<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I agree that there might be some minor utility in distinguishing the
lists (primarily so that announcements don't get lost in
discussion). <br>
<br>
But wouldn't you agree that there's a right to reply when one is
directly addressed - to put no finer point upon it - on a given
list?<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/27/10 1:17 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:224511.37212.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;">
<div>Carl,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Did you not get the memo about the peace list? Personally,
I enjoy these discussions and think we should have more of
them. But others have made clear that they don't, and they,
too, deserve respect, your Orwellian freedom notwithstanding.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>GG<br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: times new roman,new
york,times,serif;"><br>
<div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: times new roman,new
york,times,serif;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
<hr size="1">
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> C. G.
Estabrook <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu"><galliher@illinois.edu></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Morton
K. Brussel <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu"><brussel@illinois.edu></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:peace@lists.chambana.net">peace@lists.chambana.net</a>; Peace-discuss
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net"><peace-discuss@anti-war.net></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Wed,
October 27, 2010 12:56:03 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [Peace] come and share your reasons for being against
this war with Dr. Gill / Tuesday, 5pm-6pm / UPTV 400 South
Vine Street, Urbana, IL<br>
</font><br>
Mort--<br>
<br>
Naturally I appreciate your tender concern for my absence
from AOTA's interview with David Gill. In fact at the time
I was literally up in the air, flying
Missoula-Denver-Dallas-CU and arriving home just in time to
see the program. In fact, I would love to have asked Gill
some questions about the war - and to quote back to him his
evasions from the past.<br>
<br>
Linda got Gill to agree to be on the show - and asked me not
to be "confrontational." But Gill said he couldn't make the
regular recording time. So I asked the accommodating people
at UPTV to provide us with other possible times: Gill
eventually chose 5-6pm on 10/26. As it happened, I was out
of town Friday-Tuesday.<br>
<br>
I've been corresponding with Gill since he announced for the
seat in the fall of 2009 - trying to get him to come clean
on his stance on the war. (From the News-Gazette, October,
2009: "Gill said he would not support a total withdrawal of
U.S. forces from Afghanistan...")<br>
<br>
Gill's statement read at the top of program managed to evade
any mention of (a) the administration's motive for the AfPak
war and its lies ("stopping terrorism") about those motives;
(b) any principled - as opposed to "pragmatic" ("we might
not be winning") - reason to oppose the war (as found, e.g.,
among <br>
Ron Paulists, Libertarians and paleo-conservatives); and/or
(c) a pledge like Tim Johnson's to vote against any more
money for war. (And Johnson is in fact voting that way.)
What the statement does contain are self-serving errors in
fact about the history of the AfPak war.<br>
<br>
As for the no-hope comment, did you note that the NYT gave
Gill a 0.2% (that's two-tenths of one percent) chance of
winning?<br>
<br>
And I'm sorry you don't see the difference between Gill's
campaign and the "presumed futile" Green party campaign for
the same seat in 2002. The Greens took advantage of a quirk
in the repressive election laws to run a campaign - which
they knew they would loose - in order to raise issues that
would not be raised by the Republicans or Democrats. Gill
evaded issues - especially the war - in order to try to be
elected.<br>
<br>
It's not a smear to point out those evasions. --CGE<br>
<br>
On 10/26/10 11:45 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Most telling of all is
the absence of Carl Estabrook on the panel. If<br>
> he were able to participate (Did he require an
invitation [for a<br>
> program he initiated]? Did Gill object to his
possible presence on<br>
> the panel with him?), his absence indicates rank
cowardice. Evidently<br>
> Estabrook feels he can mouth off accusations better
if there is no<br>
> face-to face rebuttal.<br>
> <br>
> As for the sly "no-hope" comment, Estabrook should
know what it means<br>
> to run a campaign presumed futile. His attempt to
