Wishing death on Sen. Jesse Helms

[Evil_Captor]

I didn’t say I LIKED Helms, or that I was neutral on the topic of Helms, just that I didn’t have any visceral hatred of the man. I have felt hatred in my life, it is an intense, very uncomfortable feeling. I don’t feel it towards Helms, though I do find the thought of his death quite pleasant. I suspect that is because Helms is something of an abstract to me – I have never met the man, nor been directly affected by anything he’s done. I’m sure the legislation he’s baced and also blocked has affected me in bad ways, but that, too, is an abstract thing.

If I were wishing ahd hoping for death for gays generally I would be a homophobe, but I could wish and hope for the death of an individual gay person without being one. Frex, I’m glad Roy Cohn is dead and I only wish the circumstances of his life had been more personally painful.

But I don’t hate all gays. Or conservatives.

See how there’s a difference between disliking an individual and an entire group?

Also, it seem to me that although as you are the OP and have set the terms of this debate accordingly, there’s something dishonest in your approach. Essentially, you are the one making extraordinary claims, i.e., that Helms was not a racist, bigoted homophobe and friend to murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein. Generally, the principle is that a person making extraordinary claims must provide extraordinarily clear and convincing proof of those claims.

Just muttering “media bias” at all the written reports of Helms’ scumminess hardly constitute clear and convincing proof. The onus is really on you to show why all those media reports of Helms’ racism, bigotry, dictator-supporting, etc., are not accurate, and to present us with a model of Helms that’s consistent with his voting record and his public comments and also consistent with his being a decent human being.

Good. Fucking. Luck.

[Gotterfunken]

*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious *
And I’m guessing you support it from the comfort of a nation where people are not threatening to put it into action.

Liberation theology doesn’t just apply to countries with an active Marxist opposition and/or with a brutal right-wing dictatorship. It’s valid for any country that has social problems. That includes industrialized nations, like the U.S., where, sadly, there is still plenty of poverty and hunger.

Not all liberation theologists want or encourage a violent revolution; hell, not all leftists do. They all want to change the system, but they don’t all agree on how that change should be effected.

Romero didn’t believe violence was the proper course. Forgive me for getting all misty-eyed, but I believe this world would be a better place if more people felt this way.

**El Salvador has a democracy today. It would not have if the liberation theologists had been successful. **

Nor would it have been so if the military government had been successful. The truth is that both sides recognized that armed conflict was getting them nowhere, and now they fight it out in the political arena instead. In fact, the FLMN–the leftist opposition–currently holds a majority in the Salvadoran congress.

There’s still a lot of room for improvement, though. The 2001 earthquake hasn’t helped matters, either.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
The alleged Clinton threat is an interesting case, rjung

“Alleged”? Gee, as I remember it, his comments made front-page headlines on newspapers across the country. Granted, it wasn’t as bad as Trent Lott’s recent foot-in-mouth debacle, but Helms-threatened-Clinton wasn’t exactly low key.

Yeah, Helms is a grade-A dimbulb.

This part is just name-calling, though.

Sure, but he deserves it.

*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
This is pretty serious, if true. Do you have a cite that could put the quote in better context?

Best source I could find is here. Apparently most news outlets don’t have older archives online. But to put the quote in context:

On Nov. 22, Helms, slated to be the new chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Clinton is so unpopular on military bases in North Carolina that “he better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.”

Helms made this astounding threat to Clinton in a Raleigh News & Observer interview. The newspaper was questioning Helms about a statement he made Nov. 18 on CNN’s “Evans and Novak” program. When asked then if he thought President Clinton was “up to the job” of Commander in Chief, Helms stated: “No, I do not. And neither do the people in the armed forces.”

While Helms’ threat created nothing less than a worldwide sensation, it was written off by Republican leaders as “That’s just Jesse.” Helms later said his statement was unwise, and that he “should have said it better.”

I also vaguely recall another line from Helms where he said that the military was likely to shoot Clinton if he came to
North Carolina.

If nothing else, most folks certainly interpreted his comments to be a death threat. And AFAIK Helms never apologized for the remark or attempted to persuade folks that he meant otherwise.

