From owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Fri Mar 5 18:08:18 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) id SAA06879; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 18:08:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.6.15]) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA06875 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 18:08:15 -0600 (CST) Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA08182 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 18:08:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from triad (jaemus-34.mdm.mad.execpc.com [169.207.108.34]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.0) id SAA07563 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 18:08:07 -0600 (CST) From: "Ken Hines" To: "'DMOL'" Subject: [[DMOL]] Hate crimes Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 18:05:20 -0600 Message-ID: <000001be6765$07c71d00$226ccfa9@triad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE6732.BD2CAD00" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Precedence: list This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE6732.BD2CAD00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There have been a number of deaths reported in the past year relating to race or sexual orientation. Do you believe that this is due to an increase in the number of hate crimes, or due to media sensationalism? Do you believe that these are actually hate crimes? The most recent was this past week two men beat another to death then burned him for coming on to them in Alabama. The two have admitted that they killed him because he was gay. There is no law in Alabama making killing someone because they are gay a hate crime. Do you think it should be? My personal opinion is that killing anyone for pretty much any reason (some extraordinary circumstances excepted) should be considered a hate crime and the perpetrator(s) should be sentenced as such. I am not sure whether the increase in reported hate crimes is due to media sensationalism or due to an actual increase in crimes. Feel free to comment on my "extraordinary circumstances" and "should be sentenced as such" statements. Ken ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE6732.BD2CAD00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    There have been a number of deaths reported = in the=20 past year relating to race or sexual orientation.  Do you believe = that this=20 is due to an increase in the number of hate crimes, or due to media=20 sensationalism?  Do you believe that these are actually hate = crimes? =20 The most recent was this past week two men beat another to death then = burned him=20 for coming on to them in Alabama.  The two have admitted that they = killed=20 him because he was gay.  There is no law in Alabama making killing = someone=20 because they are gay a hate crime.  Do you think it should=20 be?
 
    My personal opinion is that killing anyone = for pretty=20 much any reason (some extraordinary circumstances excepted) should be = considered=20 a hate crime and the perpetrator(s) should be sentenced as such.  I = am not=20 sure whether the increase in reported hate crimes is due to media = sensationalism=20 or due to an actual increase in crimes.
 
    Feel free to comment on my = "extraordinary=20 circumstances" and "should be sentenced as such"=20 statements. 
 
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           =20 Ken
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE6732.BD2CAD00-- From owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Tue Mar 16 21:50:15 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) id VAA26582; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:50:15 -0600 (CST) Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.6.15]) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id VAA26578 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:50:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail.inxpress.net (mail.inxpress.net [204.120.4.36]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id VAA24540 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:50:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from inxpress.net (d12-8.inxpress.net [208.16.9.8]) by mail.inxpress.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA31181; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:51:56 -0600 Message-ID: <36EED229.118E4023@inxpress.net> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:50:33 +0000 From: Shining Shadow Organization: A cluttered desk is a sign of genius, I tell you! X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "DMOL@cs.wisc.edu" Subject: [[DMOL]] I thought you might find this interesting. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Precedence: list Hiya peoples. I don't know if you know about this "multiple OSs" thing or not, but it doesn't hurt to point you there, anyway... http://www.vmware.com/ It's about time, wouldn't you say? Regards, Tim ][ ICQ #9563133 -- "If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't return, hunt it down, and kill it." - Lucien LaCroix; 'Forever Knight' From owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Fri Mar 19 22:54:35 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) id WAA01831; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:54:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.6.15]) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id WAA01827 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:54:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from mailgw00.execpc.com (sendmail@mailgw00.execpc.com [169.207.1.78]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id WAA02811 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:54:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from triad (tigella-2-133.mdm.mad.execpc.com [169.207.109.135]) by mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id