[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[Morton K. Brussel]

My responses below:

On Nov 9, 2008, at 2:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook 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.

You willfully miss the point I tried to make: There were only two  
realistic possibilities as to who would win the election, McCain or  
Obama. By not considering the over-all positions of the two, and  
their histories, you encouraged the notion that to vote for Obama  
(say in Ohio, an up-for grabs state) would be the bad choice, (this  
despite occasional strained remarks that perhaps it might be OK to  
vote for Obama (in Ohio)). Few in AWARE, I believe, were fooled by or  
ecstatic about Obama—his campaign positions—except in contrast  
with McCain and the Bush reign. They simply considered Obama a better  
choice over all.  That is "support" in a highly restricted sense.
>
> 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).

Perhaps you should ask AWARE members how enlightened they became as a  
result of your tiresomely redundant condemnations of the villainy of  
Obama. Speaking for myself, I did not need that information, being  
quite conscious of Obama's defects. What I saw were politically blind  
attacks on Obama which ignored the naturally expected conclusion of  
someone told only of Obama's villainy, i.e., vote for his opponent!  
Or don't vote, or vote for another candidate. Your attacks led to  
nothing constructive, and hardly instructive in their repetitiousness.
>
> 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.  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

I don't believe that those attending AWARE meetings were unaware of  
"power's obfuscations". Most allied themselves to AWARE to oppose the  
power structure.

--mkb

>
>
> 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
>