Was: Jim Craven's World

Craven, Jim jcraven at clark.edu
Mon Dec 10 17:30:13 MST 2001


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Reed, Diane
> Sent:	Monday, December 10, 2001 2:34 PM
> To:	Craven, Jim
> Subject:	RE: Jim Craven's World
>
>
> Perhaps you should consider setting up a personal address book with the
> names of those that want to receive your messages.
[Craven, Jim]

Notice the header? Ms. Reed sent this to me directly assuming, that unlike
her, I would not summarily hit the delete key or that I had not set up a
filter, and, assuming further that, unlike her, I would actually read what
had been sent before reacting to it or demanding that she simply not send me
anything, about anything anytime. The hypocrisy in this place is astounding.

The suggestion of Ms. Reed is not a new one. But in the past, some felt that
they might be subject to retribution if they put their names on a separate
list whose names could be discoverable by someone intent of retribution or
practicing guilt by association. I make no judgment if such fears were
justified, only that such fears were expressed in the past when we proposed
separate lists for selective purposes with selective names subscribing.

When and if we evolve a policy on the use of the master list I will of
course obey that policy to the letter. And if I could delete the names of
those who have requested such and still use the master list, I would gladly
do so. But alas I cannot. We indeed have all sorts of stuff on the master
list about which I could object and from time-to-time I have engaged in
debate never once calling for my own name to be deleted by a sender (indeed
there are several names who appear on this list whose missives I summarily
delete without reading and suggest others do the same with respect to my own
missives.)

But all of this stuff about the sender "deleting" is totally disingenuous.
There is much more than meets the eye. We have our own Taliban types, just
as fanatic, just as ideologically/spiritually in-bred and just as committed
to silencing any alternative voices as anything produced by the other
Taliban in Afghanistan. They read very little and get most of their
news/views from their ideologically incestuous networks and simply cannot
tolerate any views different than their own. Not only can they not tolerate
themselves being exposed to alternative views, they do not want anyone else
being exposed to any views other than theirs. They would attempt to censor
any views but the narrowly correct (always under the banner of something
else--patriotism, correct use of public resources, religiosity etc) in their
view.  The current administration has openly said that any views other than
theirs "give aid and comfort to the enemy" and are "un-American" and
"un-patriotic."

They cannot debate ideas and offer nothing of their own in alternative to
that which they seek to censor. Remember during the campaign how the
candidates--one more than another--were carefully handled with friendly
audiences and questions so that their basic illiteracy, disingenuousness,
lack of experience and problematic pasts were not exposed?

On November 22,2001 a court-ordered and Florida-law-mandated vote recount
was stopped by rioters specifically sent to stop that recount. Those
rioters, showing contempt for a court order and Florida law, flown-in from
Washington, D.C. and given per diem allowances and hotel suites for the
occasion included: Tom Pyle, policy analyst, office of House Majority Whip
Tom Delay (R. Tex); Garry Malphrus, majority chief counsel and staff
director, House judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice; Rory Cooper,
political division staff member of the National Republican Congressional
Committee; Kevin Smith, former House Republican conference and recently of
Voter.com; Steven Brophy, former aid to Senator Fred D. Thompson (R. Tenn)
and now working at the consulting firm of KPMG; Matt Schlapp, former chief
of staff for Representative Todd Tiahrt (R. Kan) then on the Bush campaign
in Austin; Roger Morse, aid to Rep. Van Hilleary (R. Tenn); Duane Gibson,
aid to Chairman Don young (R. Alaska) of the House Resources Committee;
Chuck Royal, legislative assistant to Rep. Jim DeMint (R.Sc); and Layna
McConkey, former legislative assistant to former Rep. Jim Ross Lightfoot (R.
Iowa). These creatures cared nothing about the law, legal franchise or
whatever, they only wanted to win at any cost and the Constitution, the
right of franchise and to have all legal ballots be counted--so-called
"democracy" itself--be damned.

A coup is easier to pull off with narrow margins between candidates; an
upset is more difficult. Now they have some power they want to keep it and
the last thing the right-wing wants is free and open debate of contending
ideas, values and evidence. They can't stand the sunlight. And like the
nazis of 1932, and as in the case of fascism everywhere, they are laying the
foundations of the next fascist coup by trying to silence diverse voices
through various ruses and phony concerns. So you are "with em or agin em"
but there is no middle ground with these types. They won't say "I disagree,
here is my position, here is my evidence and reasoning" because it is
patently obvious in the lack of content and elementary logic their meager
responses they lack the skills and intellect to openly debate with counter
evidence, counter-reasoning and even counter-values. They just want to
silence that which they lack the ability and fortitude to take on.

We have some whining "I have too much work and all these messages "clutter"
my keyboard. But they express their concerns very selectively and in my
opinion disingenuously. I wonder how many snotty responses John Lundy got
when he sent some humor--some of which was a bit scatological--to the master
list? I wonder how many of these sending their little messages to me sent
the same to John. I am not writing to endorse any political party or
candidate, nor am I writing to solicit monies for a cause or to ask for
assistance in finding my cat. I am writing about ideas and issues and
inviting debate, counter-evidence and counter-reasoning. And how do we
presume to "teach" critical thinking, global/multi-cultural awareness,
effective citizenship, life-long learning, communication or info-tech
awareness without practicing and developing--through concrete practice--such
skills and knowledge?
[Craven, Jim]
So let us have an open debate about what the "business" of Clark College
really is. I look forward to that debate. But unlike some of these souls
trying to silence certain voices or make those voices not so easily heard, I
look forward to hearing fully and fairly anything the "other side" has to
say; there will be of course, a full response with full counter-evidence and
counter-reasoning.

Jim Craven


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list