On the Middle East in general, and what he argues is the deep threat of Islamism. 7:00 to 8:00. Call-ins welcom.
I’d argue there is a big threat from muslims too.
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Hey Eric and Mitch
You can have people talk all racist and ugly about Muslims, but you delete my comment about Stunich and things that he ACTUALLY DID!?
Ya’ll should just shut this blog down.
I have no idea what post you’re referring to Verbena, but I’m not the one who hangs up on callers who want to voice a dissenting opinion. He said nothing “racist” about Muslims last night. It was a debate – between conflicting political viewpoints. You know, where you actually engage the arguments of your debate opponent instead of personally attacking him? You should try it sometime.
I posted something earlier today about Andy Stunich’s vile “legal” representation of AE Ammons who worked for Pacific Lumber and who threatened Earth First!ers that he would kill them and a moment later felled a tree on David “Gypsy” Chain and KILLED HIM. And Stunich’s slimy representation of Eric Schatz, hired by Pacific Lumber, who tortured tree sitters physically and mentally and almost killed several (I witnessed). I said that Stunich DEFENDS ACTUAL TERRORISM when he gets paid enough. I started by saying “Disgusting” That you would give time to Stunich. And poof, the comment was gone.
Too many privileged white guys who doesn’t pay enough attention believe that hearing out all conflicting viewpoints is fair, while people are being killed and incarcerated and terrorized because of INSTITUTIONAL, SYSTEMATIC, RACIST “viewpoints”. You can’t possibly believe that the targets of the dominant racist, classist, hetero-normative narrative get “equal time.” The FACT is, they don’t! That would be impossible. About as impossible as me and 200,000 (ah hell, two million) other people having enough bake sales, even for the rest of our lives, to make as much money as the banks got from the bailout. Sound like a silly analogy? Oppressed people NEVER get equal time to “debate” their “conflicting opinions,” but people tell themselves some liberal bullshit and go about their “fair” way, helping to make excuses for oppression, figuring out some way to redeem those who jail, kill, bank, and sleazily lawyer.
Personal attacks? If you knew me, you’d know, that is not my style.
But, it’s funny how someone saying horrible things about an entire group of people who believe in one type of religion or someone saying horrible things about an entire group of people who are in a shelter-less situation is not what you consider a “personal attack.” But, something that I say is personal? Characterizing something as a personal attack is an old method of dismissing the truth of what someone is saying and, once again, of trying to justify bad behaviors of those in relative power, and further ensure those behaviors are not examined. I bring up things (i,e, Stunich’s sordid record) that people DO- and Stunich has done some horrendous things, affecting MANY. I don’t attack peoples’ religion, their looks, their sexuality, etc. – those would be personal attacks. And most of all, I do not play “liberal” and inadvertently cheer on systemic, systematic violence against anyone.
As far as the radio show I think you are referencing. Are you speaking of the guy who called KMUD during a 20 minute call in time, after I asked for people to call who are experiencing homelessness and related oppression? One guy called and started this hostile, historical bull shit, trying to say I haven’t lived here long enough yada yada? He was NOT someone who is experiencing homelessness or the related oppression. In fact, I think it was that same so-called “dissenter” (as you put it) who a moment later called KMUD and, when the person who answered said she could take his name and perhaps they could get his perspective on another show, he told her “My name is I’m-gonna- bash-those-homeless-peoples’-skulls- that’s my name!” I didn’t even want to reprint that, because THAT disgusting attitude gets ENOUGH AIR TIME and has ENOUGH DOMINANT POWER backing it.
I guess you have this ill-informed idea that any time someone speaks up for or as a voice that is rarely heard or defended, someone with the dominant (racist, classist) view MUST get his voice in -AS ALWAYS.
You’re still in “debate opponent” mode in which the debaters see themselves as in a vacuum: talk, debate, shake hands, go home. No harm, no foul, just a couple of U.S.A er’s celebrating their even-more-equal-than- many freedom of speech. Much of the rest of the world is trying to survive and need THEIR viewpoints and experiences amplified. Equal time is a farce due to power, privilege, money, historical inequity, stereotypes, varying access, and on and on….