WAA19574 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:54:17 -0600 From: "Ken Hines" To: Subject: [[DMOL]] Elia Kazan Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:54:11 -0600 Message-ID: <000101be728d$b2ceb900$876dcfa9@triad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Precedence: list Well, here is a, hopefully, more "volatile" topic for DMOL since my last post, hate crimes are too boring or something (maybe that sentence will mix things up a bit) didn't get any responses. Elia Kazan, if you don't know, is a famous film director. He directed films like "Streetcar Named Desire" and "East of Eden" and is getting the lifetime achievement award at the Academy Awards on Sundak (I had to throw it in). He also helped develop a completely different style of acting which portrays real life better (I am taking the news people's word for it here). In addition to this he was the director of choice on Broadway for playwrights such as Tennessee Williams and another famous guy that I can't remember the name of. Now here is the twist: Kazan, at the time of McCarthyism and the House Committee on un-American Activities, reported that several of his colleagues were communists (I think it was eight or so). As a result these people were "Blacklisted." That is, Hollywood studios (and a number of other notable places, such as Broadway) would not hire these people. The only way to avoid being accused of Communism was, when you were called before the committee, you would admit that you had participated in communist activity quite a while ago and found it repugnant, then tell the committee that anyone who they asked about was a communist. Kazan did just this. DO YOU THINK THAT THIS SHOULD KEEP HIM FROM GETTING THE AWARD? I personally think that the award should be given to him. The Board of Directors (no pun intended) of the Film Directors Society voted unanimously to give him the award (there are about eight or so people on the Board). I agree with them that the award is given based solely on artistic merit and not on his personal life. I also would tend to agree with the one board member that said if he was asked to vote again he would change his vote. How can I say both? If I knew that he was going to get the award, regardless of my vote, I would vote against him. Why did the one member decide to change his vote? That is because of the statements made by Kazan's supporters after the fact. They have said things like "Which is a worse crime? Reporting on your friends, or communism?" I completely disagree with this statement. What do you think? While you are at it, what is everyone's political persuasion? I personally think that Communism is a wonderful ideal, but impossible in practice. Socialism has also had its difficulties, though it has succeeded in its goals better that the original Communism. Democracy, in my mind, supports companies like Microsoft and Andrew Carnegie's steel monopoly. It has shown to be the most effective and lucrative form of government, with the right form of Big Brother. I do say right form to distinguish between good acts of the government and overregulation by the government, and it has seemed that more government intervention has been effective in the US. Anyway, enough of my babble, you talk now. --Ken "Think not what this country can do for you, think what you can do for this country." "Ich bin ein Berliner" (I am a jelly doughnut) -John F. Kennedy From owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Sat Mar 20 13:38:05 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) id NAA13298; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:38:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.6.15]) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA13294 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:38:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail5.doit.wisc.edu (mail5.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.104.215]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA10979 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:38:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from [144.92.182.137] by mail5.doit.wisc.edu id NAA43428 (8.9.1/50); Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:37:57 -0600 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000101be728d$b2ceb900$876dcfa9@triad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:41:04 +0100 To: "Ken Hines" , From: allie Subject: Re: [[DMOL]] Elia Kazan Sender: owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Precedence: list At 10:54 PM -0600 3/19/99, Ken Hines wrote: >Well, here is a, hopefully, more "volatile" topic for DMOL since my last >post, hate crimes are too boring or something (maybe that sentence will mix >things up a bit) didn't get any responses. You did too get a response! From me, turkey! :P ( I thought it was a good topic too) >DO YOU THINK THAT THIS SHOULD KEEP HIM FROM GETTING THE AWARD? Well, it sounds like he was amoral, but if he's a good film director, then he gets the award. That's how it works. > > They have said things like "Which is a worse crime? Reporting on your >friends, or communism?" I completely disagree with this statement. What do >you think? I think that statement sucks. I think reporting your friends is the worse crime... besides, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH COMMUNISM ANYWAY? Nothing, just that we're afraid of it as democrats. And how can we be democrats when we want to dictate what everyone else in the world believes? We're more like tremere if you ask me. While you are at it, what is everyone's political persuasion? I'm somewhere between socialist and democratic. I want everyone to have a say, but I'm also sick of money running the world and monopolies and the way the rich just get richer, etc etc. I also see nothing wrong with communism. I guess democracy is the right form for this