From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: John Cage is Dead
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:13:14 GMT
Summary: Enough.

In article <Btq7qu.3vD@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us
(Brian K. Yoder) quotes me:
>>Now, about the "crimes" of this "evil" Cardew person.  My God, man,
>>he merely championed Mao's philosophy--he never killed anyone!

>Well, I don't think Hitler ever actually killed anyone personally
>either, but don't you think that he and his supporters were
>responsible for the bloodshed every bit as much as the guys who
>pulled the triggers and ran the gas chambers?

I'm not going to respond at length to any of this--such a discussion
is no longer in the realm of Classical music, no matter how bizarre
a definition you give it.

Hitler and his cronies were responsible for all the evils they
performed in running the Nazi state, whether or not the immediate
result was death.  But they--and Hitler in particular--were not
guilty of these things until they actually *did* them.  Espousing
genocide and committing it are not the same--in my book, anyway.

>>If you, say, supported George Bush 4 years ago, or today, or even
>>voted for him, does that make *you* responsible for, oh, the 100,000+
>>Iraqi civilians killed by the bombs or starved to death in the
>>continuing aftermath of his sycophantic support of the Saudis?

>ince when is it "sycophantic" to defend an ally against aggression from 
>a neighbor?

And which ally would that be--that bastion of freedom (which abolished
slavery only in 1962), Saudi Arabia, or our good friend and recipient
of much aid for the previous 8 or so years, Iraq?

>Don't you think that there is a difference between STARTING a war and 
>responding to an attack?  

Sure, but this particular case--where the US provoked Iraq's invasion--
isn't it.

>If an aggrressor hides his weapons beside orphanages and old age homes,
>would you say that it would be immoral to respond to attacks?  Of
>course, you might deny that Iraq was an aggressor or that they
>placed their weapons intentionally in places that would endanger
>civilians, but you wouldn't deny that if he in fact did these things
>that there is no moral problem with those collateral deaths, would you?

Hmmm.  Cardew is evil, but Bush is moral.  Interesting ethical system
you've got here.

>I am also curious where you got that 100,000+ statistic.  I had heard 
>something like that as the number of total Iraqui deaths including 
>soldiers.  Where did it come from?

AI, I think.  And it's not out of line with what you'd expect from
a country of that size whose infrastructure has been completely
destroyed.

>Lastly, the ideology which Bush professes (which I don't happen to
>believe he actuall subscribes to) cannot be made to justify mass
>killings for no good reasons, Maoism on the other hand is quite
>consistent with such actions.

Oh, I see, if Bush's *intentions* are sufficiently lofty, then
occasional "collateral damage" is well, nasty, but that's the way
the cookie crumbles.  Wow--a real, live Thomist.

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
31 Aug 92   ****** ******   14 Fructidor An CC
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihlpa.ATT.COM
             ** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical