[Peace-discuss] Another interesting article that speaks to the illusion that so-called liberal/progressive democrats actually turn out to be such.

Fri Nov 21 00:34:43 CST 2008

Mort,

> Please explain your meaning, in simple sentences

If I could write in the style that you suggest, I would be doing more
writing for publication – I might even have written my dissertation. J  I
never learned to write in simple sentences; I am a child of sentence
diagramming and grammatical correctness in so far I am enamored by
grammatically correct paragraph and page long compound, complex sentences.
I not only like the challenge of creating them; but they seem to fit nature
of my thoughts.  This coupled with my insecurities of being told that I have
not furnished enough illustration and detail, am too abstract and general,
and the like have often led me to over-compensate by trying to cover all the
bases from all the possible directions that I can think of.  J  So goes
life.

> I didn't understand what I presumably was supposed to understand after
reading Solomon's article (which I thought made an important point).

The Solomon article did make an important point; but I think you have
confused it with the article by Henry A. Giroux on the Militarized Academy
also coming out of Truthout which a posted with comments in a separate post
to the lists for reaction and comments. This confounding of the two posts of
mine and the two articles referred to in them may be what underlies you
inability to understand what you were supposed to understand after reading
the Solomon article. I could be wrong but that is the feeling I get.  The
Solomon article was about hopes, myths, fantasies, the fog of memory, and
spin with a focus on self-delusions, fables, and reconstructions of history
that people employ to explain and justify their actions and the actions of
others.  It also refutes the notion that Clinton or any of the so-called
leftist presidents were in anyway leftist or progressive; nor did they
attempt to rule from the left. Giroux, on the other hand, does focus on the
militarization of academia which may come about under the Obama
Administration.  My point in presenting the Solomon article was to suggest
that things and politicians are never what they present themselves to be or
appear to be; and people – especially progressives – should not delude
themselves by believing in or placing their hopes on those appearances and
expectations.  Neither should they place their hopes in having an impact by
virtue of reasoning, lobbying, or other methods on pressuring the politician
to move to the left; nor should they explaining failures to be successful as
being due their not exerting ENOUGH pressure, working hard ENOUGH long
ENOUGH, making their positions known early ENOUGH, or making their voices
loud ENOUGH.

>  And as an aside, relevant to your criticism of academia, I certainly
agree that we should talk about the military-industrial-academic complex
that       >  largely determines and supports government policies--I've
often used that term myself. But as a retired academic, I feel that the
university is not          >  solely an instrument of the power élite. It is
also a center (not necessarily the center) of criticism, protest, and
analysis of government power and          >  policies. It  is also a forum
for contrary views not easily expressed elsewhere. 

I agree that there are some occasions when the university has provided a
center of or for criticism, protest, and analysis of government power and
policies; but I think that it is rare when universities become or act as
serious centers.  In many too many occasions, such displays are too academic
in form and nature, are often merely symbolic gestures or like professional
learned society conference panel debates and discussions, are typically
verbal or artistic expressions and statements rather than actual actions,
are usually polite, civil, respectable, and tempered comments, criticisms,
analyses, and protests.  As for being a forum for the exchange of ideas and
contrary views not easily expressed elsewhere, this is true if one take it
with a grain of salt since we all know that there are limits to how
contrary, extreme, or provocative those views and statements can be before
they are disallowed and those presenting them are sanctioned or face peer
pressure.  Tacit knowledge of this keeps everyone in line so that real
radical challenges to established views are rarely presented, since
academics do not want to be considered or called kooks, crackpots,
extremists, irresponsible, or the like by outsiders and especially
colleagues.

When we introduce student protests, demonstrations, and direct actions, one
has to acknowledge that experience tells us that a majority of the
participants are not really have any long term seriousness or commitment to
the causes or positions which extend beyond their youthful undergraduate
college years. For many a college student, protests and demonstrations are
occasions for exhibiting the rebelliousness of youth, getting things out of
their system, identifying with significant others in their peer group, etc.
These protests and demonstrations take on a similarity with pep rallies,
fraternity/sorority parties and events, homecoming parades, drinking
contests and bar hopping, competitive sporting events, etc.

I do concede that t here are some exceptional academics (active and retires)
who are not the “go along” types of academics but do fit the bill as social
critics and critical policy analysts on a serious and consistent fashion
rather than opportunistically.  They do hold academics and academia up to
critical analysis and are willing to hold their colleagues’ feet to the fire
and make them accountable for their actions and unquestioned support of the
military-industrial- governmental establishment complex. I have the utmost
respect and regard for the Chomskys, Zinns, Wests, and Parentis of the
world; but they are a rarity as compared to the vast number of academics and
non-academic intellectuals.

