The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1996/giwer_debate_9601


 R_9601 
+++ r_960108 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1796)
To:      All                                     5 Jan 96 14:46:10
Subject: A shutdown government  01              

                     A shut down government
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1996 <12/3>

     By some miracle, before you read this the government may be
re-open and the mud-slinging will be regarding who flinched and who
won.  I have put off writing this for one reason.  I want to ask
you who is being harmed?
     Some government employees of course.  The media finds them
every day for the evening news.  Some tourists of course and some
others whose applications are not being processed.
     So lets look at the impact of the applications not being
processed.  Social security is a good example.  But where are the
people in need of social security who are not receiving it on the
evening news?
     There is part of the answer to our essential government
workers.  It has not been a month yet and since the "normal"
delay for our efficient government workers is nine to ten months
it will be some time before anyone notices.  And even with the
delay, what is an extra month?
     Some of the government employees who are out there bleating
"I am essential" are the ones who just can't seem to overcome
the normal government backlog in processing.  Perhaps I just have
a good memory but when it comes to a backlog, every so often the
media would cover a whistle-blower.  I remember one reporting that
she was ordered to goof off rather than work on the backlog as
that was saved for overtime work.
     It would be interesting to juxtapose the "I am essential"
with some whistle-blower stories.  Now I agree it is difficult to
estimate just what part of these delays is overwork and what is
real.  But let me start with one management truism; if the
backlog is constant, it is not overwork.
     If the backlog grows every month then there is too much work
for too little staff.  There are of course motivation and
overtime and other considerations but it has to be growing for
there to be a problem.  When the backlog is constant year in and
year out it means the staff has set its own pace that has nothing
to do with the workload.
     To some extent there are simply time consuming steps that
have to be accomplished.  As there are no shortcuts in Social
Security it is difficult to estimate what the real time would be
if the staff were not setting the pace.
     For a comparison we can look at getting a passport.
Everyone who gets a passport goes through exactly the same
process.  However, if you need one for your job or have an
emergency need, it takes five working days.  The normal wait is
on the order of three months.
     Excuse me, but that means that if the staff of the passport
office were not setting its own leisurely pace everyone's
passport would take one week.  Since it is exactly the same
process there is no reason all applications can not be handled in
the same manner.
     It would appear by a similar ratio that social security
applications could be qualified in about one month at most.  But
do not forget, these are the people who are "suffering" from the
shutdown.  They are essential to the delay they put into the work
they do.
     Still the question remains should government employees not
getting a paycheck govern policy on a balanced budget,
bankrupting Medicare, and ending entitlements?  AT&T just
announced the first round of layoffs, 40,000 of them with many
times more to be announced this year.  Are we to be treated with
stories of AT&T employees and demands that AT&T not lay them off?
     What is the difference?  Why are government "layoffs" being
politicized when private sector layoffs are not?  The government
has some 240,000 not receiving full pay or no pay.  There were at
least that many layoffs in the private sector last year from
major corporations in downsizing alone.  Certainly there were ten
times as many people who found themselves looking for another job
through no cause of their own.
     What is the difference here?  Here we have people who were
so secure in their jobs, average pay over $36,000 a year, that
they not only set their own work pace but did not plan for being
"laid off."  And as for the rest of the people who can expect to
be laid off their average income is a bit over $20,000 a year.
Pardon me if I do not feel a great compassion for government
employees making nearly twice the average with automatically
better credit ratings due to job security having the normal
problem of the average worker.
     Ah, but they are still employed and can not look for other
work?  Why can they not look for other work?  If they really do
not like what has happened to them they certainly should be
looking for another job, one that is not a government job.  But
they seem to be sticking it out, don't they?  It appears they
have determined a missed paycheck is better than a non-government
job.
     Regardless of the cause or the blame for this turn of events
why is there sympathy for government employees in all of this?
These are people who obviously can not get a better job than they
have in the government else they would not be parading, they
would be job hunting.  These are the same government types who
have justly earned our frustration at least when they are on the
job.
     Yes, they are essential, because we can't take our business
to another government.  They are part of a monopoly upon access
to things the government has declared are its monopoly.  And they
are the focus of our compassion because for the first time, they
are suffering the consequences of their choice of employment.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     To save long distance calls.  One time permission to
reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification
is requested.  If you Xpost everything, one notification will do.
     1)   You send a proof copy if printed media to the address
below.
     2)   The byline and address below is included.
     3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling
and grammar corrections.
     4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived
directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to
**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 501 601 701 714 801 1001 1101
SEEN-BY: 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1797)
To:      Frank Hay                              30 Dec 95 06:13:10
Subject: It is not compassion                   

FH>  FH> What then would be the proper demonstration of compassion for
FH>  FH> the children of Bosnia?

FH>  MG> Where is it written there must be any form of demonstration?

FH> In your heart?

     Not there.

FH>  MG>  Why single out children save to make the question emotional 
FH>  MG>  rather than rational?

FH>  Why do you ignore the practical consquencies of our 
FH>  policies there?

     That is what I am talking about.  It wouldn't take much of 
anything to get us involved in a ten+ year war there.

FH>  If you had as much proof of the holocaust as we do of the 
FH>  atrocities in Bosnia today, would you have let the 
FH>  slaughter of the Jews continue as long as Hitler kept it 
FH>  internal to Germany?

     We let them continue is Russia in the 30s, in China in the 
50s, 60s, and 70s, in Cambodia in the 70s, and if I had the time 
I could list a dozen more.  And do not forget the Hutu and the 
Tutsi earlier this year.  

     This has happened many times before and many times worse -- 
that was a million Cambodians don't forget.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer's World    http://www.combase.com/~mgiwer/
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 501 601 701 714 801 1001 1101
SEEN-BY: 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1798)
To:      Ed Mathis                              30 Dec 95 06:20:10
Subject: More tobacco lies      01              

EM>  MG>  And so, without the slightest evidenciary proof, you claim 
EM>  MG>  that the EPA study did not change the criteria from 95 to 
EM>  MG>  90 confidence (even though they did) solely because civil 
EM>  MG>  service employee of the Library of Congress were asked by 
EM>  MG>  the equivalent of NASA to discuss gravity.

EM>  The last part of your sentence is incomprehensible to me.  

     I am not surprised.

EM>  The first part of your sentence is a serious misstatement 
EM>  of what I have stated in several previous posts.
EM> 
EM>  The two civil service economist employees of the L of C 
EM>  were asked by Rep.  Bliley (the Marlboro man of Congress) to 
EM>  write a critical report on the EPA study.  

     Can you produce the appropriate written documentation of 
that claim?  Of course not.  But never let that stop you from 
making things up.

What they did 
EM>  was to restate a Huber paper without questioning any of its 
EM>  basic assumptions and assertions, though many critical ones 
EM>  were clearly erroneous.
EM> 
EM>  I never said that the EPA did not change the confidence 
EM>  interval from 95% to 90%;  what I said several times, under 
EM>  the apparently mistaken impression that you could 
EM>  understand simple declarative sentences, was what the EPA 
EM>  did was run a 90% ONE-TAILED -- not a 95% TWO-TAILED -- 
EM>  statistical test.

EM>  A one-tailed test at a 90% confidence interval is exactly 
EM>  equivalent in statistical power to a two-tailed test at a 
EM>  95% confidence interval.  Each has its place and either is 
EM>  equally valid if applied properly.

     I was not aware of that.  And since you understand that 
point you will certainly be willing to explain to me why that is 
true?  Of course not.  You have not the slightest idea what you 
are talking about.

     Suitable references to the math will be expected.

EM>  As I recollect, a two-tailed test is used when there is 
EM>  insufficient knowledge to know what kind of response will 
EM>  occur to a challenge.  An example would be in a situation 
EM>  where there is uncertainty about whether the stimulus will 
EM>  elicit a certain response, suppress it, or have no effect.  
EM>  A two-tailed test will generate estimated probabilities 
EM>  that the final result could be explained by each of these 
EM>  respective possibilities or by pure chance.
EM> 
EM>  Contrast this with a one-tailed test:  a one-tailed test is 
EM>  appropriate in situations where the nature of the response 
EM>  -- but not its magnitude -- to a stimulus is known, is 
EM>  consistent, and can be reliably predicted.

     That don't cut it in the least.  In fact, it reads close to 
the high tech-talk of ST:TNG.

EM>  Based on the conclusions of the best existing ETS studies, 
EM>  plus the lab knowledge generated by cellular 
EM>  microbiologists/toxicologists, plus the consensus of the 
EM>  overwhelming majority of medical scientists, the EPA felt 
EM>  that the question was not whether or not ETS causes cancer 
EM>  but how much.  On that basis they felt justified in using a 
EM>  one-tailed analysis.

     So they assumed the conclusion and tortured the data until 
it supported the conclusion.  That is what I have been saying.  

EM>  Must I remind you that the subject studies themselves are 
EM>  strongly consistent with the EPA's conclusions?  

     You have just stated their conclusions were preconceived.

Must I 
EM>  further remind you that their analysis has been peer 
EM>  reviewed, relentlessly scrutinized, and has passed the 
EM>  muster of countless experts in the field?  Must I remind 
EM>  you that their analysis has been further validated by the 
EM>  results of several more big studies released since theirs 
EM>  was conducted?

     You need to do more than remind me.  You need to provide the 
journal references to support your claims.  Of course you have 
none.  

EM>  The tobacco industry is practically alone in protesting.  
EM>  But of course they also deny that nicotine is addictive or 
EM>  that tobacco smoke causes cancer in smokers, let alone 
EM>  nonsmokers.

     In the face of an EPA assumption that it does what can 
anyone say?  

EM>  Despite your insistent claims that the medical/science 
EM>  community is deeply split on the issue, you, Matt, have 
EM>  been unable to account for the simple fact that there is 
EM>  not one -- NOT ONE! -- single solitary U.S.  professional 
EM>  medical group that takes exception to the EPA study or to 
EM>  ETS research in general.

     I have made ZERO claims about any community.  But you know 
that.

EM>  Despite your insistent claims that the medical/science 
EM>  community is deeply split on the issue, you, Matt, have 
EM>  been unable to cite names of some of those "many" 
EM>  dissenters you claim to know of nor have you been able to 
EM>  furnish written sources where their dissention can be 
EM>  found.

**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 501 601 701 714 801 1001 1101
SEEN-BY: 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1799)
To:      All                                     5 Jan 96 14:48:10
Subject: Who shutd down the Gov 01              

                  Who shut down the government?
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1996 <1/3>

     No one.
     That could be the least wordy article I have ever written
but far be it from me to let it go at that.  
     Here we have from Article I, Section 8 of the US
Constitution.

         No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but
         in consequence of appropriations made by law;
         and a regular statement and account of the
         receipts and expenditures of all public money
         shall be published from time to time.

