Let me provide yet another concrete world experience, in contrast to Mr. Shemano's purely imaginary log-rolling.
1999? or was it 2000? KKK decides to show up at City Hall in NYC. So do we, about 25,000 if I remember correctly. With one thing on our collective minds, and it ain't listening politely to the KKK. It's stopping them, confronting them, and physically silencing them (some of us thinking "permanently.") Lots of us circling the policed perimeter trying to figure a way in to get to these clowns. Nobody concerned about free speech, not even the KKK. It's about class struggle, about winning. Plenty of cops to prevent that, winning that is. I couldn't get in. But one guy did, a teacher if I recall correctly. Punches the KKK lead speaker right in the jaw, and drops him like Foreman dropped Frazier. Now according to Shemano, the "threat" of the racist getting his/her ass kicked is good because it makes the racist shut up. But only in Shemano's world. Because behind every freedom there's a cop with a gun saying, "Only for those previously approved and this guy in the bed sheet got his papers and you don't." So the only threat that exists is the actual action, punching out the KKK clown. But the free-speech loving state arrested and prosecuted the teacher, and I also believe he was fired. And I don't remember our free speech loving Milton Freedomites raising money for the legal defense of the best teacher in New York City. "Each one, teach one." "Do as I do, not as I say." So yes, we should object to creeps being invited. Because "creep" is not an abstract, quantitative term, but has a concrete, social quality to it. Just as freedom of speech has a concrete social quality to it, that being the quality of a badge and a gun in the service of a ruling class. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] on Israel lobby in the US and foreign policy David Shemano wrote: >America is not AmeriKa because some professors write a letter to the college newspaper referencing the Protocols of the Elder of Zion. < As far as I can tell, David was responding to my comment on the attacks on Prof. Walt in Montana. (it was reprinted at the bottom of David's missive.) If so, this is crap. I _never_ use the spelling "Amerika" (or, even worse, "Amerikkka"). That's puerile, just a way the some lefties talked to each other in a way that keeps non-lefties out of the conversation. I was not arguing that "America is Amerikkka" (i.e., some sort of fascist homeland).[*] No, I was instead arguing that >This is the kind of thing I was referring to when I referred to a "shit storm."< (BTW, I usually don't use such words as "shit." I find that they are more effective when used very sparingly.) David's missives seem to based on some sort of political dyslexia. David continues:>How is this different than when Ann Coulter, Henry Kissinger, etc. appear on a college campus? < Bill Lear and Michael Perelman had good answers. I just want to add one point (or rather, restate my original point): in US during the present era, i.e., what I was talking about, the attacks on Walt, etc. as being "anti-Semitic," "like Nazis," and so forth is currently part of the _dominant political culture_. Invite Walt (or whomever) to speak and there's a vast political infrastructure already there to launch the shit-storm against him. The organized Likudnik knee is ready to jerk. On the other hand, if a war criminal like Kissinger, a silly-but-scary publicity hound like Coulter, or a racist like Murray is invited, the infrastructure isn't there. In most places around the US, there will be no response at all (except liberals and lefties muttering "how can it get worse?") In a few places (Austin, Madison, Berkeley, and a handful of others, the sum of which right-wing types hypostatize into some sort of cabal), the local lefties will try to mobilize to pass out leaflets and paint up some signs, but it will take energy away from their more long-term political work. (Besides, they're too scattered and fighting amongst themselves.) Then, the pro-Israel and generally conservative infrastructure will mobilize against _them_. ("Oh, no, you're violating Kissinger's free speech rights! even though he can easily call up CNN or the White House and get a hearing! Horrors!") The lefty knee is so weak these days that even when it jerks, the results are often a bit sad. >The reason that we are in disagreement is that I don't think you (the generic you) are conceptualizing that Israel is the one topic emotional enough for some that Lefty speakers have to suffer what Conservative speakers put up with on a regular basis. < I don't know why David can presume to know what I or we think. I, for one, hate it when people presume to know what I think. Especially without quoting me directly. as for >Lefty speakers have to suffer what Conservative speakers put up with on a regular basis<, that's a matter of fact or non-fact. I disagree with David's assertion of fact. Nowadays, the President of the US is a "Conservative," while they have absolute control over the Fox network and pretty strong control over almost all of the news media in the US. The dominant political culture is currently "Conservative," though there's some doubt about what "Conservative" means. >Imagine Charles Murray came to your campus to deliver a speech entitled "Whites Are Smarter Than Blacks." Would you applaud the invitation and politely attend the lecture and listen intently to what he had to say? Would you complain if some professor wrote a letter to the dean complaining that Murrray and his speech were "racist" and not fitting for a college campus? Would you think it unreasonable if he was only permitted to speak if an opposing view were presented? I don't.< He would not be invited. It goes against the Catholic faith. I don't make these decisions, so the agnostic viewpoint is not represented. I don't think I'd object if the creep were invited. I would attend and then try to ask pointed questions. After all, his viewpoint is seriously flawed and would fall apart under small pressure. (BTW, it's a matter of _policy_ at LMU that when someone who's even a bit controversial is invited to speak, someone else is invited to give a alternative. When Coulter was invited to speak, some DP hack was brought it to balance her insanity. (This policy arose because a few years ago, the GOP presidential candidate -- George Bush the Greater? -- was invited to speak, but the DP candidate (Mike Dukakis?) was deliberately not invited, because the Trustees don't like the DP.) If/when lefties print up leaflets about Murray and other "conservatives," they should be more a matter of "truth squad" stuff than "Murray's a racist! Nyaa Nyaa Nyaa!" That is, the many factual gaps and logical fallacies of Murray's crap should be made obvious to all. Murray isn't the enemy as an individual. Rather, it's his ideas that are the target. >This is not to say that I applaud Lefties suffering what Conservatives having to suffer.