From IP: A Child's Right to Life by Andrew Lewis (from The Intellectual Activist)

On Thanksgiving Day, 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez was plucked from an inner tube in the seas off South Florida. He was one of only three survivors from a shipwreck whose casualties included his mother and stepfather. Two days earlier they had escaped the communist "Workers' Paradise" of dictator Fidel Castro.

Since his rescue, relatives in Florida have cared for young Elian and appealed for political asylum so that he may grow up in a free country. Almost immediately, however, the boy's natural father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez--now re-married with a new family--demanded that the US return Elian to Cuba. Early in January, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, supported by President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, announced that the us would recognize Gonzalez's parental rights and accede to his demands. Various legal and political devices have since been employed to delay the boy's return--a Florida judge has granted temporary custody to the child's relatives in the US--but his ultimate fate is uncertain.

Clinton's policy of appeasement is no surprise. It is his attitude in all matters of foreign policy because his premise of multiculturalism tells him that a dictatorship is morally equivalent to a free country.

The attitude of the political right--including some who argue that Elian should remain in America--is even worse. Their premise was stated clearly by presidential candidate Alan Keyes: "Family rights come before communism." A free country, in this view, must defer to parental rights even if the parent has no rights at all.

Those such as Keyes who claim to support the boy's right to stay in America argue only that we cannot know the father's real desires unless he comes to the US--along with his new family--and can therefore speak freely. Apparently if Juan Gonzalez came to America and maintained his desire to take Elian back to Cuba, these "defenders of freedom" would simply shrug their shoulders, say "The father has spoken," and send him back. They evade the crucial point that a parent who wants to rear a child in a totalitarian dictatorship has rendered himself unfit to be awarded custody.

What would Elian face in Cuba? Castro allows no recognition of a father's right to raise his child; Cuban children are sent to compulsory child-labor-indoctrination camps at the age of 12. (Elian would be permitted to see his father only one weekend in four.) Elian would face atrocious living conditions in Cuba's state-controlled economy; milk is rationed--no one over the age of six is allowed any--and the family meat ration for a month is six ounces. Elian would be denied the most fundamental freedoms-Cuba denies not only the freedom to speak but also the freedom to listen. Tuning in to American radio broadcasts, for example, is outlawed as counter-revolutionary treason. And Elian would be taught that his mother-who died trying to save his life-was a traitor.

The dangerous premise revealed by Keyes is not that "family rights" override communism, but that parental rights supercede individual rights. The opposite is true. There can be no rights of any kind unless the individual is free to think and act accordingly, which is precisely what he may not do in Cuba's totalitarian state. The right of a parent is the right to act as a guardian: to make decisions in the child's best interest. But parental rights are not an unlimited sanction for any parental act. They do not include the right to force a child into the involuntary servitude of a dictatorship. If a parent wishes to abuse his child in this manner, decent people may intervene to protect the child's right to his life. Child abuse is exactly what Elian would receive in Cuba--not from his father, but from the officially sanctioned actions of the state.

Elian's future is in the hands of President Clinton--for ill or for good.

Ample precedent exists for allowing Elian to stay. Walter Polovchak was 12 years old in 1980 when he and his father, both citizens of the former Soviet Union, visited the United States. Polovchak ran away from his father and fought for six years for the right to stay in America. Before he reached the age of 18, effectively ending the legal struggle, a judge had ruled that children, no less than parents, have the right to live free from persecution. Elian, too, has that right.

If Elian is allowed to stay, it may be possible to force a review of our entire immigration policy. America, once a haven for seekers of freedom, now shuns refugees from dictatorships around the world (most notably Cuba and China), who--like Elian and his mother--risk their lives to win their liberty.

Whether Juan Gonzalez is as loving and devoted a father as Cuban propaganda would have us believe is irrelevant to deciding Elian's future. Life in Cuba is life in a giant tropical prison camp. Sending Elian back to serve the rest of his life as an inmate would be a terrible act of injustice--and a violation of Elian's right to his own life.

-- ... (...@...com), April 20, 2000

Answers

Maybe yes... Maybe no...

More important: Do you have a recipe for a Cuban sandwich? They are terrific. I know it has pork and pickles. What else?

-- (retard@but.happy), April 20, 2000.

"Whether Juan Gonzalez is as loving and devoted a father as Cuban propaganda would have us believe is irrelevant to deciding Elian's future. Life in Cuba is life in a giant tropical prison camp. Sending Elian back to serve the rest of his life as an inmate would be a terrible act of injustice--and a violation of Elian's right to his own life."

I agree with the first sentence only because you included the type of father Juan may be. It's irrelevant what type of father Jaun is. But this sentence is more accurate: Juan Gonzalez as the father is totally relevant to deciding Elian's future. Actually, it's the only relevant fact in this matter. Life in Cuba, good or bad, isn't relevant. Elian is a minor and cannot speak for himself; he has no clue of right or wrong at this point. His father speaks for him. His father is responsible for him. Send the kid home.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 2000.

--...:

Do you own any clothes made in southeast asia? Do you have any chips in your computer made in the same place?

It is fine and dandy to bandy about how we abhor child labor, and I certainly agree that this is a bad thing, I cannot see using this as a trump card in this debate. Unless and until we ban the sale of items made with child labor, and unless and until we as a society stop buying these items and therefore rendor the market obsolete, we cannot go around self-righteously proclaiming that elian should not go back because he will be put into forced labor.

On your premise, we would turn us officials into kidnappers, and on your premise we should abscond with any child who visits here from a country where there are human rights violations.

Visiting from China? Give me your child. Visiting from afghanistan? Nope, can't take that kid back with you, sorry. Singapore? Vietnam? Taiwan? Nope. If you visit here we are going to take your child, because if you want to return with your child we cannot let you because you will in essence be losing your parental rights.

Unfortunately, your argument does not hold up under scrutiny.

Personally, not to diminish the issue, I think it is child abuse to let your child watch Barney or to play violent video games. Where would all the chilren go? Will we be asking "Where have all the children gone?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 20, 2000.

Obviously you have no children. And I guess you would believe that people in oppressed countries have no right to bear children.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 2000.

The boy's mother died fleeing Cuba with her LOVER, who had been thrown out of the U.S. for criminal activity, and was attempting to return. The boy was dragged along as baggage.

Oops! Sounds like child abuse.

Now the "family" has made a true Roman circus of his plight, in order to (again) run Castro's nose in a politically embarrassment. They parade him continually before the media and thousands of lawless quasi-U.S.-citizens, who refuse to obey our laws.

Oops! Sounds like child abuse.

The child is a political football, in an election year. Let him go to his father, where he belongs. Politics be damned.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 20, 2000.

You're right, maria. A logical conclusion to the posters argument would be that anyone who would bear a child in an oppressed country does not have a right to be a parent, because they would knowingly bring a child into a totalitarian world, which by the above definition automatically constitutes child abuse. Therefore, the logical end of all this is that every man in an oppressed country needs to immediately have a vasectomy and/or every woman must immediately have a hysterectomy.

Of course I value liberty and freedom. My opinion on this matter does not have the effect of diminshing these things. In fact it is the opposite. Your argument, --..., leads to the conclusion I have stated above-peoples in oppressed countries would not be free to have children because when they do, they are automatically branded as an unfit parent for bringing a child into that world. You may not realize the corner you have backed yourself into with your argument-I have only drawn my conclusions from your premises.

I beg you to find the hole in my logic(I do not think there is one) rather than blast me as being adverse to individual freedom and liberty.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 20, 2000.

The central point is whether or not a six-year-old boy also has a right to any input as to his own situation, or whether a child of that age is instead dumber than an inner tube.

Now, if first graders can be taken to task for planning to shoot a classmate, why can't a six-year-old be allowed recognition to have at least some opinion as to his own future? The court has finally determined, despite Immigration's obstinacy, that Elian too is a conscious player in this drama.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), April 20, 2000.

The "liberty and freedom" excuse, eh?

We went over this on another thread, and I mentioned the Haitians that were washed up on our shores and placed in camps in Florida. Why didn't anyone care what happened to them? Is life in Haiti better than life in Cuba? People get smuggled into the U.S. every day, including children, from countries that see America as a haven for liberty and freedom where they don't see liberty and freedom existing in the countries of their origin. If caught, they're sent back. Were they simply less attractive than Elian? How do you explain why THEY were sent back, while you argue that Elian should stay?

Since when do the people of a nation [such as the U.S.] have the right to decide where the children of others SHOULD live? I've traveled to at least 15 foreign countries with my children, and I can assure you that if I died in any one of them and my relatives in some of those countries tried to make a claim on my children, my ex- husband would create an international incident.

"He was one of only three survivors." I've got to tell ya that when my ex-husband heard of where I took my kids snorkeling and the shark and barracuda in the waters in which they swam, he questioned me BIGTIME regarding my sanity. That's what fathers do when they feel the lives of their children have been placed in danger.