> I come from the physics department here, and recognize that its faculty
constitutes no progressive bastion, but I've also seen members of its
faculty 

> contribute  their expertise to shoot down the "star wars" propaganda of
the Reagan (and subsequent) years and to fight for a nuclear weapon free 

> world.  

I have no doubt there were some members of physics departments across the
country who  have contributed their expertise to shoot down various projects
and promote other progressive goals.  I do have to wonder how many of them
jumped on board when it was safe to do so because it was known that the
death of the project or the promoted goals are a foregone conclusion that is
known and accepted by the powers that be.  I also have to question the
selective nature of such actions where they protest or criticize a general
project but support specific elements of it – especially those elements
where they or their university has a vested interest – or where they oppose
one project like “star wars” while supporting other equally problematic
projects like the development of super computers that will enable the
military and private enterprises to manipulate the environments, control
people, acquire and analyze intelligence data about people’s communications,
buying habits, and interactions to the detriment of personal liberties and
national sovereignty.  

> I think you have a deep understanding of complexity, but your comments of
the academic world don't quite reflect it. 

Mort, I am smiling. I cannot seem to win.  When I simplify, I am accused of
not understanding, taking account of, or reflecting the practicalities and
complexities involved; but when I attempt to reflect, account for, or show
an understanding of the practicalities and complexities, I am accused of
being hard to read and understand resulting in the reader having to expend
more effort to read me than it is worth. Nothing is as simple as it appears;
there are always practical exigencies, situational contingencies, and
complex interdependencies.  That is to be taken for granted as a given.  I
have just not learned how to capture and describe that in writing such that
others will really understand what I intend or mean without becoming
completely confused and lost.

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Morton K.
Brussel
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:33 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; sf-core at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Another interesting article that speaks to the
illusion that so-called liberal/progressive democrats actually turn out to
be such.

Laurie,

Please explain your meaning, in simple sentences; I didn't understand what I
presumably was supposed to understand after reading Solomon's article (which
I thought made an important point). 

And as an aside, relevant to your criticism of academia, I certainly agree
that we should talk about the military-industrial-academic complex that
largely determines and supports government policies--I've often used that
term myself. But as a retired academic, I feel that the university is not
solely an instrument of the power élite. It is also a center (not
necessarily the center) of criticism, protest, and analysis of government
power and policies. It is also a forum for contrary views not easily
expressed elsewhere. 

Chomsky and Zinn are (retired) academics, even as they roundly criticize
their colleagues and institutions for remaining passive to injustice and
indeed promoting injustice by collaborating with the military-industrial
complex.  And of course there are others who have found a voice from their
niches as academics, Cornel West just yesterday on Democracy Now!, David
Roediger who just responded to your comments,  and Edward Zaid to mention
just three more who immediately come to mind. 

I come from the physics department here, and recognize that its faculty
constitutes no progressive bastion, but I've also seen members of its
faculty contribute  their expertise to shoot down the "star wars" propaganda
of the Reagan (and subsequent) years and to fight for a nuclear weapon free
world.  

A basic corrupting influence, of course, in the university comes from the
fact that it heavily relies on government (and corporate) largesse for its
operation and growth, and contract support for its faculty. "He who pays the
piper
 "

I think you have a deep understanding of complexity, but your comments of
the academic world don't quite reflect it. 

--Mort

On Nov 20, 2008, at 3:41 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

For those liberal, reform-minded, hopeful progressives who are banking their
hopes on Obama doing the right thing  by them and actually representing the
ordinary work-a-day world man-in-the-street, the interests of common good as
seen by  the everyday person, or change in any really significant and
fundamental way in which society is structured or works, I think that they
really need to take a clear look at history and accept the facts of the
countries historical past.   Experience should have taught them, but
evidently it did not, that deluding one’s self into believing that things
are going to change if they only complain LOUD ENOUGH, if they only petition
Obama ENOUGH, if they threaten him that they will hold him accountable come
the next election, and if they work hard enough to move the center more to
the left.

Given this, I respectfully submit the following for your edification:

t r u t h o u t | 11.20

Norman Solomon | A Media Parable for "the Center"

http://www.truthout.org/112008A

Norman Solomon, Truthout: "It's been 16 years since a Democrat moved into
the White House. Now, the fog of memory and the spin of media are teaming up
to explain that Barack Obama must hew to 'the center' if he knows what's
good for his presidency. 'Many political observers,' The San Francisco
Chronicle reported days ago, say that Obama 'must tack toward the political
mainstream to avoid miscalculations made by President Bill Clinton, who
veered left and fired up the 1994 Republican backlash.' This storyline
provides a kind of political morality play: The new president tried to
govern from the left, and Democrats lost control of Congress just two years
later. But, if facts matter, the narrative is a real head-scratcher."

_______________________________________________

Peace-discuss mailing list

Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net

http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081121/58665ee6/attachment.htm