So, yeah, my comment was erased earlier (and it was much shorter than this one).
I think Stunich and the like (i.e. Nancy Delaney) should be dealt with much differently than giving them another microphone. And we really need to explore what “deal with” means, and how to create REAL accountability. Not this rigged, lethal game called ‘law’ or ‘business’.
The restoration of ¨civility¨ continues.
Various comments end up in the moderation queue. They can only be released from that queue by the person who initiated the thread. Eric probably doesn’t check the moderation queue — that’s not the same as “erasing” your comment. There’s also a “spam” folder that your comment may have ended up in. Same situation.
I’m actively deleting junk comments (yay! censorship!), but only have access to the threads I initiate. For example, if I had access to this thread, #7 (from I’m serious) would be gone.
Whoa….way to dehumanize a young person tragically killed. #6, never going to look at your posts the same. That’s gotta be the lowest, most vile thing ever allowed on this blog. How many “Pot Heads,” have you killed? If it was up to me, that would be the last comment you ever posted here.
Wow Mitch! You would censor me for gently criticizing incivility?
There once was a man in an Ivory Tower
And censorship was his only power
Day by day, his soul erroded away
As he feasted on his bile so sour
I think he was referring to the post before yours Serious. It’s gone.
In the meantime, I’ll try to respond to Verbena’s post soon. When I have some time.
Yes, I will remove the posts that have no relevance, in a probably futile and misguided attempt to enable people to actually read relevant comments rather than a constant stream of “he’s stupid, this is incivil, libtard, reichwing.”
It’s only called censorship by people who think they have the right to have their every posting appear anywhere they wish, in the spirit of the graffiti artist who doesn’t understand why any storeowner could possibly be upset at their windows being spray-painted over.
The blog is now edited. If you want a blog that is not edited, start one. I don’t know how much blunter I can be. If that’s my “bile” and “my only power,” and it means my “soul eroded away,” so be it. But for heaven’s sake, listen to yourself. Jeez.
All I did was gently criticize HUFFC for his very hateful remark. And you think this is not ¨relevant¨? I think criticizing hateful comments is part and parcel of the Blog world. Please get over yourself Mitch. You compare me criticizig hate speech with ¨a graffitti artist¨? Unbelievable!!!!!
Look, in my opinion you are completely missing the point. This is not about what you said. For what it’s worth, I agreed with your original comment. This is about my attempting to remove the self-obsessed, self-referential comments that the blog has degraded into. It’s an attempt at editing. You don’t like it. OK. I get it.
If you want to see the stuff I wish didn’t fill the Herald, you are looking at it right now. I’d delete this comment (mine, this one, right here) and everything that led up to it if I could, because I think my own comments here are self-referential drivel that only five or ten people at most could possibly care about in the slightest. I can’t delete it, though — it’s not my thread.
And, to continue the drivel, the editing attempt is just an experiment, probably pointless. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work.
It´s not drivel. We don´t live in a mega-city, we live in a small town, people talk to each other. Gasp, even in blogs. Have a peaceful New Year.
When did dissent get to be a bad word andand threfore deletd. Cant we learn from opposing
opinions?You can have opinions without being opinionated–you can be right wthout being
If you’re driveling, penicillin could probably help. Just trying to do what I can for my fellow man.
I am not deleting dissent, or deleting opinions that disagree with mine. I am deleting (where I can) comments that don’t add anything to a discussion of the topic. For example, comments that just call someone else a libtard or a reichwinger, or comments that don’t deal with the topic, but with the blog. HUUFC may well be the person I least agree with of all blog commenters, but the complaint was that someone’s criticism of HUUFC had been removed.
