Re: Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
I guess I must be in the loyal opposition too. I want to understand Bin Laden the better to destroy him. I don't believe anyone here regards him as a freedom fighter. In fact, I don't think bin Laden and his gang regard themselves as freedom fighters Don't get me wrong. In my opinion Bin Laden is no longer a direct agent of the worst criminals in the CIA/NSA/NSC apparat. But if he was, what would he or they have done any differently? In my opinion, nothing. Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
--- Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings Economists, JKS writes in a thread that is drawing all and asunder their opinion, JKS I guess I must be in the loyal opposition too. Doyle, Not me. I don't want to continue capitalism, so I'm not loyal to their wind. Don't be irony-impaired, Doyle. Did I say I want to continue capitalism? But the poster read as loyalty to the existing order Fish's suggestion that ObL was a dangerous criminal who needed to be dealt with. This is obviously true. If you think that ObL is a revolutionary whose actions are in the least progressive, you are an enemy of the human race. In saying that, contrary to what the poster suggested, it is not necessary to swear fealty to capitalism, King George II, and the war on terrorism. JKS (No, I'm not an abolitionist.)...and ...I do support police investigation, apprehension, trial, and punishment of ObL and his co-conspirators. Don't you? Doyle I can't see how the 'law' can work in such circumstances. We don't have a global system. You mean have legal protections for which you are familiar as a practicing lawyer? Yeah, them, the normal way international crime is dealt with. It wouldn't be smooth, there are difficulties, but the fact is that it happens. There are other international criminals. The law works to some extent to aid in their apprehension. It is simply not the case that the only alternative to doing nothing is doing what the US has done, namely war. What would more likely emerge is a chaotic system across the planet as everything breaks down in a major economic crisis. You lost me here. How would letting Interpol do its job provoke a major economic crisis? How am I supposed to call on legal systems in that circumstance? . . . so even in the U.S. the concept of the rule of law is faltering at best on the level of Bin Laden. Yeah, and so you would advocate abandoning it entirely? Doing nothing is not an option. First, it would be wrong and imprudent. Al Qaida are dangerous thugs who kill people. They shouldn't be let to run around loose doing what they do. Second, it is political suicide to advocate doing nothing on the grounds that our instruments are imperfect. You may have polished anti-imperialist credentials for doing so, but ordinary people who feel rightly threatened will write you off as stupid, and correctly so. JKS Rather, it's the extraordinary deference offered to a celebrity academic who is also a fearsome fast-on-his-feet dialectian. Doyle I couldn't see anything special wit about the Fish in that transcript. I bet ($100.00) in my milieu Fish would flounder. thanks, Doyle Fish would eat you and your milieu for an appetizer. Your bet's idle, though, because he wouldn't consider you worth him time. Anyone who is familiar with his writing and speaking knows that he's brilliant, fast, funny, well-informed, and glib as hell. One thing about that kind of rep is that means you don't have to turn it on inless you want to. jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
andie nachgeborenen wrote: Look at how the Factor talks to him, using his title, saying, You're smarter than I am., etc. In O'Reilly-land that can be an insult. Being dumb, like W, is a sign of populism. (Of course, O'Reilly did get a masters at the Kennedy School, so he's not innocent of elite higher ed.) As O'R said once, The president has an uncomplicated view of the world, and so do I. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
Greetings Economists, JKS responds about my ironing habits, JKS, Don't be irony-impaired, Doyle. Doyle, ;-) JKS Fish would eat you and your milieu for an appetizer. Your bet's idle, though, because he wouldn't consider you worth him time. Anyone who is familiar with his writing and speaking knows that he's brilliant, fast, funny, well-informed, and glib as hell. One thing about that kind of rep is that means you don't have to turn it on inless you want to. Doyle Two comments, First my milieu is the mean streets where being too impolitic depends upon the street corner. I hang with different crowds, but you telling me Fish can trade gibes with dykes? Asians, Black gang members, people in the disability movement? Which segues into my main point, Years ago in one of my many endeavors to get health insurance when I wasn't working I joined the Writers Union for the benefits even though I am a lousy writer. A forgiving lot they are, but they had a one day seminar series on how to get a job in various areas. I've never told this story either to anyone. One of the seminars was on script writing for Hollywood, which was an hour of some guy who was making a living at that. He stands up in front of the crowd