     Drawing money from the treasury means paying salaries, bills
and any other movement of money from the government to anyone
else.  It means any check signed by any branch of the US
government to any person or entity that is not part of the
government.  That is the supreme law of the land.
     The 437 elected officials involved in this -- the Congress,
the President and the vice-President -- have taken an oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Obviously that means they can not violate any of its provisions.
That is clearly an impeachable offense.
     The way for money to be spent is as a result of a spending
bill that is signed into law.  For a spending bill to become law
it must pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the
President.  Therefore, when the President refused to sign some of
the spending bills, there was no law authorizing the spending of
money.
     No one overtly shut down the government.  The government
simply lost the power to spend money.  The situation is in no
manner different from you not sending a check for some service
such as the telephone.  For the government to continue spending
money without authorization in law would be no different than the
phone company continuing to take money from your checking account
without benefit of a check from you.
     So the issue of getting the government back to work is not
one of ceasing to do something but rather getting the bills
signed in whatever modified form that may come from the
negotiations.
     The only other issue is whether or not there should be a
continuing resolution to get people back to work while the
negotiations continue.  In that regard, there is a different
issue.  That issue is the integrity of the participants.
     It would be the second continuing resolution and the
President has proposed the same conditions as last time.  Save
that the last time he failed to live up to his word.  That means
quite clearly the man can not be trusted.  It would be like
granting parole a second time to a man who had violated the first
parole and showed no sign of having changed.
     That is the honest view of anyone who looks at the present
machinations.  The President gave his word to present his version
of a balanced budget and refused to do so.  If there was ever any
question of it, on the 3rd of January he promised to keep his
word if the House would re-open government.  That is the parole
violator trying to bargain with the parole board.  Again.
     It is not a secret that there would be a budget "crisis" at
this time.  I wrote about it in December 1994.  Gingrich talked
about it in March 1995.  Only the blind did not know this was
going to happen.
     Clinton and the Democrats welcomed it and did nothing
whatsoever to avoid it.  And since the Republicans were doing
only what they campaigned saying they would do there is no
surprise that they are in fact doing it.  The only real surprise
to the "government as usual" types is that they are actually
doing what they said they would do.
     It is the political wisdom of this country that no one does
what they said they would do during the campaign.  The shock to
the political elite and their journalist media following is that
they are in fact violating all the rules and doing what they said
they would do.  The grand art of compromise is supposed to
submerge campaign rhetoric in the business as usual politics of
Washington.
     Once more for those who have not read what I have written
before.  The art of compromise is always the LAST resort and
never the first.  For decades business as usual in Washington has
meant that if you want change and I say no, you settle for
trivial change.
     The roles have been reversed.  Now the establishment settles
for major change or the old zero funding ploy is in full force
and effect.  If the president does not like the funding
reductions and vetoes the bill then he has zero funded everything
in the bill.
     It is about time the president and the Democrats realize
this is not another compromise first rather than last
confrontation.  This is a crossroad in the future of America.
This is not a trivial political difference even that is the only
thing journalism majors are able to report is not understand.
     If this fails then the political clamor for more services
than this country can afford will have won.  The political demand
for more spending than income will have won.  That means ultimate
bankruptcy for the United States as even at a 90% tax rate such a
government ruled by such an electorate will continue to spend
more than it can bring in.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     To save long distance calls.  One time permission to
reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification
is requested.  If you Xpost everything, one notification will do.
     1)   You send a proof copy if printed media to the address
below.
     2)   The byline and address below is included.
     3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling
and grammar corrections.
     4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived
directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to
recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of
**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 501 601 701 714 801 1001 1101
SEEN-BY: 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1 3615/50 51




+++ r_960111 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1928)
To:      All                                     6 Jan 96 07:22:10
Subject: don't like the shutdown?               

                          Told you so?
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1996 <1/6>

     Of course I did.  Yesterday the last of the problems with
the shutdown of 19% of the government was solved.  The employees
are back at work but they can not do anything.  Their departments
have no spending authority as required by the Constitution.
     Yes, back in December 1994, I wrote about the old zero
funding ploy.  I said back then, if the president does not like
the reduction in a department he can veto the reduction and zero
fund the entire department.  That it took so long to become
obvious to the journalism majors is not surprising.
     It is not at though it is complicated.  If Bill Clinton does
not like the downsizing of the EPA he need only veto that bill.
In doing so he has shut down the EPA in its entirety.
     The Constitution creates our government such that Congress
is supreme despite the tendency to give the president supremacy
this century.  The rule is simple.  The President can veto
Congress and Congress can override a veto.  The President can do
nothing on his own in spending money or doing much of anything
internal to the country.
     Anyone who does not like it, change the constitution.  But
in doing so remember, in giving any kind of supreme power to a
president is in fact giving that power to his political party.
In 1932 Germany gave political power to a political party.
History indicates that was not a good idea.
     The desire for a strong central leader was what brought down
Germany.  A president or fuhrer with a free reign is exactly
what we do not want.  It is the antithesis, not only of our form
of government, but of liberty.
     You may not like what is going on in Washington but then did
you vote and who for and why?  Whatever is going on is the result
of the form of government we live under.  And if you do not like
it, there is always the amendment process.
     But should "common sense" over ride the Constitution?
Should necessity give powers to individuals be they president or
not?  And, if so, which individual?
     It seems obvious that that person should be the president as
an artifact of our system and our legacy of a century of serious
war.  On one hand, yes, the person with that power should be our
current warlord.  On the other hand, without war, that figurehead
is superfluous.  Without an enemy there is no call to rallying
around a president.
     But here the genius and insight of those who created our
constitution and thus our country is never better vindicated.
Today we have a lowly governor from either the left or right
armpit of the country, who should be the least interest in a
strong presidency.  Yet he is defending the power of the
presidency.  Although that comes from political parties that did
not exist and are not recognized in our Constitution there is the
tendency to power requiring checks and balances in all of its
naked infamy.
     Thus our Constitution puts the power of the Congress ahead
of both the President and ahead of the Supreme Court.  But let us
go further into the original concept.  The president was to be
elected by the electoral college.  The Senators were to be
elected by the state government bodies.  Only the Representatives
were to be elected by the people.  And only the Representatives,
the House, was given the power to initiate spending bills.
     It is hardly surprising that the line of succession to the
presidency is first the vice president and then the Speaker of
the House, Newt Gingrich folks, read it and weep.  And why not?
The ultimate power in this country is in the people.  The only
people and person directly elected by the people is the House and
the Speaker respectively.
     Should we take a dislike to this form of government we can
change it.  Should the electoral process fail to meet our needs
we can always use violent revolution.  There is nothing evil
about that.  The only historic approbrium to revolution is to
losing the revolution.
     And here we are at the fundment of our constitution.  The
House is refusing to spend money where it is the only authority
to spend money.  It is difficult to say they always want it their
way when the Constitution says it is only their way when money is
spent.  The President does not agree, fine.  The President has no
legal authority to do anything but execute the laws he signs.
That is the constitution.
     If you do not like the idea that words on paper should
govern everything, just what would you suggest be used in their
place?  If you think your personal approach is right then please
put it in writing so all of us can comment upon it.
     If that was not sarcastic enough try it this way.  If you do
not like the government system in the Constitution, then propose
your own.  Until then, live with what is happening without
complaining about what you do not understand.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     To save long distance calls.  One time permission to
reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification
is requested.  If you Xpost everything, one notification will do.
     1)   You send a proof copy if printed media to the address
below.
     2)   The byline and address below is included.
     3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling
and grammar corrections.
     4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived
directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to
recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of
judgement proof people.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer's World    http://www2combase.com/~mgiwer/
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 501 601 701 714 801 1001 1101
SEEN-BY: 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1929)
To:      Ed Mathis                               6 Jan 96 06:30:10
Subject: Tobacco                                

EM>  EM>  Advertising and promotions do have a powerful effect on
EM>  EM>  minors;  and that is one reason why the yearly outlay for
EM>  EM>  tobacco ads and promotions has gone from about $100 million
EM>  EM>  to over $6 BILLION over the last 10 years.

EM>  MG> Can you provide a source for these numbers?

EM>  FTC figures for 1993.  The word is that spending for 1994 
EM>  is even higher though the figures are not released yet, to 
EM>  my knowledge..

     If they have not been released then you are making it up.  
Or do you have inside knowledge and why are you committing a 
firing offense in using them?

EM>  MG>  Can you provide any evidence that advertising does anything 
EM>  MG>  more than provide market share?

EM> Meaning what?

     Meaning that no one in advertising claims to be doing more 
than claiming a market share.  If you knew what you were talking 
about you would know that.

EM>  Are you suggesting that advertising's effect is primarily 
EM>  to induce existing customers to switch brands while not 
EM>  inducing new customers to begin buying in that product 
EM>  category?

     I am suggesting, let me rephrase that, I am stating that 
you are either a liar or an ignoranmous.

EM>  MG> Can you provide any evidence of any connection with minors?

EM>  Is it total coincidence that the increasing rate of teen 
EM>  smoking follows the increasing marketing expenditures of 
EM>  the tobacco industry?

     Is it a total coincidence that teenagers start both sexual 
activity and smoking?  Idiot!

EM>  MG> As you can do none of the above why, if you are not a
EM>  MG> zealot, do you post such things?

EM> Look again, Matt.

EM>  Surely a person of your distinguished stature would be 
EM>  anxious to apologize for making such an untrue accusation?

     Idiot is the current accusation and unquestionably correct.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer's World    http://www2combase.com/~mgiwer/
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 501 601 701 714 801 1001 1101
SEEN-BY: 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1 3615/50 51




+++ r_960114 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2220)
To:      Frank Hay                              10 Jan 96 14:31:10
Subject: It is not compassion                   

FH>  MG> Where is it written there must be any form of demonstration?

FH>  FH> In your heart?

FH>  MG> Not there.

FH> Sad . . .

     I have found thinking to be of more value than emoting, the 
latter being the antithesis of the intellect.

FH>  FH> If you had as much proof of the holocaust as we do of the
FH>  FH> atrocities in Bosnia today, would you have let the slaughter
FH>  FH> of the Jews continue as long as Hitler kept it internal to
FH>  FH> Germany?

FH>  MG> We let them continue is Russia in the 30s, in China in the
FH>  MG> 50s, 60s, and 70s, in Cambodia in the 70s, and if I had the
FH>  MG> time I could list a dozen more. And do not forget the Hutu
FH>  MG> and the Tutsi earlier this year.

FH>  Are you saying it was a good thing to let those things 
FH>  happen? When the opportunity to stop them presents itself, 
FH>  how could you not try to bring sanity back to the 
FH>  situation?

     I asked you where it was written that we were required to 
take any action.  You have not answered the question as yet.

FH>  Would you not do something to stop a rape if you happen 
FH>  upon one? Or would you first consider, "What's in it for 
FH>  me?"

     You are still not answering the question.  Do you know the 
answer or are you playing coy?

     And when are you going to demand we go into Chechnya to stop 
that civil war?  And why are you not making that case?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer's World    http://www2combase.com/~mgiwer/
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 501 601 701 714 801 1001 1101
SEEN-BY: 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1 3615/50 51




+++ r_960115 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2380)
To:      All                                    11 Jan 96 14:40:10
Subject: Necessity                              

     The Supreme Court criteria of a compelling government 
interest in judging the constitutionality of a government action 
is identical to introducing immediate necessity as the 
justification for any extension of government power.

     Necessity is the source of every tyranny.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer's World    http://www2combase.com/~mgiwer/
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 401 501 601 701 714 801 1001
SEEN-BY: 250/1101 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2382)
To:      All                                    11 Jan 96 16:11:10
Subject: New Courts Martial upd 01              

Colonel Ronald D. Ray, USMC, combat veteran, Vietnam, legal counsel for
Specialist Michael New standing court martial for refusal to don UN garb,
forwarded the following summary of the case to Committee to Restore the
Constitution.
===============================================================================

Spc. Michael G. New Defense Fund
P.O. Box 1136*Crestwood, Kentucky 40014 Phone: 502 241-5552 Fax 502 241-1552
Contributions to the Spc. Michael G. New Defense Fund are gratefully accepted.
The Case for the Defense will be made on the Internet MNew@Shivasys.com

Brief Summary of Legal Developments in the Case of Spc. Michael G. New

Colonel Ray, chief legal counsel for New says, "Michael New's solitary
stand has demonstrated the truth of America's subordinate position to the
UN:

U.S. troops in the UN deployment to Macedonia are required to carry only
one identity card: Not the U.S. identity documents, not the Geneva
convention Card, only identity document" required to be carried by US
troops is a UN identity!1

In The Military Court
Since the arraignment on November 17, 1995 of Spc. Michael G. New in
Wurzburg, Germany, the defense has outlined four (4) separate grounds as
Motions to Dismiss the charge against Spc. New because the order was
illegal and/or violates his legal and Constitutional rights. The heart of
Michael's case is that the order to wear the uniform of a foreign
government is illegal.

