Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
In Betrayal Of Savio's Memory, Hitchens Set To Speak at the Mario Savio Memorial Lecture
An organization that pretends to represent the ideals of Mario Savio has invited the warmonger Christopher Hitchens to speak at the UC Berkeley campus on Thursday, November 21st. The event is free and is at 7:30 p.m. in the Pauley Ballroom of the UC Berkeley Student Union. Its time for protesters to show up and defend Savio's memory!
An organization that pretends to represent the ideals of Mario Savio has invited the warmonger Christopher Hitchens to speak at the UC Berkeley campus on Thursday, November 21st. The event is free and is at 7:30 p.m. in the Pauley Ballroom of the UC Berkeley Student Union.
http://www.savio.org/
http://www.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/events.pl/ZOOM/13779
Savio was solidly antiwar and this is an utter betrayal of his memory.
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
http://www.fsm-a.org/stacks/mario/mario_speech.html
Hitchens has been rightwing for years. He is a fan of Thatcher, supported the war in Afghanistan and now is a major speaker for the war in Iraq.How dare a group pay to have him speak at Berkeley and claim this is to honor someone who fought so strongly against war
Here are links about Hitchens stands on major issues:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy0510.html
http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/424/424_09_Hitchens.shtml
http://www.zmag.org/chomskyhitchens.htm
http://www.savio.org/
http://www.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/events.pl/ZOOM/13779
Savio was solidly antiwar and this is an utter betrayal of his memory.
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
http://www.fsm-a.org/stacks/mario/mario_speech.html
Hitchens has been rightwing for years. He is a fan of Thatcher, supported the war in Afghanistan and now is a major speaker for the war in Iraq.How dare a group pay to have him speak at Berkeley and claim this is to honor someone who fought so strongly against war
Here are links about Hitchens stands on major issues:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy0510.html
http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/424/424_09_Hitchens.shtml
http://www.zmag.org/chomskyhitchens.htm
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This is going to be a very different style speech from the speeches which we've been listening to, because I don't have a very set idea just how history's going to turn out, nor what brought it to be the way it is right now, nor how we are going to change it, if we are going to. So, all I really have is a lot of questions, and I hope they are questions similar to ones that have been troubling other people who are here. Maybe if we can at least get our questions out in the open. we can begin to talk about the answers.
We have been handed down some famous dates with some famous events attached to them. Two important revolutions occurred in the era from 1776 to 1789. The United States got its start out of one of them, the French Republic out of the other. There was a spirit of enlightenment for which we remember the 1 8th century. Then, the 19th century -- the whole age, a continuous age, of revolutions. Now I remember reading about them and reading about someone whom Isaac Deutscher mentioned, Metternich. I remember reading about the difference in spirit between Metternich on the one hand, and the Paris Commune on the other. I remember last semester at one point some of us were trying to decide, "Should we have the sit-in in Sproul Hall or in the Student Union?" since the latter would be more in the spirit of the Paris Commune -- we don't want anything you own, we want ourthings.
There was something exciting about those times, and I remember there was something exciting about the history that I read of those times. In some important way, what occurred around the turn of the century, and later in Russia, was a continuation of that spirit of revolution, that exciting period of the 19th century. But what happened when that moving conflagration reached the Soviet Union -- what became the Soviet Union? What happened as we moved into the 20th century? It seemed that the United States was on the other side, and it came to be more and more on the other side. Now. there were reasons. I don't think that they can be understood completely or adequately in terms borrowed from a great, if somewhat muddy, German philosopher, Hegel. But the important thing for me, and a cause of great sadness, was that somehow we seemed to be on the other side. And I have been trying to figure out why it is that we ended up on the other side.
I try to think of the bad things that our leaders say about those people who now are on the other side. One of the things they say is, "They don't believe in God. See, the Communists officially don't believe in God." And it seemed to me awfully peculiar that we should be in the situation of declared or undeclared war against people, at least in part, because they claim not to believe in God. I don't believe in God. A lot of the people here don't, I believe. I don't think that's the reason. Well, is it because they claim it's proper to organize their economies, their systems of production and distribution, goods and services, in a way different from the way we do here in this country? Well, I don't know if that's true either. Consider the University of California. I don't think we can call it a socialist enterprise, but it certainly is an instance of state capitalism of sorts. No, it can't be that, it can't be a technical matter, not exactly. In the continuing opposition to the descendants of our own period of revolution, the Vietcong, I don't know what it is we're trying to protect them from in Asia. I really don't know.
Now, I don't think that the people who are formulating our foreign policy have asked the kinds of very naive questions that I've been asking here. I don't think that any of the, perhaps, naive solutions or suggestions which might come out of this meeting are going seriously to be considered by those formulators of policy. Let's consider a very radical suggestion. What if, for example, the President of the United States announced tomorrow that over a period of five years the United States would totally disarm? Not just nuclear weapons, but all weapons. Put them away slowly so as not to destroy the American economy. And the President would extend an invitation to the Russians and the Chinese to do likewise, but would indicate that whether they did or not, the United States would put these weapons away. Now what effect could that have on the world? I don't have the vaguest idea. I don't know that the world would be worse off for it. It might be. I don't know that such a policy, as far-fetched as it sounds, would in the long run be any more dangerous, or less dangerous, than the policy we're following now. I don't think there is, in other words, any adequate. Iarge-scale theory of historical causality. I don't think it's clear that if we put away all our weapons, Asia would stop being ruled in part by freedom-loving tyrants, and would be ruled completely by tyrannical tyrants. I don't think that kind of change would necessarily follow if we put away all of our weapons.
But no solution such as this could be seriously considered or discussed by any of the responsible people formulating our foreign policy. Now that's a problem because I don't think they know any more about historical causality than I do. That's not to say that I know a great deal, but rather there's not that much to be known. And that brings me to what I think is the important question. If an idea like that couldn't be seriously entertained before a responsible audience (and it cannot in the United States -- only before students, not responsible audiences) an important question is raised, I think the most important question. If it's the case that such an idea, or ideas far less radical, cannot be entertained before responsible audiences; then in what sense is decision-making in America democratic? In what sense? What about the consent of the governed? Does that mean that a very small group of people decide what the alternatives are, and then you either say Yes or No to alternatives which fall within a common policy, which people on all sides of the question agree to? Is that what the consent of the governed means? I'd like to say some things about decision- making in the United States, because I think this is the most important question with which we have to deal.
I have a naive belief in the generosity of our fellow-countrymen. If they knew the facts, with even the incredible lack of clarity that we have, I believe they would move to affect their government in such a way as to change its policy. But they don't know the facts, and from our own experience we can see why. Consider something very close to home: what happened on campus last semester. And consider the way it was reported in the press. Consider that. Now I had never, before that, been able to compare an important historic event with the way it was reported, because I'd never been in on any important historic event, because I was only a citizen. But last semester I was engaged in causing important historic events. We all were. And we all had the opportunity to see just what those events were. And there was no comparison, or only a very slight comparison, which could be drawn between the reporting and the events.
And look again -- personal experience -- look at the incompetents, the 24 incompetents, who are put in charge of the University of California. These are the people who make fundamental policy which governs our lives. At the last Regents' meeting, representatives of the students, of the Free Student Union, were present at the meeting of this governing board. They were not permitted to speak officially, and so one of them, in desperation and eloquence, said (this was Bob Mundy):
We have asked to be heard, you have refused. We have asked for justice. You have called it anarchy. We have asked for freedom. You have called it license. Rather than face the fear and hopelessness you have created, you have called it communistic. You have accused us of failing to use legitimate channels. But you have closed those channels to us. You, and not us, have built a university based on distrust and dishonesty.
In the course of that speech, Governor Brown told Bob to shut up and called the police. That's one example of the body set up and a mechanism set up to make decisions in America.
Another example -- very important. President Kennedy, who some of us felt, at the beginning in any case, offered some hope as a more responsible leader, sponsored and supported Comsat, or what has become Comsat, the Communications Satellite Corporation, a public and private corporation. Some people, including, I believe, Senator Morse, opposed this. And there was a liberal filibuster in the Senate. It didn't last very long. But President Kennedy supported Comsat. It has on its governing board some people representing the public and some representing private industry. Representing the public, on the whole governing board, according to Drew Pearson, are three people. Let me tell you who they are. Representing that part of the public which is business -- this is in addition to those representing private corporations -- is someone whose name I don't know from General Motors. He has come to virtually every meeting. Representing labor -- all of labor (aren't many of those in America) -- is Mr. Meany. Now that's like the Urban League representing the civil rights movement. Representing the public -- that's those who are neither laborers nor businessmen (for example, students and housewives) -- and just listen, is Clark Kerr. He has, according to this report, not come to even one meeting. (That's right, we kept him busy.) That's the way decisions are made in America. This is a public and private corporation, public and private, and the public is represented . . . I'm very pessimistic, very pessimistic.
I'd like to speak, before I go on, a little bit about how decisions are made in the University. Regent Pauley, in an article in the Oakland Tribune of today May 21, 1965, speaking about the Tussman Plan (a plan for about 150 undergraduates to get something a good deal better than what's normally handed out as undergraduate education), said that he would like to have letters from the teachers involved, certifying that they "believe in the capitalistic system," to reassure the state legislature.
Now I've talked about two things, about Comsat and about the Board of Regents. About how an international telecommunications satellite system is going to be governed. International -- what incredible arrogance! Clark Kerr! And on the other hand, about the Board of Regents. how this University is governed by what can only be characterized as a committee of incredibly wealthy nincompoops!
And that brings me to the way I wanted to put it together. I really am exceedingly pessimistic about the possibilities for significant, for substantial, change. I don't think that we can hope for anything like substantial change in the foreseeable future. So we've got to ask for something less. Well, we've got to hope for something less. (You should never ask for less than you want But we'll hope for something less.) What's that something less we maybe, maybe, can hope for in Vietnam? Well, I guess it would be the war ending by some kind of negotiations. So I'd like to say what I feel about the minimum kinds of negotiations which should be acceptable to people who have anything left of democratic ideals.
This is my feeling. There can't be the kind of negotiations that say, "If you stop fighting, well, then we'll give you all sorts of economic benefits." That's O.K. in the huckster world in which we live, but it's not O.K. in the kind of world in which I'd like to live. None of this buying people off. Well, now, what should we insist upon? Again, let's go back to our own personal experience of last semester. Consider the Committee on Campus Political Activity in its first form. The Administration appointed 10 out of 12 people to a committee which was supposed to resolve the dispute. Now, the Administration was one of the two parties to the dispute. It appointed 10 out of 12, without any consultation with the other side. And then people accused you of being unreasonable and doctrinaire because you refused to meet with them. Well, I don't know altogether that much about the National Liberation Front. I wish I knew a lot more about it than I do. But I know that in some ways -- and this you can even get from the reports in the Tribune -- in some ways, it's the counterpart of those dastardly FSM people last semester. That means to me, that if you have negotiations which: take place between the United States and the Soviet Union and even Communist China, and possibly Hanoi, but leave out the National Liberation Front, that's like the CCPA (*) without the FSM. Impossible! I tell you, if I were involved in such a revolution, I would rather die than get out under those circumstances.
All right. Who are the kinds of people who are proposing things like "If you stop fighting altogether, we'll give you a good payoff?" Well, you know they're the same kinds of people who opposed us here, when we fought on campus last semester. And right now I'm not talking about the reactionaries on the Board of Regents. I'm talking about some liberals, that's what I'm talking about. Who is one, one of the architects of American foreign policy in Vietnam? Robert A. Scalapino. Who is it on December 7th (remember the Greek Theater) who, with Clark Kerr, mouthed those magnificent generalities and hypocritical cliches which were supposed to end the crisis without letting the Academic Senate even have its say? It's the same people, the same ones. Those who want to make decisions by a kind of elite "know-how" here at the University of California are the same ones who will refuse repeatedly to let people, just little ordinary people, take part in decision-making wherever there are decisions to be made.
---------------------------
(*) The Committee on Campus Political Activity (CCPA) was formed October 21, 1964, to attempt a solution to the free speech controversy. It dissolved November 7, 1964, without reaching a conclusion.
We have been handed down some famous dates with some famous events attached to them. Two important revolutions occurred in the era from 1776 to 1789. The United States got its start out of one of them, the French Republic out of the other. There was a spirit of enlightenment for which we remember the 1 8th century. Then, the 19th century -- the whole age, a continuous age, of revolutions. Now I remember reading about them and reading about someone whom Isaac Deutscher mentioned, Metternich. I remember reading about the difference in spirit between Metternich on the one hand, and the Paris Commune on the other. I remember last semester at one point some of us were trying to decide, "Should we have the sit-in in Sproul Hall or in the Student Union?" since the latter would be more in the spirit of the Paris Commune -- we don't want anything you own, we want ourthings.
There was something exciting about those times, and I remember there was something exciting about the history that I read of those times. In some important way, what occurred around the turn of the century, and later in Russia, was a continuation of that spirit of revolution, that exciting period of the 19th century. But what happened when that moving conflagration reached the Soviet Union -- what became the Soviet Union? What happened as we moved into the 20th century? It seemed that the United States was on the other side, and it came to be more and more on the other side. Now. there were reasons. I don't think that they can be understood completely or adequately in terms borrowed from a great, if somewhat muddy, German philosopher, Hegel. But the important thing for me, and a cause of great sadness, was that somehow we seemed to be on the other side. And I have been trying to figure out why it is that we ended up on the other side.
I try to think of the bad things that our leaders say about those people who now are on the other side. One of the things they say is, "They don't believe in God. See, the Communists officially don't believe in God." And it seemed to me awfully peculiar that we should be in the situation of declared or undeclared war against people, at least in part, because they claim not to believe in God. I don't believe in God. A lot of the people here don't, I believe. I don't think that's the reason. Well, is it because they claim it's proper to organize their economies, their systems of production and distribution, goods and services, in a way different from the way we do here in this country? Well, I don't know if that's true either. Consider the University of California. I don't think we can call it a socialist enterprise, but it certainly is an instance of state capitalism of sorts. No, it can't be that, it can't be a technical matter, not exactly. In the continuing opposition to the descendants of our own period of revolution, the Vietcong, I don't know what it is we're trying to protect them from in Asia. I really don't know.
Now, I don't think that the people who are formulating our foreign policy have asked the kinds of very naive questions that I've been asking here. I don't think that any of the, perhaps, naive solutions or suggestions which might come out of this meeting are going seriously to be considered by those formulators of policy. Let's consider a very radical suggestion. What if, for example, the President of the United States announced tomorrow that over a period of five years the United States would totally disarm? Not just nuclear weapons, but all weapons. Put them away slowly so as not to destroy the American economy. And the President would extend an invitation to the Russians and the Chinese to do likewise, but would indicate that whether they did or not, the United States would put these weapons away. Now what effect could that have on the world? I don't have the vaguest idea. I don't know that the world would be worse off for it. It might be. I don't know that such a policy, as far-fetched as it sounds, would in the long run be any more dangerous, or less dangerous, than the policy we're following now. I don't think there is, in other words, any adequate. Iarge-scale theory of historical causality. I don't think it's clear that if we put away all our weapons, Asia would stop being ruled in part by freedom-loving tyrants, and would be ruled completely by tyrannical tyrants. I don't think that kind of change would necessarily follow if we put away all of our weapons.
