From ewj at pigs.ag  Mon Oct  1 03:14:49 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 11:14:49 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Kavanagh Morning After
In-Reply-To: <2128361990.1647796.1538333410827@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <1662560b585-1ec3-33b2@webjas-vac136.srv.aolmail.net>
 <1662b67a1c4-1ec4-87c@webjas-vaa091.srv.aolmail.net><2128361990.1647796.1538333410827@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1538363682212.gbpt2fhipr1nvll2tedldn2b@android.mail.163.com>

They dont really give a ripe red one about Christine 'Damaged Goods' Blasey or any he said/she said aspersions. What is at stake here is Roe v. Wade and master harpie Diane 'Rusty Coathanger' Feinstein and the Harpettes will stop at nothing to fight for the right of whim men to have their offspring professionally macerated. Everything else about this is fluff and noise. On 2018-10-01 02:50 , Anne Parkinson via Peace-discuss Wrote: 1:37:50 the moment Ms. Mitchell finds Thursday, July 1st evening get-together on Kaveman's calendar and questions him on it while subtly pointing out that evening could fit the get-together Dr. Ford described. I believe the GOP do not let Ms. Mitchell question him at all after that.  Kavanaugh questioned about sex assault allegations (Entire hearing) Kavanaugh questioned about sex assault allegations (Entire hearing) Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh answer questions from the Senate Judiciary committe about an allegation of... On Sunday, September 30, 2018 11:55 AM, Mildred O'brien via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: The next day after the Senate confirmation hearings drama (in case you missed it--LOL) another surprise, the decision to postpone the confirmation vote for one week so the FBI could conduct an "investigation" can only mean one thing: not enough Republican votes to confirm, so McConnell saved face by puting Flake up to requesting the postponement, since he's not in the reelection race anyway he can take the flake--I mean flack.  (A week will give 'em enough time for serious arm twisting of the usual suspects).  It's hard to imagine that Kavanagh will be confirmed, as he's damaged goods.  Trump & Co. will probably nominate somebody worse.  As our peerless leader is fond of saying, "we'll see what happens."  (so far today: had to delete 76 more requests for political contributions; still no comments from you-all on recent D.C. developments.  Guess everybody slept through it).  Midge In supreme Clarence Thomas-lynching fashion, Kavanagh's performance yesterday appeared to be well orchestrated and rehearsed first with flashes of self-righteouds anger and indignation at his and his family's reputation "totally and permanently destroyed," to pouting, whimpering, simpering self-pity at recalling his mother and father, (I thought Senator Grassley might give him a box of tissues), continuing on to his adamant denial of ever having done "this" but confessing that maybe he drank a little too much beer in his youth ("legal at age 18" at the time) as possibly his worst youthful transgression, ending the day's testimony of worthless Congressional hearings supposedly to evaluate whether he is worthy of being appointed a Supreme judge for life of legal conduct of American life.  Nary a question from Senators about the ethical and moral character pf his role in his political careers advising and implementing policies concerning sexual abuse and torture of U.S. captives in Iraq and dark sites throughout the world, or inconsistencies in his moral compass while pursuing faults of others.   Whereas he was careful not to impugn the character or contest the veracity of his accuser (done a disservice by the trivial questioning and remarks of her partisan supporters), he dismissed her as mistaken or a confused victim of someone else.  He couldn't be an abuser, demonstrating chivalorus decorum toward women by not labeling her a liar.  He established in his reply to Texas Senator John Kennedy that he believes in God (worked for his one-time boss, W. Bush, when he was running for president), so he couldn't possibly tell a lie (or sexually assault this woman or anyone).   I wasted a couple of hours watching the Kabuki theatre (as Francis Boyle aptly called it) but I simply had to witness it for myself, which I must say lived up to expectations of a stellar Clarence Thomas performance!  I am surprised that my email box was not filled with commentary from the usual blogs critiquing this event.  Maybe they boycotted it--and missed an outstanding performance, or else were so repulsed they couldn't believe what they saw (my box was nevertheless filled with 45 appeals for donations to the usual political organizations as a platform for their fundraising, which I had to delete) Midge O'Brien            _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181001/3a8b06fb/attachment-0001.html>

From galliher at illinois.edu  Tue Oct  2 03:47:13 2018
From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 22:47:13 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Scahill interviews Chomsky
Message-ID: <5F73336E-4E2F-4488-AE44-195EB3D0D134@illinois.edu>

AMERICAN DISSIDENT: NOAM CHOMSKY ON THE STATE OF THE EMPIRE
by Jeremy Scahill | Intercepted | September 26, 2018
...Here is one of the few times that Noam Chomsky was actually allowed on U.S. TV. It was way back on April 3, 1969, where Chomsky debated the famed conservative William F. Buckley. The show was broadcast under the title “Vietnam and the Intellectuals,” and it was part of Buckley’s show, “Firing Line.”
Noam Chomsky (1969): What seems to me a very, in a sense, terrifying aspect of our society and other societies is the equanimity and the detachment with which sane, reasonable, sensible people can observe such events. I think that’s more terrifying than the occasional Hitler, or LeMay, or other that crops up. These people would not be able to operate were it not for the this apathy and equanimity and; therefore, I think that it’s in some sense the sane, and reasonable, and tolerant people who should share a very serious burden of guilt that they very easily throw on the shoulders of others who seem more extreme and more violent.
William F. Buckley: Oh, I agree but, but —
{JS: Noam Chomsky is one of the most popular and influential political thinkers in the world, yet in the United States you will only find him on independent, alternative media outlets. Look at all of the pundits and well, criminals who are constantly on TV today. The people with long public career in mass killing or mass lying. This is part of the problem. It’s a big part of the problem in this country. How different would this country be, would the world be, if Noam Chomsky and other principled dissidents were regularly featured on major news broadcasts?
{Chomsky is currently a laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He is professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than half a century. Chomsky’s recent books include, “Global Discontents: Conversations on the Rising Threats to Democracy” and “Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power.” He is also the co-author, with the late Ed Herman, of the classic book, “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
{JS: Noam Chomsky, welcome to Intercepted.
{NC: Very glad to be with you.
JS: If you watch, and I know you are not a fan of television news, but if you watch particularly MSNBC or CNN right now or you read the major newspapers in the United States, you can come away with the impression that Donald Trump and his administration, his presidency, represent this grand departure from the way things are done in the United States historically.
How much of a departure is the Trump presidency from the bipartisan Washington empire consensus — the way that the U.S. has been governed throughout its history?
NC: There are some differences and many continuities. On the domestic scene, Trump is, very effectively, managing both of his constituencies.
There’s an authentic constituency of corporate power and private wealth and they’re being served magnificently by the executive orders, legislative programs that are being pushed through which represent the more savage wing of the traditional Republican policies — catering to private interests, private wealth, and dismissing the rest as irrelevant and easily disposed of.
At the same time, he’s managing to maintain the voting constituency by pretending, very effectively, to be the one person in the world who stands up for them against the hated elites. And this is quite an impressive con job. How long he can carry it off? I don’t know. On the international scene, it’s actually more interesting.
He’s being lambasted for taking positions which, in my view, are pretty reasonable. So, for example, in the case of Korea: The two Koreas, last April 27th came out with a historic declaration, in which they laid out fairly explicit plans for moving towards reconciliation, integration, and denuclearization of the peninsula.
{Newscaster: Kim Jong-un made history today becoming the first North Korean leader to set foot in the South since the Korean War began in 1950. He promised a new beginning as he met with South Korea’s Moon Jae-in in the demilitarized zone between the two countries. The meeting marks the first summit between the Koreas in more than a decade.
NC: They pretty much pleaded with outsiders, that means the United States to permit them to proceed, as they put it, on their own accord. And so far Trump has not interfered with this very much, calling off temporarily at least the military exercises, which has he correctly said are highly provocative. He’s been lambasted for that, but it’s exactly the right position I think. Right now, the president Moon is in North Korea if they can make positive moves on their own accord as they’ve requested that should be beneficial.
In the case of Russia, it’s more complex. His policies have, in fact, been two-fold - his administration has continued the policies of building up military forces on the Russian border, carrying out military maneuvers, increasing the tensions in extremely dangerous parts of the world.
On the other hand, he has also taken somewhat conciliatory steps towards reducing tensions. And for that again, he’s been lambasted. Though, I think it’s the right thing to do. On other issue matters, he’s torn up important international agreements, the most significant was the Iran nuclear agreement.
{DJT: I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. In a few moments, I will sign a presidential memorandum to begin reinstating U.S. nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime. We will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction.
NC: That’s in isolation from the entire world, in this case. And that’s very serious and the most serious of all, by far overshadowing everything else, is his pulling out of the Paris negotiations.
{DJT: The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries. Leaving American workers, who I love, and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production. Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.
NC: Leaves the United States as the only country in the world which is refusing officially to take even small steps towards dealing with the true existential crisis, and that’s combined with the domestic programs of rapidly increasing the use of the most dangerous fossil fuels, cutting back regulations on economy for automobiles, eliminating safety protections for workers, and so on. All of that is just a race to disaster and that’s by far the most serious of the initiatives to undermine what’s loosely called the international order.
Raising questions about NATO, for example, is quite a reasonable thing to do. One might certainly ask why NATO even exists after the collapse of the Soviet Union — not that there weren’t questioned before, there were — but the official story was that NATO was in place to defend the West against the Russian hordes, which, putting aside the validity of that claim, that was the official stand
{Newsreel: The Russian cynical blockade of Berlin had brought Europe to the brink of War. It was at last clear that only a strong alliance could deter them from further adventures. On 4, April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed by Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Canada, and the United States. This union of 12 Nations became known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or more simply: NATO.
NC: After the Soviet Union collapsed, a fair question arose as to why NATO should survive. And what it did was, in fact, expand. Expanded all the way to the Russian border, initially under the first Bush, then extensively under Clinton, then by 2008 even offering to have Ukraine join NATO, that’s an attack on Russian geostrategic interests that no Russian leader could easily accept. All of this increases threats, tensions quite unnecessarily, at the same time NATO changed its official mission to say what they call “safeguard control” of the international energy system, pipelines, and sea lanes, and though it’s unmentioned to serve as essentially an intervention force for the United States. We have a good indication of how the world saw that international order. The Gallup polling agency takes international polls of international opinion every year — in 2013, for the first time, they asked an interesting question.
They asked the question, which country is the greatest threat to World Peace. The United States was in first place. No other country was even close — far behind in second place was Pakistan that was doubtless inflated by the Indian vote. The countries that are called the greatest threat to World Peace here the United States like Iran were barely even mentioned. Interestingly, Gallup never asked that polling question again, and the answer was not reported in the mainstream press.
JS: You bring up the issue of NATO and, of course, right now in the United States when Vladimir Putin is discussed, there is a lot of resurrection of, kind of, Cold War imagery. There are books being published with backward “Rs” on them, which isn’t even in Cyrillic, it’s not even actually the letter “R,” but there’s this sort of portrayal of Putin as, sort of, the Bolsheviks rising and this idea that Russia is seeking to take over the United States, and Russia is responsible for Donald Trump being president because they quote-unquote hacked our election. What is true and what is hyperbole/propaganda/exaggeration about Russia and Putin, specifically, taking into account the U.S. posture toward Ukraine, NATO, but also the issue of electoral interference?
NC: What is true is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990,1991, there was a period under Yeltsin in which the United States pretty much dominated what was happening in Russia and the region around Russia. NATO was expanded. The Russian economy totally collapsed under the imposed harsh market reforms. There was a radical collapse of the economy, sharp increase in the mortality rate. Russia was really devastated. When Putin came in––he’s not a nice guy. I would not like to have dinner with him, but you can understand his policies. His policies were to try to restore some role for Russia at least in its own region of the world, which we might recall happened to be the traditional invasion routes through which Russia was attacked [and] virtually destroyed several times in the last century.
So, this is not a small question. And yes, Putin is trying to restore some degree of Russian power in the world, some degree of Russian authority. One extension of that and, in fact, the only one is the Russian position in Syria. All of this encroaches on the global domination of the United States and secondarily, its allies, which is, kind of, taken to be the norm. The norm is, “we rule everything,” and if someone else tries to control their own area that’s disruptive of the international system. Which, from a certain point of view, it is.
If you take a look at Russian power as compared with the United States, it’s derisory. Just one indication: Trump’s increase in defense budget practically reaches the entire Russian military budget. So, the idea of Russia taking over the world is ludicrous. What it means is that they are trying, often in ways that merit condemnation, but nevertheless, trying to restore some degree of Russian influence in the region surrounding Russia plus Syria, their one Mediterranean base. And to try to establish a place for Russia in the world system, far weaker than the United States, weaker than China. In fact, one of Russia’s International problems is to keep from being overwhelmed by Chinese power. That’s the kind of disruption of the international order that is attributed to Russia.
JS: You raise this issue of Russia in Syria. Of course, the United States, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, the list of countries involved actively in the just generically, let’s call it the Syrian War, right now. You do have a debate on the left in the United States about what a just position looks like toward the conflict in Syria. And, of course, you have isolationists, or Libertarians, or anti-imperialists who take the position of, “There should be total hands-off Syria that this is a civil war.” I think the honest among us would say that of course, Bashar al-Assad is a war criminal. He is a mass murderer, but he is in a conflict with a lot of mass murderers and a lot of war criminals.
What Noam Chomsky do you believe is a just position to take on the war in Syria? Is it that people should defend Bashar al-Assad with the idea that it’s the least bad option, or that this is a matter that should be handled by the Syrians, or is there any international involvement that you think makes any sense, or could be justified under both moral principles and legal principles?
NC: Well, the first point to bear in mind, which you already mentioned is that Assad is a horrible war criminal. The bulk of the atrocities, which are enormous, are his responsibility. There’s no justifying Assad. On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that he is essentially pretty much in control of Syria now, thanks largely to Russian partially Iranian support.
The Russians actually entered Syria extensively after the CIA had provided the rebel forces, which are mostly run by Jihadi elements, provided them with advanced antitank missiles which were stymieing the Syrian Army at which point the Russians came in with air power and overwhelmed the opposition. The current situation is that Assad has pretty much won the war. Like it or not. There was in the early stages a Democratic secular, quite respectable opposition, but they were very quickly overwhelmed by the Jihadi elements, supported from the outside — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States, and others. There’s a pending humanitarian catastrophe in Idlib, the province where the Jihadis have been — the place to which they’ve been expelled or fled. If there’s a Syrian Russian attack on that it could be a total humanitarian catastrophe. There is some indication that the Russians and the Turks may have been provided a safe area to which maybe some civilians can flee but that looks like a monstrosity developing. If there’s a way of countering that attack, it should be pursued by diplomatic means.
The other crucial question is the status of the Kurdish areas — Rojava. In my opinion, it makes sense for the United States to maintain a presence which would deter an attack on the Kurdish areas. They have the one part of Syria which is succeeded in sustaining a functioning society with many decent elements. And the idea that they should be subjected to an attack by their bitter enemies the Turks, or by the murderous Assad regime I think is anything should be done to try to prevent that.
JS: Let me ask you about that point because you are one of the leading people in the world that is consistently reminding the world that the United States has always adopted a posture of certain Kurds are good Kurds certain Kurds are bad Kurds and the United States has poured money and weapons into the coffers of for instance the Turkish military explicitly to be used for an ongoing attempt at genocide against the Kurds. So, I’m curious how you reconcile that with a position that the United States would, in essence, be the protector of the Kurds in the context of the Syrian War.
NC: The United States, like other great powers, does not pursue humanitarian objectives. It pursues objectives determined by power considerations, and they lead to different positions with regard to the Kurds or others at different times.
So, for example, in the 1970s there was a time when the United States supported Kurds against Saddam Hussein. Shortly after a deal was made in which they sacrificed the Kurds to Saddam Hussein. That led to Henry Kissinger’s famous comment that we shouldn’t confuse foreign policy with missionary activity.
It’s entirely true that especially in the 1990s Clinton was pouring arms into Turkey for the purpose of carrying out massive, murderous, destructive attacks against the Kurdish population of Turkey in the Southeast — enormously destructive. That does not change the fact that now the United States could, with a relatively small presence, deter attacks against the Kurds in Syria, which could destroy the one part of Syria that is actually functioning at a decent fashion. We don’t expect consistency in humanitarian terms from a great power because those are not the guiding principles.
JS: Regarding Afghanistan, were now 17 plus years in Afghanistan in the context of 9/11, shouldn’t we be talking about Afghanistan as [first], Obviously a war that the United States should have never started, and secondarily, that the United States has actually been militarily and politically defeated in Afghanistan?
NC: Well, my own view as you may recall back at the time was that the use of military force in Afghanistan was inappropriate and illegitimate. There were diplomatic options — they could have been pursued, but the United States wanted to use force. I think that perhaps the most accurate description of what the United States did was by Abdul Haq — one of the most respected and honored of the Afghan anti-Taliban activists who in fact was killed in Afghanistan — who strongly opposed the U.S. bombing as most of the Afghan dissidents did, and argued that the United States was bombing just because it wanted to show its muscle and intimidate everyone else and it was undermining the efforts of the anti-Taliban Afghan resistance to solve the problem on their own.
{Newscaster: Working their way through the rush hour that morning two men were about to offer the U.S. government the chance to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, to expel Al-Qaeda from its terrorist bases, and to capture Osama bin Laden. This plan had been put together by Abdul Haq one of Afghanistan’s most respected leaders and was the culmination of Haq’s lifetime struggle to save his country.
NC: I think his analysis was correct. We’ve now gone through 17 years of failed attempts to impose a U.S. dominated system. There is an Afghan peace movement. It’s not enormous, but it’s significant. It’s been there for several years. We should be doing what we can to support it, to lead them to find a solution internal to Afghanistan, reconciling to the extent possible the conflicting warring factions; they’re ethnically divided, divided in other terms.
It’s an extraordinary problem. The most we can do is to try to facilitate efforts among the Afghans. I don’t think there’s much that the United States can hope to do beyond that, and the idea of imposing a military solution looks out of the question.
JS: Do you believe it’s accurate to say that the United States has been militarily defeated in Afghanistan?
NC: Well, certainly it has not achieved any of its objectives after a huge expenditure. So, give it whatever name you like. I mean, a great power like the United States never really gets defeated. It may not achieve its maximal objectives.
So, for example, let’s take Vietnam. It’s almost universally described as a U.S. defeat. But if you look back at the original planning this goes back to the early 50s, for why the United States became involved in Vietnam, it turns out it wasn’t a complete defeat. The U.S. did not achieve its maximal objectives of turning Vietnam into something like the Philippines, but it did achieve its major objective of preventing an independent South Vietnam from becoming a model that might be followed by others towards a successful independent development. Perhaps eroding the whole Southeast Asia/East Asia order, which is what the planners were concerned with in the early 1950s. And that was in fact stopped. Power like the United States is unlikely to face anything like a real defeat - a failure perhaps.
JS: I wanted to also make sure to ask you about this ongoing slaughter in Yemen. Recently CNN and some of the other networks have started showing images of U.S. missile parts from munitions that for instance killed an entire bus full of school children recently.
{Newscaster: This video of shrapnel was filmed in the aftermath of the attack and sent to CNN by a contact and saddle a cameraman working for CNN subsequently filmed these images for us. Munitions experts tell CNN this was a U.S. made Mark MK 82 bomb weighing in at 500 pounds. The first five digits there are the cage number, the commercial and government entity number. This number here denotes Lockheed Martin one of the top U.S. defense contractors.
JS: But there was a dearth of that kind of reporting when Obama was waging what started as a secret deniable bombing campaign. He kicked it off in December of 2009 with a cluster bomb attack that killed three dozen women and children in the village of al-Majala in Yemen. And then regularly was hitting Yemen with drone strikes, but it also is often portrayed as kind of Trump supporting the Saudis, when in reality the U.S. first bombed Yemen in November of 2002. This has been going on for a quite a long time. What is the U.S. motivation for this mass slaughter in Yemen right now that is primarily being carried out by Saudi war planes that were given to the Saudis by the United States? And, of course, the U.S. is doing all the intelligence assistance, the refueling and the providing of munitions. But what is the U.S. agenda in Yemen as you can see?
NC: The U.S., and you’re quite right in tracing this back to Obama, in fact, even earlier. The United States wants to ensure that Yemen will be incorporated within the system of reactionary Arab states that the U.S. dominates and largely controls - that’s Saudi Arabia [and the] United Arab Emirates, which is a quite a significant military power by the standards of the region and quite vicious and brutal. The Houthi presumably get some degree of Iranian support. To regard that as the Iran as the major threat in the region is ridiculous. The U.S. and secondarily Britain have been arming and developing, supporting the military forces and actions of Saudi Arabia and the UAE with the consequences that you describe. It’s becoming one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world, the attack on the port, the Hodeida port.
{Newscaster: Coalition forces are closing in and the fighting around the airport has blocked a key exit out of the city making it harder to transport much-needed food aid from Hodeida, the country’s largest port, to the rest of the country. 8.4 million Yemenis are already at risk of starvation. The war has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
NC: We can trace this back much farther if you like. So back in the early 1960s, there was a there was a war — a proxy war — going on in Yemen between Saudi Arabia and Egypt. At that point, Egypt was the center of secular Arab nationalism under Nasser and regarded as the main enemy by the United States. Saudi Arabia was the center of radical Islam and - very much like the British before us - the United States tended systematically to support radical Islamism against secular nationalism. That war was raging right through the 60s. It was a significant war. Israel settled that problem for the United States and Saudi Arabia by smashing secular Arab nationalism in 1967. And that, in fact, is the major turning point in U.S. Israeli relations. Israel performed a great service to the United States and its Saudi Arabian ally and the radical Islamism that centered there by eliminating the secular nationalist alternative. And since then U.S. relations with Israel have been kind of unique, even historically but certainly in the modern world. And this is now another continuation of it with different cast of characters slightly. But Yemen has been regarded as it’s the poorest of Arab states the most miserable in many ways, torn by all sorts of internal conflicts. And the U.S. continues to be committed to trying to ensure that its close allies, the radical Islamist states — Saudi Arabia, UAE — maintain control against any adversary. Egypt at that time, Iran, which is a very minor participant in fact, not like Egypt which had a major army there, very minor participant in this case.
JS: I’m sure that you paid attention to the reporting around national security adviser John Bolton’s speech at the Federalist Society in which he launched this blistering attack on the international criminal court, the ICC.
NC: And, of course, John Bolton has always been against international law and its application to the United States. But Bolton did point something out in that speech that I think is important for people to understand and it’s accurate. Bolton described how in 2002 the U.S. Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, passed legislation that was known in human rights circles as the Hague Invasion Act.
John Bolton: This law which enjoyed broad bipartisan support authorizes the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including force, to shield our service members and the armed forces of our allies from ICC prosecution. It also prohibits several forms of cooperation between the United States and the court.
JS: And such radical right-wingers as Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden, and many powerful Democratic senators, they actually voted for that legislation. And yet when Bolton does his attack on the ICC. It was portrayed as “Oh, my God, look at how these Trump people are so outside of the norm.” But the reality, isn’t it true, is that this has been the bipartisan power consensus from the very beginning? That no international law should actually apply to the United States and both Republicans and Democrats including the Democrat’s nominee in 2016 believe that the United States would have a right to militarily intervene to prevent a war crimes prosecution of any of its personnel.
NC: You’re absolutely correct. In Europe, as you say, it’s called the Netherlands Invasion Act — authorizes the president to use military force as they put it to rescue any American who might be brought to trial anywhere. So you’re quite correct. It’s unfair to blame this position on Trump and Bolton it goes way back and it goes much farther back than that.
So, for example, let’s go back to 1984, the United States in 1984 was, by the World Court, was ordered to terminate what was called unlawful use of force - which means international terrorism - against the state of Nicaragua and to pay very substantial reparations.
{Newscaster: Docking the world court on the questioned drew barbs too on the house floor.
House: Mr. Speaker many of us have known for some time that the Reagan Administration Central America policies couldn’t stand the light of day but now the administration is admitting as much by refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the international court of justice over the CIA’s mining of Nicaraguan ports, the Administration has demonstrated that it knows that its policies can’t withstand an inquiry by an impartial objective international body.
NC: The U.S. rejected the authorization of the world court and did so with the strong support of liberal America. So, the New York Times, for example, had an editorial condemning the court as what it called a hostile forum and therefore illegitimate.
It was a hostile forum because it condemned the United States. Three years earlier, the New York Times had lauded the World Court as a marvelous forum because it supported the United States in a claim against Iran, but now it was a hostile forum and therefore illegitimate. So, the U.S. had no need to pay any attention to its orders.
In fact, the U.S. even went so far as to veto a Security Council resolution basically calling on states to observe international law — didn’t mention the United States but was obvious with the intent was. All of this with the support of liberal opinion across the board. Now at that time, the United States was not alone in defying the World Court.
I think, Libya and Albania had also rejected World Court decisions, but they later accepted them. So, the United States is far as I’m aware, is now in splendid isolation and having rejected decision to the world court that’s entirely consistent with the 2002 legislation authorizing the executive to use military force to block any act against Americans by the International Criminal Court, if that’s even conceivable.
JS: Well just parenthetically and I don’t want to get into this but I do think it’s worth just mentioning it: that when victims of the U.S. torture program — the so-called extraordinary rendition program, or people that were taken to Guantanamo or to black sites — filed lawsuits in the United States against Donald Rumsfeld, President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or other officials for the torture that they endured, or the kidnapping that they endured, the justice department intervened in those cases using something called the Westfall Act, which actually has to do with U.S. labor law, and even Attorney General Eric Holder under Obama filed briefs in these lawsuits against Bush-era accused war criminals saying that even if they had committed genocide, that it was within the official scope of their duties. And therefore, they were removed as defendants in those cases and replaced by the U.S. government which has sovereign immunity and, therefore they were dismissed.
So, it’s not just on a level of international war or conflict. It’s also on an individual level with U.S. officials, the position of the justice department, including under Obama was that even if Donald Rumsfeld was involved with genocide, it would have been within the official scope of his duties and therefore he cannot be held individually responsible for it.
NC: Yeah, that’s a kind of a counterpart to the fact that the U.S. did add a reservation to the genocide convention when it signed it, finally, saying we’re immune. Incidentally, on the torture program, there’s more to be said. There’s good studies of this by Alfred McCoy — outstanding historian who did some of the major work, among other things, on the history of torture —
{JS: He’s a great friend of this show, and has been on several times. He also was my professor when I was briefly an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin.
NC: OK, so I don’t have to laud him to you. Done excellent work.}
But, on torture, he pointed out that when the United States signed the international torture convention, I think it was 1984 or so, the Senate rewrote the convention to exclude the modes of torture that were carried out by the CIA, and that was then instituted into law under Clinton. So you could argue that much of the torture carried out under the Bush Administration was actually not in violation of U.S. law as McCoy also points out, the significant difference between the Guantanamo/Bagram/Abu Ghraib torture and earlier periods, was that in earlier periods, the U.S. supervised the torture and trained the torturers in Latin America, Southeast Asia, but for this time, the U.S. personnel were actually involved, directly, in the torture instead of supervising it, and training the torturers. So that’s a slight change but from a moral point of view, not a very significant one.
JS: I do want to make sure to get your sense of what’s happening right now regarding the United States and Venezuela. Of course, you had Nicolas Maduro supposedly surviving a drone strike. Also, these generals, mutinous generals it appears meeting with the Trump Administration to plot a coup, coordinate? It’s unclear exactly what’s happening, but it does seem as though the United States is trying to, once again, foment either a coup or a removal of Nicolas Maduro, Hugo Chavez’s successor.
NC: My sense of this is that the United States would support a coup, but not that it’s really trying to instigate it. After all, in the year 2002, there was a military coup in Venezuela, which briefly overthrew the government eliminated Parliament, Supreme Court, it was reversed by a popular uprising. But during the time of the coup, the United States openly and quite publicly supported the military coup as did the liberal press. There was a time back in the 1960s, 1970s when the U.S. was, in fact, in a position to implement, and strongly support military coups right throughout the continent: this traces back to the decision by John F Kennedy in 1962 to change the mission of the Latin American military from what was called “hemispheric defense” — that was a holdover from World War II [and] anachronistic — from “hemispheric defense” to “internal security.” And in the Latin American context “internal security” means war by the military and paramilitaries against the civilian population.
Now in 1962 the U.S. was in a position to change, to shift, the mission of the Latin American military and, in fact, essentially to prepare what became the first major military coup, 1964 in Brazil, then others, one country after another — Chile, Uruguay, finally Argentina, the worst of them, strongly supported by Kissinger and Reagan - then onto Central America — but the U.S. just doesn’t have that power anymore.
One thing that’s happened in recent years is that Latin America has, to a certain extent, extricated itself from imperial, meaning recently U.S. control, this shows in many ways like largely expelling the IMF which for Latin America is a branch of the Treasury Department, eliminating the formal U.S. military bases.
So, the U.S. is doubtless involved and it will continue to support the traditional policies, but not with the degree of power it once had. In the case of Venezuela, if there were to be a military coup, I don’t doubt that the U.S. would support it may be the with some clicking of tongues about how it’s not a nice thing but short of that I think the U.S. is likely to continue with subversion and sabotage and support for the right-wing elements. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that Venezuela is a major disaster at this point. Partly for external reasons, but considerably for internal reasons.
JS: This year is 30 years since you and the great late Ed Herman published “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” and I wanted to get your thoughts on the role that huge social media companies play in our society, given that they are replacing a lot of news organizations — changing the way people consume information: Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. There’s a lot of talk about this - there’s hearings on Capitol Hill. There’s a lot of pleading with the billionaires to kick certain people off of social media, remove their accounts.
What about the way that these entities — the Facebook’s, Google’s, Twitter’s of the world - have changed us as people, and our society, and the way we process, disseminate, absorb information?
NC: Well, your words ‘process,’ and ‘disseminate’ and ‘absorb’ are correct. But not ‘produce.’ The source of information remains the major media, the correspondents on the ground — who often do excellent and courageous and very valuable work. Facebook and the rest may filter information that they get from those sources and present it in ways which much of the public finds it is easier to digest. I don’t think that’s a healthy development, but it is happening. And that means essentially, dividing much of the population - of much discussion of this - into cocoons, into bubbles, into which they receive the information conducive to their own interests and commitments.
If you read a major newspaper - say, the New York Times - you get a certain range of opinion. It’s narrow. It’s basically centrist to far right, but at least it’s a range of opinion. Those who are more addicted to social media tend to turn directly to what supports their own views not to hear other things, that’s not a good thing. Google, Facebook and the rest, those are commercial institutions. Their constituency is basically advertisers and they would like to establish the kinds of controls over their consumers that will be beneficial to their business model that enabled them to get advertising. That has very serious distorting effects. And we know that they provide massive information to the corporate system, which they use in their own efforts to try to shape and control behavior and opinion. All of this is a dangerous development that the power of these private corporations to direct people, in particular, directions and so on, that’s a serious problem which requires considerable thought and attention.
JS: In all of the decades of debating these issues, and campaigning for human rights, and against U.S. wars: Have things changed? And is it worth it to spend a lifetime doing what you’ve done? For young people that are listening.
NC: I think if we look over the years, we can see that there have been considerable achievements in changing public attitudes with regard to aggression, human rights, civil rights, and so on. I don’t take credit for that — plenty of people are involved, plenty of activists, many of them young but the changes are very significant.
Let’s go back to the 1960s. In the 1960s the Kennedys escalated the war in 1961 and ’62. Now that’s when Kennedy authorized the U.S. Air Force to begin directly bombing rural South Vietnam, authorized napalm, chemical warfare to destroy crops and livestock, organized mass programs to drive much of the peasantry into what amounted to concentration camps, strategic hamlets, huge escalation. What was the public reaction? Zero.
I, at the time, if I wanted to give a talk about it, I’d talk in somebody’s living room, or something like that. That was no protest. In fact, for years, it was difficult, or even impossible, to have public meetings. In Boston, which is a liberal city, public meetings were violently broken up with the support of the press, churches were attacked, and so on.
In fact, it wasn’t until about 1967 that a large-scale opposition to the war developed, and by that time South Vietnam had been practically destroyed and the war had expanded the rest of Indochina. Well, finally there was a public reaction.
NC: In 1981, the Reagan Administration came in and attempted to duplicate what Kennedy had done in the early ‘60s. Almost step by step. They intended to essentially invade Central America, white paper, blaming the international communists, huge propaganda campaign, and so on. It was almost instantly aborted by popular opposition.
There was such massive popular opposition from popular groups, from the churches, and others, that they had to back off. What happened was awful enough, but it wasn’t Vietnam. They had to turn to bringing in other states like Taiwan, Israel, the Argentine neo-Nazis to try to carry out the atrocities. U.S. couldn’t do it directly. That’s very significant.
Let’s go on to 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq. The worst crime of this century. That’s the first war in the history of imperialism in which the war was massively protested before it was officially launched. That’s never happened before.
Now, it’s commonly said that the opposition failed, but I don’t agree.
That restricted the kinds of military actions that the U.S. was able to carry out. Again horrible enough, but nothing like Vietnam. Well, all of these are indications of — and there are many others — of shifts of popular attitudes towards aggression, intervention, human rights violations, and so on, which make a difference. They haven’t gone far enough, but there’s a considerable improvement...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181001/95c1030c/attachment-0001.html>

From brussel at illinois.edu  Wed Oct  3 03:13:36 2018
From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 03:13:36 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Scahill interviews Chomsky
In-Reply-To: <5F73336E-4E2F-4488-AE44-195EB3D0D134@illinois.edu>
References: <5F73336E-4E2F-4488-AE44-195EB3D0D134@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <5735E95E-798C-4500-B829-C4E1A2C04E1A@illinois.edu>

Chomsky as usual, imposing but also dubious in statements about Bashir al Assad ["a horrible war criminal”], and Putin ["not a nice guy. I would not like to have dinner with him…”].

 It would be useful to know the basis on which he makes these statements. He has made them before and to my mind has partly justified American actions in Syria, actions which have created the chaos that exists there.. He then explicitly advocates American troops remaining there. The above gratuitous remarks reinforce the justification of American imperialism by the media.

