Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (6504)	5/28/2000 1:39:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

"But then it's back to the "the father has all rights" argument." Well, um ... yeah. What principle do you propose in its place? You speak of Freedom - are you willing to accord others that same freedom in deciding where they choose to live and raise their families? You can't impose Freedom, you know ... you can only permit it, get out of its way. I think that Juan Miguel genuinely prefers Cuba .. this belief is based on available information of his immediate actions on finding Eli n taken last November ... this preference may surprise you, but it does not surprise me ... i know several resident cubanos to some extent, and one fairly well - he does not wish to emigrate, having had many chances to do so [i meet the guy only outside of Cuba] ... he has a family in Cuba, and likes it there ... and btw, he looks forward to change, though with some trepidation as to its accompanying upheaval [read 'bloodshed'] ... to his view, resident cubanos feel very much caught between the two extremist camps, the communists and the batistianos of Miami. So if you feel you have a right to take Eli n, what about Hianny .. are you going to take him? ... and how about every minor child of chinese who enters your nation? ... what are your principles, exactly where and on what basis are you drawing the line in your claim to the son of Juan Miguel Gonz lez Quintana? Mi hijo que se fijen en la esencia.

To: greenspirit who wrote (6504)	5/28/2000 1:47:00 PM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Your problem is that you are allowing your hatred for Clinton take control of your common sense. Your posts always include "this administration" . "....hallmark of this administration" "....Our government, lead by Clinton/Reno" Most of us here have put our politics aside on this issue and did the right thing. Yours instead is not even a black/white issue, it is one of blinded bias.

To: greenspirit who wrote (6504)	5/28/2000 4:41:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9127

When I say "black and white thinking" I'm using the expression in the context of the definition of "splitting" I posted earlier. Message 13713118 The term splitting is often used to describe how such a black and white thinking adult will characterize others. For instance, a person who uses splitting as a defense mechanism may view one person as "all good" (perfect, wonderful, pure), and other people as "all bad" (foul, corrupt, hostile and evil). I was not using it as a synonym for single-minded. The people advocating for Elians removal have constantly used a black and white line of thinking which goes something like this. "His father should decide what happens to Elian, end of story." I don't think (editorial light is on) that Marcos, for example is using black/white thinking when he bombards us with "Mi hijo/que se fijen en la esencia." He's being single-minded. He is telling us that, in his priority scheme, the father/son relationship ranks highest. I don't recall him ever saying why. He's so passionate about it that I suspect some personal reason. Whatever his reason, I have not seen him let it create a halo effect around Juan Miguel, as he would do if he were splitting. My own view of this (the editorial light is still on) is that the U.S. being a good world citizen is the highest priority. Since the world has become such a global community and this is an international matter, international considerations take precedence. I hate it when my country's actions make us look like provincial fools or arrogant jerks. I prefer statesmanship. Thus I think it most important here to follow international and U.S. law and common law practices and to be respectful of those who live in other countries and have different ways. Therefore, to make a long story a bit shorter, I think it's up to Juan Miguel to determine Elian's best interests. So I end up on Marco's "side" although we come at it from different angles. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize the evil of Cuba, the love of Marisleysis for Elian, the fumbling of the Justice Department. It only means that these matters are of lower priority. (Editorial light is off.) I thought we had been making some progress on the opinion vs. explanation front. I was ready to move on to findings vs. conclusions and arguments vs. rants. But I see that will have to wait for another day. As far as I'm concerned you have defended the governments actions from the beginning of our conversations. To me, that's "advocating a position". Whether you want to call it that or not is up to you of course. That was not my intent, although I can see how it might appear so to you. My intent was to try to counter your rush to judgment by presenting other plausible explanations for the facts. In doing so, I often used explanations that seem most plausible to me. I did so not to advocate those positions but merely to get you to acknowledge that alternatives exist. (Editorial light is back on.) My working theory is that you so hate Castro and you so hate Clinton that you engage in splitting when it comes to them. I can understand why people hate them. But I don't think that's any excuse for not thinking straight. I deplore Clinton's behavior with Monica and his cavalier regard for the truth. But that does not keep me from recognizing that he did a statesman-like job on NAFTA and China trade, going against one of his key constituencies, because it was the right thing to do for the country. And I certainly do not assume that anything done by the Executive Branch during Clinton's 7 1/2 year watch is as sleazy as some of his personal actions.(Editorial light is off.)