So here we have Elian [one of only three survivors], a mother dead, having made a decision to expose her child to what I would consider EXTREME danger, and a father [although an estranged one] demanding custody of his child, with relatives the father probably NEVER met before making a claim to HIS child. To FURTHER complicate matters, we have some folks in the U.S. claiming they know more about life in Cuba than Elian's dad ALSO stating that THEY know better WHERE Elian should live his life.

Liberty and freedom, eh?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

Seems like I can't add much to the above response but I'll add one more note: the conclusion from < >'s agruments lead to further taking away individual rights in Cuba. We all argree that Juan doesn't have many freedoms but now an outside government takes away his child, deminishing his parental right to have children. He is not abusive; don't place Cuba's abuses onto to the father. The father provides a loving environment, what more could you ask for.

As far as a new relationship with Cuba. Don't worry, the dictator doesn't have very many more years to live. A new relationship will come with a new government.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 2000.

All right, Ive said this before,

This whole situations a bore.

The Uncles a drunk,

This kid is a punk,

And the Aunt is a full-blown crack whore!

The Father is camped in DC,

While Renos all over TV.

She claims to us all,

The court ruled to stall

Watch the kid and the relatives flee!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 20, 2000.

<@>:

It seems that you didn't receive much agreement with YOUR arguments and the editorial presented in your original thread. Personally, I don't see how your conclusions could revolve around not wanting "those folks". I intentionally brought Haitians into the mix to point out the prejudices that folks in the U.S. have for people of color. So far NO ONE [including YOU] has offered an argument for why THEY should leave and Elian should stay. Do you have one?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

--...:

Well-I guess you are not going to engage me with a response to my questions and comments. Instead you are going to continue to make allegations-and in one fell swoop, talk about the degradation of this BBS because a few people disagree with you.

Boy, you must be having a bad idea. I think maria and I HAVE presented good ideas, and you simply cannot cope with our logical arguments-Hell, I may change my mind, but until then the logical conclusions I have drawn from Keye's comments still stand. You have failed to address even one.

One of the GREAT things about this board is that no one can just post something, parading as fact or opinion, that is not going to be questioned or contradicted.

If you would like total agreement, please visit another board we know about. There is about an 80% majority over there.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 20, 2000.

< >, I'm so glad you quoted the statue of liberty. Now we'll accept Elian if he goes through the process. That is, fills out the forms and the legal procedures for coming into this country. Oh you say he can't even spell his own name. Who speaks for the boy? By our very own laws, his father, not his relatives. Guess what, his father doesn't want him to live here. His father wants him to live in Cuba. We can't force people to be here when they don't request coming to our wonderful country.

BTW, I've been to Haiti. So they have poor people; many nations do.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 2000.

I'm still wondering about the differences between the original thread poster and the person responding. Were ANY of them the same?

Let's see:

The thread was started by ...@...com

The next closest response by someone with no name was ...@>...<

Next was ...@<...>

Next was ...@...<..>

Next was ...@.<...>.

Next was ...@..<..>.

How can a poster suggest that everyone here thinks the same when it seems clear to anyone who can count and decipher punctuation marks that 5 different posters agreed with the original post?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

...the kind of spineless coward that has no handle you mean?

-- Savage (blah@blah.com), April 20, 2000.

Well...thank you, puncutation poster for making that clear. I typically agree with myself as well.

Now...can you tell me why Elian should get preferential treatment over those Haitians? They fell upon U.S. soil in the very same way, did they not? Can we take this further and discuss the Mexicans who are returned because they entered the country illegally? [You may think Elian entered the country legally, but have you really checked this out?]

Personally, I don't think folks are TRYING to be discriminatory, or TRYING to forget the words on the Statue of Liberty. I'm a first generation American myself. My grandparents had to go through a process for entry, and they had to apply again to allow entry for my parents. My parents waited for YEARS after their parents were here before they could legally immigrate. Please explain how the words on the Statue of Liberty have changed in the last 50 years.

You're right. I DO think too hard. I ALSO appreciate this forum in that folks typically put up a good, hard fight for what they believe based on THEIR experiences, which would be different from mine. It's how we learn, I think.

You might want to give yourself a REAL phoney name to avoid confusion in the future. You needn't be very creative in so doing, but punctuation marks as a name?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

Okay Anita

Let it be known from this day forward I ...<..>. or any variation found above shall be known as Bob.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

Well, you sure know how to BOB it, Bob. Pleased to make your acquaintance. Can we move on now to discuss the Haitians or the OTHER folks who aren't allowed illegal entry to the U.S.?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

Now...can you tell me why Elian should get preferential treatment over those Haitians? They fell upon U.S. soil in the very same way, did they not? Can we take this further and discuss the Mexicans who are returned because they entered the country illegally? [You may think Elian entered the country legally, but have you really checked this out?]

I already answered you....

The original thread isn't me The Haitian thing, ever been to Haiti? Nasty hell hole of extreme poverty with a few rich people who control the guns most of the time. Living in a box and eating out of garbage cans in America is a better life.

If you make it to our shores you should be allowed to stay. My ancestors were. Prejudice sends them back.

"Send us your poor your huddled masses yearning to breathe free your wretched refuse...send these the helpless homeless tossed to me...America" inscription statue of Liberty

You complacent people forgot what that means. The Cuban Americans understand.

-- (...@...<..>), April 20, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Please explain how the words on the Statue of Liberty have changed in the last 50 years.

The words haven't changed just there/their(?) meaning to people.

In 1984 I was 20 years old and wanted to see some of the world. Me and a coulple of buddies went to S>A> for an adventure. While in Columbia we got in a barroom fight defending ourselves. 3 months in jail later ( oh and don't even think about taking the holier than thou road and don't even think you can imagine how horrible this place was yes I have spent the night in jail here its much better ) after exhausting all other means my friends Uncle, a former drug smuggler, came down greased the right palms and we were in Miami within 48 hrs. All in All costing close to 40 thousand for 3 of us to be released. These people in these countries put up with this all day everyday.

W0hen one of their children escapes totalerianism and makes it to our country we should award that child with instant citizenship and rejoice that another one made it!

Not tell a mother she died for naught.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

bobbobbobbobbobbobbobobbo:

You said: "Actually Futureshock I thought what you posted was just plan ingnorance and showed immuturity on your part."

I have previously asked you to respond to the conclusions I drew from what Keyes said in the above post. Apparently you cannot or will not. I do not know your reason why, but it is very tempting to conclude that you are incapable of grasping LOGIC. So, what you do instead is continue a personal attack, calling me immature(correct spelling) and ignorant(correct spelling).

I have not called you names, sir, and I have not reduced my argument to petty insults. You, sir, have done this. Sad.

And you continue to show how petty you are by lumping your detractors into one set; I certainly have not agreed with Decker or Anita on everything. Name calling and insult are not techniques one uses when they are trying to get others to understand them.

I BEG of you to deal with my conclusions and tell me why they are not true. Tell me whatever logical error, logical fallacy I have committed. Of course you will not; your black and white thinking will not allow for an opposing viewpoint. I will pray for you, my brother.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 20, 2000.

You ignorant grey matter prick

I'm defending Elian not Keyes

Where have I led you astray, little one?

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

Hi all,

What if we assume essentially the same facts, except the following: That this is during World War II, and that Elian is instead Anne Frank, who has somehow escaped from hiding and is now a Jewish refugee in the U.S. Do we send her back to her father and to Hitler? If we do, she would then face certain death shortly afterward in a concentration camp.

I know this may sound extreme, but I think the principle is the same, which is: That, ideally, we should at least take the conditions of the other country into consideration prior to any decision to deport a refugee.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000.

Exactly when did Cuban-Americans start running this country? If that had been any other group in the U.S., garthering in the thousands, stalling traffic, blocking routes to the airport, and creating a public nuisance, they would have been maced, tear gased, thrown on the street and handcuffed, kicked, jerked around, and finally hauled off to jail with streaming eyes. But they have been handled the Cuban Americans with kid gloves, by the mayor, Guv Bush, Janet Reno, Sister Holier-Than-Thou, and in they have called all the shots.

It burns me up, and I will never have any use for Cuban-Americans again. Just wait and see; if that boy is allowed to stay here, then any American kid that is whisked off to Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Timbuktu, or anywhere else in the world, will damn well stay there no matter where he or she wants to be.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 20, 2000.

Anita is asking for facts,

Concerning some questionable acts.

If the kid can stay,

Why turn Haitians away,

Because Castro is who drives this pact!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 20, 2000.

What if we assume essentially the same facts, except the following: That this is during World War II, and that Elian is instead Anne Frank, who has somehow escaped from hiding and is now a Jewish refugee in the U.S. Do we send her back to her father and to Hitler?

Your basic logic error is in saying "back to her father AND Hitler".

