[Peace-discuss] Why Obama has to do that...
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Sun Nov 2 20:49:27 CST 2008
Am I to understand, Jenifer, that repeating what Obama actually said -- that he
intends as president to kill more people in Afghanistan and Pakistan (sc.
"finish the job") -- is not an "appropriately nuanced and civilized way of
presenting information and opinions"? --CGE
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Tom,
> Please note that the first part of Chomsky's answer covers the careful
> casting of protest votes. But in any case, Chomsky's vote isn't the
> issue here, but rather his intelligent, thoughtful, appropriately
> nuanced and civilized way of presenting information and opinions. I am
> sure we would all be honored to have him posting to Peace-discuss.
> --Jenifer
>
>
> --- On *Sun, 11/2/08, Tom Abram /<tabram at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: Tom Abram <tabram at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Why Obama has to do that...
> To: jencart13 at yahoo.com, "Peace- Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 2:16 PM
>
> Well, Noam Chomsky said he was voting for Cynthia McKinney, so that's
> great to hear from you, Jen.
>
> Tom
>
> On 11/2/08, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Noam Chomsky:".....On the other hand, there is nothing immoral about
> voting
> > for the lesser of two evils. In a powerful system like ours, small changes
> > can lead to big consequences."
> >
> > Mort: "If only Carl were as equally nuanced and careful as his
> professed
> > intellectual mentor! He is in my view despoiling this list serve with
> > vitriolic rants."
> >
> >
> > I agree with Noam Chomsky and Mort Brussel.
> > --Jenifer
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 11/2/08, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
> >
> > From: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Why Obama has to do that...
> > To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> > Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> > Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 11:31 AM
> >
> >
> > The desperation of Republicans (e.g., by the local N-G) as the electoral
> > campaign winds down is paralleled by this noxious piece, which ends up
> > expressing no alarm (even hoping for?) at a MaCain-Palin presidency. If
> only
> > Carl read more carefully what his mentor Chomsky has expressed recently in
> > Z-Magazine, Nov., 2008:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David Barsamian asks:
> >
> >
> > …So, realistically, whichever candidate is elected, can a president make
> a
> > difference?
> >
> >
> > NC: Oh, yes. Presidents make differences. In fact, over time there are
> > systematic differences between Republicans and Democrats. So, for example,
> > if you look over a long stretch, fairly consistently, when there is a
> > Democratic president, there is a level of benefits for the majority of the
> > population. Wages are a little better, benefits are a little better, for
> the
> > large majority. When the Republicans are in office, it's the other way
> > around. There are benefits, but for the super rich. The same is true for
> > civil rights and other things. It's a consistent difference, even
> though
> > they're within a narrow spectrum.
> > The same is true in international affairs… I don't doubt that there
> would
> > be some difference between an Obama and a McCain presidency. The McCain
> > presidency you can't predict very well because he's a loose
> cannon. It could
> > be pretty threatening.
> >
> >
> >
> > DB: What do you think of the lessor of two evils argument?
> >
> >
> > NC: It depends whether you care about human beings and their fate. If you
> > careabout human beings and their fate, you will support the lessor of two
> > evils, not mechanically, because there are other considerations. For
> > example, there could be an argument for a protest vote if it were a step
> > towards building a significant alternative to the choice between two
> > factions of the business party, both of them to the right of the
> population
> > on most issues. If there were such an alternative, there could be an
> > argument for not voting or for voting for the third alternative. But
> it's a
> > delicate judgement. On the other hand, there is nothing immoral about
> voting
> > for the lesser of two evils. In a powerful system like ours, small changes
> > can lead to big consequences.
> > …
> >
> >
> > If only Carl were as equally nuanced and careful as his professed
> > intellectual mentor! He is in my view despoiling this list serve with
> > vitriolic rants.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2008, at 12:50 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> >
> >
> > Look, gang, let's get one argument out of the way up front. As soon
> as The
> > One is elected President, there are going to be a lot of self-styled
> > activists after him NOT to do the things that he's promised to do --
> like
> > killing people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, continuing the occupation of
> > Iraq, delivering money to Wall Street, and paying off insurance companies
> > for a health program that won't even cover everybody (while leaving
> most
> > people subject to their employers in order to get it). The crazy leftist
> > filmmaker Michael Moore (while not of course really criticizing The One)
> > actually said that he hoped Obama would break his campaign promises!
> >
> >
> > Now we've gotta understand why Obama can't do that. First of all,
> it would
> > be dishonest. He's campaigned all along as the anti-war candidate who
> would
> > expand the war and the military and kill more people in the Middle East --
> > including places where the Bush administration is just taking baby-steps
> in
> > killing, like Pakistan. He's the candidate of "ordinary
> people" who lobbied
> > for the Wall Street bailout while explicitly excluding help to people
> losing
> > their homes. And he's the advocate for health care who has a plan that
> will
> > provide less coverage than the plan that Republican Mitt Romney put in
> place
> > when he was governor of Massachusetts. Obama's got to pay off (so to
> speak)
> > on these promises.
> >
> >
> > But the second reason is even more important. Think about what the
> > Republicans are going to do in four years. They're going to nominate
> > someone for President who will be even WORSE than John McCain -- someone
> > like Sarah Palin, who's disgusting because she doesn't even have
> the right
> > background (the progressives say "class") to be a government
> official. (Do
> > you know she barely graduated from any college at all?!) Think about how
> > terrible it would be if someone like THAT became president.
> >
> >
> > So, you see, of course Obama doesn't want to do that killing and
> looting
> > that his campaign promises commit him to, but once he gets into office,
> he's
> > gotta do that -- TO GET RE-ELECTED!
> >
> >
> > --CGE
> >
> >
> > PS--And please don't bother me with any more talk about how
> three-quarters
> > of the population want the Mideast war to end, don't want the banks to
> be
> > paid off, and do want real healthcare for everybody without paying more to
> > insurance companies. Those are NOT the people Obama's working for.
> They're
> > just the people he promised that he could bring around to the interests of
> > those whom he is working for. And with John McCain's help, he's
> done it --
> > a little bit, for the moment...
> >
> >
> > ###
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list