Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (14912)	6/15/2002 9:28:12 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Peer pressure, perhaps? Or, perhaps to pressure Peers?

To: E who wrote (14912)	6/15/2002 10:39:21 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Between the Rev. Jerry Vines and his ilk on one side and the folks on that manifesto on the other, I'd have to say there's no shortage of fruitcakes on either end of the spectrum. I do think that there is legitimate cause for concern at the manner in which the war on terrorism is being conducted. The powers given the executive to prosecute the war seem to me to be far too general and far too easily expanded to include anybody the administration happens to dislike. I don't trust Bush, Ashcroft et. al. any more than I trusted Clinton, Reno et. al., possibly even less, and I don't like the idea of giving them sweeping powers removed from any effective oversight. I can't help feeling that they will inevitably use the latitude granted by the war to push agendas that have little or nothing to do with terrorism. Still, I wouldn't be signing the manifesto, even if I were as prominent an American as Starhawk (?!) or hip-hop "artist" Boots Riley. No thanks. Not my sort of company at all. The whole issue of who is a liberal or conservative is, of course, the subject of long and silly debate, and all that I can say about it is that since the terms no longer have any consensus definition, they have become practically meaningless. Like you, I am generally called a right winger in my own milieu, but a liberal here on SI. Different people simply define these things differently. Where I am, if you believe in capitalism, deregulation, private ownership of the means of production, free global trade, etc. You are right wing. Where you stand on abortion, sex education, gay rights, etc. is irrelevant, economics are the defining factor. On SI, clearly, it is different. I remember some discussion of why Pim Fortuyn, whose positions seemed to us centrist, was consistently referred to as "right wing" by the European press. I discussed that with a Dutch friend recently, and he told me that much of Europe is so consumed with the immigration debate that it has become practically the sole defining factor in the right/left classification. Everything else is submerged: if you want immigration restricted, you are classified on the right. The American perspective is, of course, somewhat different. I'd love to see the terms right/left and liberal/conservative permanently retired as meaningless, but of course it's not likely to happen.

To: E who wrote (14912)	6/17/2002 11:17:59 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

AND ANOTHER LIBERAL DECLARES SHE IS NOT! Congratulations. This actually has been a slow month. I think you're the first to disavow your position. Shall we trot out that little test of mine? :-) I KNOW you prefer issues. I've decided to name my test "Actions Speak Louder Than Words!" Look, the fact that a bunch of fruitcakes overdosed on acid and that you don't agree with their crazed ramblings DOESN'T mean you're not a liberal. Does the fact that I've never joined WAR or a militia mean I'm not RW? We know, well, six people on the list of signers, and "know" (same parties on occasion) another 7 or 8. Look, the fact that youKNOW these people is proof. I wouldn't. (New York is a small town.) Right. (There's that word!) Not hardly that small. It is interesting to find that you know some Movers and Shakers, though. Or are they just Tremblers? Now why would he sign this? We MUST prove we are right thinking person madam. Are we still friends after that? :-)

To: E who wrote (14912)	6/20/2002 9:49:05 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

I found this in today's Tucson paper. Tucson, Arizona Thursday, 20 June 2002 Liberals have delusions of suppression By Debra Saunders The headline for a statement by activists opposed to the U.S. war on terror is "Not in Our Name," but it more accurately should read: "We're better than you are." The signers include such C-list celebrities as Ed Asner and Casey Kasem, and perennial lefties Alice Walker, Noam Chomsky and Gloria Steinem. They "call on all Americans to resist the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world." Then of course, the biggies leave the common people and return to their favorite topic: themselves and how truly great they are to question the U.S. government. The statement explains that after Sept. 11, America's leaders "told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate." Note the dishonest implication that anti-Bush critics were just asking questions. Wrong. Many legitimized the attacks by referring to their "root causes" (bad America). To ask what were the root causes of the Sept. 11 attacks is analogous to asking what the Jews did to invite the Holocaust. Who said it was treasonous to ask questions? "That's a very good paraphrase of things said by (White House spokesman) Ari Fleischer and the president," said Not in Our Name spokes-man Clark Kissinger. "That's not a verbatim quote." Translation: No one in the White House said it was treason to oppose the Bush war effort. The Not in Our Name Web site carries another statement that protests America's "destruction of civil, legal and political rights, including the very right to dissent." Destruction of dissent? In Afghanistan, that meant the Taliban shot critics in the back of the head. In America, that means appearing on cable TV news in a panel stacked against you, 3-to-1. When I asked for examples of the suppression of dissent, Kissinger mentioned a University of South Florida professor who was suspended with pay after a videotape was shown of him shouting, "Death to Israel!" In 1995, the feds had raided a unversity-based think tank run by the prof, Sami Al-Arian, and froze its assets, after alleging it was a fund-raising front for terrorists. Kissinger also cited the indictment of attorney Lynne Stewart, who was charged with passing messages for her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted of plotting to bomb five New York landmarks. Kissinger found it irrelevant that Stewart had violated a signed agreement not to act as Rahman's conduit. Kissinger also repeated Dan Rather's memorable quote to the BBC, that, "In some ways, the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck." By the Not-Names' definition, it's suppression if someone (a liberal) feels uncomfortable or fears criticism about expressing an opinion. The "Not in Our Name" signers complain that "dissident artists, intellectuals and professors" are "attacked." Witness the conceit that theirs is a battle of big brains vs. boneheads. The statement dismisses "the simplistic script of "good vs. evil"-- "because only rubes and flag-wavers believe in evil." The shame of it is: There will be times when the left is right, when the feds push too far, when innocent people are harassed and detained or when academics lose their jobs because of their politics. Too bad, the political center won't listen to them. In their hysteria and self-aggrandizement, they shred their credibility. The statement even compares petition-signers to volunteers in the Underground Railroad and Vietnam War draft resisters. Yes, the Ed Asners of America think they're patriots with "conscience." What do they risk? Not their lives, but not getting a guest spot on a game show. They proclaim "not in our name," apparently unmindful of the fact that they can say that freely largely because of the nameless military recruits, demoralized FBI agents and intelligence workers who put their lives on the line to keep America free. Anonymous people protect their lives and freedoms -- and in their delusions of moral grandeur, they return the gift with ingratitude. * Debra Saunders is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103; e-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.