1) I think the issue would not have won the attention it has if students
had not rebelled against the ad.
2) In a narrow sphere in which I am deeply interested, there are 5,000
radio stations available to the other side. There are 50, i.e., 1 for
every 100 of the former, carrying the best our side has to offer,
"Democracy Now." Therefore I see no reason to waste the precious air
time of the five Pacifica stations supposedly on our side to "balance"
arguments. 100 to 1 is hardly balance.
Marty Jezer wrote:
> William Mandel wrote:
> > So you conclude that the Horowitzes should always be entitled to more
> > ink than us, since they will always be able to buy more advertising
> > space. Is that correct?
> > William Mandel
> That's an easy question to ask, Bill, not so easy to answer.
> Yes, it's true, their side has more money than our side; more money for
> advertisements, more money for lobbying, more money for campaign
> contributions, more money for public relations, more money even to bus
> people to Washington for demonstrations. Is your idea that our side, the
> poor minority, censor their side, keep them from advertising?
Do you teach in the social sciences? Consider my SAYING NO TO POWER
(Creative Arts, Berkeley, 1999), for course use. It was written as a
social history of
the U.S. for the past three-quarters of a century through the eyes of a
observer in most progressive social movements (I'm 83), and of the USSR
standpoint of a Sovietologist (five earlier books) knowing that country
longer than any
other in the profession. Therefore it is also a history of the Cold War.
in The Black Scholar, American Studies in Scandinavia, San Francisco
forthcoming in Tikkun, etc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 01:11:59 EDT