[Peace-discuss] [Peace] Series...

Sun Oct 17 14:53:23 CDT 2010

Yes, it might have been; thank you for the editorial advice.  I do not see the meaning, bearing, or significance of the elliptical reference to Germany in 1942.

From: C. G. Estabrook 
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Laurie Solomon 
Cc: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ; Karen Medina 
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Series...

Your argument would be just as effective if you said one shouldn't "focus exclusively on what the government is doing" but look rather at what  it "is NOT doing that ... is of equal importance"  - in Germany in 1942...

On 10/17/10 1:43 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
>> Killing people is the most important thing the Obama administration
>> is doing.
> 
> I am sorry Carl; but there is a funny irony in your statement above.
> Even if what you say is true; it is all the important things that the
> Obama administration is NOT doing that one might say is of equal
> importance but lost when one focuses exclusively on what the
> administration is doing.
> 
> 
> 
> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu> *Sent:*
> Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:58 PM *To:* Laurie Solomon
> <mailto:ls1000 at live.com> *Cc:* Corey Mattson
> <mailto:coreymattson at gmail.com> ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> ; Karen Medina
> <mailto:kmedina67 at gmail.com> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]
> Series...
> 
> Killing people is the most important thing the Obama administration
> is doing.
> 
> 
> On 10/16/10 9:25 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
>>> But it's hard to understand people who say that they're against
>>> the war - and then vote against a Congressman who is one of the
>>> few voting against the war (and for a dissembling Democrat).
>>> Especially >when those people contend, as you do, that both
>>> parties are reactionary.
>> 
>> It is not so hard to understand if they are neither single issue
>> voters nor voters who view stopping the war as the most important
>> issue over all others as you do. If they are looking at and
>> balancing the costs and benefits across several issues or have
>> other issues which are of equal or higher priority than the one you
>> see as being paramount, then it is quite possible that they will
>> select to support the candidate who is the lesser of evils on
>> balance across all THEIR high priority issues or decide to not vote
>> at all if they think that the persons running for office cannot be
>> trusted with respect to those issues that THEY deem of priority to
>> them. People tend to act more or less rationally using "good enough
>> for all my practical purposes at hand" logic rather than an
>> abstract zero-sum optimizing logic and they tend to act practically
>> not ideologically with a focus on immediate personal short term
>> interests.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu> *Sent:*
>> Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:04 PM *To:* Corey Mattson
>> <mailto:coreymattson at gmail.com> *Cc:*
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> ; Karen Medina
>> <mailto:kmedina67 at gmail.com> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]
>> Series...
>> 
>> The only way the Obama administration will reverse its war policy
>> is if it's forced to by a cut-off of funds. That eventually
>> happened to the Nixon administration in regard to Vietnam and to
>> the Reagan administration in regard to Central America - admittedly
>> after they'd killed hundreds of thousands. The Obama
>> administration needs to be treated the same way.
>> 
>> In each case the growth of votes against the war in Congress was
>> quite slow. Then as now, the populace was much further left than
>> the Congress. But it's hard to understand people who say that
>> they're against the war - and then vote against a Congressman who
>> is one of the few voting against the war (and for a dissembling
>> Democrat). Especially when those people contend, as you do, that
>> both parties are reactionary.
>> 
>> And, believe me, such votes will be noticed. Look at, e.g.,
>> Michael Barone's/ Almanac of American Politics./
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/16/10 6:29 PM, Corey Mattson wrote:
>>> I really doubt that the very few anti-war people voting for
>>> Johnson would be read as a signal by the government. ...And
>>> calling for a vote for a reactionary is disorienting to our
>>> allies and potential allies in building a peace movement. Johnson
>>> is anti-immigrant, from what I can tell by press releases. Should
>>> we strengthen ties with the immigrant rights movement and other
>>> working people? I believe we should, which would entail not
>>> supporting anti-immigrant, anti-worker politicians.
>>> 
>>> ---Corey
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:36 AM, "C. G. Estabrook"
>>> <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree with your contempt for both business parties, but
>>>> Johnson is actually voting against war funding - one of the few
>>>> in Congress to do so, and Gill has not promised to do the same.
>>>> ( I doubt that he would - if per impossibile he were elected,
>>>> he'd be a safe vote for the administration.) Johnson is worth a
>>>> vote as a signal to the federal government that there is a
>>>> growing opposition to its killing people for oil in the
>>>> Mideast. --CGE
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/16/10 9:59 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:
>>>>> I think we can all agree that elections won't now end the
>>>>> wars, that it will take a strong anti-war movement. I'm not
>>>>> voting for either Gill or Johnson because they are in
>>>>> business parties that have absolutely no accountability
>>>>> except to their paymasters. In Minnesota, Keith Ellison was
>>>>> an antiwar politician in the actual movement, who promised to
>>>>> vote against war funding, until he got elected and took his
>>>>> orders from Pelosi. It doesn't even matter what they
>>>>> promise.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree with those who won't support Johnson. He and his
>>>>> party are not on our side. If Gill were a politician who ran
>>>>> on a working-class ticket, a labor party or something like it
>>>>> on the left, that was accountable to a real party platform,
>>>>> he would get my vote. To his credit, he went against the
>>>>> party establishment supporting single-payer. Here in
>>>>> Blm-Normal, he disagreed publicly with MoveOn supporters in
>>>>> their support for Obama's health insurance reform, saying
>>>>> that it was bad enough to hope that it would not pass. In my
>>>>> view, from his work on single-payer, he counts as a movement
>>>>> activist, explaining his anti-establishment position on this
>>>>> issue. But, again, his running in a party only answering to
>>>>> corporate interests settles it for me. --- Corey
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 9:48 PM, Karen
>>>>> Medina<kmedina67 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nevertheless TJ is a reliable anti-war vote.
>>>>>> Oh, Israel's war does not count in The War. 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list 
>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
>>>>> mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> ------------------------- 
>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
>> mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101017/72453109/attachment-0001.html>