From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:43:44 GMT
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct10.053558.23056@wixer.cactus.org> lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.152130.5388@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.133350.27568@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct5.190319.22799@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>>>Dig.  Ice T's work (as well as his public statements) supports killing
>>>>>>cops.  Arnold's work does not.  There are two different messages here.
>>>>>>This is a very difficult distinction, I know.  But strive if you can
>>>>>>to grasp it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please support this claim by providing in-context quotes where Ice-T
>>>>>supports killing cops.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have heard Ice-T speak on this issue on a number of occassions.  I have
>>>>>heard him say that we need to get rid of (note--that doesn't mean kill)
>>>>>the bad cops.  I have heard him say that he believes that many youths
>>>>>have been so victimized by cops that they have developed a mentality
>>>>>such as that portrayed by his song.  I have heard him explicitly say
>>>>>that his *portrayal* of a character in the song has been misinterpreted
>>>>>for his own feelings.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have yet to hear him say that he supports doing what is portrayed
>>>>>in his song.
>>>>
>>>>See his remarks recorded on video tape at the outbreak of the L.A. Riots.  
>>>>They were widely distributed about a month ago.  He does not use the words
>>>>"it's time to kill cops," but he comes quite close to that.  
>>>
>>>I did not see whatever video tape you are refering to, nor do I think that
>>>it is likely that I will (or that I could find it very easily even if I
>>>really wanted to).
>>>
>>>If you want myself (or others) to be convinced, you'll have to provide
>>>a better quote than "He does not use the words 'it's time to kill cops,'
>>>but he comes quite close to that."
>>>
>>>This could mean anything.  Most people are very good at heraing what they
>>>*want* to hear (or what they *expect* to hear).  We have no way of
>>>distinguishing what he actually said from how *you* interpreted it, when
>>>you only gives us *your* interpretation.
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
>>>(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
>>>but my d*mn system wants a 
>>>*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
>>
>>
>>You know, it was a big news story at the time.  I'm not going to find the
>>tape for you.  Everyone who saw it knows what I'm talking about.  You can
>                ^^^^^^^^                       ^^^
>
>How _CONVENIENT_.  All your friends, with your view of life, agree with you.
>What a surprise.
>
>>choose to believe whatever you like.
>
>It seems that Greeny would prefer facts to beliefs.  You do not.  All you
>can provide is rhetoric and personal attacks.  Sorry, I don't go for
>rumor-mongering.

It's no rumor.  I saw the tape, I heard the statement. So did millions
of others.  As I said in a previous post, this ain't the high school 
debate team, I'm not going to find the video for you.  Sounds to me
like you're happy with what you think you know.  I'm certainly happy
if you wish to stay that way!


-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex