[Peace-discuss] Why Obama has to do that...
Jenifer Cartwright
jencart13 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 3 02:07:33 CST 2008
What a perfect example of what Mort and I are objecting to!! How would Chomsky present that concept, Carl... how often would he repeat it... and what other subjects does he discuss besides Obama Obama Obama day, after day, after day... and (most important) when has Chomsky ever used the nastiest possible terms to express the things he's criticizing? I can't believe you don't get this -- it's something many of us have been telling you for a very long time.
--Jenifer
On Sun, 11/2/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Why Obama has to do that...
To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
Cc: "Peace- Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>, "Tom Abram" <tabram at gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 8:49 PM
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081103/f67e4fb5/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list