<html> <body> At 09:45 AM 2/5/2003 -0500, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>rhisiart@mail.earthlink.net wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>the role of The Nation comes as no surprise, either.</blockquote> How's that? Despite Corn & Cooper's associations with The Nation, these articles haven't appeared there, because such attacks on the antiwar movement aren't welcome in the magazine. Corn's appeared in the LA Weekly, Cooper's in the LA Times, and the odious Gitlin's in Mother Jones. Perhaps you should rephrase this. Doug</blockquote> i stick with my original statement, doug.    whether or not those particular articles have appeared in The Nation is irrelevant.   the works of Coop and Corn, for example, regularly appear in The Nation.   Their close association with The Nation knowingly lends them a false and totally undeserved image of legitimacy and credibility.   they use those "credentials" to get published.   Whereas The Nation may refrain from publishing direct criticism of the anti-war folks, they ignore the fact two of their "leading lights" do exactly that -- and worse, to the level of publishing overt lies -- every chance they get.  No analysis or criticism of these two odious, to borrow and refocus your word, guys' extra curricular work ever appears in The Nation.  No challenges or questions regarding their credibility ever appears in The Nation.   The Nation never prints or responds to correspondence regarding the "extra curricular" work of the odious two, or the issue of false legitimacy and how it bears on The Nation. As the article i forwarded from WSWS states:   "These efforts are aided and abetted by another group—ex-radicals and former anti-war liberals centered around the Nation magazine."    [emphasis added]    is red baiting a practice The Nation should be associated with at any level, in any way?   Whereas The Nation possibly may not take an overt role, solely for opportunistic reasons in order not to alienate some readers and subscribers (as The Nation has fallen to the level of being one of the great opportunists of pseudo liberalism fund raising -- the ends of keeping it in business justify whatever half-baked machiavellian policy that seems right at the time), it condones the work of this propagandistic and untruthful "axis of evil" -- and i would go so far as to say, aids and abets -- the work of at least two of the three. When these propagandists take their worst efforts elsewhere to be published by more overtly unprincipled rags, the issue of their credibility regarding what The Nation publishes, or allows to be broadcast, of their works is never raised.   it's as if they're each two different people -- the "white hatted" The Nation Coop and a doppelganger who published in the LA Weekly and LA Times;  the heroic The Nation Corn, and the corn ball who publishes propaganda and cheap shots.    i find it impossible to believe that their work for The Nation is any more responsible and accurate than their other propaganda pieces.   The Nation is remarkably indifferent to the fact that the dirt from their employees gets on it. sorry if my response doesn't meet your needs, doug.   i hope my point of view is clear, since i wrote with some haste.   i believe the facts speak for themselves.   and i'm not the only list member who finds fault with The NeoNation's opportunistic and not credible editorial practices. by the way, have you and/or your mrs. ever taken one of those delightful Nation fund raising boat cruises?   WF Buckley does the same thing with meet and greet cruises, with greater success I'm told. R</body> </html>