[Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Oct 21 12:20:22 CDT 2010
"Political class" refers to those Americans who think of themselves as
politically aware and informed. In the US they're roughly equivalent to those
who have been to a good college, like UIUC - no more than a quarter of the
adult population.
A very high percentage of Americans, sometimes passing 80%, tell pollsters
that the government serves "the few and the special interests," not "the
people." Even in recent presidential elections, about 75% regarded it as
mostly a farce having nothing to do with them, a game played by rich
contributors, party bosses, and the public relations industry, which trained
candidates to say mostly meaningless things that might pick up some votes.
That sort of perspicacity (= insight, shrewdness) worries both business
parties, for fear that some significant part of that 80% will be mobilized
outside of the limits of allowable debate, established by the party system.
Both parties work hard with corporate media to ridicule or delegitimize
anyone who does such a thing. (Why, they might say that people who speak
outside those limits are "drug-crazed professional leftists," proto-fascist
racists - or pretentious twits - rather than dealing with what they say.)
And of course they can always race-bait, because they daren't mention the
word "class" in an economic sense.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>Cc: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>, Peace-discuss <peace-
discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
> I just deal with the world as I find it. You're
> living in a poli sci book. I've never been
> described as a member of the "political class"
> before -- I guess I'm flattered -- and I have no
> idea what perspicacity even is -- I hope that's not
> the language you use when actually dealing with your
> "fellow citizens," because they're going to think
> you're a pretentious twit -- but if your strategy is
> to pinprick the consciences of white people until
> they do the right thing, I think you're going to
> wait a long time. White people haven't done the
> right thing since 1492.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>;
> Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 10:08:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't
> Vote
> That quite remarkable contempt for the political
> perspicacity of your fellow citizens is all too
> typical of the political class in this country, but
> it's not very democratic.
>
> The federal government doesn't quite agree with
> you. That's why it spends so much time and money on
> "the manufacture of consent" (and why snake-oil
> salesmen like Obama get ahead). The public has to
> be managed, not indulged, they think - it's their
> only real enemy, as Vietnam showed.
>
> That after all was Jefferson's view: he thought that
> people "are naturally divided into two parties: (1.)
> Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to
> draw all powers from them into the hands of the
> higher classes. (2.) Those who identify themselves
> with the people, have confidence in them, cherish
> and consider them as the most honest and safe,
> although not the most wise depositary of the public
> interests."
>
> I'm a democrat, so not a Democrat. --CGE
>
> On 10/21/10 9:51 AM, Gregg Gordon wrote:
>
> I don't disagree with any of that. So what? And
> as for wars for oil, maybe you better hope they
> keep lying about it, because if Americans were
> confronted with that stark reality, most of
> them might be down with it. When Alan Greenspan
> said so publicly, there was no big outcry. Barely
> lasted a full news cycle. I remember seeing a
> bumper sticker when the Iraq war started: "Kick
> their ass. Take their gas." I think that's
> basically where most Americans are on the issue,
> and the main reason the Iraq war has become so
> unpopular (people were 2-1 in favor at the time,
> if the polls can be believed) is that the cheap
> gas never materialized. We're still paying
> through the nose. Most people support resumed
> drilling in the Gulf right now. They don't care
> if it turns into the Rancho La Brea tar pits.
> They want gasoline for their cars. I saw a poll
> just within the last week -- can't remember
> exactly, but something like, would you be willing
> to pay an additional 4 cents a gallon for, I don't
> know -- lower CO2 emissions or something. The
> majority said, "No." So that's where you need to
> start -- not with the Democrats. I think the
> Democrats are about the left party that the
> American left deserves right now. We've
> been ineffectual and inept. That's our reward.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>;
> Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 9:03:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money
> Can't Vote
> On the Carter administration, see the famous
> interview his National Security Adviser gave to Le
> Nouvel Observateur in 1998:
> <http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html>
> (in English)...
>
> "Q: And neither do you regret having supported the
> Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and
> advice to future terrorists?
> "B: What is most important to the history of the
> world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet
> empire? Some stirred-up Moslems [sic] or the
> liberation of Central Europe and the end of the
> cold war?..."
>
> It's true that the US has been committing crimes
> in order to control Mideast oil since the Truman
> administration, when we saw that we could displace
> an exhausted Britain in the region. First,
> British oil companies were replaced with American
> ones, and concomitantly the US began the policy -
> which Obama continues - of controlling the
> countries of the region by alliance, subversion,
> or aggressive war (= what we were busily
> condemning German leaders for, at Nuremberg).
>
> Benchmarks are our destruction of democratic
> government in Iran (1953), which Americans have
> forgotten but the Iranians haven't; adoption of
> Israel as our "cop on the beat" (as the Nixon
> administration said) after they launched their
> 1967 war to destroy secular Arab nationalism; our
> sponsorship of Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran
> war, 1980-88; our covert sponsorship of the
> religious-based Hamas to undercut the secular PLO;
> and Clinton's murderous sanctions on Iraq (by
> which he killed as many people as Bush did, many
> of them children whose deaths were "worth it,"
> according to Clinton's Secretary of State).
>
> The US has consistently demanded control of
> Mideast energy resources since WWII, not because
> we need them - the US was a net exporter of oil
> until recently, and now imports less than 10% of
> the oil we use at home from the Mideast, mostly
> from our ally Saudi Arabia - but because control
> of world hydrocarbon supplies gives us an
> advantage over our real economic rivals, the EU
> and East Asia (China and Japan). That's what
> Obama (and other presidents) is sending Americans
> to kill and die for, so it's obvious that he like
> the others has to invent excuses, especially when
> two-thirds of the US public, even though they're
> being lied to, thinks the war a bad idea.
>
> When Al Qaeda launched their criminal raids on US
> cities in 2001, they were clearly and consciously
> staging a counter-attack to more than a generation
> of US crimes in the Mideast. They said at the
> time that there were three reasons for their
> counterattack: (1) the sanctions on Iraq, called
> "genocidal" by successive UN overseers; (2) the
> suppression of h the Palestinians by America's
> chief client, Israel; and (3) the occupation of
> Saudi Arabia (and the Muslim holy places) by
> American troops after Bush I's Gulf war, in 1991.
>
> It's not just those who point out that the Obama
> administration is, by and large, Bush's third term
> who note the continuity of US policy in the
> Mideast, which Obama if anything has intensified -
> as he said he would, as far back as his campaign
> for the Senate, when he discussed "surgical
> strikes" on Iran, still I think a real
> possibility, along with open war with Pakistan.
> BHO is down with the program, and only a few are
> criticizing it - of course many more in the
> country that in Congress.
>
> On 10/21/10 8:05 AM, Gregg Gordon wrote:
>
> Well, that strikes me as quite a stretch to lay
> responsibility for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
> on the back of Jimmy Carter. I could take your
> logic just a small step further and put it on
> FDR. Or William McKinley. Or James K. Polk.
> Plus it ignores the question of why three
> subsequent Republican presidents failed to end
> it, as your premise indicates they should have
> done. It is a sad fact that since the
> disastrous and misguided McGovern campaign (God
> bless him), Democrats have been so bullied and
> intimidated by charges of being anti-military
> (not that there's anything wrong with that) that
> they too often feel compelled to prove they have
> gonads. I thought Clinton kept Saddam around
> just to have somebody to bomb when he needed to
> look tough. That's murderous and deplorable and
> certainly won't get him into heaven, but that's
> the political landscape we find ourselves in.
> Deal with it. Anyway, wealth and power breed
> arrogance. Americans, like the British,
> Spanish, Romans, and every great empire before
> us, think we should have our way just because
> God obviously loves us so. (If He didn't, we
> wouldn't be an empire.) That's human nature,
> and liberals are just as susceptible to it as
> conservatives. More often than not, Democratic
> militarism just takes the form of seeing to it
> that veterans actually receive the benefits
> they've been promised, for which they get no
> credit whatsoever. And "spineless" is not the
> same as "evil" in my eyes. The "spineless" need
> to be encouraged. The "evil" need to be
> stopped. Who can blame the Democrats for being
> spineless? Who's got their backs? The left?
>
> I'm a Bernie Sanders kind of guy. I don't
> really consider myself a Democrat, but I caucus
> with them because I think the alternative is so
> much worse. But if you really can't see any
> difference between, say, Karl Rove and Dennis
> Kucinich, I'm not going to waste any more time
> arguing with you. You're not serious.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>;
> Peace List <peace at lists.chambana.net>;
> Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:09:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money
> Can't Vote
> First, Iraq and Afghanistan are both part of
> what the Pentagon calls "The Long War" (for oil)
> in the Mideast. So far, the US has killed a
> million people in Iraq under Clinton (whose
> Secretary of State said that the tens of
> thousands of dead children were "worth it"); a
> million under Bush; and apparently hundreds of
> thousands in AfPak under Bush and his third
> (Obama) term.