Spc. New and his parents repeatedly requested the Army to provide legal and
Constitutional justification to them for the extraordinary order to Michael
to wear the uniform of a foreign government. The order in question was
given on October 2, 1995 in Schweinfurt, Germany. Capt. Klein, now the
prosecutor in the New case, presented a one-hour briefing, immediately
before the Bn. Cmdr., gave the order to wear the UN uniform to 550 members
of the 1/15 Infantry which included Spc. Michael New.

The October 2, Klein briefing outlined the Army's "legal bases" for the
deployment to Macedonia and the order to wear the UN uniform. The only
authority Klein gave regarding the legality of the order was very general
and conclusory - nothing specific: "UN guidelines," "National Command
Authority" (NCA), "UN Charter," "Domestic Law," "Commander in Chief" or
authority of the President, "UN Security Council Resolutions." Klein
concluded the briefing by mocking New's questions by saying we wear the UN
baby blue uniform because "They look fabulous."

On December 6, 1995, Colonel Ray filed a Motion to Disqualify the
prosecutor, Capt. Michael Klein, because he is a material defense witness
and will be called to testify either in support of Motions to Dismiss or at
trial. The New defense sought the documents relied upon or were referred to
or mentioned in the Klein briefing which the Army vigorously tried to
block. Some of the documents sought include classified documents, some of
which have also been withheld from the Congress. For example, Presidential
Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25) under which the Clinton administration - is
a new policy in 1993 and 1994. PDD 25 is referred to as the source of
"authority" for assigning increasing numbers of U.S. Armed Forces personnel
to UN assignments abroad.

According to a Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) document produced to the Defense
on the evening of November 17, 1995, a 1994 JCS Operations and Law
Symposium, and the recent announced deployment in support of the
Balkans/Bosnia Hungary UN operation - allegedly under the command of NATO -
a regional arrangement under the UN Charter - there will be over 100,000 US
troops so deployed in support of UN operations world wide, as of the end of
the year in 1995. The president  under the UN Participation Act has the
limited authority to deploy only 1000 US troops.

(Lt. Col. Gary Jewell, ordered the Motions pending, except the Motions to
Dismiss including the government's Motion to Limit and Suppress documents
and avoid trial on the more comprehensive issues would be heard in
Wurzburg, Germany at 1300 hours December 13, 1995 and the trial would be
continued until on or about January 23, 1996. The Motions to Dismiss are
scheduled to be arraigned to the court on January 18, 1996.)

On December 13, 1995, the military judge denied the government's Motion in
Limine I and ordered the Army to produce most of the documents the Defense
requested including PDD 25. Captain Klein was not removed as the
prosecutor, but if the New case goes to a jury, then Captain Klein, who
will be a witness, will have to stand down as prosecutor.

The Congress
Currently, Congress has supplied additional support for Spec. New's
position that the order to wear the "United Nations uniform" is illegal. In
both the Senate and House, support is being gained for two bills to
prohibit such orders in the future to American soldiers to wear the "UN
uniform." On the morning of December 6, 1995 Congressman Roscoe Bartlett
and Congressman Tom DeLay, the Republican majority whip, also sent a
personal letter to Army Chief of Staff, General Dennis Reimer, strongly
supporting the position of Spc. New whom they defined as a "courageous and
loyal American soldier from Conroe, Texas."

After close scrutiny and review by their staffs - including three inquiries
to the Congressional Research Service - Congressmen Delay and Bartlett
pointed out to General Reimer, that: the "UN uniform" including the cap,
insignia, shoulder sleeve UN patch, flashes, scarf, etc. was an
unauthorized augmentation to New's U.S. Army military uniform
(1.) violated the Constitutional provision in Article 1 Section 9 requiring
prior Congressional approval therefor,
(2.) violates U.S. statutes which do not authorize the wearing of any such
foreign insignia, badges or UN uniform and;
(3.) even violate the U.S. Army's own Wear and Appearance of Army Uniform
regulations in Army Regulation 670-1 which specifically prohibits the
wearing of "foreign badges" on the U.S. Army Battle Dress Uniform and also
prohibits any shoulder/sleeve augmentation for "provisional units." Para.
1-4a of AR 670-1 makes it clear that;

[o]nly uniforms, accessories, and insignia prescribed in this regulation or
in the Common Table of Allowances (CTA), or as approved by Headquarters,
Department of the Army (HQDA), will be worn by personnel in the U.S. Army."

Part of the United Nations insignia and accouterments meant to augment the
BDU is the United Nations blue cap or beret, and shoulder sleeve insignia
(SSI). AR 670-1 clearly does not authorize their wear. The CTA also does
not authorize the wear of these items.
**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 401 501 601 701 714 801 1001
SEEN-BY: 250/1101 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2383)
To:      All                                    11 Jan 96 16:22:10
Subject: New Courts Martial inf 01              

==================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- December 25, 1995
Copyright 1995 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913
==================================================================

ARTICLE: Front Page
TITLE: Follow the Leader?
SUBTITLE: U.S. soldiers are being placed in harm's way --
for the new world order

AUTHOR: William Norman Grigg
==================================================================


On November 24th, the New York Times, the nation's self-anointed
arbiter of the news that is "fit to print," finally acknowledged the
story of Army Specialist Michael New, who is undergoing a
court-martial for refusing to wear United Nations insignia on his
military uniform. Although the Times was tardy to report a story which
is already familiar to millions of Americans, it did correctly
identify the central issue of the dispute: "The Army argues that the
order [to wear UN insignia] was legal under the classified
Presidential Decision Directive 25. Along with the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945, the directive sets out the conditions under
which American troops may be placed under United Nations command." In
short, the Army and the Clinton Administration contend that the
constitutional restraints on presidential war-making powers have been
dispensed with, and that the armed forces are a President's tool
subject to the whims of whoever occupies the Oval Office.

