[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fw: What hath got rot?

[C. G. ESTABROOK]

Although I don't believe we've met, Melodye, I think that from what I've written 
I wouldn't be wrong to assume that you have me in mind as "one of the most 
outspoken nay-sayers on this listserv always sitting in judgment of the 
'establishment' so-to-speak, when they themselves are sitting on full [sic] and 
enjoying the benefits of the 'establishment'."

You can't really mean that because one is privileged one should not criticize 
the circumstances that produce that privilege.  On the contrary, privilege would 
seem to produce a greater obligation as well as more opportunity to press for 
social justice.

People usually resort to ad hominems because they're defending an untenable 
position, but that doesn't seem to be true with you - at least on the face of 
it.  The bill that you seem to be defending is a mildly positive step, but of 
course it won't fix the dysfunctional US health system. (I'm sure you admit that 
it's a long way from "an equitable health care system for everyone.")

The bill is designed in no small part to funnel money into the pockets of the 
health care industry - insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations,  etc. 
In order to make that palatable, it had to contain some elements that actually 
helped people, and it does. The process follows the general rule of American 
politics that, if you want to make any improvements, you have to pay off the 
rich people first.  That's been true since James Madison observed that the 
purpose of the Constitution was to "protect the minority of the opulent against 
the majority."

The president understands perfectly well that that's what he's doing. He came 
into office with three problems - war, recession, and health care -  for each of 
which there was an obvious solution, and quite consciously chose the wrong one 
in each case. And not because he was forced to do so, against his will, but 
because he knows quite clearly whom he's working for. He could for example have 
used the his rhetorical and political skills to press for Medicare for all - 
polls show popular support for that, even without any political leadership - as 
Johnson did for the original Medicare bill 45 years ago.  But he chose not to.

I think that's the real point of your attack - to defend Obama's unconscionable 
polices. And those are indeed untenable (and increasingly unpopular) positions. 
  Objections are growing against Obama's  war and against his transfer of wealth 
from the poor to the rich.  And since it's vital to the administration and its 
supporters to conceal what they are actually doing, ad hominems are about all 
they have left.

Regards, CGE


Melodye Rosales wrote:
> 
> There are way too many folks on these listservs who simply come in and 
> agitate for the joy of creating a discussion and or dissension.  What I find
> hypocritical is the complete contradiction of one of the most outspoken
> nay-sayers on this listserv always sitting in judgment of the "establishment"
> so-to-speak, when they themselves are sitting on full and enjoying the
> benefits of the "establishment"?  Great pension from the University, a spouse
> who has a great pension from the University, owners of more than a quarter of
> a million dollars (a conservative estimate) worth of properties in C-U
> alone----yet always seeming to speak and act and voice their protests as if
> they are one of the proletarians or even that they have experienced such
> hardship within the last 30 years---at least.
> 
> To me, that is beyond disingenuous and detrimental to those poor and working
> class folk who really need this help.  I, for one, don't mind giving more in
> taxes or whatever it takes---if it can help provide an equitable health care
> system for everyone---


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.