The tyranny of the majority and ultraconservatism together again...
I saw a very interesting example of the two extremes in one place at the same time. I found it very interesting, to say the least.
Michelle Malkin is a young woman of Phillipine-descent who has written a book called "In Defense of Internment". This book explains her defense of the Japanese-American internment camps during World War 2. She then makes a connection between those camps and the Guantanamo Bay internments. Her process is to show why both of these events were the right thing to do.
I saw a tape of her speaking at UC Berkeley on 9/8/04, and let's just say that it was very interesting. Throughout her speech, you can hear protesters outside of the building making lots of noise. Then, after she completed her speech, she took questions (written on index cards and then read to her). Some guy in the audience threw somewhat of a fit and wanted her to answer his questions right then and there. So she did. That didn't seem good enough for him, because he seemed to want to be able to continue questioning her, and then so did someone else in the audience.
Throughout the whole situation, she answered questions very well. I was extremely impressed, even if I didn't agree with her take on the whole issue. I did get the feeling that this is not a stupid woman by any stretch of the imagination, and I thought it might actually be interesting to be able to debate her myself (but unfortunately, that isn't something that's going to happen). Anyway, at the end of the speech, it was announced that her book signing had to be canceled due to security concerns. People in the audience applauded like this was a good thing.
To me, this was probably a very good example of Aristotle's fear of the mob ruled democracy. This woman came to Berkeley (hostile ground) and was speaking in a venue that was obviously hostile towards her, and she was handling herself well. Yet, the people who would probably never read her book in the first place, and think of her as some right-wing ideologue (from the San Francisco Chronicle the day before saying pretty much just that), didn't see anything wrong in the fact that their hostility to someone's ideas and thoughts, pretty much drowning them out with hostility, occurred in their own backyard.
This is the same crowd that would go nuts if anyone decided they wouldn't get a chance to speak their minds, yet seem to have no problem making sure those they disagree with are unable to speak their minds as well.
Stumble It!
I saw a very interesting example of the two extremes in one place at the same time. I found it very interesting, to say the least.
Michelle Malkin is a young woman of Phillipine-descent who has written a book called "In Defense of Internment". This book explains her defense of the Japanese-American internment camps during World War 2. She then makes a connection between those camps and the Guantanamo Bay internments. Her process is to show why both of these events were the right thing to do.
I saw a tape of her speaking at UC Berkeley on 9/8/04, and let's just say that it was very interesting. Throughout her speech, you can hear protesters outside of the building making lots of noise. Then, after she completed her speech, she took questions (written on index cards and then read to her). Some guy in the audience threw somewhat of a fit and wanted her to answer his questions right then and there. So she did. That didn't seem good enough for him, because he seemed to want to be able to continue questioning her, and then so did someone else in the audience.
Throughout the whole situation, she answered questions very well. I was extremely impressed, even if I didn't agree with her take on the whole issue. I did get the feeling that this is not a stupid woman by any stretch of the imagination, and I thought it might actually be interesting to be able to debate her myself (but unfortunately, that isn't something that's going to happen). Anyway, at the end of the speech, it was announced that her book signing had to be canceled due to security concerns. People in the audience applauded like this was a good thing.
To me, this was probably a very good example of Aristotle's fear of the mob ruled democracy. This woman came to Berkeley (hostile ground) and was speaking in a venue that was obviously hostile towards her, and she was handling herself well. Yet, the people who would probably never read her book in the first place, and think of her as some right-wing ideologue (from the San Francisco Chronicle the day before saying pretty much just that), didn't see anything wrong in the fact that their hostility to someone's ideas and thoughts, pretty much drowning them out with hostility, occurred in their own backyard.
This is the same crowd that would go nuts if anyone decided they wouldn't get a chance to speak their minds, yet seem to have no problem making sure those they disagree with are unable to speak their minds as well.
Stumble It!
posted by Duane @ 6:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home