[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

I will respond to the less controversial points first.

I do not want to know nor do I care if Mort did or did not make such attributions, which is why I avoided addressing that part of the post.

I never said that I did want balance; in point of fact, in responding to Jenifer, I presented a series of reasons why there may not have been balance or fair and equal treatment of Obama versus McCain (several of which others including yourself mentioned in other posts as well as in this one). I was merely noting that both I and Neil had responded to Jenifer's complaint about the disproportionate amount of critical writings on Obama as compared to the number presented on McCain; and that I think that her complaint might be slightly different from what I read Mort's to be.  I think the balance that Mort was referring to was between positive and negative comments directed toward Obama and not the disproportionate attention being paid to Obama versus McCain.  The response to Mort's criticism would not be the same as those that Neil and I made  in reply to Jenifer.  I am unsure if the imbalance that Mort saw was one that I saw; but even if it did exist, I do not believe that one has an obligation to provide both positive and negative balanced comments when one is giving a critical commentary on anything (I use "critical" here to refer to an analysis in which one dissects and evaluates something versus mere "nay saying").  I think that the notion of balance, if it is to have any meaning in this context, is not an individual matter in which the balance has to be furnished in each and every individual offering; but it is an aggregate matter in which the varying positions should be present in more or less equal amounts within the total collection of posts.

Now to the more controversial of your points.

> Of course truth is better than illusion -- and the truth of that statement 
> hardly depends on my having a "clearer and more accurate knowledge and 
> understanding than those who do not agree with [me]."

> Was Obama an anti-war candidate, or wasn't he? It's not difficult to say 
> accurately that Paul, Nader, McKinney and probably Barr were anti-war 
> candidates.  Look at what they said...

Now, as you well know, we are playing word games among other things. It all depends on how one defines "anti-war," and who is defining it. Aside from the fact that Obama did not in so many words claim to be The Anti-War Candidate and in fact said or implied in some of his talks that he was not literally anti-war or the anti-war candidate (it was supporters who typically made that claim about him), he may very well have legitimately considered himself to be anti-war and the anti-war candidate as he understands the labels - not as you understand them.  So was he or wasn't he is a relative question unless one imposes that they have some special insight and knowledge that is clearer and better than others who have different viewpoints.  Moreover, do we use words or actions as grounds upon which we make our interpretations and attributions; if we use both, in what proportion do we use each in deciding on the accuracy and truth of an attribution?  Moreover, even if everyone but me agreed with you and your attributions, that does not make it true; it might suggest a consensus of opinion or illusion but truth, accurate knowledge, or clear understanding.

-----Original Message-----
From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:52 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'Morton K. Brussel'; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

Of course truth is better than illusion -- and the truth of that statement 
hardly depends on my having a "clearer and more accurate knowledge and 
understanding than those who do not agree with [me]."

Was Obama an anti-war candidate, or wasn't he? It's not difficult to say 
accurately that Paul, Nader, McKinney and probably Barr were anti-war 
candidates.  Look at what they said...

If you really want to know whether Mort has attributed opinions to me that I've 
denied -- and I'm not quite sure why you would -- look at the archives.

What do you want to "balance"?  Time spent exposing McCain's position and 
Obama's? But one was easier to do, and the audience for this list already 
recognized that one was untenable.  --CGE


LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> It seems to me that many people good people, who opposed the war, wanted to
>> convince themselves that Obama was an anti-war candidate, when he clearly 
>> wasn't.  The wish is father to the thought, but truth is better than 
>> illusion.
> 
> Even granting that it was the people who convinced themselves of this and not
> Obama who convinced them of this, how can you assume a self-righteous 
> position of saying that for them truth is better than illusion?  I can 
> understand how you might say that it is better for you personally but to 
> suggest that this is the case for others is sheer projection based on your 
> assuming that you have clearer and more accurate knowledge and understanding 
> than those who do not agree with you, which comes down to egotism clear and 
> simple.
> 
> I cannot respond to your claim that Mort has attributed opinions that you 
> have denied; but I am not so sure that your response here furnishes a 
> adequate reply to Mort's finding the apparent (to him) "lack of balance" 
> objectionable.  While my response ( and I assume Neil's response) was 
> primarily to Jenifer's comments on the disproportionateness of critical 
> comments focused on Obama more than McCain more than to Mort's objections.  I
>  think that there may be an essential difference in the arguments of the two 
> concerning imbalance.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:35 PM To: Morton K. Brussel Cc: 
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; LAURIE SOLOMON Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
>  Bellicose rhetoric???
> 
> You seem to find it necessary to attribute to me opinions that I've denied. 
> Why is that so important to you?
> 
> It seems to me that many people good people, who opposed the war, wanted to 
> convince themselves that Obama was an anti-war candidate, when he clearly 
> wasn't.  The wish is father to the thought, but truth is better than 
> illusion.