C'mon, Bill: a coup without the use of (or even threatened use of) arms? Why should such a wise fellow as yourself contribute to this dead-end notion, which obscures just what it is that we are fighing against? If everything bad is a "coup," or "fascist," or "slavery," etc. -- the we have no way of comprehending and fighting the originals. Jesse Lemisch ----- Original Message ----- From: William M. Mandel <wmmmandel@earthlink.net> To: <sixties-l@lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Re: coup coup coup > Why does a coup have to take the form it took in Chile? The American people > voted for one man, and the other candidate's governor brother led the finagling > of the process of barring people from voting in the latter's state, while the > Supreme Court violated its own stated principles against judicial activism, as > well as logic and common sense, to give the loser the presidency. I voted > Nader. Bill Mandel > > Jesse Lemisch wrote: > > > As I've mentioned before, it pollutes our comprehension of reality, and > > blocks our ability to deal with reality, to call what's been happening a > > "coup." (Pro-Clinton propagandists, including some academic flacks, earlier > > referred to the impeachment as a "coup.") It in no way implies that this > > country is without horrors to point out that this isn't Chile. > > > > Jesse Lemisch > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/20/00 EST