<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">John, when you & I were young and in New England, that was called "poor-mouthing," and no one could get away with it.<br>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Carl, you always suggest that our experiences at our respective Ivy League institutions, during the same general era, were the same. They weren't, not even remotely. I WAS in fact a poor boy from a working class neighborhood in Chicago. I hated the preppies. I didn't have a clue about the Old Boy network or how it worked. When I graduated from college magna cum laude, I went right back to the south side of Chicago and worked for minimum wage unloading railroad cars, washing trays in a bakery, pumping gas, mowing lawns, shoveling manure on farms, and killing rats and cockroaches. My entire life, at least until I arrived here in C-U and largely even here, has been spent in blue collar environs.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You, on the other hand, understood the preppies even if you disagreed with them politically. You read infinitely more books, went on to get a couple more Harvard degrees, and made a career as a professor. You could have been a ranking member of the "political elite" if your politics hadn't been so radical. We both remained more or less true to the ideals that we embraced while in college, but we remained true in vastly different manners and milieux. I'm not happy with the choices I've made in life, but I do know infinitely more about how the "average" person thinks, and why, than you do. You[re a Noam Chomsky, with perhaps more attitude. I'm an Eric Hoffer or - dare I say it? - an Eldridge Cleaver.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">But you think these Midwesterners are more credulous, eh?<br><br>Attention to the political class' newspaper of record and its leading liberal columnist is a matter of noting how well the manufacture of consent is working.<br>
<br>The administration thinks that its greatest threat right now comes from home (as usual), not abroad - the danger that the US public may cop an attitude on AfPak (cf. Vietnam). That's what really scares Obama & Co. (See the "Audacity of Hope," where he indicates how serious he thinks the problem is - and offers himself as the solution.)<br>
<br>Ol' Frank's job - as David points out mordantly - is to patrol the limits of allowable debate, to tell us how as well as what to think about "Obama's first year," so that more will follow as the night the day.<br>
<br>And you tell us to pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain... </blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Not exactly. I tell you that we on this list already have a pretty good idea as to how the little man behind the curtain operates, though we may disagree on a few of the details. But the larger public - the silent majority, if you will - are not critical thinkers and they have very little idea of what is going on. Perhaps more importantly, even if they suspect that limits have been imposed on allowable debate, they have no idea what to do about it. And neither do you. Which is why you just keep talking about it. I wish I was wrong.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">On 8/2/10 12:09 PM, John W. wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">You know I'm not very smart, and sometimes have trouble following these<br>arcane threads. Someone please remind me why Frank Rich's precise turns of<br>phrase are the most important thing that y'all have to talk and think about.<br>
Are you in danger of becoming complacent if ol' Frank finally admits that the<br>war in Afghanistan is "morally wrong" and not merely some manner of mistake?<br>John<br><br>On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM, David Green <<a href="mailto:davegreen84@yahoo.com" target="_blank">davegreen84@yahoo.com</a><br>
</div>
<div class="im"><mailto:<a href="mailto:davegreen84@yahoo.com" target="_blank">davegreen84@yahoo.com</a>>> wrote:<br><br>Mort, it's not at all clear that /Rich /thinks we should get out. Although he<br>is an editorial columnist, he says nothing throughout of his own views. The<br>
closest he comes is this: /As the president conducts his scheduled<br>reappraisal of his war policy this December, a re-examination of 1971 might<br>lead him to question his own certitude of what he is fond of calling “the<br>
long view.” /That's obtuse, and for a reason. And indeed the lessons of<br>"1971" aren't at all clear, if one is serious about making even this argument<br>re what "might lead" Obama. Neither the army nor the population is rebelling<br>
against the war, and the economic downturn that has accompanied it does not<br>seem to be bothering the interests of capital, broadly speaking. In fact, it<br>has benefitted them greatly--the economic world is very different than it was<br>
in 1971, and the resource stakes are much higher in the ME than in Southeast<br>Asia. There is no certainty at all, as Rich suggests, that we are on the<br>downside of this war. So his column is counsel for complacency. With you, it<br>
has seemed to work. DG<br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br></div></blockquote>*From:* Morton K. Brussel <<a href="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu" target="_blank">brussel@illinois.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu" target="_blank">brussel@illinois.edu</a>>><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">*To:* David Green <<a href="mailto:davegreen84@yahoo.com" target="_blank">davegreen84@yahoo.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:davegreen84@yahoo.com" target="_blank">davegreen84@yahoo.com</a>>><br>
*Cc:* C. G. Estabrook <<a href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" target="_blank">galliher@illinois.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" target="_blank">galliher@illinois.edu</a>>>;
<div class="im"><br>Peace Discuss <<a href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br></div><mailto:<a href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>>> *Sent:* Mon, August 2, 2010
<div class="im"><br>10:44:24 AM<br><br>*Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…<br><br>Again, you beg the question with the statement below. It's clear that Rich<br>thinks we should get out of Afghanistan. That's specific, and positive,<br>
despite all else. I also want the U.S. forces "out". That's the most<br>important thing at the moment, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.<br><br>As for Carl, he can twist anything for his purposes, as with use of the word<br>
"quagmire" as an excuse for hiding criminality.<br><br>It is one thing to say that you are not satisfied, or strongly dissatisfied<br>with the positions and writings of someone like Rich, but I believe your<br>twisting of what can be helpful in stopping the killing is perverse. Get off<br>
your ideological horse.<br><br>--mkb<br><br>On Aug 2, 2010, at 8:57 AM, David Green wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">On a broader level, everyone wants peace, albeit on their own terms.<br></blockquote></div></blockquote></blockquote>
<br>