From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german
Subject: at issue: bozos on the loose
Date: 14 Oct 1992 00:28:25 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: dimebox.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: no longer Re: Violence update 13.10.92


 nitsche@carson.u.washington.edu (Gregor Nitsche) writes:

>Unfortunately, this whole discussion has gotten a little bit out of context.

	are you apologizing for yourself?  or are you saying
	"everyone else is blowing smoke"?!?

	the topic of discussion has changed, yes, from what Deb posted
	in "Violence update 13.10.92" :

||
|| The CSU [CDU < CSU < Republikaner for rightist policies] in Bavaria is
|| running a newspaper ad campaign printing the names of all politicians who
|| are against changing the Asylum article in the constitution. The ad
|| encourages people to see if their representatives are "blocking this
|| needed change" and to remember the names for the next election. The 
|| parties concerned - SPD, FDP, PDS and Green - have protested that this
|| denunciation is uncalled for.
||

	and let me briefly reflect on my thoughts when reading it
	(and accepting it as factual):  no doubt the CSU didn't put
	those ads in for the reason and purpose here claimed. heck,
	that's not the way things work; to milk this issue "that way"
	(as claimed) you bring it up within days of that election, not
	now.  but, in any case, Germany is not like the US, where you
	bring up the voting record of each Parliament member in his
	district (mostly) and (sometimes) even nation-wide, in Germany
	the individual office-holder is much less important than the
	party platform and pressure from the party secretary and
	political officers, whose job it is to see that the party
	members in office vote the "party line"...

	nope, what they are doing is to provide a target-list to those
	same hoods who are currently the cause of the appearance of the
	Violence Updates here in the first place, who are burning and
	hurting, threatening and "acting out"...  not the democratic
	voters, but the undemocratic forces of society ...

	and, no doubt, the political PR-folks in Germany know that just
	as well as you and me!

	So here comes Greg's "clueless" and irrelevant (as to the
	gravity and importance of the issues) comment:

>denunciation is uncalled for.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought denunciation only applied to crimes.  Is it a crime to be against
a change in the constitution?  Seriously - this protest leaves me somewhat
bewildered. Members of Parliament are elected by their voters and are
responsible to them, if they like it or not.  If they feel they have to be
against this change in the constitution (or against abortion, or whatever)
they should work against it; however, they should stand publicly to their
convictions, and they should not be surprised if voters remember their
positions at the next election.

	clueless and bewildered....?!?  is he intellectually honest
	here or is he "play-acting" ?!!  to suggest that they are
	afraid of standing publicly to their opinions is just utter
	ill-intent regarding the stand they have decided to take;
	"not be surprised" indeed; did you REALLY expect to get away
	with your "playing surprised" rhetorics?

	"utter, intellectual dishonesty" is what I call this kind
	of argumentation...

	so when I read Greg's latest opus:
	 
>The main issue of my original posting (which was, however, not obvious in
>the form Scott cited it - no criticism intended) was not to question this use 
>of "denunciation", but rather the fact that elected politicians are complai-
>ning about the fact that they are kept responsible by the electorate for
>their opinions and decisions. I can understand that this idea is quite new
>to PDS members; however, it is still beyond my understanding how members
>of democratic parties (and particularly of the "basis-democratic" Green
>party) can react so outraged about it.

	all I can groan is "still more of the same...<sigh>"  :-(

	still clueless, Greg?  YOUR fact is not THE fact!  It is a
	misrepresentation and an ill-willed or clueless (though probably
	a mixture of both) presentation of political reality.  The
	CSU is not "the electorate".  Is it "new to you" also that
	Germany is the country where mobs, selectively attacking first
	one than the next group, will go down in history book as the
	text-book case of "what can be identified as way-stations on
	the way to totalitarianism"?!?

	Does anyone have any doubts, that the mobs disposed to beat,
	burn and destroy the foreign refugees are quite ready and
	willing to turn on "other targets of opportunity"?

	Only dangerously clueless or intellectually dishonest people
	would not see the connection and play-act "surprised".


>>	to state that "Denunzieren" is usually used in connection with
>>	crimes in German, is outright incorrect; it is used to describe
>>	the (objectionable?) act of being a snitch, not so much to get
>>	the laws obeyed, but rather "to incite some action be taken
>>	against the parties being denounced"; in this case, clearly,
>                                                            ^^^^^^^
>>	it is a likely fear of the "denounced parties" of right-wing
>>	violence directed against them, that has them object to what
>>	the advertising said....

>Well, the ad was addressed to voters, not to right-wing terrorists.

	wake up, fool!  (there, I said it; I never thought I would
	call someone that to his face AND in public!)

> With arguments like that, you get dangerously close to Heiner Geissler
> and friends (remember him calling Brandt "politischen Ziehvater der RAF"?)

	you really are nuts, you know that?  are you agiprop or some
	similarly dispicable low-life?   I cannot think of any other
	reason why you would throw these names and references into
	this context...


>Furthermore, I do not think that right-wing hooligans are even intere-
>sted in the constitution being changed - so far, ....

	" so far ........."  (dangerously clueless, yep!!)

	they readily use violence to achieve their social and political
	goals, and they want......the refugees out!  now tell me this:
	do you think they want the constitutional change, which helps
	keep foreigners out?  or not (and let more of them in, to beat
	up on, firebomb, .... ?!?)  get a clue!

	and, no doubt, they likely support the constitutional change
	that would allow the Bundeswehr to cast off limitations on
	where in the world they may get involved....
	

> ...they have been the only ones who have drawn political profit from the
> existing situation, and any successful attempt to solve the current
> (problems whatever way) would only be at their political expense.

	aahhhhh?!?....  well, that surely is a new insight to me.

	so, let's see, your logic then is, that BECAUSE they don't
	like ANYTHING to get resolved, their current violence
	against foreigners would not be likely to transfer to
	politiceans who oppose a change of the constitution, intended
	to keep foreigners out?!?  do I see anyoned nodding emphathetically?

	geeh, then I guess....


>(By the way, as you are ocmplaining about people engaging in use- or
>pointless linguistic discussions to build a smoke screen: I remember a
>certain Werner Uhrig conducting long arguments about the possible use of
>the word "annexation" in connecction with the German reunification. Re-
>member that?)

	now if that doesn't beat all!  I nearly called you a dirty
	word!  That would have been another first!  You MORON also
	have memory problems (or, maybe, the habit of the revanchist
	to change history books?!?);  THIS Werner Uhrig objected to
	a similarly clueless attack (by someone - was it you, Greg?
	well, it would fit the bill ...) against the use of the word
	"annexation" in commentary by someone (a journalist report,
	I believe) regarding the way German unification went over.

	And I argued, similarly as here, the merit and meaning of
	both the word and "the message"; I think I won the arguement!
	yes, I DO remember!

	where's your rock, Greg?  lift it, step forward, then let go!!
-- 
  werner@cs.utexas.edu |  ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet

              "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"