From: owner-eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org (eda-thoughts-digest) To: eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org Subject: eda-thoughts-digest V3 #169 Reply-To: eda-thoughts@smoe.org Sender: owner-eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk eda-thoughts-digest Thursday, April 27 2000 Volume 03 : Number 169 * If you ever wish to unsubscribe, send an email to * eda-thoughts-digest-request@smoe.org with ONLY * the word unsubscribe in the body of the email * . * PLEASE :) when you reply to this digest to send a post TO the list, * change the subject to reflect what your post is about. A subject * of Re: eda-thoughts-digest V3 #xxx or the like gives readers no clue * as to what your message is about. Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [ET: elian] ["Kevin B. Pease" ] Re: ET: to joe about abortion ["Kevin B. Pease" ] ET: Re: Re: do the dew like the potato fields? ["Kevin B. Pease" ] ET: and another thing ["stephen" ] Re: ET: to joe about abortion [JewelAng@aol.com] Re: ET: to joe about abortion ["~* cymbaline *~" Subject: Re: [ET: elian] genben@usa.net writes: > Alright, here's a quick way to clear up the whole Elian issue. > [... quotes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights > removed to save space ...] Thanks for posting that Ben, so far, I'm with you, 100%. I don't know if I'll end up disagreeing with you at all, really, but I have a couple questions... > Elian Gonzales is not enjoying his rights according to the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights. What sort of status do children have under the UD? It seems fairly common for societies to define children's rights as "We won't beat you, but you have to do what we say..." -- does the UD address children in any way, or are there any precedents for this sort of situation? I agree, in principle, that anybody should be free to move to a new country, if they so desire, and seek asylum in another country if they so desire. But, when you've got a 6 year old boy -- is it really reasonable to think that he would have conceived of leaving Cuba at the age of 6, if it weren't for the fact that his mother took him with her when she left? I'd tend to think that children, even under an international treaty, fall into the "until you reach a specific age, your parents decide what's best for you," category. Although maybe that's not the case. I'll have to go read through the UD, I'm just curious if you have any specific knowledge about that. However, if Elian's parents are the "decision makers" in cases of where he lives until he reaches whatever age he's considered an adult under the UD, then I would say that child custody law would more or less dictate that he goes back to Cuba, if his father decides to go back; his mother is no longer with him, so it would seem to me that his father gets to make the choice for him. (Unless, of course, the UD also addresses children...) Kevin - -- Kevin Pease kbpease@concentric.net ICQ UIN: 3106063 AOL IM: kbpease ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 02:11:19 -0400 From: "Kevin B. Pease" Subject: Re: ET: to joe about abortion "~* cymbaline *~" writes: > Adoption. > adoption. > you wouldnt have to if she put it up for adoption. > [...] This is a very easy-sounding solution... but your willingness to toss it around so freely makes me think you don't quite understand the emotional & psychological significance & impact of adoption. Do you know anybody who is adopted (well)? > and if you really LOVED her, it wouldnt matter, would it? You make it sound like it is (and should be) easy to forget one of the most violent & intrusive traumas that can be committed against a woman... a pretty sounding theory, but I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound. The woman has to deal with the emotional (and physical...) trauma, and for 9 months, be reminded of the trauma every day until she gives birth, and then (if she doesn't give it up for adoption... and even then, that child is going to have problems...) suffer even more trauma with an ever-present reminder of being assaulted... you don't think that would be a little difficult? > adoption. Again with that word. You don't know anybody who's been adopted, do you? There's a lot of issues around adoption, and it's not as easy as "just putting the kid up." > Oooohhhh.... KILL THE CHILD!IT HAS A DISEASE!!! OOOOHHHHHHH........... thats > horrible to even think that. > easy, if you have aids, don't have sex. So people with AIDS should live leaves devoid of physical contact with anybody else? > she wouldnt have to if she didn't have sex. Go ahead, you try selling people on that idea... :) > some babies aren't even born w/ it! Actually, to be purely technical, with proper precautions & treatment, very few of them are born with it these days. If preventive measures are taken, the child stands a good chance of being disease-free. Kevin - -- Kevin Pease kbpease@concentric.net ICQ UIN: 3106063 AOL IM: kbpease ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 03:05:03 -0400 From: "Kevin B. Pease" Subject: ET: Re: Re: do the dew like the potato fields? RedWoodenBeads@aol.com writes: [Ben, I'm copying you directly on this, as I have a sneaking suspicion you may have some thoughts to add on this topic... feel free.] [Joe -- Not that I'm surprised, as you've ignored any point made so far that can't be responded to with pretty rhetorical devices, but I notice you didn't address any of my questions about abortion... maybe you missed them? Please go back and look at the archives, I asked some quite serious questions in an attempt to understand the facts of your position better. I'd really like to see you provide some form of input on those questions from you.] > Kevin, there is no way you are serious. Do you have any idea what that is > your are saying? Yes, but I think you're having problems with it. I said, "there's an interesting