[Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Hey, Les, several months back you vowed never to read another post by me. Had a change of heart? OK, so, you let go without objection suggestions by others (including an item from Prensa Latin) that Ardin is a CIA collaborator trying to bring down the Cuban government (no evidence whatever has been given for that surmise). But you take issue with repeated documentation of Ardin's resort to the law to back up her apparent lover scorned or insufficiently loved hypothesis? As this article (and others) indicated, she is a well-known feminist. Her lawyer is known for trying to expand the legal reach of rape. Her actions could well result in a backlash against women who really do have justifiable accusations of rape. To me, her behavior suggests a kind of misguided feminism. But you don't have time right now to get into it, yet you make an apparent amalgam between my suspicions and an article from Counterpunch that I haven't seen and couldn't find in a quick search of yesterday's posts and that allegedly uses a term I would never use. Plus, you name-call. Everything I have posted on the issue of Assange and his accusers has refrained from name-calling and has provided what I consider to be useful information. None of this is of any interest to you, it seems. Instead, you encourage other list members to rise to your bait. David David Thorstad wrote: (3) the accusations made by her and her cohort against Assange point to a vindictive kind of feminism run amok. i don't have time right now to get into it, but are the rest of you here ok with this idiocy? or the Counterpunch article posted yesterday that spoke of castrating feminists when discussing the women accusers of Assange??? Les Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Les Schaffer: i don't have time right now to get into it, but are the rest of you here ok with this idiocy? or the Counterpunch article posted yesterday that spoke of castrating feminists when discussing the women accusers of Assange??? No. But then I'm not comfortable with _any_ part of this discussion. We don't need any of these facts. We need more hardheaded exploration of how we can make political use of the overload of information we already have. If facts were useful in overthrowing the wages system (and it is that, not a particular capitalist class that is the oppressor) capitalism would have disappeared long ago. This list makes a fetish of empty information. But the discussion of the woman in almost all quarters has indeed been pretty revolting. Carrol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == yes, the terms used by David have been very disturbing it's one thing to say pro-imperialist politicians and their flunkies have abused and misappropriated feminist issues for their own purposes; it's quite another to at least appear to be maligning feminism itself, of any kind that, David, is the appearance you're giving. If it's not the reality, please clean up your rhetoric speaking of misappropriation of feminism: see Sheila Cohen's comment, linked at Steve Early's review, on the role, real and on screen, of Barbara Castle in Made in Dagenham. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Les Schaffer schaf...@optonline.net wrote: i don't have time right now to get into it, but are the rest of you here ok with this idiocy? or the Counterpunch article posted yesterday that spoke of castrating feminists when discussing the women accusers of Assange??? Les Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 12/10/2010 2:01 PM, Carrol Cox wrote: This list makes a fetish of empty information. But the discussion of the woman in almost all quarters has indeed been pretty revolting. Carrol, the ruling class of the US and its flunkies overseas are engaged in some of the most egregious violation of first amendment rights since Watergate. This might not be of interest to you but is to the rest of humanity. Sometimes your narrow focus on what Doug Henwood, Liza Featherstone, and Christian Parenti called activistism is most disconcerting. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Carrol, the ruling class of the US and its flunkies overseas are engaged in some of the most egregious violation of first amendment rights since Watergate. Which is a serious mistake on their part. Probably one of the few things (perhaps the only thing) which can generate mass resistance (the kind of mass resistance from which either real reforms or revolutionary conditions develop) is represdsion. (The fixation on exploitation of so many on this list flies in the face of 600 years of passive acceptance of exploitation). And the discussion should be wholly on ways of generating resistance to that growing represdsi9on. And the facts necessary for that have, in fact, been available for a century or so. They certainly do not include this offensive concern with the private morals of some woman in Sweden. That shows indifference to struggle and fascination with mere gossip. Carrol Note: When an actual mass movement arises again (and it will, though there is no knowing when or how it will be triggered), THEN maximalist tactics will be sterile; discussion, during such an interim as the present, which is NOT maximalist is sterile. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Wait a bit, Carrol. At the rate things are going, the government's going to dredge up the economics of Henry Clay... ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I just want to say that I think that David Thorstad has been basically on the right track this time. His references to an extreme form of feminism on the rape question is a legitimate opinion, though one open to debate, which we should have sometime but aren't having here. The heart of the question is to get that there is no case against Julian Assange --- no case at all, not a case justifying charges being filed, not a case justifying arrest, not a case justifyijng extradition, and not a case justifying trial and conviction. There is nothing there. One woman argues that she consented to sex with Assange, but the condom broke. She expressed concerns, but he talked her into continuing. And she has not contracted an STDs as a consequence. Could she have pulled away from him? No indication that she couldn't have done so. Did he give any indication of threatening her with violence if she did so. http://www.canadahaitiaction.ca/: No, even according to her version, he sweet-talked her into continuing. And, has she oreserved the condom to prove that it actually broke during their sexual act? No indication so far that she did. So how can we even know whether the condom actually broke. A second woman says she was uncomfortable at first about having sex without a condom,. But she agreed and had sex with the WORLD FAMOUS PERSON. She argues that she has no responsibility for the decision to have sex without a condom. It was simply the pressure of the evil male. Thus this is rape of some sort. All of this has given rise to the myth that in Sweden it is illegal to have sex without a condom. All those cute Swedish babies tell a different story. But if it is not illegal to have sex without a condom, what does this case against Assange have in common with rape or sexual abuse. The whole case, to the extent that there is a case, is based on the idea that there must be a presumption of the man's guilt when a charge of rape is lodged against him, even on the most abstruse basis. The man must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not tape the woman, in whatever the sense the term rape is given in the prosecution case, which is infinitely expandable. I suspect Sweden has no illusions that this is a winnable case. I think they see this as an opening to extradite Assange to the United States, provided the US can come up with a charge against him. Given the endlessly flexible US criminal law, I would be surprised if nothing can be found -- perhaps they can charge him with raping the United States. For their cooperation, the Swedish state and ruling class will receive whatever rewards are on offer. Fred Feldman Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Mark Lause: Wait a bit, Carrol. At the rate things are going, the government's going to dredge up the economics of Henry Clay... There's that. I was sort of thinking of Walpole! But I guess Clay fits better here. Carrol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == That's slick. Thorstad's on the right track-- meaning this is a case of feminism run amok-- but the heart of the question is that there is no case against Assange-- thereby assuming what must be proven, that feminism has anything to do with the case against Assange. And then rather than going at what really is the heart of the question-- which is the revenge pursuit of Assange by the bourgeoisie, we get into the absurdities of the charges against Assange, as if the absurdities is proof of feminism at work. Thereby again proving what is already assumed that feminism is always, eternally amok. What a bunch of shit-- pure, unadulterated, ignorant, shit. It's male chauvinism run amok, that's what it is. Piss off, fellas. Your making a mess of the floor. - Original Message - From: Fred Feldman ffeld...@bellatlantic.net To: sartes...@earthlink.net Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] More Facts (Dirt) on Anna Ardin and how She Destroyed Assange Case Evidence Over And Over Again
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I'm really NOT ok with this. I don't know why it should be so hard to understand that it is possible to be enchanted by a man, especially an articulate good looking one, have one thing lead to another, try to put the brakes on, have that not respected (at any point), and feel violated as a result. Did this happen with Assange? I don't know and neither does anyone else outside of the people involved. But calling the women involved groupies, feminists run amok, and poring over deleted Tweets and then using them to pronounce judgment seems sick to me. This article by Göran Rudling is the most disgusting piece I've seen so far and I'm unhappy to have found it on Marxmail. I thank Les and S. Artesian for objecting, since I was unable to respond earlier. Here's a somewhat related post I wrote a couple of days ago, if anyone is interested. I've tried not to post links to my own things lately as Louis prefers discussion to reposts, and that seems reasonable, but time really is an issue for me. http://machetera.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/on-anna-ardin-israel-shamir-and-glass-houses/ David Thorstad wrote: (3) the accusations made by her and her cohort against Assange point to a vindictive kind of feminism run amok. i don't have time right now to get into it, but are the rest of you here ok with this idiocy? or the Counterpunch article posted yesterday that spoke of castrating feminists when discussing the women accusers of Assange??? Les Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
