>--- Original Message ---
>From: donald todd <donald_todd at sfu.ca>
>To: asdnet at igc.topica.com
>Date: 3/25/01 6:47:16 PM
>
>Once more, as is the case so often, common sense and common
decency
>converge in this wise commentary by David McR. thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>>I'm a little frustrated. First, with AOL which, because my
post was long,
>>didn't send it. (That is just as well - in an effort to be
fair I had tried
>>to send along the text of Edward Herman's and Michael Albert's
positions from
>>Z - that was so long that my sense of fairness would have been
a burden. If
>>someone wants their positions, check Z on the web - no, I don't
have the
>>website - and also consider getting on the portside listserve,
which has
>>carried both sides of this and much else in addition).
>>
>>But having written it, I'm going to type it in and resend it,
minus the texts
>>to which it refers.
>>
>>I'm sorry that Ed Herman and Michael Albert have joined in
a dangerous and
>>disingenuous discussion of "political correctness" and why
the issue of David
>>Horowitz, his ads on reparations, and the destruction of a
student paper
>>carrying that ad, are not worthy of attention by the left.
Their viewpoints
>>remind me of the painful old joke from my part of the Left
during the height
>>of Stalinism, when, after an American visitor had been given
of tour of the
>>wonders of the Moscow subway, he said "Very impressive - but
what about the
>>execution of the Old Bosheviks?" to which the Moscow guide
screamed "Yes, but
>>you don't even mention the lynchings in your country!".
>>
>>Not a good joke then, and not funny now. But unhappily true.
One can, after
>>all, I would remind Herman and Albert, be against two evils
at one time. They
>>are doing what should not be done, deflecting discussion of
one issue by
>>pointing to another.
>>Are we to argue that brutal white cops shouldn't be brought
to trial because
>>of some apalling crime committed by a black? Or that a specific
murder by a
>>black should not be prosecuted because so many white cops are
violent?
>>
>>Are we saying that the left should be quiet about the Israeli
actions against
>>the Palestinians because Arafat's PLO is corrupt? Or because
the repressions
>>in Iraq and Syria are worse? Are we supposed to be quiet if
the media is
>>discussing something on the grounds that if the media is focusing
on
>>something like the Horowitz reparation ads then we have no
obligation to
>>speak up?
>>
>>David Horowitz is a political horse's ass, his personal life
a self-inflicted
>>tragedy. No one getting this, except the FBI/CIA/NSA lurkers,
would
>>disagree.
>>
>>There are, I think, only two issues here, and neither Herman
nor Albert spoke
>>to them. First is the destruction on one campus of copies of
the newspaper
>>carrying material we don't condone. Do we support such destruction?
Anyone
>>remember the Nazi book burnings? Was their only mistake that
they burned the
>>wrong books?
>>
>>Second, does a newspaper have an obligation to carry an ad
which readers (or
>>the publishers) may find offensive? If the publication is privately
owned -
>>the New York Times or the Socialist Party's Socialist, etc.,
then ads can be
>>freely accepted or rejected and your rights aren't violated.
(This is not, in
>>fact, quite true - the New York Times is privately owned but
by its nature it
>>is also something of a public institution. Its ad policies,
therefore, should
>>come under public scrutiny - in the NYC area it is not only
"the paper of
>>record" but essentially the only major daily paper).
>>
>>Where publications are supported with tax funds they are under
obligation to
>>carry any ad that isn't obscene. And "bad politics" are not
a basis for
>>refusing ad copy.
>>The whole concept of free speech and a free press does mean
that material
>>which I may consider politically obscene must be allowed. Even
pornography
>>comes under some protection from the Bill of Rights, out of
fear that in
>>banning all pornography we might lay the basis for banning
genuine literature
>>or art.
>>
>>The harm done by Horowitz's ads is nothing compared to the
harm done by
>>trying to ban them.
>>
>>And in reference to the theory that those of us on the Left
should be quiet
>>because Horowitz has no problem finding money to publish his
material, "and
>>what about Ralph Nader and the fact he didn't get fair coverage"
this is
>>another example of bad logic. Not just poor or weak logic,
but bad and
>>dangerous logic - shame on Herman and Albert, and all the more
reason to
>>subscribe to the Progressive which ran the editorial which
so offended Z.
>>(For a publication of dissent, Z seems awfully easy to offend!).
Yes, Nader
>>should have gotten a better deal. So should the Libertarian
Party which was
>>on even more ballots than Nader. So should the Socialist Party.
But what has
>>this got to do with the price of eggs?
>>
>>Surely one can roundly attack the US media for its abundant
failings and
>>still recognize that far more harm is done by banning Horowitz
than by
>>enduring him.
>>Despite the momentary lapse of Herman and Albert, I am grateful
free speech
>>has a number of good friends and supporters on the Left. Oh
how I wish we
>>were defending something and someone other than these ads and
Mr. Horowitz!
>>But that is how the cookie crumbles. You've got to defend the
bad guys along
>>with the good.
>>
>>Fraternally,
>>David McReynolds
>>
>>The preceding is a personal opinion. Try not to post more
than daily.
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
>>Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
>>http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
>
>
>
>The preceding is a personal opinion. Try not to post more than
daily.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
>Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
>http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
>
>