parallel between the oppression of a communist government and the oppression of a capitalist society, isn't there?" > You think advertisement hooks are on the same level as > forcing children to work long hours in potato fields in the hot Cuban sun? No, you seem to think I think that, once again showing your preference for using rhetorical gimmicks over facts & evidence. Let's be clear. I never said that I felt advertising by industry was the same as forcing children to work long hours in potato fields in the hot Cuban sun. What I said was, there's an interesting parallel between the forms of oppression. Communist governments regularly use state-controlled media to control & sway the opinions, beliefs, and feelings of their citizens. How different is that, really, from you or I turning on CBS and zoning out to the ads on TV? We're sitting back, and allowing our opinions, beliefs, and feelings to be controlled & swayed by industry, rather than government. And let's not make it sound like American industry never forced a child to work to produce a product, either. :) Simplistically: Industry creates advertisements; the advertisements sway our opinions & make us decide, "I want that"; This demand has to be satisfied somewhere, and since industries are in business to make money, they choose to meet the demand by using the cheapest labor & materials possible. So really, every time one of us lets our mind be swayed by Michael Jordan saying, "Just Do It," we pester our mom & dad to buy us that new pair of Nike sneakers. Our mom & dad go out & buy a pair of sneakers that was created, most probably, by a foreign laborer who was paid a hideously low wage to produce that product. Yeah, our system isn't oppressive... to us. It just oppresses anybody who's not us, and willing to work cheap. > There is no way you can be that blind, there is just no way.... I don't think I'm blind, Joe. I think I'm looking at the "big picture" pretty realistically. Yeah, corporate advertising budgets allow us to not get our hands dirty with those "nasty third-world peasants," because our corporations do the oppressing for us. As I said before - if there was no demand for the product, would anybody be oppressing another group and forcing them to make it? Nope. > I was once spoke with a Cuban woman who went to my church. She told me that > her dad had spoken against Communism once, which was a very brave thing. The > next day, he never came home from work. No one has seen or heard from his > since. Again, I never said that the analogy was perfect. I said there were interesting parallels. Speak out against the communist dictatorship in Cuba, and you disappear & never get heard from again. I believe it's happened, and I'm sure it happens with a frightening degree of regularity. But, once again, to draw a parallel -- I'm sure we can find union leaders who spoke out against unfair labor practices who disappeared, or were blacklisted, or were labeled COMMUNISTS; how many industry whistle-blowers have been silenced through intimidation and strong-arm tactics? Like it or not, there ARE parallels between the two systems. I never said it was a perfectly symmetric, one-for-one relationship, nor did I say they were the same. I merely stated that the parallels exist, and that they are certainly interesting, and bear discussion. Both systems are oppressive, it's just a matter of who does the oppressing, and who gets oppressed. We have corporations to do our oppressing (of citizens of third world countries and developing nations) for us... the government of Cuba uses it's propaganda & military to oppress it's public. > We have freedom of religion, thought, and the freedom to choose our own > lives. You can't even compare Cuba to America. I certainly can, and I think I just did. To say you "can't compare" two things is an incorrect statement -- comparing two things doesn't presume a similarity, or even ANY relationship, between the two things being compared. I'm not saying that Cuba compares favorably to America, or that America compares unfavorably to Cuba (as I said in the part of my original post that you have handily omitted...) -- I'm saying that there are interesting parallels between the "oppressive" natures of the two systems, and that for Americans to pretend that our system is completely benevolent, altruistic, and pure is pretty blind. > To act like "Do the Dew" is > like having your father spirited away and never seen or heard from again, Again, this is not what I said. Maybe you should try reading exactly what I wrote, as I wrote it, one more time. I wrote: "[...] there's a rather interesting parallel between the oppressiveness of a communist government and the oppressiveness of our "Just Do It, Hungry Why Wait, Do The Dew, Kid Tested Mother Approved" capitalist society, isn't there? Choose your form of mind control: industry or government..." I used the corporate tag lines in reference to the "capitalist society"... it is the oppressiveness of the communist government & the capitalist society that I am drawing parallels between. Next time, look first, then shoot. > No offense, but that is utterly the most ignorant comment I have heard > in a long while. I would agree, if that was what I actually said. However, what you are accusing me of saying is NOT what I said, so let's please refrain from name calling. > One final comment about Elian: > Back when he was with his family, You mean his mom & dad? Or the second cousins & great uncles who he had never met? > we got to see VIDEOS of him everyday. He > was a happy, healthy kid, there with his Uncle Lazaro, cousin Maryslaya, and > other family members. What we all saw was a happy kid. I know a couple six year olds, and they're never happier than when they're the center of attention... you put a camera in front of them, and they're instantly hamming it up for the camera. If you walked out your back door and had 300 people yelling your