[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] [sf-core] Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: [OccupyCU] Fwd: [cchcc-l] Gov. Quinn Announces State-Federal Partnership Health Exchange

Tue Jul 31 19:40:47 UTC 2012

Hey folks. I think we're setting the bar awfully low when we hope that Gill
will vote against war funding. Is that all we're hoping for? How about a
public denunciation of the ongoing wars? How about proposals for
exclusively non-violent foreign policy? How about an expectation that Gill
will form alliances with anti-war democrats and republicans in Congress? I
don't think Gill can be called a peace candidate if he doesn't address
these questions.

Will Gill push back when the administration tries to promote another
large-scale war, using secret evidence or otherwise? If he doesn't present
himself as a peace candidate now, it seems fair to say he will capitulate
later.

rk

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Germaine Light <lightport at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> Carl, you are insufferably mean,  & egotistical, and you treat my good
> friends horribly!  Your sarcastic negativity about so many things is BORING
> & does nothing good for the things people are trying hard to accomplish.
>  You can stop this abuse of our good comrades and our local movement NOW!
> Sent from my iPhone
> Germaine
>
> On Jul 31, 2012, at 1:34 PM, "Carl G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm astonished at the severity of the burdens I've laid upon you, Ricky.
> >
> > I hope you can bear up under such suffering.  --CGE
> >
> >
> > On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Ricky Baldwin <rbaldwin at seiu73.org> wrote:
> >
> >> It actually adds up, Carl, when the responses keep coming and coming
> and coming and the discussion is happening on 3-4 email lists.  It isn't
> just the time, it's the constant interruption - from work, for some of us,
> for example.  "Peace-discuss" is a forum for such discussion, one could
> argue.  Maybe Socialist Forum.  Not JWJ's email list definitely.
> >>
> >> And I think it's disingenuous to cite Orwell in this context, actually.
>  But perhaps you are serious.  I'm thinking Neil is, because so many people
> have expressed the same thought in similar contexts over the years - of
> which you are no doubt aware.  Your time may be unlimited, sir, but not so
> for others.  I was at work from 9am until midnight last night doing little
> things like fighting an unjust discharge at UI for a member - two
> discharges actually - preparing for another case, preparing for
> negotiations against the greedy, smug, and self-righteous once-land-grant
> University that has largely shut out working class students and preys upon
> its own workforce.  I do not have time to respond to all this, though I
> disagree strongly with much of it and I really hate to see such
> wrongheadedness go unanswered.  I feel strongly that healthcare should be a
> human right and that war is a social evil, that no candidates measure up
> but that we must vote for someone or we lose an oppor
>  tun
> >> ity to have an effect, however small.  I doubt that in a race such as
> Gill's, foreign policy is actually much at issue.  Tim Johnson performed
> his calculus and Gill will perform his if he wins; our objective should be
> the same (I say "our" even though I haven't devoted much time to the
> anti-war effort recently; I still support the goal, as I have all my life.)
> >>
> >> And, no, by the way, how they vote is not the only point.  It is a
> favorite strategy of disingenuous politicians to vote against the clear
> majority when it makes no difference, just to lay claim to false ground.
>  Others may withhold a vote on the grounds that it would be symbolic.  The
> common denominator is what they gain or lose politically from the decision.
>  We are right to raise the cost of voting badly, but let us not kid
> ourselves.  A safe vote by a virtually untouchable incumbent does not
> compare to a risky statement from a three-time loser in a tough race.
> >>
> >> But strategy and planning take time, I know.  I have to go into it more
> later, if I can, with apologies.  But I really think that bickering on the
> internet is hardly the way to strategize productively.  There is a war on
> many fronts right now - against the poor, against workers, against our
> children, against the environment we must inhabit ...  We must all choose
> where to focus, but we may still want to help where we can.  We just don't
> want to be flooded with multiple emails on the same argument, the same as
> the last 8-10 years or so on the "peace-discuss" list, -- but now that so
> many people have been driven off that list, must we endure the same