floridly displaying like those Australian lizards that rare up on their hind legs and run like crazy across the desert floor with their neck flesh out like a lions mane this guy flaired his enormous ego out for all in the audience to take in. Pacing in front of us like that was no way to win my heart but danged if this ego monster didn't say a wise thing. To paraphrase 'there are tons of smart writers trying to sell their work'. Forget smart forget wit, there so many people with those credentials not getting any work.' Just like beauty it was just a commodity in Hollywood where you could buy plenty more where that came from.' The basic problem with your comment is that no one is that smart above the rest of humanity. You put Fish in a room full of dykes and see who is the wittier. You put Fish on street corner in East Oakland in a crowd of young rappers and see who is the most quick on the draw in talk. Does that diminish either person, I think not. The format of Talk Television is profoundly limited. I spent years of my life considering what it means to make a movie. If you tell me that a set up situation like that is cleaning someone's clock intellectually and I just feel like we aren't considering the depth of intellectual issues that television presents. In that low level, I am sorry but I don't take Fish's performance seriously. On the other hand as usual you are your feisty self about any old argument, and I enjoy what you have to say if I don't agree. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
At 01:22 PM 2/8/2003 -0500, you wrote: andie nachgeborenen wrote: Look at how the Factor talks to him, using his title, saying, You're smarter than I am., etc. In O'Reilly-land that can be an insult. Being dumb, like W, is a sign of populism. (Of course, O'Reilly did get a masters at the Kennedy School, so he's not innocent of elite higher ed.) As O'R said once, The president has an uncomplicated view of the world, and so do I. Doug It's the wrong sort of populism, and I think a false distinction. Plenty of public intellectuals have an equally uncomplicated view of the world, though they prefer polie euphemism to the vulgar rhetoric of the populist right.
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
Steven McGraw wrote: Plenty of public intellectuals have an equally uncomplicated view of the world Like who? Fred Barnes? Howard Zinn? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
Are we really talking about views of the world or about communication styles of propagandists? On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 05:13:50PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: Steven McGraw wrote: Plenty of public intellectuals have an equally uncomplicated view of the world Like who? Fred Barnes? Howard Zinn? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
At 05:13 PM 2/8/2003 -0500, you wrote: Steven McGraw wrote: Plenty of public intellectuals have an equally uncomplicated view of the world Like who? Fred Barnes? Howard Zinn? Doug In this case I'm thinking mostly of mainstream-to-liberal commentators. Don't wanna name too many names in case some are on this list. Here's an example from Greil Marcus of the sort of thing i'm talking about http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-06marcus-speech.html Exerpts from the speech: --- Novelist Rick Moody, best known for The Ice Storm, really put the nail in the coffin of that headline. The attack, said Moody, is a web of narratives. Words used in that manner, that kind of naming, are an insult to whoever is unlucky enough to hear them; they laugh at your confusion, they mock your fear. They parade their confidence, their certainty that there's nothing that can't be folded into the language of the day before. The acknowledgment that something can take place in the world that never happened before might be the starting point of any real intellectual activity. Q: Is there intellectual work to be done to try to understand bin Laden, or at least his attractiveness in certain segments of Islam society? A: I'm not sure there is intellectual work to be done to investigate those questions. I think at some point there may be. But there are times when it's indecent to immediately seek to understand the motives of someone who wants you dead. There is intellectual work to be done to explain and understand. Members of minority groups are sometimes familiar with that notion, but citizens of the U.S. as such have not experienced that. The Second World War was not about the wish or the will of the Axis powers to exterminate, to send into oblivion all American citizens, and I believe that this war is. --- I don't think O'Reilly is likely to say anything remotely as 'sophisticated,' but when you cut off most of the fat, Marcus is asserting that 1) We don't need historical perspective to understand 9/11 and 2) We don't need to understand the political and economic conditions that give rise to terrorism. These are perfectly conventional and grievously stupid responses to 9/11, but they sound impressive coming from Marcus. O'Reilly would probably put it this way: 1) The world changed september 11th, this is all completely new 2) We don't need to understand evil, we need to kill it.
Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox noose
- Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now I know one isn't supposed to take any pleasure in evil people; I'm in an unsuccessful rebellion against my Catholic past, and sometimes I forget this point. == Somebody break out the Bushmill's and call the Monsignor:-) I hate to deploy Fitzgerald's cliche once again, but I guess it became a cliche because there are so many illustrations of the principle: The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. Doug = Did Fitzgerald ever read Einstein? The brain has simultaneity problems in a big way [neurobiologist William Calvin] Ian
Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox noose
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:55:45PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: I hate to deploy Fitzgerald's cliche once again, but I guess it became a cliche because there are so many illustrations of the principle: The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. Sometimes when watching O'Reilly (where else can you see Ron Daniels, Amiri Baraka, and Jeff Cohen on national television?), it seems that the humor is *part* of the vileness -- his humor often strikes me as uncalculated, but complicit in his political vileness nonetheless. I think that it's O'Reilly who has a hard time squaring internal contradiction, however. His treatment of Jeremy Glick is a pretty good example. He apologized for having Glick appear on the show, even as he made that glib little point of his -- you have a right to your opinion -- about the next guest. That oft-repeated point functions, I suspect, as a tipoff to his audience that, in fact, O'Reilly thinks the opinion is not merely wrong but dangerous. His other common implicit performative, which I only remember seeing used against those on the left, is the marginal/marginalized thing. He'll often tell left or left-leaning guests, especially when they've just made a coherent but dissentful claim, that of course you're espousing a marginal position, which does the work precisely of *helping to marginalize the claim and the claimant*. He doesn't say, I think that claim should be marginalized, because that would upset the pose or stance of the show and host (and network!) as fair and balanced. Instead, he says, that is a marginal position and then simply dismisses it; whether it actually is or not, that little discursive prion performatively marginalizes the claim and claimant. For me, the show's fascination is in the very complexity of its performance (it's heavily ritualized, something Zizek might have interesting thoughts on), a complexity which never betrays any sort of planning or intentionality. In other words, O'Reilly's show seems to me to be a very complex propagandistic performance, and I'm pretty convinced that O'Reilly himself is actually being, as he insists all the time, as fair, balanced, and accurate as he can possibly be. In that sense, he really is the perfect propagandist insofar as he believes, very deeply, that he's an antipropagandist. That's an interesting datapoint to incorporate into the Herman Chomsky propaganda model, I think. It makes the point that censorship of dissent and shaping of audience perceptions is most effective when it's *not* the result of an explicit intention. Kendall Clark -- Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis Armstrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox noose
Kendall Clark wrote: I think that it's O'Reilly who has a hard time squaring internal contradiction, however. He can't handle it when leftists are smart articulate, like Glick was. We were watching a few weeks ago when a very sharp immigration lawyer was giving him a hard time for his cretinous views on the people who cross the Rio Grande - they were parasites, etc. She pointed out that the U.S. has been abusing Mexico for ages, that NAFTA was displacing peasants who had nowhere to go. This was more than he could take, so he cut off her mike, after denouncing her as an America-hater. Of course, when he has some idiot like a Berkeley city council member who can't summon a fact or make an argument, he lets them go on. Of course, Stanley Fish walked all over him and he didn't cut him off. I wonder why he got away with it? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox noose
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 04:09:01PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: Kendall Clark wrote: He can't handle it when leftists are smart articulate, like Glick was. I thought Amiri Baraka cleaned his clock too, even with the sorta dumb bit about George Bush knew it was gonna happen. If Baraka's position is that Bush's Administration was negligent re: security, he should make (IMO) that point, rather than saying what he usually says. Of course, Stanley Fish walked all over him and he didn't cut him off. I wonder why he got away with it? I didn't see this. Transcript? (I would hypothesize that O'Reilly's readiness to cut people off is subject-matter dependent, to some degree. He seems genuinely angry at Glick, which is part of the show's effect.) Kendall Clark -- Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis Armstrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox noose
My guess is that he let Fish go on because there is submissiveness and a profound sense of inadequacy mixed with his fake populism toward the left and cultural elites. Joel Blau Doug Henwood wrote: Kendall Clark wrote: I think that it's O'Reilly who has a hard time squaring internal contradiction, however. He can't handle it when leftists are smart articulate, like Glick was. We were watching a few weeks ago when a very sharp immigration lawyer was giving him a hard time for his cretinous views on the people who cross the Rio Grande - they were parasites, etc. She pointed out that the U.S. has been abusing Mexico for ages, that NAFTA was displacing peasants who had nowhere to go. This was more than he could take, so he cut off her mike, after denouncing her as an America-hater. Of course, when he has some idiot like a Berkeley city council member who can't summon a fact or make an argument, he lets them go on. Of course, Stanley Fish walked all over him and he didn't cut him off. I wonder why he got away with it? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox noose
Kendall Clark wrote: Of course, Stanley Fish walked all over him and he didn't cut him off. I wonder why he got away with it? I didn't see this. Transcript? (I would hypothesize that O'Reilly's readiness to cut people off is subject-matter dependent, to some degree. He seems genuinely angry at Glick, which is part of the show's effect.) Here you go. Watching it, one got the impression that Fish had silenced O'R. I'd never seen anyone do that before (or since). Doug Is Evil Too Simple to Describe Terrorists? Thursday, October 18, 2001 This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, October 17, 2001. BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the second Personal Story segment tonight, you may remember earlier this week, I quoted an article written by the University of Illinois-Chicago liberal arts and sciences dean Stanley Fish in The New York Times. Dean Fish said: We have not seen the face of evil. We have seen the face of an enemy who comes at us with a full roster of grievances, goals and strategies. If we reduce that enemy to evil, we conjure up a shape shifting demon, a wild card moral anarchist beyond our comprehension, and therefore beyond the reach of any counter strategies. Dean Fish joins us now from Chicago. Well, I'm really happy you came on the program, Dean, because I -- your article was extremely well written and well thought out. And I disagree with it in the sense that I think that this a very black, white situation here. And when President Bush comes on and says, hey, the evil-doers, we got to get them, I'm with that. I'm with him. I don't need to know too much more than that, based upon the activities of these people. Where am I going wrong? STANLEY FISH, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-CHICAGO: Well, I think that the we've got to get them part is right, but I don't think that calling them evildoers helps very much. I kind of reserve evil for sociopathic personalities, people who do bad things for no reason at all. For example, in the anthrax discussion you were having earlier, either the anthrax letter-writers are part of this conspiracy or they are just people who get their kicks by harming as many people as they can. Bad acts in both cases, but only one set of bad acts is simply evil. The other set of bad acts, the ones attached to the terrorists' agenda, are bad acts that flow from a rationality and a plan and design we oppose. So I don't think it's helpful to call these people evil because that detaches them from an agenda and a plan that we might get to know and, thereby, be in a better position to fight it. O'REILLY: All right, see, I disagree with you entirely. No. 1, I think they're sociopaths. I don't think they have any human feeling at all. You don't send anthrax to somebody and a baby gets it. You don't crash a jet plane into an office building where people who have babies and children at home die for no reason at all. No. 2, Usama bin Laden has no agenda in the sense that he says I want to defeat America so that a and b and c happen, because all he wants is to ignite a worldwide conflagration that destroys everything so that his crazy vision of what Allah wants will prevail. This is delusionary. It's insanity. It's not based upon history. It's not based upon Osama bin Laden wanting to improve the lot of his people. All it is, is basically the inquisition all over again. Let's kill the infidels if they don't think the way we do. That's evil, Dean. And I don't think we need to really understand it to deal with it, you know?You deal with evil -- wait a minute. And I'll give you a big, long time to answer. FISH: Sure. O'REILLY: You deal with evil in two ways. You contain it, which means you isolate it behind bars, or you kill it. That's it. There's no third option. Go ahead. FISH: Well, I think that the phrase that you used that I would pick up on is the crazy vision. Now you and will agree that this vision is based on distortions, misunderstandings, and above all, on a desire to destroy us. And therefore, we have every right to oppose it. But it is a vision. It is a moral vision. It's a vision with history. O'REILLY: Now let me op you there. You say it's a moral vision. Adolph Hitler had a vision. His vision was a world without Jews because he hated Jews for whatever psychopathic reason. Now I don't assign that as a motivation for Adolph Hitler's behavior. I simply say he's evil. We need to get rid of him. FISH: Well, look, you said you'd let me speak. O'REILLY: Go ahead. FISH: The moral vision of Hitler is a moral vision. We have to distinguish between moralities we approve and moralities we despise. A morality simply means that someone who has one has a world view in which certain kinds of outcomes are desired and certain kinds of strategies are necessary. Acknowledging that someone that has moral vision