My theory was that readers might prefer to have someone toss out the 90 to 95 percent of comments that are non-contributing, so that they could read the 5 to 10 percent of comments that are potentially of interest. It’s hard to know whether that theory is correct, because the only way to know what readers might prefer is if they comment, and people are far more inclined to comment when they perceive their “libtard!” has been “censored!” than when they are content with what they are seeing.
It may well be that my theory is wrong. More likely, I think, is that the theory is correct, but any attempt to take action based on it will attract so much pointless grief that I’ll lose interest in continuing the attempt. That’s totally fine by me.
I knew there was a humanitarian buried deep inside, JW.
My comments were civil and gentle, I din´t call any one names. You keep saying Libtard Libtard over and over again like you are trying to paint me with that brush, Hate Speech. Please stop Mitch! It´s not true and it makes you look small to keep trying to make someone look bad when it´s just not true. Have a peaceful New Year.
You are gracious to JW and mean spirited to me. What´s the deal with that? I´m only asking a sincere question.
No one knows who you are. I don’t care who you are. I am not accusing you of Hate Speech. I am accusing you of making a comment that did nothing but disapprove of another comment, a comment which appears to be on a thread over which I have no control, a comment which I might well have deleted had I had the ability to do so, because I am, at root, a censor.
Your comment, unlike mine, was, indeed, civil and gentle. It was lovely. It may well have been the best comment of 2012, and I hope it is picked up by the Times-Standard so that everyone in town may read it.
If anyone is listening, I’m Serious is a lovely and wonderful person.
And, I’m serious, in answer to your question at #21, I believe JW and I have a jocular and teasing blog-relationship.
I am sorry you believe I have been mean-spirited towards you. If I have, it was unintentional. I do not consider asserting that I would delete a comment to be mean-spirited. Perhaps that is the confusion. Perhaps deleting a comment is mean-spirited. I will ponder this.
When Hate Speech such as HUFFC´s was occurs on your blog, I am going to critize it every time. You can count on it, then you can censor it. Your sarcasm aside, there have been much better comments than mine. And we both know it. Way to minimize my comment Mitch. Have a peaceful New Year.
¨Mean spirited¨ was where when responding to Jean about why it was fine to censor me, you got all hysterical and kept saying Libtard. When my comments have been civil. Don´t paint me and the Haters on this blog with the same brush, please. I hope you find some peace in the New Year.
That will be helpful, I’m serious. I’ll be happy to remove the hate speech and the criticism of it, just as soon as I notice it, from any thread on which I have that ability. I wish you a peaceful New Year as well.
And yes, silencing your fellow man when they are trying hard to be civil and gracious while confronting the Hate HUFFC spews, is in fact, ¨mean-spirited¨.
Looking back over this thread, if I had the ability, I’d delete all comments except for #1, #2, and #5.
Erik, I am sorry we ruined your thread. I would not intentionally do this. Huffy spewed hate, I called him an it, and the Insanity ensued.
Wow. It’s not often that I get watch a pissing match and not be an active participant.
#1 is an opinion statement. I can’t imagine why anyone would waste the time to post #1, but that’s not my business, and I certainly waste a great deal of time as well. #2 makes the point that Christianity has not historically avoided war, and strikes me as clever. #5 talks about the man named in the post.
Absolutely everything else here is “meta,” which is why I would delete it.
As for my personal opinions, I think the views expressed by Andy Stunich and HUUFC are shallow and stupid. I don’t know either well enough to express an opinion about either person — they and their statements are two different things.
I don’t view the deletion of comments as “silencing [my] fellow man,” which is probably why I don’t consider it mean-spirited.
Red letter day, JW. Red letter day.
Feel free to delete my post #8. Since the comment that was so offensive is not longer visible. I just can’t imagine the hurt that comment may have caused to some of my friends at KMUD who were good friends with “Gypsy” Chain. Sometimes it’s very painful to hear what someone really thinks and feels. I gives one the feeling that “peaceful” change and reform is nigh on impossible.
Thanks also for “censoring” the follow up threats and insults that I’m sure came my way.
