<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
"Invading Russia may not have been a good idea, but look at all the
good the government has done here in Germany - ending the depression
for instance. Don't be a single issue person on the war..."<br>
<br>
On 10/17/10 1:38 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:COL119-DS662F930C23A66CE9E8724BD590@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16671">
<div><font face="Calibri">In your eyes; but that does not
necessarily hold for other people's point of view. For all
practical purposes you have become a single issue person in
that you place this issue above all others and give it a moral
imperative; others may not do either. Thus, they will
disagree with you on the issues, their priority, and who is
the best to vote for on the whole over a larger general range
of issues. Personally, given the American system, I believe
that voting is irrelevant and merely a ritualized exercise
that most people engage in as an article of faith and optimism
in order to pretend that they are participating in their
governance. As such, it is a spectator sport of sorts, which
I believe to be a waste of time and resources. But just as the
notion that voter's can be effective in the system and have
their interests actually represented over those of the
corporations and the establishment personnel is an accepted
illusion, so is the notion that the average American really
want to and is willing to do anything but bitch an illusion.
The average American fears change and does not want change if
it is going to cost them anything to achieve it and it does
not gain them personal immediate gratification. We are a "me"
country and not a "we" country. We are a country that is
narrow minded and focused on personal self-interests as
individuals and as a country - screw everyone else and other
countries if it means that our needs and desires are not the
primary ones to bew looked after.</font></div>
<div style="font: 10pt Tahoma;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(245, 245,
245);">
<div style=""><b>From:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">C. G. Estabrook</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:58 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="mailto:ls1000@live.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:ls1000@live.com">Laurie
Solomon</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
; <a moz-do-not-send="true" title="kmedina67@gmail.com"
href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com">Karen Medina</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Series...</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Killing people is the most important thing the Obama
administration is doing.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/16/10 9:25 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:COL119-DS9925A2BFD1562182CBE45BD590@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16671">
<div><font face="Calibri">><font face="Times New Roman">But
it's hard to understand people who say that they're
against the war - and then vote against a Congressman who
is one of the few voting against the war (and for a
dissembling Democrat). Especially >when those people
contend, as you do, that both parties are reactionary.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri"><font face="Times New Roman">It is not
so hard to understand if they are neither single issue
voters nor voters who view stopping the war as the most
important issue over all others as you do. If they are
looking at and balancing the costs and benefits across
several issues or have other issues which are of equal or
higher priority than the one you see as being paramount,
then it is quite possible that they will select to support
the candidate who is the lesser of evils on balance across
all THEIR high priority issues or decide to not vote at
all if they think that the persons running for office
cannot be trusted with respect to those issues that THEY
deem of priority to them. People tend to act more or less
rationally using "good enough for all my practical
purposes at hand" logic rather than an abstract zero-sum
optimizing logic and they tend to act practically not
ideologically with a focus on immediate personal short
term interests.</font></font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
</font></div>
<div style="font: 10pt Tahoma;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(245, 245,
245);">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="galliher@illinois.edu"
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">C. G. Estabrook</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:04 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="coreymattson@gmail.com"
href="mailto:coreymattson@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Corey Mattson</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a
title="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net
CTRL +
Click to follow link"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
; <a title="kmedina67@gmail.com"
href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Karen
Medina</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Series...</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
The only way the Obama administration will reverse its war
policy is if it's forced to by a cut-off of funds. That
eventually happened to the Nixon administration in regard to
Vietnam and to the Reagan administration in regard to Central
America - admittedly after they'd killed hundreds of thousands.
The Obama administration needs to be treated the same way.<br>
<br>
In each case the growth of votes against the war in Congress was
quite slow. Then as now, the populace was much further left
than the Congress. But it's hard to understand people who say
that they're against the war - and then vote against a
Congressman who is one of the few voting against the war (and
for a dissembling Democrat). Especially when those people
contend, as you do, that both parties are reactionary.<br>
<br>
And, believe me, such votes will be noticed. Look at, e.g.,
Michael Barone's<i> Almanac of American Politics.</i><br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/16/10 6:29 PM, Corey Mattson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:EEE3ED91-0651-44F3-A9C3-E5E013707FF9@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I really doubt that the very few anti-war people voting for Johnson would be read as a signal by the government. ...And calling for a vote for a reactionary is disorienting to our allies and potential allies in building a peace movement. Johnson is anti-immigrant, from what I can tell by press releases. Should we strengthen ties with the immigrant rights movement and other working people? I believe we should, which would entail not supporting anti-immigrant, anti-worker politicians.
---Corey
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:36 AM, "C. G. Estabrook" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" moz-do-not-send="true"><galliher@illinois.edu></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I agree with your contempt for both business parties, but Johnson is actually voting against war funding - one of the few in Congress to do so, and Gill has not promised to do the same. ( I doubt that he would - if per impossibile he were elected, he'd be a safe vote for the administration.) Johnson is worth a vote as a signal to the federal government that there is a growing opposition to its killing people for oil in the Mideast. --CGE
On 10/16/10 9:59 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think we can all agree that elections won't now end the wars, that it will take a strong anti-war movement. I'm not voting for either Gill or Johnson because they are in business parties that have absolutely no accountability except to their paymasters. In Minnesota, Keith Ellison was an antiwar politician in the actual movement, who promised to vote against war funding, until he got elected and took his orders from Pelosi. It doesn't even matter what they promise.
I agree with those who won't support Johnson. He and his party are not on our side. If Gill were a politician who ran on a working-class ticket, a labor party or something like it on the left, that was accountable to a real party platform, he would get my vote. To his credit, he went against the party establishment supporting single-payer. Here in Blm-Normal, he disagreed publicly with MoveOn supporters in their support for Obama's health insurance reform, saying that it was bad enough to hope that it would not pass. In my view, from his work on single-payer, he counts as a movement activist, explaining his anti-establishment position on this issue. But, again, his running in a party only answering to corporate interests settles it for me.
--- Corey
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 15, 2010, at 9:48 PM, Karen Medina<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><kmedina67@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Nevertheless TJ is a reliable anti-war vote.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Oh, Israel's war does not count in The War.
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" moz-do-not-send="true">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" moz-do-not-send="true">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<hr> _______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>