"Law of the Land"

A significant elaboration upon this position has been presented by
Rice University professor Harold Hyman, a supposed authority on
military history and constitutional law. In an op-ed column published
in the November 12th Houston Chronicle, Hyman deployed the familiar
fallacy that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution can be used to
incorporate treaties into America's domestic law, and that therefore
the UN Charter is "the supreme law of the land." Hyman contended that
Spec. New's oath "commands obedience to the Constitution as a whole,
including the provision that *all treaties' became part of the
nation's *supreme law.'"

According to Hyman, New and his supporters are "endanger[ing] our
constitutional society" by subverting the principle of civilian
control over the military: "This single -- so far -- recalcitrant
soldier imperils the Constitution's delicate, perhaps fragile,
provisions requiring civilian control of our armed forces, military
policy and international relations." Hyman insisted that New's refusal
to wear UN insignia is pregnant with apocalyptic consequences:

"Those consequences include bloody armed clashes between the soldiers
and units who choose to obey a president and those of other units or
branches who opt instead to obey seemingly contrary laws of Congress
or decisions by Supreme Court justices. In this scenario the Army vs.
Navy football clash could become fire-fights in which the Air Force,
Coast Guard and Marines also take sides against former
comrades-in-arms, with the states' military units adding to the bloody
messes."

Of course, Hyman's indictment of Michael New depends heavily upon an
historically untenable interpretation of Article VI. Alexander
Hamilton maintained, "The only constitutional exception to the power
of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution."
Under Article VI, according to Hamilton, "A treaty cannot be made
which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any
express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United
States." James Madison supported this assessment: "I do not conceive
that power is given to the President and the Senate to ... alienate
any great, essential right [through treaty].... The exercise of the
power must be consistent with the object of the delegation."

From this perspective, it is the civilian political leadership of the
nation -- not soldier/constitutionalists like Michael New -- who have
imperiled our constitutional order. However, in a telephone interview
with The New American, Professor Hyman dismissed the insights of
Madison and Hamilton as "silly arguments that were used to get the
Constitution ratified.... They haven't held up during the last fifty
years." In any case, Hyman asserts, the constitutional questions are
none of New's concern: "Like everybody else in the military today, he
volunteered to serve. He's a mercenary; he's getting paid. There might
be a different standard if he had been a conscript."

But Michael New, like thousands of other patriotic Americans, did not
enlist in the military to become a mercenary of the new world order.
Although Professor Hyman is unreliable in his rendering of
constitutional history, he is correct in predicting that the U.S.
military may soon confront a major institutional crisis. The crisis
would not necessarily result in the internecine combat described so
luridly by Hyman in his op-ed column. However, it would probably
result in a steady exodus of capable, principled, patriotic
individuals from the armed forces and a corresponding enfeeblement of
America's defense.

Betrayal by Congress

As the New York Times observed, the key to this entire controversy is
the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (UNPA), which was signed
on December 20, 1945 by President Harry Truman. The UNPA authorizes
the U.S. President to "negotiate a special agreement or agreements
with the Security Council" concerning the use of American military
personnel and facilities for UN "peacekeeping" and "peace enforcement"
missions. The measure also specifies, "The President shall not be
deemed to require the authorization of the Congress" to make American
troops and assets available to the Security Council. In essence, once
the "special agreement" is achieved, the President could use the UNPA
as a perpetual declaration of war -- and deploy American troops
anywhere in the world under the color of UN authority.

During the final congressional debate over the UNPA on December 18,
1945, Representative Pete Jarman (D-AL), who volubly supported the
measure, admitted: "After the Congress ratifies the agreement signed
by the President with the Security Council those troops are at the
**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 401 501 601 701 714 801 1001
SEEN-BY: 250/1101 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2384)
To:      Ed Mathis                              11 Jan 96 14:04:10
Subject: Tobacco Advertising                    

EM>  You and a few others on this conference are very quick to 
EM>  make unfounded accusations but slow to acknowledge when 
EM>  you're mistaken.  As you are here.

     It has to happen occasionally.

EM>  EM>  MG>  Can you provide any evidence that advertising does anything
EM>  EM>  MG>  more than provide market share?

EM>  EM> Meaning what?

EM>  MG> Meaning that no one...

EM> Really?  NO ONE?  You know that for a fact?  Where can I go to verify
EM> that claim?

     Lets see, you have a car because they are advertised.  The 
same goes for your computer, TV, clothing.  Were they not 
advertising you would have none of those things.  That is an 
obviously absurd position as these items are desirable in an of 
themselves while not necessarily addictive.

     Yet, when it comes to things that are considered attractive 
to the point of being subjected to "sin" taxes, advertising is at 
fault.  

     That is not reasoning.  That is not thinking.  It is 
identifying the devil who is doing the tempting.  It is a very 
superstitious and religious point of view.

EM>  MG>  ...in advertising claims to be doing more than claiming a 
EM>  MG>  market share.  If you knew what you were talking about you 
EM>  MG>  would know that.

EM>  Wow, what a concept!  

     I am not surprised it comes as a surprise to you but it the 
idea that is the basis for EVERY advertising course.  Unless of 
course you only have a computer because of advertising.  In no 
other area but "sin" does this attitude prevail.  

