<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The obvious refutation of this rather sad special pleading is to ask
where anti-war sentiment is to be found in contemporary American
politics.<br>
<br>
On the non-existent "Left of the Democratic party"? Subtract the
wispy figure of Dennis Kucinich, and there is none. <br>
<br>
It's only popular locus is the libertarian strand amongst the
teapartiers, led by Ron Paul, and the associated paleoconservatives
represented by Justin Raimondo and the excellent site
<antiwar.com>.<br>
<br>
There are also those who admire Noam Chomsky and people who've
learnt from him, but of course they aren't Democrats, and sound like
they're from Neptune... --CGE <br>
<br>
(PS-I am amused at Mort's [Mort!] urging Christian forbearance on me
and David...)<br>
<br>
(PPS-My bedside reading this week - a few pages after prayers for
the enlightenment of me, David, Mort, and all us poor creatures here
below - is "The Mendacity of Hope: Barack Obama and the Betrayal of
American Liberalism," by Roger D. Hodge. I recommend it to all those
who fear that they may suffer from the pathology Mort identifies.)<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/19/10 10:16 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:643BD849-1BA3-40D4-95E8-63E15F2D2DA5@comcast.net"
type="cite"><base href="x-msg://2655/">David,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You and your increasingly joined-at-the-hip partner Carl
Estabrook are becoming increasingly pathological. What is
lacking in both of your contributions is any sense of nuance or
good sense. There is a kind of bitterness apparent (to me) which
goes beyond the issues discussed. I don't know from where it
comes. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Not all Democrats support Obama's foreign or even domestic
policies, so vituperation of Democrats (implying <i><b>all</b></i>
who are so associated), is ill-placed. They are not <i><b>all</b></i>
in lockstep with Obama, although many are. There are varieties
of Democrats running for office.There are more
"anti-war-anti-occupation-anti-militarism-anti-corporatism types
having Democrat monikers than Republican. Yet that fact is
ignored as being irrelevant. It is as if we should all forget
what transpired under Bush II . Yes, Bush was/is a bogeyman for
progressives. I would venture to say that there are even worse
types than Obama. At least he's for woman's choice to determine
her maternity. Estabrook's tirades against <i><b>all</b></i>
Democrats, against whom he emotes with un-Christian(?)
virulence, and his and your apologetics for the Tea Party
(rationalized as a Democratic conspiracy to take one's attention
away from the evils of the Obama administration and Democratic
congress), a proto-fascistic phenomenon promoted by the most
reactionary elements, is to me malevolent.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What is to be done? Not easy to say. Unfortunately, the
system is cooked so there are no immediately effective
alternatives, no valid democracy, no real choice, no intelligent
informed rising up of the masses. See the discussion on the UFPJ
list-serve for an airing of all this. Without revolution, which
is not around the corner, radical progressive change does not
now appear possible given the powers that be. However, a change
that may occur after 2010 or 2012 may indeed be radical, indeed
revolutionary, but perhaps not the way many of us want. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As for your article in ZNet, I am in sympathy with what Katie
wrote in response, and I have added my own harsh comment. I am
not afraid to call myself progressive or even liberal, even if
those words and what they imply are anathema to Carl and you. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--Mort</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:47 AM, David Green wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
font-size: medium;">
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: 'times new
roman','new york',times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">Bob, this just really shocks
me, I guess. Paul's hypocrisy is allegedly to take
money from the government whiling being
"anti-government." The hypocrisy of the
"democratically-elected" Democrats is to condescend
to people who are "mad as hell" (for lots of good
reasons, although not often clearly articulated),
and then drop bombs on Pakistan and support Israel's
behavior, etc. I'll take the hypocrisy of "the
people" any day, even someone is problematic as Rand
Paul. For you to play the McVeigh card is dishonest
and utterly reprehensible. How did you feel about
the government dropping a bomb in Waco?</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">David<br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family: 'times new
roman','new york',times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-family:
arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><font
face="Tahoma" size="2">
<hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Robert
Naiman <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>E.Wayne
Johnson <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ewj@pigs.ag">ewj@pigs.ag</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Peace-discuss
List <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Tue,
October 19, 2010 8:28:18 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[Peace-discuss] Matt Taibbi: Tea Party Parasites<br>
</font><br>
Cheap shot? It is an essential fact to understand.