Back to her father, YES. Back to Hitler? That would be up to the father, wouldn't it? So, the gist of your argument is that if we dislike/disagree with the government under which the parent lives, that we kidnap the child away from that parent?

Bullshit. If any of you put yourselves in the father's position, you'd see how stupid that logic really is.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 20, 2000.

Yeah right--- when are you loading up the u-haul and moving to Cuba????

Can't you see this little island of communism is RIGHT HERE IN YOUR BACKYARD. Castro is just barely holding on -holding on just for the next atlas regime to step up and be the bad boy of the world that way he can cling on to them and be their airbase in our backyard. Maybe even put a couple of nukes there and put communism working again in the western hemisphere. With Clinton about to normalise relations American sentiment never would be for invasions hell you baby boomers would probavly vote my tax dollars to subsidize an airbase nad naval port for the Chinese, right?

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

I think you're missing something here, Bob. I haven't traveled to South America with my kids, but we DID travel to CENTRAL America. The way of life is certainly different. HOWEVER, Columbia [as well as many Central American countries] punish American travelers more harshly than they punish their own. In ALL countries south of our border we're seen as RICH, simply because we're from the U.S..

It's a way of life in these countries to "rip-off" American tourists. We traveled on the cheap because I could afford no more, but folks STILL thought us to be wealthy Americans when we visited their countries. My Spanish isn't so great ordinarily, and my temper is typically very even. My kids stood by and watched while a taxi-cab driver in Central America tried to double the price he'd originally quoted. We were trying to get from one place to another on a holiday when the blue buses didn't run, or I wouldn't have considered negotiating with a taxi-driver at all. By the time I was done with this guy, he'd agreed to his original rate. My kids stood there with their jaws wide open at first, but then asked HOW I became so proficient in Spanish, and WHY I had grown so angry. I could only answer that my anger was in response to his assumptions that I was a wealthy American and could afford any price, and my Spanish skills kicked in to help in my defense.

I was never jailed in a foreign country, Bob. [Then again, I've never been jailed in the U.S. either.] However, I made it a point to study the cultures of the countries visited to see the variations before making a trip. I learned [for example] that although folks in the U.S. get their hands slapped for marijuana violations, Americans in Mexico, Columbia, etc. get thrown in the slammer for YEARS. The LOCALS can smoke the stuff with no hassle, but they make a point of prosecuting Americans.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

Gilda:

You bring up some important points there. I have a cousin who married a Moslem from Iraq or Iran or somewhere. She's a dentist in California and if our phone conversations go on too long her husband insists that she terminate the conversation immediately [my dime or hers makes no difference.] Her mother was of the Christian persuasion, and her siblings never understood how she could marry outside of her faith. She's been in a position on multiple occasions to take her children to visit relatives in Norway, and has done so. I'm not so sure she feels comfortable with her mate taking her children to visit his family in the middle East. AFAIK, they haven't gone yet.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

Anita and we just need to return Elian to the wolves who have alreadyu said he needs "reprogramming" whatever that is to get capitalism out of him.

C'mon Anita you've seen some of what I'm talking about surely its not that hard to *open* your *eyes* the rest of the way and *see* that this boy needs to stay here in America where his mother died trying to get him.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

His mother died all right, but it was because she was the victim of an abusive lover, who threatened her with a knife. Did you miss that somehow? I think she was very foolish to put her child's life and her own life in jeopardy for a jerk like him.

You and some of the media, seem to be trying to make a martyr of her. But had it been the mother, who was rescued on the inner tube, and the boy who had drowned, she would have been considered stupid and irresponsible for causing his death.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 20, 2000.

Z14z72z47

please explain the difference to Anita

"married a Moslem from Iraq or Iran or somewhere."

-- Iknowuknow (alan@al.so), April 20, 2000.

You know, I see a bunch of "commie bashing" on this thread. If you guys wanna bash those evil commies, I suggest you take on China and/or N. Korea. But since those countries are nuclear powers, I suppose you'd rather just sit there with your dicks in your hands.

You whine and bitch about how evil Castro is, but he's a bit player in the overall "comminess" of the world. (He IS evil, but pretty much impotent on the world stage.) Why not send ships over to China & N. Korea to take their children back to the U.S., the bastion of freedom for the world?

Because you know what would happen, that's why. Elian deserves to be with his father. End of story. If the father wants to stay here, so be it. But you armchair commie-bashers have no right to keep that child from his parent. No matter how stuffy and self-righteous you want to be.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 20, 2000.

Yeah right

CASTRO IS IN YOUR FUCKING BACK YARD!!!!! If you don't get ride of him soon you will be fighting those Chinese and North Koreans in YOUR BACKYARD!!!!!!!!!

Anita et al

We had some friends recently go through a bad divorce. They were both working parents and both earned about the same amount. No cheating the just got "tired" of each other -whatever that means.

Anyway they were both sueing for custody the judge called the kids to testify 7,8 year old boys they both said they wanted to live with their dad and guess what Dad got primary custody mom gets them every other weekend.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

Hi again, Bob.

I'm quite aware that Castro is in my backyard. That same argument was used during the Bay of Pigs.

Regarding custody of children, this is quite common now when BOTH parents are in a position to provide for the welfare. Elian, however, does NOT have a mother anymore. Therefore, the father gains custody by DEFAULT [just as my ex would if *I* were to die.] Actually, we've had JOINT custody all along, but I think you get my point.

For anyone who really cares about the country of origin of my cousin's mate, I just looked it up. I was TOTALLY wrong. He's Lebanese.

Back to Bob, I don't feel I NEED to push the envelope further in my views on this one. My kids made friends with kids that slept on a table for a bed in some Central American countries. Jobs were tight in the small towns where they lived, so their mothers went off to large cities to become prostitutes to send money home for their support. *I* should tell THEM that THEY belong HERE when their mothers are doing THAT to provide for them? WHAT would they gain by moving here? Mom would STILL be a prostitute, unless YOU want to pay for job training.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

After reading it I guess I don't really have a point with that illustration.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

Bob(bob@bob.bob),
Suppose an American divorced mother and child were traveling to Cuba to visit relatives, and the mother died on route. The father wanted the child to return to America, but the Cuban government refused on the grounds that America was spoiled, materialistic, vain, apathetic and generally an undesirable place for a child to grow up.

Given that we would find such conduct by a foreign government to be outrageous, I would have difficulty justifying own government's acting in that same way. I don't see how believing our system to be better justifies this double standard, even though I much prefer our system to theirs.

If the American mother and child were to have been traveling to a country that arguably was a better place to live than America, would that foreign government be justified in holding the child? Or can this hypothetical situation be dismissed because America is clearly the world's most desirable country to live in. All things considered, this is a great place to live, but who's to say what the future holds.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 20, 2000.

CASTRO IS IN YOUR FUCKING BACK YARD!!!!! If you don't get ride of him soon you will be fighting those Chinese and North Koreans in YOUR BACKYARD!!!!!!!!!

And this has exactly WHAT to do with Elian? Thank you for proving that it's Castro that you want to humiliate, using a 6 year old child as a political lever.

Fucking swine.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 20, 2000.

David they were'nt traveling they were escaping.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

Yeah right

I know this thread is longer than your normal reading but if you would read all my posts instead of being a Johhny come lately you would see my problem clearly stated from the begining is Castro you fucking moron.

I guess you suffer from add or adhd or something and have trouble paying attention but you need to READ EVERYTHING BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH DUMBASS!!!!!

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

No Bob, they weren't escaping.

The male LOVER of the boy's mom was in the U.S. He was deported back to Cuba for criminal activity. He wanted to return. (After all, the punishment for crimes here in the U.S. is nothing compared to what he'd get in Cuba.)

So, like ANY illegal alien, he was sneaking back in. The mother, wanting to be with her LOVER, set sail with him. The boy was tossed into that inner tube as an afterthought.

Yeah, that mom was a REAL nice lady. No child endangerment at all. And those Cuban "Americans" don't give a flying fuck about that boy. All they want is to embarrass Castro, at any cost. Which is evidently exactly what YOU want to do, Bob.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 20, 2000.

Sorry "Bob", but I read the entire thread from start to finish before I wrote anything.

So, I guess that in YOUR opinion, anything done to a family, or any horror committed against people is "okay" as long as it fights communism? So kidnapping is fine with you. Termination of parental rights without cause too? I guess so. How about murdering innocents, "Bob"? Would you rather see Elian "dead than red"?

You really are a piece of shit, "Bob".

I know this thread is longer than your normal reading but if you would read all my posts instead of being a Johhny come lately you would see my problem clearly stated from the begining is Castro you fucking moron.

I see. You want to allow the commission of an atrocity in the name of "democracy" and you call ME a moron?? That's pretty funny, "Bob".

I guess you suffer from add or adhd or something and have trouble paying attention but you need to READ EVERYTHING BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH DUMBASS!!!!!

No "Bob", I paid attention to your lunatic ravings quite closely. Yes, one of us is certainly a DUMBASS "Bob". Here's a hint though; it's not ME.