By the way, a very good article is to be found about Seymour Hersh by Jackson Lears, which has some relevance to Chomsky's reflections: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n18/jackson-lears/i-figured-what-the-heck

—mkb



On Oct 1, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:


AMERICAN DISSIDENT: NOAM CHOMSKY ON THE STATE OF THE EMPIRE
by Jeremy Scahill | Intercepted | September 26, 2018

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181003/6b6cc09a/attachment.html>

From galliher at illinois.edu  Wed Oct  3 04:49:46 2018
From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 23:49:46 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Scahill interviews Chomsky
In-Reply-To: <5735E95E-798C-4500-B829-C4E1A2C04E1A@illinois.edu>
References: <5F73336E-4E2F-4488-AE44-195EB3D0D134@illinois.edu>
 <5735E95E-798C-4500-B829-C4E1A2C04E1A@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <6C7B9057-B7D9-4C1A-AA17-9A95583A707D@illinois.edu>

Those of us appalled by US crimes may tend to see the victims as necessarily virtuous. A just assessment of the Assad regime before (and during) the 2011 uprising is necessary - including why the CIA ‘rendered’ people to Syria for torture. (Not just Maher Arar - see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria>>.) Some recent accounts of the Assad government approach “brave little Israel” rhetoric.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily a nice guy, even if my enemy is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today … my own government.” (On Putin as a ‘nice guy,’ see “Down the River with Vladimir Putin” <https://www.counterpunch.org/2001/04/17/down-the-river-with-vladimir-putin/ <https://www.counterpunch.org/2001/04/17/down-the-river-with-vladimir-putin/>> and why one might want to avoid dinner with him - even a “channel catfish…”)

Chomsky seems to "explicitly advocate American troops' remaining there” only in the case of Rojava, an apparently estimable socialist (even anarchist) experiment. Chomsky has long defended Kurds against Turkish and American depredations. (Kissinger on an earlier American betrayal of the Kurds: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”)

It’s a bit over the top to say that Chomsky’s "gratuitous remarks reinforce the justification of American imperialism by the media,” given Chomsky’s life-long and energetic critique of US imperialism. —CGE


> On Oct 2, 2018, at 10:13 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Chomsky as usual, imposing but also dubious in statements about Bashir al Assad ["a horrible war criminal”], and Putin ["not a nice guy. I would not like to have dinner with him…”].
> 
>  It would be useful to know the basis on which he makes these statements. He has made them before and to my mind has partly justified American actions in Syria, actions which have created the chaos that exists there.. He then explicitly advocates American troops remaining there. The above gratuitous remarks reinforce the justification of American imperialism by the media.
> 
> By the way, a very good article is to be found about Seymour Hersh by Jackson Lears, which has some relevance to Chomsky's reflections: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n18/jackson-lears/i-figured-what-the-heck <https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n18/jackson-lears/i-figured-what-the-heck>
> 
> —mkb
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 1, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> AMERICAN DISSIDENT: NOAM CHOMSKY ON THE STATE OF THE EMPIRE
>> by Jeremy Scahill | Intercepted | September 26, 2018
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181002/0aedad5d/attachment-0001.html>

From galliher at illinois.edu  Wed Oct  3 04:55:37 2018
From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 23:55:37 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Scahill interviews Chomsky
In-Reply-To: <5735E95E-798C-4500-B829-C4E1A2C04E1A@illinois.edu>
References: <5F73336E-4E2F-4488-AE44-195EB3D0D134@illinois.edu>
 <5735E95E-798C-4500-B829-C4E1A2C04E1A@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <C9E4B0FA-E324-440B-A9B0-B66AE6301008@illinois.edu>

See also Jackson Lears’ recent piece on Chomsky (and note the ‘Letters’):

<https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/jackson-lears/mysterian <https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/jackson-lears/mysterian>>.



> On Oct 2, 2018, at 10:13 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> By the way, a very good article is to be found about Seymour Hersh by Jackson Lears, which has some relevance to Chomsky's reflections: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n18/jackson-lears/i-figured-what-the-heck <https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n18/jackson-lears/i-figured-what-the-heck>
> 
> —mkb
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 1, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> AMERICAN DISSIDENT: NOAM CHOMSKY ON THE STATE OF THE EMPIRE
>> by Jeremy Scahill | Intercepted | September 26, 2018
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181002/10a4fed7/attachment.html>

From karenaram at hotmail.com  Wed Oct  3 21:17:21 2018
From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:17:21 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]  Scahill interviews Chomsky
In-Reply-To: <5735E95E-798C-4500-B829-C4E1A2C04E1A@illinois.edu>
References: <5F73336E-4E2F-4488-AE44-195EB3D0D134@illinois.edu>
 <5735E95E-798C-4500-B829-C4E1A2C04E1A@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <MWHPR08MB2382A530DB6395312D6B44FFA3E90@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

What is the definition of “war criminal,” is it someone who commits war crimes during battle, not following the US Pentagon manual on “Rules of Engagement?” They were “rewritten and updated” in 2015 allowing all manner of that which goes against the Geneva Convention.

Does one deserve the title of “war criminal” when defending their sovereign nation, from foreign intervention, bombings, destruction and occupation?

I’m not looking for a “legal definition of “war criminal" necessarily. I consider a “war criminal” one who attacks a sovereign nation, uses drones, chemical weapons, conventional weapons, bombs, etc. in an attempt to occupy.

When was the last time Syria, under the Assad Administration, invaded a sovereign nation?

Is Assad any more ruthless and awful than Saddam was?  Than Netanyahu, the leaders of the SKA, UAE, UK, France, Germany etc ?

Does the use of “imprisonment and torture” of ones own people, lend the title of “war criminal” to a leader?

Those defined as “war criminals” were executed at Nuremberg, so it is a term that should not be applied lightly.

I know a lot of people I don’t consider “nice” and in my lifetime, have turned down for dinner, so I don’t consider that an egregious term when applied to a nation’s leader. Especially the leader of a nation, surrounded by Nato, with no good intentions whatsoever.



On Oct 2, 2018, at 20:13, Brussel, Morton K via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

Chomsky as usual, imposing but also dubious in statements about Bashir al Assad ["a horrible war criminal”], and Putin ["not a nice guy. I would not like to have dinner with him…”].

 It would be useful to know the basis on which he makes these statements. He has made them before and to my mind has partly justified American actions in Syria, actions which have created the chaos that exists there.. He then explicitly advocates American troops remaining there. The above gratuitous remarks reinforce the justification of American imperialism by the media.

By the way, a very good article is to be found about Seymour Hersh by Jackson Lears, which has some relevance to Chomsky's reflections: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n18/jackson-lears/i-figured-what-the-heck

—mkb



On Oct 1, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:


AMERICAN DISSIDENT: NOAM CHOMSKY ON THE STATE OF THE EMPIRE
by Jeremy Scahill | Intercepted | September 26, 2018

_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181003/47c656c5/attachment.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 02:22:24 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:22:24 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rob Urie on Democrats
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyGztvdQVhdXxLGRMBnqXUD1DcUdeCWwv_W1fhPxU5Bkig@mail.gmail.com>

The liberal contention that Republicans are worse is true in the sense that
they more straightforwardly represent the interests of rapacious
capitalists. However, left to Republicans alone, this system would have run
off the rails and remained there centuries ago. Bill Clinton was elected to
repair and restore the carnage wreaked by twelve years of Reagan-Bush.
Barack Obama was elected to repair and restore the carnage wreaked by eight
years of George W. Bush. The Democrats do have a political program. It is
to restore and repair American capitalism for the next round of carnage and
looting.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/28/democratic-socialism-and-political-power/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181004/f9603932/attachment-0001.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 02:44:23 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:44:23 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky visits Lula
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyGyPFwWgijyTGOiA0EX9ercmrnA8YGFKo7Zp6rdta88vQ@mail.gmail.com>

I Just Visited Lula, the World’s Most Prominent Political Prisoner
*By Noam Chomsky <https://zcomm.org/author/noamchomsky/>*
*
<https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/i-just-visited-lula-the-worlds-most-prominent-political-prisoner/>Source:
The Intercept
<https://theintercept.com/2018/10/02/lula-brazil-election-noam-chomsky/>*
October 2, 2018


*Prisons are reminiscent* of Tolstoy’s famous observation about unhappy
families: Each “is unhappy in its own way,” though there are some common
features — for prisons, the grim and stifling recognition that someone else
has total authority over your life.

My wife Valeria and I have just visited a prison to see arguably the most
prominent political prisoner of today, a person of unusual significance in
contemporary global politics.

By the standards of U.S. prisons I’ve seen, the Federal Prison in Curitiba,
Brazil, is not formidable or oppressive — though that is a rather low
bar.  It is nothing like the few I’ve visited abroad — not remotely like
Israel’s Khiyam torture chamber in southern Lebanon, later bombed to dust
to efface the crime, and a very long way from the unspeakable horrors of
Pinochet’s Villa Grimaldi, where the few who survived the exquisitely
designed series of tortures were tossed into a tower to rot — one of the
means to ensure that the first neoliberal experiment, under the supervision
of leading Chicago economists, could proceed without disruptive voices.

Nonetheless, it is a prison.

The prisoner we visited, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – “Lula,” as he is
universally known — has been sentenced to virtual life imprisonment, in
solitary confinement, with no access to press or journals and with limited
visits one day a week.

The day after our visit, one judge, citing press freedoms, granted the
request of the nation’s largest newspaper, Folha of São Paulo, to interview
Lula, but another judge quickly intervened
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-29/lula-s-jailhouse-interview-blocked-by-brazil-supreme-court-judge?srnd=markets-vp>
and
reversed that decision, notwithstanding the fact that the country’s most
violent criminals — its militia leaders and drug traffickers — are
routinely interviewed in prison.

To Brazil’s power structure, imprisoning Lula is not enough: They want to
ensure that the population, as it prepares to vote, cannot hear from him at
all, and are apparently willing to use any means to accomplish that goal.

The judge who reversed the permission wasn’t breaking any new ground. One
predecessor was the prosecutor at the 1926 sentencing of Antonio Gramsci by
Mussolini’s Fascist government, who declared, “We must stop his brain from
working for 20 years.”

“History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes,” as Mark Twain observed.

We were encouraged, but not surprised, to find that despite the onerous
conditions and shocking miscarriage of justice, Lula remains his energetic
self, optimistic about the future and full of ideas about how to turn
Brazil from its current disastrous course.

There are always pretexts for imprisonment — maybe valid, maybe not — but
often it makes sense to seek what may be the actual reasons. That is so in
this case. The primary charge against Lula, based on plea bargains by
businessmen sentenced for corruption, is that he was offered an apartment
in which he never lived. Hardly overwhelming
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/opinion/lula-president-brazil-corruption.html>
.

The alleged crime is almost undetectable by Brazilian standards — and there
is more to say about that concept, to which I’ll return. That aside, the
sentence is so totally disproportionate to the alleged crime that it is
quite appropriate to seek reasons. Candidates are not hard to unearth.
Brazil is facing an election that is of critical importance for its future.
Lula is by far the most popular candidate
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-election-poll/brazil-poll-shows-jailed-lula-extending-lead-for-october-election-idUSKCN1L51J3>
and
would easily win a fair election, not the outcome preferred by the
plutocracy.

Although his policies while in office were designed to accommodate the
concerns of domestic and international finance, he is despised by elites,
in part no doubt because of his policies of social inclusion and benefits
for the dispossessed, though other factors seem to intervene: primarily
simple class hatred. How can a poor worker with no higher education who
doesn’t even speak proper Portuguese be allowed to lead our country?

In office, Lula was tolerated by Western power, but with reservations.
There was little enthusiasm for his success, with his Foreign Minister
Celso Amorim, in propelling Brazil to the center of the world stage,
beginning to fulfill the predictions of a century ago that Brazil would
become “the colossus of the South.” Some of their initiatives were sharply
condemned
<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/has_brazils_lula_become_irans.html>,
notably their steps toward resolving the conflict
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052705151.html>
over
Iran’s nuclear programs in coordination with Turkey in 2010, undercutting
U.S. insistence on running the show. More generally, Brazil’s leading role
in promoting forces independent of Western power, in Latin America and
beyond, was hardly welcome to those accustomed to dominating the world.

With Lula barred from running, there is a good chance that the right-wing
favorite, Jair Bolsonaro, can gain the presidency and seriously
escalate the harshly regressive policies of President Michel Temer, who
replaced Dilma Rousseff after she was impeached in ludicrous proceedings in
an earlier stage of the “soft coup” now underway in Latin America’s most
important country.

*Bolsonaro presents himself* as a harsh and brutal authoritarian and an
admirer of the military dictatorship, who will restore “order.” Part of his
appeal is his pose as an outsider who will dismantle the corrupt political
establishment, which many Brazilians despise for good reasons, the local
analogue to the bitter reaction in much of the world to the effects of the
neoliberal assault of the past generation. Bolsonaro affirms that he knows
nothing about economics, leaving that domain to economist Paulo Guedes, an
ultraliberal Chicago product.

Guedes is clear and explicit about his solution to Brazil’s problems:
“privatize everything,” the whole national infrastructure (Veja, August 22
<https://veja.abril.com.br/revista-veja/a-cabeca-de-bolsonaro/>), in order
to pay off the debt to the predators who are robbing the country blind.
Literally everything, ensuring that the country will decline to
insignificance as a plaything of the very rich and the dominant financial
institutions. Guedes worked for a time in Chile under the Pinochet
dictatorship, so it may be useful to recall the results of the first
experiment in Chicago neoliberalism.

The experiment, initiated after 1973 military coup had prepared the ground
by terror and torture, was conducted under near optimal conditions. There
could be no dissent — the array of Villa Grimaldis and the like took care
of that. It was supervised by the superstars of Chicago economics. It had
enormous support from the U.S., the corporate world, and the international
financial institutions. The economic planners were also wise enough not to
interfere with the highly efficient nationalized copper mining company
Codelco, the world’s largest, which provided a solid base for the economy.

For a few years, the experiment was highly praised, and then silence
reigned. Despite the almost-perfect conditions, by 1982, the “Chicago boys”
had succeeded in crashing the economy. The state had to take over more of
the economy than under the Allende years. Wags called it “the Chicago road
to socialism.” The economy was largely handed back to the traditional
managers and struggled back, though not without lingering residues of the
disaster in educational and social welfare systems and elsewhere.

Returning to the Bolsonaro-Guedes prescriptions for undermining Brazil, it
is important to bear in mind the overwhelming power of finance in the
Brazilian political economy. Brazilian economist Ladislau Dowbor reports
that as the Brazilian economy sank into recession in 2014, major banks
increased profits by 25 to 30 percent, “a dynamic in which the more banks
profit, the more the economy is stalled” since the “financial
intermediaries do not finance production, but drain it” (“The Era of
Unproductive Capital”).

Furthermore, Dowbor continues, “After 2014, GDP dropped sharply while
interest and profits of financial intermediaries increased between 20% and
30% a year,” a systematic feature of a financial system that “does not
serve the economy, but is served by it. It is negative net productivity.
The financial machine is living at the expense of the real economy.”

The phenomenon is worldwide. Joseph Stiglitz summarizes the situation simply
<https://books.google.com.br/books?id=ec-HCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT38&lpg=PT38&dq=%E2%80%9CWhere+before+finance+was+a+mechanism+for+getting+money+into+firms,+now+it+functions+to+get+money+out+of+them.%22&source=bl&ots=jQV_KJiaJa&sig=1CQN5-FHjBTHx2lOYFT3pFKJcHI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK6drPvuXdAhVCE5AKHSsDCZ4Q6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CWhere%20before%20finance%20was%20a%20mechanism%20for%20getting%20money%20into%20firms%2C%20now%20it%20functions%20to%20get%20money%20out%20of%20them.%22&f=false>:
“Where before finance was a mechanism for getting money into firms, now it
functions to get money out of them.” That is one of the sharp reversals of
socio-economic policy brought to the world by the neoliberal assault, along
with the sharp concentration of wealth in few hands while the majority
stagnates, social benefits decline, and functioning democracy is undermined
by obvious means as economic power concentrates, increasingly in the hands
of predatory financial institutions. The consequences are the prime source
of the resentment, anger, and contempt for governing institutions that are
sweeping over much of the world, commonly mislabeled “populism.”

This is the future planned by the plutocracy and its favored candidates. It
would be undercut by renewal of Lula’s presidency, which did cater to the
financial institutions and the business world generally, but not
sufficiently so in the current era of savage capitalism.

We might tarry for a moment on what took place in Brazil during the Lula
years — “the golden decade,” in the words of the World Bank
<http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/143111468197370875/pdf/101431-REVISED-v2-SCD-Brazil-Systematic-Country-Diagnostic-Vol-2.pdf>
from
May 2016. During these years, the bank’s study reports:

Brazil’s socioeconomic progress has been remarkable and internationally
noted. From 2003 [the onset of Lula’s terms in office], the country has
become recognized for its success in reducing poverty and inequality and
its ability to create jobs. Innovative and effective policies to reduce
poverty and ensure the inclusion of previously excluded groups have lifted
millions of people out of poverty.

Furthermore:

Brazil has also been assuming global responsibilities. It has been
successful in pursuing economic prosperity while protecting its unique
natural patrimony. Brazil has become one of the most important emerging new
donors, with extensive engagements particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, and
a leading player in international climate negotiations. Brazil’s
development path over the past decade has shown that growth with shared
prosperity, but balanced with respect for the environment, is possible.
Brazilians are rightly proud of these internationally recognized
achievements.

Some Brazilians at least, but not those who hold economic power.

The World Bank report rejects the common view that the substantial progress
was “an illusion, created by the commodity boom, but unsustainable in
today’s less forgiving international environment.” It responds to this
claim with “a qualified ‘no.’ There is no reason why the recent
socioeconomic gains should be reversed; indeed, they might well be extended
with the right policies.”

*The right policies* should include radical changes in the general
structural framework that was left in place during the Lula-Dilma years,
when the demands of the financial community were accommodated, maintaining
policies of the preceding Cardoso years, including the low taxation of the
rich (often avoided entirely by massive capital flight to tax havens) and
absurdly high interest rates that led to huge fortunes for a few, while
attracting capital to finance, instead of productive investment. The
plutocracy and the media monopoly charge that social policies drained the
economy, but in fact economic studies show that the multiplier effect of
financial aid to the poor improved the economy, while it was the financial
rent from usurious interest rates and other gifts to finance that were the
real cause of the crisis of 2013 – a crisis that could have been overcome
by “the right policies.”

The prominent Brazilian economist Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira, former
finance minister, captures the crucial factor in the ongoing crisis
succinctly: For blocking public expenses while keeping the interest rate
high, “there is no economic explanation; the fundamental cause of high
interest rates in Brazil is the power of money lenders and financiers” with
its drastic consequences, aided by the legislature (elected with corporate
funding) and the media monopoly that is largely the voice of private power.

Dowbor points out that throughout modern Brazilian history, challenges to
the regressive structural framework have led to coups, “beginning with the
dismissal and suicide of Vargas [in 1954], and the 1964 military coup”
(strongly backed by Washington). There is a good case that much the same
has been taking place during the “soft coup” that has been underway since
2013. This campaign of traditional elites, now concentrated in the
financial sector and served by the highly concentrated media, went into
high gear in 2013 when Rousseff sought to reduce the outlandish interest
rates to some civilized level, threatening to diminish the flood of easy
money to the small sector able to indulge in financial markets.

The current campaign to preserve the structural framework and reverse the
achievements of “the glorious decade” is exploiting the corruption in which
Lula’s governing Workers’ Party, known as PT, participated. The corruption
is very real, and serious, though singling out the PT for demonization is
pure cynicism, considering the escapades of the accusers. And as already
mentioned, the charges against Lula, even if one were to credit them,
cannot possibly be taken seriously as a basis for the punishment
administered to remove him from the political system. All of which does
qualify him as one of the most significant political prisoners of the
current period.

The regular elite reaction to threats to the structural framework of the
Brazilian sociopolitical economy is mirrored by the international response
to challenges by the Global South to the neocolonial system left in place
after centuries of Western imperial devastation. In the 1950s, in the early
days of decolonization, the nonaligned movement sought to enter global
affairs. It was quickly put in its place by Western power. One dramatic
symbol was the assassination of the highly promising Congolese leader
Patrice Lumumba by the traditional Belgian rulers (beating the CIA to the
draw). The crime and its brutal aftermath ended the hopes of what should be
one of the world’s richest country, but remains “the horror! The horror!”
with ample participation by the traditional torturers of Africa.

Nonetheless, as decolonization proceeded on its agonizing course, the
annoying voice of the traditional victims kept breaking through. In the
’60s and ’70s, with substantial input of Brazilian economists, the U.N.
Conference on Trade and Development put forth plans for a New International
Economic Order, in which concerns of the “developing societies,” the great
majority of the world’s population, would be addressed. That initiative was
quickly crushed by the neoliberal regression.

A few years later, within UNESCO, the Global South called for a New
International Information Order that would open up the global
media-communication system to participation outside of the Western virtual
monopoly. That led to a hysterical assault, across the political spectrum,
with astonishing lies and ludicrous charges, and U.S. President Ronald
Reagan’s withdrawal from UNESCO on fabricated pretexts. All of this was
exposed in a devastating (hence unread) study by media
scholars William Preston, Edward S. Herman, and Herbert Schiller (“Hope and
Folly”).

Also effectively silenced was the 1993 study of the South Centre showing
that the capital hemorrhage from the poor to the rich countries had been
joined by capital export to the IMF and World Bank, which are now “net
recipients of resources from the developing countries.” The same was true
of the declaration of the first meeting of the South Summit of 133 states
in 2000, responding to the enthusiastic self-adulation of the West over its
new doctrine of “humanitarian intervention.” In the eyes of the Global
South, “the so-called ‘right’ of humanitarian intervention” is a new guise
for imperialism, “which has no legal basis in the United Nations Charter or
in the general principles of international law.”

Not surprisingly, power does not appreciate challenges and has many means
to beat them back or simply to silence them.

More should be said about the endemic political corruption of Latin
America, often piously condemned in the West. True, it is a plague, which
should not be tolerated. But the plague is hardly confined to the
“developing world.” It is not a mere aberration when the huge banks are
fined tens of billions of dollars (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman
Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup), typically in “settlements,” so no one is
legally culpable for the criminal activities that destroy millions of
lives. Noting that
<https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/08/28/a-mammoth-guilt-trip> “corporate
America is finding it increasingly difficult to stay on the right side of
the law,” the London Economist on August 30, 2014, reported that 2,163
corporate convictions from 2000 to 2014 — and “corporate America” has
plenty of company in the city of London and on the continent.

*Corruption ranges from* the massive scale just illustrated to the most
petty cruelty. A particularly vulgar and instructive example is wage theft,
an epidemic in the U.S. It is estimated that two-thirds of low-wage workers
have their pay stolen from their wages every week, while three-fourths have
part or all of their overtime pay stolen. The sums stolen from employees’
paychecks every year are greater than the combined total of bank, gas
station, and convenience store robberies. There is virtually no
enforcement. To maintain this impunity is critically important to the
business world, so much so that it is a high priority for the leading
business lobby, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has broad
corporate participation.

ALEC’s primary task
<https://theintercept.com/2017/10/11/alec-conference-trump-hotel/> is to
develop legislation for states, an easy target because of the reliance of
legislators on corporate funding and limited media attention. Systematic
and intense ALEC programs are therefore able to change the contours of
policy for the whole country with little notice, a stealth attack on
democracy with quite substantial effect. One of their legislative
initiatives is to ensure that wage theft will not be subject to inspection
or enforcement of law.

But corruption that is technically criminal, massive or small, is just the
tip of the iceberg. The major corruption is legal. For example, the resort
to tax havens that drain an estimated one-fourth or more of the $80
trillion global economy, creating an independent economic system free from
surveillance and regulation, a haven for all sorts of criminal activities,
as well as taxes. Nor is it technically illegal for Amazon, which just
became the second trillion-dollar corporation, to have benefitted
enormously by exemption from sales taxes. Or for the corporation to use
about 2 percent of U.S. electricity at sharply reduced rates, following “a
long U.S. tradition of shifting costs from businesses to poor residents,
who already pay about three times more of their income on utility bills
than do wealthy households,” the business press reports
<https://www.scribd.com/article/387175104/Workers-Of-The-World-Shrug>.

There are countless other examples.

One important example is buying elections, a topic that has been studied in
depth, particularly by political scientist Thomas Ferguson. His research,
along with colleagues, has shown that electability for Congress
<https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/stark-new-evidence-on-how-money-shapes-americas-elections>
and
the executive is predictable with remarkable precision from the single
variable of campaign spending, a very strong tendency that goes far back in
American political history and extends to the 2016 election
(Ferguson, Golden Rule; Ferguson et al., “Industrial Structure and Party
Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016
Presidential Election,” Working Paper No. 66, Jan. 2018, Institute for New
Economic Thinking). Converting formal democracy into an instrument in the
hands of private wealth is perfectly legal, not corruption, unlike the
Latin American plague.

It is not, of course, that interference with elections is off the agenda.
On the contrary, alleged Russian interference with the 2016 election is one
of the leading issues of the day, a topic of intense inquiry and much
frenzied commentary. In contrast, the overwhelming role of corporate power
and private wealth in corrupting the 2016 election, following a tradition
that goes back over a century, is scarcely noted. After all, it is
perfectly legal, even endorsed and enhanced by decisions of the most
reactionary Supreme Court in recent memory.

Buying elections is the least of the corporate interventions into the
pristine American democracy that is being sullied by Russian hackers (with
results that were undetectable). Campaign spending goes through the roof,
but it is dwarfed by lobbying, estimated at about 10 times its scale – a
plague that escalated rapidly from the early days of the neoliberal
regression. The effects on legislation are enormous, extending even as far
as literal writing of legislation by lobbyists, while the congressional
representative who signs the bill is off somewhere seeking funds for the
next election.

Corruption is indeed a plague in Brazil and Latin America generally, but
these are small players in the competition.

All of this brings us back to the prison, in which one of the most
significant political prisoners of the current period is kept in isolation
so that the “soft coup” in Brazil can proceed on course, with likely
consequences that will be severe for Brazilian society, and for much of the
world, given Brazil’s potential role.

Can proceed on course, that is, if what is happening is tolerated.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181004/f7ba26e7/attachment-0001.html>

From stuartnlevy at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 22:48:39 2018
From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 17:48:39 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE demo - Saturday,
	2-4pm - let's end US war on Yemen
Message-ID: <e8931d37-1a79-2a26-c14f-2dbfcd03da4d@gmail.com>

Tomorrow is the first Saturday of the month, and AWARE has our monthly
anti-war demonstration, 2-4pm, corner of Main and Neil in downtown
Champaign.

Karen and I suggest that this demo be a call for the US to end its
support for the war on Yemen and to insist that Saudi Arabia and the UAE
likewise cease their participation.

Just Foreign Policy and others have been urging us to call our Senators,
and now also our US Rep., to support War Powers Resolution bills which
would require a full-up Congressional vote on use of US military force
there:

    
https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids/

    
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?source=c.em&r_by=1135580

Unless someone else has a flyer about this, Karen and/or Stuart will aim
to make one - that at least urges people to call our Senators and Rep.
Davis.   Davis won't likely listen, but he may be uneasy about losing
his seat, so who knows.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181005/3de1e6dc/attachment.html>

From galliher at illinois.edu  Fri Oct  5 23:04:09 2018
From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:04:09 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - Saturday,
	2-4pm - let's end US war on Yemen
In-Reply-To: <e8931d37-1a79-2a26-c14f-2dbfcd03da4d@gmail.com>
References: <e8931d37-1a79-2a26-c14f-2dbfcd03da4d@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B327AA62-6863-4310-A402-E2916A7903BF@illinois.edu>

Happy to have you all make up a flyer. David has offered to make copies, if you send it to him.

See you at Main & Neil (altho’ rain is predicted). —CGE



> On Oct 5, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Tomorrow is the first Saturday of the month, and AWARE has our monthly anti-war demonstration, 2-4pm, corner of Main and Neil in downtown Champaign.
> 
> Karen and I suggest that this demo be a call for the US to end its support for the war on Yemen and to insist that Saudi Arabia and the UAE likewise cease their participation.
> 
> Just Foreign Policy and others have been urging us to call our Senators, and now also our US Rep., to support War Powers Resolution bills which would require a full-up Congressional vote on use of US military force there:
> 
>      https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids/ <https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids/>
> 
>      https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?source=c.em&r_by=1135580
> 
>  <https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?source=c.em&r_by=1135580>Unless someone else has a flyer about this, Karen and/or Stuart will aim to make one - that at least urges people to call our Senators and Rep. Davis.   Davis won't likely listen, but he may be uneasy about losing his seat, so who knows.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181005/2edd97c0/attachment.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 15:17:42 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 10:17:42 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - Saturday,
 2-4pm - let's end US war on Yemen
In-Reply-To: <B327AA62-6863-4310-A402-E2916A7903BF@illinois.edu>
References: <e8931d37-1a79-2a26-c14f-2dbfcd03da4d@gmail.com>
 <B327AA62-6863-4310-A402-E2916A7903BF@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyFNW+ZcCfDoeHMiyeVFh8dunMrg-nLqMUH439sqWuo1gw@mail.gmail.com>

I will be happy to print some off at my home. A half-page flyer, whether
single or double sided, works best I think.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:04 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Happy to have you all make up a flyer. David has offered to make copies,
> if you send it to him.
>
> See you at Main & Neil (altho’ rain is predicted). —CGE
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace <
> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> Tomorrow is the first Saturday of the month, and AWARE has our monthly
> anti-war demonstration, 2-4pm, corner of Main and Neil in downtown
> Champaign.
>
> Karen and I suggest that this demo be a call for the US to end its support
> for the war on Yemen and to insist that Saudi Arabia and the UAE likewise
> cease their participation.
>
> Just Foreign Policy and others have been urging us to call our Senators,
> and now also our US Rep., to support War Powers Resolution bills which
> would require a full-up Congressional vote on use of US military force
> there:
>
>
> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids/
>
>
> https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?source=c.em&r_by=1135580
>
> Unless someone else has a flyer about this, Karen and/or Stuart will aim
> to make one - that at least urges people to call our Senators and Rep.
> Davis.   Davis won't likely listen, but he may be uneasy about losing his
> seat, so who knows.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/49fab032/attachment.html>

From stuartnlevy at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 17:57:15 2018
From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:57:15 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - Saturday,
 2-4pm - let's end US war on Yemen
In-Reply-To: <CAOiGAyFNW+ZcCfDoeHMiyeVFh8dunMrg-nLqMUH439sqWuo1gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e8931d37-1a79-2a26-c14f-2dbfcd03da4d@gmail.com>
 <B327AA62-6863-4310-A402-E2916A7903BF@illinois.edu>
 <CAOiGAyFNW+ZcCfDoeHMiyeVFh8dunMrg-nLqMUH439sqWuo1gw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0523de63-930e-fee1-f11b-2accd6b4775c@gmail.com>

Though I wasn't able to fit this on two sides of a single page flyer, it
did fit on one side of a full sheet.

I've printed a bunch of these and will bring them.    Karen M. is making
some new signs and so am I.

Attached is a copy of the flyer.   It draws on things that Bob Naiman
has written or shared in the recent past.  Mr. Naiman, thank you.

==========


  The Saudi Arabia-led war in Yemen
  has created the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

  Our US government actively supports that war.
  Without US support, it would end.

  But opposition in Congress is at a tipping point.
  We can stop the war in Yemen.


The war in Yemen has raged since 2015, as a coalition of Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates try to displace Houthis who control much of
the country. *The US contributes **directly **to this war*– with arms
sales and UN Security Council support, and with services such as in-air
refueling of Saudi jets.

This war serves no interest of the US, except in giving us a reason to
sell billions of dollars in arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It is a
regional dispute between the Saudis and Iran – a proxy war fought in Yemen.

Thousands of Yemenis have been killed, millions displaced, and manymore
are at risk, as the Saudi/UAE coalition attacks the port of Hodeida, the
entry point for most humanitarian aid. Eight million people are on the
verge of famine, and ten million more could soon be if the situation
does not improve, says the UN. It appears to be the deliberate policy of
Saudi Arabia to starve the civilian population, starting with their 2015
bombing of wastewater treatment plants.[1] Cholera is now rampant in
Yemen – the largest epidemic in the world, with 1.1 million cases since
April, 2017.

/*Our representatives *//*may*//*listen to us.*////In 2013, when the US,
UK, and France were on the verge of bombing Syria, a vote in the British
Parliament failed – its members did not want that war. At the same time,
//the US Congress was considering a vote as well, and members of both
parties were flooded with calls from their constituents – people of the
US did not want that war, either. President Obama called off the planned
attack./

A bipartisan bill[2] in the US Congress, *HConRes. 138, *invokes the War
Powers Act, insisting that the
US military be forbidden from supporting the war in Yemen unless
Congress votes for it to be there.

*Call our Rep. Rodney Davis, 202-225-2371, *and urge him to *support
**H**C**onRes. 138, *the bill to*stop US support of the war in Yemen.
Without US support, the war might well end.
***
[1] https://www.rt.com/news/440140-saudi-arabia-yemen-eu/
[2]
https://www.thenation.com/article/centrist-house-democrats-join-the-progressive-movement-to-stop-the-war-on-yemen/

/*Thanks to Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy, who has been fighting
this atrocity from its beginnings.

*This flyer is being distributed by AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism
Effort of Champaign-Urbana. Look for us
on facebook. We demonstrate monthly against the wars at Main&Neil,
downtown Champaign, 2-4PM, first Saturdays./

=======



On 10/06/2018 10:17 AM, David Green wrote:
> I will be happy to print some off at my home. A half-page flyer,
> whether single or double sided, works best I think.
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:04 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>
>     Happy to have you all make up a flyer. David has offered to make
>     copies, if you send it to him.
>
>     See you at Main & Neil (altho’ rain is predicted). —CGE
>
>
>
>>     On Oct 5, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace
>>     <peace at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Tomorrow is the first Saturday of the month, and AWARE has our
>>     monthly anti-war demonstration, 2-4pm, corner of Main and Neil in
>>     downtown Champaign.
>>
>>     Karen and I suggest that this demo be a call for the US to end
>>     its support for the war on Yemen and to insist that Saudi Arabia
>>     and the UAE likewise cease their participation.
>>
>>     Just Foreign Policy and others have been urging us to call our
>>     Senators, and now also our US Rep., to support War Powers
>>     Resolution bills which would require a full-up Congressional vote
>>     on use of US military force there:
>>
>>         
>>     https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids/
>>
>>         
>>     https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?source=c.em&r_by=1135580
>>
>>     Unless someone else has a flyer about this, Karen and/or Stuart
>>     will aim to make one - that at least urges people to call our
>>     Senators and Rep. Davis.   Davis won't likely listen, but he may
>>     be uneasy about losing his seat, so who knows.
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Peace mailing list
>>     Peace at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
>>     https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>     https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/93c4410f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yemen-naiman-etc-2018-10.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 164812 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/93c4410f/attachment-0001.pdf>

From stuartnlevy at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 19:03:34 2018
From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy)
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:03:34 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
Message-ID: <5bb9070a.1c69fb81.746de.706a@mx.google.com>

We are in a line of intense thunderstorms, and the line is sweeping along us, so it may be very wet for quite a while.   Karen and I are heading to Main and Neil in case anyone needs to be rescued...


 -- Stuart
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/4832daea/attachment.html>

From karenaram at hotmail.com  Sat Oct  6 19:14:13 2018
From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 19:14:13 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <5bb9070a.1c69fb81.746de.706a@mx.google.com>
References: <5bb9070a.1c69fb81.746de.706a@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <MWHPR08MB2382BDA462E283357EA83810A3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

Should those of us who haven’t yet left, head downtown. It has been raining very hard on my side of town.

On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:03, stuartnlevy via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

We are in a line of intense thunderstorms, and the line is sweeping along us, so it may be very wet for quite a while.   Karen and I are heading to Main and Neil in case anyone needs to be rescued...



 -- Stuart
_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/8be01cc4/attachment.html>

From grapes17 at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 19:15:49 2018
From: grapes17 at gmail.com (James M.)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:15:49 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR08MB2382BDA462E283357EA83810A3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <5bb9070a.1c69fb81.746de.706a@mx.google.com>
 <MWHPR08MB2382BDA462E283357EA83810A3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAF1fGxFb5iuacV-ZMcHZ8qBRNDXgghHxoE8vG3PRF5T9CmoiMw@mail.gmail.com>

I'm close to downtown and the rain seems to have just let up a bit. But
it's hard to tell if another wave of hard rain is coming.

On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Karen Aram via Peace <
peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Should those of us who haven’t yet left, head downtown. It has been
> raining very hard on my side of town.
>
> On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:03, stuartnlevy via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>
> wrote:
>
> We are in a line of intense thunderstorms, and the line is sweeping along
> us, so it may be very wet for quite a while.   Karen and I are heading to
> Main and Neil in case anyone needs to be rescued...
>
>
>
>  -- Stuart
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/f4b60695/attachment.html>

From grapes17 at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 19:18:04 2018
From: grapes17 at gmail.com (James M.)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:18:04 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <CAF1fGxFb5iuacV-ZMcHZ8qBRNDXgghHxoE8vG3PRF5T9CmoiMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5bb9070a.1c69fb81.746de.706a@mx.google.com>
 <MWHPR08MB2382BDA462E283357EA83810A3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAF1fGxFb5iuacV-ZMcHZ8qBRNDXgghHxoE8vG3PRF5T9CmoiMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF1fGxEPX+K=QpSk__JtcaJ50-4MU4NfoWYDcsdy0+o=5C02pg@mail.gmail.com>

Actually, I take that back, it's still raining a fair bit. Not as heavy as
it was, but still quite wet.


On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:15 PM James M. <grapes17 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm close to downtown and the rain seems to have just let up a bit. But
> it's hard to tell if another wave of hard rain is coming.
>
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Karen Aram via Peace <
> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
>> Should those of us who haven’t yet left, head downtown. It has been
>> raining very hard on my side of town.
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:03, stuartnlevy via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> We are in a line of intense thunderstorms, and the line is sweeping along
>> us, so it may be very wet for quite a while.   Karen and I are heading to
>> Main and Neil in case anyone needs to be rescued...
>>
>>
>>
>>  -- Stuart
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace mailing list
>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace mailing list
>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/bf009a03/attachment-0001.html>

From karenaram at hotmail.com  Sat Oct  6 19:36:21 2018
From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 19:36:21 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <CAF1fGxEPX+K=QpSk__JtcaJ50-4MU4NfoWYDcsdy0+o=5C02pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5bb9070a.1c69fb81.746de.706a@mx.google.com>
 <MWHPR08MB2382BDA462E283357EA83810A3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAF1fGxFb5iuacV-ZMcHZ8qBRNDXgghHxoE8vG3PRF5T9CmoiMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF1fGxEPX+K=QpSk__JtcaJ50-4MU4NfoWYDcsdy0+o=5C02pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <MWHPR08MB23821E04839A3D525B048CDCA3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

Is there a demo. happening? I don’t want to just sit in my car in the parking lot, if others are leaving. Driving in this is not nice.



On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:18, James M. <grapes17 at gmail.com<mailto:grapes17 at gmail.com>> wrote:

Actually, I take that back, it's still raining a fair bit. Not as heavy as it was, but still quite wet.


On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:15 PM James M. <grapes17 at gmail.com<mailto:grapes17 at gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm close to downtown and the rain seems to have just let up a bit. But it's hard to tell if another wave of hard rain is coming.

On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
Should those of us who haven’t yet left, head downtown. It has been raining very hard on my side of town.

On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:03, stuartnlevy via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

We are in a line of intense thunderstorms, and the line is sweeping along us, so it may be very wet for quite a while.   Karen and I are heading to Main and Neil in case anyone needs to be rescued...



 -- Stuart
_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/48db383b/attachment.html>

From stuartnlevy at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 19:57:24 2018
From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy)
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:57:24 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR08MB23821E04839A3D525B048CDCA3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5bb913ae.1c69fb81.13753.7675@mx.google.com>

We (and signs and flyers) are not there now.   The rain has let up for the time being, and may hold off awhile, but it's coming back in maybe half an hour or so.
So I think it is a washout 😑
 -- Stuart
-------- Original message --------From: Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> Date: 10/6/18  14:36  (GMT-06:00) To: "James M." <grapes17 at gmail.com> Cc: stuartnlevy <stuartnlevy at gmail.com>, Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>, Peace <peace at anti-war.net> Subject: Re: [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet... 

Is there a demo. happening? I don’t want to just sit in my car in the parking lot, if others are leaving. Driving in this is not nice.









On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:18, James M. <grapes17 at gmail.com> wrote:



Actually, I take that back, it's still raining a fair bit. Not as heavy as it was, but still quite wet.







On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:15 PM James M. <grapes17 at gmail.com> wrote:



I'm close to downtown and the rain seems to have just let up a bit. But it's hard to tell if another wave of hard rain is coming.



On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:



Should those of us who haven’t yet left, head downtown. It has been raining very hard on my side of town.




On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:03, stuartnlevy via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:




We are in a line of intense thunderstorms, and the line is sweeping along us, so it may be very wet for quite a while.   Karen and I are heading to Main and Neil in case anyone needs to be rescued...










 -- Stuart

_______________________________________________

Peace mailing list

Peace at lists.chambana.net

https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace








_______________________________________________

Peace mailing list

Peace at lists.chambana.net

https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace












-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/02991315/attachment.html>

From karenaram at hotmail.com  Sat Oct  6 20:23:40 2018
From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 20:23:40 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <5bb913ae.1c69fb81.13753.7675@mx.google.com>
References: <MWHPR08MB23821E04839A3D525B048CDCA3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>,
 <5bb913ae.1c69fb81.13753.7675@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <MWHPR08MB23822D076A6AE27D5753A1C7A3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

Im downtown now. Doug and Don are out there. Parking is limited

 Iam now in front of the Esquire. Will let Don and Doug know you arent coming


Sent on my Virgin Mobile Phone.


------ Original message------

From: stuartnlevy

Date: Sat, Oct 6, 2018 2:57 PM

To: Karen Aram;James M.;

Cc: stuartnlevy at gmail.com;Peace Discuss;Peace;

Subject:Re: [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...


We (and signs and flyers) are not there now.   The rain has let up for the time being, and may hold off awhile, but it's coming back in maybe half an hour or so.

So I think it is a washout 😑

 -- Stuart

-------- Original message --------
From: Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com>
Date: 10/6/18 14:36 (GMT-06:00)
To: "James M." <grapes17 at gmail.com>
Cc: stuartnlevy <stuartnlevy at gmail.com>, Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>, Peace <peace at anti-war.net>
Subject: Re: [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...

Is there a demo. happening? I don’t want to just sit in my car in the parking lot, if others are leaving. Driving in this is not nice.



On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:18, James M. <grapes17 at gmail.com<mailto:grapes17 at gmail.com>> wrote:

Actually, I take that back, it's still raining a fair bit. Not as heavy as it was, but still quite wet.


On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:15 PM James M. <grapes17 at gmail.com<mailto:grapes17 at gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm close to downtown and the rain seems to have just let up a bit. But it's hard to tell if another wave of hard rain is coming.

On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
Should those of us who haven’t yet left, head downtown. It has been raining very hard on my side of town.

On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:03, stuartnlevy via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

We are in a line of intense thunderstorms, and the line is sweeping along us, so it may be very wet for quite a while.   Karen and I are heading to Main and Neil in case anyone needs to be rescued...



 -- Stuart
_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181006/ef79d50e/attachment-0001.html>

From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com  Sun Oct  7 10:37:54 2018
From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 05:37:54 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] GOTV as if your life depends on it...because it does
Message-ID: <CANDTtdmUuoBaggjUDYcC9dBG4sSjAr13GKbTkVN8DEnk8LAyoQ@mail.gmail.com>

With the Kavanaugh confirmation--the epitome of elite white male
privilege--we have one tool left--our votes.

The candidates have been chosen. I wish more progressive candidates
were on the November ballot in many races, but the positions of
governor, statewide officials, Congressional representatives,
countywide officials, county board members, and judges will be
selected from the persons listed on the ballot. Even if the choice is
not optimal, we will decide who represents us locally, statewide, and
federally, and each of us will make that decision by our action or
inaction in  voting.

Reactionary and authoritarian elements in our country want us to be
cynical and disengaged. They revel when they hear cries of, "My vote
doesn't matter"; "they're all crooks"; "they're all the same"; "there
is no difference." That's how bad people get on the ballot (to put bad
people on the Supreme Court or put children in cages or allow
continued bombing in Syria, for example) in the first place.

Get out and vote, even if the choices are less than perfect this time.
Then hold the winners accountable, and recruit and support better
people to run next time. Democracy is not a spectator sport. GOTV as
if your life depends on it...because it does.

Here is a disturbing article from the Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/

Please read it, then vote. You may request a mail-in ballot, or you
may vote early at the County Clerk's office, 1776 E Washington,
Urbana, M-F 8:30-4 pm. If you need to update your voter registration,
you may do so regularly through Oct 9, or utilize Grace Period
register/vote the same day option, also at the County Clerk's office.

If you are affiliated with the Democratic Party, we need poll
watchers. Contact info at champaigncountydemocrats.com or individual
candidates to get training, assignments, and credentials. GOTV as if
your life depends on it...because it does.

Vote. It's all we have left.

Deb

From ewj at pigs.ag  Sun Oct  7 11:23:39 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 19:23:39 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?pres_approval_poll_data?=
Message-ID: <20181007112339.27365.qmail@station188.com>

Please find attached a scatterplot of Rasmussen Daily Presidential
 approval poll data. Rasmussen polled likely voters samples 2,701
times
 during the Obama presidency and 437 times thus far in the Trump
 presidency. The Approval index is the percentage of Strongly Approve
 minus the Strongly Disapprove. The results are interesting, and you
 can see that they are not pro-Trump per se. 

 I have added blue and orange lines to indicate the post day 200 (197
 actually) mode for the dataset. 
 It is interesting how well the Obama data clusters around the mode. 
 A black dashed line represents what I consider to be the floor of the
 dataset 
 (The pic is available at http://pigs.ag/oink/obamatrumpapproval.png
in
 case it is excised by the mailserver.) 

 * 

 Obama was elected in part as a Peace president in the eyes of some
 voters but he turned out not to be a peacenik even though the Nobel
 folks dared to give him a Peace prize.

 Trump wasn't much considered to be a Peace president but he seems to
 have engineered peace and prosperity beginnings on the Korean
 peninsula. He is relatively shaping up to be a Peace guy.
 War is bad news and bad for trade.

 I did not much care for Trump in the 30-odd years he has been in the
 public eye and I didnt vote for him.
 However, as I had predicted, people who usually don't bother to vote
 came out of the hills and hollers and the cul-de-sacs of Amerika to
 stand up at the polling places and defiantly oppose Hillary Clinton
 and her ilk. I don't imagine that the Russians had much to do with it
 although Putin does seem to have more going for him than the Clintons
 do.

 Some pundit said that NATO would not survive another 4 years of
 Trump. That's the reason that I'll be voting for Trump the next time
 around despite the futility of voting in Illinois, absentee or
 otherwise. 

 *

 The utter fury of the harpies and harpettes in defense of Roe v. Wade
 is hellacious to say the least.
 It is not a force to be considered lightly no matter how deranged,
 misguided, and inane it is.

 However, most Americans still seem to think that abortion is wrong.
 It does not seem to be a Republican thing, since most of the
 Republicans of the recent past did rather little about it and were as
 eugenic in their thinking as their ideologic counterparts in the
 Democrat party. This time around the Dems have energized their
 opponents. Considering that the Democrat party is the War Party, that
 aint all bad.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181007/73869b52/attachment.html>

From ewj at pigs.ag  Sun Oct  7 12:24:00 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 20:24:00 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss]
	=?utf-8?q?GOTV_as_if_your_life_depends_on_it=2E?=
	=?utf-8?q?=2E=2Ebecause_it_does?=
In-Reply-To: <CANDTtdmUuoBaggjUDYcC9dBG4sSjAr13GKbTkVN8DEnk8LAyoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANDTtdmUuoBaggjUDYcC9dBG4sSjAr13GKbTkVN8DEnk8LAyoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20181007122400.11445.qmail@station188.com>

_Adam Serwer_ 
__ 
_Trump's only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is
that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian
men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that
cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent
supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear:
immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who
empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The
president's ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed
makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel
proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as
long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with
anything, no matter what it costs them._

Sure, cruelty to others is what grumpy white privileged cisgender
males live for. 
Hey, Rachel, will ya hand me down my case pocket knife and my bow and
arras? 
And my brandin' arn. Can't leave home without that. 

Y'all talk about how much ya hate the rich elites. 

The Atlantic is a project of the Apple computer elites, is it not? 

> -------Original Message-------
 > From: Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
 > To: peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>, peace-discuss at anti-war.net
<peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
 > Subject: [Peace-discuss] GOTV as if your life depends on
it...because it does
 > Sent: Oct 07 '18 18:38
 > 
 > With the Kavanaugh confirmation--the epitome of elite white male
 > privilege--we have one tool left--our votes.
 > 
 > The candidates have been chosen. I wish more progressive candidates
 > were on the November ballot in many races, but the positions of
 > governor, statewide officials, Congressional representatives,
 > countywide officials, county board members, and judges will be
 > selected from the persons listed on the ballot. Even if the choice
is
 > not optimal, we will decide who represents us locally, statewide,
and
 > federally, and each of us will make that decision by our action or
 > inaction in voting.
 > 
 > Reactionary and authoritarian elements in our country want us to be
 > cynical and disengaged. They revel when they hear cries of, "My
vote
 > doesn't matter"; "they're all crooks"; "they're all the same";
"there
 > is no difference." That's how bad people get on the ballot (to put
bad
 > people on the Supreme Court or put children in cages or allow
 > continued bombing in Syria, for example) in the first place.
 > 
 > Get out and vote, even if the choices are less than perfect this
time.
 > Then hold the winners accountable, and recruit and support better
 > people to run next time. Democracy is not a spectator sport. GOTV
as
 > if your life depends on it...because it does.
 > 
 > Here is a disturbing article from the Atlantic:
 > 
 >
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/
 > 
 > Please read it, then vote. You may request a mail-in ballot, or you
 > may vote early at the County Clerk's office, 1776 E Washington,
 > Urbana, M-F 8:30-4 pm. If you need to update your voter
registration,
 > you may do so regularly through Oct 9, or utilize Grace Period
 > register/vote the same day option, also at the County Clerk's
office.
 > 
 > If you are affiliated with the Democratic Party, we need poll
 > watchers. Contact info at champaigncountydemocrats.com or individual
 > candidates to get training, assignments, and credentials. GOTV as
if
 > your life depends on it...because it does.
 > 
 > Vote. It's all we have left.
 > 
 > Deb
 > _______________________________________________
 > Peace-discuss mailing list
 > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
 > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
 > 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181007/5013ea4a/attachment.html>

From moboct1 at aim.com  Sun Oct  7 15:15:16 2018
From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 11:15:16 -0400
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR08MB2382BDA462E283357EA83810A3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <1664f18c862-1ec2-5134@webjas-vaa157.srv.aolmail.net>

"On my way to the forum..." Fortunately about 1 o'clock yesterday I saw the sky and went back for my umbrella, missing the bus to Champaign, so 30 minutes later armed with "bumbershoot" (as known in Minnesota) I made it on the bus and was in route when the deluge started.  By the time I got to Champaign I decided to wait in the Transport. Terminal for the rain to end but it didn't look as if it would ever end, so I caught a bus back home 30 minutes later and arrived dry and safe about 3 pm.  I had provided in-transit entertainment (Medea's book on Iran) which I had neglected to open so far and found it so interesting (at least the first part, the pre "Revolution" history) that I have decided to finish it.  


About 3:45 the weather lifted and sun came out, but it was too late for me to participate in the demo, in case anybody else did.  Signs would have been soaked anyway.  Maybe next month--after Thanksgiving--already??


Midge



-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>
To: stuartnlevy <stuartnlevy at gmail.com>
Cc: peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; Peace <peace at anti-war.net>
Sent: Sat, Oct 6, 2018 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...


Should those of us who haven’t yet left, head downtown. It has been raining very hard on my side of town.



On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:03, stuartnlevy via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:



We are in a line of intense thunderstorms, and the line is sweeping along us, so it may be very wet for quite a while.   Karen and I are heading to Main and Neil in case anyone needs to be rescued...






 -- Stuart
_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace





_______________________________________________Peace mailing listPeace at lists.chambana.nethttps://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181007/33f9b700/attachment-0001.html>

From grapes17 at gmail.com  Sun Oct  7 17:02:59 2018
From: grapes17 at gmail.com (James M.)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 12:02:59 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] GOTV as if your life depends on it...because it
	does
In-Reply-To: <20181007122400.11445.qmail@station188.com>
References: <CANDTtdmUuoBaggjUDYcC9dBG4sSjAr13GKbTkVN8DEnk8LAyoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181007122400.11445.qmail@station188.com>
Message-ID: <CAF1fGxGL-VHp4zEUafCM+caJRQCEPZQWxAmNB-7h2QtZpXRiAA@mail.gmail.com>

I would highlight that the 6th Circuit Judge race this election is of
particular importance. We don't get to vote on these often, it has vast
potential impact on a wide range of justice & social issues, and this time
there are some strong candidates to choose from.

Want to know more about down-ballot candidates in Champaign County? Check
out http://votechampaign.org/guide (non-partisan)

Want to help volunteer to GOTV in your Champaign-Urbana?
http://votechampaign.org/volunteer

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 7:24 AM e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> *Adam Serwer*
> *Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that
> the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and
> his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and
> the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him,
> in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters,
> feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who
> would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that
> cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good,
> it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel
> united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get
> away with anything, no matter what it costs them.*
>
> Sure, cruelty to others is what grumpy white privileged cisgender males
> live for.
> Hey, Rachel, will ya hand me down my case pocket knife and my bow and
> arras?
> And my brandin' arn.  Can't leave home without that.
>
> Y'all talk about how much ya hate the rich elites.
>
> The Atlantic is a project of the Apple computer elites, is it not?
>
>
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> > To: peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>, peace-discuss at anti-war.net <
> peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> > Subject: [Peace-discuss] GOTV as if your life depends on it...because it
> does
> > Sent: Oct 07 '18 18:38
> >
> > With the Kavanaugh confirmation--the epitome of elite white male
> > privilege--we have one tool left--our votes.
> >
> > The candidates have been chosen. I wish more progressive candidates
> > were on the November ballot in many races, but the positions of
> > governor, statewide officials, Congressional representatives,
> > countywide officials, county board members, and judges will be
> > selected from the persons listed on the ballot. Even if the choice is
> > not optimal, we will decide who represents us locally, statewide, and
> > federally, and each of us will make that decision by our action or
> > inaction in  voting.
> >
> > Reactionary and authoritarian elements in our country want us to be
> > cynical and disengaged. They revel when they hear cries of, "My vote
> > doesn't matter"; "they're all crooks"; "they're all the same"; "there
> > is no difference." That's how bad people get on the ballot (to put bad
> > people on the Supreme Court or put children in cages or allow
> > continued bombing in Syria, for example) in the first place.
> >
> > Get out and vote, even if the choices are less than perfect this time.
> > Then hold the winners accountable, and recruit and support better
> > people to run next time. Democracy is not a spectator sport. GOTV as
> > if your life depends on it...because it does.
> >
> > Here is a disturbing article from the Atlantic:
> >
> >
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/
> >
> > Please read it, then vote. You may request a mail-in ballot, or you
> > may vote early at the County Clerk's office, 1776 E Washington,
> > Urbana, M-F 8:30-4 pm. If you need to update your voter registration,
> > you may do so regularly through Oct 9, or utilize Grace Period
> > register/vote the same day option, also at the County Clerk's office.
> >
> > If you are affiliated with the Democratic Party, we need poll
> > watchers. Contact info at champaigncountydemocrats.com or individual
> > candidates to get training, assignments, and credentials. GOTV as if
> > your life depends on it...because it does.
> >
> > Vote. It's all we have left.
> >
> > Deb
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181007/be08c4b5/attachment.html>

From brussel at illinois.edu  Sun Oct  7 19:03:38 2018
From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 19:03:38 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Recent Steven Cohen comments of Cold War II
Message-ID: <7B8EADFE-EC68-4A4E-B245-BA038E106A8E@illinois.edu>

FYI

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50378.htm

—mkb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181007/55092885/attachment.html>

From kmedina67 at gmail.com  Sun Oct  7 19:49:28 2018
From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 14:49:28 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <1664f18c862-1ec2-5134@webjas-vaa157.srv.aolmail.net>
References: <MWHPR08MB2382BDA462E283357EA83810A3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <1664f18c862-1ec2-5134@webjas-vaa157.srv.aolmail.net>
Message-ID: <CA+0uwib23fWnSZRs-yxxpkdodTTAzeAwu0HO2iHR2A9pGZkx6A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Midge,

I am making a sign for you today.
Will this be okay: "Your military actions have nothing to do with our freedom"

I will also be making a sign that says, "Make 1984 fiction again" and
a 2nd one saying "Got rights? Thank the protest movements"
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 10:15 AM Mildred O'brien via Peace
<peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> "On my way to the forum..." Fortunately about 1 o'clock yesterday I saw the sky and went back for my umbrella, missing the bus to Champaign, so 30 minutes later armed with "bumbershoot" (as known in Minnesota) I made it on the bus and was in route when the deluge started.  By the time I got to Champaign I decided to wait in the Transport. Terminal for the rain to end but it didn't look as if it would ever end, so I caught a bus back home 30 minutes later and arrived dry and safe about 3 pm.  I had provided in-transit entertainment (Medea's book on Iran) which I had neglected to open so far and found it so interesting (at least the first part, the pre "Revolution" history) that I have decided to finish it.
>
> About 3:45 the weather lifted and sun came out, but it was too late for me to participate in the demo, in case anybody else did.  Signs would have been soaked anyway.  Maybe next month--after Thanksgiving--already??
>
> Midge
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>
> To: stuartnlevy <stuartnlevy at gmail.com>
> Cc: peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; Peace <peace at anti-war.net>
> Sent: Sat, Oct 6, 2018 2:14 pm
> Subject: Re: [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
>
> Should those of us who haven’t yet left, head downtown. It has been raining very hard on my side of town.
>
> On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:03, stuartnlevy via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> We are in a line of intense thunderstorms, and the line is sweeping along us, so it may be very wet for quite a while.   Karen and I are heading to Main and Neil in case anyone needs to be rescued...
>
>
>
>  -- Stuart
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace



-- 
-- karen medina
"The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." - Mark Twain

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Sun Oct  7 20:10:11 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:10:11 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] GOTV as if your life depends on it...because it
 does
In-Reply-To: <20181007122400.11445.qmail@station188.com>
References: <CANDTtdmUuoBaggjUDYcC9dBG4sSjAr13GKbTkVN8DEnk8LAyoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181007122400.11445.qmail@station188.com>
Message-ID: <B387F36B-4CD2-4627-A201-2D260572BA5B@gmail.com>

Trump’s only true threat to the American political establishment was his suggestion that as president he would depart from the policies of the Obama-Clinton administration that produced more war and more inequality - and so the immiserated public elected him.

But Trump’s weakness as president has allowed the establishment to force the continuation of those policies: e.g., Trump has said that the US should withdraw from Syria, but the Pentagon has contemptuously expanded the number of troops there.

Will turning Congress over to Democrats in the coming election greatly increase the chances of more war, as the establishment continues to assert control over Trump’s maverick dispositions? The cynical ‘Russiagate’ campaign suggests the answer is yes, - the party finally in control is the pro-war party.

—CGE  

> On Oct 7, 2018, at 7:24 AM, e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Adam Serwer
> Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.
>  
> Sure, cruelty to others is what grumpy white privileged cisgender males live for.
> Hey, Rachel, will ya hand me down my case pocket knife and my bow and arras?
> And my brandin' arn.  Can't leave home without that.
>  
> Y'all talk about how much ya hate the rich elites.
>  
> The Atlantic is a project of the Apple computer elites, is it not?
>  
>  
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>>
> > To: peace <peace at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>>, peace-discuss at anti-war.net <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net> <peace-discuss at anti-war.net <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>>
> > Subject: [Peace-discuss] GOTV as if your life depends on it...because it does
> > Sent: Oct 07 '18 18:38
> > 
> > With the Kavanaugh confirmation--the epitome of elite white male
> > privilege--we have one tool left--our votes.
> > 
> > The candidates have been chosen. I wish more progressive candidates
> > were on the November ballot in many races, but the positions of
> > governor, statewide officials, Congressional representatives,
> > countywide officials, county board members, and judges will be
> > selected from the persons listed on the ballot. Even if the choice is
> > not optimal, we will decide who represents us locally, statewide, and
> > federally, and each of us will make that decision by our action or
> > inaction in  voting.
> > 
> > Reactionary and authoritarian elements in our country want us to be
> > cynical and disengaged. They revel when they hear cries of, "My vote
> > doesn't matter"; "they're all crooks"; "they're all the same"; "there
> > is no difference." That's how bad people get on the ballot (to put bad
> > people on the Supreme Court or put children in cages or allow
> > continued bombing in Syria, for example) in the first place.
> > 
> > Get out and vote, even if the choices are less than perfect this time.
> > Then hold the winners accountable, and recruit and support better
> > people to run next time. Democracy is not a spectator sport. GOTV as
> > if your life depends on it...because it does.
> > 
> > Here is a disturbing article from the Atlantic:
> > 
> > https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/
> > 
> > Please read it, then vote. You may request a mail-in ballot, or you
> > may vote early at the County Clerk's office, 1776 E Washington,
> > Urbana, M-F 8:30-4 pm. If you need to update your voter registration,
> > you may do so regularly through Oct 9, or utilize Grace Period
> > register/vote the same day option, also at the County Clerk's office.
> > 
> > If you are affiliated with the Democratic Party, we need poll
> > watchers. Contact info at champaigncountydemocrats.com or individual
> > candidates to get training, assignments, and credentials. GOTV as if
> > your life depends on it...because it does.
> > 
> > Vote. It's all we have left.
> > 
> > Deb
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss <https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss>
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss <https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181007/21604767/attachment.html>

From galliher at illinois.edu  Mon Oct  8 12:03:48 2018
From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 07:03:48 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <CA+0uwib23fWnSZRs-yxxpkdodTTAzeAwu0HO2iHR2A9pGZkx6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <MWHPR08MB2382BDA462E283357EA83810A3E40@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <1664f18c862-1ec2-5134@webjas-vaa157.srv.aolmail.net>
 <CA+0uwib23fWnSZRs-yxxpkdodTTAzeAwu0HO2iHR2A9pGZkx6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <482189D5-68EF-4F0F-B5A1-BC1660924E73@illinois.edu>

I didn’t think that sounded like Twain, who had a settled skepticism about “the really great”:

"Mark Twain died in 1910, and this quotation first appeared in a book in 1938. The saying was based on the memory of Gay Zenola MacLaren who was recounting a childhood encounter with Twain…” 

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/23/belittle-ambitions/
 

> On Oct 7, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." - Mark Twain


From kmedina67 at gmail.com  Mon Oct  8 14:14:51 2018
From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 09:14:51 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet...
In-Reply-To: <482189D5-68EF-4F0F-B5A1-BC1660924E73@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <5bbb665f.1c69fb81.2aafa.ba06@mx.google.com>

" MacLaren was capable of remarkable feats of memory as shown by her elocutionary performances." 
She claims Twain said it to her when she was young. Little girl,” he said earnestly, “keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.”
Twain, though i did not ever met him, did indeed have great skepticism about a lot. Including greatness. Fair enough. 
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.

- Karen Medina"The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great"

-------- Original message --------From: "Carl G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> Date: 10/8/18  07:03  (GMT-06:00) To: Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com> Cc: Mildred O'brien <moboct1 at aim.com>, Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] AWARE demo - it's very wet... 
I didn’t think that sounded like Twain, who had a settled skepticism about “the really great”:

"Mark Twain died in 1910, and this quotation first appeared in a book in 1938. The saying was based on the memory of Gay Zenola MacLaren who was recounting a childhood encounter with Twain…” 

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/23/belittle-ambitions/
 

> On Oct 7, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." - Mark Twain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181008/5b33c2e9/attachment-0001.html>

From ewj at pigs.ag  Mon Oct  8 16:34:43 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:34:43 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Huda Thunkit? Trump approval continues to rise.
Message-ID: <b949d947-de28-523d-eb55-10f35a4c35c4@pigs.ag>

I didn't vote for Trump but his work on Korea and the Economy plus the 
inane tactics of the Dems seem to be enamouring D.T. to the electorate:
(I will vote for Trump next time around since the NATO crowd hates and 
fears Trump and pundits say Trump will end NATO.)
Something is going on...Rasmussen polling has been the most accurate one 
out there and they are not afraid to say so when
it was bad for Trump.

Clearly North Korea believes that peace and commerce will be better for 
its people
than bellicosity and devastating penury.
People like that.

More telling perhaps is the contrast with the O-bot.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows 
that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job 
performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 38% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is 
performing and 38% who Strongly Disapprove.
This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of zero (0). (see 
trends 
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history>). 


/This is Trump’s highest Presidential Approval Index rating since early 
February of last year, shortly after he first took office. /

/B*y comparison, Barack Obama earned a presidential approval index 
rating of -12 on **October 8, 2010 
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history#history_data_20101008>**, 
in the second year of his presidency.*/*//
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/99753abe/attachment.html>

From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org  Mon Oct  8 16:39:42 2018
From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:39:42 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Huda Thunkit? Trump approval continues to rise.
In-Reply-To: <b949d947-de28-523d-eb55-10f35a4c35c4@pigs.ag>
References: <b949d947-de28-523d-eb55-10f35a4c35c4@pigs.ag>
Message-ID: <CALMNhNSECUyoUfHOA+n9PoysN_8gqZ0iRTXHr=J2BDkNarYn=A@mail.gmail.com>

I would guess that Trump's approval rating going up would be largely a
result of Republican unification around the Supreme Court fight.

A lot of these people held their noses and supported Trump so they could
get a Republican Supreme Court justice.

That bet has just paid off.

===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1


On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> I didn't vote for Trump but his work on Korea and the Economy plus the
> inane tactics of the Dems seem to be enamouring D.T. to the electorate:
> (I will vote for Trump next time around since the NATO crowd hates and
> fears Trump and pundits say Trump will end NATO.)
> Something is going on...Rasmussen polling has been the most accurate one
> out there and they are not afraid to say so when
> it was bad for Trump.
>
> Clearly North Korea believes that peace and commerce will be better for
> its people
> than bellicosity and devastating penury.
> People like that.
>
> More telling perhaps is the contrast with the O-bot.
>
> The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows
> that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job
> performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove.
>
> The latest figures include 38% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is
> performing and 38% who Strongly Disapprove.
> This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of zero (0). (see
> trends
> <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history>).
>
> *This is Trump’s highest Presidential Approval Index rating since early
> February of last year, shortly after he first took office.  *
>
> *By comparison, Barack Obama earned a presidential approval index rating
> of -12 on October 8, 2010
> <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history#history_data_20101008>,
> in the second year of his presidency.*
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181008/7b5b2655/attachment.html>

From galliher at illinois.edu  Tue Oct  9 02:24:03 2018
From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 21:24:03 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election
Message-ID: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>

How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are the more pro-war today:
(1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
(2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and 
(3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of Representatives.
—CGE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181008/53d68903/attachment.html>

From ewj at pigs.ag  Tue Oct  9 02:50:15 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:50:15 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette,
 on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <55b3bb9c-c865-cd5a-8e48-c2cb56813b3a@pigs.ag>

So much about Betsy (*Ross*) (*Everett*) Dirksen Londrigan is fake.

She's about as much in the family lineage of Everett Dirksen as Donald 
Trump but don't read the fine print.  And I'm sure that Betsy Ross and 
John Prine are both proud of her.

She's not a politician, even though she is a hardened Democrat who has 
been in politics for some 20 years including working for Dirty Dick 
Durbin.  And she's got that zomfg startled deer-in-the-headlights 
Ocasio-whatever look that is so fashionable with Dems today.


Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote:
>
> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war 
> provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy 
> in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a 
> representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney 
> Davis.
>
> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. 
> They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies 
> followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - 
> policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>
> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote 
> for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important 
> difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views 
> of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, 
> the Democrats are the more pro-war today:
>
> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of 
> pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump 
> doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that 
> characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war 
> votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>
> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the 
> greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>
> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney 
> Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the 
> House of Representatives.
>
> —CGE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/b48d1efc/attachment-0001.html>

From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org  Tue Oct  9 03:04:31 2018
From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:04:31 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>

Here's another way of looking at it.

I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the
House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would
help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human
beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get
a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a
vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if
Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if
not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest
at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite
bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on
the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies
towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about
to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to
defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of
these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni
children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has
advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual
policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama
rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not
to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good
things. Just that it's not one-zero.

But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever
happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's
a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district
Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems
have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you
count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1
in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it
shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems
will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs
Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the
House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is
probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take
the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater
potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems
take the House.

So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether we're
represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than over
whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less
influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney.

And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off,
from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney.
Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she
wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in
contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all
war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since
Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things,
simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing,
zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace
issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership
in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we
brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With
Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on
other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving
our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a
damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that
perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all
what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to.

So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to
the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to
participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less
war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on
whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we
want Dems or Rs to control the House.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war
> provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in
> the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative
> to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>
> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They
> generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by
> all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that
> have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>
> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for
> the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference,
> because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual
> members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are
> the more pro-war today:
>
> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war
> CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't
> depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized
> the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war
> votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>
> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the
> greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>
> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney
> Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of
> Representatives.
>
> —CGE
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181008/6f8337fb/attachment.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Tue Oct  9 18:03:41 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:03:41 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] What goes around comes around
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyHbA4P1xT5HSwY93rStY1pgSw-XCM3J9HF8Ok_q=VYW=Q@mail.gmail.com>

https://louisproyect.org/2018/10/09/shahed-hussain-the-fbi-sting-artist-who-has-the-blood-of-20-limousine-passengers-on-his-hands/

I had already noticed in the NYT article the reference to the FBI Sting
collaborator; but the NYT says it in passing, without elaboration.

Whereas Louis Proyect is all over this in an appropriate way (see link
above).

Here is the NYT excerpt:

"Arnie Cornett, the manager at the hotel, identified the owner as “Malik”
and said he lived in Dubai. Mr. Hussain, the informant, went by Malik
<https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/nyregion/11plot.html?module=inline>
when he helped the F.B.I. infiltrate a mosque in Albany.

Lincoln Prosser, who lives at the hotel with her husband and three
children, said she had not seen any limousines parked outside. But when she
lived there between 2013 and 2015, she said, she noticed a few limousines
parked there, some of which appeared to be broken down.

Mr. Hussain, the man whose name seems to be associated with the limousine
company, posed as a wealthy Muslim radical and was the central prosecution
witness in a 2004 federal sting
<https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/23informant.html?module=inline>
focusing on a pizzeria owner and an imam at an Albany mosque. Six years
later, Mr. Hussain, who posed as a terrorist
<https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/nyregion/28plot.html?module=inline>,
played a key role in the government’s case in a plot to blow up two
synagogues in the Bronx.

He became an F.B.I. informant
<https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/shahed-hussain-fbi-informant/>
after being charged in 2002 with a scheme that involved taking money to
illegally help people in the Albany area get driver’s licenses."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/6f555125/attachment.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Tue Oct  9 18:35:04 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:35:04 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]  Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>

Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.

 

Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –

 

I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if the Democrats would take control that things would improve.

A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by ALL of the Democrats.

The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders ( who is an independent ).

In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.

 

The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact. Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy. The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack of other options. 

 

This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace. The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the good graces of the corporate media.

 

This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent, Socialist, etc..

The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the Republican party.

 

In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “ intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support, and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted someone “ fresh and new “. ???

Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim they support ?

 

Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.

I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal, ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy. 

 

So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the 13th Congressional race.

We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise makes no logical sense.

Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of voting in favor of war.

 

David Johnson

  

 

From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
To: C. G. Estabrook
Cc: Peace Discuss; peace
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

Here's another way of looking at it. 

 

I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good things. Just that it's not one-zero.

 

But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1 in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems take the House. 

 

So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney. 

 

And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off, from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney. Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things, simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to. 

 

So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we want Dems or Rs to control the House. 

 

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.

Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.

Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are the more pro-war today:

(1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
(2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and 
(3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).

The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.

I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of Representatives.

