<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Whatever. All I know is that mobilization you're talking about ain't happenin' (except on the right), which means our side is doing a piss-poor job. I'm going to go play golf now. Just trying to maintain my political class street cred. It's the cross I have to bear.<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> C. G. Estabrook <galliher@illinois.edu><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Gregg Gordon <ggregg79@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13@yahoo.com>; Peace-discuss <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thu, October 21, 2010 12:20:22 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote<BR></FONT><BR>"Political class" refers to those Americans who think of themselves as <BR>politically aware and informed. In the US they're roughly equivalent to those <BR>who have been to a good college, like UIUC - no more than a quarter of the <BR>adult population.<BR><BR>A very high percentage of Americans, sometimes passing 80%, tell pollsters <BR>that the government serves "the few and the special interests,"
not "the <BR>people." Even in recent presidential elections, about 75% regarded it as <BR>mostly a farce having nothing to do with them, a game played by rich <BR>contributors, party bosses, and the public relations industry, which trained <BR>candidates to say mostly meaningless things that might pick up some votes.<BR><BR>That sort of perspicacity (= insight, shrewdness) worries both business <BR>parties, for fear that some significant part of that 80% will be mobilized <BR>outside of the limits of allowable debate, established by the party system. <BR>Both parties work hard with corporate media to ridicule or delegitimize <BR>anyone who does such a thing. (Why, they might say that people who speak <BR>outside those limits are "drug-crazed professional leftists," proto-fascist <BR>racists - or pretentious twits - rather than dealing with what they say.)<BR><BR>And of course they can always race-bait, because they daren't mention the
<BR>word "class" in an economic sense.<BR><BR>---- Original message ----<BR>>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT)<BR>>From: Gregg Gordon <<A href="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com">ggregg79@yahoo.com</A>> <BR>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote <BR>>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <<A href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>><BR>>Cc: Jenifer Cartwright <<A href="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com">jencart13@yahoo.com</A>>, Peace-discuss <peace-<BR><A href="mailto:discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:discuss@lists.chambana.net">discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>><BR>><BR>> I just deal with the world as I find it. You're<BR>> living in a poli sci book. I've never been<BR>> described as a member of the "political
class"<BR>> before -- I guess I'm flattered -- and I have no<BR>> idea what perspicacity even is -- I hope that's not<BR>> the language you use when actually dealing with your<BR>> "fellow citizens," because they're going to think<BR>> you're a pretentious twit -- but if your strategy is<BR>> to pinprick the consciences of white people until<BR>> they do the right thing, I think you're going to<BR>> wait a long time. White people haven't done the<BR>> right thing since 1492.<BR>><BR>> ------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>> From: C. G. Estabrook <<A href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>><BR>> To: Gregg Gordon <<A href="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com">ggregg79@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> Cc: Jenifer
Cartwright <<A href="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com">jencart13@yahoo.com</A>>;<BR>> Peace-discuss <<A href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>><BR>> Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 10:08:35 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't<BR>> Vote<BR>> That quite remarkable contempt for the political<BR>> perspicacity of your fellow citizens is all too<BR>> typical of the political class in this country, but<BR>> it's not very democratic.<BR>><BR>> The federal government doesn't quite agree with<BR>> you. That's why it spends so much time and money on<BR>> "the manufacture of consent" (and why snake-oil<BR>> salesmen like Obama get ahead). The public has to<BR>> be managed, not
indulged, they think - it's their<BR>> only real enemy, as Vietnam showed.<BR>><BR>> That after all was Jefferson's view: he thought that<BR>> people "are naturally divided into two parties: (1.)<BR>> Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to<BR>> draw all powers from them into the hands of the<BR>> higher classes. (2.) Those who identify themselves<BR>> with the people, have confidence in them, cherish<BR>> and consider them as the most honest and safe,<BR>> although not the most wise depositary of the public<BR>> interests."<BR>><BR>> I'm a democrat, so not a Democrat. --CGE<BR>><BR>> On 10/21/10 9:51 AM, Gregg Gordon wrote:<BR>><BR>> I don't disagree with any of that. So what? And<BR>> as for wars for oil, maybe you better hope they<BR>> keep lying
