[Peace-discuss] Fw: UPDATE: Blue Dogs and Healthcare Reform

Tue Mar 23 23:45:51 CDT 2010

First, it is unclear to me if you posted this to me privately and not to the 
list or if you posted it to me and the list.  I often tend to get 
individualized posts from you as well as a duplicate of that post addressed 
to both the list and me.  In this case, I could not find a copy of your post 
that was addressed to both the list and me.   I saw no reason not to post my 
reply to your post on the list for others to read; so I am posting it to the 
list.  If it was intended for me privately, and I wrongly post my reply to 
you and the list, I apologize for the error.

It is not a nice simple clear cut either/or choice as you seem to  like it 
to be.  There are degrees of right or wrong and various conditions in which 
right or wrong can take place and vary.  "What Happened" in the end is 
always an account by a person or group of persons with a given perspective. 
point of view, intent, objective, set of goals, set of beliefs and values, 
and a given set of practical interests.  Moreover, none of those elements 
are static; but they are constantly evolving and changing over and within 
socio-cultural space-time as well as over and within physical space-time.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:01 PM
To: "Laurie Solomon" <ls1000 at live.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: UPDATE: Blue Dogs and Healthcare Reform

> The question is, What happened?
>
> People can be right or wrong about that.
>
> It's better to be right than wrong.
>
> Regards, CGE
>
>
> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>>> I think the Obama administration consciously encouraged a manufactured
>>> "health care debate."
>>
>> A distinct possibility but not the only possibility and certainly not a 
>> necessary and sufficient possibility by any means since neither you nor 
>> anyone else can offer credible and reliable evidence with any measurable 
>> degree of certainty that your selection and interpretation of the facts 
>> of the historical record is the only one or even the correct one.  It 
>> only  is the case if everyone agrees to use your standards and criteria 
>> of fact selection and gathering,  your methods and criteria of factual 
>> interpretation, and your definitions and priorities.
>>
>>> There was no need for one: there was an obvious
>>> solution, had they wanted it.
>>
>> Your over simplified understanding and assessment; but evidently it was 
>> not so obvious a solution to others.  What in effect you are saying is 
>> the old LBJ line that was offered to the Viet Nam anti-war protesters 
>> which - to paraphrase - when along the lines of "let us reason 
>> together" - with the implicit and not so explicit ad hoc  understanding 
>> and presupposition "but we will do so under the my rules of logic not 
>> yours."  You are engaging in controlling and limiting the agenda and 
>> confines of legitimate and acceptable speech by implicitly preempting and 
>> denying legitimacy to others viewpoints, interests, concerns and 
>> priorities, and notions of what is and is not "obvious" - let alone what 
>> is or is not a solution (much less an acceptable solution).  For me, an 
>> obvious solution - if anyone wants it - is to engage in a total nuclear 
>> world war that kill everyone on the planet then there would be no need 
>> for healthcare and thus no need for any healthcare debate.  The point is 
>> that this is for you and others an obvious solution but an impractical 
>> and unethical one in terms of their morality and ethics as well as 
>> interests and notions of practicality.  The same can be said about the 
>> proposals that you view as being obvious solutions; they are not so 
>> obvious to others nor acceptable solutions to others.  Hence, the need 
>> for the discussion and debate in the foolish optimistic hope of 
>> generating some sort of consensus and compromise solution - that for good 
>> or bad - which will comprise the  agreed upon decision of the majority of 
>> deciding officials  who were elected and presumed as a consequence to 
>> represent their constituents and who are charged with formulating and 
>> producing the laws of the land,  as statutes or set of statutes that will 
>> stands as the law to be obeyed by all in the society until  officially 
>> changed or found unconstitutional.  Once can argue that debate serves a 
>> number of functions in an alleged pluralistic representative democracy 
>> necessary to the production a collective cohesion and acceptable 
>> ascriptions of legitimacy without which one gets civil war - or at the 
>> extreme a Hobbesian state of war of all against all.
>>
>> Furthermore, I fail to see exactly in specific details what you are 
>> proposing to be the obvious to all solution to the the healthcare 
>> situation. "Medicare for all" is a slogan and not a solution unless you 
>> tell us specifically what parts and programs that fall under Medicare are 
>> being included and what is being excluded, who is meant by all in terms 
>> of setting forth the eligibility requirements, how the programs are to be 
>> implemented and administered, and how the funding is to be generated and 
>> distributed both among the various Medicare  programs as well as among 
>> the individual clients of each of those clients in each of the regions. 
>> Even then I am sure that not everyone would agree with you that it is a 
>> solution - much less an acceptable one or in any way obvious one that is 
>> necessarily equitable, efficient or effective.  I am sure that there 