(Snicker)

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 20, 2000.

The mom and dad were not married when the child was conceived they had been divorced for some years and only meet for rendeveaus sex.

But you judge the mom a slut therefore her offspring shouldn't be allowed in this country no matter the dad KNEW they were coming and called the MIAMI family to let them know they were on the way. The SAME Miami family who have kept care of the boy until now.

"Yeah, that mom was a REAL nice lady. No child endangerment at all"

So any mom who tries to get her child to freedom is a slut whore who endangers her child?

Man you really don't know what you got. And you get to vote???

good night John-boy

and fuck-off yeah-right

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), April 20, 2000.

Yeah Right,

You seem to be saying that in Nazi Germany, if Hitler's SS sent for the child, they'd have to get her father's permission first! Obviously, this makes no sense whatsoever, so I probably misunderstood you. Will you clarify, and then try to answer the question?

Then you said,

[So, the gist of your argument is that if we dislike/disagree with the government under which the parent lives, that we kidnap the child away from that parent?]

I think you should reread the original essay (and other materials) to get a taste of what a child's life (or anyone's, for that matter)is like over there. Do you honestly feel that we should ignore that? Of course if you feel that kids should be sent back to the Nazis, I guess that would answer my question.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000.

You still haven't addressed my questions, "Bob":

So, I guess that in YOUR opinion, anything done to a family, or any horror committed against people is "okay" as long as it fights communism? So kidnapping is fine with you. Termination of parental rights without cause too? I guess so. How about murdering innocents, "Bob"? Would you rather see Elian "dead than red"?

Lay it out for us "Bob". And married or not, he IS the biological father. But I guess biology means little when you're spouting those anti-commie slogans, huh "Bob"? I'm waiting for you to threaten me with violence now, "Bob". Come on, don't disappoint me.

(BTW, I'm a staunch Conservative)

Snicker (again).

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 20, 2000.

So any mom who tries to get her child to freedom is a slut whore who endangers her child?

No, just THIS one. Elian's current "mother figure" looks like she fits the bill as well. But since she's now an AMERKUN, she's a better person to raise the boy than his father.

(Chortle)

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 20, 2000.

You seem to be saying that in Nazi Germany, if Hitler's SS sent for the child, they'd have to get her father's permission first!

No, I'm saying that if we were holding a Jewish child, who had a Jewish father (who was living in Nazi Germany), that the father, upon his arrival in the U.S., should be immediately awarded custody of HIS CHILD. If he wanted to return to Nazi germany, that is HIS RIGHT to make that decision, both for himself, and for his child. Politics has no place in the "parental rights" issue. For anyone to think so is arrogant superiority.

Obviously, this makes no sense whatsoever, so I probably misunderstood you. Will you clarify, and then try to answer the question?

Asked and answered.

Then you said,

[So, the gist of your argument is that if we dislike/disagree with the government under which the parent lives, that we kidnap the child away from that parent?]

I think you should reread the original essay (and other materials) to get a taste of what a child's life (or anyone's, for that matter)is like over there. Do you honestly feel that we should ignore that?

Yes I do. Their lives are none or YOUR (or our) business. You don't agree with their POLITICAL system. Neither do I. But I wouldn't STEAL a kid from its parent because I disagree with their politics. That's a ridiculous stand to take, and completely indefensible IMO.

If you feel that we should terminate the father's custody, then you must also feel that we should invade Cuba and "liberate" all children from their oppression. And that we should do the same for ALL countries of the world whose political structure we disagree with.

Further, we should sterilize (by force) all adults in those aforementioned countries, in order to keep them from having any MORE children in such a political climate.

Right? Why don't YOU answer THESE points please?

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 20, 2000.

Eve:

Did you read my earlier posts? Your example is clever, but it does not answer the questions i posed earlier. Since BobBobBob wouldn't maybe you want to give it a try.

We know there is child labor in many countries in southeast asia. If a child visits this country from, let's say, malaysia, should we not stop that family at the airport as they are ready to leave and say to those parent's that they are endangering that child by bringing him back to work in the factories? If the logic is consistent, should we not make every effort possible to rescue every child that is in our country from another in which there is child labor?

Where does it end? If we as a country are now deciding when custodial rights to a child should be severed, does it not logically follow that we must deem ALL parents from countries where there are human rights violation as unfit?

Eve, are we as a country ready to stop buying clothes made by children? Are we as a country ready to stop imports? Do you honestly believe that if we examined every article of clothing worn by the family holding elian hostage that we wouldn't find at least one article that was stitched by a child in forced labor? Do you honestly believe that if we examined every article of clothing owned by every cuban protestor in miami that we would not find some who owned clothes stitched by children?

If someone is going to take the moral highground they better damn well have their closet completely clean. There better not be a hypocrite in the bunch.

And I do suggest to everyone who believes that elian should be kept here because of human rights violations in cuba that they should go through their closet right now and be 100% certain that you own nothing made by children-that means your shoes and sneakers too.

Please Eve, I earnestly await your answers.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 20, 2000.

Bob:

In case you're interested in exploring the history of Cuba under Castro, this link seems to have a lot of sub-links within it that may/may not provide information in that regard.

I was ALIVE during the Bay of Pigs, but not really old enough to care about it.

If your interests go toward a less-rigid appraisal of life in Cuba, there was a movie released a long time ago entitled "Code Name Dancer." The plot is similar to that of [forgive me if I get the name wrong] "Last Kiss Goodnight?" starring Geena Davis and Samuel Jackson, in that an American woman is drawn from her current life to resume duties from a "previous" spy life. In "Code Name Dancer", however, the starlet returns to Cuba.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 21, 2000.

I gotta say it again, I AGREE with Gilda and David L.

What about the fathers rights? How do we know that dad is here because of Castro? The father isnt saying that, no, instead he is begging, BEGGING to see his son.

Can anyone spell REUNIFICATION?

Our social service agencies here are all about it.....REUNIFY. That is their #1 goal.

If the dad wanted to 'defect' he still can. The dribble is getting old. Gilda, right on, IF we protested in the streets, we would be arrested, no doubt about it.

Now, how they gonna get him to his dad? Good question. The mention of Waco all over the media sickens me.

While doing tour of duty hubby pulled those Haitians out of the water and they were held/returned. Government orders....whats so different now?

Janet Reno (alias church lady on saturday nite live) cant/wont try to reunify now, too many protestors.

Lock up the uncle for disobeying a court order. Give child back to dad and let the chips fall where they may. Because we dont like the system in Cuba does not give us the right to do what is being done.

IMHO

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 21, 2000.

Maybe it's an 1984 thing. First the government gets people to say that it's better for the kid to be in this country than with HIS FATHER in another country. Next, it'll be some "bad" family in this country that loses their kid to the State, and finally, it'll be YOUR kids.

Amerika, just like the repressive countries where the government is more important than your family.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 21, 2000.

Yeah right,

You appear to take the position that the father's "rights" are paramount in this issue, even if this means death, torture, enslavement, etc. for the child. Well, at least you're straightforward about it. But now I'm curious...what if Elian was an orphan?

With respect to an implied tie-in to a necessity of invasion to "liberate" children, and force the sterilization of women:

Are you saying that saving a child refugee is in principle no different than increasing taxation in order to shore up the armed forces, possibly reinstituting the draft, invading countries all over the world, and thereby causing the deaths (death by torture for captives, depending on the policy the country being invaded) of many of our own boys (soldiers) for the sake of this "cause?" And thereby destroying the lives of their families, as well? Further, don't forget the innocents in the other countries that would be killed during invasions, and finally the violation of women's rights to their own lives through forced sterilization.

In other words, saving Elian logically leads to violating our (our boys' as well as our own) rights to life (e.g., the draft), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Oh yes, and while we're at it we might as well throw out our right to property (increased taxation) as well.

So, I see no connection at all.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 21, 2000.

Hi FutureShock,

First, could you tell me what you mean by "child labor?" Do you mean that which would be more difficult than the labor children had to perform on family farms a hundred or more years ago? What if the labor helped to keep the child and his family from starving -- would that mean anything to you? What if the father directed the child to go to work? Should I assume that that would be ok with you as an advocate of absolute parental rights -- or would you make an exception in this case?

FS, I mean no offense here -- but I have to ask these things in order that I understand more thoroughly where you're coming from.

Eve:

Did you read my earlier posts? Your example is clever, but it does not answer the questions i posed earlier. Since BobBobBob wouldn't maybe you want to give it a try.

We know there is child labor in many countries in southeast asia. If a child visits this country from, let's say, malaysia, should we not stop that family at the airport as they are ready to leave and say to those parent's that they are endangering that child by bringing him back to work in the factories? If the logic is consistent, should we not make every effort possible to rescue every child that is in our country from another in which there is child labor?

Where does it end? If we as a country are now deciding when custodial rights to a child should be severed, does it not logically follow that we must deem ALL parents from countries where there are human rights violation as unfit?

Eve, are we as a country ready to stop buying clothes made by children? Are we as a country ready to stop imports? Do you honestly believe that if we examined every article of clothing worn by the family holding elian hostage that we wouldn't find at least one article that was stitched by a child in forced labor? Do you honestly believe that if we examined every article of clothing owned by every cuban protestor in miami that we would not find some who owned clothes stitched by children?

If someone is going to take the moral highground they better damn well have their closet completely clean. There better not be a hypocrite in the bunch.

And I do suggest to everyone who believes that elian should be kept here because of human rights violations in cuba that they should go through their closet right now and be 100% certain that you own nothing made by children-that means your shoes and sneakers too.

Please Eve, I earnestly await your answers.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 21, 2000.

That's pretty funny Eve.

You're finding all kinds of ways around answering my questions, aren't you?

Your last points are unrelated and irrelevent. I'll not engage you further until you ANSWER my points above. Honestly and truthfully, for all the world to see.

What's the matter? Those questions too uncomfy for you? It's obvious to me that parental rights mean nothing to you. The state is obviously of paramount importance over family in your eyes. I hope you don't have children. I'd feel very sorry for them.

Now, about MY questions?

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 21, 2000.

FutureShock (and All),

I'm sorry -- I forgot to delete the copy of your post from my response. And I've done this kind of thing before, too...Oh, well...just have an extra cup of coffee while you're scrolling through it.

DISCLAIMER: The above is just a suggestion. If you're allergic to coffee, or have problems with coordination, do not attempt this. (My attorney made me add this) :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 21, 2000.

Yeah right,

I really thought I just did answer your points.

If you would be so kind as to clearly show me what I didn't answer, I'll be glad to give it another shot. And would you put them in the form of questions?

By the way, I notice you're starting to take this to the personal level. Please refrain from doing this.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 21, 2000.

Eve-

First I will define "child" as we do here in the US-anyone under the age of 14. I worked consistently from the age of 14 to 18-so in the legal definition of child I performed "child" labor.

For the sake of my questions, I am speaking to forced labor of children under the age of 10, in sweatshops, for ungodly long hours for little or no wages. In many of these countries the children are paying off some debt of the parent.

It becomes a philosophical and cultural question as to the age at which a child should be forced to work. I take into consideration cultural differences, as in this country it would be unheard of for someone less than 10 years old helping to put food on the table. So, I ask you, at what age should a child start working?

My point is aimed at those who use forced child labor as one of the reasons for not sending the kid back. I have already said I think 14 is the age at which a child should VOLUNTARILY be able to decide wether or not they want to work.

There seems to be a contradiction in my stance. I believe it should be 14, but I seem to be defending a position in which elian would be sent to the sugar fields at the age of 12. This is where I tie in with my position that the US does not have the right to seperate someone from their biological father because of human rights violations in other countries. This inevitably leads to the ridiculous conclusion that we must stop all children who are visiting here at the airport from going back to China, Malaysia, etc..

On a personal level, I shudder at this child being returned to a country where his rights will be violated. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee here, either, that a hispanic male will not face violations of his own, and prejudice to boot. My main point is that what is right to our emotions and what is right in objective terms, is two diffrerent things, here.

While we can sit on the sidelines and judge the actions of other cultures, this does NOT in an purely objective sense make us right.

This is an issue which speaks to moral ethics, and I myself am going to look into my old philosophy books to further explore my feelings.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 21, 2000.

Okay Eve....

1) Is anything done to a family, or any horror committed against people "okay" as long as it fights communism?

2) Is kidnapping under color of authority okay with you?

3) Is Termination of parental rights without cause okay too?

4) Is killing Elian better than returning him to Cuba, the "Better dead than red" concept?

5) Is the future life of Elian any of YOUR (or our) business?

6) Should we steal a kid from its parent because we disagree with their politics?

------------------

For the following questions, assume that all countries would "allow" us to do whatever we want WITHOUT retaliation, and that there would be ZERO cost in U.S. lives or increased taxes for performing these "duties".

7) Do you feel that we should invade Cuba and "liberate" all children from their oppression.

8) Should we do the same for all children in all countries of the world whose political structure we disagree with.

9) Should we sterilize all adults in those aforementioned countries, in order to keep them from having any MORE children in such a political climate.

I welcome your honest, unemotional responses to these VERY CLEAR questions.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 21, 2000.

Yeah Right,

[1) Is anything done to a family, or any horror committed against people "okay" as long as it fights communism?]

No.

[2) Is kidnapping under color of authority okay with you?]

If by "kidnapping" you mean by expending practically no energy to save a little boy from a life of enslavement -- then, yes.

[3) Is Termination of parental rights without cause okay too?]

I can't answer this unless I know what you mean by "cause" and "parental rights."

[4) Is killing Elian better than returning him to Cuba, the "Better dead than red" concept?]

No.

[5) Is the future life of Elian any of YOUR (or our) business?]

If by "business" you mean expending practically no energy to save a little boy from a life of enslavement -- then, yes. Why? Simply because of the general good will and respect I grant to any human being in the name of the potential value he represents; and the desire I have that he therefore have at least an opportunity to be free from enslavement -- i.e., allowed to live.

[6) Should we steal a kid from its parent because we disagree with their politics?]

If by "politics" you mean Nazis, communists, war zones, anarchy, etc. -- then, yes. By the way, if I were a parent in this situation, there would be no "stealing." I would beg someone to take my boys (and hopefully me, too) to freedom. That's how much I love them.

------------------

[For the following questions, assume that all countries would "allow" us to do whatever we want WITHOUT retaliation, and that there would be ZERO cost in U.S. lives or increased taxes for performing these "duties".]

In other words, assume the impossible? Ok, if you wish...

If other innocent lives would be lost, though -- my answers would be "no" for all of the below. But if we assume no loss of life at all...

[7) Do you feel that we should invade Cuba and "liberate" all children from their oppression.]

If by "oppression" you mean enslavement for the course of their lives -- then, yes.

[8) Should we do the same for all children in all countries of the world whose political structure we disagree with.]

No. Just the ones in which the people have no human/individual rights.

[9) Should we sterilize all adults in those aforementioned countries, in order to keep them from having any MORE children in such a political climate.]

No. That would violate womens' human/individual rights -- specifically, their right to life -- to their own bodies.

FutureShock...I'll try to get to your post a little later.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 21, 2000.

This is getting interesting. Eve, do you even see the arrogant statist (National Socialist) nature of your beliefs? Allow me to assist you....

[1) Is anything done to a family, or any horror committed against people "okay" as long as it fights communism?] - No.

Okay, where would you PERSONALLY draw that magical "line in the sand"?

[2) Is kidnapping under color of authority okay with you?]

If by "kidnapping" you mean by expending practically no energy to save a little boy from a life of enslavement -- then, yes.

So, you're saying that a child's right to be with it's parents is dependent upon WHERE they live?

[3) Is Termination of parental rights without cause okay too?]

I can't answer this unless I know what you mean by "cause" and "parental rights."

You sound like Clinton, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Here's further clarification:

PARENTAL RIGHTS: The right of a parent to keep their children as part of their own family.

FOR CAUSE: Child abuse, beatings, torture, starvation AT THE HAND OF THE PARENT.

[4) Is killing Elian better than returning him to Cuba, the "Better dead than red" concept?] - No. Fair enough.

[5) Is the future life of Elian any of YOUR (or our) business?]

If by "business" you mean expending practically no energy to save a little boy from a life of enslavement -- then, yes. Why? Simply because of the general good will and respect I grant to any human being in the name of the potential value he represents; and the desire I have that he therefore have at least an opportunity to be free from enslavement -- i.e., allowed to live.

I submit that you are completely off base here. Do you also snoop on your neighbors, "just in case" they might be doing something you object to?

[6) Should we steal a kid from its parent because we disagree with their politics?]

If by "politics" you mean Nazis, communists, war zones, anarchy, etc. -- then, yes. By the way, if I were a parent in this situation, there would be no "stealing." I would beg someone to take my boys (and hopefully me, too) to freedom. That's how much I love them.

So, in your opinion, the right of the parents to love and cherish their children, see them grow up and have families of their own and so on, is secondary to YOUR requirement that they live in a "politically acceptible" country? (And, um, there ARE NO NAZI'S anymore, FYI.) And your last statement is pure bullshit. How about if YOUR child were "kept" in Iran? The Iranians consider the U.S. to be the cesspool of satan. They would think themselves doing your child a great service by keeping him. Would YOU agree with their decision? After all, "they love him too".

------------------

If other innocent lives would be lost, though -- my answers would be "no" for all of the below. But if we assume no loss of life at all...

[7) Do you feel that we should invade Cuba and "liberate" all children from their oppression.]

If by "oppression" you mean enslavement for the course of their lives -- then, yes.