about it, because if Americans were<BR>> confronted with that stark reality, most of<BR>> them might be down with it. When Alan Greenspan<BR>> said so publicly, there was no big outcry. Barely<BR>> lasted a full news cycle. I remember seeing a<BR>> bumper sticker when the Iraq war started: "Kick<BR>> their ass. Take their gas." I think that's<BR>> basically where most Americans are on the issue,<BR>> and the main reason the Iraq war has become so<BR>> unpopular (people were 2-1 in favor at the time,<BR>> if the polls can be believed) is that the cheap<BR>> gas never materialized. We're still paying<BR>> through the nose. Most people support resumed<BR>> drilling in the Gulf right now. They don't
care<BR>> if it turns into the Rancho La Brea tar pits. <BR>> They want gasoline for their cars. I saw a poll<BR>> just within the last week -- can't remember<BR>> exactly, but something like, would you be willing<BR>> to pay an additional 4 cents a gallon for, I don't<BR>> know -- lower CO2 emissions or something. The<BR>> majority said, "No." So that's where you need to<BR>> start -- not with the Democrats. I think the<BR>> Democrats are about the left party that the<BR>> American left deserves right now. We've<BR>> been ineffectual and inept. That's our reward.<BR>><BR>> ------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>> From: C. G. Estabrook <<A href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu"
ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>><BR>> To: Gregg Gordon <<A href="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com">ggregg79@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> Cc: Jenifer Cartwright <<A href="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com">jencart13@yahoo.com</A>>;<BR>> Peace-discuss <<A href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>><BR>> Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 9:03:01 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money<BR>> Can't Vote<BR>> On the Carter administration, see the famous<BR>> interview his National Security Adviser gave to Le<BR>> Nouvel Observateur in 1998:<BR>> <<A
href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html" target=_blank>http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html</A>><BR>> (in English)...<BR>><BR>> "Q: And neither do you regret having supported the<BR>> Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and<BR>> advice to future terrorists?<BR>> "B: What is most important to the history of the<BR>> world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet<BR>> empire? Some stirred-up Moslems [sic] or the<BR>> liberation of Central Europe and the end of the<BR>> cold war?..."<BR>><BR>> It's true that the US has been committing crimes<BR>> in order to control Mideast oil since the Truman<BR>> administration, when we saw that we could displace<BR>> an exhausted Britain in the region.
First,<BR>> British oil companies were replaced with American<BR>> ones, and concomitantly the US began the policy -<BR>> which Obama continues - of controlling the<BR>> countries of the region by alliance, subversion,<BR>> or aggressive war (= what we were busily<BR>> condemning German leaders for, at Nuremberg). <BR>><BR>> Benchmarks are our destruction of democratic<BR>> government in Iran (1953), which Americans have<BR>> forgotten but the Iranians haven't; adoption of<BR>> Israel as our "cop on the beat" (as the Nixon<BR>> administration said) after they launched their<BR>> 1967 war to destroy secular Arab nationalism; our<BR>> sponsorship of Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran<BR>> war, 1980-88; our covert sponsorship of
the<BR>> religious-based Hamas to undercut the secular PLO;<BR>> and Clinton's murderous sanctions on Iraq (by<BR>> which he killed as many people as Bush did, many<BR>> of them children whose deaths were "worth it,"<BR>> according to Clinton's Secretary of State).<BR>><BR>> The US has consistently demanded control of<BR>> Mideast energy resources since WWII, not because<BR>> we need them - the US was a net exporter of oil<BR>> until recently, and now imports less than 10% of<BR>> the oil we use at home from the Mideast, mostly<BR>> from our ally Saudi Arabia - but because control<BR>> of world hydrocarbon supplies gives us an<BR>> advantage over our real economic rivals, the EU<BR>> and East Asia (China and Japan). That's
what<BR>> Obama (and other presidents) is sending Americans<BR>> to kill and die for, so it's obvious that he like<BR>> the others has to invent excuses, especially when<BR>> two-thirds of the US public, even though they're<BR>> being lied to, thinks the war a bad idea. <BR>><BR>> When Al Qaeda launched their criminal raids on US<BR>> cities in 2001, they were clearly and consciously<BR>> staging a counter-attack to more than a generation<BR>> of US crimes in the Mideast. They said at the<BR>> time that there were three reasons for their<BR>> counterattack: (1) the sanctions on Iraq, called<BR>> "genocidal" by successive UN overseers; (2) the<BR>> suppression of h the Palestinians by America's<BR>> chief client, Israel; and
