On 9/15/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.)
Jim, But this is purely a matter of opinion. You believe that the establishment is against you and will act in force to silence Walt or Sheehan or whoever but not Kissinger or Murray. To a more neutral observer both groups seem like polarizing figures. Both groups attract a bunch of flag waving protestors, equally disorganized, and ultimately equally ineffective. You see the hand of the establishment behind one group and not the other but that's purely a matter of opinion. Someone on the other side would have a very different interpretation. Generally I think everyone would agree that free speech cannot exist without some boundaries for civilized conduct. The argument merely seems to be about where to draw the line. Murray, Coulter and Kissinger are in. The klan is out. An anti-Israel book should not be automatically out, but holocaust denial propaganda probably should be. As far as the press is concerned, it seems to me they have neither a consistent liberal bias not a conservative bias (except for Fox of course). They merely have a commercial bias pandering to whatever is fashionable at a given time. They supported Bush when he had 90% approval. Ditched him when he became unpopular. True fair weather friends. Or so it seems to me. -raghu.