Your comment is helpful, in that it helps me understand that I probably never saw what “I’m serious” was initially responding to. If that’s the case, I think many of the previous comments may have just been a misunderstanding, and I apologize to “I’m serious.”
To further clarify, I’d been thinking that “I’m serious” considered HUUFC’s comment at #1 to be “hate speech.” If the comment “I’m serious” was responding to was, as moviedad suggests, referring in a nasty way to David Chain, then I understand why “I’m serious” was reacting the way he or she was.
Yes, it was his David Chain comment, the comment right before my criticism. Done ruining Erik´s thread now. Best for all of you in 2013.
Mitch – it wasn’t HUUFC’s comment number 1 I think, but a callous reference to David Chain. At least that’s what I zapped.
On the thread topic by the way, I wonder if anyone reading this heard the show. We had a technical problem in that we could only hear what was going on in the engineer’s booth, which means we could only hear the callers second hand from the speaker in there, and it would be obscurred by any activity in the booth. I assume the problem has been sorted out by now.
But what was interesting is that I had about 5 or 6 calls, and only one of them from the usual suspects of leftists. I had one very interesting caller – a Christian woman from Crescent City, who believes that we are in the end times. My goal is to broaden the audience for the KHSU talk shows, and it seems at least in that respect my show was successful.
My next guest isn’t a right winger or even a conservative for the most part. Deputy D.A. Allan Dollison will join me for what I hope will be a very nuanced discussion of the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Interesting. Many people, myself included, at times dismiss ¨End Times¨ beliefs as mythological and not scienticfic, therefore, irrelevant. But if billions of Christians and Muslims believe this and act on this belief, is becomes relevant to society because it contributes to their actions, and ultimately, the outcome.
Allan Dollison, he served there, correct?
I did hear the show, and I felt for you — the technical difficulties must have been challenging.
You, to your credit, I guess, are much more able and willing than I to treat Andy Stunich as if he is worth listening to. I agree with the initial commenter at the parlance who wondered why you were offering him a platform. If someone singled Judaism out as a uniquely violent religion whose followers were a threat, I doubt you’d offer them a platform. Seems awfully similar to me.
Sorry about misspelling your name Eric, duh. I think Eric´s effort was akin to Bill Maher´s film ¨Religulous¨. Religious Zelots are at the point of the current global war and they will be affecting our world for some time to come. We can put our heads in the sand, or we can ask ourselves, What are these people thinking? If we dare to ask the question, we´re going to have to listen to the answer. I also understand your point Mitch, I wouldn´t want the (insert any fanatical group here) to have KHSU as a platform to spread their fanaticism. Perhaps we need to assume the listeners are intelligent enough to sort all this out.
The limits of “respectable debate” seem to vary with time, place, and other things. I don’t think a religious studies department would sponsor a civil debate on whether blacks and whites should be allowed to marry, but it probably would have been considered a reasonable topic in 1912.
I recall being utterly disgusted with the HSU religious studies department for having a “debate” on gay rights ten or fifteen years ago, and I’m sure many people who would have thought my opinions out of line then would be mystified by the religious studies department’s behavior, looking at it from a perspective fifty years into the future.
The distinction between Islamic terrorists and Islam is apparently a hard one for some to grasp, and people like Andy Stunich, clever language aside, seem only too happy to blame Muslims for the behavior of Islamic terrorists in ways that no one today would blame Judaism for the behavior of Jewish terrorists or blame Christians for the terrorists who would bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors and nurses in the name of God.
Personally, I found Mr. Stunich’s opinion that Christianity had repaired Judaism to be reprehensible, but it helped me understand his “thoughts” regarding the danger of Islam. I understood them well enough, I think, to hope that people will think long and hard before thinking Mr. Stunich’s thoughts are worth debating rather than dismissing.
Well, it’s a good point about Judaism. I guess the difference is that while there has been destructiveness from Judaism and other religions, the extremity of violence from Islamic fanatics aimed at civilians has been at a different level – yes, even including the drone strikes and Israeli aerial bombardments. Neither Judaism nor Chritianity have inspired very many suicide actions. Islam has been unique in that respect, and I think it warrants some discussion because I don’t believe that it has to do with good and evil, nor even religious doctrine, but rather other specific sociological and anthropological factors. Nor do I believe it can all be attributed to imperialism, oppression, etc. What Andy believes is an extreme version of what most Americans believe. It needs discussion.
So I guess I would say that if there was a comparable fear of Judaism, I might want to discuss it as well, except that the history has to be considered. There has not yet been a massive genocidal effort against Muslims, and I don’t think it’s likely to happen.
Andy is, in his personal dealings with people, a reasonable man. I think the fallacy of his approach to the issue isn’t racism or bigotry, but an over-emphasis on the power of the written word, as if everyone approaches religion, and more particularly scripture, from a fundamentalist basis.
And there are differences in the faiths, the Mother (Judaism) and Two Daughters (Christianity and Islam) as Prof. Noel King used to put it – You have scripture and you have tradition, and you have what you profess to be scriptural doctrine which really has more to do with tradition. Protestant fundamentalism (which is much different from Catholic fundamentalism in the scriptural emphasis) proclaims factual inerrancy in what is perceived as “manifestly factual” (those items in the Bible which are not explicitly referenced as parables, even though the parables account for most of what Jesus has to say in the three synoptic gospels (only one parable in the Book of John). The OT stories, they have to be literally true for the Protestant fundamentalist. But when historical information has been discovered and interpreted in ways which undermine the literalist approach to the OT, the Protestant fundamentalists have considered it an attack on their faith. Whereas, the Jewish Orthodoxy has pretty much shrugged – as if to say “Okay, whatever – it’s about the truth in the stories, not their literal truth.”
Protestant fundamentalism assumes that whatever is said has to be taken literally, and so they assume that Islam works the same way. That if it says in the Quran that you must kill infidels, then that must be taken literally and therefor every true believing Muslim is a danger. Nevermind that few Muslims even read the Quran on their own. Nevermind that as with Christianity and Judaism there are centuries of tradition which serve to contextualize scripture in order for the society to survive with some semblance of balance. If a religion cannot do that, it won’t survive because its societies won’t survive – and there have been plenty of occasions where that was a serious danger. On the up side of the crusades, there were massive killoffs of Christian and Muslim fanatics. Nature has its ways of maintaining balances.
in short, I think that open discussions breed understanding – mitigate fear. I don’t think Andy speaking could increase the fear. The people who called in and agreed with him already agree with him.
Mitch – 15 years ago the majority still opposed gay marriage. It had to be debated, not because the anti-position had merit, but because the majority of Americans had not been convinced. As offensive as the whole discussion was, it had to be had as a practical matter. I think it’s safe to say that the discussion is essentially over, given the polls where the kids in their 20s don’t even understand why they’re being asked the question. Even the shrinking number of serious young homophobes tend to not see it as a policy or government question.
As to Judaism being “perfected” by Christianity, it’s also offensive. But if you take scripture literally, and you believe in the NT, there’s really no other rational interpretation. You can’t be a Protestant fundamentalist and not be anti-Semitic in at least a condescending way.
And they have cover from people like Anne Coulter, who I suspect is only a cultural Christian.
Jewish right wingers must really believe in their political cause to be willing to put up with that crap.
I can see your point of view. But I also see a lot of truth in what Verbena says in her lengthy comment (currently #5). The truth there may be somewhat obscured by her style.
Debating a topic is an implicit statement that the debating opponents are each bringing a valid and acceptable point of view to the table. I suppose lawyers are used to it, and may think that bringing two opposing points of view is always a good way of getting at the truth.
But when one of the points of view “group-izes” different individuals and challenges their fundamental rights based on their membership in a group, the act of granting credibility via a willingness to debate can be insulting itself. This can be much more evident when you’re an individual in the “group-ized” group.
