[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fw: What hath got rot?

[Melodye Rosales]

Carl Carl Carl...
Actually--we have met on many occasions over the years.  ahhhh...so much for
my thinking I was a memorable character. Therefore, I will introduce myself
to you---again, albeit email---  I must admit I am blushing---I mean----you
actually called me out, by name.  Uh--on second thought, maybe I don't want
to become the object of your next affliction...ouch...I am already feeling
the bruises just thinkin' 'bout it...and with the proposed ill-conceived
Health Reform you've described, I might not have any insurance to cover the
wounds your words may scar me with.

BTW--were you actually trying to correct my statement "on full [sic]" or
were you simply saying it was a "sick" analogy [no pun intended]

As for you self-identifying yourself as the named "nay-sayer"...I am not
quite sure how to respond. So...I will let that fester in the place I left
it last.

Moving on to your quasi-psychoanalysis of why you presume I made the
assertion you refer to--- seems so, um...omni-intellectual of you...But then
again, I wouldn't have expected anything less from your relentless
répartie.  Lors d'un départ, adieu, I have work to do.

Just know---I do think you have a lot of "Good Fight" within you, even if we
disagree on some issues----I know there are many more we have like-minds in.





On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:52 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net> wrote:

> Although I don't believe we've met, Melodye, I think that from what I've
> written I wouldn't be wrong to assume that you have me in mind as "one of
> the most outspoken nay-sayers on this listserv always sitting in judgment of
> the 'establishment' so-to-speak, when they themselves are sitting on full
> [sic] and enjoying the benefits of the 'establishment'."
>
> You can't really mean that because one is privileged one should not
> criticize the circumstances that produce that privilege.  On the contrary,
> privilege would seem to produce a greater obligation as well as more
> opportunity to press for social justice.
>
> People usually resort to ad hominems because they're defending an untenable
> position, but that doesn't seem to be true with you - at least on the face
> of it.  The bill that you seem to be defending is a mildly positive step,
> but of course it won't fix the dysfunctional US health system. (I'm sure you
> admit that it's a long way from "an equitable health care system for
> everyone.")
>
> The bill is designed in no small part to funnel money into the pockets of
> the health care industry - insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations,
>  etc. In order to make that palatable, it had to contain some elements that
> actually helped people, and it does. The process follows the general rule of
> American politics that, if you want to make any improvements, you have to
> pay off the rich people first.  That's been true since James Madison
> observed that the purpose of the Constitution was to "protect the minority
> of the opulent against the majority."
>
> The president understands perfectly well that that's what he's doing. He
> came into office with three problems - war, recession, and health care -
>  for each of which there was an obvious solution, and quite consciously
> chose the wrong one in each case. And not because he was forced to do so,
> against his will, but because he knows quite clearly whom he's working for.
> He could for example have used the his rhetorical and political skills to
> press for Medicare for all - polls show popular support for that, even
> without any political leadership - as Johnson did for the original Medicare
> bill 45 years ago.  But he chose not to.
>
> I think that's the real point of your attack - to defend Obama's
> unconscionable polices. And those are indeed untenable (and increasingly
> unpopular) positions.  Objections are growing against Obama's  war and
> against his transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.  And since it's
> vital to the administration and its supporters to conceal what they are
> actually doing, ad hominems are about all they have left.
>
> Regards, CGE
>
>
>
> Melodye Rosales wrote:
>
>>
>> There are way too many folks on these listservs who simply come in and
>> agitate for the joy of creating a discussion and or dissension.  What I find
>> hypocritical is the complete contradiction of one of the most outspoken
>> nay-sayers on this listserv always sitting in judgment of the
>> "establishment"
>> so-to-speak, when they themselves are sitting on full and enjoying the
>> benefits of the "establishment"?  Great pension from the University, a
>> spouse
>> who has a great pension from the University, owners of more than a quarter
>> of
>> a million dollars (a conservative estimate) worth of properties in C-U
>> alone----yet always seeming to speak and act and voice their protests as
>> if
>> they are one of the proletarians or even that they have experienced such
>> hardship within the last 30 years---at least.
>>
>> To me, that is beyond disingenuous and detrimental to those poor and
>> working
>> class folk who really need this help.  I, for one, don't mind giving more
>> in
>> taxes or whatever it takes---if it can help provide an equitable health
>> care
>> system for everyone---
>>
>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100326/a45e54ae/attachment.html>