Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    	Re: last couple...
    
    	Drats!  An attempted rathole averted...just having a spot of
    fun bashing guilt-ridden liberals again...
    
    	Actually, if some persons feel that their boycotting of certain
    products is a means of effecting desired change, calling attention
    to a situation they feel is in need of change, or merely to assuage
    their own consciences,  then they certainly have a right to do so,
    and I harbor no great feelings about the matter one way or the other.
    Like Mr. Zarlenga, I don't feel that such boycotts really have any
    appreciable effects, certainly not on the South African regime.
    I find the typical liberal knee-jerk gestures in this regard quite
    amusing per se, but I think that the misconceptions and ignorance
    that lie behind such gestures is rather sad.
    
    	To clarify, I personally find the apartheid system in South
    Africa morally repugnant, and hope and pray that its end will be
    accomplished in our lifetimes.  I do not feel, however, that economic
    sanctions and political ostracization are desirable means to this
    end, but on the contrary, will only harm the very people we purport
    to help, and cause additional bloodshed and suffering.  I believe
    that a violent revolution against the Afrikaaner government and/or
    invasion from neighboring states will be met with brutal and terrifying
    military force, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.
    Such a tragedy is avoidable, and it is the task of the Western nations
    to work with the South African people and their government and assist
    them to further the progress that has already been made in the
    dismantling of apartheid, and the enfranchisement of the people.
    Such goals cannot be accomplished by futile, silly gestures involving
    the boycotting of diamonds and gold, or the construction of dilapidated
    shanties on college campuses.
    
    	All of the people of South Africa, including the whites, are
    worthy of our consideration and compassion in their lives of ordeal
    and suffering, and their nation is of vital strategic importance
    to the West.  To fall prey to liberal media and academic propaganda,
    facilitated by the African National Congress and the Soviet regime,
    is a great mistake, and unworthy of the South African peoples.
    
    				Regards,
    
    				Dave

    
    Your rhetoric would be a little more persuasive without
    the constant references to the "bashing" of those you
    consider "guilt-ridden liberals". 
    
    I hereby cast juicy aspersions at you and your silly, puerile 
    namecalling. 
                           
    

         ...and this silly, puerile topic.
    
                                      Greg

     Well, looking back at 279.14 (the note which you found so dear to your
heart), I see that my assumption that the author was a supporter of S.A.
was AT LEAST as logical as his insinuation that anyone who opposes S.A.
is a liberal.  Are you gonna start a stupid topic on calling people liberals,
too?

                                 Greg

          In .1, you said:
    
   > 	I, like MCIS2::HARDY, feel that the whole idea of not buying
   > diamonds because of SA policy is fine and dandy for some people,
   > but those who do not are not necessarily aligned with SA political
   > policy.
    
         while in 279.14, this idea was not even mentioned.  That note
    was a rehash of the old party line that asserts that opponents of
    S.A. must also vocally oppose every other oppresive regime or their
    opposition of S.A. is invalid.  He didn't say that the idea of
    not buying diamonds was fine for others, but he did ridicule the
    concept.
    
         Therefore, this topic is stupid because it has a fallacious
    premise.
    
                                    Greg
                        

    
    Re .8, Greg-
    
    >      while in 279.14, this idea was not even mentioned.  That note
    > was a rehash of the old party line that asserts that opponents of
    > S.A. must also vocally oppose every other oppresive regime or their
    > opposition of S.A. is invalid. 
    
    I didn't quite get that from the note 279.14.  It is an important
    point to examine *why* we say we do or do not oppose someone.  Mr
    Jackson's isistence that S.A. be labeled a 'terrorist' state in
    the official Democratic Party platform provides a valid basis for
    questioners who point out that Mr Jackson has personally met and
    embraced messieurs Arafat, Castro, and Assad, and just what does
    the Democratic Party mean when they use the phrase "terrorist state"?
    
    If you oppose S.A. for reasons other than those of the Democratic
    Party, fine.  But to discredit the entire question of what the
    Democrats really mean by *their* opposition, by calling it a rehash
    of an old party line does not serve the discussion.  Hardy (in 279.14)
    wasn't much serving that discussion either, I'll grant you.
    
    DougO

    Re: .10
    
         I take NO responsibility for ANYTHING said or done by the
    democratic party.  I also do not see the connection you are trying
    to promote.
    
         279.14 made some kind of sneering remark about how the "liberals"
    will be turning in their diamonds, while products from some commie
    countries are still "politically correct".  What exactly did you
    THINK he was saying there?
    
         I oppose S.A. because I know they are wrong.  Their kind will
    always be my enemy.  Their supporters...likewise.  Nothing having
    to do with any political leaning or party has ANY influence on my
    views.
    
         When somone suggests that the same "do nothing" policy, which
    has been the practice of the last half-decade, is the proper path
    to take, I know who they really are.
    
                                  Greg
    

    Re .11, Greg,
    
    >      279.14 made some kind of sneering remark about how the "liberals"
    > will be turning in their diamonds, while products from some commie
    > countries are still "politically correct".  What exactly did you
    > THINK he was saying there?
    > 
    >      I oppose S.A. because I know they are wrong. 
    
    OK, yes, Mr Hardy made a sneering remark.  What I thought he was
    trying to point out is that it is hypocritical for the Democratic
    Party to accept Mr Jackson's demands about one particular terrorist
    state without identifying the ones Mr Jackson considers to be his
    personal friends.  Absolutely just as bad as previous mistakes of
    consorting with The Shah of Iran or Mr Marcos of the Phillipines,
    for which numerous politicos have been pilloried in the past.
    
    I'm quite aware that you, personally, Greg, have your own views
    on the subject.  I was not painting you with the liberal or Democratic
    brush.  It is interesting that you and the Democratic Party are
    both in opposition to South Africa for whatever your reasons may
    be.  I tried to dissasociate myself from the sneering character
    of Mr Hardy's remark, while recognizing that the point above is
    worth making.  In particular, the point that while opposition to
    S.A. for the Democrat's stated reason is admirable, they are more
    than a little bit hypocritical to ignore other known terrorist states
    with whom Mr Jackson has been known to consort.
    
    > Nothing having to do with any political leaning or party has ANY 
    > influence on my views.    
      
    I sincerely commend you for distancing yourself from what I consider
    to be hypocritical politicos.
    
    DougO

    Re: .12
    
         Reading the notes previous to 279.14 gives the impression that
    Mr. Hardy did not have the democratic party in mind at all.  The
    distinct impression one receives is that he is sneering at those
    noters who professed a hesitance to purchasing items which fund
    this hideous regime.
    
         I realize that you are not attacking me.  Whenever I even discuss
    this topic, my blood pressure rises and my fingers curl into a fist.
    Don't take it personally.  I detected the intent behind the words,
    and it did not seem hostile.
    
                                  Greg

    re: .13 (COMET::BRUNO)
    
    i wouldn't go so far as to say "sneering", more like poking fun
    at.  how do you feel about his reply (.2) in this note?  skipping
    over the first two paragraphs that is, which are more jabs to get
    a rise out of us "knee jerk liberals".
    
    IMHO, he seemed aware of the situation, but didn't think that
    individuals could hurt the government through economic boycott.
    with that sort of defeatist attitude, of course not!  the only way
    to succeed is to educate, agitate, and organize.  educate the masses,
    agitate so the target knows he is a target, and organize to hurt
    the target.  united we stand, divided we're nothing.

    
    Former terrorist states:
    
    USA - armed uprising against British Crown, decimated
          native Amerind inhabitants.
    
    USSR - armed uprising against Tsar, totally diabolical
           and bloody regime of terror.
    
    Israel - armed uprising against Crown, Arab neighbors,
             hung sergeants from tree, blew up King David
             Hotel, assasinated Lord Moyne, bombings, assination
             of Palestinnians in Europe, Cyprus, France; Bombing
             of reactors in Iraq, France.  
    
    Kenya - armed uprising against Crown, murder of white colonials.
    
    UK - imposed imperialist regimes, massacred native peoples,
         stole resources.
    
    France - same, only worse.
    
    Yesterdays terrorist, todays statesman, tomorrow's decoration
    for paper money...
    
    re Hardy's remarks: He propably means what he says in all sincerity,
                        judging from the way he usually addresses us
                        in the box. I wouldn't want him to get any kind
                        of reputation for statesman-like discourse from
                        a few stray notes here.
    

    
    > Yesterdays terrorist, todays statesman, tomorrow's decoration
    > for paper money...

    An interesting observation, there is probably something in what
    you say.  In all honesty, though, I don't accept moral equivalencies
    between yesterday's terrorism and today's.  I don't accept the
    Democrats turning a blind eye to Mr Jackson's activities as being
    acceptable political behavior merely because it was politically
    expedient to do so.  Political posturing about terrorist states
    (South Africa, to the Dems; Libya, Syria, Cuba, and the USSR to
    the rest of us) should be exposed as *just* a posture and not revered
    as a committment to actually attempt to improve what's going on
    in South Africa.  I think the Democrat Party are actually hoping 
    a firestorm erupts there, and we'll see terrorism on the sides of
    both the state and the oppressed.  Charming prospect, what?  Who
    will remember Mr Jackson's posturing antics when S.A. is burning?
    
    DougO
    

    Re: .16
    
    I don't think it's fair to assume that just because some political
    figure calls himself a Democrat, that all members of that party
    automatically agree with all his positions.  After all, Lyndon
    LaRouche calls himself a Democrat too.
    
    I'm a Democrat and I'm uncomfortable with some of Jesse's positions
    and activities.  I'd probably not support him for president.  Yet
    some of his work is good, and I applaud him for that, and hope that
    he can work within the party to make it stronger.
    
    					Steve

    re: .17, Steve-
        
    > I don't think it's fair to assume that just because some political
    > figure calls himself a Democrat, that all members of that party
    > automatically agree with all his positions. 
      
    Hey, great.  Thats reasonable.  It doesn't, however, answer the
    point I was making.  I didn't reference *all* of Mr Jackson's
    positions.  I referenced the one he forced into the Official Statement
    Of The Democrat Party During This Election Year, the "platform".
    
    It is officially the Democrat Party's position that South Africa
    is a terrorist state.  There's some other verbiage included but
    I haven't read it since the convention.  If you're disagreeing with
    my calling that the position of the "Dems" as I did in .16, tell me
    where else I shoulda looked for their position.  And as for whether
    all members of that party agree...well, enough of them contributed
    to the political process as Mr Jackson's supporters, to allow him
    to force that on the rest of the party.
    
    DougO