bernie (02/24/83)
----- News saved at Thu Feb 24 13:41:38 1983 I should probably repeat that I know next to nothing about Jeane Kirkpatrick's views, and really couldn't care less. Having said that, I can say that I suspect that *whatever* she's saying is probably the truth, and people should listen. I am basing the above observation on experiences I've had with people who try to prevent someone else from airing their views; the only people who ever try to suppress someone else's right to speak are people who are afraid of being proven wrong. If Jeane Kirkpatrick were wrong about the things she was saying, or if she was lying or misleading people, that fact would become obvious very quickly; thus, the demonstrators would have no reason to prevent her from speaking. Therefore Jeane Kirkpatrick's words (whatever they were) must have at least some strong element of truth in them, a truth that the demonstrators were afraid of letting other people hear. They acted out of fear, a fear of having people hear the truth.
turner (03/01/83)
#R:watarts:-171400:ucbesvax:2900011:000:968 ucbesvax!turner Feb 28 21:28:00 1983 I should probably repeat that I know next to nothing about Jeane Kirkpatrick's views, and really couldn't care less. Having said that, I can say that I suspect that *whatever* she's saying is probably the truth, and people should listen. I am basing the above observation on experiences I've had with people who try to prevent someone else from airing their views; the only people who ever try to suppress someone else's right to speak are people who are afraid of being proven wrong. If Jeane Kirkpatrick were wrong about the things she was saying, or if she was lying or misleading people, that fact would become obvious very quickly; thus, the demonstrators would have no reason to prevent her from speaking. Therefore Jeane Kirkpatrick's words (whatever they were) must have at least some strong element of truth in them, a truth that the demonstrators were afraid of letting other people hear. They acted out of fear, a fear of having people hear the truth.
turner (03/01/83)
#R:watarts:-171400:ucbesvax:2900012:000:2477
ucbesvax!turner Feb 28 23:35:00 1983
It's really hard to know how to respond to this kind of reasoning.
There are too many "obviously's", too many "don't care's", too many
references to inspecific examples, too many assumptions that, really,
everything is perfectly OK already, and anyone who comes along with
assertions to the contrary is only trying to corrupt the relative
perfection of the present order of things.
Well, I don't know about you, Bernie, but the whole notion that J.K.
MUST be telling the truth about U.S. foreign policy, because we'd all
know by now whether she was lying (even if we "couldn't care less", as
you clearly don't) will make a very good epitaph for Jeffersonian
democracy, with its dependence on an inquiring, educated and intelligent
citizenry. You are intelligent, but it isn't clear that that you inquire
beyond narrow limits, and you can hardly be well-educated if you think
your style of reasoning is either effective or valid.
Certainly, as the ovens of Belsen and the stacked human firewood of
Treblinka gave off their meat-stench over landscapes of recently-vacated
Jewish homes, the people of Germany said, "But, surely, if they were
just killing them all, it would be obvious by now?" References to Nazi
Germany are the ultimate in rhetorical bombast, I know, but something has
to wake you up to the danger of your complacency.
Fascism still exists in the world, U.S. foreign policy supports it
in many of its manifestations, and Jeane Kirkpatrick's JOB is to support
this policy. Given that one cannot make claims of moral action in such
a circumstance without exposing onself to ridicule (please note!),
Kirkpatrick chooses to avail herself of the general ignorance of the
American people of the consequences of U.S. foreign policy. Which is to
say, she cannot afford to suffer exposure of any facts which contradict
her (spurious) moral claims. I submit that it is not the function of
freedom of speech to give deception a forum. At least, not on the
Government payroll. (Libertarians, take note.)
This is the statement I would like you to consider. Is it true? If
it is, why haven't you heard about it? I suggest that you review some of
the previous notes I've contributed here, and try to find out if I've told
even a single lie. Unless, of course, your mind is closed on the subject.
Try again, sometime.
Michael Turnerarens@UCBKIM (03/01/83)
From: arens@UCBKIM (Yigal Arens) Received: from UCBKIM.ARPA by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.314/3.5) id AA17226; 1 Mar 83 03:06:31 PST (Tue) To: net-college@BERKELEY.ARPA Well I (and I suppose many of you out there too) just had the opportunity to watch J.K. on TV. It was on the ABC Nightline program of 2-28. No one interrupted or heckled her and I was able to hear her through. It is my opinion that she was, in fact, lying. I doubt that anyone could have gotten a different impression. The exchange about the 35K civilian deaths in El Salvador during the last year was enough evidence for me. It was also quite clear that the purpose of the whole thing, for her, was to get others to support the administration on this issue -- and not to inform people as to what was happening in El Salvador. If I had any doubts as to the justification of heckling J.K. and preventing her from speaking here in Berkeley a couple of weeks ago, they are now gone. I don't see why her desire to generate support for policies she is not truthful or honest about, and using deceit to do so, deserves any respect from anyone. Yigal Arens UC Berkeley
mmt (03/03/83)
Michael Turner is probably unrealistic when he assumes that it would become obvious very quickly whether or not Jean Kirkpatrick was lying. Josef Goebbels had the measure of a public fed by only a few information sources when he said that the public will believe a big lie sooner than a small one, especially if the big lie is repeated often enough. When the authorities proclaim a truth, people do tend to believe it; it is our present misfortune that we have found our authorities to be lying for reasons of political expediency quite often in recent years. But how many lies are still around, passing for truth? We don't know. Questioning some of them may seem like heresy -- people who do it are thought to be fools, or are suppressed or ignored. The other side of the same coin is the suppression of inconvenient truth, such as the impending failure of the oil and gas supply. Most readers of this will live to see that day, but it is amazing how many people think that stories about limited supplies are just fabrications of oil companies wanting to make big profits. Half-truths cover lies very well. It's even worse when we deal with foreign news, especially when both sides of a conflict make direct observation difficult except when it would help their own case. Martin Taylor