> treatment on 2-3 other lists at the same time?
> >>
> >> If we care about any of this, the way to address it, the only real way
> as far as I can tell, is to organize.  Publishing these opinions I suppose
> you might list separately, but I would still argue that the goal of that
> would be to encourage organizing as well.  But organizing is about finding
> people who agree with you, getting together and planning, and building
> something bigger, not just eroding the organizations that exist, none of
> which are perfect but in this case all of which have done great work and
> have the potential to do more.
> >>
> >> This isn't the same thing at all as what Orwell meant, by the way.  I
> suspect, though I do not know, that he did not mean stuffing people's
> mailboxes with unwanted mail (numerous and repetitive), or phoning them
> incessantly about the same subject once they have expressed a desire for it
> to stop, or banging on their doors over and over.  He wasn't known for such
> behavior.  You wouldn't do these things, either, I believe.  But email
> lists blast out unwanted email to dozens so easily that it may seem
> different - but it is roughly equivalent. The analogy is not perfect, I
> admit, but I suspect Orwell meant public speaking - indoors or outdoors,
> publishing articles or letters or newspapers or pamphlets or books, tabling
> at the Farmers' Market, demonstrating, etc.
> >>
> >> These lists are mainly populated by people who share basic goals and
> are willing to devote time, energy, money, to the causes.  This thread has
> not been in aid of that, in my opinion.  You probably disagree, but I will
> not keep it going for now.  I do not have time.  I ask that it not continue
> on multiple lists at once.  "Peace-discuss" seems the logical place for it.
>  JWJ's list is not it, not being a discussion list at all really, but
> mainly for announcements and minimal discussion.  I will do my best to
> write up something about the approach i see working that I hope will be
> constructive.  But i cannot do it now.  I have to run.
> >>
> >> There should be at least 36 hours in a day, in my opinion.
> >>
> >> Ricky
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: C. G. Estabrook [cge at shout.net]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:53 AM
> >> To: Neil Parthun
> >> Cc: Germaine Light; JWJ C-U; sf-core; C-U Citzens for Peace and
> Justice; astridjb at comcast.net; Ricky Baldwin;
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] [sf-core] Re: [CentralILJwJ] Fw: [OccupyCU] Fwd:
> [cchcc-l] Gov. Quinn Announces State-Federal Partnership Health Exchange
> >>
> >> Neil--
> >>
> >> You don't want to "waste time" by pushing the delete key? That sounds a
> bit disingenuous.
> >>
> >> I think good liberals often raise objections like this to postings to
> political discussion lists when truths distasteful to liberal orthodoxy -
> like the criminality of Barack Obama - are expressed.
> >>
> >> Solidarity?  --CGE
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 30, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Neil Parthun <lennybrucefan at gmail.com
> <mailto:lennybrucefan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Carl -
> >>
> >> There is a difference between Orwell's statement and some damned
> netiquette.
> >>
> >> Responses to people off list emails do not need to be re-broadcast to
> the entire flippin' list. They are off-list responses and should be dealt
> with as such.
> >>
> >> And yes, I do have a very active delete button but don't appreciate
> having to waste time because people can't follow some basic netiquette
> guidelines.
> >>
> >> Solidarity,
> >> -N.
> >> ------------
> >> Fighting for people...its what its all about. - my mom, Linda Parthun
> >>
> >> Neil Parthun :: lennybrucefan at gmail.com<mailto:lennybrucefan at gmail.com>
> :: @wobblyneil
> >> Host, Not Another Sports Show, a Radical Look at Sports
> >> Show Site<http://notanothersportsshow.podbean.com/> :: iTunes<
> http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/not-another-sports-show/id346493636>
> :: Facebook<
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/Not-Another-Sports-Show-a-Radical-Look-at-Sports/223593931016061>
> :: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/wobblyneil>
> >>
> >> Co-host, Untitled Wrestling Show
> >> Show Site<http://untitledwrestlingshow.podbean.com/> :: iTunes<
> http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-untitled-wrestling-show/id437751381>
> :: Facebook<
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/Untitled-Wrestling-Show/234115106620223>
> :: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/uwspodcast>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20120731/8feb4d1f/attachment-0001.html>