—CGE

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/f67a749e/attachment-0001.html>

From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org  Tue Oct  9 18:44:25 2018
From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:44:25 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]  Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>

I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has
her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if
Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House.
Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for
Rodney. It will not have that effect.

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1





On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
wrote:

> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
>
>
>
> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>
>
>
> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of
> the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if
> the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
>
> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by
> ALL of the Democrats.
>
> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders (
> who is an independent ).
>
> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>
>
>
> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than
> Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact.
> Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of
> Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during
> the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives
> from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their
> power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any
> and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In
> addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and
> accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed
> candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in
> regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the
> DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy.
> The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the
> DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue
> to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true
> tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However
> people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of
> eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all
> or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And
> why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and
> “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is
> understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the
> betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack
> of other options.
>
>
>
> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace.
> The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector
> the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only
> has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and
> influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
> Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process
> for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the
> good graces of the corporate media.
>
>
>
> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act
> accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual
> candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an
> anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent,
> Socialist, etc..
>
> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition
> we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately
> stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the
> Republican party.
>
>
>
> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan
> will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that
> fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of
> beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way
> race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war
> platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “
> intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support,
> and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted
> someone “ fresh and new “. ???
>
> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing
> instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim
> they support ?
>
>
>
> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the
> instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other
> reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
>
> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal,
> ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy.
>
>
>
> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the
> 13th Congressional race.
>
> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our
> interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise
> makes no logical sense.
>
> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of
> punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of
> voting in favor of war.
>
>
>
> David Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Naiman via Peace
> *Sent:* Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
> *Cc:* Peace Discuss; peace
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> Here's another way of looking at it.
>
>
>
> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the
> House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would
> help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human
> beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get
> a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a
> vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if
> Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if
> not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest
> at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite
> bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on
> the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies
> towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about
> to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to
> defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of
> these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni
> children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has
> advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual
> policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama
> rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not
> to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good
> things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>
>
>
> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever
> happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's
> a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district
> Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems
> have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you
> count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1
> in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it
> shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems
> will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs
> Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the
> House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is
> probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take
> the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater
> potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems
> take the House.
>
>
>
> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether
> we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than
> over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less
> influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney.
>
>
>
> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off,
> from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney.
> Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she
> wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in
> contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all
> war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since
> Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things,
> simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing,
> zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace
> issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership
> in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we
> brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With
> Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on
> other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving
> our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a
> damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that
> perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all
> what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to.
>
>
>
> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to
> the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to
> participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less
> war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on
> whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we
> want Dems or Rs to control the House.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war
> provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in
> the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative
> to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>
> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They
> generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by
> all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that
> have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>
> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for
> the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference,
> because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual
> members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are
> the more pro-war today:
>
> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war
> CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't
> depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized
> the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war
> votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>
> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the
> greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>
> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney
> Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of
> Representatives.
>
> —CGE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/f602e463/attachment-0001.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Tue Oct  9 18:52:52 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:52:52 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]  Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>

Bob,

 

We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen between now and then.

I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will win, and that could happen. But I seriously doubt she will win.

 

My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or Londrigan are elected. Both will continue the same pro-war policies of their corporate masters and neither will be persuaded otherwise by their constituents.

 

David johnson

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House. Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for Rodney. It will not have that effect. 




Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:

Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.

 

Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –

 

I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if the Democrats would take control that things would improve.

A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by ALL of the Democrats.

The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders ( who is an independent ).

In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.

 

The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact. Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy. The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack of other options. 

 

This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace. The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the good graces of the corporate media.

 

This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent, Socialist, etc..

The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the Republican party.

 

In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “ intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support, and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted someone “ fresh and new “. ???

Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim they support ?

 

Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.

I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal, ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy. 

 

So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the 13th Congressional race.

We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise makes no logical sense.

Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of voting in favor of war.

 

David Johnson

  

 

From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
To: C. G. Estabrook
Cc: Peace Discuss; peace
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

Here's another way of looking at it. 

 

I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good things. Just that it's not one-zero.

 

But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1 in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems take the House. 

 

So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney. 

 

And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off, from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney. Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things, simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to. 

 

So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we want Dems or Rs to control the House. 

 

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.

Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.

Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are the more pro-war today:

(1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
(2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and 
(3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).

The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.

I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of Representatives.

—CGE

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/e21474a8/attachment-0001.html>

From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org  Tue Oct  9 18:55:31 2018
From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:55:31 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
 <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>

OK, let's bet.

I bet you dinner that if Betsy wins, she will support legislation to end
unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen.

Do we have a bet?

===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1





On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen between now and
> then.
>
> I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will win, and that
> could happen. But I seriously doubt she will win.
>
>
>
> My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or Londrigan are
> elected. Both will continue the same pro-war policies of their corporate
> masters and neither will be persuaded otherwise by their constituents.
>
>
>
> David johnson
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
> *To:* David Johnson
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has
> her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if
> Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House.
> Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for
> Rodney. It will not have that effect.
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
>
>
>
> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>
>
>
> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of
> the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if
> the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
>
> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by
> ALL of the Democrats.
>
> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders (
> who is an independent ).
>
> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>
>
>
> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than
> Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact.
> Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of
> Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during
> the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives
> from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their
> power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any
> and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In
> addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and
> accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed
> candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in
> regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the
> DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy.
> The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the
> DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue
> to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true
> tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However
> people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of
> eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all
> or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And
> why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and
> “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is
> understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the
> betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack
> of other options.
>
>
>
> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace.
> The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector
> the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only
> has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and
> influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
> Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process
> for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the
> good graces of the corporate media.
>
>
>
> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act
> accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual
> candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an
> anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent,
> Socialist, etc..
>
> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition
> we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately
> stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the
> Republican party.
>
>
>
> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan
> will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that
> fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of
> beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way
> race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war
> platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “
> intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support,
> and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted
> someone “ fresh and new “. ???
>
> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing
> instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim
> they support ?
>
>
>
> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the
> instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other
> reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
>
> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal,
> ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy.
>
>
>
> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the
> 13th Congressional race.
>
> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our
> interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise
> makes no logical sense.
>
> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of
> punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of
> voting in favor of war.
>
>
>
> David Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Naiman via Peace
> *Sent:* Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
> *Cc:* Peace Discuss; peace
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> Here's another way of looking at it.
>
>
>
> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the
> House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would
> help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human
> beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get
> a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a
> vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if
> Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if
> not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest
> at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite
> bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on
> the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies
> towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about
> to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to
> defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of
> these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni
> children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has
> advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual
> policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama
> rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not
> to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good
> things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>
>
>
> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever
> happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's
> a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district
> Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems
> have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you
> count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1
> in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it
> shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems
> will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs
> Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the
> House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is
> probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take
> the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater
> potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems
> take the House.
>
>
>
> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether
> we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than
> over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less
> influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney.
>
>
>
> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off,
> from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney.
> Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she
> wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in
> contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all
> war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since
> Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things,
> simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing,
> zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace
> issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership
> in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we
> brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With
> Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on
> other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving
> our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a
> damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that
> perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all
> what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to.
>
>
>
> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to
> the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to
> participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less
> war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on
> whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we
> want Dems or Rs to control the House.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war
> provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in
> the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative
> to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>
> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They
> generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by
> all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that
> have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>
> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for
> the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference,
> because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual
> members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are
> the more pro-war today:
>
> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war
> CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't
> depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized
> the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war
> votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>
> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the
> greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>
> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney
> Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of
> Representatives.
>
> —CGE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/d99aa8ad/attachment-0001.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Tue Oct  9 18:59:18 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:59:18 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
 <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b001d46002$2eb40da0$8c1c28e0$@comcast.net>

I don’t bet Bob,

 

Just explain your evidence that would support your belief that she would go against her DNC handlers.

 

David Johnson

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:56 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

OK, let's bet. 

 

I bet you dinner that if Betsy wins, she will support legislation to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. 

 

Do we have a bet?

 

===

 


Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

Bob,

 

We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen between now and then.

I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will win, and that could happen. But I seriously doubt she will win.

 

My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or Londrigan are elected. Both will continue the same pro-war policies of their corporate masters and neither will be persuaded otherwise by their constituents.

 

David johnson

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House. Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for Rodney. It will not have that effect. 




Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:

Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.

 

Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –

 

I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if the Democrats would take control that things would improve.

A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by ALL of the Democrats.

The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders ( who is an independent ).

In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.

 

The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact. Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy. The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack of other options. 

 

This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace. The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the good graces of the corporate media.

 

This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent, Socialist, etc..

The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the Republican party.

 

In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “ intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support, and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted someone “ fresh and new “. ???

Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim they support ?

 

Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.

I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal, ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy. 

 

So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the 13th Congressional race.

We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise makes no logical sense.

Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of voting in favor of war.

 

David Johnson

  

 

From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
To: C. G. Estabrook
Cc: Peace Discuss; peace
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

Here's another way of looking at it. 

 

I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good things. Just that it's not one-zero.

 

But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1 in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems take the House. 

 

So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney. 

 

And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off, from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney. Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things, simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to. 

 

So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we want Dems or Rs to control the House. 

 

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.

Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.

Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are the more pro-war today:

(1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
(2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and 
(3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).

The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.

I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of Representatives.

—CGE

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/4734b5e6/attachment-0001.html>

From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org  Tue Oct  9 19:24:12 2018
From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:24:12 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <00b001d46002$2eb40da0$8c1c28e0$@comcast.net>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
 <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b001d46002$2eb40da0$8c1c28e0$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CALMNhNQvHo1vBWWewUEPyx-yv7GNfE2BOPWTMNishiDyr438Ng@mail.gmail.com>

Check out the co-sponsors of the bipartisan Khanna-Massie-Smith-Jones-Pocan
Yemen war powers bill.

What patterns do you see?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/138/cosponsors

H.Con.Res.138 - Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War
Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in
the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.

Sponsor: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/ro-khanna/K000389?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22khanna+yemen%22%5D%7D>
|
Cosponsor statistics: 41 current - includes 26 original
CosponsorDate Cosponsored
Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/adam-smith/S000510> 09/26/2018
Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/mark-pocan/P000607> 09/26/2018
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/james-mcgovern/M000312> 09/26/2018
Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/steny-hoyer/H000874> 09/26/2018
Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/eliot-engel/E000179> 09/26/2018
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-massie/M001184> 09/26/2018
Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]* <https://www.congress.gov/member/ted-lieu/L000582>
09/26/2018
Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/barbara-lee/L000551> 09/26/2018
Rep. O'Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/beto-o-rourke/O000170> 09/26/2018
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/walter-jones/J000255> 09/26/2018
Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/joe-courtney/C001069> 09/26/2018
Rep. Kennedy, Joseph P., III [D-MA-4]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/joseph-kennedy/K000379> 09/26/2018
Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/janice-schakowsky/S001145> 09/26/2018
Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI-2]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/tulsi-gabbard/G000571> 09/26/2018
Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/michael-capuano/C001037> 09/26/2018
Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/yvette-clarke/C001067> 09/26/2018
Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/adriano-espaillat/E000297> 09/26/2018
Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-3]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/raul-grijalva/G000551> 09/26/2018
Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/pramila-jayapal/J000298> 09/26/2018
Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/gwen-moore/M001160> 09/26/2018
Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/debbie-dingell/D000624> 09/26/2018
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-defazio/D000191> 09/26/2018
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/earl-blumenauer/B000574> 09/26/2018
Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-22]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/theodore-deutch/D000610> 09/26/2018
Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-welch/W000800> 09/26/2018
Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-17]*
<https://www.congress.gov/member/nita-lowey/L000480> 09/26/2018
Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/frank-pallone/P000034> 09/27/2018
Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/john-garamendi/G000559> 09/27/2018
Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/jackie-speier/S001175> 09/27/2018
Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/zoe-lofgren/L000397> 09/27/2018
Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/joaquin-castro/C001091> 09/28/2018
Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/jared-huffman/H001068> 09/28/2018
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/jerrold-nadler/N000002> 09/28/2018
Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/paul-tonko/T000469> 10/05/2018
Rep. Bass, Karen [D-CA-37]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/karen-bass/B001270> 10/05/2018
Rep. Hanabusa, Colleen [D-HI-1]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/colleen-hanabusa/H001050> 10/05/2018
Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/chellie-pingree/P000597> 10/05/2018
Rep. Walz, Timothy J. [D-MN-1]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/timothy-walz/W000799> 10/05/2018
Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/dina-titus/T000468> 10/05/2018
Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/hakeem-jeffries/J000294> 10/05/2018
Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-32]
<https://www.congress.gov/member/grace-napolitano/N000179> 10/05/2018

===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1





On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:59 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> I don’t bet Bob,
>
>
>
> Just explain your evidence that would support your belief that she would
> go against her DNC handlers.
>
>
>
> David Johnson
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:56 PM
> *To:* David Johnson
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> OK, let's bet.
>
>
>
> I bet you dinner that if Betsy wins, she will support legislation to end
> unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen.
>
>
>
> Do we have a bet?
>
>
>
> ===
>
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen between now and
> then.
>
> I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will win, and that
> could happen. But I seriously doubt she will win.
>
>
>
> My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or Londrigan are
> elected. Both will continue the same pro-war policies of their corporate
> masters and neither will be persuaded otherwise by their constituents.
>
>
>
> David johnson
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
> *To:* David Johnson
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has
> her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if
> Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House.
> Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for
> Rodney. It will not have that effect.
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
>
>
>
> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>
>
>
> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of
> the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if
> the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
>
> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by
> ALL of the Democrats.
>
> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders (
> who is an independent ).
>
> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>
>
>
> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than
> Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact.
> Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of
> Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during
> the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives
> from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their
> power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any
> and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In
> addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and
> accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed
> candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in
> regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the
> DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy.
> The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the
> DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue
> to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true
> tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However
> people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of
> eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all
> or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And
> why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and
> “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is
> understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the
> betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack
> of other options.
>
>
>
> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace.
> The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector
> the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only
> has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and
> influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
> Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process
> for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the
> good graces of the corporate media.
>
>
>
> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act
> accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual
> candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an
> anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent,
> Socialist, etc..
>
> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition
> we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately
> stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the
> Republican party.
>
>
>
> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan
> will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that
> fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of
> beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way
> race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war
> platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “
> intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support,
> and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted
> someone “ fresh and new “. ???
>
> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing
> instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim
> they support ?
>
>
>
> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the
> instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other
> reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
>
> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal,
> ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy.
>
>
>
> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the
> 13th Congressional race.
>
> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our
> interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise
> makes no logical sense.
>
> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of
> punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of
> voting in favor of war.
>
>
>
> David Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Naiman via Peace
> *Sent:* Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
> *Cc:* Peace Discuss; peace
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> Here's another way of looking at it.
>
>
>
> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the
> House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would
> help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human
> beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get
> a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a
> vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if
> Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if
> not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest
> at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite
> bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on
> the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies
> towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about
> to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to
> defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of
> these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni
> children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has
> advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual
> policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama
> rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not
> to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good
> things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>
>
>
> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever
> happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's
> a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district
> Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems
> have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you
> count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1
> in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it
> shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems
> will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs
> Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the
> House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is
> probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take
> the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater
> potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems
> take the House.
>
>
>
> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether
> we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than
> over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less
> influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney.
>
>
>
> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off,
> from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney.
> Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she
> wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in
> contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all
> war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since
> Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things,
> simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing,
> zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace
> issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership
> in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we
> brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With
> Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on
> other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving
> our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a
> damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that
> perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all
> what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to.
>
>
>
> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to
> the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to
> participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less
> war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on
> whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we
> want Dems or Rs to control the House.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war
> provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in
> the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative
> to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>
> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They
> generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by
> all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that
> have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>
> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for
> the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference,
> because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual
> members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are
> the more pro-war today:
>
> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war
> CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't
> depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized
> the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war
> votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>
> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the
> greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>
> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney
> Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of
> Representatives.
>
> —CGE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/30886e23/attachment-0001.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Tue Oct  9 22:28:22 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 17:28:22 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <CALMNhNQvHo1vBWWewUEPyx-yv7GNfE2BOPWTMNishiDyr438Ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
 <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b001d46002$2eb40da0$8c1c28e0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNQvHo1vBWWewUEPyx-yv7GNfE2BOPWTMNishiDyr438Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002101d4601f$637fce80$2a7f6b80$@comcast.net>

I am glad to see that it has 40 or so co-sponsors, that is still only ( correct if me if I am wrong ) about 1/3 of House Democrats.

I hope more sign on but that doesn’t mean Londrigan will support it IF she is elected.

 

David J.

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 2:24 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

Check out the co-sponsors of the bipartisan Khanna-Massie-Smith-Jones-Pocan Yemen war powers bill. 

 

What patterns do you see? 

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/138/cosponsors

 


H.Con.Res.138 - Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.


Sponsor:  <https://www.congress.gov/member/ro-khanna/K000389?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22khanna+yemen%22%5D%7D> Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17] | Cosponsor statistics: 41 current - includes 26 original


Cosponsor

Date Cosponsored


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/adam-smith/S000510> Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/mark-pocan/P000607> Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/james-mcgovern/M000312> Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/steny-hoyer/H000874> Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/eliot-engel/E000179> Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-massie/M001184> Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/ted-lieu/L000582> Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/barbara-lee/L000551> Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/beto-o-rourke/O000170> Rep. O'Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/walter-jones/J000255> Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/joe-courtney/C001069> Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/joseph-kennedy/K000379> Rep. Kennedy, Joseph P., III [D-MA-4]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/janice-schakowsky/S001145> Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/tulsi-gabbard/G000571> Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI-2]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/michael-capuano/C001037> Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/yvette-clarke/C001067> Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/adriano-espaillat/E000297> Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/raul-grijalva/G000551> Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-3]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/pramila-jayapal/J000298> Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/gwen-moore/M001160> Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/debbie-dingell/D000624> Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-defazio/D000191> Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/earl-blumenauer/B000574> Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/theodore-deutch/D000610> Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-22]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-welch/W000800> Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/nita-lowey/L000480> Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-17]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/frank-pallone/P000034> Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6]

09/27/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/john-garamendi/G000559> Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]

09/27/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/jackie-speier/S001175> Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14]

09/27/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/zoe-lofgren/L000397> Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19]

09/27/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/joaquin-castro/C001091> Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

09/28/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/jared-huffman/H001068> Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]

09/28/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/jerrold-nadler/N000002> Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10]

09/28/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/paul-tonko/T000469> Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/karen-bass/B001270> Rep. Bass, Karen [D-CA-37]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/colleen-hanabusa/H001050> Rep. Hanabusa, Colleen [D-HI-1]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/chellie-pingree/P000597> Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/timothy-walz/W000799> Rep. Walz, Timothy J. [D-MN-1]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/dina-titus/T000468> Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/hakeem-jeffries/J000294> Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/grace-napolitano/N000179> Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-32]

10/05/2018

 

===




Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:59 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

I don’t bet Bob,

 

Just explain your evidence that would support your belief that she would go against her DNC handlers.

 

David Johnson

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:56 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

OK, let's bet. 

 

I bet you dinner that if Betsy wins, she will support legislation to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. 

 

Do we have a bet?

 

===

 


Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

Bob,

 

We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen between now and then.

I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will win, and that could happen. But I seriously doubt she will win.

 

My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or Londrigan are elected. Both will continue the same pro-war policies of their corporate masters and neither will be persuaded otherwise by their constituents.

 

David johnson

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House. Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for Rodney. It will not have that effect. 




Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:

Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.

 

Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –

 

I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if the Democrats would take control that things would improve.

A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by ALL of the Democrats.

The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders ( who is an independent ).

In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.

 

The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact. Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy. The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack of other options. 

 

This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace. The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the good graces of the corporate media.

 

This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent, Socialist, etc..

The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the Republican party.

 

In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “ intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support, and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted someone “ fresh and new “. ???

Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim they support ?

 

Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.

I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal, ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy. 

 

So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the 13th Congressional race.

We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise makes no logical sense.

Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of voting in favor of war.

 

David Johnson

  

 

From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
To: C. G. Estabrook
Cc: Peace Discuss; peace
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

Here's another way of looking at it. 

 

I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good things. Just that it's not one-zero.

 

But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1 in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems take the House. 

 

So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney. 

 

And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off, from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney. Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things, simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to. 

 

So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we want Dems or Rs to control the House. 

 

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.

Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.

Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are the more pro-war today:

(1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
(2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and 
(3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).

The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.

I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of Representatives.

—CGE

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/9cb7d8f3/attachment-0001.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Tue Oct  9 23:10:27 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:10:27 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]  Letter to the News-Gazette,
 on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <31936D77-AEC6-4CD4-B07F-FE920F8579CA@gmail.com>

I differ from David’s cogent analysis only in regard to the last sentence. 

Overall it would seem to make a difference how large is the vote for the war party - of which the DNC is an important constituent.

Running up the vote for the party whose ostensible header has called for withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria (for all that his weaknesses makes those calls inconsequential) may be the marginally better thing to do.

But these are prudential judgements. I think I’ll take Bob’s bet. —CGE


> On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:35 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
>  
> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>  
> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by ALL of the Democrats.
> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders ( who is an independent ).
> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>  
> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact. Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy. The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack of other options. 
>  
> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace. The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the good graces of the corporate media.
>  
> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent, Socialist, etc..
> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the Republican party.
>  
> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “ intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support, and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted someone “ fresh and new “. ???
> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim they support ?
>  
> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal, ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy. 
>  
> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the 13th Congressional race.
> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise makes no logical sense.
> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of voting in favor of war.
>  
> David Johnson
>   
>  
> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
> To: C. G. Estabrook
> Cc: Peace Discuss; peace
> Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election
>  
> Here's another way of looking at it. 
>  
> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>  
> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1 in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems take the House. 
>  
> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney. 
>  
> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off, from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney. Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things, simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to. 
>  
> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we want Dems or Rs to control the House. 
>  
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are the more pro-war today:
>> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
>> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and 
>> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of Representatives.
>> —CGE
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss <https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss>_______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/c19f5f01/attachment-0001.html>

From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org  Tue Oct  9 23:11:32 2018
From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:11:32 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <002101d4601f$637fce80$2a7f6b80$@comcast.net>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
 <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b001d46002$2eb40da0$8c1c28e0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNQvHo1vBWWewUEPyx-yv7GNfE2BOPWTMNishiDyr438Ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <002101d4601f$637fce80$2a7f6b80$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CALMNhNSPUm015mjACANiodqSA4VBCPFwm6o0ti=RQGngbAcBOg@mail.gmail.com>

1. She told me she would.

2. It took longer than it should have, but this is an "almost all
Democrats" position now. Adam Smith, top Democrat on the House Armed
Services Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take the House,
is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Jim McGovern, top Democrat on the
Rules Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take the House, is
an original co-sponsor of the bill. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take the
House, is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Nita Lowey, top Democrat on
the House Appropriations Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats
take the House, is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Jerry Nadler, top
Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, poised to become its chair if
Democrats take the House, is a co-sponsor of the bill.

3. Of the 41 co-sponsors so far, exactly two are Republicans. The other 39
are Democrats. We've been trying to get Republicans to co-sponsor. *Including
Rodney Davis.* No response so far. *I encourage folks to call Rodney Davis'
office and urge him to co-sponsor the bill. I did. Here's the phone number:*
 *(202) 225-2371. Please post a note here when you have made your call. *

4. Within days, we will have many more co-sponsors. The House is out of
session, so they can't be officially added every day, only when there is a
"pro-forma session," and the next one is Friday. But we picked up several
new co-sponsors today. All of the new co-sponsors so far are Democrats.

5. This is predictably how it's going to go. It will be much easier to add
Democrats than to add Republicans. If we can successfully pressure the
House Republican leadership to allow a vote, I expect almost all Democrats
to vote yes. If we can get 20% of Republicans to also vote yes, we will win
the vote. It will be easier to get almost all Democrats than to get 20% of
Republicans.





===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1





On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:28 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
wrote:

> I am glad to see that it has 40 or so co-sponsors, that is still only (
> correct if me if I am wrong ) about 1/3 of House Democrats.
>
> I hope more sign on but that doesn’t mean Londrigan will support it IF she
> is elected.
>
>
>
> David J.
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 2:24 PM
> *To:* David Johnson
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> Check out the co-sponsors of the bipartisan
> Khanna-Massie-Smith-Jones-Pocan Yemen war powers bill.
>
>
>
> What patterns do you see?
>
>
>
>
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/138/cosponsors
>
>
> H.Con.Res.138 - Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the
> War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities
> in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.
>
> Sponsor: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/ro-khanna/K000389?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22khanna+yemen%22%5D%7D> |
> Cosponsor statistics: 41 current - includes 26 original
>
> *Cosponsor*
>
> *Date Cosponsored*
>
> Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/adam-smith/S000510>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/mark-pocan/P000607>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/james-mcgovern/M000312>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/steny-hoyer/H000874>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/eliot-engel/E000179>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-massie/M001184>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/ted-lieu/L000582>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/barbara-lee/L000551>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. O'Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/beto-o-rourke/O000170>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/walter-jones/J000255>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/joe-courtney/C001069>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Kennedy, Joseph P., III [D-MA-4]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/joseph-kennedy/K000379>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/janice-schakowsky/S001145>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI-2]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/tulsi-gabbard/G000571>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/michael-capuano/C001037>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/yvette-clarke/C001067>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/adriano-espaillat/E000297>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-3]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/raul-grijalva/G000551>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/pramila-jayapal/J000298>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/gwen-moore/M001160>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/debbie-dingell/D000624>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-defazio/D000191>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/earl-blumenauer/B000574>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-22]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/theodore-deutch/D000610>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-welch/W000800>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-17]*
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/nita-lowey/L000480>
>
> 09/26/2018
>
> Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/frank-pallone/P000034>
>
> 09/27/2018
>
> Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/john-garamendi/G000559>
>
> 09/27/2018
>
> Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/jackie-speier/S001175>
>
> 09/27/2018
>
> Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/zoe-lofgren/L000397>
>
> 09/27/2018
>
> Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/joaquin-castro/C001091>
>
> 09/28/2018
>
> Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/jared-huffman/H001068>
>
> 09/28/2018
>
> Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/jerrold-nadler/N000002>
>
> 09/28/2018
>
> Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/paul-tonko/T000469>
>
> 10/05/2018
>
> Rep. Bass, Karen [D-CA-37]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/karen-bass/B001270>
>
> 10/05/2018
>
> Rep. Hanabusa, Colleen [D-HI-1]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/colleen-hanabusa/H001050>
>
> 10/05/2018
>
> Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/chellie-pingree/P000597>
>
> 10/05/2018
>
> Rep. Walz, Timothy J. [D-MN-1]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/timothy-walz/W000799>
>
> 10/05/2018
>
> Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/dina-titus/T000468>
>
> 10/05/2018
>
> Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/hakeem-jeffries/J000294>
>
> 10/05/2018
>
> Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-32]
> <https://www.congress.gov/member/grace-napolitano/N000179>
>
> 10/05/2018
>
>
>
> ===
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:59 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> I don’t bet Bob,
>
>
>
> Just explain your evidence that would support your belief that she would
> go against her DNC handlers.
>
>
>
> David Johnson
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:56 PM
> *To:* David Johnson
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> OK, let's bet.
>
>
>
> I bet you dinner that if Betsy wins, she will support legislation to end
> unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen.
>
>
>
> Do we have a bet?
>
>
>
> ===
>
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen between now and
> then.
>
> I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will win, and that
> could happen. But I seriously doubt she will win.
>
>
>
> My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or Londrigan are
> elected. Both will continue the same pro-war policies of their corporate
> masters and neither will be persuaded otherwise by their constituents.
>
>
>
> David johnson
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
> *To:* David Johnson
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has
> her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if
> Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House.
> Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for
> Rodney. It will not have that effect.
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
>
>
>
> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>
>
>
> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of
> the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if
> the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
>
> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by
> ALL of the Democrats.
>
> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders (
> who is an independent ).
>
> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>
>
>
> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than
> Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact.
> Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of
> Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during
> the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives
> from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their
> power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any
> and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In
> addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and
> accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed
> candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in
> regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the
> DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy.
> The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the
> DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue
> to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true
> tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However
> people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of
> eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all
> or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And
> why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and
> “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is
> understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the
> betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack
> of other options.
>
>
>
> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace.
> The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector
> the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only
> has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and
> influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
> Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process
> for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the
> good graces of the corporate media.
>
>
>
> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act
> accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual
> candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an
> anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent,
> Socialist, etc..
>
> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition
> we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately
> stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the
> Republican party.
>
>
>
> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan
> will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that
> fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of
> beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way
> race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war
> platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “
> intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support,
> and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted
> someone “ fresh and new “. ???
>
> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing
> instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim
> they support ?
>
>
>
> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the
> instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other
> reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
>
> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal,
> ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy.
>
>
>
> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the
> 13th Congressional race.
>
> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our
> interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise
> makes no logical sense.
>
> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of
> punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of
> voting in favor of war.
>
>
>
> David Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Naiman via Peace
> *Sent:* Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
> *Cc:* Peace Discuss; peace
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
>
>
> Here's another way of looking at it.
>
>
>
> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the
> House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would
> help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human
> beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get
> a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a
> vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if
> Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if
> not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest
> at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite
> bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on
> the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies
> towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about
> to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to
> defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of
> these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni
> children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has
> advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual
> policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama
> rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not
> to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good
> things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>
>
>
> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever
> happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's
> a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district
> Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems
> have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you
> count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1
> in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it
> shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems
> will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs
> Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the
> House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is
> probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take
> the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater
> potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems
> take the House.
>
>
>
> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether
> we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than
> over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less
> influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney.
>
>
>
> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off,
> from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney.
> Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she
> wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in
> contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all
> war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since
> Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things,
> simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing,
> zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace
> issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership
> in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we
> brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With
> Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on
> other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving
> our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a
> damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that
> perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all
> what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to.
>
>
>
> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to
> the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to
> participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less
> war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on
> whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we
> want Dems or Rs to control the House.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war
> provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in
> the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative
> to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>
> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They
> generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by
> all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that
> have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>
> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for
> the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference,
> because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual
> members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are
> the more pro-war today:
>
> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war
> CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't
> depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized
> the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war
> votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>
> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the
> greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>
> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney
> Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of
> Representatives.
>
> —CGE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/ba659e43/attachment-0001.html>

From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org  Tue Oct  9 23:12:57 2018
From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:12:57 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <31936D77-AEC6-4CD4-B07F-FE920F8579CA@gmail.com>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <31936D77-AEC6-4CD4-B07F-FE920F8579CA@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMNhNRDs+CUY5OAfjtT-P9guJ3XwQK1rGxWvCowdkpqtQwcqg@mail.gmail.com>

Game on. Name your restaurant.

===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1





On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:10 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> I differ from David’s cogent analysis only in regard to the last sentence.
>
> Overall it would seem to make a difference how large is the vote for the
> war party - of which the DNC is an important constituent.
>
> Running up the vote for the party whose ostensible header has called for
> withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria (for all that his weaknesses makes
> those calls inconsequential) may be the marginally better thing to do.
>
> But these are prudential judgements. I think I’ll take Bob’s bet. —CGE
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:35 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
>
> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>
> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of
> the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if
> the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by
> ALL of the Democrats.
> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders (
> who is an independent ).
> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>
> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than
> Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact.
> Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of
> Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during
> the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives
> from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their
> power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any
> and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In
> addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and
> accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed
> candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in
> regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the
> DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy.
> The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the
> DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue
> to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true
> tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However
> people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of
> eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all
> or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And
> why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and
> “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is
> understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the
> betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack
> of other options.
>
> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace.
> The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector
> the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only
> has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and
> influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
> Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process
> for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the
> good graces of the corporate media.
>
> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act
> accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual
> candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an
> anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent,
> Socialist, etc..
> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition
> we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately
> stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the
> Republican party.
>
> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan
> will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that
> fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of
> beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way
> race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war
> platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “
> intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support,
> and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted
> someone “ fresh and new “. ???
> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing
> instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim
> they support ?
>
> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the
> instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other
> reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal,
> ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy.
>
> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the
> 13th Congressional race.
> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our
> interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise
> makes no logical sense.
> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of
> punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of
> voting in favor of war.
>
> David Johnson
>
>
> *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> <peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net>] *On Behalf Of *Robert Naiman via Peace
> *Sent:* Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
> *Cc:* Peace Discuss; peace
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the
> coming election
>
> Here's another way of looking at it.
>
> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the
> House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would
> help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human
> beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get
> a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a
> vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if
> Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if
> not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest
> at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite
> bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on
> the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies
> towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about
> to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to
> defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of
> these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni
> children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has
> advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual
> policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama
> rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not
> to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good
> things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>
> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever
> happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's
> a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district
> Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems
> have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you
> count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1
> in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it
> shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems
> will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs
> Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the
> House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is
> probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take
> the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater
> potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems
> take the House.
>
> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether
> we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than
> over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less
> influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney.
>
> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off,
> from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney.
> Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she
> wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in
> contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all
> war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since
> Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things,
> simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing,
> zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace
> issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership
> in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we
> brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With
> Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on
> other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving
> our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a
> damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that
> perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all
> what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to.
>
> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to
> the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to
> participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less
> war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on
> whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we
> want Dems or Rs to control the House.
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war
> provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in
> the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative
> to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>
> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They
> generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by
> all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that
> have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>
> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for
> the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference,
> because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual
> members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are
> the more pro-war today:
>
> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war
> CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't
> depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized
> the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war
> votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>
> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the
> greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>
> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney
> Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of
> Representatives.
>
> —CGE
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/11bfa8a0/attachment-0001.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Tue Oct  9 23:17:40 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:17:40 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
 on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
 <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8EB01DC1-96D2-429B-A617-3BD773871A3F@gmail.com>

You’re faded, Bob, if you let me take the bet (and choose the restaurant).


> On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> OK, let's bet. 
> 
> I bet you dinner that if Betsy wins, she will support legislation to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. 
> 
> Do we have a bet?
> 
> ===
>  
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/>
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
> Bob,
> 
>  
> 
> We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen between now and then.
> 
> I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will win, and that could happen. But I seriously doubt she will win.
> 
>  
> 
> My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or Londrigan are elected. Both will continue the same pro-war policies of their corporate masters and neither will be persuaded otherwise by their constituents.
> 
>  
> 
> David johnson
> 
>  
> 
> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
> To: David Johnson
> Cc: Peace-discuss List
> Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election
> 
>  
> 
> I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House. Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for Rodney. It will not have that effect. 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/>
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net <mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
> 
>  
> 
> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
> 
>  
> 
> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
> 
> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by ALL of the Democrats.
> 
> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders ( who is an independent ).
> 
> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
> 
>  
> 
> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact. Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy. The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack of other options.
> 
>  
> 
> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace. The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the good graces of the corporate media.
> 
>  
> 
> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent, Socialist, etc..
> 
> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the Republican party.
> 
>  
> 
> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “ intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support, and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted someone “ fresh and new “. ???
> 
> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim they support ?
> 
>  
> 
> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
> 
> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal, ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy.
> 
>  
> 
> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the 13th Congressional race.
> 
> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise makes no logical sense.
> 
> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of voting in favor of war.
> 
>  
> 
> David Johnson
> 
>   
> 
>  
> 
> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net>] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
> To: C. G. Estabrook
> Cc: Peace Discuss; peace
> Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election
> 
>  
> 
> Here's another way of looking at it. 
> 
>  
> 
> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good things. Just that it's not one-zero.
> 
>  
> 
> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1 in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems take the House. 
> 
>  
> 
> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney. 
> 
>  
> 
> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off, from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney. Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things, simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to. 
> 
>  
> 
> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we want Dems or Rs to control the House. 
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
> 
> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
> 
> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
> 
> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are the more pro-war today:
> 
> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and 
> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
> 
> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
> 
> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of Representatives.
> 
> —CGE
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss <https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss>_______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss <https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/24dcfff9/attachment-0001.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Tue Oct  9 23:55:41 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:55:41 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
 on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <CALMNhNRDs+CUY5OAfjtT-P9guJ3XwQK1rGxWvCowdkpqtQwcqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <31936D77-AEC6-4CD4-B07F-FE920F8579CA@gmail.com>
 <CALMNhNRDs+CUY5OAfjtT-P9guJ3XwQK1rGxWvCowdkpqtQwcqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C699CCCD-476B-4A28-8947-4F473C76B36A@gmail.com>

Bacaro.


