The discussion of coup reminds me of the right wing concept of cultural war that they are pushing like mad. War implies arms, armies, soldiers and suggest military tactics. Being as the right wing keeps pushing this concept, should we all not be concerned that they get people to buy into this concept and start going after people, a la McCarthy, their new hero? Using coup, implies the same and there's now arms here. Perhaps a "court coup" or a "constititional coup?" best, Don Monkerud www.BlackBearRanch.com >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 : 12/21/00 EST