Someone who is a<br>
darling of the "anti-government" Tea Party Right
is taking government<br>
money as a major source of their income. This is a
key fact that<br>
people should know in evaluating whether the Tea
Party offers a<br>
political alternative that progressives should
have sympathy for.<br>
<br>
Most people who count themselves progressive could
never agree to your<br>
claim that just because a group of people are "mad
as hell about the<br>
status quo" we should count ourselves among their
number. Timothy<br>
McVeigh was "mad as hell about the status quo." In
a showdown between<br>
the fellow travelers of Timothy McVeigh and the
democratically-elected<br>
government, I will be on the side of the
democratically-elected<br>
government.<br>
<br>
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:49 PM, E.Wayne Johnson
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ewj@pigs.ag"
ymailto="mailto:ewj@pigs.ag">ewj@pigs.ag</a>>
wrote:<br>
> I like the way that Matt Taibbi points out
many ills in the society<br>
> generally without compromise.<br>
><br>
> Matt Taibbi rightly points out the hypocrisy,
and I am not a big fan<br>
> of Rand Paul (he ain't Ron), it is a pretty
cheap shot saying that an eye<br>
> doctor<br>
> has a blind spot in his ideology because he
treats patients who are<br>
> funded by government programs.<br>
><br>
> The Tea Party is a highly diverse group of
people who are mad as hell about<br>
> the status quo.<br>
><br>
> We all ought to be Tea Partiers on that
account.<br>
><br>
> The Powers That Be in both parties hate and
fear the Tea Party. .<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert
Naiman" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</a>><br>
> To: "Peace-discuss List" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
ymailto="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br>
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 10:43 PM<br>
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Matt Taibbi: Tea
Party Parasites<br>
><br>
><br>
><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/218982/83512"
target="_blank">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/218982/83512</a><br>
><br>
> October 12, 2010 4:16 P.M. EDT | By Matt
Taibbi<br>
><br>
> More Tea Party Hilarity<br>
><br>
> Quelle surprise! So it turns out that one
after another of the Tea<br>
> Party candidates is in one way or another
mooching off the government.<br>
> The latest series of hilarious disclosures
center around Alaska’s<br>
> GI-Joe-bearded windbag Senatorial candidate,
Joe Miller, who appears<br>
> to have run virtually the entire gamut of
government aid en route to<br>
> becoming a staunch, fist-shaking opponent of
the welfare state.<br>
><br>
> Miller’s pomposity and piety with regard to
government aid programs<br>
> has all along been in line with the usual
screechingly hysterical<br>
> self-righteousness Tea Party candidates bring
to such matters, railing<br>
> against Obamacare and other “entitlement”
programs and promising to<br>
> end the “welfare state.” That makes it all
the more delicious now that<br>
> he and his family have been exposed for
taking state medical aid,<br>
> unemployment insurance, farm subsidies, hell,
even for using state<br>
> equipment to run a private political
campaign.<br>
><br>
> Back in June, Miller was saying this about
his Republican primary<br>
> opponent Lisa Murkowski, blasting her for
supporting a state health<br>
> care program:<br>
><br>
> As you are aware, just last week the
Anchorage Daily News reported<br>
> that the Denali KidCare Program funded 662
abortions last year.<br>
> Senator Murkowski has been a champion of this
program, voting against<br>
> the majority of her Republican colleagues for
CHIPRA (HR 2) in January<br>
> of 2009.<br>
><br>
> Of course it now turns out that back in the
Nineties, Miller himself<br>
> and his three children (with one on the way;
he now has eight) were at<br>
> one point receiving assistance via a program
almost exactly like the<br>
> Denali KidCare program, which is only for
low-income earners. Various<br>
> reports note that Miller received this
assistance after he’d bought a<br>
> house and been hired by a prestigious law
firm; he also got low-income<br>
> hunting and fishing licenses during that
time. It’s also come out that<br>
> he received some $7,000 in farm subsidies and
that his wife received<br>
> unemployment insurance benefits.<br>