(3) the occupation of<BR>> Saudi Arabia (and the Muslim holy places) by<BR>> American troops after Bush I's Gulf war, in 1991. <BR>><BR>> It's not just those who point out that the Obama<BR>> administration is, by and large, Bush's third term<BR>> who note the continuity of US policy in the<BR>> Mideast, which Obama if anything has intensified -<BR>> as he said he would, as far back as his campaign<BR>> for the Senate, when he discussed "surgical<BR>> strikes" on Iran, still I think a real<BR>> possibility, along with open war with Pakistan. <BR>> BHO is down with the program, and only a few are<BR>> criticizing it - of course many more in the<BR>> country that in Congress.<BR>><BR>> On 10/21/10 8:05 AM, Gregg Gordon
wrote:<BR>><BR>> Well, that strikes me as quite a stretch to lay<BR>> responsibility for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars<BR>> on the back of Jimmy Carter. I could take your<BR>> logic just a small step further and put it on<BR>> FDR. Or William McKinley. Or James K. Polk. <BR>> Plus it ignores the question of why three<BR>> subsequent Republican presidents failed to end<BR>> it, as your premise indicates they should have<BR>> done. It is a sad fact that since the<BR>> disastrous and misguided McGovern campaign (God<BR>> bless him), Democrats have been so bullied and<BR>> intimidated by charges of being anti-military<BR>> (not that
there's anything wrong with that) that<BR>> they too often feel compelled to prove they have<BR>> gonads. I thought Clinton kept Saddam around<BR>> just to have somebody to bomb when he needed to<BR>> look tough. That's murderous and deplorable and<BR>> certainly won't get him into heaven, but that's<BR>> the political landscape we find ourselves in. <BR>> Deal with it. Anyway, wealth and power breed<BR>> arrogance. Americans, like the British,<BR>> Spanish, Romans, and every great empire before<BR>> us, think we should have our way just because<BR>> God obviously loves us so. (If He didn't, we<BR>> wouldn't be an empire.) That's human
nature,<BR>> and liberals are just as susceptible to it as<BR>> conservatives. More often than not, Democratic<BR>> militarism just takes the form of seeing to it<BR>> that veterans actually receive the benefits<BR>> they've been promised, for which they get no<BR>> credit whatsoever. And "spineless" is not the<BR>> same as "evil" in my eyes. The "spineless" need<BR>> to be encouraged. The "evil" need to be<BR>> stopped. Who can blame the Democrats for being<BR>> spineless? Who's got their backs? The left?<BR>> <BR>> I'm a Bernie Sanders kind of guy. I don't<BR>> really consider myself a Democrat, but I
caucus<BR>> with them because I think the alternative is so<BR>> much worse. But if you really can't see any<BR>> difference between, say, Karl Rove and Dennis<BR>> Kucinich, I'm not going to waste any more time<BR>> arguing with you. You're not serious.<BR>><BR>> ------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>> From: C. G. Estabrook <<A href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>><BR>> To: Gregg Gordon <<A href="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com">ggregg79@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> Cc: Jenifer Cartwright <<A href="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com">jencart13@yahoo.com</A>>;<BR>>
Peace List <<A href="mailto:peace@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:peace@lists.chambana.net">peace@lists.chambana.net</A>>;<BR>> Peace-discuss <<A href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>><BR>> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:09:24 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money<BR>> Can't Vote<BR>> First, Iraq and Afghanistan are both part of<BR>> what the Pentagon calls "The Long War" (for oil)<BR>> in the Mideast. So far, the US has killed a<BR>> million people in Iraq under Clinton (whose<BR>> Secretary of State said that the tens of<BR>> thousands of dead children were "worth it"); a<BR>>
million under Bush; and apparently hundreds of<BR>> thousands in AfPak under Bush and his third<BR>> (Obama) term.<BR>><BR>> That falls short of the perhaps 4 million we<BR>> killed in SE Asia, but of course Obama's<BR>> escalated murders in SW Asia are in no way<BR>> justified by being fewer in number than<BR>> Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon's in Vietnam.<BR>><BR>> It's difficult to determine when the Long War<BR>> begins, but it takes a tick up in the Carter<BR>> administration when Carter (and Obama's) adviser<BR>> Zbigniew Brzezinski sends Osama bin Laden and<BR>> friends into Afghanistan (before the Russian<BR>> invasion) "to give the Russians a
Vietnam of<BR>> their own," as he said at the time, in the most<BR>> expensive CIA operation to date.<BR>><BR>> If a Republican administration after 2012 brings<BR>> Obama's AfPak war to an end, then we'll have a<BR>> third example of a Democratic war concluded by<BR>> Republicans in as many generations. But that may<BR>> not be likely. The news suggests that the Obama<BR>> administration is looking to expand the war with<BR>> an attack on Pakistan and/or Iran. It certainly<BR>> isn't looking to abandon the world's greatest<BR>> energy-producing region.<BR>><BR>> Control of Mideast energy resources has been a<BR>> cornerstone of US foreign policy
