zrm (02/24/83)
I would like to suggest something that may seem radical to some, and not so radical to others, and that is that Mr. Fostel is the psychotic and not Mrs. Kirkpatrick. The first evidence I would like to site in this argument is that he is obviously schizophrenic: he can spell psychotic, but not many of the rest of the words in his message. But seriously. The book-burning attitude his message espouses is of the vilest and most obscene sort. It is the attitute of Facism. It is an attitude that validates the semi-literate rantings of the uninformed. It is an attitude that ignores the lessons of history. It is Khomeni, Hitler, Stalin all rolled into one: the triumph of the addled mind. It is the flamings of the upper-middle-class radical, of the sort of person who would be among the first to be shot if his beloved revolution came here. I really do wish that flamers of the ilk of Mr. Fostel would take their own views to their logical conclusion and take up arms in their cause. Then this country would have an practical lesson in identfying the mentality that begat the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Brigades. No Cheer at All, Zig Oh dear. Even I seem to have forgotten the SLA. How very depressing.
mmt (03/03/83)
============================= I really do wish that flamers of the ilk of Mr. Fostel would take their own views to their logical conclusion and take up arms in their cause. Then this country would have an practical lesson in identfying the mentality that begat the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Brigades. No Cheer at All, Zig ============================= Much better to flame in an asbestos forum than fight in the streets. Germany in the late 20's and early 30's tried that, where everyone had their own private army, and look what it got them. I would not fight for the right viewpoint, but I might fight for the right to express that viewpoint. That's why the Kirkpatrick affair and other related ones (in unions, colleges wherever unpopular people try to talk) are so saddening and difficult to deal with. One sympathizes with one side or the other of the argument, and with the rights of the opponents of that argument. It's the great problem of a democracy that you have to persuade not only the people, but also the authorities, whereas in a totalitarian state you have to persuade only the authorities, and in a mobocracy (just try to find that in a dictionary), you have to persuade ony the people. A democracy is a delicately balanced structure, and they usually don't last too long, especially when either the authorities or the people begin to disregard the rights of others. American democracy is no more likely than any other to survive, unless we all work with a basic trust and goodwill, believing that our opponents are mistaken rather than malicious. Martin Taylor