><br>
> So now of course Miller, who said he and his
family “absolutely” used<br>
> Alaska’s state medical program, is
backtracking and saying that he’s<br>
> not against the modern Denali Kidcare
program, only against the<br>
> “expansion” of it. But even more telling was
his longer answer about<br>
> the program, as reported in the Anchorage
Daily News:<br>
><br>
> Miller said what he's advocating is complete
state control of the<br>
> programs. "That doesn't mean we cut off the
programs. That is<br>
> ultimately a state decision. And I think
there is a use; in fact the<br>
> most effective use is probably those programs
that help transition the<br>
> populations from more of a situation of
dependency" to one where they<br>
> can be economically independent, Miller said.<br>
><br>
> You see, when a nice white lawyer with a GI
Joe beard uses state aid<br>
> to help him through tough times and get over
the hump – so that he can<br>
> go from having three little future
Medicare-collecting Republican<br>
> children to eight little future
Medicare-collecting Republican<br>
> children – that’s a good solid use of
government aid, because what<br>
> we’re doing is helping someone “transition”
from dependency to<br>
> economic independence.<br>
><br>
> This of course is different from the way
other, less GI-Joe-looking<br>
> people use government aid, i.e. as a
permanent crutch that helps<br>
> genetically lazy and ambitionless parasites
mooch off of rich white<br>
> taxpayers instead of getting real jobs.<br>
><br>
> I can’t even tell you how many people I
interviewed at Tea Party<br>
> events who came up with one version or
another of the Joe Miller<br>
> defense. Yes, I’m on Medicare, but… I needed
it! It’s those other<br>
> people who don’t need it who are the problem!<br>
><br>
> Or: Yes, it’s true, I retired from the
police/military/DPW at 54 and<br>
> am on a fat government pension that you and
your kids are going to be<br>
> paying for for the next forty years, while I
sit in my plywood-paneled<br>
> living room in Florida watching Fox News,
gobbling Medicare-funded<br>
> prescription medications, and railing against
welfare queens. But I<br>
> worked hard for those bennies! Not like those
other people!<br>
><br>
> This whole concept of “good welfare” and “bad
welfare” is at the heart<br>
> of the Tea Party ideology, and it’s something
that is believed<br>
> implicitly across the line. It’s why so many
of their political<br>
> champions, like Miller, and sniveling
Kentucky rich kid Rand Paul (a<br>
> doctor whose patient base is 50% state
insured), and Nevada “crazy<br>
> juice” Senate candidate Sharron Angle (who’s
covered by husband Ted’s<br>
> Federal Employee Health Plan insurance), are
so completely<br>
> unapologetic about taking state aid with one
hand and jacking off<br>
> angry pseudo-libertarian mobs with the other.<br>
><br>
> They genuinely don’t see the contradiction,
much in the same way that<br>
> some Wall Street people genuinely can’t see
the problem with their<br>
> company, say, taking $13 billion in bonuses
in the same year that they<br>
> accepted $13 billion in state bailouts. You
wave a pitchfork at them<br>
> with little post-its of the relevant figures
taped to the ends, and<br>
> ask them to confess – and they can’t, because
they literally don’t see<br>
> your point.<br>
><br>
> After all, these bankers will protest, we
needed to pay out those<br>
> billions in bonuses to stay competitive! It’s
not like we’re just<br>
> taking the money willy-nilly, like those
dreadful people in ratty army<br>
> coats who shop with food stamps in the bodega
downstairs!<br>
><br>
> The rationalization continues: If I can’t
help my department heads buy<br>
> Porsches, they say, the whole system
collapses, and the system is<br>
> what’s important. It’s not like simply
handing out money to people who<br>
> can’t pay their mortgages, which of course is
real waste. As Berkshire<br>
> Hathaway investment titan Charles Munger put
it, it’s those people who<br>
> have to “suck it in and cope.” But bailouts
for companies like the<br>
> ones Munger invests in, like Wells Fargo and
Goldman, that’s<br>
> preserving the system – and we should all
“thank God” for that kind of<br>
> state aid.<br>
><br>
> The reason these arguments are inherently
ridiculous is that if you<br>
> live in America, you have a pretty good
chance of being in some way or<br>
> another dependent upon government aid.
Whether it’s aerospace or<br>
> military contracting or farm subsidies or
grants in academia, medicine<br>
> or the arts… most of us are in some way
living off of this spending,<br>
> directly or indirectly. Defense spending in
particular has been a<br>
> primary engine of American capitalism for
more than half a century<br>
> now. And government subsidies of agriculture
and financial services<br>
> have begun to rival defense largesse.<br>
><br>
> All of which would normally make it unfair
for any journalist to go<br>
> after a politician for taking government aid.
After all, pretty much<br>
> everybody has in some way or another lived
off the government in his<br>
> life – whether by working in a firm that
takes government contracts,<br>
> or attending a state school, or getting into
a college thanks to<br>
> affirmative action programs, or serving in
the military or law<br>
> enforcement, or collecting Medicare or food
stamps or unemployment.<br>
><br>
> But these Tea Partyers make themselves fair
game with their<br>
> preposterous absolutist stance on government.
If you call Obamacare<br>
> radical socialism and unemployment insurance
a parasitic welfare state<br>
> program—well, guess what, asshole, you’re
going to get rung up when we<br>
> find out you had your whole family living off
state medical aid and<br>
> farm subsidies.<br>
><br>
> Even beyond that, though, is the way that Tea
Party candidates and<br>
> activists demonize the consumers of
“entitlement” programs, branding<br>
> them as lazy parasites who are taking from
hard-working folk by<br>
> supporting “redistributionist” politicians.
You probably heard about<br>
> the story of David Jungerman, the Kansas
farmer who created a<br>
> billboard that read as follows:<br>
><br>
> ARE YOU A PRODUCER OR A PARASITE?<br>
><br>
> DEMOCRATS – THE PARTY OF PARASITES<br>
><br>
> Of course it now turns out that Jungerman
himself took over a million<br>
> dollars in farm subsidies since 1995. When
asked about the apparently<br>
> contradiction, Jungerman offered the Miller
defense:<br>
><br>
> “That’s just my money coming back to me,”
Jungerman, 72, said Monday.<br>
> “I pay a lot in taxes. I’m not a parasite.”<br>
><br>
> In Tea Party legend the “parasites” would I
suppose be people who<br>
> don’t pay taxes, or pay few taxes, and
receive government support in<br>
> excess of what they pay. Maybe they mean the
39-odd million Americans<br>
> (about 1 in 8) who are now receiving food
stamps. In the Hobbesian<br>
> jungle the Tea Partyers would prefer we all
live in, it’s true, most<br>
> of those 39 million people (including the
just under 50% of all<br>
> children, and 90% of black children, who will
at some point in their<br>
> lives eat a meal bought with food stamps)
would indeed be sucking wind<br>
> instead of eating cheese.<br>
><br>
> These are the parasites they’re probably
talking about. You know,<br>
> children. Meanwhile, a slick grownup yuppie
politician with a GI Joe<br>
> beard and a breeder wife and eight kids,
leeching off the state at<br>
> every turn and gunning for a U.S. Senate
salary and pension on an<br>
> anti-welfare platform, he’s just a
hardworking citizen who simply<br>
> needed a lift during a “transitional” period.
Man, did they break the<br>
> mold when they made these assholes.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Robert Naiman<br>
> Policy Director<br>
> Just Foreign Policy<br>
><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org">www.justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>
><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org"
ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>
><br>
> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for
Military Withdrawal from<br>
> Afghanistan<br>
><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern"
target="_blank">http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern</a><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Robert Naiman<br>
Policy Director<br>
Just Foreign Policy<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org">www.justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org"
ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>
<br>
Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military
Withdrawal from Afghanistan<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern"
target="_blank">http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>