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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (133100)	8/18/2005 8:01:40 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 793926

Frank, Thanks for the very careful reading. Unfortunately, you've caught me on the move. I'm going to take a bit to go back and read the Pipes' posted article to see if I think our different readings of that article are just that or if I disagree with yours. May be a day or two before I get back to you. But, again, thanks for the careful response.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (133100)	8/18/2005 8:51:35 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793926

Frank, Let me thank you again for your thoughtful reply to my post about Pipes. After rereading Pipes' essay, I see no reason to change my comments. But I do see the basis for yours. On mine, I observed that: That's not what's bothersome about Pipes. It's this tendency of his that pops up ever so often to call people who disagree with his sense of the world, "treasonous." To disagree about the meaning of words is one thing; to drop the "traitor" word out there is the proverbial horse of a different color. And the text for that conclusion was drawn from this sentence/paragraph of Pipes' essay. At present, loyalty to one’s home society is no longer a given; it must be won. Conversely, hating one’s own society and abetting the enemy is common. Traitor, like bastard, has lost its stigma. It's quite clear that Pipes considers the freedom to freely criticize the actions of "one's home society" as approaching "treason." We don't see a clear line from reasonable criticism to treason in the essay. But it's easy to see it from Pipes' actions. His attempts to shut down criticism of Israel in certain American academic circles is illustration enough. In addition, in those comments, there is a nostalgia for a time when "treason" was prosecuted. There is a clear use of acts of speech as emblemmatic of treasonous acts in the essay; not acts of spying, acts of terrorism, but speech. And a clear implication that opposition to US policies such as that in the Vietnam war was traitorous. He did choose a particularly interesting example of free speech but the essay is written for that incident to be a standin for opposition per se. As for your comments about reason and democracy as the bellweathers of modernity and what there is to be lost, while I have a problem with "reason", much to vague, I certainly concur in your recommendation of democracy. In place of "reason", I would use the term "reasoning," in the sense that what we hope for democracy is a political process in which consultation, etc. replace the brute exercise of power. Habermas is, I gather, the guiding philosopher here. If that latter is what you mean, then I very much agree. I hope all is well with you.