All the billions spent on marketing 
EM>  affect ONLY existing buyers of a given product or service 
EM>  without appealing to anyone else!  Companies that buy 
EM>  advertising are spending millions and billions of dollars 
EM>  each year reaching out to a static customer base!

     Microsoft is excoriated for taking over the operating system 
market.  Yet were it not for advertising there would be no market 
share.  Your demon approach holds there would be no operating 
systems at all were it not for advertising.

EM>  You have reached a new low in intellectual dishonesty with 
EM>  that jewel!

     Speaking of jewelry, according to you, were it not for 
advertising no one would own jewelry.

EM>  What will happen when the existing customer base dies off?  
EM>  Will the whole country just roll up the sidewalks of 
EM>  commerce and go home?

EM>  Or will somehow the kids of today will grow up and suddenly 
EM>  decide to buy that boat, or van, or pair of designer jeans, 
EM>  or Camel cigarette, or Pentium Pro 1500, or whatever, 
EM>  without being influenced in the least by the alluring 
EM>  advertising and premium offers being shoved coutinuously 
EM>  under their collective noses?

     No one would own anything you mention without advertising 
according to you.

EM>  Get real, Matt.  Marketing professors and companies such as 
EM>  Lever Brothers, IBM, Starcraft, Ford, Hershey, Carmichael, 
EM>  R.  J, Reynolds, and thousands more know the power of 
EM>  marketing and would laugh at you without even stopping to 
EM>  consider the absurdity of your statement.

EM>  According to Marketing 101, the PRIMARY purpose of 
EM>  marketing (of which advertising is only one facet) is to 
EM>  generate demand for a product or service.  Generating 
EM>  demand is not limited to stealing existing buyers from 
EM>  other companies but is also aimed at inducing NEW CUSTOMERS 
EM>  to enlarge the customer base.

     As you say, there would be no market for computers were 
there no advertising.

EM>  EM>  Are you suggesting that advertising's effect is primarily
EM>  EM>  to induce existing customers to switch brands while not
EM>  EM>  inducing new customers to begin buying in that product
EM>  EM>  category?

EM>  MG> I am suggesting, let me rephrase that, I am stating that
EM>  MG> you are either a liar or an ignoranmous.

EM> Gee, Matt, that means a lot coming from you!

     And without hesitation I will correctly predict you will 
maintain the absurdity that all demand is created by advertising.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer's World    http://www2combase.com/~mgiwer/
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 401 501 601 701 714 801 1001
SEEN-BY: 250/1101 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2386)
To:      All                                    11 Jan 96 21:56:10
Subject: Who are Liberals addressi              

                 Who are Liberals addressing?
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1996 <1/11>

     Political rhetoric is the art of saying much very much with
very few words that inspire emotional reasoned response.  That is
what people want to hear.  It is best accomplished with imagery,
sort of like poetry in prose form.
     The old joke is the flag, motherhood and apple pie. In those
terms it is politically incorrect today but, "our great nation
much help the single mother feed her children," still plays in
speeches.  A discussion of welfare policy is a sleeper.
     For example, if you are working and not in management then
"middle class" and "working men and women" means they are talking
about you.  If you have any form of government assistance, the
poor means you.  Elderly and senior citizens means you have
retired.  If you are among those left, you are the rich.
     Those are the classes.  What one says about these groups is
an interesting balancing act.  In the same speech a politician
has to be very careful to separate in time and words the obvious
point that the middle class and the rich pay for the elderly and
the poor.
     The talent of a good speech writer is to be able to work in
both a promise of lower taxes to the middle class and increased
benefits to the poor and the elderly in the same speech and have
all three groups applauding.  That is why a welfare policy
discussion is a sleeper, it addresses the problem that you can't
have both.  But if both have to be mentioned in the same speech
and can not be separated then all the new money to pay for the
benefits and replace the loss in taxes will come from the rich.
     That is the sum and substance of the Democrat liberal social
rhetoric.  Every play upon a presentation of their ideas is a
variation upon these themes.  It stirs feelings of being a good
person interested in helping others and that is its purpose.  Its
purpose is not for people to think about it.
     Note this is an opinion piece and if I digress into numbers
it will become a sleeper.  Even though actual numbers would
discredit every implication of the social rhetoric readers would
turn off.  The purpose of pieces like this is to get people to
emote so strongly that they think despite themselves.
     So let me point out the federal government has no authority
any place in its constitution to support either the poor or the
elderly.  Now I agree that every normal person holds there is an
obligation to some extent and in some form to the needy among us
if only not to kick them into the street in the middle of a
blizzard. 
     But it is not written any place that a third person can
force one person to support another.  It is not written that a
third person can take from one person and give to another.  It is
not written that one person can establish the criteria for the
giving and taking.
     Some would point to a moral obligation.  I would remind them
that a moral obligation comes from religion and we in this
country are protected from the imposition of religious
principles.  Some would deny it is religion yet claim authority
for it yet they can never ascribe that authority.  They can not
because there is none.
     And the latter day simplification of charity even as
proposed by the Bishop of Rome, the history of whose church is
long enough to show him otherwise, is not support the poor.  A
rounded view of charity is to prevent poverty and all of its
causes in the first place and in any manner possible short of
deceit and deception.
     For example, drugs cause poverty if not in the use of them
then in the paying for them.  Having a child before being able to
support that child causes poverty.  Were both drugs and
premarital sex condemned equally there is a chance of reducing
poverty levels.
     Condemning both is charity.  It is preventive charity.  And
throwing up your hands and saying times have changed regarding
premarital sex is no different than doing the same regarding
drugs.  
     But there is a more important to true charity, that there be
a penalty for not listening to correct and proper advice.  Drugs
users get that.  It is called prison.  No one subsidizes their
drugs upon their choice to become addicts.
     It would be heart wrenching to see a mother and child living
on the streets begging for money.  I suggest that any number of
young women walking by and seeing what could happen to them would
be a object lesson that would exceed be greater than any fire and
brimstone teaching from the pulpit.  Yet it is considered charity
to remove all penalties and thus all object lessons.
     It is obvious why our welfare system got started.  It hurts
less to complain about taxes than to walk past people like that.
It was not for their benefit but for ours.  And if you are honest
you will admit your reactions to the above few paragraphs was
exactly that.
     But in salving our own feelings look at what we are not
letting our children learn.  Our welfare system is like saving a
child from being burned not by telling them the consequences of
touching something hot but by removing everything hot from the
home.  But outside the home there are hot things.  We have done
them no favor by shielding them from the real world.
     Rather our welfare system creates an artificial real world,
one that exists solely at the sufferance of its creators.  It is
not the real world.  The comfort we take by creating this faerie
land and putting people into it hardly squares with the whole
idea of charity.
     Some can still find comfort in this fantasy they put so many
people into.  They are very upset at the idea of this artificial
world being replaced by the real world.  But times are changing
and the facade is collapsing under its own falsity.  The cost of
maintaining the illusion has become too great.  Welfare is coming
to an end.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer's World    http://www2combase.com/~mgiwer/
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/96 98 99 204 260 301 401 501 601 701 714 801 1001
SEEN-BY: 250/1101 259/0 10 99 200 300 400 500 700 377/26 50 51 77 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_960122 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2987)
To:      Frank Hay                              18 Jan 96 05:30:10
Subject: It is not compassion                   