>
> That falls short of the perhaps 4 million we
> killed in SE Asia, but of course Obama's
> escalated murders in SW Asia are in no way
> justified by being fewer in number than
> Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon's in Vietnam.
>
> It's difficult to determine when the Long War
> begins, but it takes a tick up in the Carter
> administration when Carter (and Obama's) adviser
> Zbigniew Brzezinski sends Osama bin Laden and
> friends into Afghanistan (before the Russian
> invasion) "to give the Russians a Vietnam of
> their own," as he said at the time, in the most
> expensive CIA operation to date.
>
> If a Republican administration after 2012 brings
> Obama's AfPak war to an end, then we'll have a
> third example of a Democratic war concluded by
> Republicans in as many generations. But that may
> not be likely. The news suggests that the Obama
> administration is looking to expand the war with
> an attack on Pakistan and/or Iran. It certainly
> isn't looking to abandon the world's greatest
> energy-producing region.
>
> Control of Mideast energy resources has been a
> cornerstone of US foreign policy since 1945.
> Obama is simply lying when he says the war is to
> "stop terrorism" - it obviously increases
> terrorism - but he has to lie, because the only
> Constitutional authority he has to wage war in
> the Mideast is Congress' "Authorization for the
> Use of Military Force" of September 2001 - which
> is directed against terrorism.
>
> Something positive to do: years ago, there was a
> great debate in America, "How do we get out of
> Vietnam?" The best answer was given by Herb
> Caen: "Ships and planes." Load up the troops and
> bring them home. The Russians did - and
> survived and prospered from the end of their
> war.
>
> Eventually we did, but it took two presidents'
> being driven from office and (even more
> important) a revolt of the American conscript
> army to do it.
>
> Regards, CGE
>
> On 10/20/10 7:15 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote:
>
> So I conclude from your statement that you
> don't consider either Iraq or Afghanistan to
> be "major" wars. So why are you so worked up
> about them? I think you're just still mad at
> Lyndon Johnson.
>
> And please, don't accuse me of being some kind
> of racist who doesn't mind us murdering brown
> people. That is so lame. It's just that not
> all of us see the world in as simple terms as
> you seem to. Simple solutions are nice, but
> they're mainly for the simple-minded.
>
> All I'm saying is if you're so gung-ho on
> stopping the war, why don't you come up with
> something positive to do (as opposed to
> sniping from the sidelines) that might help
> get us closer to that goal? We'll all get
> behind you.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>;
> Peace List <peace at lists.chambana.net>;
> Peace-discuss
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 5:10:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money
> Can't Vote
> You are aware, are you not, that America's
> major wars since WWII - called by synecdoche
> "Korea" and "Vietnam" - were started by
> Democratic administrations and ended by
> Republican administrations. Since the current
> Democratic administration has greatly expanded
> the killing in AfPak, it's hard to argue that
> they're going to reverse their policies.
> Voting for them is an acquiescence to those
> policies.
>
> To say of Obama and the Democrats, "Let them
> kill some Asians, because they might do some
> good someplace else," is at best a counsel of
> despair, if not an outright criminal
> attitude. Particularly when it seems that
> they're doing precisely the wrong things
> elsewhere, too - not surprisingly, because
> they're working for the owners of the banks,
> the insurance companies, the oil and
> construction companies, etc. --CGE
>
> On 10/20/10 4:48 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote:
>
> Maybe because there are other important
> issues that she does agree with him on. The
> only way you're going to find a candidate
> you're in 100% agreement with is to run for
> office. If support for the war is an
> absolute deal breaker for you, fine. Not
> everybody sees it that way. But if you
> think the war will end sooner if more
> Republicans get elected, I think you're out
> of your mind.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> From: C. G. Estabrook
> <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Peace List <peace at lists.chambana.net>;
> Peace-discuss
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 4:33:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Fw:
> Money Can't Vote
> This guy supports the war. I can't see why
> anyone on an anti-war list would contribute
> to him.
>
> On 10/20/10 4:28 PM, Jenifer Cartwright
> wrote:
>
> Another request for help...
> I love this guy!
> --Jenifer
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list