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox noose
Joel Blau wrote: My guess is that he let Fish go on because there is submissiveness and a profound sense of inadequacy mixed with his fake populism toward the left and cultural elites. Joel Blau And perhaps because they are twins under the skin?? :-) I've never heard Fish speak, but all his books and articles (of which I've read quite a few) give the impression of someone who without pausing to breathe digests everything into his own thought. Whatever you say, Fish has already been there and dissolved it. Carrol
Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
It is a good idea to clip the extraneous text when you reply. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
I guess I must be in the loyal opposition too. I want to understand Bin Laden the better to destroy him. I don't believe anyone here regards him as a freedom fighter. In fact, I don't think bin Laden and his gang regard themselvesa s freedom fighters. Holy warriors, maybe. I think they are mass murdering thugs, prime candidates for the death penalty -- if they were, as they should be, properrly arrested, given a trial with due process, and convicted. (No, I'm not an abolitionist.) No, I did not support military intervention in Afghanistan. I do not support CIA assassinations of suspected al Quaidi leaders. Or military tribunals, indefinite detentions, torture, or the means we are using in this struggle. I do support police investigation, apprehension, trial, and punishment of ObL and his co-conspirators. Don't you? No, I don't think that's what going on with O'Reilly and Fish. Rather, it's the extraordinary deference offered to a celebrity academic who is also a fearsome fast-on-his-feet dialectian. Look at how the Factor talks to him, using his title, saying, "You're smarter than I am.," etc. jks "Marens, Richard S." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that's a fair assessment. Fish, after all, was making a pragmatic argument from the perspective of the loyal opposition: let's understand Bin Laden better to make it easier to destroy him, hardly more than a difference in tactics. -Original Message-From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 3:07 PMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [PEN-L:34463] RE: a slip of the Fox noose It's really irritating how O'Reilly keeps on calling Fish "Dean" (and not "Dean Fish"). But more importantly, I think that the reason why he let Fish "walk all over him" is that the issue at hand was pretty abstract, i.e., whether Osama should be called "evil" or not. Further, if Fish had said "this black/white evil/good type of thinking that you and Bush engage in is exactly the kind of thinking that Osama embraces," I bet that O'Reilly would have cut off the sound. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34460] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox nooseKendall Clark wrote: Of! course, Stanley Fish walked all over him and he didn't cut him off. I wonder why he got away with it?I didn't see this. Transcript? (I would hypothesize that O'Reilly's readiness to cut people off is subject-matter dependent, to some degree. He seems genuinely angry at Glick, which is part of the show's effect.) Here you go. Watching it, one got the impression that Fish had silenced O'R. I'd never seen anyone do that before (or since). Doug Is "Evil" Too Simple to Describe Terrorists? Thursday, October 18, 2001 This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, October 17, 2001.BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the second Personal Story segment tonight, you may remember earlier this week, I quoted an article written by the University of Illinois-Chicago liberal arts and sciences dean Stanley Fish in The New York Times. Dean Fish said: "We have not seen the face of evil. We have seen the face of an enemy who comes at us with a full roster of! grievances, goals and strategies. If we reduce that enemy to evil, we conjure up a shape shifting demon, a wild card moral anarchist beyond our comprehension, and therefore beyond the reach of any counter strategies." Dean Fish joins us now from Chicago. Well, I'm really happy you came on the program, Dean, because I -- your article was extremely well written and well thought out. And I disagree with it in the sense <FON! T size=2> that I think that this a very black, white situation here. And when President Bush comes on and says, hey, the evil-doers, we got to get them, I'm with that. I'm with him. I don't need to know too much more than that, based upon the activities of these people. Where am I going wrong? STANLEY FISH, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-CHICAGO: Well, I think that the "we've got to get them" part is right, but I ! don't think that calling them evildoers helps very much. I kind of reserve evil for sociopathic personalities, people who do bad things for no reason at all. For example, in the anthrax discussion you were having earlier, either the anthrax letter-writers are part of this conspiracy or they are just people who get their kicks by harming as many people as they can. Bad acts in both cases, but only one set of bad acts is simply evil. The other set of bad acts, the ones attached to the terrorists' agenda, are bad acts that flow from a rationality and a plan and design we oppose. So
