Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Naive Foreigners (Re: Nitya/abortion rights/s.s.chawathe)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 9 Sep 1992 11:51:43 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: prabhak@atto.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
-
-
-        If Judy Mann had called me, I would have suggested that
-        multiculturalism is explicitly wrong, because it denies
-        the superiority of Western values as a way of life for
-        humans!
-
-                                        -- Newt Gingrich
-                                        Republican Whip
-                        ***
-
-        "Machiavelli was more daring; when he served the devil
-         he disdained going about his business in the livery of
-         heaven.."
-
-Republicans have mastered the art of codeword propaganda. Lest the
-naive foreigners were to miss the point, the word 'family values"
-is the Republican codeword for heterosexual, white anglo saxon, two parent
-family which disdains abortion and perhaps even contraception. Are
-we there yet? Nope. To really belong to the core of the Republican
-party you must be in the upper reaches of social position. Call that
-'rich.' Oh, I forgot, you gotta believe in Judeo-Christian God, for
-as President Bush said once that atheists should not probably be
-considered good citizens of good ol' USA!
-
-Satya Prabhakar

Satya Pabhakar has some good points, but I think (s)he makes too much of them.

In the fifties, Emmett Till, who whistled at a white woman was taken by her
husband and a friend and killed. Last year, a black man, married to a white
woman, was proposed for the US supreme court, lionised by southern senators and
attacked by liberals.  But we still have people insisting that republicans
still are wolves in sheep's clothing.   Have we, unconsciously raised our
standards for `sheepishness' and lowered our standards for `wolfishness'?
Because things do LOOK like they have changed.  If Bush is defeated, it is
likely to be the case that he is defeated because of the economy, but when
that happens, we are going to have a lot of people saying, "well, he hated
women and blacks and homo-sexuals, what else could he expect?  The US
public has risen up in righteous wrath!".  What can I say to that except to
smile wryly?  Why should N.B. derive his beliefs from the facts when he can
re-interpret the facts to suit his beliefs?  Sorry, I did not mean to be rude.
But I would recommend to everyone: "do not take Hindu scriptures or Christian
Scriptures without using common-sense and doing some careful choosing.
But apply the same criticism also to liberal dogmas.  All dogmas deceive,
no matter what the source."  These were (in effect)  Buddha's
last words on this earth.

After the Webster decision in 1989, Molly Yard, the president of NOW, visibly
upset, said, "sixteen years ago, the women of America sent a message...".  Now
"sixteen years ago" was Roe v Wade, a decision made by nine MEN.  Sandra O.
was not yet on the supreme court.  But why call Molly Yard on her mis-repres-
isentation when we can criticise Dan Quayle for mis-spelling potato? Not that
DQ is not a fool, very possibly he is.  But there are fools AND charlatons
everywhere.

In yesterday's NY Times, there is an article on the OP-Ed page about health
consciousness in the US.  Apparently there are a million prventable deaths
every year in the US of which about half are caused by smoking.  At a conser-
vative estimate, perhaps 200,000 women die from smoking.  Yet, if you were
to ask Virginia Slims cigarettes for a grant to fight the practice of "Sati",
they would be very sympathetic.  After all, their commitment to women's
health is clearly proved by the fact that they sponsor women's tennis!

Rohit Parikh