since 1945.<BR>> Obama is simply lying when he says the war is to<BR>> "stop terrorism" - it obviously increases<BR>> terrorism - but he has to lie, because the only<BR>> Constitutional authority he has to wage war in<BR>> the Mideast is Congress' "Authorization for the<BR>> Use of Military Force" of September 2001 - which<BR>> is directed against terrorism.<BR>><BR>> Something positive to do: years ago, there was a<BR>> great debate in America, "How do we get out of<BR>> Vietnam?" The best answer was given by Herb<BR>> Caen: "Ships and planes." Load up the troops and<BR>> bring them home. The Russians did - and<BR>> survived and prospered from
the end of their<BR>> war.<BR>><BR>> Eventually we did, but it took two presidents'<BR>> being driven from office and (even more<BR>> important) a revolt of the American conscript<BR>> army to do it. <BR>><BR>> Regards, CGE<BR>><BR>> On 10/20/10 7:15 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote:<BR>><BR>> So I conclude from your statement that you<BR>> don't consider either Iraq or Afghanistan to<BR>> be "major" wars. So why are you so worked up<BR>> about them? I think you're just still mad at<BR>> Lyndon Johnson.<BR>> <BR>> And please, don't accuse me of being some
kind<BR>> of racist who doesn't mind us murdering brown<BR>> people. That is so lame. It's just that not<BR>> all of us see the world in as simple terms as<BR>> you seem to. Simple solutions are nice, but<BR>> they're mainly for the simple-minded.<BR>> <BR>> All I'm saying is if you're so gung-ho on<BR>> stopping the war, why don't you come up with<BR>> something positive to do (as opposed to<BR>> sniping from the sidelines) that might help<BR>> get us closer to that goal? We'll all get<BR>> behind you.<BR>><BR>>
------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>> From: C. G. Estabrook <<A href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>><BR>> To: Gregg Gordon <<A href="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:ggregg79@yahoo.com">ggregg79@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> Cc: Jenifer Cartwright <<A href="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com">jencart13@yahoo.com</A>>;<BR>> Peace List <<A href="mailto:peace@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:peace@lists.chambana.net">peace@lists.chambana.net</A>>;<BR>> Peace-discuss<BR>> <<A href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>><BR>>
Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 5:10:40 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money<BR>> Can't Vote<BR>> You are aware, are you not, that America's<BR>> major wars since WWII - called by synecdoche<BR>> "Korea" and "Vietnam" - were started by<BR>> Democratic administrations and ended by<BR>> Republican administrations. Since the current<BR>> Democratic administration has greatly expanded<BR>> the killing in AfPak, it's hard to argue that<BR>> they're going to reverse their policies.<BR>> Voting for them is an acquiescence to those<BR>> policies. <BR>><BR>>
To say of Obama and the Democrats, "Let them<BR>> kill some Asians, because they might do some<BR>> good someplace else," is at best a counsel of<BR>> despair, if not an outright criminal<BR>> attitude. Particularly when it seems that<BR>> they're doing precisely the wrong things<BR>> elsewhere, too - not surprisingly, because<BR>> they're working for the owners of the banks,<BR>> the insurance companies, the oil and<BR>> construction companies, etc. --CGE<BR>><BR>> On 10/20/10 4:48 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote:<BR>><BR>> Maybe because there are other important<BR>>
issues that she does agree with him on. The<BR>> only way you're going to find a candidate<BR>> you're in 100% agreement with is to run for<BR>> office. If support for the war is an<BR>> absolute deal breaker for you, fine. Not<BR>> everybody sees it that way. But if you<BR>> think the war will end sooner if more<BR>> Republicans get elected, I think you're out<BR>> of your mind.<BR>><BR>> ------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>> From: C. G. Estabrook<BR>> <<A href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu"
ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>><BR>> To: Jenifer Cartwright <<A href="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:jencart13@yahoo.com">jencart13@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> Cc: Peace List <<A href="mailto:peace@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:peace@lists.chambana.net">peace@lists.chambana.net</A>>;<BR>> Peace-discuss<BR>> <<A href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>><BR>> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 4:33:52 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Fw:<BR>> Money Can't Vote<BR>> This guy supports the war. I can't see
why<BR>> anyone on an anti-war list would contribute<BR>> to him.<BR>><BR>> On 10/20/10 4:28 PM, Jenifer Cartwright<BR>> wrote:<BR>><BR>> Another request for help... <BR>> I love this guy! <BR>> --Jenifer <BR></DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>