"R. Gancie/C.Parcelli" wrote:

> No, Mr. Cox. I am not "integral of the culture." "Integral" implies a
> complicity which I reject. It was no more than a clumsy attempt on Wei's
> part to get me to entrap myself in the exchange. The kind of agitprop
> you get from ted Koppel or Sandy Berger. And I'll invite you to refrain
> from telling me what I am and am not part of. CP

I think you can reject the complicity without claiming what I would call
a Miltonic separation of the individual from his/her world (culture). I too
have for many decades rejected the complicity: e.g., at forums, rallies,
in small discussions I always screamed bloody murder when someone
spoke of what "we" were doing in Vietnam (El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Kosovo, etc.), refusing to consider myself part of any such "we."
"Who is 'we'?" is always a good question, and I would not dream of
including you with a Koppel in that sense. But "cultures" (as opposed
to the 'we' implicit in such questions as "Which side are you on?")
are unitary and composed of complex internal relations. It is only
because 'we' and Koppel are both integral to the same culture that it
is both necessary and coherent to reject complicity with Koppel.

There is a lot more to say on this obviously on both (or all) sides,
but I wished immediately to dissociate myself from accusing you
of any complicity with Koppel (or Westmoreland or Clinton or ...).

One may even deny complicity after the fact. I feel no complicity
whatever with the criminal U.S. invasion of Korea, even though
at the time I wholly approved and even enjoyed a top secret
clearance (Air Force, attached to NSA).

Carrol