Max B. Sawicky:
> Whether you introduce his case into an anti-war rally is
> a separate question. One could argue that joining the two
> discredits both, since it distracts from the merits of both
> issues in favor of a thin political message. Having a
> coalition against war and racism is not a substitute for
> an analysis and message that links the two in a compelling way.
> In retrospect, something equivalent to "out now" looks better
> and better. You stop the war by talking about the war.
>
> If I'm on trial and the facts favor my case, I don't want
> to make a political appeal, even if the case is political.
> For one thing, the jurors could wonder that the political
> emphasis is meant to cover up for a weak case on the facts.
>
> I don't doubt Mumia has not received a fair trial, but to
> utilize him as a political voice is just not serious, if
> you want to have some constructive political effect. That
> someone is f**ed over by authorities does not qualify them
> as movement leader.
>
> Corn's response to Doug is pretty solid, IMO. The transcript
> doesn't say much for the success of his appearance, but you
> only get better at these things by doing them.
If one collects an anti-war crowd of any size, one will inevitably get a large variety of groups with a large variety of concerns. These different groups will advertise their concerns to one another, often in a less elegant, less logical manner than one might desire, and in many cases some of the concerns will seem only very tenuously connected to the matter at hand. The only way to prevent this sort of thing from occurring would be to not have large demonstrations at all, or to exercise totalitarian control of the demonstrations. But the latter, control by secret totalitarians, was apparently one of the faults Corn was advertising to O'Reilly's audience. What he seems to need experience with is the actuality of such events. Then, if he still wanted to Red-bait them, he could at least do it in a knowledgeable manner.
-- Gordon