But no solution such as this could be seriously considered or discussed by any of the responsible people formulating our foreign policy. Now that's a problem because I don't think they know any more about historical causality than I do. That's not to say that I know a great deal, but rather there's not that much to be known. And that brings me to what I think is the important question. If an idea like that couldn't be seriously entertained before a responsible audience (and it cannot in the United States -- only before students, not responsible audiences) an important question is raised, I think the most important question. If it's the case that such an idea, or ideas far less radical, cannot be entertained before responsible audiences; then in what sense is decision-making in America democratic? In what sense? What about the consent of the governed? Does that mean that a very small group of people decide what the alternatives are, and then you either say Yes or No to alternatives which fall within a common policy, which people on all sides of the question agree to? Is that what the consent of the governed means? I'd like to say some things about decision- making in the United States, because I think this is the most important question with which we have to deal.
I have a naive belief in the generosity of our fellow-countrymen. If they knew the facts, with even the incredible lack of clarity that we have, I believe they would move to affect their government in such a way as to change its policy. But they don't know the facts, and from our own experience we can see why. Consider something very close to home: what happened on campus last semester. And consider the way it was reported in the press. Consider that. Now I had never, before that, been able to compare an important historic event with the way it was reported, because I'd never been in on any important historic event, because I was only a citizen. But last semester I was engaged in causing important historic events. We all were. And we all had the opportunity to see just what those events were. And there was no comparison, or only a very slight comparison, which could be drawn between the reporting and the events.
And look again -- personal experience -- look at the incompetents, the 24 incompetents, who are put in charge of the University of California. These are the people who make fundamental policy which governs our lives. At the last Regents' meeting, representatives of the students, of the Free Student Union, were present at the meeting of this governing board. They were not permitted to speak officially, and so one of them, in desperation and eloquence, said (this was Bob Mundy):
We have asked to be heard, you have refused. We have asked for justice. You have called it anarchy. We have asked for freedom. You have called it license. Rather than face the fear and hopelessness you have created, you have called it communistic. You have accused us of failing to use legitimate channels. But you have closed those channels to us. You, and not us, have built a university based on distrust and dishonesty.
In the course of that speech, Governor Brown told Bob to shut up and called the police. That's one example of the body set up and a mechanism set up to make decisions in America.
Another example -- very important. President Kennedy, who some of us felt, at the beginning in any case, offered some hope as a more responsible leader, sponsored and supported Comsat, or what has become Comsat, the Communications Satellite Corporation, a public and private corporation. Some people, including, I believe, Senator Morse, opposed this. And there was a liberal filibuster in the Senate. It didn't last very long. But President Kennedy supported Comsat. It has on its governing board some people representing the public and some representing private industry. Representing the public, on the whole governing board, according to Drew Pearson, are three people. Let me tell you who they are. Representing that part of the public which is business -- this is in addition to those representing private corporations -- is someone whose name I don't know from General Motors. He has come to virtually every meeting. Representing labor -- all of labor (aren't many of those in America) -- is Mr. Meany. Now that's like the Urban League representing the civil rights movement. Representing the public -- that's those who are neither laborers nor businessmen (for example, students and housewives) -- and just listen, is Clark Kerr. He has, according to this report, not come to even one meeting. (That's right, we kept him busy.) That's the way decisions are made in America. This is a public and private corporation, public and private, and the public is represented . . . I'm very pessimistic, very pessimistic.
I'd like to speak, before I go on, a little bit about how decisions are made in the University. Regent Pauley, in an article in the Oakland Tribune of today May 21, 1965, speaking about the Tussman Plan (a plan for about 150 undergraduates to get something a good deal better than what's normally handed out as undergraduate education), said that he would like to have letters from the teachers involved, certifying that they "believe in the capitalistic system," to reassure the state legislature.
Now I've talked about two things, about Comsat and about the Board of Regents. About how an international telecommunications satellite system is going to be governed. International -- what incredible arrogance! Clark Kerr! And on the other hand, about the Board of Regents. how this University is governed by what can only be characterized as a committee of incredibly wealthy nincompoops!
And that brings me to the way I wanted to put it together. I really am exceedingly pessimistic about the possibilities for significant, for substantial, change. I don't think that we can hope for anything like substantial change in the foreseeable future. So we've got to ask for something less. Well, we've got to hope for something less. (You should never ask for less than you want But we'll hope for something less.) What's that something less we maybe, maybe, can hope for in Vietnam? Well, I guess it would be the war ending by some kind of negotiations. So I'd like to say what I feel about the minimum kinds of negotiations which should be acceptable to people who have anything left of democratic ideals.
This is my feeling. There can't be the kind of negotiations that say, "If you stop fighting, well, then we'll give you all sorts of economic benefits." That's O.K. in the huckster world in which we live, but it's not O.K. in the kind of world in which I'd like to live. None of this buying people off. Well, now, what should we insist upon? Again, let's go back to our own personal experience of last semester. Consider the Committee on Campus Political Activity in its first form. The Administration appointed 10 out of 12 people to a committee which was supposed to resolve the dispute. Now, the Administration was one of the two parties to the dispute. It appointed 10 out of 12, without any consultation with the other side. And then people accused you of being unreasonable and doctrinaire because you refused to meet with them. Well, I don't know altogether that much about the National Liberation Front. I wish I knew a lot more about it than I do. But I know that in some ways -- and this you can even get from the reports in the Tribune -- in some ways, it's the counterpart of those dastardly FSM people last semester. That means to me, that if you have negotiations which: take place between the United States and the Soviet Union and even Communist China, and possibly Hanoi, but leave out the National Liberation Front, that's like the CCPA (*) without the FSM. Impossible! I tell you, if I were involved in such a revolution, I would rather die than get out under those circumstances.
All right. Who are the kinds of people who are proposing things like "If you stop fighting altogether, we'll give you a good payoff?" Well, you know they're the same kinds of people who opposed us here, when we fought on campus last semester. And right now I'm not talking about the reactionaries on the Board of Regents. I'm talking about some liberals, that's what I'm talking about. Who is one, one of the architects of American foreign policy in Vietnam? Robert A. Scalapino. Who is it on December 7th (remember the Greek Theater) who, with Clark Kerr, mouthed those magnificent generalities and hypocritical cliches which were supposed to end the crisis without letting the Academic Senate even have its say? It's the same people, the same ones. Those who want to make decisions by a kind of elite "know-how" here at the University of California are the same ones who will refuse repeatedly to let people, just little ordinary people, take part in decision-making wherever there are decisions to be made.
---------------------------
(*) The Committee on Campus Political Activity (CCPA) was formed October 21, 1964, to attempt a solution to the free speech controversy. It dissolved November 7, 1964, without reaching a conclusion.
"All right. Who are the kinds of people who are proposing things like "If you stop fighting altogether, we'll give you a good payoff?" Well, you know they're the same kinds of people who opposed us here, when we fought on campus last semester. And right now I'm not talking about the reactionaries on the Board of Regents. I'm talking about some liberals, that's what I'm talking about. "
Hitchens thats about you. How dare you pretend to speak in Savio's memory and how dare an organization named after Savio invite a warmonger like you to Berkeley.
Hitchens thats about you. How dare you pretend to speak in Savio's memory and how dare an organization named after Savio invite a warmonger like you to Berkeley.
Hitchens is such a contrarian, that sometimes it seems as if that is his only raison d'etre.... just to be "outrageous" within certain limits of course.
He is apparently a bit conflicted, like most American Jews tend to be.
His article in Vanity Fair a couple months ago was mostly brilliant, entitled "Jewish Power, Jewish Peril". In it, his conclusion for the best solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he supported the one-state, completely democratic, and secular for all, including the return of all Palestinian refugees to their ancestral homeland in Palestine-Israel. It was an amazing piece.
Since then, when I saw him on a panel discussion on TV, he seemed to waffle, and avoid the whole Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the correct solution. I'm sure he took quite a lashing from Zionist Jews on his Vanity Fair article, but I wish he would be consistently courageous on this issue!
He is apparently a bit conflicted, like most American Jews tend to be.
His article in Vanity Fair a couple months ago was mostly brilliant, entitled "Jewish Power, Jewish Peril". In it, his conclusion for the best solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he supported the one-state, completely democratic, and secular for all, including the return of all Palestinian refugees to their ancestral homeland in Palestine-Israel. It was an amazing piece.
Since then, when I saw him on a panel discussion on TV, he seemed to waffle, and avoid the whole Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the correct solution. I'm sure he took quite a lashing from Zionist Jews on his Vanity Fair article, but I wish he would be consistently courageous on this issue!
.......uh, isn't disinviting someone to a speech commemorating a free speech movement, like, anti-free speech? isn't this, like, uh, giving AMMUNITION to the Horowitz crowd? invite hitchens, horowitz, savio, chomsky, cockburn, and pat buchanan all to the make the speech(es). sheesh, what a load of nothing.
"An organization that pretends to represent the ideals of Mario Savio has invited the warmonger Christopher Hitchens to speak at the UC Berkeley campus...Savio was solidly antiwar and this is an utter betrayal of his memory."
Sometimes two people who are opposed politically are often good friends. They appreciate the reality that both of them have strong convictions and are able to articulate those ideas. Hitchens is probably in a better position to commend Savio on his lifes work than are some who worked side by side with him. You don't have to agree with someone in order to admire that they take a stand. Enough of your childishness.
Sometimes two people who are opposed politically are often good friends. They appreciate the reality that both of them have strong convictions and are able to articulate those ideas. Hitchens is probably in a better position to commend Savio on his lifes work than are some who worked side by side with him. You don't have to agree with someone in order to admire that they take a stand. Enough of your childishness.
A war is about to start.
Inviting and paying an apologist to speak has nothing to do with free speah and ABSoLUTELY betrays Savio's memory!!!!
Savio was strongly against war. He made a huge point about this. How dare you use his name to justify bringing a rightwinger to speak on the Berkeley campus. He would have defended their right to speak but wouldnt not have supported tehir ideas and would never have encouraged these right wing views!!
Inviting and paying an apologist to speak has nothing to do with free speah and ABSoLUTELY betrays Savio's memory!!!!
Savio was strongly against war. He made a huge point about this. How dare you use his name to justify bringing a rightwinger to speak on the Berkeley campus. He would have defended their right to speak but wouldnt not have supported tehir ideas and would never have encouraged these right wing views!!
I always was opposed to wars. Now people are using my name to justify teaching proWar views to students.Promoting American agression is bad enough, why use my name to justify these views?
Why didnt you just stab me in the back while I was alive?
Why didnt you just stab me in the back while I was alive?
Since Savio's widow issued the invitation, what f*cking right do any of you have to say that Hitchens' views make him an inappropriate speaker? What's next? A shout down at the conference to assure that Hitchens' free speech rights aren't honored--in the name of Mario Savio? Good Luck, you'll need it.
Of course they'll shout him down. What's the point of free speech if it can be used by those with whom they disagree?
FREE SPEECH TO THOSE WHO UPHOLD ONLY THOSE THINGS TO WHICH WE AGREE !!!! DOWN WITH THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS !!!!
FREE SPEECH TO THOSE WHO UPHOLD ONLY THOSE THINGS TO WHICH WE AGREE !!!! DOWN WITH THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS !!!!
Hitchens reports regularly in Vanity Fair and other mainstream widely circulated papers. He has more free speech than you or I do. Inviting Hitchens to speak wasn't made, the decision wasn't made, because Hitchens is denied the right to speak his mind. So who made the decision and why? Those oppose to him speaking don't oppose his right to speak, contrary to most of the reactionary posts indicate so far. They oppose his politics, which are contrary to the memory of the person in which the venue he will be appearing at believed in.
Hitchens can speak anywhere he wants. Why the hell does he have to do it at a venue dedicated to an anti-war activist??
This would be like inviting Bull Connor to speak at the MLK Jr. Center about the evils of segregation.
Let Hitchens speak. Challenge him (that's free speech too). Then hold those who invited him accountable and let them know they are fucking up.
Hitchens can speak anywhere he wants. Why the hell does he have to do it at a venue dedicated to an anti-war activist??
This would be like inviting Bull Connor to speak at the MLK Jr. Center about the evils of segregation.
Let Hitchens speak. Challenge him (that's free speech too). Then hold those who invited him accountable and let them know they are fucking up.
Hitchens reports regularly in Vanity Fair and other mainstream widely circulated papers. He has more free speech than you or I do.
Just because someone has a larger audience does not mean they have "more free speech".
Conversely, not having an audience does not mean that your speech is "less free".
did anyone go to this? The thing is, it didn't sound that interesting, so I didn't go. Hitchens probably will have less attention now that he left the Nation and overall recognition of his name will probably go down. His position sounds sort of undistinguished and vague and unexciting.
When Free Speach was an issue in the late 1700s, it was about letting people with controversial opinions get their idea heard...
Today even if you are not censored media outlets are harder and harder for normal people to use. Candidates for office routinely spend millions on ads undermining any real sense of democracy (since it takes money to get ones views heard only those with money can get their views heard).
Hitchens speaking wasnt about freedom to speak. It was about a group with radical roots becoming more and more right wing until the name of a person who fought the government to end war is now being used to promote proWar views. Freedom of speech would be saying that the government or University shouldny tbe able to censor Hitchens from speaking, it doesnt say every left wing group should go out of their way to give equal time to rightwingers (rightwingers have their own groups so in the overall sense of things if the left gives them space there is less ballance).
But freedom of speech is becoming less of a real issue since access to resources plays such a large role in what gets heard.
Today even if you are not censored media outlets are harder and harder for normal people to use. Candidates for office routinely spend millions on ads undermining any real sense of democracy (since it takes money to get ones views heard only those with money can get their views heard).
Hitchens speaking wasnt about freedom to speak. It was about a group with radical roots becoming more and more right wing until the name of a person who fought the government to end war is now being used to promote proWar views. Freedom of speech would be saying that the government or University shouldny tbe able to censor Hitchens from speaking, it doesnt say every left wing group should go out of their way to give equal time to rightwingers (rightwingers have their own groups so in the overall sense of things if the left gives them space there is less ballance).
But freedom of speech is becoming less of a real issue since access to resources plays such a large role in what gets heard.
A couple of interesting things, although overall a farce.
I've heard lots of random things by and about H, but haven't read more than a few articles by him. My take on him based on what I saw last night is that a)he wants to incite people to go at each other, or even to go after him, b) he's conflicted - on the one hand he wants to appear to support the US war, on the other hand, after some pressing by a questioner, he revealed his feelings on Asscroft - that he has an obvious fetishistic approval of capital punishment that overrides law and justice and therefore he's basically a criminal c) nonetheless, calling the US moves 'imperialist' is wrong and will do no good, d) so even though the US is criminal in numerous ways, who else could get rid of the potential for the 'Talibanization' of the world? e) he therefore supports the criminal US under the mistaken belief that no matter what the actual goals are of the US, as long as they 'rid' the world of the religious zealots, they're worth supporting f) he believes that oil is worth going to war for, and asked who thought it wasn't - I and several others raised our hands and he criticized us as '6 people' in the auedience who have this belief g) he was wearing jeans - that, combined with his clearly upper-class accent and obvious wish to incite people to attack him, shows that he has some motive in expressing his views beyond what he actually believes on a moral level (as was shown when he described asscroft).
The right-wingers in the crowd made fools of themselves - one called someone a 'commie.'
The awards to the young activists were idiotic - not that they would get an award - but the drawn out nature of it and the unfortunately badly performed speeches of the activsts. By the time one of them said "And finally . . . " people started clapping because we were so glad it was almost over. Their mission is a good one, they just have to learn that an audience waiting for Hitchens doesn't want a FULL half hour of young activists talking in abstractions about 'youth' 'oppression' 'imperialism' etc. Some in the crowd were from the original free speech mvmt and it was a insult to them to have to sit through that - stuff we ALL KNOW inside and out. My guess is that they just didn't know what to expect, as many of us didn't.
It was worthwhile to get an insight into Hitchens as a person - he has his own agenda and isn't worth listening to in the future except on issues of Kissinger and MT.
I've heard lots of random things by and about H, but haven't read more than a few articles by him. My take on him based on what I saw last night is that a)he wants to incite people to go at each other, or even to go after him, b) he's conflicted - on the one hand he wants to appear to support the US war, on the other hand, after some pressing by a questioner, he revealed his feelings on Asscroft - that he has an obvious fetishistic approval of capital punishment that overrides law and justice and therefore he's basically a criminal c) nonetheless, calling the US moves 'imperialist' is wrong and will do no good, d) so even though the US is criminal in numerous ways, who else could get rid of the potential for the 'Talibanization' of the world? e) he therefore supports the criminal US under the mistaken belief that no matter what the actual goals are of the US, as long as they 'rid' the world of the religious zealots, they're worth supporting f) he believes that oil is worth going to war for, and asked who thought it wasn't - I and several others raised our hands and he criticized us as '6 people' in the auedience who have this belief g) he was wearing jeans - that, combined with his clearly upper-class accent and obvious wish to incite people to attack him, shows that he has some motive in expressing his views beyond what he actually believes on a moral level (as was shown when he described asscroft).
The right-wingers in the crowd made fools of themselves - one called someone a 'commie.'
The awards to the young activists were idiotic - not that they would get an award - but the drawn out nature of it and the unfortunately badly performed speeches of the activsts. By the time one of them said "And finally . . . " people started clapping because we were so glad it was almost over. Their mission is a good one, they just have to learn that an audience waiting for Hitchens doesn't want a FULL half hour of young activists talking in abstractions about 'youth' 'oppression' 'imperialism' etc. Some in the crowd were from the original free speech mvmt and it was a insult to them to have to sit through that - stuff we ALL KNOW inside and out. My guess is that they just didn't know what to expect, as many of us didn't.
It was worthwhile to get an insight into Hitchens as a person - he has his own agenda and isn't worth listening to in the future except on issues of Kissinger and MT.
Speaking of people adoring over boring moderate democrats, look at this Chronicle article about Al Gore promoting his book onthe proper way to be a family in Marin County. They describe an obsessive woman from Berkeley who waited 5 hours ahead of time to get her spot in line: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/11/22/MN103009.DTL
Because I endured at least two NPR interviews with them already (in collusion with promoting book sales and the obvious future loss of the democrats to Bush again).
In those they were basically evading the *slightly* charged questions so blatantly, that even the most lukewarm democrats would have to be drugged to not notice that they're actually saying nothing at all.
But how nice for democrats, then, to not have worry about what was actually *said,* aside from criticizing Bush and saying the words 'family' and 'values' over and over like a robot. Oh, and tax breaks for the middle. Right.
But it's funny to see that they're frantic enough to stay out in line like that - what a let down it must have been to see, up close, the make-up cadaver aspects of the average celebrity politician.
In those they were basically evading the *slightly* charged questions so blatantly, that even the most lukewarm democrats would have to be drugged to not notice that they're actually saying nothing at all.
But how nice for democrats, then, to not have worry about what was actually *said,* aside from criticizing Bush and saying the words 'family' and 'values' over and over like a robot. Oh, and tax breaks for the middle. Right.
But it's funny to see that they're frantic enough to stay out in line like that - what a let down it must have been to see, up close, the make-up cadaver aspects of the average celebrity politician.
Yes, radio and TV and newspapers can be so scary. For instance, I turned on CNN today too, and there was Jerry Falwell describing how he drives a Suburban SUV and his next vehicle will be a Humvee, and that global warming doesn't exist. Then he made an elaborate argument for how jesus would have also driven an expensive top of the line big car because jesus liked nice things, and he called the mennonite or evangelical guy from 'what would jesus drive" organization an 'earth worshipper'.
what would Jesus drive on Portland IMC but I didn't check it out. Now it's 'What would Jesus smoke?' Didn't check that one either. It was more interesting to read the details of what the cops were trying to pull when they tried to stop the IMC reporter from taking pictures of the clergy who were performing a 'social exorcism.' Portland has all the cool stuff.
The point has already been made that the selection of Hitchens was inappropriate to a memorial lecture honoring the spirit, philosophy, and memory of a life-long ANTI-WAR activist/believer/philosopher.
Therefore, this is not a free speech issue. No one is preventing Hitchens from speaking anywhere else, and certainly, no one--not even I--prevented him from speaking at the Savio event.
No one is denying Hitchens' right to speak wherever else he wants--even on the UC Berkeley campus. (He will have more than enough opportunity as a visiting lecturer this spring--although also quite inappropriately as an "I.F. Stone Lecturer." (Look up I.F. Stone, as both Stone and Mario must be turning over in their graves!)
As for free speech, Mario Savio championed the free speech rights of people to DISSENT against the state voice of power (and its propaganda).
Hitchens is neither anti-war--quite to the contrary, he is supporting the govt's idea of PERMANENT WAR!--nor is is he, therefore, a dissenter: he SUPPORTS the state in its global imperialist ambitions, especially over the non-European world--a goal that will create int'l resentment and hostilities that will have the entire world living--and dying--in a never-ending cycle of literally explosive violence, like Israelis.
Do you want to live in a world with a never-ending cycle of global violence: of U.S. state terrorism and 9-11 reciprocal terrorism? A world where you can't go to the store, the cafe, the office, the pedestrian mall, etc., without being blown up? A world where you dare not go with all your family members, or both parents together, or with all your familial brothers &/or sisters together, to any of these places--or on a plane--without losing either both your parents, or your parents losing all their kids in semiregular terrorist explosions?
And how many more wedding parties in the non-European world will the U.S. military bomb?--again with whole families, especially the new bride and groom--on "the happiest day of their lives"--destroyed.
Finally, to make it clear: The Annual Mario Savio Memorial Lecutre is to HONOR and CELEBRATE the spirit, philosophy, world goals, ideals and memory of MARIO SAVIO, not antithetical ones of Christopher Hitchens.
Therefore, this is not a free speech issue. No one is preventing Hitchens from speaking anywhere else, and certainly, no one--not even I--prevented him from speaking at the Savio event.
No one is denying Hitchens' right to speak wherever else he wants--even on the UC Berkeley campus. (He will have more than enough opportunity as a visiting lecturer this spring--although also quite inappropriately as an "I.F. Stone Lecturer." (Look up I.F. Stone, as both Stone and Mario must be turning over in their graves!)
As for free speech, Mario Savio championed the free speech rights of people to DISSENT against the state voice of power (and its propaganda).
Hitchens is neither anti-war--quite to the contrary, he is supporting the govt's idea of PERMANENT WAR!--nor is is he, therefore, a dissenter: he SUPPORTS the state in its global imperialist ambitions, especially over the non-European world--a goal that will create int'l resentment and hostilities that will have the entire world living--and dying--in a never-ending cycle of literally explosive violence, like Israelis.
Do you want to live in a world with a never-ending cycle of global violence: of U.S. state terrorism and 9-11 reciprocal terrorism? A world where you can't go to the store, the cafe, the office, the pedestrian mall, etc., without being blown up? A world where you dare not go with all your family members, or both parents together, or with all your familial brothers &/or sisters together, to any of these places--or on a plane--without losing either both your parents, or your parents losing all their kids in semiregular terrorist explosions?
And how many more wedding parties in the non-European world will the U.S. military bomb?--again with whole families, especially the new bride and groom--on "the happiest day of their lives"--destroyed.
Finally, to make it clear: The Annual Mario Savio Memorial Lecutre is to HONOR and CELEBRATE the spirit, philosophy, world goals, ideals and memory of MARIO SAVIO, not antithetical ones of Christopher Hitchens.
At Fisk last night just to exclaim what a relief it was to hear him after having sat through the brutally long and insane event of Hitchens, but I figured that there were more important things for others to ask.
Just think if Berkeley had Fisk as a new prof, instead of idiot Hitchens . . . .
But then, Fisk still has a lot of important work around the world to do and Hitchens obviously doesn't.
Just think if Berkeley had Fisk as a new prof, instead of idiot Hitchens . . . .
But then, Fisk still has a lot of important work around the world to do and Hitchens obviously doesn't.
http://www.SFbay.IndyMedia.org
Article -- November 23, 2002
"HITCHENS PROTESTER SPEAKS: JOSEPH ANDERSON"
http://www.indybay.org/NEWS/2002/11/1544878_COMMENT.PHP#1545225
from
http://www.indybay.org/NEWS/2002/11/1544878.PHP
http://www.indybay.org
Article -- November 23, 2002
"HITCHENS PROTESTER SPEAKS: JOSEPH ANDERSON"
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/11/1544878_comment.php#1545225
from
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/11/1544878.php
Very nice to see Hitchens invade the camp of political reprobates that infest Berkeley. He does something you can not stomach. He brings authentic left-wing radical credentials to a debate and uses those very ideas to expose you for what you really are: the useful idiots for despots and fascists the world over.
Go get 'em Christopher!
Go get 'em Christopher!
"old anti-'Nam activist", thanks for the great post.... The most intelligent one I've seen on either SF indymedia site in quite a while!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network