So, the wholsale theft of children from their parents, on a NATIONWIDE scale, is okay with you. That's good to know.

[8) Should we do the same for all children in all countries of the world whose political structure we disagree with.]

No. Just the ones in which the people have no human/individual rights.

So, you are selective in your child-theft. Well, China and N. Korea have no human rights (for example). So, should we go over there and steal 500 million children, and ship them all over here into the U.S.? What about 500 million angry and weeping parents, who don't get to see their children grow? What about the destruction of entire cultures, since there would be no new generations to carry on their cultural traditions? But I guess that's "okay", because those countries had no human rights.

Am I getting this right so far?

[9) Should we sterilize all adults in those aforementioned countries, in order to keep them from having any MORE children in such a political climate.]

No. That would violate womens' human/individual rights -- specifically, their right to life -- to their own bodies.

So, at what age to we conduct FUTURE "child sweeps" in these countries to steal their children, in order to provide them a "safe haven" here in the good ole' U.S. of A.?

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

You see Eve? Your "yes" answers make you WORSE than any Hitler-like personage in the history of the world. Child theft, genocide (of the existing cultures), the tearing of family and generational bonds, ALL would be okay with you in the name of "the children".

IMO, YOU are a Nazi.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 21, 2000.

Would a sysop lease fix the above post? There should be a (/B) right after the first NO in line 2.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 21, 2000.

off

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 21, 2000.

off?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 21, 2000.

Yeah right,

I had already asked you to please refrain from taking this to the personal level; yet your last post was riddled with personal attacks. So, our discussion is over and I won't be responding to any more posts from you.

To all the rest of you,

If you feel that any issue that "Yeah right" has brought up deserves a follow-up response from me, please feel free to put the point to me directly and I'll be happy to try to answer you the best I can.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 21, 2000.

Gawd, can't you people tell "Yeah right" is Cavscout?

-- (Told @ on .you), April 21, 2000.

I think my statements were mostly right on. Except for my sentence at the end, I fail to see how this is a personal attack.

You answered my questions. I showed you that your answers reek of elitism and arrogance. What I want is for you to address the inconsistencies in your point of view, as elaborated in my rebuttal. I am quite interested in your responses.

I feel that the points taken in my rebuttal are valid. Please show me how they are NOT. And I'll stop calling you names. Sorry about that. But I really feel that your position is untenable in any way.

Please prove me wrong.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 21, 2000.

Who cares if 'Yeah Right' uses another handle on other threads? I sure don't. People seem to do it all the time.

I found the questions and responses interesting. I would have found it difficult to respond to the responses in a politically correct, sensitive manner, myself. That's because my opinions on the subject are diametric to those offered by Eve, as well.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 21, 2000.

Anita,

I've just been called a Nazi repeatedly by someone and I also happen to be Jewish who had ancestors tortured and murdered in concentration camps by the Nazis. And I knew parents of two friends of mine from childhood who still had serial numbers from the camps branded on their arms. Further, I believe that every word I've uttered shows the antithesis of any Nazi philosophy. If in this context my cutting off a discussion with this person labels me as "politically correct" and too sensitive...well...then, so be it.

But after seeing his/her apology above, I might come back to the discussion one more time...after a break.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 21, 2000.

Yeah Right,

Ok...apology accepted. I hope to be back later this evening or tomorrow. I just need a break for now.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 21, 2000.

stay away eve he's just trying to get your goat

-- (...@...com), April 21, 2000.

He's a prick eve. I suggest you do what ...@ said to do.

-- (Told @ on.you), April 21, 2000.

I'm not trying to get anyone's goat. I found Eve's stand on this issue to be indefensible, as I do her belief that we have some "right" to steal the world's oppressed children from their parents, if only we'd be allowed to somehow.

I find those viewpoints to be impossible to comprehend. I want her to make me understand how she can believe what she's saying. I want her to answer my rebuttal above.

That's it. For real.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 21, 2000.

My gawwd, when did work for children become torture. I've known kids that worked like dogs and they turned out to be fine adults, without a lot of bitching and moaning.

If some of the street corner kids in this country had to do a little hard work and give up vidieos, TV, computers, and weed for a month or two, they'd be better for it. You wouldn't see so many showing up in teen boot camps.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 21, 2000.

Gilda, Gilda, Gilda:

I am not talking about teenagers working here. We have LAWS in this country to protect minors-for example how many hours they may work and how late they may work.

The countries I was talking about force children less than 10 years old to work 18 hour days knitting covers on soccer balls for christ's sake. Unfortunately, we do not have the right to storm their country and save the children. We can, however, boycott the companies that use children in sweat shop conditions.

My point was that anyone using the reasoning that this elian kid should not be sent back to Cuba because of inhumane conditions for children better be absolutely certain that they are not supporting that same situation in other countries by buying ANY product from those countries.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 21, 2000.

Odds and ends

Above when someone mentioned Anne Frank and would America have helped her. The fact is that the good ol' USA knew what Hitler and the Nazi's were doing and did not help, until after the fact. They would not approve the immigration of Jewish people who were asking for asylum from the Nazi's during the war (WWII).

As for the idea that a government has the right to decide that children should be taken from their parents because of perceived benefit to the child by being raised at a higher standard of living than the parents can provide please read You should read Pieters account of the removal of part-Aboriginal children to ensure their "assimilation" and to rescue them from the supposedly hopeless and degraded Aboriginal world into which they had been born that occurred in Australia for 70 years.

Another point in the same discussion is that the Elian situation has been prostituted into a "big story" by the media who has grown used to having a long running "big story" that they bleed for all it's worth. The situation would have been resolved before now if the media hadn't gotten involved. They don't care a rats defecation about what happens to that boy, there are plane crashes and earthquakes and floods and masses of tragic things happening to people all over the world right now, but do we hear more than a two line or two about them. They don't "sell" right at the moment.

Another thing, 6 year olds don't want to know all about adult the things that adults are going on about, it is not in their character, Elian probably does not care whether he lives in Cuba or America-although in America he has gotten to go to Disney world so of course he wants to be where he thinks he will get to do all kinds of fun stuff. But for him to understand the reality of communism and life in Cuba as opposed to life here and freedom, is unrealistic. He probably would prefer the "freedom" he had in Cuba over the repressive, restrictive life he is experiencing here.

Does that surprise you? Think about it, in Cuba he had the freedom to leave his house and play, run down the street with his friends, do all the things little kids the world over do. Here, he is a hostage in a home where there is a wall of people (and cameras) surrounding him, he has no freedom to just be him. Here he has people telling him what to do, what to say and how to think. It is sad if you think about it, the freedoms that he is supposed to get in America are what he lost when he left Cuba. At this time. He is a child and he is not being allowed to be a child, for the sole purpose of furthering the agendas of adults. Castro, Politicians here, the Cuban-American people, the media.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 21, 2000.

Yeah right/Manny/Mark,

Eve already said she would let you know if she was interested in discussing this with you any further. I wouldn't blame her if she didn't want to discuss this any further because you DID make personal attacks on her. Quite obviously, you are not capable of having a rational discussion with her (or anyone else from what I've noticed) so why don't you just go about your business now.

(By the way, I've changed my handle to "Manny is a racist .jerk" because of the racist comment he made toward David Whitelaw in the "Paging David Whitelaw" thread.)

-- (M@nny is a racist .jerk), April 21, 2000.

Yeah Right,

You said,

[Eve, do you even see the arrogant statist (National Socialist) nature of your beliefs?]

My reply:

Please define National Socialist and statist and tell me how you feel these terms apply to me. Your question:

[1) Is anything done to a family, or any horror committed against people "okay" as long as it fights communism?] My previous reply:

No.

Your response: Okay, where would you PERSONALLY draw that magical "line in the sand"?

My current reply:

Please see my answers below. If its still not clear enough for you, just restate the question.

Your question:

[2) Is kidnapping under color of authority okay with you?] My previous reply:

If by "kidnapping" you mean by expending practically no energy to save a little boy from a life of enslavement -- then, yes.

Your response:

So, you're saying that a child's right to be with its parents is dependent upon WHERE they live?

My current reply:

If the child is here and is a refugee from enslavement in a totalitarian regime, then  yes.

Your question:

[3) Is Termination of parental rights without cause okay too?] My previous reply:

I can't answer this unless I know what you mean by "cause" and "parental rights."

Your response: You sound like Clinton, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Here's further clarification: PARENTAL RIGHTS: The right of a parent to keep their children as part of their own family. FOR CAUSE: Child abuse, beatings, torture, starvation AT THE HAND OF THE PARENT. My current response:

Rights are really principles that define an individuals freedom of action in a social context. Certain rights  e.g., the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness  are basic to mans nature, because people survive through the use of their mind  their rational faculty. And these rights and their derivatives (e.g., freedom of speech, etc.) allow their survival. And by survival, I dont mean subsisting under a dictator or rotting in a prison cell. I mean really living  flourishing and being free. And you can be impoverished and still easily experience what Im talking about. There is only one fundamental right  a persons right to his/her own life. All the other rights are consequences or corollaries of this one; for example, the right to property (i.e., their own property) allows us to implement our right to life. And to really be allowed to live is to be allowed the freedom to take all the actions required by your nature for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of your own life. The concept of a right has only to do with action  to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion, or interference from others. The sole proper purpose of a government is one that is set up through the consent of the governed and preserves and protects these individual rights A government that enslaves us or robs us of the product of our effort or compels us to act against our own rational judgment is really not a government at all, but nothing more than a mob held together by institutionalized gang rule. There are no such things as rights in this type of environment, including parental rights. In Cuba, Castro has the ultimate say on the fate of the parent as well as the child  the fate of the both of them would be at his whim; they have no rights there. So your question is irrelevant. Understanding rights and the nature of a proper government is not easy, and Ive barely scratched the surface here; so I expect you to call my answer a cop out. But, if you wish to take yet another trip into Fantasyland and play a game of pretending they have rights in Cuba, just let me know and I might oblige you. But I really think its time we now spend our energy on the realistic points.

(Your question #4 has been resolved).

Your question:

[5) Is the future life of Elian any of YOUR (or our) business?] My Previous reply:

If by "business" you mean expending practically no energy to save a little boy from a life of enslavement -- then, yes. Why? Simply because of the general good will and respect I grant to any human being in the name of the potential value he represents; and the desire I have that he therefore have at least an opportunity to be free from enslavement -- i.e., allowed to live.

Your response: I submit that you are completely off base here. Do you also snoop on your neighbors, "just in case" they might be doing something you object to?

My current reply:

No.

Your question:

[6) Should we steal a kid from its parent because we disagree with their politics?] My previous reply:

If by "politics" you mean Nazis, communists, war zones, anarchy, etc. -- then, yes. By the way, if I were a parent in this situation, there would be no "stealing." I would beg someone to take my boys (and hopefully me, too) to freedom. That's how much I love them.

Your response:

So, in your opinion, the right of the parents to love and cherish their children, see them grow up and have families of their own and so on, is secondary to YOUR requirement that they live in a "politically acceptable" country? (And, um, there ARE NO NAZI'S anymore, FYI.) And your last statement is pure bullshit. How about if YOUR child were "kept" in Iran? The Iranians consider the U.S. to be the cesspool of satan. They would think themselves doing your child a great service by keeping him. Would YOU agree with their decision? After all, "they love him too".

My current response: I previously said that I would not invade, and gave detailed reasons why. In the fantasy world that you present below, though, I have another response. Also, from a response I gave above, you should see that to the extent Iran is a totalitarian regime I do not recognize it as a legitimate government. So, their thoughts about this matter would not be of any concern to me. Their actions, however, might, and they should be dealt with accordingly. In the example you brought up they would be kidnappers (if I may borrow one of your favorite terms) in the purest sense, as the child would be enslaved by what in essence would be nothing other than a large gang.

You then posed the following fantasy/impossible scenario with respect to the remaining, subsequent questions:

For the following questions, assume that all countries would "allow" us to do whatever we want WITHOUT retaliation, and that there would be ZERO cost in U.S. lives or increased taxes for performing these "duties".] My previous reply:

In other words, assume the impossible? Ok, if you wish... If other innocent lives would be lost, though -- my answers would be "no" for all of the below. But if we assume no loss of life at all...

Your question: [7) Do you feel that we should invade Cuba and "liberate" all children from their oppression?]

My previous reply:

If by "oppression" you mean enslavement for the course of their lives -- then, yes.

Your response: So, the wholesale theft of children from their parents, on a NATIONWIDE scale, is okay with you. That's good to know.

My current reply:

There would be no theft. If I understand you correctly here, there would be no resistance or loss of life. That being the case, wed have to assume that either the parents wanted their children removed or they were indifferent.

Your question:

[8) Should we do the same for all children in all countries of the world whose political structure we disagree with?]

My previous reply: No. Just the ones in which the people have no human/individual rights. Your response:

So, you are selective in your child-theft. Well, China and N. Korea have no human rights (for example). So, should we go over there and steal 500 million children, and ship them all over here into the U.S.? What about 500 million angry and weeping parents, who don't get to see their children grow? What about the destruction of entire cultures, since there would be no new generations to carry on their cultural traditions? But I guess that's "okay", because those countries had no human rights. My current reply:

In your fantasy, there would be no resistance or loss of life, so there would be no stealing, weeping or anger. See my response to question 7 for more on this. And I assume there would be no burden in taking on all these children, and their parents as well, since in your fantasy, major actions require no burden or effort. Or do you want to start making exceptions now? Cultures and traditions are carried on here, to the extent that interest remains. By the way, if theres no resistance to removing them, the government should also be more amenable to converting to a free nation right where they are.

Your question: [9) Should we sterilize all adults in those aforementioned countries, in order to keep them from having any MORE children in such a political climate.] My previous reply:

No. That would violate womens' human/individual rights -- specifically, their right to life -- to their own bodies. Your response: So, at what age to we conduct FUTURE "child sweeps" in these countries to steal their children, in order to provide them a "safe haven" here in the good ole' U.S. of A.? My current reply:

As I indicated above, there would be no stealing. Saving would be a more appropriate term. Re the age question: I dont know. You then said:

You see Eve? Your "yes" answers make you WORSE than any Hitler-like personage in the history of the world. Child theft, genocide (of the existing cultures), the tearing of family and generational bonds, ALL would be okay with you in the name of "the children". IMO, YOU are a Nazi.

My reply:

Hopefully, my explanations above demonstrate why your statements are untrue. But if you still feel this way, define Nazi and tell me how you feel this term applies to me. If you see it as the same as National Socialist above (where I asked the same of you) feel free to skip this one. Finally, I think its time let go of your fantasy and impossible scenarios and concentrate on the real life ones, and the ones that are possible and/or probable  or even remotely possible; I think well all learn more this way. I mean, its almost like were discussing, What if 2+2=5? What then? I know its fun for you, but lets start to get real. Are you game?

And now a few questions for you:

I don't recall you giving a direct response to my original question. Would you ship Anne Frank (indirectly) to a concentration camp?

What would your position on Elian be if he was an orphan?

Finally, do you think a communist government (i.e., the structure) has just as much a right to exist as our own?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 22, 2000.

...@, Told, M@nny,

I appreciate your support and concerns...but his/her apology and the importance of the issue leads me to giving it one more try.

FutureShock,

Thanks for your patience. Please have some more...ok? :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 22, 2000.

Eve:

Don't worry. I am here for the long haul!

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 22, 2000.

I hadn't really realized that "Yeah Right" had gone into fantasia in the possibilities presented to Eve. I think most folks would agree that if there were a place [a HUGE place with endless opportunities, low taxes, a bounty of resources, etc.] that offered an idealist way of life, we would prefer that everyone COULD come and enjoy the wonderful freedoms offered. As it stands, however, such a place doesn't exist. That's why countries have immigration quotas.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 22, 2000.

Now hear this. This thread is terminated. It has lasted too long and is squandering our digital wealth. Anyone who persists in this thread risks a 5:00 AM raid by my jackboots in white vans. Seig Heil!

-- (JReno@FCC.gov), April 22, 2000.

Oops...sorry about the formatting on my previous post to "Yeah Right." Many times my heading of "My previous reply," etc. got hooked on to the prior paragraph, instead of standing out separately to head up the new paragraph. It didn't read this way when I typed it. Oh, well...go figure!

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 22, 2000.

Hi FutureShock,

I'm not able to see the "child labor" issue in black and white terms unless I'm given a context. In order to determine the context so that I can form an opinion, I have to ask lots of questions. Just keep in mind that the following is not meant to overburden and complicate the situation. Quite the opposite, I see it as allowing the situiation to crystallize itself. So here we go...

Would someone, say, an infant sister, starve without the additional food that this would put on the table? Would the whole family starve (assumes no one else was able to work)? Is the labor forced or voluntary? If forced, is it by a parent or the government? Is it for a family purpose (say, a family farm) or is it factory labor? How difficult is the work? What is the child's physical condition? What is the child's age? What is the child's emotional and psychological maturity level? Is the child physically able to perform the work? What are the working conditions? Is it two hours a day or sixteen? Does the child want to work? Would the child enjoy the work? Could the work have an educational purpose? And so on...

Only then would I make a decision as to boycotting a product.

You then presume that if we kept Elian here we would then logically be led to detaining all such children during normal visits to this country. I disagree. I would first ascertain whether it is a refugee situation or a regular visit. I would not want to be taking kids from their parents if the visits are, e.g., vacations, family visits, educational exchanges, and the like. But I think it would be great to give them all literature that would allow the parents to understand the differences between this system of government and theirs, and make an informed choice about possible future citizenship. And this should supplement a revised, more liberal immigration policy, as well as a trimmed-down welfare state. Further, keep in mind that to the extent new immigrants are productive, we all stand to benefit.

