[Peace-discuss] The Nation betrayed

unionyes unionyes at ameritech.net
Mon Feb 22 19:06:57 CST 2010 

Carl and David,
'
I did some brief research on this Michael Berube character and his new book 
you mentioned.

What a piece of work ! ( or should I just say what I really mean.... what a 
piece of SHIT ! ).

Him and that Tim Wise fellow who wrote that stupid article right after 
Obama's election ( " The Election of Obama and The Rage of the Barbituate 
Left " ) that I was compeled to answer with my own article.

These two must belong to the same neo-liberal elitist psychophant ( ass 
kissing )club.
Hoping to obtain praise and fortune from the corporate  ruling class via 
their attacks upon real champions of the people and anyone who wants more 
democracy, economic justice, and an end to corporate globalization and 
imperialism.

I would LOVE to get in this guys face if he ever somes back to C-U to speak 
publicly !

David J.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: "David Green" <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at illinois.edu>; "Peace Discuss" 
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Nation betrayed


>I agree entirely with David on Alterman & Gitlin (and I would add ex-local 
>boy Michael Berube, who desperately wants to get into that club with his 
>new leftist-bashing book, "The Left at War").
>
> David puts the matter accurately and elegantly: "The ideological 
> distinctions I'm getting at are not fine ones. They're fundamental: 
> principled egalitarianism and democracy on the one hand, unprincipled 
> authoritarianism and elitism on the other."
>
> I won't go quite so far as he, however, on the question of allies. Include 
> the libertarian right, certainly (and the squeamish reluctance of some 
> liberals to admit that Ron Paul et al. are principled opponents of the war 
> does them no credit), without necessarily categorically excluding the 
> "so-called liberal left."  They have some funny ideas, but they may be 
> educable.  (And that last sentence applies to both groups.)  --CGE
>
>
> David Green wrote:
>> Mort, the angst to my anger is that in terms of political strategy, the 
>> antiwar left is going to have to realize that its allies are on the 
>> libertarian right, not on the so-called liberal left. This becomes more 
>> glaringly obvious when you look at the views of someone like Alterman 
>> regarding Israel/Palestine. If the purpose of a political journal is as a 
>> basis for organizing, then I'm really serious about making these 
>> distinctions clear. The record of people like Alterman and Todd Gitlin in 
>> the run-up to the Iraq War also makes it clear: they served primarily as 
>> leftist-bashers. The ideological distinctions I'm getting at are not fine 
>> ones. They're fundamental: principled egalitarianism and democracy on the 
>> one hand, unprincipled authoritarianism and elitism on the other.
>>  DG
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
>> *To:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
>> *Cc:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>; Peace Discuss 
>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> *Sent:* Mon, February 22, 2010 12:14:30 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] The Nation betrayed
>>
>> It should perhaps occur to you that perhaps Naomi Klein and Jeremy 
>> Scahill (and others) continue to see the usefulness of /The Nation,/ and 
>> that is why they write for it. They are not stupid. As for Cockburn, who 
>> knows what goes on in his strange head: He has his own publication, so 
>> why continue writing for /The Nation?/  Finally, instead of just 
>> lambasting Alterman, it would be more useful if you told why you consider 
>> him an idiot. I suggest you subscribe to the English editon of Le Monde 
>> Diplomatique. They need support. --mkb
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2010, at 1:15 PM, David Green wrote:
>>
>>> After doing some research on the work and views of Eric Alterman this 
>>> weekend, a regular Nation columnist, I've come to the view that people 
>>> like Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill should (for good tactical reasons) 
>>> seriously think about taking their work away from any possible 
>>> association with this idiot. Hitchens was at least honest enough to 
>>> become an official neocon. The Nation should not be supported or taken 
>>> the least bit seriously on the Left, and I suspect Cockburn would 
>>> rightly agree in spite of his association.
>>>  DG
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>
>>> *To:* Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>>
>>> *Sent:* Sun, February 21, 2010 11:16:30 AM
>>> *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] The Nation betrayed
>>>
>>> The Nation magazine has moved steadily to "the center" from an earlier 
>>> left-liberal position for some years now. They embraced neo-liberalism 
>>> in the days of Bill Clinton (delicately referred to as a "DLC 
>>> Democrat"), and some of us condemned them for doing it.
>>>
>>> But it keeps getting worse. As Doug Henwood of the excellent Left 
>>> Business Observer points out, now not only has The Nation "given a 
>>> column to the execrable Melissa Harris-Lacewell, they've cut Alexander 
>>> Cockburn back to once a month ... These moves together have the net 
>>> effect of moving the magazine to the right and reducing the quantity of 
>>> stylish prose close to zero."
>>>
>>> With The Progressive joining the Israel Lobby in its condemnation of 
>>> Norman Finkelstein, the current mode of official liberalism in the US 
>>> continues on its regime-supporting way, providing only token opposition 
>>> ("We have free speech!") as the Democrats (and the Republicans) move 
>>> ever further right.  Toadies.
>>>
>>> --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
>>> *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be 
>>> clean. _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list