re Cockburn on Lerner

[Peter K.]

>once again another person demonstrates a capacity to make an argument
>without resorting to a silly non-argument like "freedom of speech" or "open
>discussion within the movement" or the like.
>i think in a nutshell the question now comes down to, tactically is it smart
>to have a smorgasbord of speakers on the podium, or should organisers have
>some say over who speaks and what shall be said.  there are arguments to be
>made that are reasonable on both sides.
>i agree with doug though, the reason why this lerner flap has become a major
>issue at this time has little to do with this important question.
>
>steve

I don't have a dog in this fight, but you seemed to have done a 180. Maybe
next time you should wait to read what Cockburn has to say before writing.
The reason this became an issue is because the WWP is sensitive to
criticism and a little paranoid and decided to block flaky rabbi from speaking
against the coming war on Saddam, nothing more.

I wonder if Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich and Katha Pollitt all signed
the petition because they feel the same way Cockburn does.

Peter