> On Oct 9, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> 
> Game on. Name your restaurant. 
> 
> ===
> 
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/>
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:10 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
> I differ from David’s cogent analysis only in regard to the last sentence. 
> 
> Overall it would seem to make a difference how large is the vote for the war party - of which the DNC is an important constituent.
> 
> Running up the vote for the party whose ostensible header has called for withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria (for all that his weaknesses makes those calls inconsequential) may be the marginally better thing to do.
> 
> But these are prudential judgements. I think I’ll take Bob’s bet. —CGE
> 
> 
>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:35 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
>>  
>> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>>  
>> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
>> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by ALL of the Democrats.
>> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders ( who is an independent ).
>> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>>  
>> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact. Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy. The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack of other options. 
>>  
>> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace. The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the good graces of the corporate media.
>>  
>> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent, Socialist, etc..
>> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the Republican party.
>>  
>> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “ intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support, and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted someone “ fresh and new “. ???
>> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim they support ?
>>  
>> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
>> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal, ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy. 
>>  
>> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the 13th Congressional race.
>> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise makes no logical sense.
>> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of voting in favor of war.
>>  
>> David Johnson
>>   
>>  
>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net>] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace
>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
>> To: C. G. Estabrook
>> Cc: Peace Discuss; peace
>> Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election
>>  
>> Here's another way of looking at it. 
>>  
>> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>>  
>> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1 in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems take the House. 
>>  
>> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney. 
>>  
>> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off, from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney. Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things, simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to. 
>>  
>> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we want Dems or Rs to control the House. 
>>  
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>>> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>>> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>>> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are the more pro-war today:
>>> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
>>> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and 
>>> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>>> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>>> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of Representatives.
>>> —CGE
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss <https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss>_______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss <https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss <https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/deba4a05/attachment-0001.html>

From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org  Wed Oct 10 00:31:15 2018
From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:31:15 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <C699CCCD-476B-4A28-8947-4F473C76B36A@gmail.com>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <31936D77-AEC6-4CD4-B07F-FE920F8579CA@gmail.com>
 <CALMNhNRDs+CUY5OAfjtT-P9guJ3XwQK1rGxWvCowdkpqtQwcqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <C699CCCD-476B-4A28-8947-4F473C76B36A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMNhNQgL8eevrJvMmqDpJp95LMRcKS8CBB_q7fs+78W3Ujwkg@mail.gmail.com>

Excellent choice. Looking forward to our dinner, win or lose. :)

===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1





On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:56 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Bacaro.
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> wrote:
>
> Game on. Name your restaurant.
>
> ===
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:10 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
>> I differ from David’s cogent analysis only in regard to the last
>> sentence.
>>
>> Overall it would seem to make a difference how large is the vote for the
>> war party - of which the DNC is an important constituent.
>>
>> Running up the vote for the party whose ostensible header has called for
>> withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria (for all that his weaknesses makes
>> those calls inconsequential) may be the marginally better thing to do.
>>
>> But these are prudential judgements. I think I’ll take Bob’s bet. —CGE
>>
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:35 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.
>>
>> Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>>
>> I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of
>> the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if
>> the Democrats would take control that things would improve.
>> A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported
>> by ALL of the Democrats.
>> The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders
>> ( who is an independent ).
>> In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>>
>> The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than
>> Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact.
>> Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of
>> Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during
>> the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives
>> from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their
>> power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any
>> and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In
>> addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and
>> accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed
>> candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in
>> regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the
>> DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy.
>> The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the
>> DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue
>> to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true
>> tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However
>> people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of
>> eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all
>> or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election.
>> And why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and
>> “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is
>> understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the
>> betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack
>> of other options.
>>
>> This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and
>> peace. The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial
>> sector the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that
>> not only has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very
>> wealthy and influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of
>> Saudi Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our political /
>> election process for decades, but also have used their vast financial
>> resources to buy the good graces of the corporate media.
>>
>> This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act
>> accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual
>> candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an
>> anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent,
>> Socialist, etc..
>> The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition
>> we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately
>> stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the
>> Republican party.
>>
>> In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan
>> will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that
>> fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of
>> beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way
>> race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war
>> platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “
>> intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support,
>> and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted
>> someone “ fresh and new “. ???
>> Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing
>> instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim
>> they support ?
>>
>> Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the
>> instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other
>> reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
>> I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal,
>> ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy.
>>
>> So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in
>> the 13th Congressional race.
>> We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our
>> interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise
>> makes no logical sense.
>> Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of
>> punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of
>> voting in favor of war.
>>
>> David Johnson
>>
>>
>> *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>> <peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net>] *On Behalf Of *Robert Naiman via
>> Peace
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
>> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
>> *Cc:* Peace Discuss; peace
>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on
>> the coming election
>>
>> Here's another way of looking at it.
>>
>> I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the
>> House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would
>> help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human
>> beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get
>> a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a
>> vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if
>> Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if
>> not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest
>> at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite
>> bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on
>> the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies
>> towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about
>> to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to
>> defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of
>> these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni
>> children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has
>> advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual
>> policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama
>> rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not
>> to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good
>> things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>>
>> But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever
>> happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's
>> a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district
>> Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems
>> have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you
>> count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1
>> in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it
>> shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems
>> will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs
>> Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the
>> House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is
>> probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take
>> the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater
>> potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems
>> take the House.
>>
>> So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether
>> we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than
>> over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less
>> influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney.
>>
>> And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better
>> off, from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by
>> Rodney. Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war
>> things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which
>> are in contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on
>> all war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever
>> since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan
>> things, simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero,
>> nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war
>> and peace issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican
>> leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day,
>> reachable, we brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and
>> peace. With Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to
>> move her on other things, to participate in national efforts to move
>> Congress by moving our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just
>> doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything,
>> he's made that perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not
>> care at all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to.
>>
>> So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to
>> the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to
>> participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less
>> war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on
>> whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we
>> want Dems or Rs to control the House.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>
>> How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war
>> provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in
>> the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative
>> to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.
>>
>> Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They
>> generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by
>> all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that
>> have produced more war and accelerating inequality.
>>
>> Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for
>> the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference,
>> because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual
>> members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are
>> the more pro-war today:
>>
>> (1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war
>> CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
>> (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump
>> doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that
>> characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
>> (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war
>> votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>>
>> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the
>> greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.
>>
>> I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney
>> Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of
>> Representatives.
>>
>> —CGE
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/10568406/attachment-0001.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Wed Oct 10 00:42:15 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:42:15 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
	on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <CALMNhNSPUm015mjACANiodqSA4VBCPFwm6o0ti=RQGngbAcBOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
 <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b001d46002$2eb40da0$8c1c28e0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNQvHo1vBWWewUEPyx-yv7GNfE2BOPWTMNishiDyr438Ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <002101d4601f$637fce80$2a7f6b80$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSPUm015mjACANiodqSA4VBCPFwm6o0ti=RQGngbAcBOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005201d46032$17a33430$46e99c90$@comcast.net>

“  She told me she would. “

 

Really Bob ?  and you believe her ?

 

Even you cannot be that naive.

 

In regards to the other Democrats, you are STILL going on the false assumption that the Democrats are anti-war. Neither their past actions nor their more recent actions ( as I mentioned in my original post ) prove this to be the case.

 

Just wait until there is a serious chance of it having a chance of passing, and then see what many of the Democrats will end up doing. They will either abstain, not show up to vote, or end up changing their vote.

 

Sorry Bob, but this is the political reality we live in and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change it until the war mongers are voted out of office, regardless of which party they are affiliated with.

 

David J.

 

 

 

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 6:12 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

1. She told me she would. 

 

2. It took longer than it should have, but this is an "almost all Democrats" position now. Adam Smith, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take the House, is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Jim McGovern, top Democrat on the Rules Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take the House, is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take the House, is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Nita Lowey, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take the House, is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Jerry Nadler, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take the House, is a co-sponsor of the bill.

 

3. Of the 41 co-sponsors so far, exactly two are Republicans. The other 39 are Democrats. We've been trying to get Republicans to co-sponsor. Including Rodney Davis. No response so far. I encourage folks to call Rodney Davis' office and urge him to co-sponsor the bill. I did. Here's the phone number: (202) 225-2371. Please post a note here when you have made your call. 

 

4. Within days, we will have many more co-sponsors. The House is out of session, so they can't be officially added every day, only when there is a "pro-forma session," and the next one is Friday. But we picked up several new co-sponsors today. All of the new co-sponsors so far are Democrats.  

 

5. This is predictably how it's going to go. It will be much easier to add Democrats than to add Republicans. If we can successfully pressure the House Republican leadership to allow a vote, I expect almost all Democrats to vote yes. If we can get 20% of Republicans to also vote yes, we will win the vote. It will be easier to get almost all Democrats than to get 20% of Republicans. 

 

 

 

 

 

===




Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:28 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:

I am glad to see that it has 40 or so co-sponsors, that is still only ( correct if me if I am wrong ) about 1/3 of House Democrats.

I hope more sign on but that doesn’t mean Londrigan will support it IF she is elected.

 

David J.

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 2:24 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

Check out the co-sponsors of the bipartisan Khanna-Massie-Smith-Jones-Pocan Yemen war powers bill. 

 

What patterns do you see? 

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/138/cosponsors

 


H.Con.Res.138 - Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.


Sponsor:  <https://www.congress.gov/member/ro-khanna/K000389?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22khanna+yemen%22%5D%7D> Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17] | Cosponsor statistics: 41 current - includes 26 original


Cosponsor

Date Cosponsored


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/adam-smith/S000510> Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/mark-pocan/P000607> Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/james-mcgovern/M000312> Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/steny-hoyer/H000874> Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/eliot-engel/E000179> Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-massie/M001184> Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/ted-lieu/L000582> Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/barbara-lee/L000551> Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/beto-o-rourke/O000170> Rep. O'Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/walter-jones/J000255> Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/joe-courtney/C001069> Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/joseph-kennedy/K000379> Rep. Kennedy, Joseph P., III [D-MA-4]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/janice-schakowsky/S001145> Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/tulsi-gabbard/G000571> Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI-2]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/michael-capuano/C001037> Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/yvette-clarke/C001067> Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/adriano-espaillat/E000297> Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/raul-grijalva/G000551> Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-3]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/pramila-jayapal/J000298> Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/gwen-moore/M001160> Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/debbie-dingell/D000624> Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-defazio/D000191> Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/earl-blumenauer/B000574> Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/theodore-deutch/D000610> Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-22]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-welch/W000800> Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/nita-lowey/L000480> Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-17]*

09/26/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/frank-pallone/P000034> Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6]

09/27/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/john-garamendi/G000559> Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]

09/27/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/jackie-speier/S001175> Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14]

09/27/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/zoe-lofgren/L000397> Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19]

09/27/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/joaquin-castro/C001091> Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]

09/28/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/jared-huffman/H001068> Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]

09/28/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/jerrold-nadler/N000002> Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10]

09/28/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/paul-tonko/T000469> Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/karen-bass/B001270> Rep. Bass, Karen [D-CA-37]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/colleen-hanabusa/H001050> Rep. Hanabusa, Colleen [D-HI-1]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/chellie-pingree/P000597> Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/timothy-walz/W000799> Rep. Walz, Timothy J. [D-MN-1]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/dina-titus/T000468> Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/hakeem-jeffries/J000294> Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8]

10/05/2018


 <https://www.congress.gov/member/grace-napolitano/N000179> Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-32]

10/05/2018

 

===




Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:59 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

I don’t bet Bob,

 

Just explain your evidence that would support your belief that she would go against her DNC handlers.

 

David Johnson

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:56 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

OK, let's bet. 

 

I bet you dinner that if Betsy wins, she will support legislation to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. 

 

Do we have a bet?

 

===

 


Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

Bob,

 

We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen between now and then.

I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will win, and that could happen. But I seriously doubt she will win.

 

My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or Londrigan are elected. Both will continue the same pro-war policies of their corporate masters and neither will be persuaded otherwise by their constituents.

 

David johnson

 

From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A recent poll has her down by one point, within the poll's margin of error. My point was, if Betsy is coming close to beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House. Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a reason to vote for Rodney. It will not have that effect. 




Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:

Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and analysis.

 

Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –

 

I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans maintain control of the House and / or Senate, but at the same time I see no evidence that if the Democrats would take control that things would improve.

A recent military expenditure increase bill in the Senate was supported by ALL of the Democrats.

The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans and Bernie Sanders ( who is an independent ).

In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.

 

The assumption that Democrats will automatically be better than Republicans on the issues of war and foreign policy has no basis in fact. Especially when you consider that there are an unprecedented number of Democratic candidates running for election ( all backed by the DNC during the primaries ) who are former military and / or intelligence operatives from various agencies. In addition the DNC has done everything in their power ( very successfully so with only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any and all anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from winning. In addition refusing to budge on more ; democracy, transparency, and accountability within the Democratic party. Which means DNC backed candidates will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes ( especially in regards to foreign policy and corporate power ) and instead will toe the DNC party line because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors happy. The corporate donor class is the constituency ( special interest ) who the DNC fears, NOT the voters. Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue to vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the tried and true tactic of “ triangulation “ that was perfected by the Clintons. However people are catching on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 % of eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump either by not voting at all or voting for 3rd party candidates in the last Presidential election. And why many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a message “and “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as that strategy was, it is understandable to a certain degree why some people did that considering the betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the Democrats and the lack of other options. 

 

This reality is especially relevant in regards to issues of war and peace. The war profiteer industry in the U.S. is along with the financial sector the largest and most powerful special interest in the country that not only has it’s own industry lobbyists but also the support of very wealthy and influential lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our political / election process for decades, but also have used their vast financial resources to buy the good graces of the corporate media.

 

This dynamic will only change when we begin to understand and act accordingly that it doesn’t matter the political party but the individual candidate who is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem, or an anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate ; Green, Independent, Socialist, etc..

The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the horrible condition we are in. And Rodney Davis is DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately stated, and he will continue the pro-war policies of the majority in the Republican party.

 

In terms of the Illinois 13th Congressional district – Betsy Londrigan will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob pointed out the odds to attest to that fact ). The candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within .05 % of beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem in the 13th in a three way race ) and who also had the best platform all around including an anti-war platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the academic “ intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in the 13th refused to support, and when asked why individually had no clear answer except that they wanted someone “ fresh and new “. ???

Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest fashion trend clothing instead of voting for someone who supported 95 % of the issues they claim they support ?

 

Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win would follow the instructions and orders of Durbin and the DNC to a tee, if for no other reason because those were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.

I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard core neo-liberal, ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign policy. 

 

So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None of the Above “ in the 13th Congressional race.

We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT represent our interests, but will actively work against our interests. To do otherwise makes no logical sense.

Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis as a means of punishing the Democrats when Rodney Davis has a clear track record of voting in favor of war.

 

David Johnson

  

 

From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
To: C. G. Estabrook
Cc: Peace Discuss; peace
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the News-Gazette, on the coming election

 

Here's another way of looking at it. 

 

I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if Democrats take the House. I think the world would be better off on net. I think that it would help us end the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of human beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can end the war if we can get a vote in the House. So far the House Republican leadership has blocked a vote in the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as possible, but if Dems win the House, then I'm confident that we'll get a vote in January if not before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue. I don't contest at all that the anti-Russia thing embraced by many Democrats is quite bothersome. But, Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat on the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may pursue destructive policies towards Russia and we should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about to invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has those means to defend itself, which it will continue to do. Yemeni children have none of these things to defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the Yemeni children should be a higher priority for our defense. Plus, while Trump has advocated, justly in my view, for better relations with Russia, his actual policies have in some respects been more aggressive than Obama. Obama rebuffed neocon pressure to arm Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not to gainsay that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did good things. Just that it's not one-zero.

 

But regardless of all that, the overwhelming likelihood is that whatever happens with Betsy vs. Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's a competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's not a district Democrats need to win in order to take the House. According to 538, Dems have a 5 in 7 or 3 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1 in 4, depending on how you count. These are estimates, of course, but it shows where an educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that Dems will take the House than it is that Betsy will beat Rodney. If Betsy vs Rodney is close - if our votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the House anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then Rodney is probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a good chance that Dems will take the House but we'll still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney than whether Dems take the House. 

 

So I think there's a strong case that we should focus more on whether we're represented by Betsy or Rodney, over which we have more control, than over whether Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much less influence, and which is not likely to be influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney. 

 

And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd be much better off, from an anti-war point of view, being represented by Betsy than by Rodney. Not because Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some important things which are in contest. She'd be good on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all war and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've tried ever since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to do things, even bipartisan things, simple things, defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero, nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's completely hopeless on war and peace issues, as far as I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better, night and day, reachable, we brought him around. Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a chance to move her on other things, to participate in national efforts to move Congress by moving our Rep. With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana think about anything, he's made that perfectly clear many times, we are not his base, he does not care at all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to. 

 

So I would urge people to think most about what we an do with respect to the matter at hand that will contribute the most to allowing us to participate meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress towards less war in the future. And I think it's pretty clear that means focusing on whether we want to be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether we want Dems or Rs to control the House. 

 

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

How should those of us opposed to America’s eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence US government policy in the next two years: that comes in next month’s election of a representative to the US House, in the seat held by Republican Rodney Davis.

Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed by all recent US governments, Republican and Democrat alike - policies that have produced more war and accelerating inequality.

Given a choice between two bad candidates, one should of course vote for the less bad. Here party affiliation makes the important difference, because the House is organized by parties, not the views of individual members. Of the two major political parties in America, the Democrats are the more pro-war today:

(1) their challengers for House seats include a large number of pro-war CIA and 'military intelligence' veterans;
(2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to insure that Trump doesn't depart from the belligerence against Russia and China that characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and 
(3) they are employing identity politics to defeat those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep. Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).

The Democrats should not be given control of Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater threat of war - at the moment.

I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of Representatives.

—CGE

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/3d91723f/attachment-0001.html>

From ewj at pigs.ag  Wed Oct 10 01:34:46 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:34:46 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
 on the coming election
In-Reply-To: <005201d46032$17a33430$46e99c90$@comcast.net>
References: <44425D1A-379E-4118-9AEC-B4B0A3B60E71@illinois.edu>
 <CALMNhNTB4yqX==dwadoAHrpEh2eNbrYkk=fEQMzr+myFhLfx8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <007801d45ffe$cc60e0e0$6522a2a0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSGh-TLC_AqOf6=SOYYjR_DyEY+75JC+W0vB1ouLAzetg@mail.gmail.com>
 <009d01d46001$48e99b50$dabcd1f0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNRGB9z71b6wR9HC=QuHmeJ1ZJYNEi6S6zHWF0uxjHSszQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b001d46002$2eb40da0$8c1c28e0$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNQvHo1vBWWewUEPyx-yv7GNfE2BOPWTMNishiDyr438Ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <002101d4601f$637fce80$2a7f6b80$@comcast.net>
 <CALMNhNSPUm015mjACANiodqSA4VBCPFwm6o0ti=RQGngbAcBOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <005201d46032$17a33430$46e99c90$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <523d0365-996d-ee04-33c8-848d966d4ca8@pigs.ag>

Bob Naiman "owes" me $250.00 on a bet he lost.
Just sayin'...

David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote:
>
> “  She told me she would. “
>
> Really Bob ? and you believe her ?
>
> Even you cannot be that naive.
>
> In regards to the other Democrats, you are STILL going on the false 
> assumption that the Democrats are anti-war. Neither their past actions 
> nor their more recent actions ( as I mentioned in my original post ) 
> prove this to be the case.
>
> Just wait until there is a serious chance of it having a chance of 
> passing, and then see what many of the Democrats will end up doing. 
> They will either abstain, not show up to vote, or end up changing 
> their vote.
>
> Sorry Bob, but this is the political reality we live in and no amount 
> of wishful thinking is going to change it until the war mongers are 
> voted out of office, regardless of which party they are affiliated with.
>
> David J.
>
> *From:*Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 6:12 PM
> *To:* David Johnson
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette, on 
> the coming election
>
> 1. She told me she would.
>
> 2. It took longer than it should have, but this is an "almost all 
> Democrats" position now. Adam Smith, top Democrat on the House Armed 
> Services Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take the 
> House, is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Jim McGovern, top 
> Democrat on the Rules Committee, poised to become its chair if 
> Democrats take the House, is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Eliot 
> Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, poised to 
> become its chair if Democrats take the House, is an original 
> co-sponsor of the bill. Nita Lowey, top Democrat on the House 
> Appropriations Committee, poised to become its chair if Democrats take 
> the House, is an original co-sponsor of the bill. Jerry Nadler, top 
> Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, poised to become its chair if 
> Democrats take the House, is a co-sponsor of the bill.
>
> 3. Of the 41 co-sponsors so far, exactly two are Republicans. The 
> other 39 are Democrats. We've been trying to get Republicans to 
> co-sponsor. *Including Rodney Davis.* No response so far. *I encourage 
> folks to call Rodney Davis' office and urge him to co-sponsor the 
> bill. I did. Here's the phone number:* *(202) 225-2371. Please post a 
> note here when you have made your call. *
>
> 4. Within days, we will have many more co-sponsors. The House is out 
> of session, so they can't be officially added every day, only when 
> there is a "pro-forma session," and the next one is Friday. But we 
> picked up several new co-sponsors today. All of the new co-sponsors so 
> far are Democrats.
>
> 5. This is predictably how it's going to go. It will be much easier to 
> add Democrats than to add Republicans. If we can successfully pressure 
> the House Republican leadership to allow a vote, I expect almost all 
> Democrats to vote yes. If we can get 20% of Republicans to also vote 
> yes, we will win the vote. It will be easier to get almost all 
> Democrats than to get 20% of Republicans.
>
> ===
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org>
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:28 PM David Johnson 
> <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net <mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>> 
> wrote:
>
>     I am glad to see that it has 40 or so co-sponsors, that is still
>     only ( correct if me if I am wrong ) about 1/3 of House Democrats.
>
>     I hope more sign on but that doesn’t mean Londrigan will support
>     it IF she is elected.
>
>     David J.
>
>     *From:*Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>     <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 2:24 PM
>     *To:* David Johnson
>     *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
>     *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the News-Gazette,
>     on the coming election
>
>     Check out the co-sponsors of the bipartisan
>     Khanna-Massie-Smith-Jones-Pocan Yemen war powers bill.
>
>     What patterns do you see?
>
>     https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/138/cosponsors
>
>
>       H.Con.Res.138 - Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c)
>       of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed
>       Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not
>       been authorized by Congress.
>
>     Sponsor: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/ro-khanna/K000389?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22khanna+yemen%22%5D%7D> |
>     Cosponsor statistics: 41 current - includes 26 original
>
>     *Cosponsor*
>
>     	
>
>     *Date Cosponsored*
>
>     Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/adam-smith/S000510>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/mark-pocan/P000607>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/james-mcgovern/M000312>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/steny-hoyer/H000874>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/eliot-engel/E000179>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-massie/M001184>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/ted-lieu/L000582>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/barbara-lee/L000551>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. O'Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/beto-o-rourke/O000170>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/walter-jones/J000255>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/joe-courtney/C001069>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Kennedy, Joseph P., III [D-MA-4]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/joseph-kennedy/K000379>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/janice-schakowsky/S001145>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI-2]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/tulsi-gabbard/G000571>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/michael-capuano/C001037>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/yvette-clarke/C001067>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/adriano-espaillat/E000297>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-3]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/raul-grijalva/G000551>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/pramila-jayapal/J000298>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/gwen-moore/M001160>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/debbie-dingell/D000624>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-defazio/D000191>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/earl-blumenauer/B000574>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-22]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/theodore-deutch/D000610>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/peter-welch/W000800>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-17]*
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/nita-lowey/L000480>
>
>     	
>
>     09/26/2018
>
>     Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/frank-pallone/P000034>
>
>     	
>
>     09/27/2018
>
>     Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/john-garamendi/G000559>
>
>     	
>
>     09/27/2018
>
>     Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/jackie-speier/S001175>
>
>     	
>
>     09/27/2018
>
>     Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/zoe-lofgren/L000397>
>
>     	
>
>     09/27/2018
>
>     Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/joaquin-castro/C001091>
>
>     	
>
>     09/28/2018
>
>     Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/jared-huffman/H001068>
>
>     	
>
>     09/28/2018
>
>     Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/jerrold-nadler/N000002>
>
>     	
>
>     09/28/2018
>
>     Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/paul-tonko/T000469>
>
>     	
>
>     10/05/2018
>
>     Rep. Bass, Karen [D-CA-37]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/karen-bass/B001270>
>
>     	
>
>     10/05/2018
>
>     Rep. Hanabusa, Colleen [D-HI-1]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/colleen-hanabusa/H001050>
>
>     	
>
>     10/05/2018
>
>     Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/chellie-pingree/P000597>
>
>     	
>
>     10/05/2018
>
>     Rep. Walz, Timothy J. [D-MN-1]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/timothy-walz/W000799>
>
>     	
>
>     10/05/2018
>
>     Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/dina-titus/T000468>
>
>     	
>
>     10/05/2018
>
>     Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/hakeem-jeffries/J000294>
>
>     	
>
>     10/05/2018
>
>     Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-32]
>     <https://www.congress.gov/member/grace-napolitano/N000179>
>
>     	
>
>     10/05/2018
>
>     ===
>
>
>     Robert Naiman
>     Policy Director
>     Just Foreign Policy
>     www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org>
>     naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>
>     (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>     On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:59 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss
>     <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>
>         I don’t bet Bob,
>
>         Just explain your evidence that would support your belief that
>         she would go against her DNC handlers.
>
>         David Johnson
>
>         *From:*Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>         <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>]
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:56 PM
>         *To:* David Johnson
>         *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
>         *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Letter to the
>         News-Gazette, on the coming election
>
>         OK, let's bet.
>
>         I bet you dinner that if Betsy wins, she will support
>         legislation to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the
>         Saudi war in Yemen.
>
>         Do we have a bet?
>
>         ===
>
>
>         Robert Naiman
>         Policy Director
>         Just Foreign Policy
>         www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org>
>         naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>
>         (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>         On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss
>         <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>         <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>
>             Bob,
>
>             We are 4-weeks away from election day and a lot can happen
>             between now and then.
>
>             I said a “ minor miracle “ would be the only way she will
>             win, and that could happen. But I seriously doubt she will
>             win.
>
>             My point was that it will make no difference if Davis or
>             Londrigan are elected. Both will continue the same pro-war
>             policies of their corporate masters and neither will be
>             persuaded otherwise by their constituents.
>
>             David johnson
>
>             *From:*Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>             <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>]
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 1:44 PM
>             *To:* David Johnson
>             *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
>             *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the
>             News-Gazette, on the coming election
>
>             I wouldn't be so sure that Betsy will not beat Rodney. A
>             recent poll has her down by one point, within the poll's
>             margin of error. My point was, if Betsy is coming close to
>             beating Rodney, then Dems already have the House.
>             Therefore, keeping Dems from taking the House is not a
>             reason to vote for Rodney. It will not have that effect.
>
>
>             Robert Naiman
>             Policy Director
>             Just Foreign Policy
>             www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org>
>             naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>             <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>
>             (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>             On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:35 PM David Johnson
>             <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net
>             <mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>                 Thanks to Bob Naiman and Carl for their views and
>                 analysis.
>
>                 Here is my take on the subject for what it is worth –
>
>                 I do NOT think it would be better if the Republicans
>                 maintain control of the House and / or Senate, but at
>                 the same time I see no evidence that if the Democrats
>                 would take control that things would improve.
>
>                 A recent military expenditure increase bill in the
>                 Senate was supported by ALL of the Democrats.
>
>                 The only ones to vote against it were six Republicans
>                 and Bernie Sanders ( who is an independent ).
>
>                 In the House 91 % of Democrats supported it.
>
>                 The assumption that Democrats will automatically be
>                 better than Republicans on the issues of war and
>                 foreign policy has no basis in fact. Especially when
>                 you consider that there are an unprecedented number of
>                 Democratic candidates running for election ( all
>                 backed by the DNC during the primaries ) who are
>                 former military and / or intelligence operatives from
>                 various agencies. In addition the DNC has done
>                 everything in their power ( very successfully so with
>                 only a few exceptions  ) to prevent any and all
>                 anti-war / anti-corporate Dem primary candidates from
>                 winning. In addition refusing to budge on more ;
>                 democracy, transparency, and accountability within the
>                 Democratic party. Which means DNC backed candidates
>                 will NOT listen to their constituent’s wishes (
>                 especially in regards to foreign policy and corporate
>                 power ) and instead will toe the DNC party line
>                 because the DNC wants to keep their corporate donors
>                 happy. The corporate donor class is the constituency (
>                 special interest ) who the DNC fears, NOT the voters.
>                 Who they perceive to be sheep who will continue to
>                 vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, in the
>                 tried and true tactic of “ triangulation “ that was
>                 perfected by the Clintons. However people are catching
>                 on to this and are angry, which is why close to 48 %
>                 of eligible voters chose  neither Clinton or Trump
>                 either by not voting at all or voting for 3^rd party
>                 candidates in the last Presidential election. And why
>                 many voters selected Trump as a way of “ sending a
>                 message “and “disrupting the system “. As fucked up as
>                 that strategy was, it is understandable to a certain
>                 degree why some people did that considering the
>                 betrayal they experienced from 2008 t0 2016 by the
>                 Democrats and the lack of other options.
>
>                 This reality is especially relevant in regards to
>                 issues of war and peace. The war profiteer industry in
>                 the U.S. is along with the financial sector the
>                 largest and most powerful special interest in the
>                 country that not only has it’s own industry lobbyists
>                 but also the support of very wealthy and influential
>                 lobbyists who represent AIPAC and the kingdom of Saudi
>                 Arabia. Both of whom have not only interfered in our
>                 political / election process for decades, but also
>                 have used their vast financial resources to buy the
>                 good graces of the corporate media.
>
>                 This dynamic will only change when we begin to
>                 understand and act accordingly that it doesn’t matter
>                 the political party but the individual candidate who
>                 is running, rather an anti-war / anti corporate Dem,
>                 or an anti-war Republican, or ant-war / anti-corporate
>                 ; Green, Independent, Socialist, etc..
>
>                 The “ Any Blue Will Do “ mindset is WHY we are in the
>                 horrible condition we are in. And Rodney Davis is
>                 DEFINTELY no Tim Johnson, as Bob accurately stated,
>                 and he will continue the pro-war policies of the
>                 majority in the Republican party.
>
>                 In terms of the Illinois 13^th Congressional district
>                 – Betsy Londrigan will NOT win against Davis ( as Bob
>                 pointed out the odds to attest to that fact ). The
>                 candidate that could of beat Davis ( who came within
>                 .05 % of beating Davis in the one time he ran as Dem
>                 in the 13^th in a three way race ) and who also had
>                 the best platform all around including an anti-war
>                 platform was Dr. David Gill. Who the Unions and the
>                 academic “ intelligentsia “ in Urbana and elsewhere in
>                 the 13^th refused to support, and when asked why
>                 individually had no clear answer except that they
>                 wanted someone “ fresh and new “. ???
>
>                 Wow ! … Did they think they were buying the latest
>                 fashion trend clothing instead of voting for someone
>                 who supported 95 % of the issues they claim they support ?
>
>                 Betsy Londrigan if by some minor miracle would win
>                 would follow the instructions and orders of Durbin and
>                 the DNC to a tee, if for no other reason because those
>                 were her backers / sponsors in the Dem primary.
>
>                 I saw her twice during the debates and she is a hard
>                 core neo-liberal, ESPECIALLY in regards to foreign
>                 policy.
>
>                 So with these facts in mind I am voting for ; “ None
>                 of the Above “ in the 13^th Congressional race.
>
>                 We should NOT vote for anyone who will not only NOT
>                 represent our interests, but will actively work
>                 against our interests. To do otherwise makes no
>                 logical sense.
>
>                 Nor does it make any logical sense to vote for Davis
>                 as a means of punishing the Democrats when Rodney
>                 Davis has a clear track record of voting in favor of war.
>
>                 David Johnson
>
>                 *From:*Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>                 <mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net>] *On Behalf
>                 Of *Robert Naiman via Peace
>                 *Sent:* Monday, October 08, 2018 10:05 PM
>                 *To:* C. G. Estabrook
>                 *Cc:* Peace Discuss; peace
>                 *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Letter to the
>                 News-Gazette, on the coming election
>
>                 Here's another way of looking at it.
>
>                 I disagree that the world would be worse off on net if
>                 Democrats take the House. I think the world would be
>                 better off on net. I think that it would help us end
>                 the Saudi war in Yemen, which is pushing millions of
>                 human beings to the edge of starvation. I think we can
>                 end the war if we can get a vote in the House. So far
>                 the House Republican leadership has blocked a vote in
>                 the House. We're trying to get a vote as soon as
>                 possible, but if Dems win the House, then I'm
>                 confident that we'll get a vote in January if not
>                 before. I think that outweighs the anti-Russia issue.
>                 I don't contest at all that the anti-Russia thing
>                 embraced by many Democrats is quite bothersome. But,
>                 Russia has nuclear weapons and a big army and a seat
>                 on the UN Security Council and while the U.S. may
>                 pursue destructive policies towards Russia and we
>                 should oppose those policies, the U.S. is not about to
>                 invade Russia or start bombing it, while Russia has
>                 those means to defend itself, which it will continue
>                 to do. Yemeni children have none of these things to
>                 defend themselves from U.S. bombs. So I think the
>                 Yemeni children should be a higher priority for our
>                 defense. Plus, while Trump has advocated, justly in my
>                 view, for better relations with Russia, his actual
>                 policies have in some respects been more aggressive
>                 than Obama. Obama rebuffed neocon pressure to arm
>                 Ukraine. Trump acceded to it. This is not to gainsay
>                 that Obama did bad things in this regard and Trump did
>                 good things. Just that it's not one-zero.
>
>                 But regardless of all that, the overwhelming
>                 likelihood is that whatever happens with Betsy vs.
>                 Rodney will not determine control of the House. It's a
>                 competitive district, and Betsy could win. But it's
>                 not a district Democrats need to win in order to take
>                 the House. According to 538, Dems have a 5 in 7 or 3
>                 in 4 chance of winning the House, depending how you
>                 count, while the chances of Betsy beating Rodney are 3
>                 in 10 or 2 in 7 or 1 in 4, depending on how you count.
>                 These are estimates, of course, but it shows where an
>                 educated reasonable guess lies: it's more likely that
>                 Dems will take the House than it is that Betsy will
>                 beat Rodney. If Betsy vs Rodney is close - if our
>                 votes matter - Dems are very likely taking the House
>                 anyway. If the contest for the House is close, then
>                 Rodney is probably beating Betsy anyway. There's a
>                 good chance that Dems will take the House but we'll
>                 still be stuck with Rodney. We have far greater
>                 potential to influence whether we're stuck with Rodney
>                 than whether Dems take the House.
>
>                 So I think there's a strong case that we should focus
>                 more on whether we're represented by Betsy or Rodney,
>                 over which we have more control, than over whether
>                 Dems or Rs control the House, over which we have much
>                 less influence, and which is not likely to be
>                 influenced by Betsy vs. Rodney.
>
>                 And there I think it's very much a slam dunk that we'd
>                 be much better off, from an anti-war point of view,
>                 being represented by Betsy than by Rodney. Not because
>                 Betsy would be perfect on all imaginable anti-war
>                 things; she wouldn't be. But she'd be good on some
>                 important things which are in contest. She'd be good
>                 on Yemen. Whereas Rodney is a big fat zero on all war
>                 and peace issues, including Yemen, and also Iran. I've
>                 tried ever since Rodney was our Rep. to get Rodney to
>                 do things, even bipartisan things, simple things,
>                 defend-our-Constitution things, for less war. Zero,
>                 nothing, zip, nada, he never did anything. He's
>                 completely hopeless on war and peace issues, as far as
>                 I can tell, a robot of the pro-war Republican
>                 leadership in the House. Tim Johnson was much better,
>                 night and day, reachable, we brought him around.
>                 Rodney Davis is a brick wall on war and peace. With
>                 Betsy she will be good on some things and we have a
>                 chance to move her on other things, to participate in
>                 national efforts to move Congress by moving our Rep.
>                 With Rodney Davis our chances are zero. He just
>                 doesn't give a damn what people in Champaign-Urbana
>                 think about anything, he's made that perfectly clear
>                 many times, we are not his base, he does not care at
>                 all what we think about anything and doesn't pretend to.
>
>                 So I would urge people to think most about what we an
>                 do with respect to the matter at hand that will
>                 contribute the most to allowing us to participate
>                 meaningfully in national efforts to move Congress
>                 towards less war in the future. And I think it's
>                 pretty clear that means focusing on whether we want to
>                 be represented by Betsy or Rodney, rather on whether
>                 we want Dems or Rs to control the House.
>
>                 On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM Carl G. Estabrook via
>                 Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>                 <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>
>                     How should those of us opposed to America’s eight
>                     wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote
>                     to influence US government policy in the next two
>                     years: that comes in next month’s election of a
>                     representative to the US House, in the seat held
>                     by Republican Rodney Davis.
>
>                     Davis’ opponent is a conventional Democrat, Betsy
>                     Dirksen Londrigan. They generally agree on the
>                     neoliberal and neoconservative policies followed
>                     by all recent US governments, Republican and
>                     Democrat alike - policies that have produced more
>                     war and accelerating inequality.
>
>                     Given a choice between two bad candidates, one
>                     should of course vote for the less bad. Here party
>                     affiliation makes the important difference,
>                     because the House is organized by parties, not the
>                     views of individual members. Of the two major
>                     political parties in America, the Democrats are
>                     the more pro-war today:
>
>                     (1) their challengers for House seats include a
>                     large number of pro-war CIA and 'military
>                     intelligence' veterans;
>                     (2) 'Russiagate' is their fantastical attempt to
>                     insure that Trump doesn't depart from the
>                     belligerence against Russia and China that
>                     characterized the Obama-Clinton administrations; and
>                     (3) they are employing identity politics to defeat
>                     those few anti-war votes in Congress (cf. Rep.
>                     Michael Capuano in Massachusetts).
>
>                     The Democrats should not be given control of
>                     Congress. They are the greater evil - the greater
>                     threat of war - at the moment.
>
>                     I’ll reluctantly vote for our feckless Republican
>                     Congressman, Rodney Davis, in order to forestall
>                     the Democrats’ gaining control of the House of
>                     Representatives.
>
>                     —CGE
>
>                     _______________________________________________
>                     Peace-discuss mailing list
>                     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>                     <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>                     https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Peace-discuss mailing list
>             Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>             <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>             https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Peace-discuss mailing list
>         Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>         <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>         https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181010/c891df43/attachment-0001.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Wed Oct 10 04:19:20 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 23:19:20 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?U=2ES=2E_mainstream_media_ignores_key_e?=
	=?utf-8?q?lements_of_Saudi_Arabia=E2=80=99s_likely_murder_of_Jamal?=
	=?utf-8?q?_Khashoggi?=
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyHYsRYiC6Qf8-a50O5dCXro-WZ4etSTxs66A1y0LG7Esg@mail.gmail.com>

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/mainstream-elements-khashoggi/

The disappearance and probable murder of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal
Khashoggi is the biggest Mideast development in a long time, and once again
the U.S. mainstream media is ignoring or downplaying key elements of the
story:

* The mainstream is rightly starting to focus on the repressive history of
the Saudi de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, but is not
emphasizing that he is also responsible for the armed onslaught against
neighboring Yemen, which has killed tens of thousands of civilians, maybe
more, and triggered the largest cholera epidemic in human history.

