[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: Liberals

[Mike Lehman]

Carl,
I've never assumed there's no hope, just get to feeling that way as you 
run smack dab into that brick wall again and again here...and that's 
among people inclined to sorta see things your way.

Chomsky doesn't say what to do when we fall into a counter-productive 
rut with our activism, does he? That might be useful here.
Mike

On 3/14/2013 9:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> “If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world.” [Chomsky]
>
> And the stakes keep getting higher: "Can Civilization Survive Capitalism?" <http://chomsky.info/articles/20130305.htm>.
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Carl,
>> Granted. But as far as I know, there aren't any regular, "soi-distant,"
>> or even "senatorial" liberals on the SF list, unless you're gonna insist
>> on rebranding some folks who would likely dispute such salacious
>> presumptions of their character.
>>
>> Maybe they're all over on the Peace Discuss list and somehow SF is
>> always getting cc-ed by mistake?
>> [Just kidding, comrades over on PD...;-) ]
>>
>> Maybe you should start a list that caters to the soi-distant who like to
>> mix a little textual BDSM into their daily life? I regularly shake my
>> head and wonder who exactly it is you believe should be receiving these
>> missives. We're all aware at your displeasure with the Man Who Dashed
>> Any Remaining Hope and for the most part agree with that notion pretty
>> much where we all agree the sun will come up tomorrow. I'm convinced
>> you've done more than your part to fulminate against him on everyone's
>> behalf. No one can accuse you of being a slacker on that.
>>
>> I guess it would make more sense if there was some actionable purpose,
>> rather than simply being reminded how much voting in this country stinks
>> given the choices and results, which is about all it does for me. It's
>> depressing.
>>
>> But that's not really news to me and I doubt it's news to anyone else
>> reading this, either. From my POV, reading this sort of stuff every
>> morning, evening, noon, and night is enough to discourage me from
>> opening the mail. I don't actually think demobilization of political
>> action is what you have in mind, but it might be worth considering
>> adjusting the "effectiveness vs tone" knob to see if you get better
>> reception. It quit working for me some time ago when reading your rarely
>> unpredictable notes -- and that's the sort of dead spot most writers
>> --whatever their acumen-- dread. Just so you know.
>> Mike Lehman
>>
>> On 3/14/2013 8:03 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> But it's soi-disant liberals who keep Obama's war policy (and economic policy) in place - as he knows very well (and sketched in Audacity of Hope).
>>>
>>> It was only because he co-opted the liberal anti-war movement that he's able to continue (and expand) Bush's war policy; it was only because he co-opted liberal Democrats that he's able to put into practice the Republicans' austerity policy. He's not the lesser evil but "the more effective evil" (as Glen Ford says), because he is putting into effect neocon foreign policy and neoliberal economic policy (and killing a lot of people).
>>>
>>> As Chris Hedges points out (in The Death of the Liberal Class) it is precisely people who see themselves as liberals who are allowing this, when they should be resisting it. We should be attacking liberals and their silence on Obama's actions.
>>>
>>> Did you notice our liberal senior senator objecting to a resolution opposing president’s ability to bomb citizens on US soil?  --CGE
>>>
>