Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (85862)	3/24/2003 10:17:49 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for the links, Paul. Sort of interesting reading. But they don't sound like a party split in the making. Rather more like the back and forthing on the ideological left that you can also find on the right. Except here you have journals devoted to only one point of view. Check out Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Hitchens going after one another in The Nation some years back. Or David Corn and Cockburn today. But, still, you may be right.

To: paul_philp who wrote (85862)	3/24/2003 11:34:20 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Not sure how the Frum/Novak and Gaffney/Norquist disputes are related. The first is just a contemporary rehash of the 80's era paleo/neocon debates inside the movement. The second is new, both in that the notion that Arab-Americans constitute a powerful domestic force worth courting is a recent development, and because the replacement of the Chinese bogeyman with the Wahhabi one is a post-9/11 turn. As for who's wrong in this one, I suspect both are, at least somewhat, but I have little sympathy for either. Gaffney is a vicious buffoon whose "center" is little more than a fax machine and a mailing list, devoted to vilifying whoever happens to be designated as the ideological or political "enemy of the day" and to serving the corporate interests of his funders (large aerospace and defense contractors, primarily). I don't think serious types take him seriously, and in fact, in my book taking him seriously would knock someone off the list of being a serious type...<g> that's not to say, of course--as I always feel obliged to add--that on any particular issue he may not be correct, just that if he is, it's by some kind of curious happenstance rather than anything else... tb@idon'tliketheguy,youmighthaveguessed.com