[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[John W.]

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

"...this lack of 'balance' is what I found objectionable..."
>
> Mort--
>
> The balance you call for would apparently mean equal time devoted to
> exposing
> what McCain's actual position on the war was, and what policies he would
> follow
> in office.
>
> Was there any doubt about that? But there was a great deal of doubt about
> those
> questions in regard to Obama.
>
> Was anyone in AWARE or reading this list (with the exception of the FBI
> agent)
> thinking of voting for McCain?  But many were supporting Obama.
>
> Shouldn't an anti-war group attempt to discover what the war policy of the
> presumptive president is, and what he's likely to do in office, in order to
> figure out what an anti-war strategy might be?  Asking Mr. Obama to be nice
> strikes me as puerile, to borrow a phrase: it didn't work with Kennedy,
> Johnson,
> Carter, or Clinton (or any Republicans, it goes without saying).
>
> Chomsky says that he differs with his Quaker friends who recommend telling
> truth
> to power.  Power already knows the truth, he says, and tries to cover it
> up.


This is true.  Personally, I think it's often more useful to speak lies to
(those in) power.  But of course you have to figure out what you want to
accomplish with your lies.



> We
> should be telling truth to our fellow citizens -- but that depends on our
> breaking through power's obfuscation, and finding out what the truth is.
>  What
> the truth is -- that's what the arguments on this list are about.  We know
> (and
> agreed on) the truth about McCain, but not about Obama -- the front-runner
> -- so
> there was little sense in devoting equal time to both.  --CGE


Your argument makes sense, Carl, as far as it goes.

What I've seen on this list all along is basically two groups, the Realists
and the Idealists.  (Have I said this before?)  I place myself in the former
group for the most part.

The Realist - which would include most of the readers of this list - says,
"Yes, let's learn all we can about Obama, watch him like a hawk, continue to
express our dissent with certain of his policies in the strongest possible
terms.  But meanwhile, let's give him a bit of leeway, recognizing that a
thoughtful leader CAN change and grow in response to events and to public
pressure, and that in the Real World compromise is always necessary.  We're
not gonna get all we want, but half a loaf is better than none.  Especially
after the famine of the Bush/Cheney years."

The Idealist - of whom you, Carl, are the principal spokesperson, joined by
Neil and a couple of others - says, "My way is the Right Way, because I am a
highly Moral Person!  If I don't get everything I want, I'm gonna throw a
temper tantrum, take my ball, and go home!"

Of course, I'm caricaturing the Idealist just a bit, but not too terribly
much.  I'll hasten to say, Carl, that I always appreciate your perspective
and insights, and would be disappointed if you ceased to make those things
available to us.  You keep me on my intellectual toes, and inform me of much
that is valuable.  So do the other Idealists, when they express themselves
on this list.  But like any extremist, you'd be dangerous if you were a Doer
and not just a Talker, no matter how benevolent you think your goals and
motives are.  As a suicide bomber, you'd undermine your own cause and that
of the rest of us.

I suppose, Carl, that you and I are among the few professing Christians on
this list.  I'm normally not much of a prayer, but recently I've found
myself praying for Obama several times a day - for his safety and, equally
importantly, that he would seek and receive wisdom (as opposed to mere
knowledge) so as to guide our Ship of State properly.  You could do worse
than to spend just a fraction of the time you spend digging up dirt on Obama
in praying for him.  Ah, well, maybe you DO pray for Obama.

Now feel free, of course, to refute my points, pick my words apart, and
quote Edward de Vere or some obscure Greek philsopher.

John Wason



> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>

>  I also am not sure that Neil's sentence is an example of an /ad hominem/*
>> attack. But I know that it is deceitful.
>>
>> There has never been an effort to deny criticism of Obama at recent AWARE
>> meetings, certainly not from this quarter. I believed (most of) Obama's
>> campaign foreign policy statements were detestable, although noting that
>> on
>> the domestic front we could expect some improvement over what we could
>> expect
>> from McCain/Palin.  That McCain would likely be even a worse choice, was
>> being ignored or grossly underplayed in the barrage against Obama, and
>> this
>> lack of "balance" is what I found objectionable.
>>
>> In the election, people were given a restricted choice, and it was for the
>> general welfare that they choose the best of the lousy choices. I believe
>> they did.
>>
>> Willful distortion here is the main fault.
>>
>> *ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm| adverb & adjective *1 *(of an argument or
>> reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or
>> logic. • attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy
>> or position they maintain : /vicious ad hominem attacks./ *2 *relating to or
>> associated with a particular person : [as adv. ] /the office was created
>> ad
>> hominem for Fenton. /| [as adj. ] /an ad hominem response./ ORIGIN late
>> 16th
>> cent.: Latin, literally 'to the person.'
>>
>>
>> --mkb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081109/61842150/attachment.html