*  The mainstream is pointing to Donald Trump’s close ties to the
33-year-old Crown Prince, without noting that support for the Saudi regime
is longstanding and bipartisan; in 2011 Barack Obama approved $60 billion
in arms sales to the kingdom, up to that point the largest weapons
transaction in history.

*  The mainstream is not noting that Israel is in a de facto alliance with
the Saudis, (thus once again discrediting the tattered Clash of
Civilizations theory).

*  The mainstream — so far — is not reporting sufficiently on the huge,
well-funded Saudi lobbying and Congressional bribing apparatus in the U.S.;
you have to turn to this excellent exposé
<https://www.thenation.com/article/how-much-it-costs-to-buy-us-foreign-policy/>
 in *The* *Nation*, which reported that “More than a third of the members
of Congress contacted by such a [public relations] firm [registered to
promote Saudi interests] also received a campaign contribution from a
foreign agent at that firm.”

Instead of pursuing these angles, the mainstream U.S. media is focussing on
the minute details of Khashoggi’s disappearance inside a Saudi consulate in
Turkey, and giving too much space to unbelievable Saudi denials.

(A shining exception to mainstream failure is the *Washington Post*’s Karen
Attiah, who was Khashoggi’s editor at the paper’s GlobalPosts section and
who is appearing tirelessly on television asking for answers.)

The worst overall mainstream offender, unsurprisingly, is *New York
Times* opinion
writer Thomas Friedman, who had been the Crown Prince’s biggest
cheerleader. In a rambling, whining column
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/opinion/jamal-khashoggi-missing-saudi-journalist.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage>,
Friedman tried to exonerate himself after his latest blunder. He opened his
plea by violating journalistic ethics — he revealed that Khashoggi had been
the source of an anonymous quote in one of his previous columns. The quote
itself may have seemed mild. But if by some miracle Khashoggi is still
alive in a Saudi prison somewhere, revealing that he spoke anonymously to a
foreign reporter could have enraged his captors and jeopardized his life.

Friedman nowhere admitted he had been terribly wrong to gush over bin
Salman as a “reformer” — just as he has never apologized for his
disgusting, full-throated endorsement of the disastrous U.S. invasion of
Iraq in 2003. We repeat our standing call: “Fire Thomas Friedman
<https://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/fire-thomas-friedman/>.”

(Friedman, and others, continue to call the Crown Prince by his initials,
“M.B.S.”, dishonestly claiming he is “commonly known” in that fashion. It’s
doubtful he’s known that way in the Arab world, and the usage tends to
humanize someone who turns out to be a repressive murderer.)

On a positive note, the awful crime in Turkey should at least put Saudi
Arabia under closer scrutiny. One place to start is the excellent 2016
<https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Unjust-Behind-U-S-Saudi-Connection/dp/1944869026/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539106446&sr=1-1&keywords=Kingdom+of+the+Unjust>book
by Medea Benjamin, of Code Pink, called *Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the
U.S.-Saudi Connection*.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181009/e6a5b399/attachment.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Wed Oct 10 13:35:11 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:35:11 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] CIA Democrats Call For Aggression Against Russia,
	Run Pro-War Campaigns In 2018 Congressional Races
Message-ID: <003a01d4609e$11a4f6b0$34eee410$@comcast.net>

Here is a perfect example about why it is extremely unlikely that things
will change for the better if the Democrats take control of the House.

 

CIA Democrats Call For Aggression Against Russia, Run Pro-War Campaigns In
2018 Congressional Races

By Patrick Martin,
<https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/03/ciad-o03.html> Wsws.org 

October 9, 2018 

|  <https://popularresistance.org/educate/> Educate!

 
<https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/12/1googlen
otice.png>
https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/12/1googleno
tice.png

Above Photo:  <https://www.flickr.com/photos/66638876 at N08/> Political
Office/Flickr

The Democratic Party is widely favored to win control of the House of
Representatives in the US midterm elections November 6, with projections
that it will gain 30 to 50 seats, or even more, well above the net gain of
23 required for a majority.

The last time the Democratic Party won control of the House from the
Republicans was in 2006, when it captured 30 Republican seats on the basis
of a limited appeal to the massive antiwar sentiment among working people
after three years of disastrous and bloody warfare in Iraq, and five years
after the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

In stark contrast, there is not a hint of an antiwar campaign by the
Democratic challengers seeking Republican seats in the 2018 elections. On
the contrary, the pronouncements of leading Democrats on foreign policy
issues have been strongly pro-war, attacking the Trump administration from
the right for its alleged softness on Russia and its hostility to
traditional US-led alliances like NATO.

This is particularly true of the 30 Democratic congressional nominees in
competitive races who come from a national-security background. These
challengers, previously identified by the World Socialist Web Site as the
<http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/21/ciad-s21.html> CIA Democrats,
constitute the largest single grouping among Democratic nominees in
competitive seats, more than state and local officials, lawyers or those
wealthy enough to finance their own campaigns.

The 30 national-security candidates include six actual CIA, FBI or military
intelligence agents, six State Department or other civilian national
security officials, 11 combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, all but
one an officer, and seven other military veterans, including pilots, naval
officers and military prosecutors (JAGs).

The range of views expressed by these 30 candidates is quite limited. With
only one exception, Jared Golden, running in the First District of Maine,
the military-intelligence Democrats do not draw any negative conclusions
from their experience in leading, planning or fighting in the wars of the
past 25 years, including two wars against Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan,
and other military engagements in the Persian Gulf and North and East
Africa.

Golden, who is also the only rank-and-file combat veteran-as opposed to an
officer-and the only one who admits to having suffered from Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder, criticizes congressional rubber-stamping of the wars of the
past 20 years. "Over the past decade and a half, America has spent trillions
on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on other conflicts across the
globe," his campaign website declares. "War should be a last resort, and
only undertaken when the security interests of America are clearly present,
and the risks and costs can be appropriately justified to the American
people."

These sentiments hardly qualify as antiwar, but they sound positively
radical compared to the materials posted on the websites of many of the
other military-intelligence candidates. In some ways, Golden is the
exception that proves the rule. What used to be the standard rhetoric of
Democratic Party candidates when running against the administration of
George W. Bush has been entirely scrapped in the course of the Obama
administration, the first in American history to have been engaged in a
major military conflict for every day of its eight years.

All the other national-security candidates accept as a basic premise that
the United States must maintain its dominant world position. The most
detailed foreign policy doctrine appears on the website of Amy McGrath, who
is now favored to win her contest against incumbent Republican incumbent
Andy Barr in the Sixth Congressional District of Kentucky.

McGrath follows closely the line of the Obama administration and the Hillary
Clinton presidential campaign, supporting the Iran nuclear deal that Trump
tore up, embracing Israel, warning of North Korea's development of nuclear
weapons, and declaring it "critical that the US work with our allies and
partners in the region to counter China's advances" in the South China Sea
and elsewhere in Asia.

But Russia is clearly the main target of US national-security efforts, in
her view. She writes, "Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has
testified that Russia is the greatest threat to American security. Russia
poses an existential threat to the United States due to its nuclear weapons
and its behavior in the past several years has been disturbing. Russia's
aggression in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria has been alarming. It's
becoming more assertive in the Arctic, likely the most important
geostrategic zone of competition in the coming decades. The US should
consider providing defensive arms to Ukraine and exerting more pressure on
Moscow using economic sanctions."

She concludes by calling for an investigation modeled on the 9/11 Commission
into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

Five other national-security candidates focus on specific warnings about the
danger of Russia and China, thus aligning themselves with the new national
security orientation set in the most recent Pentagon strategy document,
which declares that the principal US national security challenge is no
longer the "war on terror," but the prospect of great power conflicts, above
all with Russia and China.

Jessica Morse, a former State Department and AID official in Iraq, running
in the Fourth District of California, blasts the Trump administration for
"giving away global leadership to powers like China and Russia. Our security
and our economy will both suffer if those countries are left to re-write the
international rules."

Former FBI agent Christopher Hunter, running in the 12th District of
Florida, declares, "Russia is a clear and present danger to the United
States. We emerged victorious over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. We must
resolve anew to secure an uncompromising victory over Russia and its
tyrannical regime."

Elissa Slotkin, the former CIA agent and Pentagon official running in
Michigan's Eighth Congressional District, cites her 14 years of experience
"working on some of our country's most critical national security matters,
including U.S.-Russia relations, the counter-ISIS campaign, and the U.S.
relationship with NATO." She argues that "the United States must make
investments in its military, intelligence, and diplomatic power" in order to
maintain "a unique and vital role in the world."

Max Rose, a combat commander in Afghanistan now running in New York's 11th
Congressional District (Staten Island and Brooklyn), calls for "recognizing
Russia as a hostile foreign power and holding the Kremlin accountable for
its attempts to undermine the sovereignty and democratic values of other
nations." Rose is still in the military reserves, and took two weeks off
from his campaign in August to participate in small-unit drills.

Joseph Kopser, running in the 21st District of Texas, is another
anti-Russian firebrand, writing on his website, "As a retired Army Ranger, I
know first hand the importance of standing strong with your allies. Given
Russia's march toward a totalitarian state showing aggression around the
region, as well as their extensive cyber and information warfare campaign
directed at the U.S., England, and others, our Article 5 [NATO] commitment
to our European allies and partners is more important than ever." He
concludes, "Since the mid-twentieth century, the United States has been a
principal world leader-a standard that should never be changed."

Four national-security candidates add North Korea and Iran to China and
Russia as specific targets of American military and diplomatic attack.

Josh Welle, a former naval officer who was deployed to Afghanistan, now
running in the Fourth Congressional District of New Jersey, writes, "We have
to stand together in the face of threats from countries like North Korea and
Iran. The human rights violations and nuclear capabilities of these
countries pose a direct threat to the stability of this world and therefore
need to be met with strong military presence and a robust defense program to
protect ourselves."

Tom Malinowski, former assistant secretary of state for human rights,
running in New Jersey's Seventh District, calls for maintaining economic
sanctions on Russia "until it
<https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/russian-aggression-against-ukraine-an
d-the-wests-policy-response-2/> stops its aggression in Ukraine and
<https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf> interference in our
democracy," effusively endorses the state of Israel (whose government
actually interferes in US elections more than any other), and calls for
stepped up sanctions against North Korea.

Mikie Sherill, a former Navy pilot and Russian policy officer, running in
New Jersey's 11th District, writes, "I have sat across the table from the
Russians, and know that we need our government to take the threat they pose
seriously." She adds to this a warning about "threats posed by North Korea
and Iran," the two most immediate targets of military-diplomatic blackmail
by the Trump administration. She concludes, referring to North Korea's
nuclear program, "For that reason I support a robust military presence in
the region and a comprehensive missile defense program to defend America,
our allies, and our troops abroad."

Dan McCready, an Iraq war unit commander who claims to have been born again
when he was baptized in water from the Euphrates River, calls for war to be
waged only "with overwhelming firepower," not "sporadically, with no
strategy or end in sight, while our enemies like Iran, North Korea, Russia,
and the terrorists outsmart and outlast us." He is running in North
Carolina's Ninth Congressional District, adjacent to the huge military
complex at Fort Bragg.

One military-intelligence candidate cites immigration as a national-security
issue, echoing the position of the Trump administration, which constantly
peddles scare stories that terrorists are infiltrating the United States
disguised as immigrants and refugees. That is Richard Ojeda, running in the
Third Congressional District of West Virginia, who publicly boasts of having
voted for Trump in 2016, in the same election in which he won a seat in the
West Virginia state senate running as a Democrat.

Ojeda writes on his web site, "We must also ensure that terrorists do not
reach American soil by abusing our immigration process. We must keep an up
to date terror watch list but provide better vetting for those that go onto
the watch list."

A career Army Airborne officer, Ojeda voices the full-blown militarism of
this social layer. "If there is one thing I am confident in, it is the
ability of our nation's military," he declares. "The best way to keep
Americans safe is to let our military do their job without muddying up their
responsibilities with our political agendas."

He openly rejects control of the military by civilian policy-makers. "War is
not a social experiment and I refuse to let politics play a role in my
decision making when it comes to keeping you and your family safe," he
continues. "I will not take my marching orders from anyone else concerning
national security."

Only one of the 30 candidates, Ken Harbaugh, a retired Air Force pilot
running in the Seventh Congressional District of Ohio, centered on the
industrial city of Canton, acknowledges being part of this larger group. He
notes, "In 2018, more vets are running for office than at any moment in my
lifetime. Because of the growing inability of Washington to deal responsibly
with the threats facing our nation, veterans from both sides of the aisle
are stepping into the breach."

Referring to the mounting prospect of war, he writes, "Today, we face our
gravest geopolitical challenge since 9/11. Our country remains at war in
Afghanistan, we have troops engaged in North Africa, Iraq and Syria, and
Russia continues to bully our allies. Meanwhile, North Korea has the ability
to directly threaten the American mainland with nuclear missiles." He
concludes, "we need leaders with the moral authority to speak on these
issues, leaders who have themselves been on the front lines of these
challenges."

These statements, taken cumulatively, present a picture of unbridled
militarism and aggression as the program of the supposed "opposition" to the
Trump administration's own saber-rattling and threats of "fire and fury like
the world has never seen."

Perhaps even more remarkable is that the remaining 17 national-security
candidates say nothing at all about foreign policy (in 11 cases) or limit
themselves to anodyne observations about the necessity to provide adequate
health care and other benefits to veterans (two cases), or vague
generalities about the need to combine a strong military with diplomatic
efforts (four cases). They give no specifics whatsoever.

In other words, while these candidates tout their own records as part of the
national-security apparatus as their principal credential for election to
Congress, they decline to tell the voters what they would do if they were in
charge of American foreign policy.

Given that these 17 include intelligence agents (Abigail Spanberger and Gina
Ortiz Jones), a National Security Council Iraq war planner (Andy Kim), and
numerous other high-level State Department and military commanders, the
silence can have only the most ominous interpretation.

These CIA Democrats don't want to tell voters about their plans for foreign
policy and military intervention because they know these measures are deeply
unpopular. They aim to gain office as stealth candidates, unveiling their
program of militarism and war only after they take their seats, when they
may very well exercise decisive influence in the next Congress.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181010/6d234f6d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13068 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181010/6d234f6d/attachment-0001.png>

From ewj at pigs.ag  Thu Oct 11 19:36:56 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 03:36:56 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rasmussen says congressional election tied.
Message-ID: <21c80f3e-6fe6-da7b-e40e-59f3c66179c0@pigs.ag>

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

With less than a month to Election Day, the Generic Congressional Ballot 
is now dead even.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey finds that 45% 
of Likely U.S. Voters would choose the Democratic candidate if the 
elections for Congress were held today. Another 45% would opt for the 
Republican. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and eight 
percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here 
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/october_2018/questions_generic_congressional_ballot_september_30_october_4_2018>.) 


Last week, 47% of voters said they would choose the Democratic candidate 
while 42% said they would choose the Republican. It is unclear whether 
the sudden jump to a tie vote is a reflection of the anger surrounding 
the Kavanaugh confirmation process, but we will continue to watch this 
in the weeks ahead.

Since Rasmussen Reports began the weekly surveying in early May, 
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/platinum/historical_data/generic_congressional_ballot_new_trends> 
Democrats have led every week but one in mid-August when the two parties 
were tied at 44% apiece. Their lead has ranged from one to eight points.

At this time in 2014 
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/platinum/historical_data/generic_congressional_ballot_trends>, 
prior to the last non-presidential year congressional elections, 
Democrats held a 41% to 39% lead. But Republicans went on to gain 
control of the Senate in those elections and increase their majority in 
the House of Representatives.

Republicans are madder about the Kavanaugh controversy than Democrats 
are and more determined to vote in the upcoming elections because of it.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 
54% of all Likely U.S. Voters say they are more likely to vote in the 
upcoming midterm elections because of the controversy surrounding 
President Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Only nine percent (9%) say 
they are less likely to vote. Thirty-four percent (34%) say the 
controversy will have no impact on their vote. (To see survey question 
wording, click here 
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/october_2018/questions_anger_october_7_8_2018>.) 


Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans are more likely to vote because 
of the Kavanaugh controversy, compared to 54% of Democrats and 46% of 
voters not affiliated with either major political party.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all voters are angry about the U.S. Senate’s 
treatment of Kavanaugh, with 42% who are Very Angry. Fifty-six percent 
(56%) are angry about how the Senate treated Christine Blasey Ford, the 
woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, including 35% who are 
Very Angry.

***


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181012/38c2500c/attachment.html>

From ewj at pigs.ag  Thu Oct 11 19:56:34 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 03:56:34 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voters Kool with Kavanaugh
Message-ID: <04ca38c3-7fd0-5ebb-a325-221a5c87d4ce@pigs.ag>

[Rasmussen was the only poll to accurately analyse the outcome of the 
2016 presdential election before the actual vote. -ewj]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds 
that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters think Kavanaugh belongs on the Supreme 
Court. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree.

"You'd PAY to know what you really think." - J. R. ("Bob") Dobbs.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181012/7559a491/attachment.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Thu Oct 11 20:42:08 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:42:08 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voters Kool with Kavanaugh
In-Reply-To: <04ca38c3-7fd0-5ebb-a325-221a5c87d4ce@pigs.ag>
References: <04ca38c3-7fd0-5ebb-a325-221a5c87d4ce@pigs.ag>
Message-ID: <BFFC9F16-DB23-4DB4-8E18-0853C89CB4C7@gmail.com>

Why? His (wretched) judicial record wasn’t much discussed.

Do you suppose this is a popular rejection of identity politics, despite a sympathetic accuser? 



> On Oct 11, 2018, at 2:56 PM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> [Rasmussen was the only poll to accurately analyse the outcome of the 2016 presdential election before the actual vote. -ewj]
> 
> The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters think Kavanaugh belongs on the Supreme Court. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree.  
> 
> "You'd PAY to know what you really think." - J. R. ("Bob") Dobbs.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Thu Oct 11 21:41:04 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:41:04 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rasmussen says congressional election tied.
In-Reply-To: <21c80f3e-6fe6-da7b-e40e-59f3c66179c0@pigs.ag>
References: <21c80f3e-6fe6-da7b-e40e-59f3c66179c0@pigs.ag>
Message-ID: <1E578BD1-3713-4413-8DFD-E391AD005CB5@gmail.com>

The midterm election will be assessed not in regard to individual contests but on which party emerges in control fo Congress. 

The war-mongering 'Russiagate' Democrats should be defeated, despite the incompetence of the Republicans.

—CGE

> On Oct 11, 2018, at 2:36 PM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Wednesday, October 10, 2018
> With less than a month to Election Day, the Generic Congressional Ballot is now dead even.
> 
> The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters would choose the Democratic candidate if the elections for Congress were held today. Another 45% would opt for the Republican. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/october_2018/questions_generic_congressional_ballot_september_30_october_4_2018>.)
> 
> Last week, 47% of voters said they would choose the Democratic candidate while 42% said they would choose the Republican. It is unclear whether the sudden jump to a tie vote is a reflection of the anger surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation process, but we will continue to watch this in the weeks ahead.
> 
> Since Rasmussen Reports began the weekly surveying in early May, <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/platinum/historical_data/generic_congressional_ballot_new_trends> Democrats have led every week but one in mid-August when the two parties were tied at 44% apiece. Their lead has ranged from one to eight points. 
> 
> At this time in 2014 <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/platinum/historical_data/generic_congressional_ballot_trends>, prior to the last non-presidential year congressional elections, Democrats held a 41% to 39% lead. But Republicans went on to gain control of the Senate in those elections and increase their majority in the House of Representatives.
> Republicans are madder about the Kavanaugh controversy than Democrats are and more determined to vote in the upcoming elections because of it.
> 
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 54% of all Likely U.S. Voters say they are more likely to vote in the upcoming midterm elections because of the controversy surrounding President Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Only nine percent (9%) say they are less likely to vote. Thirty-four percent (34%) say the controversy will have no impact on their vote. (To see survey question wording, click here <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/october_2018/questions_anger_october_7_8_2018>.)
> 
> Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans are more likely to vote because of the Kavanaugh controversy, compared to 54% of Democrats and 46% of voters not affiliated with either major political party. 
> 
> Sixty-two percent (62%) of all voters are angry about the U.S. Senate’s treatment of Kavanaugh, with 42% who are Very Angry. Fifty-six percent (56%) are angry about how the Senate treated Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, including 35% who are Very Angry.
> 
> ***
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181011/94aff742/attachment-0001.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Thu Oct 11 21:45:05 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:45:05 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] CIA Democrats Call For Aggression Against
 Russia, Run Pro-War Campaigns In 2018 Congressional Races
In-Reply-To: <003a01d4609e$11a4f6b0$34eee410$@comcast.net>
References: <003a01d4609e$11a4f6b0$34eee410$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <19E84D70-5A29-4B6E-977E-3A21EE2B085F@gmail.com>

Depressingly enough, I think there’s a good possibility that things will change for the worse - at least in regard to US war provocations - if the Democrats take control of the House. Vote Republican, distasteful as it is. —CGE
  

> On Oct 10, 2018, at 8:35 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Here is a perfect example about why it is extremely unlikely that things will change for the better if the Democrats take control of the House.
>  
> CIA Democrats Call For Aggression Against Russia, Run Pro-War Campaigns In 2018 Congressional Races
> By Patrick Martin, Wsws.org
> October 9, 2018 
> | Educate!
> <image001.png>
> Above Photo: Political Office/Flickr
> The Democratic Party is widely favored to win control of the House of Representatives in the US midterm elections November 6, with projections that it will gain 30 to 50 seats, or even more, well above the net gain of 23 required for a majority.
> The last time the Democratic Party won control of the House from the Republicans was in 2006, when it captured 30 Republican seats on the basis of a limited appeal to the massive antiwar sentiment among working people after three years of disastrous and bloody warfare in Iraq, and five years after the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
> In stark contrast, there is not a hint of an antiwar campaign by the Democratic challengers seeking Republican seats in the 2018 elections. On the contrary, the pronouncements of leading Democrats on foreign policy issues have been strongly pro-war, attacking the Trump administration from the right for its alleged softness on Russia and its hostility to traditional US-led alliances like NATO.
> This is particularly true of the 30 Democratic congressional nominees in competitive races who come from a national-security background. These challengers, previously identified by the World Socialist Web Site as the CIA Democrats, constitute the largest single grouping among Democratic nominees in competitive seats, more than state and local officials, lawyers or those wealthy enough to finance their own campaigns.
> The 30 national-security candidates include six actual CIA, FBI or military intelligence agents, six State Department or other civilian national security officials, 11 combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, all but one an officer, and seven other military veterans, including pilots, naval officers and military prosecutors (JAGs).
> The range of views expressed by these 30 candidates is quite limited. With only one exception, Jared Golden, running in the First District of Maine, the military-intelligence Democrats do not draw any negative conclusions from their experience in leading, planning or fighting in the wars of the past 25 years, including two wars against Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, and other military engagements in the Persian Gulf and North and East Africa.
> Golden, who is also the only rank-and-file combat veteran—as opposed to an officer—and the only one who admits to having suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, criticizes congressional rubber-stamping of the wars of the past 20 years. “Over the past decade and a half, America has spent trillions on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on other conflicts across the globe,” his campaign website declares. “War should be a last resort, and only undertaken when the security interests of America are clearly present, and the risks and costs can be appropriately justified to the American people.”
> These sentiments hardly qualify as antiwar, but they sound positively radical compared to the materials posted on the websites of many of the other military-intelligence candidates. In some ways, Golden is the exception that proves the rule. What used to be the standard rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates when running against the administration of George W. Bush has been entirely scrapped in the course of the Obama administration, the first in American history to have been engaged in a major military conflict for every day of its eight years.
> All the other national-security candidates accept as a basic premise that the United States must maintain its dominant world position. The most detailed foreign policy doctrine appears on the website of Amy McGrath, who is now favored to win her contest against incumbent Republican incumbent Andy Barr in the Sixth Congressional District of Kentucky.
> McGrath follows closely the line of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, supporting the Iran nuclear deal that Trump tore up, embracing Israel, warning of North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons, and declaring it “critical that the US work with our allies and partners in the region to counter China’s advances” in the South China Sea and elsewhere in Asia.
> But Russia is clearly the main target of US national-security efforts, in her view. She writes, “Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified that Russia is the greatest threat to American security. Russia poses an existential threat to the United States due to its nuclear weapons and its behavior in the past several years has been disturbing. Russia’s aggression in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria has been alarming. It’s becoming more assertive in the Arctic, likely the most important geostrategic zone of competition in the coming decades. The US should consider providing defensive arms to Ukraine and exerting more pressure on Moscow using economic sanctions.”
> She concludes by calling for an investigation modeled on the 9/11 Commission into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
> Five other national-security candidates focus on specific warnings about the danger of Russia and China, thus aligning themselves with the new national security orientation set in the most recent Pentagon strategy document, which declares that the principal US national security challenge is no longer the “war on terror,” but the prospect of great power conflicts, above all with Russia and China.
> Jessica Morse, a former State Department and AID official in Iraq, running in the Fourth District of California, blasts the Trump administration for “giving away global leadership to powers like China and Russia. Our security and our economy will both suffer if those countries are left to re-write the international rules.”
> Former FBI agent Christopher Hunter, running in the 12th District of Florida, declares, “Russia is a clear and present danger to the United States. We emerged victorious over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. We must resolve anew to secure an uncompromising victory over Russia and its tyrannical regime.”
> Elissa Slotkin, the former CIA agent and Pentagon official running in Michigan’s Eighth Congressional District, cites her 14 years of experience “working on some of our country’s most critical national security matters, including U.S.-Russia relations, the counter-ISIS campaign, and the U.S. relationship with NATO.” She argues that “the United States must make investments in its military, intelligence, and diplomatic power” in order to maintain “a unique and vital role in the world.”
> Max Rose, a combat commander in Afghanistan now running in New York’s 11th Congressional District (Staten Island and Brooklyn), calls for “recognizing Russia as a hostile foreign power and holding the Kremlin accountable for its attempts to undermine the sovereignty and democratic values of other nations.” Rose is still in the military reserves, and took two weeks off from his campaign in August to participate in small-unit drills.
> Joseph Kopser, running in the 21st District of Texas, is another anti-Russian firebrand, writing on his website, “As a retired Army Ranger, I know first hand the importance of standing strong with your allies. Given Russia’s march toward a totalitarian state showing aggression around the region, as well as their extensive cyber and information warfare campaign directed at the U.S., England, and others, our Article 5 [NATO] commitment to our European allies and partners is more important than ever.” He concludes, “Since the mid-twentieth century, the United States has been a principal world leader—a standard that should never be changed.”
> Four national-security candidates add North Korea and Iran to China and Russia as specific targets of American military and diplomatic attack.
> Josh Welle, a former naval officer who was deployed to Afghanistan, now running in the Fourth Congressional District of New Jersey, writes, “We have to stand together in the face of threats from countries like North Korea and Iran. The human rights violations and nuclear capabilities of these countries pose a direct threat to the stability of this world and therefore need to be met with strong military presence and a robust defense program to protect ourselves.”
> Tom Malinowski, former assistant secretary of state for human rights, running in New Jersey’s Seventh District, calls for maintaining economic sanctions on Russia “until it stops its aggression in Ukraine and interference in our democracy,” effusively endorses the state of Israel (whose government actually interferes in US elections more than any other), and calls for stepped up sanctions against North Korea.
> Mikie Sherill, a former Navy pilot and Russian policy officer, running in New Jersey’s 11th District, writes, “I have sat across the table from the Russians, and know that we need our government to take the threat they pose seriously.” She adds to this a warning about “threats posed by North Korea and Iran,” the two most immediate targets of military-diplomatic blackmail by the Trump administration. She concludes, referring to North Korea’s nuclear program, “For that reason I support a robust military presence in the region and a comprehensive missile defense program to defend America, our allies, and our troops abroad.”
> Dan McCready, an Iraq war unit commander who claims to have been born again when he was baptized in water from the Euphrates River, calls for war to be waged only “with overwhelming firepower,” not “sporadically, with no strategy or end in sight, while our enemies like Iran, North Korea, Russia, and the terrorists outsmart and outlast us.” He is running in North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District, adjacent to the huge military complex at Fort Bragg.
> One military-intelligence candidate cites immigration as a national-security issue, echoing the position of the Trump administration, which constantly peddles scare stories that terrorists are infiltrating the United States disguised as immigrants and refugees. That is Richard Ojeda, running in the Third Congressional District of West Virginia, who publicly boasts of having voted for Trump in 2016, in the same election in which he won a seat in the West Virginia state senate running as a Democrat.
> Ojeda writes on his web site, “We must also ensure that terrorists do not reach American soil by abusing our immigration process. We must keep an up to date terror watch list but provide better vetting for those that go onto the watch list.”
> A career Army Airborne officer, Ojeda voices the full-blown militarism of this social layer. “If there is one thing I am confident in, it is the ability of our nation’s military,” he declares. “The best way to keep Americans safe is to let our military do their job without muddying up their responsibilities with our political agendas.”
> He openly rejects control of the military by civilian policy-makers. “War is not a social experiment and I refuse to let politics play a role in my decision making when it comes to keeping you and your family safe,” he continues. “I will not take my marching orders from anyone else concerning national security.”
> Only one of the 30 candidates, Ken Harbaugh, a retired Air Force pilot running in the Seventh Congressional District of Ohio, centered on the industrial city of Canton, acknowledges being part of this larger group. He notes, “In 2018, more vets are running for office than at any moment in my lifetime. Because of the growing inability of Washington to deal responsibly with the threats facing our nation, veterans from both sides of the aisle are stepping into the breach.”
> Referring to the mounting prospect of war, he writes, “Today, we face our gravest geopolitical challenge since 9/11. Our country remains at war in Afghanistan, we have troops engaged in North Africa, Iraq and Syria, and Russia continues to bully our allies. Meanwhile, North Korea has the ability to directly threaten the American mainland with nuclear missiles.” He concludes, “we need leaders with the moral authority to speak on these issues, leaders who have themselves been on the front lines of these challenges.”
> These statements, taken cumulatively, present a picture of unbridled militarism and aggression as the program of the supposed “opposition” to the Trump administration’s own saber-rattling and threats of “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
> Perhaps even more remarkable is that the remaining 17 national-security candidates say nothing at all about foreign policy (in 11 cases) or limit themselves to anodyne observations about the necessity to provide adequate health care and other benefits to veterans (two cases), or vague generalities about the need to combine a strong military with diplomatic efforts (four cases). They give no specifics whatsoever.
> In other words, while these candidates tout their own records as part of the national-security apparatus as their principal credential for election to Congress, they decline to tell the voters what they would do if they were in charge of American foreign policy.
> Given that these 17 include intelligence agents (Abigail Spanberger and Gina Ortiz Jones), a National Security Council Iraq war planner (Andy Kim), and numerous other high-level State Department and military commanders, the silence can have only the most ominous interpretation.
> These CIA Democrats don’t want to tell voters about their plans for foreign policy and military intervention because they know these measures are deeply unpopular. They aim to gain office as stealth candidates, unveiling their program of militarism and war only after they take their seats, when they may very well exercise decisive influence in the next Congress.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Thu Oct 11 22:04:18 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:04:18 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss]
 =?utf-8?q?U=2ES=2E_mainstream_media_ignores_key_e?=
 =?utf-8?q?lements_of_Saudi_Arabia=E2=80=99s_likely_murder_of_Jamal_Khasho?=
 =?utf-8?q?ggi?=
In-Reply-To: <CAOiGAyHYsRYiC6Qf8-a50O5dCXro-WZ4etSTxs66A1y0LG7Esg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOiGAyHYsRYiC6Qf8-a50O5dCXro-WZ4etSTxs66A1y0LG7Esg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8BF86DCB-FD74-40AA-BF8B-5B0FDD094DDE@gmail.com>

[Gary Brecher] There's something odd about the Khashoggi affair. All the wrong people are sure he's dead. And dead would be stupid even by MbS standards. They didn't kill Hariri or the 'corrupt' oligarchs. If he was a nobody, he might be dead. If he was a Shia, he'd certainly be dead. But he's a person by Saud family standards, so he may turn up, "missing a fingernail or two" as Mark Ames said.


> On Oct 9, 2018, at 11:19 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/mainstream-elements-khashoggi/ <https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/mainstream-elements-khashoggi/>
> 
> The disappearance and probable murder of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi is the biggest Mideast development in a long time, and once again the U.S. mainstream media is ignoring or downplaying key elements of the story:
> * The mainstream is rightly starting to focus on the repressive history of the Saudi de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, but is not emphasizing that he is also responsible for the armed onslaught against neighboring Yemen, which has killed tens of thousands of civilians, maybe more, and triggered the largest cholera epidemic in human history.
> 
> *  The mainstream is pointing to Donald Trump’s close ties to the 33-year-old Crown Prince, without noting that support for the Saudi regime is longstanding and bipartisan; in 2011 Barack Obama approved $60 billion in arms sales to the kingdom, up to that point the largest weapons transaction in history.
> 
> *  The mainstream is not noting that Israel is in a de facto alliance with the Saudis, (thus once again discrediting the tattered Clash of Civilizations theory).
> 
> *  The mainstream — so far — is not reporting sufficiently on the huge, well-funded Saudi lobbying and Congressional bribing apparatus in the U.S.; you have to turn to this excellent exposé <https://www.thenation.com/article/how-much-it-costs-to-buy-us-foreign-policy/> in The Nation, which reported that “More than a third of the members of Congress contacted by such a [public relations] firm [registered to promote Saudi interests] also received a campaign contribution from a foreign agent at that firm.”
> 
> Instead of pursuing these angles, the mainstream U.S. media is focussing on the minute details of Khashoggi’s disappearance inside a Saudi consulate in Turkey, and giving too much space to unbelievable Saudi denials.
> 
> (A shining exception to mainstream failure is the Washington Post’s Karen Attiah, who was Khashoggi’s editor at the paper’s GlobalPosts section and who is appearing tirelessly on television asking for answers.)
> 
> The worst overall mainstream offender, unsurprisingly, is New York Times opinion writer Thomas Friedman, who had been the Crown Prince’s biggest cheerleader. In a rambling, whining column <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/opinion/jamal-khashoggi-missing-saudi-journalist.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage>, Friedman tried to exonerate himself after his latest blunder. He opened his plea by violating journalistic ethics — he revealed that Khashoggi had been the source of an anonymous quote in one of his previous columns. The quote itself may have seemed mild. But if by some miracle Khashoggi is still alive in a Saudi prison somewhere, revealing that he spoke anonymously to a foreign reporter could have enraged his captors and jeopardized his life. 
> 
> Friedman nowhere admitted he had been terribly wrong to gush over bin Salman as a “reformer” — just as he has never apologized for his disgusting, full-throated endorsement of the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. We repeat our standing call: “Fire Thomas Friedman <https://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/fire-thomas-friedman/>.”
> 
> (Friedman, and others, continue to call the Crown Prince by his initials, “M.B.S.”, dishonestly claiming he is “commonly known” in that fashion. It’s doubtful he’s known that way in the Arab world, and the usage tends to humanize someone who turns out to be a repressive murderer.)
> 
> On a positive note, the awful crime in Turkey should at least put Saudi Arabia under closer scrutiny. One place to start is the excellent 2016  <https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Unjust-Behind-U-S-Saudi-Connection/dp/1944869026/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539106446&sr=1-1&keywords=Kingdom+of+the+Unjust>book by Medea Benjamin, of Code Pink, called Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181011/f1c90048/attachment-0001.html>

From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com  Fri Oct 12 16:34:00 2018
From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:34:00 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Kavanaugh...and the swamp
References: <70280946.230233.1539362040355.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <70280946.230233.1539362040355@mail.yahoo.com>



October 8-9, 2018 -- Bush backed Kavanaugh to keep election thefts of 2000 and 2004 a secret - Wayne Madsen Report


| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
October 8-9, 2018 -- Bush backed Kavanaugh to keep election thefts of 20...

Wayne Madsen Report

Kavanaugh was rewarded with Supreme Court seat to protect him from criminal investigation.
 |

 |

 |



October 8-9, 2018 SPECIAL REPORT....WayneMadsenReport

Former president George W. Bush has been misinterpreted by many political observers as a "neo-moderate." However, Bush's phone calls to four wavering senators, in which he urged them to vote for Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, belies the actual reason behind his support for Kavanaugh. Serving as White House Staff Secretary for Bush from 2003 to 2006, Kavanaugh was part and parcel of theft of Ohio's 20 electoral votes to Bush in 2004, which ensured Bush's re-election and denied the presidency to Democratic candidate John Kerry. Bush's phone calls to Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) were supplemented with an invitation for her to visit the Bush family at their Kennebunkport, Maine estate. Bush also phoned Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Out of the three, only Murkowski voted against Kavanaugh's confirmation.

While at the Bush White House, Kavanaugh worked alongside Bush presidential adviser Karl Rove and outside Republican interests to ensure that in 2004 it would be Ohio that would tip the scales to Bush, just as in 2000 it was massive election malfeasance in Florida that ensured Bush's victory, denying the presidency to Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic candidate.

Kavanaugh and Rove closely coordinated their election fraud operations with two experienced Washington campaign advisers for Republican candidates, Rick Davis, who was John McCain's campaign manager in his failed 2000 presidential bid, and Davis's partner, Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman for Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. Manafort was convicted of federal fraud charges but decided to cooperate as a witness for Justice Department special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation of criminality surrounding the Trump campaign. 

Manafort and Davis teamed together on behalf of candidate Viktor Yanukovych in the 2004 presidential race in Ukraine. The pair formed Davis Manafort International LLC, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered Alexandria, Virginia. Richard Gates, Manafort's deputy Trump campaign chair and Trump Transition Team official -- who was also convicted in 2016 Trump campaign election malfeasance -- joined Davis Manafort in 2006. In 2006, Davis Manafort International acquired as a client the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who is believed to have been a major cog in the illegalities surrounding the Trump election victory in 2016. Another Davis Manafort client was Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, who is currently living in Austria, but is the subject of a U.S. extradition request not, specifically, involving the Mueller investigation.

Yanukovych's disputed victory resulted in the Orange Revolution that forced Yanukovych to abandon the presidency in favor of Viktor Yushchenko. Little noticed was Manafort's and Davis's work for Bush, Rove, and Kavanaugh in the 2004 election, one that was every bit as manipulated as the election in Ukraine. Kavanaugh was no stranger to disputed elections. Kavanaugh was also -- along with Rove; Matt Schlapp,whose wife works as deputy director of Trump's White House Communications Office; [pictured right, circled in red], and GOP dirty trickster Roger Stone -- one of the infamous "Brooks Brothers Brigade" members who descended upon Florida to demand a stop to the Florida Supreme Court-ordered hand recount of votes in the contested 2000 election. The Bush team of lawyers, dressed in corporate attire, organized the riot of paid GOP operatives at the Stephen P. Clark Government Center in downtown Miami. The rioters attempted to break down the door of Miami-Dade county's supervisor of elections. Stone, operating from an RV parked outside the government center, coordinated the mob's efforts with Bush's legal team, which included Kavanaugh, which was working in Tallahassee to oppose a Florida Supreme Court-ordered tri-county recount in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. A later unofficial recount of votes in Broward, Highlands, Hillsborough, Marion, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Pasco and Pinellas counties showed that Gore won Florida and, thus, the 2000 presidential election.

Davis and Manafort were partners with two GOP information technology consultants, Jeff Averbeck, the owner of SmarTech Corporation of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Mike Connell, an Ohio-based operator of Bush campaign websites, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 527 PAC site that spread falsehoods about Kerry's Vietnam military service. SmarTech's parent company is Airnet Group of Chattanooga, also owned by Averbeck. Both firms are located in the city's old Pioneer Bank building in downtown Chattanooga. 

Stephen Spoonamore, a computer security expert and IT adviser to the Bush 2004 and John McCain 2008 presidential campaigns, revealed that SmarTech was able to intercept and alter Ohio election returns in 2004 before they were made available on the Ohio Secretary of State's website. 

Connell also ran New Media Communications LLC and GovTech Solutions, both located in Akron, Ohio; and Integrated Web Strategy LLC, which acted as a pass-through to the Chamber of Commerce Institute of Legal Reform. Averbeck and SmarTech were also well-known to Chattanooga's mayor in 2004, now-Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who had his eyes set on a U.S. Senate run. Corker's vote for Kavanaugh was also predicated on what Bush and Kavanaugh knew about Averbeck's work for Corker's election campaigns in Tennessee. WMR's sources revealed that Corker, as mayor, providing cover for the major GOP political dirty tricks operation being run from his city. In February 2007, Corker, Rove, and Bush were spotted together at Porker's BBQ restaurant in Chattanooga. There were reports of a connection between SmarTech's predecessor firm, ST3; another web service provider called Coptix, and Corker.

In the 2000 election, Averbeck's SmarTech was tasked with high-tech spying on Al Gore's Nashville presidential campaign headquarters. A three hour drive from Nashville, Chattanooga was considered by Karl Rove to be an excellent and friendly spot to keep a high-tech eye on the Gore campaign from within his home state. Kavanaugh reported to Rove during the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. [pictured left, 2004 campaign]

Manafort and Davis also established 3EDC, LLC, a firm dedicated to leveraging social media on the Internet on behalf of their candidates. Manafort and Davis worked closely with Connell and Averbeck, as well as Ohio's corrupt GOP Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, on the Bush 2004 campaign.

In the 2004 election, Connell, Averbeck, Rove, and Kavanaugh also worked closely with Rebecca "Becki" Donatelli, the head of Campaign Solutions, LLC, a major Republican campaign consultancy. Donatelli's husband is former Reagan administration official Frank Donatelli, a GOP PAC bundler. Another firm connected to Connell's and Averbeck's operations was Dynology Corporation of Vienna, Virginia. Dynology was founded in 1999 and has contracts with several U.S. defense and intelligence agencies.

Connell, Averbeck, and Kavanaugh may have been behind the installation of live streaming "black boxes" in the White House and the Eisenhower Old Executive Office Building used to stream live video of torture sessions in Guantanamo, Cuba and Abu Ghraib to the Old Executive Office Building office of Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief Counsel David Addington and into the West Wing of the White House. These torture sessions involved the raping of teenage male and female prisoners by guards; sodomizing prisoners with glow sticks, broom handles and flashlights; forcing male prisoners to engage in homosexual acts with one another; and forcing prisoners to roll around in human excrement.

A fire that broke out in an "electrical closet" in the Old Executive Office Building on December 19, 2007, near Cheney's ceremonial office, [pictured right] contained the live streaming boxes used to videostream the torture sessions from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. SmartTech and Airnet have been in the live streaming video business since 2002. Kavanaugh, as deputy White House counsel and Staff Secretary, would have had input on the installation of the videostreaming capabilities, as well as Bush's and Cheney's prisoner torture policy.

In 2008, Connell agreed to testify before a U.S. House of Representatives probe of malfeasance surrounding the 2004 vote count in Ohio, however, he was killed in a suspicious crash of his private plane, as it was making its final approach to the Akron-Canton airport en route from College Park, Maryland. No mechanical problems with the aircraft were reported.

Mr. Bush, knowing full well that as much criminality surrounded his 2004 re-election as did Trump's win in 2016, wanted, as much as Trump, to ensure that Kavanaugh was given a seat on the Supreme Court. It was a similar desire that saw Bush nominate Kavanaugh for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2006, which is, perhaps, the second-most important federal court in the country. As an Associate Supreme Court Justice, Kavanaugh is in a prime position to ensure that serious criminal charges are never brought against Bush or Trump, or both.

One of the reasons the Trump White House and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee resisted in pursuing the release of thousands of documents involving Kavanaugh's time as both Bush Staff Secretary at the White House and deputy to Bush White House counsel Alberto Gonzales is the trove of information on Kavanaugh's work with Rove, Manafort, Davis, Connell, and Averbeck on the 2004 election. Thanks to Freedom of Information lawsuits filed by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), we may see some sunlight shone on what Trump and the Republicans clearly do not want anyone to see. Some of the requested documents may deal with Connell's New Media Communications setting up hundreds of Republican web sites, including gwb43.com, used by Bush White House staffers, including Kavanaugh, to send politically-connected emails in violation of government policies on mixing official duties with political work.

Far from being a leading light of jurisprudence, Kavanaugh was and remains a highly-partisan dirty tricks operative, who operates more in the mold of Karl Rove and Roger Stone than of Warren Burger or Louis Brandeis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181012/b06314ce/attachment-0001.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Fri Oct 12 23:48:35 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 18:48:35 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT op-ed on Khashoggi
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyHhzkz7=tyjjyqA0hJGiGednhPo9J06=GCO0Lps6xNZHQ@mail.gmail.com>

The author was recently interviewed by Doug Henwood on his book--

*Silicon Valley’s Saudi Arabia ProblemSilicon Valley’s Saudi Arabia Problem*

Technology companies can no longer turn a blind eye to the human rights
abuses of one of their largest investors.

*By Anand Giridharadas <https://www.nytimes.com/by/anand-giridharadas>*

Mr. Giridharadas is the author of “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of
Changing the World.”

Somewhere in the United States, someone is getting into an Uber en route to
a WeWork co-working space. Their dog is with a walker whom they hired
through the app Wag. They will eat a lunch delivered by DoorDash, while
participating in several chat conversations on Slack. And, for all of it,
they have an unlikely benefactor to thank: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Long before the dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi vanished
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/09/world/middleeast/jamal-khashoggi-timeline.html?module=inline>,
the kingdom has sought influence in the West — perhaps intended, in part,
to make us forget what it is. A medieval theocracy that still beheads by
sword
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/26/saudi-arabia-criticised-over-executions-for-drug-offences>,
doubling as a modern nation with malls (including a planned mall offering
indoor skiing
<https://www.thenational.ae/business/maf-to-build-saudi-arabia-s-first-ski-slope-in-its-riyadh-malls-projects-1.207714>),
Saudi Arabia has been called “an ISIS that made it.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html?module=inline>”
Remarkably, the country has avoided pariah status in the United States
thanks to our thirst for oil
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/trump-oil-saudi-arabia.html?module=inline>,
Riyadh’s carefully cultivated ties with Washington
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/world/middleeast/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-arms-deal-lockheed.html?module=inline>,
its big arms purchases
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/us-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-.html?module=inline>,
and the two countries’ shared interest in counterterrorism
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam.html?module=inline>.
But lately the Saudis have been growing their circle of American enablers,
pouring billions into Silicon Valley technology companies.

While an earlier generation of Saudi leaders, like Saudi Prince Alwaleed
bin Talal
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-arrests-alwaleed-newsmaker/saudi-prince-alwaleed-has-invested-billions-in-companies-around-globe-idUSKBN1D50FO>,
invested billions of dollars in blue-chip companies in the United States,
the kingdom’s new crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has shifted Saudi
Arabia’s investment attention from Wall Street to Silicon Valley. Saudi
Arabia’s Public Investment Fund
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/what-now-for-saudi-arabia-s-planned-2-trillion-fund-quicktake>
has become one of Silicon Valley’s biggest swinging checkbooks, working
mostly through a $100 billion fund
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/technology/masayoshi-son-softbank-vision-fund.html?module=inline>
raised by SoftBank (a Japanese company), which has swashbuckled its way
through the technology industry, often taking multibillion-dollar stakes in
promising companies. The Public Investment Fund put $45 billion
<https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/14/softbank-and-saudi-arabias-pif-planning-100bn-tech-fund/>
into SoftBank’s first Vision Fund, and Bloomberg recently reported
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-05/saudi-arabia-doubles-down-on-softbank-bet-with-extra-45-billion>
that the Saudi fund would invest another $45 billion into SoftBank’s second
Vision Fund.

SoftBank, with the help of that Saudi money, is now said to be the largest
shareholder in Uber
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-softbank-tender/softbank-is-now-ubers-largest-shareholder-as-deal-closes-idUSKBN1F72WL>.
It has also put significant money into a long list of start-ups
<https://www.recode.net/2018/2/5/16974032/this-is-where-chart-softbank-vision-fund-masayoshi-son-venture-capital>
that includes Wag
<https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/30/on-demand-dog-walking-app-wag-raises-300-million-from-softbank-vision-fund/>,
DoorDash
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-01/softbank-leads-535-million-investment-in-doordash-delivery-app>,
WeWork
<https://www.recode.net/2018/10/9/17957916/softbank-wework-vision-fund-talks>,
Plenty
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/softbank-s-vision-fund-leads-200-million-bet-on-indoor-farming>,
Cruise
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/business/dealbook/gm-softbank-cruise.html?module=inline>,
Katerra
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/business/dealbook/katerra-softbank-vision-fund.html?module=inline>,
Nvidia <https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/07/softbank-nvidia-vision-fund/> and
Slack
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-slack-fundraising/slack-valued-at-5-1-billion-after-new-funding-led-by-softbank-idUSKCN1BT0KO>.
As the world fills up car tanks with gas and climate change worsens, Saudi
Arabia reaps enormous profits — and some of that money shows up in the bank
accounts of fast-growing companies that love to talk about “making the
world a better place.”

Advertisement

Mohammed bin Salman has carefully crafted a public image of himself as a
reformer
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-model-for-a-saudi-reformer-1531868178>,
distancing himself from Saudi leaders of the past. During a recent visit to
Silicon Valley
<https://www.recode.net/2018/4/6/17206358/saudi-crown-prince-visit-tech-silicon-valley>,
reportedly
<http://fortune.com/2018/04/08/tim-cook-and-sergey-brin-met-with-the-saudi-crown-prince-in-silicon-valley/>
to discuss “potential cooperation between American tech companies and Saudi
Arabia,” the Saudi ruler did away with his traditional white robes as he
met with executives and investors. On his tour, he was seen walking around
with Sergey Brin of Google
<https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/07/heres-a-look-at-who.html>, exchanging
smiles with Mark Zuckerberg while exploring Facebook
<http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/technology/2016/06/22/Saudi-s-Deputy-Crown-Prince-meets-Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg.html>,
and sitting down with Jeff Bezos of Amazon
<http://www.arabnews.com/node/1276676/saudi-arabia>, who owns The
Washington Post, for which Mr. Khashoggi wrote
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/10/06/read-jamal-khashoggis-columns-for-the-washington-post/?utm_term=.b845287a644b>
until he vanished.

The crown prince’s visit to Silicon Valley appears to have paid off for all
involved. Silicon Valley celebrated one of its largest investors, the crown
prince cemented his public image as a progressive start-up investor, and
several of the executives he met have since joined the advisory board
<https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-execs-named-saudi-board-controversy-jamal-khashoggi-disappearance-2018-10>
of Neom
<https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/10/saudis-500-billion-mega-city-neom-is-attracting-overwhelming-interest-from-investors.html>,
his $500 billion megacity project. A former United States energy secretary,
Ernest Moniz, suspended his involvement in Neom earlier this week, telling
Axios
<https://www.axios.com/obama-energy-secretary-suspends-role-saudi-project-a2c0c3c4-2a71-487f-8aab-6580da5dc1e0.html>that
he has concerns “about the disappearance and possible assassination of
Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.” Y Combinator’s
president, Sam Altman, also suspended his involvement in the megacity
project, saying that he doesn’t “plan to comment on the case until the
investigation is finished.” Many other Neom advisory board members —
including Marc Andreessen of the famed Silicon Valley investment firm
Andreessen Horowitz; the former Uber C.E.O. Travis Kalanick; and the Boston
Dynamics C.E.O., Marc Raibert — remain on the board
<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/silicon-valley-leaders-disassociate-saudi-arabia-board-neom>
as of now.

You have 4 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times
<https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html?campaignId=7QFKX>

The bond between Saudi Arabia and Silicon Valley will be further
strengthened later this month, at the Future Investment Initiative in
Riyadh — also known as “Davos in the Desert
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-11/saudi-davos-prep-overshadowed-by-outcry-over-writer-s-fate>.”
Speakers listed on the conference website
<http://futureinvestmentinitiative.com/en/2018/speakers> as of this writing
include the Lucid Motors C.T.O., Peter Rawlinson; the Google Cloud C.E.O.,
Diane Greene; the Magic Leap chief product officer, Omar Khan; and Vinod
Khosla of Khosla Ventures. They will be joined by hundreds of other
investors, executives, and government officials, including the president of
the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, and the United States Treasury secretary,
Steve Mnuchin. According to its website
<http://futureinvestmentinitiative.com/en/home>, the event is “powered by
the Public Investment Fund.” Several speakers have dropped out
<https://www.axios.com/companies-saudi-arabia-conference-khashoggi-disappearance-153deaec-1282-4723-91f2-2ea8998d5fe2.html>,
including the Uber C.E.O., Dara Khosrowshahi, who stated that he was “very
troubled by the reports to date about Jamal Khashoggi.”

The kingdom’s influence in the United States government has long bought a
certain amount of silence, which was evidenced most famously in the
so-called “28 pages
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/15/us/document-september-11-28-pages.html?module=inline>”:
a classified portion of Congress’s investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks that disclosed Saudi linkages to the hijackers that were
suggestive, if hardly conclusive, of official support — pages that victims’
families long struggled to get declassified
<https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282378-9-11-families-plead-with-white-house-to-release-secret-28-pages>.
But the push into Silicon Valley — into companies whose technology is used
by millions — represents a potentially dangerous new front of Saudi
influence-peddling: Riyadh underwriting ever more of our daily
conveniences, making us complicit in the regime’s deeds.

The facts of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance remain a
mystery. But if he was, as Turkish officials have suggested
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/world/europe/jamal-khashoggi-turkey-saudi-arabia.html?module=inline>,
murdered at the behest of the Saudi kingdom, it wouldn’t be out of
character. Despite image-burnishing attempts like the crown prince’s
Silicon Valley tour, Saudi Arabia remains a paragon of human rights abuse.
It continues to use punishments outlawed elsewhere, carrying out 48
beheadings in the first four months of 2018
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/26/saudi-arabia-criticised-over-executions-for-drug-offences>.
In August, it was reported
<https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-seeks-unprecedented-death-penalty-woman-activist-n902771>
that Saudi prosecutors were seeking unprecedented authority to behead a
female activist for nonviolent offenses, which included protesting against
the government.



Saudi Arabia’s laws treat women as second-class citizens, only recently
granting
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-drivers-licenses-women.html?module=inline>
them the power to drive — and only once it had become clear that this
freedom would be short-lived, thanks to Silicon Valley’s driverless car
technology, in which the Saudi fund has invested. The Saudis have fueled a
civil war in Yemen that is reported
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/world/middleeast/un-yemen-war-crimes.html?module=inline>
to have cost at least 16,000 lives; a report
<https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23479&LangID=E>
from the United Nations Human Rights Council suggests that Saudi Arabia may
be guilty of war crimes for its involvement in the civil war of its
southern neighbor. And, thanks to the world’s need for its oil, the kingdom
has enjoyed a stunning immunity from justice for its role in financing
Islamist extremism around the world
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam.html?module=inline>
.

As Saudi Arabia establishes its new role as one of Silicon Valley’s most
prominent investors, the risk grows that its investments will purchase
silence. Companies that pride themselves on openness and freedom may find
themselves unable to speak ill of one of their largest investors.

Fearing that this would be so, I reached out to several of the technology
companies that have received significant cash from Saudi Arabia’s Public
Investment Fund
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/what-now-for-saudi-arabia-s-planned-2-trillion-fund-quicktake>.
I asked Uber, Wag, DoorDash, Katerra, WeWork, Slack and Plenty if there was
any aspect of Saudi Arabia’s conduct in Mr. Khashoggi’s apparent murder
that the company disavowed. “Or,” I asked, “does the investment from PIF
come with an expectation of remaining silent about Saudi conduct?” All of
the companies either declined to respond at all, or responded with a
refusal to comment on the record about the Saudi kingdom’s behavior.

Silicon Valley has enough issues already: Tech companies are compromising
our elections
<https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election>,
upholding monopolies
<https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/big-techs-monopolistic-rule-is-hiding-in-plain-sight/>,
and profiteering from the abuse of privacy
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/10/tech-companies-data-online-transactions-friction>.
There is no need to add to that list by becoming a reputation-laundering
machine for one of the least admirable regimes on earth — a regime that
would seem to violate all the values that Silicon Valley is proud of
trumpeting.

Arvind Ganesan, director of the business and human rights program of Human
Rights Watch, told me in an email that the Riyadh conference “will be a
litmus test for businesses’ willingness to go along with a Saudi narrative
that is increasingly disconnected from reality.” Foreign businesses “risk
more than reputational harm,” he added. “They’re enabling part of his
narrative.”

If the Valley is sincere that it will “change the world” and “do the right
thing, period
<https://www.fastcompany.com/40572751/ubers-new-mantra-is-do-the-right-thing-employment-lawyers-are-still-waiting>,”
then the Saudi government’s billions of dollars in investment capital
should be returned, and Silicon Valley companies should refuse any further
investments. Every business leader and news organization of conscience
should pull out from the Public Investment Fund-powered conference and
suspend any involvement with Saudi-funded projects like Neom — at the very
least, until the disappearance and potential murder of Mr. Khashoggi have
been suitably investigated, but perhaps beyond that, given the regime’s
broader human rights record. (I became aware during the writing of this
piece that The New York Times had been listed among the conference’s
sponsors but has since withdrawn
<https://twitter.com/grynbaum/status/1050157874662531072>.)

Mr. Khashoggi couldn’t be intimidated by his country. He might have given
his life for his bravery. Silicon Valley must choose where it stands on the
questions of lies and truth, cowardice and courage that defined his work.
Turning a blind eye to the human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia is no way of
“changing the world.”

Anand Giridharadas is the author of, most recently, “Winners Take All: The
Elite Charade of Changing the World.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/silicon-valley-saudi-arabia.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181012/a432e018/attachment-0001.html>

From ewj at pigs.ag  Sat Oct 13 04:39:06 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 12:39:06 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voters Kool with Kavanaugh
In-Reply-To: <BFFC9F16-DB23-4DB4-8E18-0853C89CB4C7@gmail.com>
References: <04ca38c3-7fd0-5ebb-a325-221a5c87d4ce@pigs.ag><BFFC9F16-DB23-4DB4-8E18-0853C89CB4C7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1539405534508.2qtm25ee0ightgqmyyvun1hx@android.mail.163.com>

For me, this whole #metoo thing or what ever one wants to call it is not just engineered mccarthyism. (although it is obvious that some one or some group is behind a curtain offstage somewhere pulling levers and pushing buttons. The monkeys are willing enough.) It is a social phenomenon something like the #redmenace craze and the witch craze. "Dear friends, we regret to inform you that... Moscow and aleppograss and the Internationalists and cigar-eets and whisky and grumpy white privileged cis-gender testosterone-crazed male psyche and oat bran and ...wild, wild, wimmen, (and fill-in-the-blank-for-your-next-distraction ) are systematically destroying America." All such bullshit crazes finally run out of gas. It might be the horror of hot burning tar searing the charred screaming corpse of some hapless witless Jenny Horne. Maybe it is a MayDay fiasco or a Faulk vs AWARE, Inc. that somehow signifies that an inflexion point has been passed sometime back, Alfie, and it's all over save for the shoutin'. The Kavanaugh matter is not yet the end of false accusations. However, hysteria has a hysteresis to it and the majority of Amerikans observe that #metoo mill continuing to turn but there is no longer any water going over the wheel. On 2018-10-12 04:42 , C G Estabrook Wrote: Why? His (wretched) judicial record wasn’t much discussed. Do you suppose this is a popular rejection of identity politics, despite a sympathetic accuser? > On Oct 11, 2018, at 2:56 PM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > [Rasmussen was the only poll to accurately analyse the outcome of the 2016 presdential election before the actual vote. -ewj] > > The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters think Kavanaugh belongs on the Supreme Court. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree.   > > "You'd PAY to know what you really think." - J. R. ("Bob") Dobbs. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181013/cb869441/attachment.html>

From ewj at pigs.ag  Sat Oct 13 04:50:20 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 12:50:20 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT op-ed on Khashoggi
In-Reply-To: <CAOiGAyHhzkz7=tyjjyqA0hJGiGednhPo9J06=GCO0Lps6xNZHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOiGAyHhzkz7=tyjjyqA0hJGiGednhPo9J06=GCO0Lps6xNZHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1539406213170.tu35jnvzod1jl3l5qaui2b4g@android.mail.163.com>

Nvidia? a twentyfive year old company is a startup? maybe it's a spellchecker typo? Lots of folks are motivated by envy but really i kind of like my geforce card and it performed flawlessly yesterday. i dont find a saudi influence. On 2018-10-13 07:48 , David Green via Peace-discuss Wrote: The author was recently interviewed by Doug Henwood on his book-- Silicon Valley’s Saudi Arabia ProblemSilicon Valley’s Saudi Arabia Problem Technology companies can no longer turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses of one of their largest investors. By Anand Giridharadas Mr. Giridharadas is the author of “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World.” Somewhere in the United States, someone is getting into an Uber en route to a WeWork co-working space. Their dog is with a walker whom they hired through the app Wag. They will eat a lunch delivered by DoorDash, while participating in several chat conversations on Slack. And, for all of it, they have an unlikely benefactor to thank: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Long before the dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi vanished, the kingdom has sought influence in the West — perhaps intended, in part, to make us forget what it is. A medieval theocracy that still beheads by sword, doubling as a modern nation with malls (including a planned mall offering indoor skiing), Saudi Arabia has been called “an ISIS that made it.” Remarkably, the country has avoided pariah status in the United States thanks to our thirst for oil, Riyadh’s carefully cultivated ties with Washington, its big arms purchases, and the two countries’ shared interest in counterterrorism. But lately the Saudis have been growing their circle of American enablers, pouring billions into Silicon Valley technology companies. While an earlier generation of Saudi leaders, like Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, invested billions of dollars in blue-chip companies in the United States, the kingdom’s new crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has shifted Saudi Arabia’s investment attention from Wall Street to Silicon Valley. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund has become one of Silicon Valley’s biggest swinging checkbooks, working mostly through a $100 billion fund raised by SoftBank (a Japanese company), which has swashbuckled its way through the technology industry, often taking multibillion-dollar stakes in promising companies. The Public Investment Fund put $45 billion into SoftBank’s first Vision Fund, and Bloomberg recently reported that the Saudi fund would invest another $45 billion into SoftBank’s second Vision Fund. SoftBank, with the help of that Saudi money, is now said to be the largest shareholder in Uber. It has also put significant money into a long list of start-ups that includes Wag, DoorDash, WeWork, Plenty, Cruise, Katerra, Nvidia and Slack. As the world fills up car tanks with gas and climate change worsens, Saudi Arabia reaps enormous profits — and some of that money shows up in the bank accounts of fast-growing companies that love to talk about “making the world a better place.” Advertisement Mohammed bin Salman has carefully crafted a public image of himself as a reformer, distancing himself from Saudi leaders of the past. During a recent visit to Silicon Valley, reportedly to discuss “potential cooperation between American tech companies and Saudi Arabia,” the Saudi ruler did away with his traditional white robes as he met with executives and investors. On his tour, he was seen walking around with Sergey Brin of Google, exchanging smiles with Mark Zuckerberg while exploring Facebook, and sitting down with Jeff Bezos of Amazon, who owns The Washington Post, for which Mr. Khashoggi wrote until he vanished. The crown prince’s visit to Silicon Valley appears to have paid off for all involved. Silicon Valley celebrated one of its largest investors, the crown prince cemented his public image as a progressive start-up investor, and several of the executives he met have since joined the advisory board of Neom, his $500 billion megacity project. A former United States energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, suspended his involvement in Neom earlier this week, telling Axios that he has concerns “about the disappearance and possible assassination of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.” Y Combinator’s president, Sam Altman, also suspended his involvement in the megacity project, saying that he doesn’t “plan to comment on the case until the investigation is finished.” Many other Neom advisory board members — including Marc Andreessen of the famed Silicon Valley investment firm Andreessen Horowitz; the former Uber C.E.O. Travis Kalanick; and the Boston Dynamics C.E.O., Marc Raibert — remain on the board as of now. You have 4 free articles remaining. Subscribe to The Times The bond between Saudi Arabia and Silicon Valley will be further strengthened later this month, at the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh — also known as “Davos in the Desert.” Speakers listed on the conference website as of this writing include the Lucid Motors C.T.O., Peter Rawlinson; the Google Cloud C.E.O., Diane Greene; the Magic Leap chief product officer, Omar Khan; and Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures. They will be joined by hundreds of other investors, executives, and government officials, including the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, and the United States Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin. According to its website, the event is “powered by the Public Investment Fund.” Several speakers have dropped out, including the Uber C.E.O., Dara Khosrowshahi, who stated that he was “very troubled by the reports to date about Jamal Khashoggi.” The kingdom’s influence in the United States government has long bought a certain amount of silence, which was evidenced most famously in the so-called “28 pages”: a classified portion of Congress’s investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that disclosed Saudi linkages to the hijackers that were suggestive, if hardly conclusive, of official support — pages that victims’ families long struggled to get declassified. But the push into Silicon Valley — into companies whose technology is used by millions — represents a potentially dangerous new front of Saudi influence-peddling: Riyadh underwriting ever more of our daily conveniences, making us complicit in the regime’s deeds. The facts of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance remain a mystery. But if he was, as Turkish officials have suggested, murdered at the behest of the Saudi kingdom, it wouldn’t be out of character. Despite image-burnishing attempts like the crown prince’s Silicon Valley tour, Saudi Arabia remains a paragon of human rights abuse. It continues to use punishments outlawed elsewhere, carrying out 48 beheadings in the first four months of 2018. In August, it was reported that Saudi prosecutors were seeking unprecedented authority to behead a female activist for nonviolent offenses, which included protesting against the government. Saudi Arabia’s laws treat women as second-class citizens, only recently granting them the power to drive — and only once it had become clear that this freedom would be short-lived, thanks to Silicon Valley’s driverless car technology, in which the Saudi fund has invested. The Saudis have fueled a civil war in Yemen that is reported to have cost at least 16,000 lives; a report from the United Nations Human Rights Council suggests that Saudi Arabia may be guilty of war crimes for its involvement in the civil war of its southern neighbor. And, thanks to the world’s need for its oil, the kingdom has enjoyed a stunning immunity from justice for its role in financing Islamist extremism around the world. As Saudi Arabia establishes its new role as one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent investors, the risk grows that its investments will purchase silence. Companies that pride themselves on openness and freedom may find themselves unable to speak ill of one of their largest investors. Fearing that this would be so, I reached out to several of the technology companies that have received significant cash from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund. I asked Uber, Wag, DoorDash, Katerra, WeWork, Slack and Plenty if there was any aspect of Saudi Arabia’s conduct in Mr. Khashoggi’s apparent murder that the company disavowed. “Or,” I asked, “does the investment from PIF come with an expectation of remaining silent about Saudi conduct?” All of the companies either declined to respond at all, or responded with a refusal to comment on the record about the Saudi kingdom’s behavior. Silicon Valley has enough issues already: Tech companies are compromising our elections, upholding monopolies, and profiteering from the abuse of privacy. There is no need to add to that list by becoming a reputation-laundering machine for one of the least admirable regimes on earth — a regime that would seem to violate all the values that Silicon Valley is proud of trumpeting. Arvind Ganesan, director of the business and human rights program of Human Rights Watch, told me in an email that the Riyadh conference “will be a litmus test for businesses’ willingness to go along with a Saudi narrative that is increasingly disconnected from reality.” Foreign businesses “risk more than reputational harm,” he added. “They’re enabling part of his narrative.” If the Valley is sincere that it will “change the world” and “do the right thing, period,” then the Saudi government’s billions of dollars in investment capital should be returned, and Silicon Valley companies should refuse any further investments. Every business leader and news organization of conscience should pull out from the Public Investment Fund-powered conference and suspend any involvement with Saudi-funded projects like Neom — at the very least, until the disappearance and potential murder of Mr. Khashoggi have been suitably investigated, but perhaps beyond that, given the regime’s broader human rights record. (I became aware during the writing of this piece that The New York Times had been listed among the conference’s sponsors but has since withdrawn.) Mr. Khashoggi couldn’t be intimidated by his country. He might have given his life for his bravery. Silicon Valley must choose where it stands on the questions of lies and truth, cowardice and courage that defined his work. Turning a blind eye to the human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia is no way of “changing the world.” Anand Giridharadas is the author of, most recently, “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/silicon-valley-saudi-arabia.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181013/50f5b232/attachment-0001.html>

From galliher at illinois.edu  Sat Oct 13 09:34:02 2018
From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 09:34:02 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Election
Message-ID: <DM5PR11MB2012D355EE9095D84C6A1613ABE30@DM5PR11MB2012.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-the-editor/2018-10-11/letter-the-editor-dems-put-us-greater-risk-war.html

[http://www.news-gazette.com/sites/all/themes/custom/ng_fbg/images/social.jpg]<http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-the-editor/2018-10-11/letter-the-editor-dems-put-us-greater-risk-war.html>

Letter to the Editor | Dems put us at a greater risk of ...<http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-the-editor/2018-10-11/letter-the-editor-dems-put-us-greater-risk-war.html>
www.news-gazette.com
How should those of us opposed to America's eight wars and war provocations vote? We have one vote to influence U.S. government policy in the next two years. That comes in next month's election of ...