[Guinastasia]

In order to avoid a highjacking of this thread, I made a new one on the subject of Oscar Romero and liberation theology:

Oscar Romero, liberation theology, and Latin America

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
**Helms is a bigoted, homophobic, racist anti-Semite with delusions of grandeur, who, sadly, was able to use his clout, money and influence to enact legislation that has hurt, and continues to hurt, thousands of people every day.

IMHO.

Esprix **

As I said at the start of the thread, I would like to consider clearly stated reasons for wishing death on Helms – reasons that are not simply name-calling but specific charges.

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

*Originally posted by Skopo *
**… Liberation theology’s main goal was not to “overthrow representative government and institute a totalitarian regime.” The problem in El Salvador and other Latin American countries was that their government was not “representative” in the first place–unless you mean representative of the wealthiest land-owners, at the expense of the peasants and farmers. **

It is getting off topic, so perhaps we should start an El Salvador thread. But specifically: the problem in El Salvador was not democracy. The problem was there was not enough of it. The Marxists have never created any government, anywhere, that is more representative of the people.
For the record, there was an election before the Marxist insurgency began. The El Salvadoran government won by a huge margin. The Marxists collected a mere four percent of the vote. That’s when the Marxists started killing people, including a half dozen mayors or more.

Does a pro-democracy government send its armies and paramilitaries to terrorize or kill those who spoke against it?

I’d say that political assassination and violent reprisals against voters constitutes more than speaking against a government.
I am not going to defend the El Salvadoran government. You are absolutely right, Skopo, that far too much of the wealth and power was concentrated in the hands of a few landowners. It also fought dirty against the rebels. So does Israel. We must be willing to look at the sins of the Salvadoran government. And with that, we must also be willing to look at the sins of the rebels – whose atrocities are often glossed over.
The points I specifically reject are:
– That the Salvadoran government was unilaterally evil.
– That support for them against the Marxists was an act of repression.
– That Helms’s support for the government is grounds for wishing death on him.

[Evil_Captor]

I apologize for the quintuple post. My computer kept telling me that it had not been able to connect with the server, so I assumed the post did not go through and tried again. Obviously, when I tried to post it DID go through. In fact, I was not able to open any pages on the Straight Dope after that, so I couldn’t see that I’d posted successfully. I thought the site was in one of it’s crash modes.

I will not believe my computer again when it says it can’t get through to the server. Obviously, this is a big, stinking lie on its part.

If a mod wants to delete those babies, it’s OK with me, and I promise not to make any more messes like this again.

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
I didn’t say I LIKED Helms …

You can say that again.

**Also, it seem to me that although as you are the OP and have set the terms of this debate accordingly, there’s something dishonest in your approach. Essentially, you are the one making extraordinary claims, i.e., that Helms was not a racist, bigoted homophobe and friend to murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein. **

No such thing, Evil Captor. I noted that people wished death on Senator Helms and challenged them to produce valid reasons for their beliefs. This isn’t really about Helms at all. It’s about holding visceral, intense beliefs you can’t really justify – and that applies to homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and all forms on non-informed hatred. If you can cite a reason for wishing death on Helms, I’ll listen. I just want to hear an informed opinion, rather than the parroting of hatred because hatred is acceptable.
If you hate Helms – fine with me. Just give me an actual, informed reason to base this on.

Generally, the principle is that a person making extraordinary claims must provide extraordinarily clear and convincing proof of those claims.

Wishing death on someone is quite extraordinary. To anyone who wishes death on Helms, provide me with clear and convincing proof he deserves it. That is all I ask.

**Just muttering “media bias” at all the written reports of Helms’ scumminess hardly constitute clear and convincing proof. **

Denying the existence of media bias is either disingenuous or naive.
**
[/QUOTE]

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**“Alleged”? Gee, as I remember it, his comments made front-page headlines on newspapers across the country. Granted, it wasn’t as bad as Trent Lott’s recent foot-in-mouth debacle, but Helms-threatened-Clinton wasn’t exactly low key.
**

I criticized him for, you will note. I used “alleged” because I do not presume to read his mind. Still, the comment is open to the worst interpretations and as such was entirely out of line.

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

Originally posted by me
El Salvador has a democracy today. It would not have if the liberation theologists had been successful.

Originally posted by Skopo *
Nor would it have been so if the military government had been successful. The truth is that both sides recognized that armed conflict was getting them nowhere, and now they fight it out in the political arena instead.*

A lot of bloodshed could have been averted if the Marxists had accepted their initial election loss and worked peacefully to gain support.
“Military government” is a two-edged term. The Marxists were their own military government in that they were elected by no one and grew their power from the barrel of a gun.

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

I’d also like to add:

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
**

Also, it seem to me that although as you are the OP and have set the terms of this debate accordingly, there’s something dishonest in your approach. Essentially, you are the one making extraordinary claims, i.e., that Helms was not a racist, bigoted homophobe and friend to murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein. Generally, the principle is that a person making extraordinary claims must provide extraordinarily clear and convincing proof of those claims.**

So you wish me to prove a negative. Do you see any problem with this proposition? Obviously the debate is not reaching the level I had hoped.
And as for misrepresenting what I say, Evil Captor: Please cease with the tactics of a middle-school usenet flamer, unless you wish to be counted among their number.

[Gotterfunken]

Satisfying Andy Licious–I posted my response regarding El Salvador on Guinistasia’s Oscar Romero thread.

Cheers.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious

As I said at the start of the thread, I would like to consider clearly stated reasons for wishing death on Helms – reasons that are not simply name-calling but specific charges.

What, you haven’t gotten enough yet?

Esprix

[Evil_Captor]

So you wish me to prove a negative. Do you see any problem with this proposition?

Well, maybe I can explain things a little more clearly for ya.

C’mon, Andy, in the OP you asked for clear and convincing evidence that Jesse Helms was evil enough to be worthy of hatred to the level of wishing him dead.

Several people responded, citing many news accounts about Helms clear and consistent opposition to civil rights legislation, his opposition to AIDS research, his support of dictators who routinely used torture and murder to keep their citizens in line.

Your response was “media bias” and “not sufficiently clear proof.”

The post you object to just pointed out that, by flying in the face of a legislative history and overwhelming media reports indicating that Helms is a racist, a homophobe, a friend to vile dictators, etc., it was YOU that was making the extraordinary claim. We’re not all conservatives here. Just saying “media bias” doesn’t Explain All as it would on some boards.

The question now is, what sort of evidence would satisfy your OP. What are you looking for, Andy? A pic of Helms holding the rope around the neck of a lynching victim and grinning? An audio session of Helms torturing a nun in some South American prison? Obviously, cites about Helms’ opposition to civil rights and AIDS research just won’t do the trick. So, what will?

Obviously the debate is not reaching the level I had hoped. And as for misrepresenting what I say, Evil Captor: Please cease with the tactics of a middle-school usenet flamer, unless you wish to be counted among their number.

If you’re going to try to terrify me by accusing me of being associated with some despised group, at least do so in a way that makes sense. Calling me a “middle-school usenet flamer” would mean my posts run along the lines of:

“u r a useless peece of crap. Nothing u say maks ny sinse. Why dont u go kiss Osama bn Laud’s butt like u like 2?”

[spudbucket]

*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious *
**
But specifically: the problem in El Salvador was not democracy. The problem was there was not enough of it. The Marxists have never created any government, anywhere, that is more representative of the people.
**

Ahem…every hear of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. Came to power in 1979 after 40+ years of Samoza dictatorship (supported by the same folks who supported the regime in El Salvador).

There was an election in 1984 which the Sandinistas won.(although US policy declared it undemocratic, a moot point for this discussion). Seems like a representation of the will of the people.

Then, in 1990, the Sandinista’s lost a second round of elections and gave up power to their rivials who received more of the popular votes than them. Seems a lot more representative of the people than the Samoza dictatorship that they replaced

btw, I agree with the earlier posts…if you want to insist that people provide support to their statements it is only fair you do the same.

SB

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious *
The United States supports Israel, which is involved in a very dirty war for its survival. Israel has used torture and detention without trial. It has a standard policy of leveling the homes of people it knows have committed no crime, because they are related to someone believed to be guilty. Some people want Ariel Sharon tried for war crimes for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila.
But would you say that Israel is entirely evil? Will you say that everyone who has supported Israel is evil?

Huh? Are you making the claim that Israel is comparable to Chile under Pinochet? This is an outrageous analogy, totally unsupported by your little paragraph above.

