religion -- far less fundamentalism. How many
times do you hear Canadian politicians mention god? And how many times do you
hear their American counterparts mention god?
[ raving deleted ]
>It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
>ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
>supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
Well, that was a well-informed opinion.
--
Marc Riehm Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
Mississauga, Ont. L5N 1V8
ma...@meadow.UUCP
Greg A. Woods
> Good advice, not that I think I'll be interviewed any time in the near
> future. However, some things just can't be explained in 15 seconds,
> especially something as complex as Usenet.
It matters not about the complexity of the subject matter. That's all
the time you've got, so use it well, and don't confuse the issue by
giving them a long speil from which they'll edit a few "interesting"
comments from.
It really pisses me off when someone starts "talking down" to their
perceived audience about some "technical" subject in the media. News
directors/producers and editors love this stuff, because that's when
they get to do all the creative editing.
K.I.S.S. !!!!
[ BTW, The Net is not that complex from the outside point of view.
Unfortunately "technoids" often make it out to be complex. ]
--
Greg A. Woods
wo...@Elegant.COM, wo...@robohack.UUCP VE3TCP ECI & UniForum Canada
+1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
Tapani Tarvainen
>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>should be taken out and shot.
I feel compelled to point out that Amnesty International certainly
wouldn't support that last statement. They (and I) think that
being shot somehow violates one's human rights.
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarv...@jyu.fi, tarv...@finjyu.bitnet)
The Rifleman
>In article <1992Jul13.0...@deeptht.armory.com> rst...@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>>should be taken out and shot.
>
>I feel compelled to point out that Amnesty International certainly
>wouldn't support that last statement. They (and I) think that
>being shot somehow violates one's human rights.
Unless the person getting shot is in the process of irreversibly violating
another's human rights? (You do support self-defense, don't you?)
Richard Steven Walz
>In article <1992Jul13.0...@deeptht.armory.com> rst...@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>Well, I think we did a damned good job of contributing to Panama's
>>"debate" about freedom, and I think Manuel Noriega can now appreciate
>>that. He learned a new song, "Welcome to the Jungle", and he now gets
>>his choice of 40 years in prison or military stockade.
>
>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>or military stockades (half a :)).
No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
disagree with.
>>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>>should be taken out and shot. We finally have that here now.
>
>As a Canadian I can relate to this. You have about ten times the
>population and 800 times the number of firearm related deaths a
>year. It is certainly good to see such a clear summary of the
>philosophical and social stucture of the US.
----------------------------
And I'm glad that you realize it fully. You seem to capture the gist
of the US in a single bound, minus the problem of minority racial
situations that you don't have and can't fathom. Without the drug
trade and the racial prejudice in a number of crucial places here,
though they are few, we likely kill fewer people than you do, per
capita.
>> I cannot
>>find a thing I can say which will get me arrested, unless I threaten
>>someone's life or follow them around haranguing them. This is in
>>contrast to you ridiculous excuse for a nation to the north.
>
>You might try libel, treason, disturbing the peace and all those
>other little things that can land you in the slammer. I think that
>the only thing Canada has that the US doesn't is malicious libel
>against an identifiable group. I gather that is what the guns are
>for down there.
--------------------------------
Libel is civil not criminal. Guns are irrelevant to it. I had already
described disturbing the peace or treason/threatning the life of a
publically elected official. You have said nothing here.
>>You can
>>still virtually be recommended for jail time by your local vicar, like
>>we could in the fifties!
>
>Like the vicar, I could recommend you for jail time too. Like the vicar,
>it would mean nothing in Canada -- before or after the fifties.
---------------------------------
I have a Canadian friend who would strongly disagree with you about
that. He wound up without a job and without a rental and without
defenders in a goodly sized place where he had simply behaved a bit
differently than some locals without breaking any law except the
minister's sense of "propriety".
>>It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
>>ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
>>supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
>>I am ashamed to live next to you.
>
>Feel free to move. Panama is nice this time of year, I hear.
>
>>- Richard Steven Walz
>Brian Jenkins
--------------------------------------
I already have a nice place to live, thank you. And being ashamed
shouldn't bother me. It should bother you.
- R. Steven Walz
Rob Dobson
>>
>>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>>or military stockades (half a :)).
>-------------------------
>No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
>who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
>making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
>disagree with.
Does putting people who kill people and traffic cocaine in jail mean we
will get to jail George Bush for his actions as director of the CIA?
Or was the CIA only trafficking in heroin when George was director?
Richard Steven Walz
> 2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
> Mississauga, Ont. L5N 1V8
>ma...@meadow.UUCP
Another devout Ontarian fighting for his honor. :)
Honest, Marc. I don't hate Canadians, why some of my best friends are
Canadians!!!!!! :->
- R. Steven Walz
Richard Steven Walz
>
>>In fact, I, like amnesty international and other such groups adhere to
>>a rather strict interpretation of human rights. Any one who gets in
>>the way of human rights, most especially the right to say ANYTHING
>>should be taken out and shot.
>
>I feel compelled to point out that Amnesty International certainly
>wouldn't support that last statement. They (and I) think that
>being shot somehow violates one's human rights.
----------------------------
Hell yes it violates their rights, else what's the point. I think that
Saddam Hussein has violated so many people's human rights that he
deserves to be flayed and quartered on international TV. And I hope we
get the chance. Also, though I admit to intentional, nay terminal
cuteness, the juxtaposition of my two sentences was supposed to bait
you into defending Amnesty International. That doesn't mean I need to.
I support AI when they help good people, and I would oppose them if
they helped bad people. A bad person is one who has killed thousands
or millions for no good reason. (Yes, there might be a good reason,
recall the Nazi's).
