[Peace-discuss] [PBD - Progressive Blog Digest] 5/15/2011 06:52:00 AM

[David Green]

"We also have different views of how to express our disagreements."

Yes Nick, your style is to assume a condescending and derisive and arrogant tone 
vis a vis easy targets, and then assume that your readers will transfer that to 
people like Paul, who is not such an easy target, especially in comparison to 
liberal warmongers you support. That said, I am no fan of Paul's economic 
libertarianism, but he's not the moral enemy, as you would wish your audience to 
assume. And then your style is to imply that your critics are impolite, rather 
than addressing the issues--such as your support for Obama's intervention in 
Libya. I get it. And then your style is to be evasive by claiming that your blog 
is not about your views. Like Obama, you're cute, and dangerous.




________________________________
From: Nick Burbules <burbules at gmail.com>
To: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Cc: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>; Peace Discuss 
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Sun, May 15, 2011 5:20:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [PBD - Progressive Blog Digest] 5/15/2011 06:52:00 
AM

Thanks David, 

There's really not much I can say to this except that we have very different 
views of politics and of the process of change.

We also have different views of how to express our disagreements.

But I do want to correct the accusation that I haven't been critical of Obama on 
a range of policies, especially his Bush-like national security policies. I have 
been, repeatedly.

Anyway, my blog is not primarily about the presentation of my own views, but a 
collection of a range of progressive opinions -- including some much closer to 
your point of view than to my own. I'm sure another person would make a 
different selection, of course.

Nick




On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:40 PM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Nick,
>
>I still don't get the relationship between what Paul said and how it was 
>characterized. But of course, this isn't at all about parsing the specifics of 
>what Paul said or meant. It's about lining up with liberals and conservatives 
>who have "sensible" approaches to government, while avoiding the prospects for 
>re-alignment in a true anti-war coalition. And it's about keeping the two-party 
>corporate system intact. It's pretty clear that you are still down with the 
>notion that Obama has good intentions, and honestly, the only reason I look at 
>your blog is to marvel at the lack of any breaking point--regardless of Obama's 
>consistently despicable behavior--in your ability to excuse Obama and demonize 
>his opponents, among which there isn't a "dime's worth of difference." Is it 
>gullibility or misplaced idealism? I don't care.
>
>I've recently, even apart from this, been asking myself why the university 
>offers so few opportunities for honest and open political debate about these 
>fundamental issues. I think I've got my answer. I have to say, honestly, that 
>your approach to politics is at bottom extremely childish in your reliance on 
>the assumption that your readers share your customary liberal stereotypes of 
>those who don't identify themselves that way. You rely, in your own fashion, on 
>stereotyping, scapegoats, caricatures, and (when necessary) lesser evilism. And 
>yes, you're an elitist of the worst sort. For the record, let me make it clear 
>that your approach is every bit as much of the fundamental problem as the Tea 
>Party, the Koch brothers, Sarah Palin, and John Boehner. It is, in it's own 
>fashion, equally dishonest, and a serious impediment to "progress" if that word 
>were to ever be defined in a serious way.
>
>So there's your debate.
>
>Best,
>David
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110515/8511a5c8/attachment.html>