Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!cuae2!gatech!jeff
From: jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Apology for EXPO posting.- actually S.A., Soviets, & Socialists
Message-ID: <4378@gatech.CSNET>
Date: Fri, 22-Aug-86 12:41:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.4378
Posted: Fri Aug 22 12:41:16 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 03:07:16 EDT
References: <1077@bu-cs.bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: jeff@gatech.UUCP (Jeff Lee)
Organization: School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta
Lines: 98

>>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.

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...
-- 
Jeff Lee
CSNet:	Jeff @ GATech		ARPA:	Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp:	...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff