<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16671"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000
CanvasTabStop="true" name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Yes, it might have been; thank you for the editorial
advice. I do not see the meaning, bearing, or significance of the
elliptical reference to Germany in 1942.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=galliher@illinois.edu
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">C. G. Estabrook</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 17, 2010 1:53 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=ls1000@live.com href="mailto:ls1000@live.com">Laurie
Solomon</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>
; <A 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>Your argument would be just as effective if you said one
shouldn't "focus exclusively on what the government is doing" but look rather at
what it "is NOT doing that ... is of equal importance" - in Germany
in 1942...<BR><BR>On 10/17/10 1:43 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:<BR><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: pre">>> Killing people is the most important thing the
Obama administration<BR>>> is doing.<BR>> <BR>> I am sorry Carl; but
there is a funny irony in your statement above.<BR>> Even if what you say is
true; it is all the important things that the<BR>> Obama administration is
NOT doing that one might say is of equal<BR>> importance but lost when one
focuses exclusively on what the<BR>> administration is doing.<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <A
class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu"><mailto:galliher@illinois.edu></A>
*Sent:*<BR>> Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:58 PM *To:* Laurie Solomon<BR>>
<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:ls1000@live.com"><mailto:ls1000@live.com></A> *Cc:* Corey
Mattson<BR>> <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:coreymattson@gmail.com"><mailto:coreymattson@gmail.com></A> ;
<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-rfc2396E
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"><mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net></A>
; Karen Medina<BR>> <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com"><mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com></A>
*Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]<BR>> Series...<BR>> <BR>>
Killing people is the most important thing the Obama administration<BR>> is
doing.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On 10/16/10 9:25 PM, Laurie Solomon
wrote:<BR>>>> But it's hard to understand people who say that they're
against<BR>>>> the war - and then vote against a Congressman who is one
of the<BR>>>> few voting against the war (and for a dissembling
Democrat).<BR>>>> Especially >when those people contend, as you do,
that both<BR>>>> parties are reactionary.<BR>>> <BR>>> It
is not so hard to understand if they are neither single issue<BR>>> voters
nor voters who view stopping the war as the most important<BR>>> issue
over all others as you do. If they are looking at and<BR>>> balancing the
costs and benefits across several issues or have<BR>>> other issues which
are of equal or higher priority than the one you<BR>>> see as being
paramount, then it is quite possible that they will<BR>>> select to
support the candidate who is the lesser of evils on<BR>>> balance across
all THEIR high priority issues or decide to not vote<BR>>> at all if they
think that the persons running for office cannot be<BR>>> trusted with
respect to those issues that THEY deem of priority to<BR>>> them. People
tend to act more or less rationally using "good enough<BR>>> for all my
practical purposes at hand" logic rather than an<BR>>> abstract zero-sum
optimizing logic and they tend to act practically<BR>>> not ideologically
with a focus on immediate personal short term<BR>>> interests.<BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <A
class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu"><mailto:galliher@illinois.edu></A>
*Sent:*<BR>>> Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:04 PM *To:* Corey
Mattson<BR>>> <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:coreymattson@gmail.com"><mailto:coreymattson@gmail.com></A>
*Cc:*<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-rfc2396E
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"><mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net></A>
; Karen Medina<BR>>> <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com"><mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com></A>
*Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]<BR>>> Series...<BR>>>
<BR>>> The only way the Obama administration will reverse its war
policy<BR>>> is if it's forced to by a cut-off of funds. That
eventually<BR>>> happened to the Nixon administration in regard to Vietnam
and to<BR>>> the Reagan administration in regard to Central America -
admittedly<BR>>> after they'd killed hundreds of thousands. The
Obama<BR>>> administration needs to be treated the same way.<BR>>>
<BR>>> In each case the growth of votes against the war in Congress
was<BR>>> quite slow. Then as now, the populace was much further left
than<BR>>> the Congress. But it's hard to understand people who say
that<BR>>> they're against the war - and then vote against a Congressman
who<BR>>> is one of the few voting against the war (and for a
dissembling<BR>>> Democrat). Especially when those people contend, as you
do, that<BR>>> both parties are reactionary.<BR>>> <BR>>> And,
believe me, such votes will be noticed. Look at, e.g.,<BR>>> Michael
Barone's/ Almanac of American Politics./<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
On 10/16/10 6:29 PM, Corey Mattson wrote:<BR>>>> I really doubt that
the very few anti-war people voting for<BR>>>> Johnson would be read as
a signal by the government. ...And<BR>>>> calling for a vote for a
reactionary is disorienting to our<BR>>>> allies and potential allies
in building a peace movement. Johnson<BR>>>> is anti-immigrant, from
what I can tell by press releases. Should<BR>>>> we strengthen ties
with the immigrant rights movement and other<BR>>>> working people? I
believe we should, which would entail not<BR>>>> supporting
anti-immigrant, anti-worker politicians.<BR>>>> <BR>>>>
---Corey<BR>>>> <BR>>>> Sent from my iPhone<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:36 AM, "C. G. Estabrook"<BR>>>>
<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu"><galliher@illinois.edu></A>
wrote:<BR>>>> <BR>>>>> I agree with your contempt for both
business parties, but<BR>>>>> Johnson is actually voting against war
funding - one of the few<BR>>>>> in Congress to do so, and Gill has
not promised to do the same.<BR>>>>> ( I doubt that he would - if
per impossibile he were elected,<BR>>>>> he'd be a safe vote for the
administration.) Johnson is worth a<BR>>>>> vote as a signal to the
federal government that there is a<BR>>>>> growing opposition to its
killing people for oil in the<BR>>>>> Mideast.
--CGE<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>> <BR>>>>> On 10/16/10
9:59 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:<BR>>>>>> I think we can all agree
that elections won't now end the<BR>>>>>> wars, that it will take
a strong anti-war movement. I'm not<BR>>>>>> voting for either
Gill or Johnson because they are in<BR>>>>>> business parties
that have absolutely no accountability<BR>>>>>> except to their
paymasters. In Minnesota, Keith Ellison was<BR>>>>>> an antiwar
politician in the actual movement, who promised to<BR>>>>>> vote
against war funding, until he got elected and took his<BR>>>>>>
orders from Pelosi. It doesn't even matter what they<BR>>>>>>
promise.<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>> I agree with those who
won't support Johnson. He and his<BR>>>>>> party are not on our
side. If Gill were a politician who ran<BR>>>>>> on a
working-class ticket, a labor party or something like it<BR>>>>>>
on the left, that was accountable to a real party
platform,<BR>>>>>> he would get my vote. To his credit, he went
against the<BR>>>>>> party establishment supporting single-payer.
Here in<BR>>>>>> Blm-Normal, he disagreed publicly with MoveOn
supporters in<BR>>>>>> their support for Obama's health insurance
reform, saying<BR>>>>>> that it was bad enough to hope that it
would not pass. In my<BR>>>>>> view, from his work on
single-payer, he counts as a movement<BR>>>>>> activist,
explaining his anti-establishment position on this<BR>>>>>>
issue. But, again, his running in a party only answering
to<BR>>>>>> corporate interests settles it for me. ---
Corey<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>> Sent from my
iPhone<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 9:48
PM, Karen<BR>>>>>> Medina<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com"><kmedina67@gmail.com></A>
wrote:<BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>>> Nevertheless TJ
is a reliable anti-war vote.<BR>>>>>>> Oh, Israel's war does
not count in The War. <BR>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________ <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>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss<BR>>>>>> mailing list <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>>>
------------------------- <BR>>>
_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss<BR>>>
mailing list <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></SPAN><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing
list<BR>Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<BR>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<BR></BODY></HTML>