>kelley wrote:
>
>>This is what is truly confusing to me. What was the content of Lerner's
>>criticisms of ANSWER _before_ his consideration as a speaker on F16? His
>>interview with the NYT happened when, exactly? And, if anyone has that
>>interview/article, I'd like to read it. Some of the forwards to the list
>>haven't been clear on timeline issues.
so, Lerner's potential as a speaker was discussed just 20 or so days prior to the event? Really? Okey Dokey. Also, what exactly is wrong with what is said, below? This is what people in more mainstream groups say. For instance, today:
>From: "Smi Ling" <smi_ling at hotmail.com>
>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:04:49 +0000
>Subject: [bpf] Interfaith folks in Toronto not impressed by ANSWER
>
>
>For whatever it is worth. Many friends in interfaith circles here in Toronto
>have not been that supportive of ANSWER representatives. One thing that is
>sure is the ANSWER folks in Toronto seem hostile to a free Tibet and
>insensitive to the racism that Tibetans experience.
>
>I have left past protests over the last year when Toronto representatives of
>ANSWER have demeaned the Jewish people. There is nothing wrong with
>criticizing the government of Israel. There is something wrong with
>denigrating the Jewish people.
Last week, this was circulating fast and furiously: http://democracymeansyou.com/serious/haircut.htm
ANSWER is red, so the hell what?! WHY are they whining about this? They ARE marxists. Why are they surprised that mainstream lefties reject their politics?
>DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Jan. 23
><...>
>Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the Jewish magazine Tikkun, which sent
>protesters to the rally despite concerns about pro-Palestinian speeches
>planned there, said: "There are good reasons to oppose the war, and
>Saddam. Still, it feels that we are being manipulated when subjected to
>mindless speeches and slogans whose knee-jerk anti-imperialism rarely
>articulates the deep reasons we should oppose corporate globalization."