name, and calling out that they loved you, and cared for you, and wanted to know how you were doing, and there were another 50 news crews present with their cameras on you... wouldn't that elicit a smile from you, too? Think back to when you were six. It's entirely possible that Elian appears "so happy" because he's the center of attention, and he knows it. > Now, we don't see a kid. Yes, our little Elian has grown up in the past couple months, hasn't he. Not even a kid anymore. > We get strange pictures of a pale, almost drugged looking boy from Greg > Craig. I've seen the pictures, and the boy looks happy & healthy enough to me. > Why won't the government let us see this child. First, because the child & his father deserve & should be given some privacy. Second, what makes you think it's "our" right or responsibility to ensure that the boy is put on display for the media like an animal in the zoo? "And here we see the Nocturnal Gonzalez, a young specimen... if we're very quiet, we may see him display his colorful nesting plumage." The government has no responsibility to us to "let us see this child". Why are we suddenly this child's surrogate parents? > Are they afraid we might see him cry out for his Uncle and his family? Or are they just doing what's right for the child, and not making a public spectacle of him? Hmm... either one is just as possible, I suppose. > You can't argue with the facts. I rest my case. Joe, I haven't seen any facts, with the exception of your statement that "we got to see VIDEOS of him". The rest is purely speculation mixed with an exercise in rhetoric. I'd dearly love to see you provide some facts, but you have yet to do so. You can rest your case, that's fine with me... but let's not call a bunch of speculation & conspiracy theories "fact". Kevin - -- Kevin Pease kbpease@concentric.net ICQ UIN: 3106063 AOL IM: kbpease ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:24:35 -0400 From: "stephen" Subject: ET: elian A large load of political bullshit. please stop talking about it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:31:02 -0400 From: "stephen" Subject: ET: and another thing I find it hard to believe 1 person (clinton) runs this country. whether he is marxist, racist, sexist, or whatever... I though it was Christler corporation that did that. As well as whoever is in charge of oil. ohh yeah.. can't leave out Bill Gates... he isn't there yet but he will be eventually. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:09:16 EDT From: JewelAng@aol.com Subject: Re: ET: to joe about abortion In a message dated 4/26/00 8:56:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cymbaline76@hotmail.com writes: << >Should they have to >live with that reminder every day of their lives? And what about when they >go to get married-if they already aren't-then what? And if they are >married...can you imagine fathering someone else's child-some sicko's child >who hurt your wife? you wouldnt have to if she put it up for adoption. and if you really LOVED her, it wouldnt matter, would it? >> Oh god Cymbie.... Do you really think a women could live with a little being, from some guy that RAPED her, and then give it up for adoption. That just seems like insane torture. Rebecca - -------------------------------- http://www.envy.nu/ophelia Ophelia Spins http://nettrash.com/users/majesticramblings .majestic.ramblings. http://www.envy.nu/souls Common hearts with common dreams (cliques) http://www.angelfire.com/yt/horns My horns keep up my halo (webring) - ----------------------------------- Into the night of the heart your name drops slowly and moves in silence and falls and breaks and spreads its water *Pablo Neruda* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:52:28 GMT From: "~* cymbaline *~" Subject: Re: ET: to joe about abortion > This is a very easy-sounding solution... but your willingness to toss >it >around so freely makes me think you don't quite understand the emotional & >psychological significance & impact of adoption. Do you know anybody who >is >adopted (well)? Yes. I know 2 girls who are adopted. And they are very happy, loving girls, who were raised in loving, Christian families. > > and if you really LOVED her, it wouldnt matter, would it? > > You make it sound like it is (and should be) easy to forget one of the >most violent & intrusive traumas that can be committed against a woman... No i didn't. I never forgot the day I was molested by a neighbor. I relive that day everyday, and everytime I see the guy! > > adoption. > > Again with that word. You don't know anybody who's been adopted, do >you? Once again, yes. >here's a lot of issues around adoption, and it's not as >asy as "just >putting the kid up." yeah, so? at least it gives the child a chance to live. Why punish the child, who's fault it not is that the girl got pregant, by killing it? > > easy, if you have aids, don't have sex. > > So people with AIDS should live leaves devoid of physical contact with >anybody else? Well, if you still have to have sex, wear a condom! kelly ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:59:30 GMT From: "~* cymbaline *~" Subject: Re: ET: to joe about abortion >Oh god Cymbie.... > >Do you really think a women could live with a little being, from some guy >that RAPED her, and then give it up for adoption. That just seems like >insane torture. actually, i know a girl who was raped at a 3 day modelling convention she went to, at the beginning of her senior year in high school. they guy (another model) gave her a drug that made her unconscious... she didn't remember being raped, then she found outr she was pregnant, and put 2 and 2 together, and she went through w/ the pregnancy, and had the baby shortly after graduation. and her boyfriend was supportive throughout the whole thing. Kelly ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of eda-thoughts-digest V3 #169 **********************************