From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: Panama Deception showing, Nov 15 (and related stuff kinda long)
Organization: FYL
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:08:14 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Pat Myrto (pat@rwing.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <1992Nov12.051822.25410@fylz.wa.com> fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:
: >I thought about your comments.  Now, for something like the Cuba
: >embargo or welfare or universal health care I can see there are two
: >sides to the issue.  But, in this case, the US government went in and
: >bombed the hell out of a bunch of civilian homes in the middle of the
: >night in order to allegedly capture someone they could have had handed
: >to them two weeks earlier.  The US press wasn't even there.  I just
: >don't see much you can say positive about either one.  I invite you to
: >offer something on "the other side" but, honestly, I can't imagine
: >what it is.  For example, someone said that the movie seemed to only
: 
: Above indicates a position of essentially rejecting any opposing view
: by default.  That is one problem I have with "Progressive" viewpoints.

I don't want to reject it, it is just that I can't imagine what the
other view is.  As I said, I see another side in a bunch of things but
the Panama fiasco is a case where I don't.  At the time I am sure it
sounded like a good idea but today, when we look back, we discover
that Panama launders more drug money than before, the standard of
living has dropped, the government is as corrupt, ...

Now, if I am missing an opposing view, fine, tell me what it is.  All
the "opposition" to the picture the movie paints has been in the form
of a lack of presentation of the other side.  Fine, present it.

: >interview those who were affected.  Yeah, isn't that reasonable?
: 
: Not quite right, he said the movie interviewed those affected
: NEGATIVELY.  Big difference.  When put that way, it is not reasonable.

Have you seen the movie?  If not I highly recommend it.  I think you
will see that both sides are presented.  It's just that the other side
lacks credibility when you hear eye witnesses tell you what happened.
There are also cases where the USG would not let people (soldiers, for
example) present what they saw.

: I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between - that the US did a
: lot of fucked up things, but did some good things, as well.

Again, if this is the case, what were they.  Seriously, I am open to
hear what good came of this invasion other than proving the Bush did
have balls after all.

: If these groups are REALLY concerned about making Earth a better place
: to live, instead of just being a major irritant, I think they should
: engage in a lot of self-examination of both their tactics and agenda.

The definition of "these" requires some work but I completely agree.
I see far to many "this is wrong" groups and far too few "this is a
solution" group.  This, again, may be a function of the media.
Blocked freeways make good TV news, calm presentation of decent ideas
don't.  For example, there is a group working on turning the area from
Westlake Mall to Lake Union into a park.  They have been working on
this for quite a while, have real plans, have studied costs based on
various alternatives, etc.  But I have never seen an interview with
these people.

: Is this movie viewing session an HONEST discussion session on all points,
: or is it mainly to be a 'lets figure out more ways to condemn all US
: policy', where viewpoints that are not in lock-step with the host's or
: movie's viewpoint will be uniformly shouted down?  I have seen too much
: of the latter, too few of the former.

That's up to who shows up and what they want to say.  I have shown all
sorts of videos and had all sorts of people attend.  For example, I
showed a video by Bo Gritz who is basically right-wing military man.
It was on US government duplicity in drug trafficing in SE Asia.  A
lot of very liberal people were very impressed with what he had to
say.  I had two people from the RCP come to see Daniel Sheehan speak
(a video) on something (probably Iran-Contra).  They came in with
their usual "let's take over" attitude, watched a white Harvard Law
School graduate speak for almost two hours and left very quietly after
one of them said to me privately, "he sure had a lot to say".  

This is not to say that Danny Sheehan is conservative, just that all
sorts of people come with their own perceptions and some people
recognize that their perceptions are wrong.

: As an aside, one wonders if the Clinton admin, when it gets rolling,
: will be scrutinized as closely and as critically as the Bush or Regan
: admin, with Congress being as quick to want to bring in an Independent
: Counsel (AKA Special Prosecuter) when something is 'funny'? Unfortunately,
: I doubt it, and that is sad, IMHO.

I hope so.  I have this fear that Clinton made too many deals with the
devil to get elected.  I, for one, want to watch him carefully.

-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!fyl 
Xref: sparky seattle.general:3643 pnw.general:2728