@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996
Sender: Ernest Hua <•••@••.•••>
Subject: The spew of rhetoric ...
16 Aug, Joe Ferguson wrote:
> For the record, the Republican Party is not pro-life. It is
> anti-choice.
Now just what does "pro-life" and "anti-choice" mean? I know that
many, if not most, people who choose to use such over-simplified names
are trying to use sound-bite-style associations to label someone as
good or evil. But this is a prime example of heated rhetoric, and it
does not advance the cause of civilized discourse.
Afterall, who would not want to be for "life"? And who would be
against "choice" (equated with freedom)? These sorts of words are
designed specifically to appeal to emotions rather than logic.
Here is another one:
> Neither of our two major political parties is life-affirming.
Again, who would not want to be "affirming" "life"? Now just what
does "affirming" mean? I have yet to hear "affirmation of life" used
in a context that is very specific and practical. In fact, I hear it
used very often in theatrical contexts to generate the "feel good"
effect. But what it is, really? How does it translate into actions
and deeds?
> Both of them compete for the position of largest death machine in
> the world.
Now, why would anyone want to be associated with "death machine"?
I am sure many people, like Joe, who use such rhetoric, have something
very important to say. I just hope they would choose less inflamatory
words to say it.
Ern
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996
Sender: •••@••.••• (Joe Ferguson)
Subject: The spew of rhetoric ...
Recently, I sent a letter to the editor of the American
Reporter, an online newspaper (editor Joe Shea) that I monitor on a
regular basis. The letter was published in issue number 355.
In this letter, I aired irritation that had been building
over approximately a month, as Mr. Shea included repeated remarks
in his publication that I felt represented either mindless
acceptance of the legitimacy of the U.S.' two major parties, or
deliberate attempts to provoke his readership to respond to his
pressing of "hot buttons" in his editorials.
Cyberjournal received a submission that was a response to
my letter, and Richard has graciously offered me the opportunity
to frame this post with a response.
Ernest Hua wrote:
> Now just what does "pro-life" and "anti-choice" mean? I know that
> many, if not most, people who choose to use such over-simplified names
> are trying to use sound-bite-style associations to label someone as
> good or evil. But this is a prime example of heated rhetoric, and it
> does not advance the cause of civilized discourse.
This is a good point. In sending the letter, I did in fact
stoop to this rhetorical/sound-byte level. In my defense I can only
state that this letter was intended as an in-context reply. The
context for the above was an off-hand comment in one of Shea's
editorials (issue 353) about the "pro-life" membership of the
Republican party. I don't think these people have the right to the
title "pro-life." I think they want to have control over other peoples'
bodies and lives, and so I think "anti-choice" is a more accurate
label.
You may have noticed the anti-choice community trying to label
the pro-choice community "pro-abortion." (The "choice" this all refers
to is a woman's choice of whether or not she wishes to carry a pregnancy
to term or not.) This is another attempt to put a spin on the issue
that makes the so-called "pro-life" side seem superior. Nobody is
pro-abortion. The point is that there _is_ a demand for abortions, and
criminalizing this option does not address the misery surrounding these
cases but only adds to it.
In keeping with my desire to respond not only in context but
in character with the American Reporter, I closed the above paragraph
using a device Shea has used effectively and often in his publication:
the prediction. I predicted that the same mentality that wants to
criminalize abortion will some day give us mandatory sterilization. I
knew this would get Shea's attention.
> Afterall, who would not want to be for "life"? And who would be
> against "choice" (equated with freedom)? These sorts of words are
> designed specifically to appeal to emotions rather than logic.
This is half a good point. It is hard to imagine anybody
not being pro-life. It makes me wonder at, for instance those
promoting the nuclear weapons industry. The United States is the
biggest obstacle to ending nuclear proliferation in the world, the
most likely to initiate a nuclear war, and of course the only nation
ever to have unleashed this horror on an opponent. Then there's the
Death Squads we trained, armed and funded. Yesterday I read an
article in the San Jose Mercury News that reveals the fact that the
CIA promoted cocaine trafficking in the U.S. in the 1980's to fund
the "contra" terrorists in Nicaragua! Try reading Paul Farmer's
"The Uses of Haiti" (Common Courage Press). The closer you look, the
more it seems like the answer to "who would not want to be for life?"
is "anyone paying income taxes to Uncle Sam."
Who would be against choice? Intolerant people, greedy
people, people who safeguard their power by stirring up issues like
the abortion issue to keep the populace divided.
> Here is another one:
>
> > Neither of our two major political parties is life-affirming.
>
> Again, who would not want to be "affirming" "life"? Now just what
> does "affirming" mean? I have yet to hear "affirmation of life" used
> in a context that is very specific and practical. In fact, I hear it
> used very often in theatrical contexts to generate the "feel good"
> effect. But what it is, really? How does it translate into actions
> and deeds?
In both American Reporter issues 349 and 350, the "thought for
the day" was "The lesser of two evils is the more life-affirming one."
This was placed carefully in the context of the two corrupt,
major U.S. political parties (the two evils) and in the context of the
Republican convention with it's so-called "pro-life" plank firmly
nailed down.
That is where "life-affirming" came from. My letter tried to
point out that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can be
accurately described with the words "life-affirming."
> > Both of them compete for the position of largest death machine in
> > the world.
>
> Now, why would anyone want to be associated with "death machine"?
They don't. This is why the media is such an important
investment for the people in control of the devastatingly toxic
industries (oil, chemical, weapons, etc.) that hold our planet in a
death grip. This is why I have trouble standing by when otherwise
good publications like the American Reporter fall into the trap of
making free contributions to the PR campaign that paints these
villains as good guys.
> I am sure many people, like Joe, who use such rhetoric, have something
> very important to say. I just hope they would choose less inflamatory
> words to say it.
I do the best I can as an unpaid volunteer!-)
Joe Ferguson
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland
Cyberlib: www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: