Is there a standard list of villains that Respectable People have to denounce?
In practice? Yeah, pretty much. See for example the frequent demand that Black activists explicitly condemn Farrakhan, or the insistence at every interview that Tulsi Gabbard must call Assad a dictator (which she does, BTW).
Gravel is done for, though. The statements of approval for Larouche etc. are too much to just brush off. His argument that he was using the only platforms open to an antiwar speaker has some validity, but you’ve gotta draw the line somewhere.
Gravel is now a liability rather than an asset for the anti-imperialist left. Any statement he makes will be used by his opponents to paint antiwar activism as antisemitic.
Hopefully he’ll bow out and leave the antiwar platform clear for Tulsi.
YOU MUST CONFESS, but even if you do that won’t be good enough
The Democrats, valiantly fighting on behalf of the American people:
WTAF?
I get the idea of teaching people how to react to active shooters (although taking steps to prevent active shooters seems a better idea). I could even see the rationale behind teaching people how to fight back, if running or hiding aren’t viable options.
But beyond the criminal assault of their own staff, and the almost certainly trauma that they’re inflicting on the teachers experiencing it… what is it supposed to be teaching them? That they should have fought back? Well, sure, but they couldn’t, because that wasn’t the drill. That if you go along too far, you might get killed? Even if that’s a useful lesson to teach (as opposed to being very obvious), you can just say “Bang, you’re dead,” and get the same point across.
Preferably Remnick’s.
Thread: