<!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">
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>
</body>
</html>