Harry Krause wrote:


And in the meantime, keep your steeeenking religion (whatever it is) out
of my state and my public facilities and institutions.

Ah, another thing your poor parents were never able to teach you: How to share.

-- Charlie

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:49:12 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:27:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:05:08 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering the
circumstances.

Of course, the idea was to learn from history, not judge history. We are
a good people, who have occasionally done bad things. Japanese internment
was a bad thing.


As a nation, we've done lots of good things and lots of bad things.
Considering the large number of the latter, we ought to be more cautious
when we're undertaking "things" that will harm people. As an example,
there's no legitimate excuse or justification for what we did to the
native Americans. We destroyed their civilizations.


I don't see you offering up your land as restitution......

Dave


What a stupid remark.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Dave

On 08 Nov 2004 18:11:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Ok...... I'm not sure what your point is here, other than to draw a
distinction between our policy of internment, and the Germans' desire
for genocide.

The point was to illustrate a similarity between two governments, at war with
one another, which agreed in at least the most basic sense that certain racial
or ethnic groups needed to be imprisoned for the sake of public welfare.

We believed that the Jap-Am's were a threat to national security. The
Germans believed that the Jews were an inferior race. We temporarily
"secured" the Jap-Am's. The Germans exterminated the Jews.

The comparison is not even close.


Dave

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:59:02 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:37:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Ah, so you're a beneficiary of nepotism. That explains allot.

You can always tell dad to take this job and shove it, if his iron
hand bothers you so much. But something tells me you won't.....


Dave

You're right, Dave. What's satisfying about the job is:

1) I don't have to deal with him very much, and the rest of the people are a
gas to work with.
2) Part of my job involves creating sanity from chaos with regard to their
information systems.

But, I have a year or two left. I need to be challenged more.

See, I don't know about you, but if I were in your position, I would
have to wonder whether I got to where I am be the sweat of my own
brow, or through the charity of others. As long as there was that
possibility, I'd never be 100% sure.

I like knowing that I am what I am through my own efforts......

Dave


Dunno why, Dave, but this song reminds me of you:

He’s a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his nowhere land,
Making all his nowhere plans
For nobody.
...

He’s as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,


Funny, that song reminds me of you. Imagine that.

There's another song that reminds me of you, called "Angry young man"
by Billy Joel. Although you are probably closer to the angry old
man.....

......There's always a place for the angry young man, with his fist in
the air and his head in the sand........


Dave

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:53:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:59:07 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John Gaquin wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message

You may think you live in an "overwhelmingly Christian nation." Even if
you do,
one of the reasons generations of immigrants came to this country was a
freedom
to practice the religion of their choice.

On reflection, I will acknowledge a misuse of the word 'Christian' in my
original post, wherein I should have stated simply "...Enough of those who
would prohibit a simple prayer at the start of
the school day...".

The Constitution proscribes the suppression of religion with equal zeal.



Sorry, but if I were a Jewish or Buddhist kid, and a Christian prayer
werre recited aloud each morning in my public school, I'd be mightily
offended. Recitation of that prayer is practicing religion in a public
facility. And that is not permitted under the separation clause



The separation clause was there from what, the beginning? Yet, I can
remember quite vividly a short prayer given in public school every day
when I was in school. No one complained, not even the Jewish kids (or
their parents) who just sat silent out of respect for the wishes of
the majority.

It's funny that such respect is no longer forthcoming from the
minority. Instead of respect, we get "offense"....

Dave


Kinda reminds me of how many blacks in the south must have felt during
segregationist days, when they were forced to live in a society that
preached the superiority of the white race.

When you are in Yankee Stadium, you don't talk about the virtues of
the Mets. And don't get offended if talk about the Yankees bothers
you.


I don't give a damn what religious practices (short of child abuse)
fundie Christians practice in their churches or their schools, so long
as they don't push any of their bull**** out onto the public or into the
public's facilities. In fact, I'm in favor of revoking the tax exemption
for all religious institutions. I can see no reason why I should
subsidize Christian fundies...or anyone else's fundies. Let them all pay
a 10% gross receipts tax.

Starting with the revocation of the tax exempt status for the NAACP,
after their clear violation of non partisanship........

When I lived in NE Florida, one of the fundie churches pressured the
teens in its congregation to take a public chastity until marriage
pledge. A study several years later showed a higher rate of teen
pregnancy than before. Lots of immaculate deception going on.

The idea is a good one, even if the morally bankrupt mass media and
their "hip" image is stacked against them.

Dave

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:25:08 -0500, DSK wrote:

When you are at war, you have to cover your bases.

Cover your bases? By interning American citizens?

Dave Hall wrote:
They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action.

No, the internment of the Nisei is not "indefensible." It has the
defense you offered: sabotage & espionage.

I said indefensible when viewed through the filter of time, namely
now. The reasons for it at the time were pretty much clear cut.

... But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering
the circumstances.

It was reasonable only if you consider that American citizens have no
rights that the gov't need respect.

American citizens willingly curtailed many of their "rights" during
WWII, for the sake of the greater good.

Clearly, you (and a lot of people)
believe that the convenience of the gov't should override any & all
basic citizen's rights.

Only if the situation clearly requires it.

I disagree with that philosophy.

That is certainly your right. But remember how many generations before
you abdicated their rights so that you could still have yours.

Dave

DSK

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:33:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:45:19 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:29:47 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


It's this kind of thinking that resulted in over 110,000
Japanese-Americans being "relocated" at the beginning of Wo rldWarII.

When you are at war, you have to cover your bases.

Cover your bases? By interning American citizens?

They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering
the circumstances.

Dave


Why do you suppose millions of Germans weren't rounded up too?

If I were to speculate, I'd have to say that the government didn't
feel that there was enough of a threat. Plus, I'm sure, as an issue of
practicality, it's a lot harder to prove who's a German.....


Dave

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:53:51 -0500, DSK wrote:

Were they on the coast? The Japanese that were interred were the coastal
residents.


IIRC the Americans... yes, native born Americans of Japanese descent...
interned during WW2 were not only from the West Coast.

Doug Kanter wrote:
Well...let's see...plenty of Germans lived in NYC, NJ and Long Island.
German subs got as close as a few miles off the coast of NJ & LI.


Heck yeah, there was a German sub sunk at the mouth of the Potomac River! ;



Supposedly there's another one sunk off the coast of N.J.. My father
grew up in Atlantic City and used to tell me about sighting "U-Boats"
off the coast. One of his favorite wrecks to fish there was sunk as a
result of those subs.

The people had to have dark curtains hung over their windows at night,
and there were strict curfews. This was a part of those "rights" they
were suspended during the war.....


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


American citizens willingly curtailed many of their "rights" during
WWII, for the sake of the greater good.


You placed the word "rights" in quotation marks. One reason for using
quotation marks is to indicate that you don't believe the word indicates
something real. Is that what you believe?

This has to be - bar none - the funniest line I've ever, EVER, seen here.

-W

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Excuse me, and I certainly don't want to get into partisan politics...