I doubt you would debate someone who felt that the poor should be euthanized because God had made his decision that they were unworthy. You might describe their thinking, and debate what its causes were, but I doubt you would debate them themselves, as if they were offering something within the sphere of acceptable moral comment.
Andy Stunich is certainly coherent and able to present his case. If I understand his case — and I think I do, especially after reading what he’s posted at Amazon — I don’t view his opinions as within the sphere of acceptable moral comment. You, I guess, do: we disagree. I think he has every right to voice his opinions — I just would never want to personally offer him a platform from which to do so. The set of things more worthy of being granted a platform is, in my opinion, infinite.
You’re probably right that his opinions are not rare in modern America. I have no idea what can be done about that, just as I have no idea what can be done about much of modern society. In that I fear Mr. Stunich and I are more alike than either of us would like to imagine.
Not only do I think it’s not rare, but I think it represents to some degree the views of the majority of Americans. One of the callers who agreed with him, though not to the same degree or based upon the same reasons, is very liberal and serves on local non-profit boards. Even 11 years later, watching 3000 people die in such a spectacular event has its impact on the psyche, and we still haven’t come to terms as to what it means. The right manic about the “threat,” almost gleeful to have an enemy to replace the Soviet Union, and what passes for the left is bogged down in whacko conspiracy theories. We need to have a serious discussion.
I do probably have undue faith in the Socratic method of arriving at some truth, and the power of reason. But that was the foundation of my argument with Andy. I do believe that human beings have the capacity to reason. But you certainly can’t arrive at reason while censoring voices. And unless there is large consensus that a voice is completely irrational and unworthy of discourse, I just don’t see myself as in the role of making that determination. If a large number of people believe something, it’s legitimate as a matter of course, because it isn’t just going away.
To clarify my point, I know Mr. Stunich does not represent one of the what I call ¨Religeous Zealots¨, but rather is a critic of one of the religions. Religeous people usually are not going to expose the more extereme parts of their religion when discussing it in public, their critics will. i.e. My brother is a zealot Christian who looks forward to the Rapture, End Times, and the Nuclear War he believes which will accompany this, because Jesus is coming to take him home.
Both the Old and New Testaments describe an event that seems to be a nuclear war. “A third part of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur” (Rev. 9:18). This verse seems to some to describe the effects of a nuclear blast. In Revelation 8:7 we see that “A third of trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up.” In the Old Testament, Joel 2:30 says, “I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood, and fire, and billows of smoke.” From these verses we could see a judgment of fire sent to earth. This could be a nuclear war.
That being said, extreme critics may not be the best people to critique other extemist. I´m not certain. Should people like Eric who want to explore issues facing society only interview ¨moderate critics¨? Should Eric have been be willing to have interviewed John Brown regarding his criticism of slavery? Or only moderate, eloquent critics?
I would much rather have interviewed William Lloyd Garrison, who would hold Constitution Burnings proclaiming that the Constitution was worthless so long as it failed to prohibit slavery. He was much more interesting, intellectually speaking, than Brown.
As for the sulfur, if a fundamentalist is going to be literal – nuclear explosions do not generate sulfur.
And I find it hard to believe that 2/3 of the trees will survive if “all” of the green grass is burned up.
Thank you Eric. I hate to break the news, but my fundamentalist brother isn´t very logical nor scientific. ¨God said it, that settles it.¨ But thank you for being clear about who and why would make for a better interview.
My point was people, American people, believe these stories. And I do not need to look any further than my own family tree to find a nut. (was that a bad pun?)
Happy new year to all.
Eric, I’m torn by this. My head is with you 100%, but my heart is with the zealots of all sides.
You say: “If a large number of people believe something, it’s legitimate as a matter of course, because it isn’t just going away.” It makes perfect sense, but my heart’s just not there. My heart’s with the kid in the emperor’s new clothes. He didn’t debate, and he didn’t seek out a 3/5 compromise. He said what he saw, and told everyone else they were being ridiculous.
