Quoth Michael P:
> Cockburn says godawful stupid things from time to time, but he usually is
> a breath of fresh air.
>
> I guess the question remains, when does someone say something so appalling
> that we can reject the person in toto?
This afternoon, quite separately, Louis and I each wrote a Cockburn piece,
mine a preface to a Cockburn column, his much longer and more personal.
They dropped into the mail queue serially and, whatever the header times
say, only 2 or 3 minutes apart. Whether Louis, still unheard from hours
later, was stricken apoplectic by the shock of the two pieces' improbable
collision - not to speak of their conceptual opposition - or simply went
out to dig the street as I did, is yet to be learned.
Having not read the statement that so galvanized Louis, whether in or out
of its context, I don't know what to make of either his reaction or
Dennis's spirited rebuttal. Since falling into cyberspace ~7 years ago
I have had little contact with print journalism of whatever flavor,
so Cockburn has played no role with me such as Louis admitted: rousing
the backslider with a succession of right-on columns. Given as much as
Louis and Dennis have said, however, along with my direct observation
in September, I can only suppose that Cockburn sees no future for either
the American left or the militia movement outside of a rather messy but
ultimately fruitful convergence, and is making comments toward that end.
Well, with my recurrent March Into Idaho advocacy and other talk not
quite so blatant, I have been pointing in just that direction, haven't I?
And there, implicitly, is my reply to you, Michael: we must first know
the motive behind the presumptive crime.
I wouldn't mind extending this thread tomorrow or Monday, but right now
it's beddy-bye time, before I crash into my keyboard.
valis
