Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: motssbox
Message-ID: <1466@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 10:36:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1466
Posted: Fri Jun 21 10:36:03 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 04:01:53 EDT
References: <546@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 45

Ken's comments about White's motives are just as speculative as mine,
Stephen Hutchison's, or Robert Orenstein's.  Accounts of White's
possible motives by others (the press, Shilts & Weiss, people who knew
White) must be considered (maybe accounts by White himself as well, to
see what kind of psychic alibis he uses).  But they're only hypotheses
about things not subject to direct inspection.  We should look at the
facts themselves & the situation in question.

White seems to be strongly homophobic, to the point that it could be a
compelling factor in his decisions & actions. White's own personality,
statements, behavior, peers & associates indicates that.  Milk's brief
tentative & rather formal friendship with White at the outset of their
Supervisorial (sp?) terms was initiated & cultivated almost entirely
by Milk, who was riding on a crest of optimism & euphoria over his
long-hoped-for election, & was probably engaged in a spirit of "watch
me; I'll count even the Board's homophobes as my personal friends &
make them not only respect but even like me", thus coopting opposition
before it knew what was happening.  It would've accorded with Milk's
political style.  Nearly all White's peers & associates were among
those SF homophobes Ken Arnold describes.

The "family & finance" motive in White's political career & behavior
has always struck an odd note.  White knew what Supervisorial salaries
were before he even ran for office.  If his money complaints were sincere,
he simply couldn't afford to hold office.  Blaming anyone for his
economic troubles, & then using the rejection of his request to be given
his inadequately paying Supervisor's job back is bizarre under the
circumstances.  Even the city press reported these matters with a 
slight air of disbelief.  However much White himself may've believed
he acted out of such motives (this sounds bizarre, doesn't it?), the
whole "family finances" argument strikes me as a red herring.  White's
homophobia could have made it a lot easier for him to accept this rather
wimpish argument himself, one he wouldn't ordinarily countenance as a
"macho" male.

At any rate, Ken's comments on my previous reactions (mea culpa, mea culpa,
again) are valid, to the point, & accepted by this party, thank you.  I
now admit (Uncle!) the position I'm pushing is as controversial as the
ones I so vehemently criticized.  I should've separated objections to
slurs against White & Moscone (in Stephen Hutchinson's posting) from
disagreement with genuine debate about the matter (as in Robert Orn-
stein's posting).

					Regards,
					Ron Rizzo