< BTW, I don't think that Walt is a "lefty" -- unless being critical of the Israel and/or its powerful lobby makes one a lefty. The latter is quite doubtful. After all, George Lincoln Rockwell -- a Conservative? -- was quite critical of Israel. >And I don't expect you to agree that there is conceptual equivalence beween anti-Israel speech and racist speech. But I really believe that you are fooling yourself if you believe that the issue is "free expression" as an abstract value and not whose oxe is getting gored.< I wasn't talking about any "conceptual equivalence" or non-equivalence of different species of speech. I also wasn't talking about the issue of "free expression" as a value. I was talking about the right-wing infrastructure (centered around the Likud Lobby) that is ready, willing, and able to mobilize to throw poop at anyone who dares to say negative things about Israel. I was talking about the dominant political culture in the current era. The Chicago-school economists (self-styled anti-statist liberals) make a Big Thing about the need to separate "normative" from "positive" economics (value vs. fact). What amazes me repeatedly is how often liberals -- of both the pro-government and anti-government ("libertarian") perspective -- fail to separate these. If I talk about anti-Zionist opinions unleashing a shit-storm (fact, or alleged fact), David launches into stuff about my insulting the US of America or thinking it fascist (calling it "Amerika") and not believing in free expression and gets into high moral dudgeon (value). It's like a conversation I had once. Me: "it looks like Slobodan Milosevich is fighting a civil war against the KLA in Kosovo." The liberal, upset, blurted: "you think that they are morally equivalent??" This is a _non sequitur_. While it may be s good at changing the subject of the discussion, it's an irrational response. I sort of agree with the Chicago schoolers: it's best to know what's going on before one jumps in with value judgments and/or moral reasoning. Of course, it's almost always impossible to totally separate fact from value, but it's useful to try. [*] David should note my many futile attempts to convince some pen-pals that the US is not "fascist." --------------------------------------------------------------------- In an old missive from a couple of days ago, David wrote: >In response to Jim Devine: > You really seem insulted simply because I read your post to make an Israel-Germany comparison. You also seem to think my interpretation was not simply wrong, but irrational. You appear to reach that conclusion because you believe a reader should never make any assumptions about the author's intention, even though the assumption may be statistically sensible. We are going to have to agree to disagree.< I disagree. Just because something is "statistically sensible" does _not_ mean that it applies to every individual data point. That is, even if it turned out to be true _on average_ that "people who criticize Israel are pro-crypto Nazis" (or whatever), that does not apply automatically to me. It would not apply to a lot of the folks off in the tails of the "bell curve" (as it were). For the lawyerly ears, it's true on average that "it's a bad idea for drunks to drive cars." But that does not mean that absolutely no drunks can drive safely or that (in some circumstances) it is always better for drunks to refrain from driving than the alternative. To confuse a statistical average with reality for all of the sample "on the ground" is statistically fallacious. As I said before, it also goes against the ethical individualism that libertarians (if I understand them correctly) profess to believe in, i.e., that "we're all individuals rather than members of some larger category." Confusing the statistical average with the sample seems an example of the "Zero Tolerance" nonsense. Even worse, as Bayesians point out, all statistical inference is based (in part) on our _a priori_ conceptions. I don't think that it's true even _on average_ that "all people who criticize Israel are pro-crypto Nazis." But David starts with the _prior_ that those who criticize Israel and its excessive influence on US foreign policy are like the Nazis.[*] Then, it seems, if the data don't fit, he throws them out. If they do fit, it seems that he remembers them. This kind of thinking is the basis for superstition. Every once and a while, I am hit by a foreboding that when I get home from work, I'm going to find that one of our cats (who's 19 years old) is dead. Eventually, this foreboding will turn out to be true. Superstitious people forget about the many times that the foreboding was false and remember the one time it was true. Am I insulted? Actually, one of my personality quirks [**] is that I don't get insulted, except for a short period. Instead, I get tired, bored, and depressed by _poor communication_: if I am trying to communicate logically and/or factually, it is upsetting when someone just doesn't understand. Yeah, I know. No-one has personality quirks. Instead, we're all simply representatives of a larger average, a large class of individuals. I am just an epiphenomenon, a mere reflection on the cave's wall of the true Form (of "lefties") that exists in God's mind. [*] this _prior_ isn't David's invention. Rather, it's a product of the current political and cultural millieu, partly or largely created by persistent efforts by the vast Likudnik infrastructure that's ready and willing and able to launch shit-storms against anyone with the temerity to criticize Israel. Just as Molière's bourgeois gentleman spoke prose all his life without knowing it, David seems to absorb the dominant political culture without being conscious of his doing so. [**] Strictly speaking, it's not a personality quirk. It's more of a neurological problem, an aspect of my (mild) Asperger Syndrome. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
