I, too, have been considering withdrawing from this list because of the venomous
ad hominen nature of the exchanges.  There are a few people who seem more intent
on putting people down or engaging in pedantic arguments than in participating in
intelligent discussions of substantive issues.  This is a pity because some
contributors who are virtually devoid of "social intelligence" have evidenced good
critical thought, logic and analytical intelligence from time to time.

In the past I have encouraged people to refrain from nastiness and pissing
contests.  Bob, you have now encouraged me to take a decision.

F. Leon, please inform the personality assasins to refrain from ad hominem attacks
or go elsewhere.  Bob probably speaks for many others on this list.  I, myself,
will unsubscribe in one week's time if the gutter level ad hominem attacks
continue.  Thanks, Bob, for pushing me to a decision I should have made a long
time ago. Dan

buzzanco wrote:

> I joined this list a few months ago expecting some critical thought on
> American politics, international relations, etc. and, frankly, am about
> ready to unsubscribe because of the tripe cluttering my box, particularly
> from the respondent from the Pacific northwest.
>
> It is most distressing to see such invective and state propaganda on a list
> dedicated to Chomsky's work [does he know about this thing?]  I, and I
> doubt few others who contribute here, want a list where everyone
> unswervingly agrees on everything.  But the kind of stuff [I refuse to call
> them ideas] that a few of the more rabid posters put on here is just
> regurgitated agitprop that one can find in any corporate media venue. It
> would be nice to be having critical discussions about peace, justice,
> economics, labor and so forth instead of name calling and apologetics for
> Clinton and the rest of the corporate gang.
>
> Most recently, the Pacific Northwest contributor said that Clinton had two
> "relentlessly hostile" forces aligned against him, the media and congress?
> What planet did that happen on?  The media and congress have given this guy
> a pass on just about everything he's done.  As soon as he was elected he
> pissed on the people who put him in office--workers, women,
> African-Americans, gays [i.e. health insurance fiasco, welfare "reform,"
> pathetic public works proposal, always dissing on black women when he's in
> trouble, gays in military, and so on] and we hear nothing of it.  He
> committed legal offenses [perjury] for which he should have been convicted
> of impeachment.  He ranks with the Nixon and Reagan administrations in his
> lack of ethics and his lack of concern for the poor and working people of
> the U.S. [actually, that's an insult to Nixon, who had a pretty decent
> record, compared to other postwar presidents, on some issues].  And the
> media and congress are out to get him?  Please! He should have been pitched
> out of office, for the right reasons, long ago.
> To defend him is simply to accept the system.
>
> As for Chomsky alleging the U.S. is a great satan?  Where the hell did that
> come from?  It is a fantasy in right-wing minds.  Why don't you folks
> actually read Chomsky, and Herman, and others, instead of relying on the NY
> Times and other such corporate propaganda.
>
> Moreso, the personal attacks on Andrej are reprehensible.  I don't know
> him, never met him, but I have to listen to someone who actually lives in
> Yugoslavia about that region.  For Tresy to rip into him is disgusting;
> apparently one knows about Serbia and Milosevic more from reading the paper
> while sipping a carmel mocchiato at the local Starbucks than someone who
> actually lives there does.
>
> I suspect Tresy and his co-conspirators have a mission to convert the Left,
> to show it how to think "responsibly."  If so, your mission will be better
> served by joining the Democrat or Republican parties or the DLC or any
> other of a number of groups.  Why fill my mailbox with your hateful and
> racist swill on a daily basis?
>
> I would welcome critical, bare-knuckles, no-holds-barred discussions about
> major issues, done with respect and intelligence.  The alternative is just
> to get off this list so I get a lot less junk mail everyday.
>
> Finally, for this to be done in Chomsky's name is really pathetic.  The
> misrepresentation of him and the kinds of positions he represents merely
> proves the power of his own analysis.
>
> Thanks for letting me vent.
>
> In solidarity,
>
> Bob Buzzanco
> Houston, TX
>
> At 12:37 AM 3/18/2000 +1100, you wrote:
> >Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >>Fact of the matter was that the only power blocs of any kind that Clinton
> >>had to deal with at the time was Congress and the media, both of which were
> >>relentlessly hostile, and they weren't about to get on board with war fever,
> >>at least until he was out of office. He already HAD a 70% public approval
> >>ratings throughout the Lewinsky farce, so the idea that he "needed" the war
> >>is like saying he "needed" to be flogged in the town square. In fact, his
> >>approval ratings dropped after the Kosovo campaign began, while brickbats
> >>were thrown from nearly every quarter of the ruling elite.
> >
> >Was this elite disapproval because of the way the war was carried out, or
> >because it was being carried out at all, or opportunistic political
> >reasons?
> >
> >Also, the Kosovar war must have been an imperative for *some* reason.
> >Things like that always have a reason, even if the reason is a foolish one.
> >The simple answer is that the US public wanted action because they were
> >offended by what they saw on TV and it was more convenient for the US
> >government to carry out a bombing campaign than to take any other type of
> >action or do nothing. Quite why I don't understand. Perhaps, there being
> >little to gain strategically or economically, they thought that at least
> >they could test out a few new weapons? Perhaps they weren't willing to risk
> >a more messy type of armed confrontation in such a no-win situation?
> >
> >Certainly the strategy was one of the more crude and unimaginative ones in
> >world history. The overwhelming military superiority of the US means that
> >it was relatively sucessful despite the fact that it prosecuted the war as
> >a crude terrorist campaign. Therein lies the problem for the US military
> >machine, bumbling imbeciles are able to achieve military success, whereas
> >most armed forces led by bumbling imbeciles are swiftly defeated. But US
> >military strategists are not subject to any such 'natural selection'.
> >
> >So far.
> >
> >>So much for the Wag the Dog scenario. Not that I expect these inconvenient
> >>facts from deterring the silly Marxist conspiracy theories of Meecham et al.
> >
> >Truth is always the first casualty of war. The hate that is generated
> >against a country that uses such methods (bombing a small country's
> >population and infrastructure until they agree to yield) is also somewhat
> >predictable. I don't like to see some of the unintelligent and hateful
> >comments either, but this is one of the costs of using such methods. It
> >turns the stomachs of even the US's loyal allies in Europe. Not
> >surprisingly the Europeans are now trying to develop a joint independant
> >military capability so that they won't have to rely on the blundering US
> >dinosaur.
> >
> >Bill Bartlett
> >Bracknell Tas
> >
> Bob Buzzanco
> Associate Prof. of History
> University of Houston
> Department of History
> Houston, TX  77204-3785
> [log in to unmask]
> http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/buzzanco.htm
> 713.743.3093
> 713.743.3216 [fax]
> [log in to unmask]