smear the program<br>
> is appalling.<br>
> <br>
> I thought Gill expressed himself admirably, and
Karen, Ron and Linda<br>
> deserve our thanks for carrying on and preparing
well.<br>
> <br>
> --mkb<br>
> <br>
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:06 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:<br>
> <br>
>> The program tonight as broadcast showed a
remarkable<br>
development to<br>
>> David Gill's views on the US war in the Middle
East. (Gill is the<br>
>> no-hope Democratic candidate running against the
Republican<br>
>> incumbent, Tim Johnson, for the local
congressional seat.) He even<br>
>> struggled to modify the statement - his statement
- read by a<br>
>> member of the panel at the beginning of the
program!<br>
>> <br>
>> One can see why - that statement is a tissue of
lies. What he said<br>
>> tonight - together with that statement - is a
painful exercise in<br>
>> misrepresentation - both of his own views and
those of his<br>
>> opponent. That has of course been the practice of
the Democrats<br>
>> since the beginning of this phase of the Long
War.<br>
>> <br>
>> See the statement here:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.gill2010.com/issues/foreign-policy/afghanistan/"
target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><http://www.gill2010.com/issues/foreign-policy/afghanistan/></a>.<br>
>> <br>
>> We might actually get a debate on the war if
people have a chance<br>
>> to see how disingenuous Gill's statement is -
even with his<br>
>> "evolutions" on tonight's program.<br>
>> <br>
>> Gill's major charge against Johnson is that he
"doesn't support the<br>
>> troops" - a made-up Bushism. But Gill's
prevarications and<br>
>> misrepresentations have deprived the local voters
of a real debate<br>
>> on the war - which looked liked happening, when
Johnson said he<br>
>> was wrong to vote for the invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq, and<br>
>> pledged to vote against any more money for war in
the Mideast - and<br>
>> he is voting that way. Gill still won't make that
pledge, as a<br>
>> close examination of his statement shows.<br>
>> <br>
>> Both parties have worked hard to make sure<br>
that next week's<br>
>> election is meaningless - and have largely
succeeded. It will not,<br>
>> most importantly, be a vote on the war. We should
therefore be<br>
>> working to stir up people across the political
spectrum on the<br>
>> military and economic betrayals of the current
president and<br>
>> Congress.<br>
>> <br>
>> The question is, Whom are we going to allow
Barack Obama to kill<br>
>> going forward, and why?<br>
>> <br>
>> Some people are talking about what Obama and the
Democratas are<br>
>> actually doing. Contrast Chris Floyd's remarks,
as follows, with<br>
>> Gill's evasions, above:<br>
>> <br>
>> "...Friends, it's very simple: if you support
Barack Obama and the<br>
>> Democrats -- even if reluctantly, even if you're
just being all<br>
>> sophisticatedly super-savvy and blogospherically
strategic about<br>
>> it, playing the "long game" or<br>
eleven-dimensional chess or what<br>
>> have you -- you are supporting the outright
murder of innocent<br>
>> people who have never done anything against you
or yours. You have<br>
>> walked into a house, battered down the bedroom
door, put the barrel<br>
>> of a gun against the temple of a sleeping child,
and pulled the<br>
>> trigger. That is what you are supporting, that is
what you are<br>
>> complicit in, that is what you yourself are
doing."<br>
>> <br>
>> Full article at<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/2035-obamas-finest-hour-killing-innocent-people-for-qmade-up-crapq.html"
target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><http://chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/2035-obamas-finest-hour-killing-innocent-people-for-qmade-up-crapq.html></a>.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> </span><br>
On 10/25/10 12:05 PM, Karen Medina wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">>>> Dr. Gill is
coming to talk with<br>
>> AWARE (the local anti-war,<br>
>> <br>
>>> anti-racism effort of Champaign-Urbana).
Would you like to<br>
>> come and<br>
>> <br>
>>> share your reasons for being against this war
with Dr. Gill?<br>
>> We would<br>
>> <br>
>>> greatly appreciate it.<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5pm-6pm UPTV (in
the Urbana City<br>
>> Council<br>
>> <br>
>>> Chambers) 400 South Vine Street, Urbana, IL A
taping of AWARE<br>
>> on the<br>
>> <br>
>>> Air for Channel 6 that will air at 10pm
Tuesday evening.<br>
</span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<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>