You then make some comments that appear to equate other "cultures" with our own. But some other "cultures" are, structurally speaking, pure evil and/or dangerous -- e.g., Nazis, communists, other totalitarian regimes, others that practice human sacrifice or human mutiliation, general anarchy, etc. -- in other words, the ones which do not recognize human/individual rights. So I would never, ever equate another "culture" with our own unless I first knew specifically which "culture" we were speaking about.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 23, 2000.

FutureShock,

I have to clarify my previous post.

Regarding all the questions I'd have about a child labor situation: Obviously, in most cases we'd never have available answers to many of those questions; but, if such a possible situation came to my attention, I would make a reasonable attempt to get as much information as I could -- assuming I had the time and energy to do so.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 23, 2000.

Eve:

You make a good point in saying that decisions should not be looked at in black and white. I find myself painting in broad strokes when pointillism would be more appropriate!

Rather than answering all your questions, or presenting many different scenarios, I acknowledge your point in looking at things case-by-case. My whole position has been to debate those who claim miserable conditions in Cuba and child-labor are reasons to rip this kid from his father. I simply wanted to make people think about the choices they make every day as to the "power of the purse". I have boycotted fast food restaurants for years because they were buying beef from cows fed on land cleared by destroying rainforest. I was speaking to the possible hypocracy in saying on the one hand that the child should not be sent back to a country where there are human rights violations, and on the other hand, owning merchandise stitched by children.

Your point in your response to me is that you would make your decision on the facts you could ascertain. Bravo-you would be conscientious enough to look into all the factors. Your position also shows maturity in that it takes into account cultural differences-in this country it is unlikely a child under the age of 13 would have to work to put food on the table-in some places, they may have to do this. While I do not have references, I DO remember reading articles about NIKE factories in the far east where children were working on soccer balls 18 hours a day in sweatshop conditions.

There are child prostitutes in Thailand and other countries. There are children working in this country that are underage, hidden away, paying off debt to the people who illegally smuggled their families into this country.

I would guess that you WOULD boycott a company that abuses children, by your definition, whatever that definition is for you. On this we agree.

As far as the other issues, regarding mass sterilization and mass kidnapping of children at airports, I was merely reducing the argument I was opposing to the absurd. It is a technique which shows the logical consequences of an argument should they be followed all the way out. To say that the reason to keep this kid from his father is that there are human rights violations in Cuba is to set a precedent that any child that arrives on our shore can be taken from their parent, if they have arrived from a country with human rights violations, if there is a special interest group that vouches for the child.

I think we can agree to disagree. Our differences, I think, are fundamentally about how we view the rights of individuals. Not in a million years am I happy that this boy might go back; I do not think any child should have to go back to this kind of life-BUT what I think and what is right are two different things. The two of us just have two different philosophies in moral ethics.

I do not believe a child should be taken from any parent unless that parent is directly abusing the child. You believe that there are special circumstances in which it is okay to do this even if the parent has not directly abused the child. I do not see how we can move off this fulcrum which divides us. That's okay.

Maybe we can start a thread on moral ethics; discuss things such as utilitarianism. But in this case, I think we are done. I would be curious, though, what exactly it is that you read that helped you make your decision in this case. You seem to be the type not to take ANY decision lightly. Maybe you could provide a link. As I have said before, I will NEVER close my mind to new evidence.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 23, 2000.

" To say that the reason to keep this kid from his father is that there are human rights violations in Cuba is to set a precedent that any child that arrives on our shore can be taken from their parent, if they have arrived from a country with human rights violations, if there is a special interest group that vouches for the child.

I think we can agree to disagree. Our differences, I think, are fundamentally about how we view the rights of individuals."

Why should anyone in the United States, or the majority of Americans for that matter, decide what is good or right for the rest of the world? Isn't this your own views of Human Rights, as Americans? Aren't you policing the morals of the rest of the world? If so, what/who gives you the right to do so?

-- Ann A. Lyze (@ .), April 23, 2000.

Ann:

You qouted me, but I am not sure if you were disagreeing with me, supporting the statement I made, or what.

I would not presume to judge, necessarily, another country, but certain things, I think, can be considered human rights violations, such as being killed for believing in Falun Gong, or child prostitution. We have no arguemnt if you believe there is no such thing as a human rights violation.

I cannot tell from your post if this is what you are saying-Are you saying that because all cultures are different the idea of a human rights violation is moot?

I believe we have choices, power of the purse, that if we do not like what a coporation is doing we can boycott their product or service. I will never do business with Sears again because they have lost two class action suits filed against them for illegal collection practices. Same thing with M.C.I..

I just wanted to clear this up: what is right and what I FEEL right about can be two different things. What is right is to return the kid; what I FEEL is right is he should stay here.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 24, 2000.

Why should anyone in the United States, or the majority of Americans for that matter, decide what is good or right for the rest of the world?

Indeed, I cannot conceive of any country, government or person to whom I would want to entrust such authority. Therefore, I feel that the criteria for deciding whether to keep a child from returning to his or her parent in another country, should be such that we could accept another country's applying those same criteria to an American family.

Defining such criteria isn't easy, but how about "imminent danger of death or injury to the child."

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 24, 2000.

Ann A. Lyze,

You said,

[Why should anyone in the United States, or the majority of Americans for that matter, decide what is good or right for the rest of the world? Isn't this your own views of Human Rights, as Americans? Aren't you policing the morals of the rest of the world? If so, what/who gives you the right to do so?]

My moral standard of the good is the life of a human being. And this standard entails rights for these beings as natural corollaries, as I spoke about in my response to "Yeah Right." An important tie-in here is the basic "right" to "life."

So it's not a matter of "human rights" for us versus, say, "human rights" under Josef Stalin. There were no human rights under Stalin as well as none under Castro. Therefore, certain other "governments" such as those types that I listed above (e.g., communist, etc.) are nothing more than institutionalized criminal gangs, and by my standard (life) are evil/immoral because they are anti-life, and thus have no right to exist as such. But that certainly doesn't mean that we have to be "policing" or invading them; that would lead to loss of innocent life and is impractical, in any case.

Hopefully, my other posts above should clarify my position on this somewhat; but I know that my theory of rights is not a simple one, so if you're interested I'll try to provide you with a fuller philosophical validation -- which requires getting into ethics as well as politics, at the least.

To all,

Sorry about the monster paragraph in my post to "Yeah Right" (the one on rights). I could have sworn I had it split up when I typed it.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

FutureShock,

Thanks so much for all your kind words. Even though we have different approaches and views on things, I really admire your sensitivity and motivation on these issues. I wish you the best of luck on them. By the way, you really have a nice flair for use of "reductio ad absurdum" arguments. This shows you have a nice handle on the issues. And your open mind is such a rare find nowadays; I could debate with you all night easily -- If only I could find the time! To clarify a point: If it became apparent to me that child abuse was involved in a child labor situation, I would absolutely boycott the product, and implore everyone I could to do the same!

My approach to the child labor issue is similar to my approach on Elian and most of the other big issues of the day. It all stems from my philosophy, which you've seen chunks of in this thread. My philosophy consists of several axioms from which dozens of basic principles flow. And from those spring a great many more.

The following list includes books and essays which have had the greatest influence on my thinking in the areas of philosophy (includes ethics and politics), economics and psychology:

Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand; Unrugged Individualism, by David Kelley (crucial, yet hard to find; let me know if you're interested); The Psychology of Self Esteem, by Nathaniel Branden; Individuals and their Rights, by Tibor Machan; The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff; The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand; Human Action, by Ludwig VonMises; Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlett; Civil Disobedience, by Henry David Thoreau; Man's Search for Meaning, by Viktor Frankl; Capitalism, by George Reisman; The Government Against the Economy, by George Reisman; Common Sense, by Thomas Paine; The Art of Living Consciously, by Nathaniel Branden; The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, by Nathaniel Branden; Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand; All other compilations of Ayn Rand's essays. Maybe you could start with Amazon.com.

Or we could approach this through other threads, as you mentioned. I'd be happy to jump into lots of meaty new issues; the ones on ethics and utilitarianism would be fine places to start. This is one excellent way we could all learn from each other; I mean, look at some of the fascinating threads we've already seen so far.

Thanks for a very interesting exchange, FS...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

Eve:

Thank YOU for your kind words. You have given me a list of works, many of which I have not read, to start pursuing. We shall meet again. I will send you a private e-mail to get info on that one book you said is hard to find.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 24, 2000.

FutureShock (and all),

I should clarify a point about my reading list. "Atlas Shrugged" as well as "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff (inadvertently omitted from the list) should be read prior to "Unrugged Individualism." The latter assumes knowledge of her philosophy.

Talk to ya soon, FS...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 26, 2000.