RE: Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose
You miss my point. Its not that Fish was wrong or sychophantic about Bin Laden. I just don't see how arguing with O'Reilly that its useful to understand Bin Laden is a particularly radical or challenging assertion, and I suspect that O'Brien response was weak because what Fish was arguing was conventionally, and relatively unthreateningly, logical. As for fearsome. Well, Stanley once got Earl Weaver all wrong. -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34476] Re: RE: RE: a slip of the Fox noose I guess I must be in the loyal opposition too. I want to understand Bin Laden the better to destroy him. I don't believe anyone here regards him as a freedom fighter. In fact, I don't think bin Laden and his gang regard themselvesa s freedom fighters. Holy warriors, maybe. I think they are mass murdering thugs, prime candidates for the death penalty -- if they were, as they should be, properrly arrested, given a trial with due process, and convicted. (No, I'm not an abolitionist.) No, I did not support military intervention in Afghanistan. I do not support CIA assassinations of suspected al Quaidi leaders. Or military tribunals, indefinite detentions, torture, or the means we are using in this struggle. I do support police investigation, apprehension, trial, and punishment of ObL and his co-conspirators. Don't you? No, I don't think that's what going on with O'Reilly and Fish. Rather, it's the extraordinary deference offered to a celebrity academic who is also a fearsome fast-on-his-feet dialectian. Look at how the Factor talks to him, using his title, saying, You're smarter than I am., etc. jks Marens, Richard S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that's a fair assessment. Fish, after all, was making a pragmatic argument from the perspective of the loyal opposition: let's understand Bin Laden better to make it easier to destroy him, hardly more than a difference in tactics. -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 3:07 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:34463] RE: a slip of the Fox noose It's really irritating how O'Reilly keeps on calling Fish Dean (and not Dean Fish). But more importantly, I think that the reason why he let Fish walk all over him is that the issue at hand was pretty abstract, i.e., whether Osama should be called evil or not. Further, if Fish had said this black/white evil/good type of thinking that you and Bush engage in is exactly the kind of thinking that Osama embraces, I bet that O'Reilly would have cut off the sound. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34460] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox noose Kendall Clark wrote: Of! course, Stanley Fish walked all over him and he didn't cut him off. I wonder why he got away with it? I didn't see this. Transcript? (I would hypothesize that O'Reilly's readiness to cut people off is subject-matter dependent, to some degree. He seems genuinely angry at Glick, which is part of the show's effect.) Here you go. Watching it, one got the impression that Fish had silenced O'R. I'd never seen anyone do that before (or since). Doug Is Evil Too Simple to Describe Terrorists? Thursday, October 18, 2001 This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, October 17, 2001. BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the second Personal Story segment tonight, you may remember earlier this week, I quoted an article written by the University of Illinois-Chicago liberal arts and sciences dean Stanley Fish in The New York Times. Dean Fish said: We have not seen the face of evil. We have seen the face of an enemy who comes at us with a full roster of! grievances, goals and strategies. If we reduce that enemy to evil, we conjure up a shape shifting demon, a wild card moral anarchist beyond our comprehension, and therefore beyond the reach of any counter strategies. Dean Fish joins us now from Chicago. Well, I'm really happy you came on the program, Dean, because I -- your article was extremely well written and well thought out. And I disagree with it in the sense <FON! T size=2> that I think that this a very black, white situation here. And when President Bush comes on and says, hey, the evil-doers, we got to get them, I'm with that. I'm with him. I don't need to know too much more than that, based upon the activities of these people. Where am I going wrong? STANLEY FISH, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-CHICAGO: Well, I think that the we've got to get them part is right, but I ! don't