I do rather hope that we have the good sense to destroy the personal
bodies of the ruling council of Iraq this time, and that we can be
even more precise in our air war. If we had wanted Saddam Hussein, I
think we could have had him before. It was a reasonable idea not to
martyr him last time and leave him stewing, but he is playing tricks
with his nuclear program again and the location of his latest chinese
acqisition, more scud's. I think it is time to declare him an
international terrorist and renounce his human rights formally.
- Steve Walz
Bill Mitchell
>In article <1992Jul17.1...@meadow.uucp> ma...@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul13.0...@deeptht.armory.com> rst...@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>It strikes me that you in Canada are a bunch of scared twits, true
>>>ninnies in the essence of the word to put up with such crap from a
>>>supposed member in good standing of the "free" world.
>>>- R. Steven Walz
>>
>>Well, that was a well-informed opinion.
>>ma...@meadow.UUCP
>
>Honest, Marc. I don't hate Canadians, why some of my best friends are
>Canadians!!!!!! :->
>- R. Steven Walz
Could have fooled me....
--
mitc...@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Sean Casey
|>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
|>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
|>or military stockades (half a :)).
|No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
|who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
|making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
|disagree with.
Well, I'm all for dealing harshly with murderers and politicians who
don't properly represent, but why did he lump cocaine importers in
with those? Geez, importing cocaine is no worse than brewing beer.
You get bags of cocaine and take them from point A to point B. No
one's rights get trampled by that. Let's not compare them to murderers
and crooked politicians.
Sean
--
|``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
se...@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
Richard Steven Walz
Who cares, somebody besides me shoot him too. I've already shot enough
people this week. Do I have to do all the work? :)
-RSW
Richard Steven Walz
>rst...@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>|>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>|>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>|>or military stockades (half a :)).
>
>|No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
>|who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
>|making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
>|disagree with.
>
>Well, I'm all for dealing harshly with murderers and politicians who
>don't properly represent, but why did he lump cocaine importers in
>with those? Geez, importing cocaine is no worse than brewing beer.
>You get bags of cocaine and take them from point A to point B. No
>one's rights get trampled by that. Let's not compare them to murderers
>and crooked politicians.
>
----------------------------------
My god, you're totally right, Sean, I can't imagine what came over me.
I enjoyed Noriega getting his because he's such a fascist little
bastard, but I think we should legalize cocaine. That would take all
the crime and danger out of it, not to mention the profit. What would
the poor compasinos do then? I completely lost my head for a minute.
We had a drive-by shooting on the next block the other day over crack,
so I simply went into react mode instead of logic mode. Haven't done
that in ages. My apologies.
- Steve Walz
Brian Jenkins
>>
>>True. I think you should round up all those guys in the world that
>>you disagree with and stick them in concentration....oops...prisons
>>or military stockades (half a :)).
>-------------------------
>No, you idiot, people who kill other people and import cocaine, and
>who rule fascistically without mandate. I have little interest in
>making the world that much less interesting by jailing those I
>disagree with.
Sorry I missed the original reply to my response. But I
gather that it takes much this vein.
I guess as the idiot I am that the proposal above is to
arrest most of the military and the CIA involved in South
East Asia as not only did they support a bloody minded,
dictatorship in Vietnam, but the dealt almost exclusively
with the heroin drug lords in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand
to attempt to control the activities of the natives to the
area. I gather a certain western nation provided military
cover to these barons to get their drugs out through
"hostile territory" -- often via the support of corrupt
Vietnamese generals, now living comfortably in the US.
I do not know if saturation bombing and free fire zones
would count as human rights violations but I would guess
so. Definitely a violation of the Geneva convention.
As is systematically pushing the enemy from helicopters
and drowning them in buckets of water. Or caging them
in small cages for years.
I think that also it is imperative that you start
proceedings against US government officials who supported
and ran the particular drug baron that you are so upset
with in Panama. Can you run for president from jail?
Would it not be nice if the world was so perfect? But the
stockades would be mighty crowded. I would settle for a
little civilization.
Richard Steven Walz
I admit that I almost put a smiley on that "idiot" remark, but I was
irritated and wished to show it. I wish there was a smiley for that.
Maybe a tongue, oh well. As far as Geneva Conventions go, saturation
bombing in a combat area is not a violation. SCUDding Israel was.
Hiroshima and Dresden were violations, but so was the bombing of
London and the death camps. I would settle for a little civilization
too, but not at Neville Chamberlain's cost.
And I was mistaken to even mention cocaine, as I am in favor of
legalization of everything so that it is not profitable. Organized
crime can be shown to have backed anti-drug candidates right down the
line in the past. A legalized market and a "drug war" dividend could
pay for rehab centers and drug education, the best role of a
government. But I did like seeing that little fascist from Panama get
what's coming to him. He was killing his own people down there and
threatening ours. Anybody who does that with the 82nd airborne a four
hour flight away is a nut. The treaty that would have relinquished our
right to retract it hadn't even gone into effect at the time he
started acting badly. And that was foolish. If he had kept the canal
running and became a hideous dictator after we signed off on our
ownership of the canal and the final right to ownership of Panama, a
country which WE named and carved out of the jungle where no native
people's ever lived because of the malaria till us, since most
Panamanians are descended from people's in the north central america
and columbia. If he had only waited he could have had that country and
we wouldn't have had any right by treaty to stop him, as long as he
kept the canal open.
And yes, I'm no republican lover. By all means go after the people who
were acting beyond their charge in government, and for all we know,
serving those who make money from drugs right at the top. And go after
presidents who tacitly support "strong men" fascisti anywhere in the
world, just because they keep the third world industies going for our
rich. We're together on that. I could do with some civilization, but
it is my claim that we have never known it yet in the history of the
world, except in isolated pockets for short periods of time. And even
those are questionable to me.
- Steve Walz