Nevertheless, I'm willing to take Churchill as my test case for academic freedom -- i.e., as the guy I hate but must support to preserve the larger principle. I don't think he quite _advocated_ committing war crimes. He stopped himself just short. He merely tried to justify them. So I'm against his firing.
Meanwhile, the wager I propose is on whether this is the leading edge of another HUAC. No way. Horowitz is all air, a real ninny. Nobody will come after me, though I wish they would, because that would get me and the rest of us in the newspapers talking about socialism and the evils of our present social order and the possibility of democratic transcendence. Of course, that's exactly why it won't happen. Capital, not fascism, rules this "nation." Horowitz is a yipping show dog, as are O'Reilly, etc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of John Lacny
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 7:22 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Mr. Churchill
>
> Michael Dawson:
>
> > What more perfect trap could there be for further weakening
> > the left at this moment than for us all to rally in favor of a Bin
> > Laden cheerleader?
>
> Michael, for someone who was pontificating just a few weeks ago on the
> "freedom" and "rights" of scabs, you appear to have revised your "free
> speech" absolutist position mighty quickly. Once again, the issue here is
> not complicated, but you choose to make it so. No one on this list -- save
> for the Lumpen, but he doesn't count -- has actually endorsed the rancid
> content of the Churchill essay in question.
>
> The issue, quite plainly, is that this is a witch-hunt, where the right is
> taking out an easy target first, in preparation for clamping down on
> everyone. Case in point, the "academic bill of rights" in Ohio and other
> places. If they succeed with Churchill, they are eventually coming for
> you.
> Your more "humanist" pretensions will not save you when the Red Channels
> crew starts accusing you of "indoctrination," and when some thin-skinned,
> asshole right-wing student reports you to David Horowitz or Daniel Pipes
> for
> challenging racism or something like that. This is not the kind of facile
> "slippery slope" argument favored by ACLU fundamentalists, either. This is
> a
> realistic assessment of the political situation, and everyone seems
> capable
> of seeing it but you. Why?
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
> John Lacny
> http://www.johnlacny.com
>
> Tell no lies, claim no easy victories
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk