From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 08:34:59 +0800
To: jimbell@pacifier.com (Jim Bell)
Subject: Re: My editorial in Oregonian newspaper published today.
In-Reply-To: <199705061458.HAA08763@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <199705080020.RAA15368@netcom7.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


JB's editorial is so mild-mannered I can barely resist comment.
this from the JB we all know and love? this is so bland as to
be almost PC, and frankly I agreed with every statement in
it, virtually. how did he manage to avoid the label "assassination
politics"? in fact how does he avoid the label "assassination"
entirely? 

the whole system was based on killing people. what's
this about mere "protection" or "security"? JB, have you changed
your ideas? a common pot of money for a security force is not
a radical idea. a betting pool on deaths *is* not only radical,
but quite morally vacuous and depraved.

I think the main flimflammery in the essay is the concept of
"criminal". JB always advocated in the past that merely being
a bureacrat was virtually criminal, and that people would donate
money toward their demise. 

JB, you are going to get nailed for your obvious duplicity.
you should be ashamed of yourself. you are not only a advocate
of death, but someone who does so as weasely as any politician
hides his true views.  you are not being honest with your own 
ideas. you are just as much a hypocrite as the bureacrats you despise.

note to everyone: jim bell's editorial has virtually no relation
to his past essays. I propose that someone send that newspaper
his AP article.