Have you ever noted that there are no “left-wing death squads”? Apparently, only right-wing death squads exist.
Will you profess that the communist movements attempting to destroy representative governments in El Salvador and Guatemala never use death squads? They never assassinated people, tortured them, killed and kidnapped villagers?
Sometimes the United States has supported the lesser of two evils. We supported Russia in the fight against Hitler. By your thinking, this would make us guilty of supporting – and even advocating – the atrocities of Stalin.

Totally irrelevant nonsense. We’re not arguing here over whether Jesse Helms was an asshole for supporting left-wing death squads; we’re arguing over whether he was an asshole for supporting right-wing death squads.

If you want to make a new thread to argue over whether a specific left-wing politician was an asshole for supporting left-wing terrorists, go ahead. But it is execrable to try to excuse Helms’s support for murderers by saying, “The other side was doing it, too!”

Helms’s actions may be justified or condemned on their own merits, not by comparing them to the actions of other evil men.

Daniel

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
**So you wish me to prove a negative. Do you see any problem with this proposition?

Well, maybe I can explain things a little more clearly for ya.

C’mon, Andy, in the OP you asked for clear and convincing evidence that Jesse Helms was evil enough to be worthy of hatred to the level of wishing him dead.

Several people responded, citing many news accounts about Helms clear and consistent opposition to civil rights legislation, his opposition to AIDS research, his support of dictators who routinely used torture and murder to keep their citizens in line.

Your response was “media bias” and “not sufficiently clear proof.”**

Green chili cheese grits, Evil Captor, this isn’t even remotely close to what I said.
Also, if anyone has mentioned a specific civil rights bill he has opposed, I’m not seeing the reference. If anyone does want to cite a specific bill he opposed, I will look at it.

The post you object to just pointed out that, by flying in the face of a legislative history and overwhelming media reports indicating that Helms is a racist, a homophobe, a friend to vile dictators, etc.

What you are saying, Evil Captor, is that you know what you know and you don’t need any proof because – well, you just know.
I’ll respect informed opinions about the man, including condemnation in the harshest terms. But they have to be informed.

The question now is, what sort of evidence would satisfy your OP. What are you looking for, Andy? A pic of Helms holding the rope around the neck of a lynching victim and grinning? An audio session of Helms torturing a nun in some South American prison?

Tell me what evidence you would use to say the man deserves death.

Obviously, cites about Helms’ opposition to civil rights and AIDS research just won’t do the trick. So, what will?

Sofa King’s post detailing Helms’ changes on HIV funding were very informed. They also indicated that Helms changed his view over time. So if he did change and repent his early view, doesn’t this mitigate the reaction?

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

*Originally posted by spudbucket *
**btw, I agree with the earlier posts…if you want to insist that people provide support to their statements it is only fair you do the same.

SB **

Certainly. What statement would you like me to back up?
If left to themselves, the Sandinistas would not have given up power. They did so only because they faced the continuation of a bloody war if they did not. And since the Sandinistas were voted out, on what basis you saying they were representative of what the people wanted?

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

*Originally posted by DanielWithrow *
Huh? Are you making the claim that Israel is comparable to Chile under Pinochet? This is an outrageous analogy, totally unsupported by your little paragraph above.

There are many people who consider the United States the Great Satan for supporting Israel.
There are many people who see Jesse Helms as Satan for supporting Latin Americans fighting communists.
In the eyes of some people, our support for Israel makes us totally evil and deserving of death.
In the eyes of some people, Helms’ record on Latin America makes him evil and deserving of death.
I don’t believe our support for Israel warrants the hatred, even though some people sincerely and deeply believe it is right. I am questoning the hatred directed at Helms in a similar fashion.

Totally irrelevant nonsense. We’re not arguing here over whether Jesse Helms was an asshole for supporting left-wing death squads; we’re arguing over whether he was an asshole for supporting right-wing death squads.

I’ve noticed a correlation between condemning the “right-wing death squads” and whitewashing the “left-wing death squads.” Most people who can rattle off the atrocities of the right seem genuinely puzzled when informed of massacres perpetuated by the Marxists. You cannot judge Helms’ record accurately unless you know what was actually going on.

[Guinastasia]

But that’s just it-Helms was not funding the left wing death squads-he was funding the right wing military death squads.

So that’s what we’re discussing.

BTW, Andy, I started a thread about Romero, as already noted.