[Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] Public Square advert for 4/30 Panel with Paul Street

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Even if you and Chomsky are correct about this tactic - and I think that you
are, this is the nature of all debates and discussions; the only real issue
at question is the how big that spectrum of acceptable opinion and debate
was, is, or will be for any given debate or discussion.  Ironically, even if
you added those that you think to be radical, which I view as being
basically reformers and not really radical, and (paleo) conservative, there
will be those more radical or differently radical and/or more (paleo)
conservative or some other type of conservative who are left out and will
make the same argument - and rightly so - that you are making now. 

If the spectrum of acceptable opinion was as broad a range of opinion
possible pertaining to the anti-war positions excluding pro war positions on
the right, left and middle wouldn't it be open to the same criticism; if it
did include pro-war points of view from the right, left, and center, why
would the spectrum not be artificially narrow with out similar
representation on all the other possible issues in question in light of the
fact that some might argue that the economic issues are more important and
significant than the war issues.

A more interesting case would be if both the right and the left were
represented at the debate/discussion but the middle was not represented,
there would technically be a broad scoped spectrum extending from left to
right of acceptable opinion with the middle excluded which would probably
involve a very lively debate the participants from the left and right.  It
would seem to me that this would also be open, technically, to your and
Chomsky's argument .  It would also serve to keep people passive and
obedient, appear to be critical without really challenging any of the
fundamental assumptions of the establishment, and - thereby - also serve to
reinforce the presuppositions of system.

In short, Chomsky and you have a newsy noticing of some interest; but it
only works as a criticism of debates and discussions that one objects to or
as a practical course of for limiting debate/discussion to a given
acceptable spectrum of opinion.  There is no practical tactic opens
debate/discussion to unlimited spectrum of restricted opinion.  In light of
this, those that use the argument that you and Chomsky are making as a
complaint about any given debate/discussion comes of sounding like they art
whining about not being included or engaged in a polemic for the sake of
polemic in order to debunk anything that is said at the debate or discussion
and deny it legitimacy.

In my opinion, any serious radical debate would not be on how well Obama or
any person or persons have done since the election or inauguration; but on
the validity, reliability, and functionality of election system and
electoral process as a system mechanism, the legitimacy of and the existence
of non-proportional representation in a democracy and/or of political
parties in an allegedly representative form of government, fundamental
contradiction of allowing any form of secrecy from the public in a
representative democracy, and so on.  The fact that any and all the
participants or even those that may have been left out of the debate
generally take those topics as unacceptable and unquestionable subjects to
be discussed indicates that it is and will be - even if the excluded were
included - well within the parameters of what is viewed as acceptable debate
by the establishment - although it may nopt be what is deemed preferable
debate by them.

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:46 PM
To: Morton K. Brussel
Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] Public Square advert for 4/30 Panel
with Paul Street

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the 
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that 
spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives

people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the

presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the 
range of the debate. " ---Noam Chomsky

For all Mort's fulminations, he can't escape the fact that that's exactly
what 
he's done.  By excluding radical and (paleo)conservative anti-war views from
his 
panel (not for the first time), he is "strictly limiting the spectrum of 
acceptable opinion, but allowing very lively debate within that spectrum" --

with the results Chomsky describes.  No one who's followed the debates over 
"framing" Obama within AWARE will be surprised.