FH>  FH> Are you saying it was a good thing to let those things
FH>  FH> happen? When the opportunity to stop them presents itself,
FH>  FH> how could you not try to bring sanity back to the situation?

FH>  MG> I asked you where it was written that we were required to
FH>  MG> take any action. You have not answered the question as yet.

FH>  Yes I did, it's written on my heart.  It's also called 
FH>  compassion.  Shouldn't we act on the words, "Never Again!"?

     Your heart is no one else's body.  But if you support 
sending troops off because of your "heart" to get killed I 
suggest your "heart" is not with your fellow Americans who risk 
being killed for your "heart."
     
FH>  MG>  And when are you going to demand we go into Chechnya to 
FH>  MG>  stop that civil war? And why are you not making that case?

FH>  If/when the two sides ask us to intervene we (NATO) should 
FH>  definitely consider it.  We've got an awfully large 
FH>  military, might as well use it for the noble cause of 
FH>  peace.

     Excuse me.  I did not realize it was written in your heart 
only upon request of others.  

     That is a real shit heart if you don't mind my saying.  


 -- SPEED 1.30 >01<: The Stone Age is too good for them.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2988)
To:      Pat Patton                             18 Jan 96 05:32:10
Subject: Sovereign Immunity                     

PP>         I repost the above to reference your posts 01 and 02.

PP>         The reason I post is to state while I was tidying up archived 
PP>  material, eliminating the non essential information, I began
PP>  reading your posts as a result of "SEARCH" on the subject matter
PP>  of my post heading, above.

PP>         My I commend you for your research and objective presentment
PP>  of this material. Your efforts should save me having to reinvent
PP>  your wheel requiring hours of hours of time.

PP>         Respectfully,

PP>         Pat Patton
     
     Thank you.  And when you get on the web try 

     http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/


 -- SPEED 1.30 >01<: Do you expect the poor to hire you?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)




+++ r_960126 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2896)
To:      Jack Maynard                           21 Jan 96 14:43:10
Subject: late as usual         1/2              

JM>  MG>                           Martin Luther King, Jr.
JM>  MG>                  From the Steps of the Lincoln Memorial

JM>  George Gregery, a black spokesman, told Clinton, who was 
JM>  standing beside him, "Thank you for making Newt a negro for 
JM>  a day." "Making him set in the back of the plane and 
JM>  getting off by the backdoor, was great." Clinton was 
JM>  laughing so hard he turned 'colors'.

     The cracker grew up knowing niggers had to be kept in their 
place.  Being reminded of it is supposed to get that kind of 
reaction.  

JM>  It IS a shame King was killed.  Those that have tried to 
JM>  fill his shoes aren't worthy to even mention his name.

     And people like Jackson think they are King.


 -- SPEED 1.30 >01<:         The Purple Pedophile must die!
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (2897)
To:      Lewis Clark                            21 Jan 96 14:56:10
Subject: Necessity                              

LC>  LC>  Should every soldier get to decide what their orders mean, 
LC>  LC>  or just this New character?  I'd be interested to hear your 
LC>  LC>  thoughts on this.

LC>  MG>  Everyone who has ever taken an oath to uphold and defend 
LC>  MG>  the constitution has an obligation under that oath to judge 
LC>  MG>  the validity of every order against that constitution.  
LC>  MG>  Those who are unable to do so are excused from the 
LC>  MG>  obligation.  Those who are able to do so are unfortunate 
LC>  MG>  enough as to have to abide by their oath.  And if not, what 
LC>  MG>  is the value of an oath?

LC>  What is the value of an oath if each person gets to decide 
LC>  what it means?  That would render the oath meaningless.

     If people are not held to their personal understanding of an 
oath then there can not be such a thing as a "war crime" and 
prosecution of them is not justice.  One is either required to 
obey every order or to judge every order.  The degree of 
illegality can not be the basis for acting upon that judgement 
else "small" atrocities can not be prosecuted.

     Nor can we expect the degree of illegality to govern 
compliance as degree of illegality is like degree of pregnancy.  

     What is amusing here is those who would have supported 
anyone refusing to obey the orders of Lt. Calley are now on the 
side of blind obedience to orders.  After all, now it is "their" 
military.


 -- SPEED 1.30 >01<: Anything worth doing is worth overdoing.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)





Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.