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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Mort--

You avoid answering the question I asked, which is what you think the reason is 
that you allude to but don't explain when you say, "Why Estabrook reveals his 
animus now is disturbing, but not surprising."

I implied nothing about what you may or may not have "expressed ... to the 
magazine," so it can hardly be a "typical ... erroneous inference."

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I said that you must not have 
read Finkelstein's material, because a reasonable person doing so could hardly 
say that a charge of holocaust-denial was "water over the dam." I presumed that 
you couldn't know that that was the subject.

Self-knowledge in these matters is admittedly difficult, but I don't think I 
particularly antagonize people who agree with me -- so much as antagonize people 
I disagree with when they think I should agree with them because of other shared 
opinions.  (E.g., "If you're against the war, you've got to support Obama!"  No, 
I don't.)  Each side thinks the other inconsistent.

I disagree with you on the quality of TP under different editors: it was better 
under Knoll, I think. And I do think the most important thing it's done recently 
is smear Finkelstein.  The fact that it also publishes useful material (you keep 
mentioning Zinn and Klein, but I think I'm right that there's been no Chomsky 
recently) -- often available elsewhere -- doesn't make up for the smear on this 
person and this issue.

The link between TP and TNR -- which I made explicitly, not implicitly -- is 
that they are both traditionally liberal journals in which I wouldn't object to 
Chomsky's publishing, but which a "decent person" shouldn't support by 
subscription or donation.

Regards, Carl


Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> 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 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, "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 
>>>> <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] 
>>>>> ...
>>>> _______________________________________________