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

[John W.]

Oh, don't you just love animus?  Animus sells mailing list subscriptions!
Especially Peace Discuss subscriptions!  :-)



On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>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* [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/20090822/18410505/attachment.html