What would the world look like without any ¨compromise¨?
What would our world look like without children to cry out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!” ?
A little quieter maybe?
Maybe quieter, maybe louder. Without compromise and without observations ¨out of the mouths of babes¨, the world could have more wars and less truth.
I’ve watched kids play. They aren’t war free.
In fact, my cousins and I used to play “War” at peace demonstrations in San Francisco. At the time, nobody thought about it. It’s what kids did.
My observations were lined up 1,2.
No compromise equals more war (in my opinion).
Honest observations equals more truth (in my opinion).
You are a lawyer?
And I’m not sure truth keeps us out of wars every time. It may even be the cause of wars.
But I do agree that no compromise results in war. Which is kind of related, because who wants to compromise with the truth in hand?
Speaking of ¨Peace demonstrations in San Francisco¨, has anyone else noticed that that the Americans who were 17 during the Summer Of Love (1967) are now 63 years old? 45 and one half years since that summer and the 60´s Revolution. In the very late 70´s, I first heard about the ¨Flower Power/Anti-War¨ people of the 60´s and I couldn´t wait until they were old enough to take over from the curmudgeons who dragged us into war in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Hoo-wee, what a disappointment! 2013 and we are trying to extricate ourselves from the longest and most financially costly war in American history. What a miserable failure of a Revolution.
They are separate thoughts and conclusions. They are two different sentences. The first is about compromise and war. The other is about honesty and truth.
Eric Kirk :
My next guest isn’t a right winger or even a conservative for the most part. Deputy D.A. Allan Dollison will join me for what I hope will be a very nuanced discussion of the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Are you fucking kidding me? Alan Dollison, the deputy DA? Why do you think it is thoughtful or broadening to choose these ehtic-less lawyers to speak on your show? Who’s voices are you trying to get more broad air for? Like his opinions on the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan are somehow so important? How about talking with someone who doesn’t hold a dominant role in society? “Conservative” and “Liberal” should not be the only factors you look at when trying to “broaden” the discussion. What about a person of color? What about a woman? What about someone who actually makes part of their lifework about human rights? Even lawyers can fit some of those criteria, but not Dollison or Stunich. Geez…
I’m looking more at broadening the debate ideologically Verbena. Right now, the country exists in political ghettos where people who think differently talk at each other, rather than with each other.
But Allan isn’t conservative. He’s actually quite liberal. I am interviewing him because he was actually in Afghanistan and has a very nuanced outlook. He will talk about people he actually met; things he saw. I’m more after the experiential component here, because quite frankly all sides of the war issue tend to focus on abstractions and slogans rather than on what the Afghan people have to say and what they’re doing. Code Pink activists had an eye-opening experience in the country some time back when they met feminists in the country who had mixed feelings about an immediate pullout because for once their daughters were going to school and learning how to read without being killed or maimed. It still happens, but at least the possibility of an education exists for women right now – represented by opportunities which may disappear as a practical matter once the international forces have pulled out.
It’s not the only consideration of course, but Allan has some thoughts which are relevant to any meaningful discussion of a very complex issue.
Well Allan may have been to Afghanistan, Eric, but Verbena’s read Noam Chomsky.
Nothing either of you two said in response changes the reality of my comment. Mitch just shows his overt stereotyping tendency. Fact is, there is no value to the debate or to humanity (which I hope you would agree, is more important) by featuring Dollison or Stunich on the radio.
Oh dear. I’ve always tried to keep my beltline above my OST.
Well Verbena, I disagree. But there are plenty of lefty shows on both KMUD and KHSU which invite the usual preaching to the choir. And you have right wing radio which does the same. I’m trying to do something a little different.
“Well Allan may have been to Afghanistan, Eric, but Verbena’s read Noam Chomsky.”
And I’ve been to Valhalla.
Verbena has a point, ignore it at your peril.
My peril? Why, is Allan like a Manchurean candidate programmed to kill me or something?
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Subscribe by email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 1,161 other followers