>> would be arguments to the effect that there are more equitable, 
>> efficient, effective, and practical alternatives possible and even 
>> available if one wanted it.
>>
>> Lastly, the shear fact that we are having this debate on this list is a 
>> damn good indication that what you are saying is not at all obvious or 
>> agreed upon; nor are those things that you see as obvious solutions 
>> either obvious or solutions to some of us on the list.  Furthermore, as 
>> sophisticated , interesting, and provocative as your analyses, 
>> assessments, and speculative theories and explanations might be, many of 
>> us do not agree with them in whole and/or in part; despite their 
>> legitimacy as alternative possibilities, some of us are not convinced 
>> that they are the only or the significant possibilities; and not 
>> withstanding all the mustering of examples, illustrations, and quoted 
>> materials and experts, many of us recognize that supportive evidentiary 
>> data is inherently depended on the collector of the data, their attitudes 
>> and beliefs, their points of view and presuppositions, their 
>> methodologies and techniques, and their perspectives, agendas, and 
>> objectives.  Thus, your offering constitute in the end nothing more than 
>> an informed opinion among many similarly valid informed opinions which 
>> may differ or contradict each other.
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:33 PM
>> To: "Laurie Solomon" <ls1000 at live.com>
>> Cc: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>; "Peace-discuss" 
>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: UPDATE: Blue Dogs and Healthcare Reform
>>
>>> I think the Obama administration consciously encouraged a manufactured
>>> "health care debate." There was no need for one: there was an obvious
>>> solution, had they wanted it. But (among other things) they needed a 
>>> distraction from their unpopular imperial war. They looked at the 
>>> Johnson administration and realized that LBJ hadn't adequately masked 
>>> his murders. --CGE
>>>
>>> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>>>> Focusing on the wars allows us to ignore health care and other domestic 
>>>> policies just as focusing on domestic and foreign policies allows us to 
>>>> ignore racism , sexism, and religious bigotry.  Focusing
>>>>  on anything allows us to ignore other things if we so choose to do
>>>> so and elect to exercise that option.  However, no one is forcing
>>>> anyone to forgo the option of not ignoring other issues if they
>>>> seriously want to explore and undertake them. It certainly is a
>>>> matter of priorities and what weightings pone wants to give the
>>>> various issues at hand.  Again you seem to have the arrogance to
>>>> insist that everyone recognize and abide by your priorities and your
>>>> selections of focal points while denying others the same right to be
>>>> arrogant and insist on others - including you - recognizing and
>>>> abiding by their priorities and selections of focal points.
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------- From: "C. G. 
>>>> Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 9:54 PM 
>>>> To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com> Cc: "Peace-discuss"
>>>>  <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: 
>>>> UPDATE: Blue Dogs and Healthcare Reform
>>>>
>>>>> The administration's "healthcare reform" - it hardly deserves the 
>>>>> name - allows us to ignore the fact that they're killing people far
>>>>> away?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>>>>> Huh??? I think yr answer was meant for a different email. This one 
>>>>>> was about Healthcare Reform! --Jenifer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On *Mon, 3/22/10, Ricky Baldwin /<baldwinricky at yahoo.com>/* 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 
>>>>>> [Peace-discuss] Fw: UPDATE: Blue Dogs and Healthcare Reform To: 
>>>>>> "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>, "C. G. Estabrook" 
>>>>>> <galliher at illinois.edu> Cc: "Peace-discuss" 
>>>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 9:44 
>>>>>> PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, of course, Johnson's against the war now that there's a Dem
>>>>>> in the White House, like Gill opposed it when the POP held the 
>>>>>> Presidential stool. I wouldn't make TOO much of the distinction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pulling out troops is also not the only way to save lives (although 
>>>>>> we should support it, too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ricky
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On *Mon, 3/22/10, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at illinois.edu>/* 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> Subject: Re: 
>>>>>> [Peace-discuss] Fw: UPDATE: Blue Dogs and Healthcare Reform To: 
>>>>>> "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com> Cc: "Peace-discuss" 
>>>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 9:38 
>>>>>> PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the 15th Illinois Congressional district, the Republican incumbent 
>>>>>> is to the Left of his Democratic challenger in regard to killing 
>>>>>> people in the Middle East.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim Johnson votes against money for Obama's wars, while David Gill 
>>>>>> favors an American "presence" (i.e., killing people) in Afghanistan, 
>>>>>> etc. --CGE
>>>
>>>
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.