Monday, March 24, 2008

Naivety as a personal philosophy

From the NYT (where else?):
Stanley Fish is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins and Duke University. He is the author of 10 books. His new book on higher education, "Save the World On Your Own Time," will be published in 2008.

He opines:

Denouncing and Renouncing

Some years ago when a high ranking official of the Nation of Islam was being interviewed on TV, he was challenged to denounce another prominent member of the Nation who had called Jews "bagel-eating vermin who had escaped from the caves of Europe to pollute the world." He replied, "I'm not in the denouncing business." He did not elaborate further, but I understood him to be saying, It is not my job either to defend or repudiate every statement made by someone I know. Neither my integrity nor my life's work depend on my clearing myself of suspicions provoked by the words of others.

Funny, you know, when the Founders created the Constitution they instituted checks and balances since they were cynical enough about human beings and their motives to create a system which was BUILT on those weaknesses and depended on them to succeed. Jefferson insisted through Madison (he was in Paris at the time) on the Bill of Rights because he UNDERSTOOD what humans are, especially humans with power.

So here comes Mr. Fish interviewing "a high ranking official of the Nation of Islam" whose record on antisemitism, and therefore racism (it's ALL THE SAME inevitably), is , WE LIKE IT, and when this "high ranking official of the Nation of Islam" does not condemn a particularly egregious quote about jewish people, this competely naive fool, Stanley Fish assumes this guy his taking the high road in saying he won't condemn such a comment.

Any other buyers?
Enter Jeremiah Wright, stage left.
Any other buyers on that?
If Jeremiah Wright was the only example we had with regard to Obama, naive explanations might fly.
But we have Michelle Obama's shame of america.
But we have the utterly anti Israel appointments of Powers, Rice, Brzezinski, and Malley
But we have the association of Obama and Rashid Khalidi and the AAAN
But we have his involvement with the owner of Electronic Intifada, and complaint to same he couldn't be his real self in an election race
But we have Rezko and his now admitted large contributions
But we have his voting record (left of -"I am a Democratic Socialist" Sen. Bernie Sanders), and now today Obama's self description as a "progressive" - not a 'liberal'
And we don't have a few exceptional quotes from a few exceptional sermons, we have the full knowledge of Obama's membership, and his failure as a public official representing the people to act on his knowledge of Wright, his beliefs and his encompassing dislike of america, it's FULL history, it's white people, and the jews, and just walk out the door to someplace more suitable.'
The bitter truth is that Barack Obama found Wright, and his belief set, SUITABLE.
One can only imagine what change Obama has in mind.

I may have never been in love with many candidates or nominees since I first worked on the McGovern campaign in 1972, but I have never felt more opposed to anyone, more than I do what Barack Obama's brief history indicates he really may be.

I have a feeling that should the majority of americans in enough states be taken up by this swell of 'feeling' we will be thinking of Jimmy - Khomeini is better than the Shah, Russki troops in Cuba are not violation of the Monroe doctrine, Russkis invading Afghanistan, unarmed F-15 patrols as a PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE so as not to aggravate the Soviets, double digit inflation and unemployment, americans you suffer from a malaise Carter won't seem so bad.

No comments: