Mr. O'Neill considers Jensen is a "fountain of foolishness," and an "avowed secularist" who fails to unite "progressives," who strays from his topic and imparts little of interest. Why should Prof. Jensen need to schmooze his audience? Personally, I prefer the truth.
If Jensen's topic is "Our Right to Know the Truth" then shouldn't he begin by speaking truth instead of flattery?
The whole point of anti-war activism should be stopping a war, not defending turf. To succeed in stopping war, we must open our minds to new ideas, strategies and insights. No one person or group has all the right answers.
The idea that to "gain credibility," activists must "play the patriotism card" is indicative of only one thing: the depth and extent of the brainwashing we daily imbibe over our lifetimes. That's exactly the point Prof. Jensen made. Yes, espousing patriotism is a problem because patriotism has been used to sell war for centuries.
Why all the emphasis on "ripping" slogans, of third parties or mainstream media? I doubt that Mr. Jensen is as intoxicated with "ripping" as much as in conveying his impressions and thoughts.
Not all those who oppose war are progressives. Those of us outside the liberal fold don't care to be marginalized, patronized or ignored. Rather than brandishing a moralistic tone, let's try to be more inclusive, communicating with others in simple, heartfelt, thoughtful terms.
Prof. Jensen knows that "Our Right to Know the Truth" means nothing unless we are willing to look at ourselves, our biases, and our brainwashing openly, and stride out beyond them.
Got something to say about an Independent article? Send no more than 300 words to firstname.lastname@example.org; to P.O. Box 2690, Durham 27715; or fax 286-4274. Include your name, phone number and mailing address for verification; we cannot publish a letter without confirmation from the writer. We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style and clarity.