[Peace-discuss] Gill on Lebanese war

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>
Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Gill on Lebanese war


> Mark's endorsement -- indeed, praise for -- political lying

   Yet another ridiculous Estabrook lie - no surprise in these quarters, I have 
a virtual catalogue of them.

 is obviously
> of a piece with his notion that it's "treachery" and a "a dirty trick" to 
> repeat what politicians actually say.

   That's all you did?  Another Estabrook lie; apparently it's buy one, get one 
free day.

  As usual, Carl's misleading Dr. Gill on what would be done to his 
contribution is - someone else's fault.

>  Imagine what would happen if people were to do such a thing with Bush, 
> McCain, the Clintons et al.!

  Yes, that never happens.  lol


>
>
> Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
>> ...
>>  That's a great question, especially following on Carl's transparent 
>> treachery.  Politicians who care will make the statements that will get them 
>> into office where they can make the changes needed.  The stronger the 
>> feelings, the more careful the PR management.  In America, in order to make 
>> your way to the floor, a majority of people have to believe you feel as they 
>> do.  Two months out from an important national election is not exactly the 
>> ideal time to make headlines just to make oneself feel good - a fact which 
>> several in the local activist community continue to conveniently ignore, 
>> year after year and election after election.
>>
>>  In short, the way to enable these folks to make the strong statements 
>> needed is to make it safe for them to do so.  Getting publicly castigated 
>> for a simple and trivial choice of words right before an election doesn't 
>> exactly say to them, "we've got your back."
>>
>>  Let's take a moment to be honest about what we just witnessed.  Carl didn't 
>> ask Dr. Gill for a just-between-us assessment - he specifically asked him 
>> for a statement to be disseminated publicly before an election.  Then he 
>> publicly alligatored Dr. Gill in the anticipated forum for complying, 
>> complaining he hadn't taken enough risk - a filthy dirty trick on Carl's 
>> part.  I doubt that's the kind of home base support that will make it easier 
>> to make the tough stands for peace.
>>
>>  I think Dr. Gill will be much better served by ignoring Carl's offers as a 
>> go-between in the future, and communicating with AWARE directly - that is, 
>> if he still thinks there's any real support to be had here at all.  If there 
>> is, you should probably let him know pretty quick.