>I didn't say Horowitz looked like an idiot, or that the Left
>does not have related discursive problems. (I noticed that
>no one on the list cared to take up some of the interesting
>problems I pointed out.) In any case, from my aethereal point
>of view, most people get things wrong anyway. The point is
>that H. has taken out full-page ads all over the place, probably
>funded by you-know-who, created a stir, and gotten onto the
>front page of the _La_Bujissima_, the _New_York_Times_! And
>his arguments are fairly stupid, so that all kinds of "moderates",
>to say nothing of those further Left, will be jumping on his
>case not because it's bad but because they can look good, but
>not too good (radical) without breaking a sweat. And other
>"moderates" can argue with them, with the possible result that
>the whole issue will be illuminated and legitimated before the
>general public in a way I would not have believed a few years
>ago when I was exasperating Net-libertarians with it. Who
>but David Horowitz (with the help of a few naive student
>hotheads and some agents-provocateurs, probably) could have
>accomplished this? Not me, that's for sure.
>
>If you care about reparations, the real problems will occur
>when its "friends" sell it down the river. But that's for
>another day.
My impression is that non-black leftists who disagree with Horowitz on his atrocious arguments against reparations for slavery don't necessarily argue for reparations, let alone struggle for them.
How many LBO-talkers are actually working on this campaign, as opposed to being horrified by Horowitz & radical Brown students of color who trashed the campus paper that ran his ad?
Yoshie