country, I think it'll work best for our place in the world and our place in our own history. However, sometimes I think a good monarchy will fix the shit that's going around... then you only have to deal with one asshole, not a whole congress of them. "Raisins: They taste sweet, but really they're just humiliated grapes." --Joon, in "Benny and Joon" Allegra Harness aharness@students.wisc.edu --keeper of the amazing quote emporium: http://www.angelfire.com/wi/tty From owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Sat Mar 20 15:10:25 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) id PAA14375; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:10:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.6.15]) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA14371 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:10:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail.inxpress.net (mail.inxpress.net [204.120.4.36]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA11930 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:10:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from inxpress.net (d12-74.mdm.inxpress.net [208.16.9.74]) by mail.inxpress.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02875; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:12:08 -0600 Message-ID: <36F3BA69.D1B21CF9@inxpress.net> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:10:33 +0000 From: Shining Shadow Organization: A cluttered desk is a sign of genius, I tell you! X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmol@cs.wisc.edu Subject: Re: [[DMOL]] Elia Kazan References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Precedence: list >DO YOU THINK THAT THIS SHOULD KEEP HIM FROM GETTING THE AWARD? Nope. It should keep him from getting any humanitarian awards. > They have said things like "Which is a worse crime? > Reporting on your friends, or communism?" Bwahahaha! Those triple-faced spin-doctoring bastards! If they really think that way, they should be enrolled in a remedial education program at once. Allie wrote: > WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH COMMUNISM ANYWAY? Nothing, > just that we're afraid of it as democrats. Hmm...I don't think its the democrats who are afraid of it. The fascists, religionists and republicans might be. > And how can we be democrats when we want to dictate what > everyone else in the world believes? Easy. Mix fascism and democracy together, stir in some money and the technology to enforce our beliefs on other cultures, and we get modern American foreign policy. The missionaries of centuries ago did much the same thing, for the same reason "We need to save these heathens from damnation...and make a nice profit while doing it." Little has changed since then except now we use cruise missles instead of black powder rifles. > While you are at it, what is everyone's political > persuasion? Libertarians are too timid, democrats are too full of themselves, socialists often have ulterior motives, communists are wishful thinkers, and anarchists are just plain stupid. I VOTE democratic because a vote for anything else would be a waste of effort. The United States of America is not a democracy, and never was one, any more than the Soviet Union was a communist nation. Democracy and communism are platonic ideals that cannot really ever be achieved. Socialism and the republic are more practical because they allow the leaders more opportunities for corruption. That is the way it will always be as long as there are humans in charge. > sometimes I think a good monarchy will fix the shit > that's going around... then you only have to deal with > one asshole, not a whole congress of them. I think you would be surprised at how similar a monarchy and a republic would be in practice. Additionally, monarchies have an even thicker glass ceiling than a republic: not only do you have to be rich, in the right social bracket, and fit the moralistic standards of the day, you also have to be a member of the royal family. I think we tried it once with the Kennedys, but they were forced out of the running, as it were. The Bush dynasty is making another attempt, so we will have to wait and see. Regards, Tim ][ the Cynic ICQ #9563133 -- "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change." -Dan Quayle From owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Sat Mar 20 15:45:34 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) id PAA14818; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:45:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from zamboni.cs.wisc.edu (zamboni.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.162.15]) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA14814 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:45:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.wisc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zamboni.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA07820; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:45:29 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199903202145.PAA07820@zamboni.cs.wisc.edu> To: "Ken Hines" cc: dmol@cs.wisc.edu Subject: Re: [[DMOL]] Elia Kazan In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:54:11 CST." <000101be728d$b2ceb900$876dcfa9@triad> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:45:29 -0600 From: David Parter Sender: owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Precedence: list hiya. had to answer this one. I don't know most of you. I ended up on this list in two ways: I a test subscriber when Mike setup the list, and he and I thought it might be interesting for me to be on it. In case you don't know, Mike works for me (that sounds much better than "I'm his boss"). > The only way to avoid being accused of Communism was, when you > were called > before the committee, you would admit that you had participated in communist > activity quite a while ago and found it repugnant, then tell the committee > that anyone who they asked about was a communist. Kazan did just this. Elia Kazan was not the only person to "name names", but he was one of the most prominent, and he "named names" of some of his closest friends. Others fought HUAAC, others refused to name names, he didn't. He put his career and his comfort ahead of friendship and simple human decency towards people who trusted him -- not with specific secrets but with their friendship and loyalty. He had none. Writers, directors and actors who were blacklisted had their careers and lives ruined. They couldn't work, they couldn't publish. Friends were afraid to be known as friends, because then they too would be investigated. The "Hollywood Ten" were imprisoned for 1 year for refusing to cooperate with the committee. "The Front" is a 1976 comedy/drama movie (starring, but not directed by Woody Allen) about how some people attempted to get around the blacklist: getting someone else to "front" for them, pitching movie scripts of blacklisted writers as his own. In 1997, the Writers Guild corrected the credits on many films writen by blacklisted writers. There are also several books about it, including "naming names" > DO YOU THINK THAT THIS SHOULD KEEP HIM FROM GETTING THE AWARD? Yes. They have the right to give the award, but I think they should not, because of the damage to people that he caused by his actions. If not for that, then for the indirect damage that he caused to the "art" of film-making (which is supposedly what the academy awards are about) by helping the committee, and therefore destroying careers in the industry. > While you are at it, what is everyone's political persuasion? I > personally think that Communism is a wonderful ideal, but impossible in > practice. Socialism has also had its difficulties, though it has succeeded > in its goals better that the original Communism. Democracy, in my mind, > supports companies like Microsoft and Andrew Carnegie's steel monopoly. It > has shown to be the most effective and lucrative form of government, with > the right form of Big Brother. I do say right form to distinguish between > good acts of the government and overregulation by the government, and it has > seemed that more government intervention has been effective in the US. > Anyway, enough of my babble, you talk now. Labels like Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are extrememly difficult to use today, because different people take them to mean different things. Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are economic systems, or models for organizing an economy, which are difficult to separate from government/state systems, but not the same thing. Socialism is democratic. Communism is the exteme form of democracy. Capitalism can be democratic, or may at least flurish in a mostly-democratic society. My views? I'm generally a leftist, and have at times been a socialist and a comunalist, and maybe a communist -- all with a lower case first letter. I am a fierce defender of civil liberties. Adhering to a strict doctrine doesn't advance society. Reading, discussing and considering various philosophies and social commentaries is useful in developing an approach to life and society. If one can find common ground with others on making our society "better", that is a good thing. I have no idea why I decided to babble on like this, but I did. I hope you find it interesting or useful. If not, you probably haven't gotten this far. --david From owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Mon Mar 22 11:16:26 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) id LAA02655; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:16:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu (lucy.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.6.15]) by jeeves.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA02639 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:16:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from exchange.erdman.com ([12.20.65.18]) by lucy.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA09365 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:16:17 -0600 (CST) Received: by exchange with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:16:24 -0600 Message-ID: <6D166A8CC86CD211A5080008C74CD9A0AC2F@exchange> From: Ken Hines To: "'DMOL@cs.wisc.edu'" Subject: RE: [[DMOL]] Elia Kazan Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:16:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dmol@cs.wisc.edu Precedence: list [snip] > DO YOU THINK THAT THIS SHOULD KEEP HIM FROM GETTING THE AWARD? [snip] > I do not know the specifics of Mr. Kazan's life at the time, like if > he had a family to support, or other circumstances. I don't even know > what I would have done had I been in that situation. I'd like to think > that I would have not cooperated, and found some way to survive in the > aftermath. One thing that I heard was from one of the people that he tattled on (we must remember that the people he accused were his personal friends). The day before he was supposed to testify he said that he had two million dollars in the bank and he wouldn't talk. > That is why I would have remained sitting last night, had I been in > the audience; not necessarily in protest of Mr. Kazan's actions, but > more in protest of the conditions that led to his actions. A number of people called for Kazan to admit that he was wrong last night in his speech. They didn't want an apology, just a statement that what he said about these people was wrong. He didn't do this, as you may already know. I have to say that if he went in to the committee not intending to say anything, and then, under strong duress from these people, gave up these names, I don't know that I can say what he did was wrong. I don't know what sort of pressure he was under. --Ken