Groups may not be what they say they are
The recent letter by James Chumsa decrying a submission by myself, and one originally submitted Diane Moen regarding the Transition Network and its potential connection to far left politics was surprisingly incomplete and skewed. Let’s take a look at why.
My first reaction to his letter was an incredulous one. Did he even read the two letters he seemed so intent on criticizing? Apparently not. If he had he would have realized that both stated that further scrutiny regarding the operations of the Transition Network was the main concern. Does he then think such transparency is unimportant? Ms. Moen stated clearly that organizations such as Transitions Network “appear to present as such” not that they are directly communist, and it was directly stated in her letter that she is not accusing but simply making observations and asking questions.
Are we no longer supposed to do that? I was under the impression that in a vibrant democracy such questions were essential. Ms. Moen backs up all of her statements with references and cogent connections to the organizations she is referring to. Have we entered an age in which such practices appear to have no validity? Perhaps Mr. Chumsa and others think so.
In reacting to her letter no one has yet methodically examined or successfully refuted, even directly addressed her points. Curious isn’t it? Apparently that too is now unnecessary. But the fact remains that if you can’t refute someone’s points intelligently and completely you have already lost the argument.
There are two other points that must be addressed. Just because a group posts something on its website doesn’t mean that it is actually true or their true intent. In the dangerously inverted world we now live in we can’t afford that kind of well meaning naivete. If you read the constitutions and documents of some of the most repressive regimes and organizations in the world you will find them wonderfully democratic.
Those who have studied communism, its body count and the repressively inhuman suppression of freedom it represents know very well what it is, and what it still represents today. No naivete there Mr. Chumsa, and no lack of knowledge about what communism is or what it does.
Also, the use of the “ad hominem” (attack the man) logical fallacy is unworthy of any writer. If calling someone “daft” is your best shot then you have none. But then that kind of tactic has been well practiced by others hasn’t it? The use of name calling and insulting invective doesn’t prove anything or further an argument, as Mr. Rock and perhaps Mr. Chumsa, might already know. That might well be the subject of another and future response by those interested in cogent arguments rather than accusations and name calling.
Perry Foster
Duncan