[Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…

[John W.]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:



> John, when you & I were young and in New England, that was called
> "poor-mouthing," and no one could get away with it.
>

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.

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.




> But you think these Midwesterners are more credulous, eh?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> And you tell us to pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain...
>


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.




> On 8/2/10 12:09 PM, John W. wrote:
>
>> You know I'm not very smart, and sometimes have trouble following these
>> arcane threads.  Someone please remind me why Frank Rich's precise turns
>> of
>> phrase are the most important thing that y'all have to talk and think
>> about.
>> Are you in danger of becoming complacent if ol' Frank finally admits that
>> the
>> war in Afghanistan is "morally wrong" and not merely some manner of
>> mistake?
>> John
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Mort, it's not at all clear that /Rich /thinks we should get out. Although
>> he
>> is an editorial columnist, he says nothing throughout of his own views.
>> The
>> closest he comes is this: /As the president conducts his scheduled
>> reappraisal of his war policy this December, a re-examination of 1971
>> might
>> lead him to question his own certitude of what he is fond of calling “the
>> long view.” /That's obtuse, and for a reason. And indeed the lessons of
>> "1971" aren't at all clear, if one is serious about making even this
>> argument
>> re what "might lead" Obama. Neither the army nor the population is
>> rebelling
>> against the war, and the economic downturn that has accompanied it does
>> not
>> seem to be bothering the interests of capital, broadly speaking. In fact,
>> it
>> has benefitted them greatly--the economic world is very different than it
>> was
>> in 1971, and the resource stakes are much higher in the ME than in
>> Southeast
>> Asia. There is no certainty at all, as Rich suggests, that we are on the
>> downside of this war. So his column is counsel for complacency. With you,
>> it
>> has seemed to work. DG
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> *From:* Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu <mailto:
> brussel at illinois.edu>>
>
>> *To:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com <mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com>>
>> *Cc:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:
>> galliher at illinois.edu>>;
>>
>> Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> *Sent:* Mon, August 2, 2010
>>
>> 10:44:24 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…
>>
>> Again, you beg the question with the statement below. It's clear that Rich
>> thinks we should get out of Afghanistan. That's specific, and positive,
>> despite all else. I also want the U.S. forces "out". That's the most
>> important thing at the moment, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
>>
>> As for Carl, he can twist anything for his purposes, as with use of the
>> word
>> "quagmire" as an excuse for hiding criminality.
>>
>> It is one thing to say that you are not satisfied, or strongly
>> dissatisfied
>> with the positions and writings of someone like Rich, but I believe your
>> twisting of what can be helpful in stopping the killing is perverse. Get
>> off
>> your ideological horse.
>>
>> --mkb
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2010, at 8:57 AM, David Green wrote:
>>
>> On a broader level, everyone wants peace, albeit on their own terms.
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100803/dd003a7a/attachment.html>