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> What a curious diatribe. 
> 
> Carl Estabrook could have been present at AWARE Presents meetings, but I 
> suppose out of purity of conscience(?) he did not deign to participate. 
> It is rather late to be now terribly disappointed in what we've set up. 
> 
> Who from AWARE would Carl have liked on the panel? Who could possibly 
> win his approbation? More Libertarians --- himself included?
> 
> Which representatives of Chomsky, Paul, Cockburn, etc., and how many of 
> these points of view, should we have invited? It points in only one 
> direction. 
> 
> There is no doubt we could have chosen other respected panelists, but I 
> believe we have a critical and diverse panel, which will produce 
> spirited discussions, despite Estabrook's canard that they were  "vetted 
> for conventional opinions". 
> 
> Is that which is not Estabrook-like a definition of "conventional"? 
> 
> Yes, Paul Street does gain Carl's grudging admiration, he the keynote 
> speaker who will speak at least half the time on the dais. But I suppose 
> Carl would have liked more /guaranteed/ polemical devastating appraisals 
> of the first 100 days. Carl arrogantly knows what Bob Naiman will say, 
> or what Carol Ammons will say, not to speak of Paul Diehl and Brian 
> Gaines: All timorous people voicing timorous opinions? 
> 
> Will Carl come to the event?  After all, he could there vent his 
> contempt for whatever vetted opinions may be expressed. We do elicit 
> audience participation. 
> 
> I'm afraid that if the purpose of the panel would /only/ have been to 
> expose "our" opinions about the Obama administration, we would have less 
> opportunity to reach a wider audience. 
> 
> Need this be explained?
> 
> Why has Carl waited until now to voice his objections?  Our plans were 
> not concealed.
> 
> --mkb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:17 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> I'm afraid this panel will be regarded as observing and attempting to 
>> enforce the limits of allowable debate. There are no AWARE members; 
>> fifty percent of it are academic political scientists, a group 
>> thoroughly vetted for conventional opinions.
>>
>> Much more seriously, it excludes anti-war opinion from both the right 
>> and the left.  On the one side, the position of Chomsky, Cockburn, and 
>> the Black Agenda Report is unrepresented.  On the other, that of Ron 
>> Paul, Bill Kauffman, and Antiwar.com is absent.
>>
>> One may argue that Paul Street's position is that of the first group, 
>> but the panel is certainly a timorous corrective to that.  The 
>> advertising even promotes a sanitizing time barrier between Street's 
>> talk and that of the panel.
>>
>> One shouldn't be surprised. "AWARE Presents" ran a panel on Israel two 
>> years ago that was equally subservient to the narrow limits of 
>> received academic opinion (with one lone outsider as an example of 
>> what we used to call "repressive tolerance"). AWARE members with 
>> dissenting views weren't included.
>>
>> Perhaps the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort should put together a program 
>> critical in principle -- and not just "pragmatically" -- of the 
>> administration's efforts to kill people in the Middle East and restore 
>> the fortunes of the American elite.
>>
>>
>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>> This has been submitted, in haste,  to WILL's /Public Square. /It may 
>>> be modified in the presentation. Hello, I'm Morton Brussel, speaking 
>>> for AWARE. We are sponsoring a significant event, namely an appraisal 
>>> of the first 100 days of the Obama presidency. This will take place 
>>> at 7pm on Thursday, April 30, at the Urbana City Council Chambers, 
>>> and will be televised on UPTV local cable channel 6.
>>> The review will be discussed first by historian, journalist, activist 
>>> Paul Street, author of a recent book about Obama, followed by a panel 
>>> of varying viewpoints, consisting of Champaign County board member 
>>> Carrol Ammons, UIUC Professor of Political Science Paul Diehl, UIUC 
>>> Professor Brian Gaines, and Just Foreign Policy coordinator and 
>>> activist Robert Naiman.
>>> Paul Street will speak for 45 minutes. Each panelist will give ten 
>>> minute presentations, and then there will be time for questions and 
>>> comments, interchanges between the panelists and the audience.
>>> We expect that this will be an important discussion serving to 
>>> illuminate how successful the present administration has been in 
>>> these first 100 days in dealing with the serious questions 
>>> confronting it, on foreign and domestic policies, how the actions of 
>>> the administration and President Obama have been received by the 
>>> American public, by allies of the United States and by those with 
>>> whom we confront in the wider world.
>>> Clearly on the list of pressing topics that might be discussed are 
>>> the policies of the administration concerning 1) the wars and 
>>> occupations in Iraq in which we are engaged, 2) policies with regard 
>>> to our relations with other countries [e.g., Iran, Israel/Palestine, 
>>> North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, India, 
>>> Somalia, etc.] 3)  the economic situation at home and administrations 
>>> actions to deal with it, 4) Civil rights at home and for our 
>>> prisoners-habeas corpus and the issue of torture, environmental 
>>> policy, including how climate change is considered, energy,
>>> The list of issues that can be addressed will certainly be greater 
>>> than time will permit, but we expect an informative, stimulating 
>>> appraisal of what has been accomplished, what needs to be 
>>> accomplished, what is most important to accomplish, and what are the 
>>> chances for success based on what we now know of Obama's actions and 
>>> statements.
>>> Please come and listen or watch: 7pm on Thursday April 30 at the U. 
>>> City Council Chambers on vine Street U. --mkb
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss