[Peace-discuss] WaPo: Liberals, Dems, Women Abandon Afghan War

[Brussel Morton K.]

OK, it was about three years ago; that's a detail which I should have  
checked instead of sloppily referring to your email, but I knew it was  
some time well in the past.

I followed closely the material about the Finkelstein episode wrt  
Coniff's and Rothschild's remarks and expressed my disgust to the  
magazine at the time. That you should imply otherwise is a typical  
Estabrook erroneous inference.

I repeat: People like Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein and many others still  
consider and support The Progressive as a bastion of progressive  
thought, and I am fairly sure they are not ignorant of the dispute  
with Finkelstein.  I would guess that Chomsky does too.

I find (your animus) not surprising because you have a way of  
antagonizing folks who on most issues might even agree with you; it is  
a destructive impulse in my opinion—in this case, seeking to destroy  
its reputation on the basis of one episode, but neglecting the larger  
picture. A propos, I have found some of Alex Cockburn's pieces lousy,  
but I still think it's worth supporting his Counterpunch publication.  
Ditto other periodicals.

I must say that I've been harshly critical in past years, going back  
decades, of some of the The Progressive's editorial opinions, even  
ceasing to subscribe, but I would say that they have improved much (in  
my eyes) in recent times, as attested by the popularity and support  
shown by the recent celebration of their founding.

I note your word "recently" in your comment below, quite misleading.

I reiterate that you cannot have not followed the content of The  
Progressive "recently".

Much of your comment is a non sequitur, as for example implicitly  
linking The Progressive with The New Republic. One may indeed be said  
to follow the Israel lobby; the other is manifestly not.

--mkb






On Aug 22, 2009, at 1:37 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> Chomsky, who's frozen out by most of the US media -- including self- 
> described
> progressive media -- publishes in many small journals whose politics  
> he doesn't
> agree with.  (In fact, I don't think The Progressive [sic] has  
> published
> anything by him for five years, altho' I think they should.)
>
> Supporting by subscription or donation a magazine with the politics  
> that The
> Progressive has recently [sic] revealed is another matter.  (And I  
> was proud to have
> known its former editor, the late Erwin Knoll.)  Similarly, I didn't  
> subscribe
> to or support The New Republic, altho' I had before, after it was  
> bought by a
> member of the Israel lobby (even though he was something of a family  
> friend).
>
> Norman Finkelstein asks  ["asked"?], "Should decent people subscribe  
> to The Progressive?,"
> and I agree with his implied answer, in the light of the material  
> that he
> produces at <http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=67>.
>
> I don't think you can have read that material, or else you would  
> know that (a)
> The Progressive's holocaust-denial slur was not five years ago (that  
> was the
> date of the Chomsky interview I cited in an earlier post), and (b)  
> the substance
> of the debate is hardly "water over the dam," as you say.
>
> But I'm intrigued by your remark, "Why Estabrook reveals his animus  
> now is
> disturbing, but not surprising."  What do you think the reason is?
>
> What is it that disturbs while not surprising you? --CGE
>
>
> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>> Yes, /The Progressive/ is a prominent and valuable progressive  
>> magazine.
>> Its dispute with Finkelstein was indeed despicable, as outlined  
>> below, but I
>> think that by now, five years on, it is largely water over the dam,  
>> and can
>> be justly put aside, if not forgotten, in view of its current  
>> positions on
>> U.S. wars, imperialism, Israel-Palestine, civil rights, etc..  
>> Estabrook
>> evidently has not been reading that revue. People like Howard Zinn,  
>> Naomi
>> Klein and many others still consider and support it as a bastions of
>> progressive thought, and I am fairly sure they are not ignorant of  
>> the
>> dispute with Finkelstein.  I would guess that Chomsky does too.
>> Why Estabrook reveals his animus now is disturbing, but not  
>> surprising.
>> --mkb
>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:20 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> Why the [sic] on The Progressive:
>>> http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=67 <http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=67 
>>> >
>>> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>> [From an interview in The Progressive [sic] five years ago.  Full  
>>>> text at
>>>> <http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200405--.htm>.  --CGE] ...
>>> _______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090822/79344e77/attachment.htm