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181013/63e8a3ea/attachment.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Mon Oct 15 16:40:22 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:40:22 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jason Stanley - fascism
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyGS46nEY8qw47ZBQ0xRL9q7V=rNa8ngS-1znS8BpNz6XA@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000006089069/holding-on-to-the-farm.html

Jason Stanley, a philosopher at Yale, is the new Timothy Snyder, a
historian at Yale. They are both peddling a highly propagandistic argument,
irony not withstanding, regarding what they see as current fascism. Stanley
was interviewed, in uncritical fashion, by Amy Goodman last week. The NYT
has given him a 5-minute video opinion column. It's absolutely lurid. But
of course it says more about liberal opinion in the Trump era than it does
about fascism, past or present.

Notice, by the way, the selectivity of the countries referred to: not
Israel, of course; and not Saudi Arabia.

DG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181015/efcf2413/attachment.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Mon Oct 15 17:59:43 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:59:43 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] WSWS on limo crash/FBI sting
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyFS4ug1SKnj--vrBFgebZO=bskvZ37z9armasNgdho-=A@mail.gmail.com>

Deadliest US transportation incident since 2009Limo in crash that killed 20
owned by FBI terror “sting” operativeBy Josh Varlin
10 October 2018

Additional details continue to emerge about Saturday’s limousine crash
<https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/08/limo-o08.html> in upstate New
York, highlighting extreme negligence and indifference to human life from
the limo operator and the state and federal governments. The crash, which
killed 20 people, was the deadliest US transportation incident since a 2009
plane crash that killed 50 people.

Among the most shocking revelations is that the owner of the limo company
was Shahed Hussain, a key former informant and agent provocateur for the
FBI, who was sent to troll mosques in order to entrap a number of
individuals in “sting” operations involving fake terror plots that were of
his and the FBI’s own making.

This included the infamous “Newburgh Four” frame-up in 2010, in which four
gullible young men were lured with promises of large amounts of cash into a
phony plot to bomb a synagogue and Jewish community center. The judge in
the case, while claiming she had no choice in handing down 25-year prison
sentences, acknowledged that the government “came up with the crime,
provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles.”

On October 6, the limo owned by Hussain’s company was carrying 17
passengers. It failed to stop at an intersection in Schoharie, New York,
driving into the parking lot of Apple Barrel Country Store, a popular
tourist destination. The limo struck two people in the parking lot and an
unoccupied parked car, before colliding with an earthen embankment. The 17
passengers, the driver and the two people in the parking lot were all
killed.

It has since emerged that the limo had failed an inspection last month,
should not have been on the road and had unregulated aftermarket
modifications that likely made it a death trap for its 17 passengers.
Moreover, the limo driver did not have the proper license and the limo
company had failed multiple inspections in recent years.

Despite a grand jury calling for a state task force after a 2015 limo
accident that killed four people, it appears that a task force was never
formed, and that Cuomo’s administration did nothing to even put in place
toothless regulations. In an attempt to shift the blame, Cuomo said Monday
that “people just don’t follow the law,” and therefore new regulations may
not be needed.

Additional information has emerged about the victims of this crash, who
were traveling to a birthday party before their lives were violently cut
short.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the crash,
and a full report has yet to be issued. The NTSB investigation will include
an examination of the limo’s airbag control module (analogous to an
airplane’s black box) and an autopsy of the driver to determine if drugs or
alcohol were involved in the crash.

What has already emerged, however, points to the grim fact that an accident
of this scale was a ticking time bomb.

The company that operated the limo is Prestige Limousine Chauffeur Service,
with a mailing address in Gansevoort, New York. Hussain owns four livery
companies that all share the address of “a run-down motel in the Saratoga
County town of Wilton,” according to the Rochester-based *Democrat &
Chronicle*. In addition to Prestige, Hussain owns Chauffeur Service
Saratoga, Luxury Limousine and Hasy Limousine.

Hussain emigrated to the United States from Pakistan and subsequently
pleaded guilty to charges related to “helping people cheat on [Department
of Motor Vehicles] exams in return for money.” With prison and deportation
hanging over his head, he became an informant for the FBI.

He played the central role in the 2004 arrests of two Muslim immigrants in
Albany in a supposed terror sting
<https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/08/alba-a19.html>, along with the
2009 arrests of the “Newburgh Four.”

An attorney for one of the two men arrested in 2004, Kathy Manley, told
<https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/09/newb-s25.html> the *World
Socialist Web Site* in 2010 that the “Newburgh Four” case was “dependent on
the credibility of a pathological liar and con man [Hussain].”

Hussain is currently in Pakistan and has not responded to press inquiries
regarding Saturday’s crash.

Over the last two years, Hussain’s vehicles have been investigated five
times, with four investigations resulting in the vehicle being ruled as
unsafe. Despite an 80 percent failure record, no apparent attempt was made
to ensure that any vehicles on the road would be safe.

The *Democrat & Chronicle* reports that “federal inspection records show
two Ford limousines owned by the company failing inspections last month.”

Cuomo said on Monday, “That vehicle [in the crash] was inspected by the New
York State Department of Transportation last month and failed inspection
and was not supposed to be on the road.” Moreover, according to Cuomo, the
limo driver did not have a commercial driver’s license with a passenger
endorsement, required to operate a passenger limo.

The September inspections cited the limos “for defective brakes, lack of
proper emergency exits, flat or balding tires, defective windshield wipers,
and other maintenance problems,” according to the Associated Press, which
also reported that the 2001 Ford Excursion had been modified after leaving
the Ford factory to make it a stretch limo with seating for 19 passengers.

Such modified limos are subject to few federal regulations, and state
regulations vary. NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt told the press that only
some of the seats remained anchored to the limo’s floor after the crash.

According to a relative of one of the victims, the limo “appeared in
terrible condition” before the crash. They had originally rented “some kind
of bus,” Valerie Abeling told the *Washington Post*, but were given the
limo after the bus broke down on the way to the birthday party.

The intersection where the crash occurred was known to be hazardous. State
Routes 30 and 30A meet in a T with a stop sign. Schoharie Town Supervisor
Alan Tavenner said that the state Department of Transportation worked on
the intersection about seven years ago, although he told the *New York
Times*, “I honestly think it was a more dangerous intersection than it was
before.”

Saturday’s victims included several young couples, newlyweds and parents of
young children from around upstate New York. Among those killed were four
sisters: Amy, Abigail, Mary and Allison. Amy was celebrating her 30th
birthday. Abigail was a teacher in Amsterdam, New York.

Also killed were Amanda Halse, a waitress in Watervliet; Patrick Cushing,
an employee of the New York State Senate’s Technology Services unit; Amanda
Rivenburg, who worked at a non-profit for people with disabilities; and
Axel and Rich Steenburg, two brothers who worked at semiconductor
manufacturer GlobalFoundries.

The two pedestrians killed were Brian Hough, who was an assistant professor
of geology at SUNY Oswego, and his father-in-law. The driver was Scott
Lisinicchia.

New York State Police Major Robert Patnaude has suggested that Hussain
could face charges in relation to the 20 deaths.

Aside from the gross negligence of the state and federal government in
their enforcement of elementary safety regulations, the question arises
whether Hussain’s companies were given special dispensation because of his
services to the FBI.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181015/4df2610c/attachment-0001.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Mon Oct 15 19:47:08 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:47:08 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jason Stanley - fascism
In-Reply-To: <BCC6DC50-32BF-4AAC-B682-5F12666412AC@illinois.edu>
References: <CAOiGAyGS46nEY8qw47ZBQ0xRL9q7V=rNa8ngS-1znS8BpNz6XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BCC6DC50-32BF-4AAC-B682-5F12666412AC@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyFLgHxXKqXtm7_uks0QKJ3aFzhxOjQxKACEfE8PWJR_jA@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000006154922/fascism-leaders-america-trump.html

My mistake, here is the correct link to 5 minute video.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:20 PM Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu>
wrote:

> Is this the right link?  …holding to the farm…?
>
> On Oct 15, 2018, at 11:40 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000006089069/holding-on-to-the-farm.html
>
> Jason Stanley, a philosopher at Yale, is the new Timothy Snyder, a
> historian at Yale. They are both peddling a highly propagandistic argument,
> irony not withstanding, regarding what they see as current fascism. Stanley
> was interviewed, in uncritical fashion, by Amy Goodman last week. The NYT
> has given him a 5-minute video opinion column. It's absolutely lurid. But
> of course it says more about liberal opinion in the Trump era than it does
> about fascism, past or present.
>
> Notice, by the way, the selectivity of the countries referred to: not
> Israel, of course; and not Saudi Arabia.
>
> DG
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181015/5451e680/attachment.html>

From brussel at illinois.edu  Tue Oct 16 04:22:26 2018
From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 04:22:26 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jason Stanley - fascism
In-Reply-To: <CAOiGAyFLgHxXKqXtm7_uks0QKJ3aFzhxOjQxKACEfE8PWJR_jA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOiGAyGS46nEY8qw47ZBQ0xRL9q7V=rNa8ngS-1znS8BpNz6XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BCC6DC50-32BF-4AAC-B682-5F12666412AC@illinois.edu>
 <CAOiGAyFLgHxXKqXtm7_uks0QKJ3aFzhxOjQxKACEfE8PWJR_jA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3E37D2F8-0B19-4486-A79C-109082C8FFAF@illinois.edu>

I think he only referred to Nazi Germany and Italy, past régimes, and then Hungary. Of course he left out many, for me, notably Ukraine (which Timothy Snyder defends), Israel and other candidates worldwide. In any case, yes, his arguments are too pat, and it is not clear just what his thoughts are about other régimes.

 He didn’t seem to me as bad as Snyder, but I haven’t looked into his other pronouncements. ...

On Oct 15, 2018, at 2:47 PM, David Green <davidgreen50 at gmail.com<mailto:davidgreen50 at gmail.com>> wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000006154922/fascism-leaders-america-trump.html

My mistake, here is the correct link to 5 minute video.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:20 PM Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu<mailto:brussel at illinois.edu>> wrote:
Is this the right link?  …holding to the farm…?

On Oct 15, 2018, at 11:40 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000006089069/holding-on-to-the-farm.html

Jason Stanley, a philosopher at Yale, is the new Timothy Snyder, a historian at Yale. They are both peddling a highly propagandistic argument, irony not withstanding, regarding what they see as current fascism. Stanley was interviewed, in uncritical fashion, by Amy Goodman last week. The NYT has given him a 5-minute video opinion column. It's absolutely lurid. But of course it says more about liberal opinion in the Trump era than it does about fascism, past or present.

Notice, by the way, the selectivity of the countries referred to: not Israel, of course; and not Saudi Arabia.

DG
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181016/9922f28f/attachment.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Tue Oct 16 17:23:08 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:23:08 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jason Stanley - fascism
In-Reply-To: <3E37D2F8-0B19-4486-A79C-109082C8FFAF@illinois.edu>
References: <CAOiGAyGS46nEY8qw47ZBQ0xRL9q7V=rNa8ngS-1znS8BpNz6XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BCC6DC50-32BF-4AAC-B682-5F12666412AC@illinois.edu>
 <CAOiGAyFLgHxXKqXtm7_uks0QKJ3aFzhxOjQxKACEfE8PWJR_jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3E37D2F8-0B19-4486-A79C-109082C8FFAF@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyGLv1sj32Omchj5CrdYvvfMoBu5zNcYHqnTO+OxOhjipA@mail.gmail.com>

I find Stanley's presentation to be utterly bombastic, and to assume some
of the characteristics (i.e., fearmongering) that fascism is accused of.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:22 PM Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu>
wrote:

> I think he only referred to Nazi Germany and Italy, past régimes, and then
> Hungary. Of course he left out many, for me, notably Ukraine (which Timothy
> Snyder defends), Israel and other candidates worldwide. In any case, yes,
> his arguments are too pat, and it is not clear just what his thoughts are
> about other régimes.
>
>  He didn’t seem to me as bad as Snyder, but I haven’t looked into his
> other pronouncements. ...
>
> On Oct 15, 2018, at 2:47 PM, David Green <davidgreen50 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000006154922/fascism-leaders-america-trump.html
>
> My mistake, here is the correct link to 5 minute video.
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:20 PM Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Is this the right link?  …holding to the farm…?
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2018, at 11:40 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss <
>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000006089069/holding-on-to-the-farm.html
>>
>> Jason Stanley, a philosopher at Yale, is the new Timothy Snyder, a
>> historian at Yale. They are both peddling a highly propagandistic argument,
>> irony not withstanding, regarding what they see as current fascism. Stanley
>> was interviewed, in uncritical fashion, by Amy Goodman last week. The NYT
>> has given him a 5-minute video opinion column. It's absolutely lurid. But
>> of course it says more about liberal opinion in the Trump era than it does
>> about fascism, past or present.
>>
>> Notice, by the way, the selectivity of the countries referred to: not
>> Israel, of course; and not Saudi Arabia.
>>
>> DG
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181016/c6a061ac/attachment-0001.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Fri Oct 19 16:24:49 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:24:49 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR SAT. OCT. 20TH
Message-ID: <006d01d467c8$430331f0$c90995d0$@comcast.net>

 

 

 

WORLD LABOR HOUR 

Saturday Oct. 20th 

11 AM - 1PM Central Time

104.5 FM and LIVE worldwide at ; www.wrfu.net 

 

Rev. Edward Pinkney,  African American community activist from Benton Harbor
Michigan will call in to the program at 11:30 AM central time....

 

On December 15, 2014, Rev. Edward Pinkney, a leader in the struggle for
social and economic justice for the residents of Benton Harbor, Michigan,
was sentenced to serve up to 10 years in prison, on the basis of thin
circumstantial evidence that a few dates had been altered on a recall
petition against the city's mayor, James Hightower. The recall was prompted
by the mayor's continued support for tax evasion by the Whirlpool
Corporation, the Fortune 500 company and $19 billion global appliance
manufacturer, headquartered in Benton Harbor. the politically motivated
prosecution against Pinkney killed the petition to recall Hightower, who
many believe would have been ousted due to his ongoing protection of
Whirlpool's interests at the expense of impoverished Benton Harbor, which is
over 90 percent African-American. After serving 2.5 years the Michigan
Supreme court overturned his conviction and since 2017 is back fighting an
even more corporate controlled corrupt government in Benton Harbor.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181019/2f5e46cc/attachment.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Sat Oct 20 17:47:52 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:47:52 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israel_lobbyists_smear_Khashoggi_as_ter?=
	=?utf-8?q?rorist_so_as_to_maintain_Saudi_alliance_=E2=80=94_and_pl?=
	=?utf-8?q?ans_for_Iran_war?=
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyFTjjnCdMnnZ=yLZpq6ReeAbgqTXCpsQjqO8-Pj--XGtw@mail.gmail.com>

Israel lobbyists smear Khashoggi as terrorist so as to maintain Saudi
alliance — and plans for Iran warUS Politics
<https://mondoweiss.net/us-politics/>
Philip Weiss <https://mondoweiss.net/author/philweiss/> on October 19, 2018 14
Comments
<https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/lobbyists-khashoggi-terrorist/#comments>

   - [image: Decrease Text Size]
   <https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/lobbyists-khashoggi-terrorist/#>
   - [image: Increase Text Size]
   <https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/lobbyists-khashoggi-terrorist/#>
   - Adjust Font Size

Josh Block


Even as headlines around the world say that it murdered a critical
journalist, Saudi Arabia has some friends in the U.S. The Israel lobby is
going to bat for the theocratic dictatorship over the alleged killing
of Jamal Khashoggi.

Last night on i24 news, EJ Kimball, an Israel advocate at the Middle East
Forum, suggested that Khashoggi deserved to die. The journalist’s “ties to
al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood” raise “a whole lot of other issues”
about the Saudi tradition of exporting terror, Kimball said. The much
bigger picture, he said, is the new Saudi Arabia taking on Iran.

Josh Block of the Israel Project made a similar allegation about Khashoggi
two nights back. Pro-Al-Qaeda media are pushing the Khashoggi story, Block
said, “because Khashoggi was a radical Islamist terrorist ally who was
close to Osama Bin Ladin, ISIS, Hamas & wanted to overthrow the Saudi
ruling royals, who oppose both the Sunni terrorists, sponsored by Turkey &
Qatar, as well as Irans’s Shia terrorist armies & allies.”



Josh Block’s tweet on Jamal Khashoggi, preserved by Remi Brulin

Meanwhile, Israeli leaders have been staying quiet about the Khashoggi
murder, as James North has repeatedly pointed
<https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/mainstream-ignoring-alliance/> out on our
site. That’s because Israel and Saudi Arabia are now allied against Iran,
evidently seeking an American-led war against the country, and all the
attention to the rubout of a journalist is throwing a wrench in the works.

A former US ambassador to Israel who now lives in the country and serves as
an Israel advocate explains the silence
<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilytamkin/kashoggi-disappearance-israel-quiet-saudi-arabia?bftwuk&utm_term=4ldqpgm#4ldqpgm>
:

The Israelis are “in a very difficult position,” Dan Shapiro, the US
ambassador to Israel under President Barack Obama, told BuzzFeed News.
“They count very much on Saudi Arabia,” which is “central to their
strategic concept of the region.” Saudi Arabia, after all, is their partner
in arms in countering and isolating Iran and Israel’s “strategic anchor” in
the region.

Max Blumenthal explains
<https://twitter.com/maxblumenthal/status/1053097984123158529?s=12> the
importance of Saudi Arabia:

For the Beltway’s Israel lobbyists, it’s all hands on deck this week for
Saudi Arabia and MBS [Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman]. Their war on Iran
party has been unexpectedly disrupted and a natural ally is on the brink.

Israel and the Saudis have been quietly cooperating in the last couple of
years as they face a mutual enemy/regional rival in Iran; and Jared
Kushner’s much-anticipated peace plan surely involves an Outside-In approach
<https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/outside-administrations-remake/>, in which
Saudi Arabia and its friends would seek to force Palestinians to accept
Bantustans on the West Bank as supposed sovereignty, and put quibbles over
Jerusalem and refugees behind them forever. It’s reminiscent of what
American elites were able to overlook in the Egyptian dictatorship for
decades, just because Egypt recognized Israel. Saudi Arabia surely wants
the same treatment.

A lot of the press heralding Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman as a great
reformer–the man now accused of ordering Khashoggi’s elimination– must be
revisited now and seen as an effort by Israel’s friends to prepare
Americans for the new alignment. For instance, the crown prince of Israel
lobbyists, former peace processor Dennis Ross (who says American Jews “need
to be advocates for Israel”
<https://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/american-advocates-palestinians/>), went to
Saudi Arabia twice to watch bin Salman in action and wrote a piece in the
Washington Post
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/02/12/america-should-get-behind-saudi-arabias-revolutionary-crown-prince/?utm_term=.efcff309c749>
last
February, calling the prince the “driving force for change” and a
“revolutionary” the U.S. should support.

His efforts to transform Saudi society amount to a revolution from above…

if it was not for the turmoil and conflict that are consuming the region,
the big story in the Middle East would be the transformation taking place
in Saudi Arabia.

Ali Gharib noted:
<https://twitter.com/ali_gharib/status/1053275474091298816?s=12> “This line
from Dennis Ross should live in infamy, as a testament to his incredible
wrong-headedness on so many subjects: ‘Ironically, the skeptics are
primarily outside Saudi Arabia and not in it.'”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181020/79dfeba8/attachment-0001.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Sun Oct 21 02:45:24 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 21:45:24 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for 19 October 2018
Message-ID: <37EDC53D-B152-4250-B1B6-E34C29A72972@gmail.com>

News from Neptune #399 -- "Cutting up people alive" edition
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17-5Gafden0

Links to articles mentioned in the episode:

Limousine crash in upstate New York/FBI sting operation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Newburgh_Sting

1h55m preview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziAIBbyiL0

Richard French talks to the co-director of the HBO documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmYPiMX2_Ms

Nick Pemberton on "Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/19/reflections-on-chomskys-voting-strategy-why-the-democratic-party-cant-be-saved/

Eileen Appelbaum on "Jobs, Pensions Lost in Sears Bankruptcy, but Hedge Fund King Gets Paid"
http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/jobs-pensions-lost-in-sears-bankruptcy-but-hedge-fund-king-gets-paid

[J.B.Nicholson]

-J

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Mon Oct 22 20:55:32 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:55:32 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another reason the Democrats shouldn't be given
	control of Congress
References: <9c9ee783-d0d8-a4b0-a13d-7088e11d8b49@panix.com>
Message-ID: <CF8B3A5E-5EFC-43E7-97A5-B43B0E8650D0@gmail.com>

(The use of the term ’the left’ by the WaPo is of course hallucinatory.) 

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Louis Proyect via Marxism <marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu>
> Subject: [Marxism] The left is warming up to the FBI. That’s a mistake.
> Date: October 22, 2018 at 2:13:56 PM CDT
> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> Reply-To: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>, "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" <marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu>
> 
> Washington Post Op-Ed, Oct. 22, 2018
> The left is warming up to the FBI. That’s a mistake.
> By Chip Gibbons
> 
> (Chip Gibbons is a journalist and policy and legislative counsel for the advocacy group Defending Rights & Dissent.)
> 
> Terry Albury was a decorated FBI agent with a spotless career and only a few years from being eligible for retirement benefits. Yet as the only African American agent in the Minneapolis field office, he was increasingly unable to overlook systemic racism in the bureau. He was especially disturbed by what he believed was a widespread animus within the bureau against Muslims, particularly the local Somali American community. More chillingly, after serving as an FBI interrogator in Iraq he said he had not only observed anti-Muslim attitudes by U.S. personnel there but also believed the FBI was complicit in torture.
> 
> So he did what many public employees who are unable to be complicit in injustice have done: leak information to the media. And for this act of conscience, he was sentenced last week to four years in federal prison for violating the Espionage Act.
> 
> One might think Albury would be a hero among progressives. Yet his sentencing comes at an odd time when some in the anti-Trump “resistance” have begun to embrace the security state. The FBI, once the bête noire of progressives who saw it as a threat to civil liberties, now boasts more support among Democrats than Republicans.
> 
> Albury’s case demonstrates that this newfound faith in the FBI on the left is entirely misplaced. The FBI has far more in common with President Trump than many would like to admit.
> 
> The FBI has always targeted dissent. This doesn’t just include historical acts, such as spying on the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or rounding up socialists and anarchists during the Palmer Raids. In recent memory, the FBI has used its counterterrorism authorities to spy on Occupy Wall Street and the antiwar group School of the Americas Watch. FBI agents have reportedly shown up to interview students involved with pro-Palestine activism and Standing Rock “water protectors.” In the run-up to the 2016 Republican National Convention, FBI agents visited Black Lives Matter and Occupy Cleveland activists to ask whether they planned to protest the convention and reportedly suggested they stay home. After immigration agents detained an Occupy ICE activist in San Antonio, FBI agents allegedly began questioning him about his fellow protesters.
> 
> These should be viewed as part of a continuum, not isolated incidents. We know from congressional investigations, such as the one conducted by Sen. Frank Church in 1975, the type of domestic political policing the FBI engaged in before the 1970s. And we know from a late-1980s Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that just a few years after the reforms of the 1970s, the FBI was spying on opponents of U.S. policy on Central America. Thanks to a Justice Department inspector general report, public-records requests and reports from activists themselves, we know that throughout the George W. Bush and Obama years, the FBI monitored activists from environmentalists to peace campaigners, often under the guise of counterterrorism. Taken together, this amounts to a decades-long pattern of politically motivated surveillance that runs counter to democratic norms.
> 
> The FBI cannot be the antidote to Trump’s brand of politics. When Trump issued his second travel ban barring people from some majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States, he cited as justification two terrorism plots involving refugees. Yet both cases stemmed from controversial stings in which the FBI and its informants came up with and proposed the plots. A judge described one of the two cases as “imperfect entrapment.”
> 
> The FBI has also deployed confidential informants in Muslim communities across the country. Such monitoring is rooted in a belief that Muslim communities are inherently suspicious, a view shared by Trump, who campaigned on surveilling mosques.
> 
> The FBI also seems to share with Trump an animus toward black activists. Then-FBI Director James B. Comey used his bully pulpit to tout the “Ferguson effect,” the discredited theory that posits that Black Lives Matter protesters and increased attention to police human rights abuses cause a nonexistent uptick in crime. Sound familiar?
> 
> Even more disturbing, in 2017 the FBI issued an intelligence assessment on “black identity extremists.” According to the report, justifiable outrage at police racism or killings of unarmed African Americans could lead to violent attacks on police. Like much of the president’s war-on-police rhetoric, the assessment attempts to pin violence against police on those who protest police misconduct.
> 
> Much has been said about Comey’s role in electing Trump, particularly in his announcement that the FBI had reopened the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But what’s never asked is what role the FBI played in creating fertile ground for a Trump-like figure in the first place. By treating American Muslims as a fifth column, African American protests against racism as a threat to police and dissent as a potential precursor to terrorism, the FBI contributes to a political atmosphere that a demagogue such as Trump can take advantage of. Before warming up to the FBI, the left should remember the threat that the bureau has posed to our democracy.
> _________________________________________________________
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181022/6627e529/attachment.html>

From r-szoke at illinois.edu  Tue Oct 23 02:42:46 2018
From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 02:42:46 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Tell_Congress=3A_Don=E2=80=99t_L?=
 =?utf-8?q?et_Trump_Bring_Back_Banned_Nukes_=3E=3E?=
References: <93c5-b05-5bce72f5@list.winwithoutwar.org>
Message-ID: <F1AC40CD-E70B-4077-A521-C52FFB9723E8@illinois.edu>


From: Erica Fein <info at winwithoutwar.org<mailto:info at winwithoutwar.org>>
Subject: Tell Congress: Don’t Let Trump Bring Back Banned Nukes >>
Date: October 22, 2018


Trump and Bolton are shredding arms control. Tell Congress: Don’t let them bring back banned nukes!

[Win Without War]

Ron — Donald Trump just announced he intends to back out of the 30-year-old nuclear treaty that banned a new kind of dangerous nuclear bomb and ended the Cold War. [1]

This is terrifying. Trump is already building new nukes he thinks are “usable.” And there is already nothing stopping Trump from launching a nuclear bomb.

Now, Trump and his war cabinet are trampling the few nuclear safeguards we have and increasing the likelihood of a horrifying nuclear war.

But we have one massive piece of leverage. Trump can’t get the money to build his terribly dangerous new nukes without a thumbs-up from Congress.

So it’s up to us to make sure that when Trump comes asking for money from Congress to restart a Cold War-style arms race, your members of Congress don’t even consider saying yes. That means we’ve got to get loud — NOW.

Tell Congress: Don’t let Trump bring back banned nukes >><https://act.winwithoutwar.org/act/tell-congress-dont-give-trump-new-nukes?source=em20181022&t=1&akid=2821%2E37829%2EbwguvH>

[https://s3.amazonaws.com/www-ak-assets/images/Sign_Now_Button_with_Shadow.png]<https://act.winwithoutwar.org/act/tell-congress-dont-give-trump-new-nukes?source=em20181022&t=2&akid=2821%2E37829%2EbwguvH>

The treaty Trump is scrapping was signed by Ronald Reagan. That’s right — the new nukes Trump is after were too dangerous for Reagan.

We simply cannot let a thin-skinned, short-tempered president who makes Twitter threats of nuclear annihilation actually get his hands on these horrible new nukes.

There’s no two ways around it: Ditching this treaty makes a nuclear war way more likely.

And the only way to change that is by drawing a hard line against giving Trump the incredibly dangerous new nuclear weapons he is after. That’s where we come in.

Tell Congress: Do not fund Trump’s new nukes.<https://act.winwithoutwar.org/act/tell-congress-dont-give-trump-new-nukes?source=em20181022&t=3&akid=2821%2E37829%2EbwguvH>

Thank you for working for peace,

Erica, Cassandra, Stephen, and the Win Without War team


---

[1] AP: "Trump says US will pull out of intermediate range nuke pact<https://act.winwithoutwar.org/go/14516?t=7&akid=2821%2E37829%2EbwguvH>"

[https://act.winwithoutwar.org/o.gif?akid=2821.37829.bwguvH]





Donate<https://secure.actblue.com/donate/winwithoutwar?refcode=emfooter&t=4&akid=2821%2E37829%2EbwguvH> [Like on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/winwithoutwar>     [Follow on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/winwithoutwar>

Win Without War is a project of the Center for International Policy.
1 Thomas Circle NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005
(202) 656-4999 | info at winwithoutwar.org<mailto:info at winwithoutwar.org>

This email was sent to r-szoke at illinois.edu<x-msg://1/#>. Email is the most important way for us to reach you about opportunities to act. If you'd like to receive fewer mailings, click here<http://act.winwithoutwar.org/signup/receive_fewer_emails/?t=5&akid=2821%2E37829%2EbwguvH>. If you need to remove yourself from our email list, click here to unsubscribe<http://act.winwithoutwar.org/unsubscribe/unsubscribe/?t=6&akid=2821%2E37829%2EbwguvH>.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181023/e21156cf/attachment-0001.html>

From brussel at illinois.edu  Wed Oct 24 00:47:26 2018
From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:47:26 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Who_votes_for_peace=E2=80=A6?=
Message-ID: <BF95E5F6-3677-4480-AE42-F537D03FDD5C@illinois.edu>

FYI

Published on
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
by
Common Dreams<https://www.commondreams.org>

…We invite voters to check out the Peace Voter's Guide<https://www.codepink.org/peace_voter_guide> to see where your Senators and Representatives stand on critical issues of war and peace.  How much money have your representatives collected from the arms industry in this election cycle? How have they voted on critical bills and amendments for war, peace, weapons and military spending during their time in Congress?

You can use the Guide<https://www.codepink.org/peace_voter_guide> to compare your representatives with their colleagues. You can check out the differences between Democrats and Republicans, and see who are the real hawks and doves in each party.

Figures show that arms companies, including their PACS, have contributed about equally to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate in this election cycle, giving an average of over $180,000 to each Senator. In the House, however, they have given more to Republicans (an average of $46,000 each) than to Democrats ($31,000 each).

The Senators who are most indebted to the arms industry tend to be high-ranking members of committees key to Pentagon funding. In 2017-18, the senator receiving the most weapons industry contributions, $969,550, was Richard Shelby (R-AL). Shelby chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee, the committee that allocates funding for all federal agencies.

The number one recipient on the Democratic side, with $675,8287 in contributions, is Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member at the Armed Services Committee. Other major recipients, all on key committees, are Tim Kaine (D-VA) with $607,850; Dick Durbin (D-IL) with $550,161; James Inhofe (R-OK) with $478,249; Lindsey Graham (R-SC) with $458,893; Mark Warner (D-VA) with $399,928; and Bill Nelson (D-FL) with $391,800.  The arms industry's most favored House Reps are Armed Services Chair Mac Thornberry (R-TX-13), with $402,250; Appropriations Committee member Kay Granger (R-TX-12) with $368,410 and another Appropriations member Peter Visclosky (D-IN-1) with $328,583.

When it comes to critical votes on war, peace and militarism, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are more stark. In lifetime voting records tabulated by Peace Action, the average House Democrat has a 72% peace voting record, while the average House Republican scores only 10%. In the Senate, the difference is 69% to 14%.

There are noteworthy outliers, like Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI-3) with an 82% peace voting record and Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA-31) at only 18%. In the Senate, Republican Rand Paul (KY) has a better voting record (62%) than Democrat Joe Donnelly of Indiana (16%), although even Rand Paul would be below-average if he was a Democrat.

And then there are real champions for peace and disarmament in Congress: 16 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the House who have run this year's campaigns with no arms industry cash at all; and progressive leaders who stand up to vote for peace at almost every chance they get, like Barbara Lee (CA-13), with a 99% lifetime peace voting record, Katherine Clark (MA-5) at 98%, Jared Huffman (CA-2), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11) and Earl Blumenauer (OR-3) at 96%, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin with the highest score in the Senate at 94%.

At the other end of the scale, there are 22 Members of Congress (all Republicans) with a 0% peace voting record, meaning that they have never once voted as requested by members of Peace Action, CODEPINK and our partners in the U.S. peace community. They are Senator Tom Cotton (AR) and Representatives McSally (AZ-2), Walters (CA-45), Curbelo (FL-26), Carter (GA-1), Allen (GA-12), Bost (IL-12), LaHood (IL-18), Brooks (IN-5), Poliquin (ME-2), Bishop (MI-8), Emmer (MN-6), Stefanik (NY-21), Katko (NY-24), Rouzer (NC-7), Russell (OK-5), Costello (PA-6), Ratcliffe (TX-4), Hurd (TX-23), Brat (VA-7), Comstock (VA-10) and Newhouse (WA-4).

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/23/peacemakers-warmongers-and-fence-sitters-who-represents-you?cd-origin=rss&utm_term=Peacemakers%2C%20Warmongers%20and%20Fence%20Sitters%3A%20Who%20Represents%20You&utm_campaign=The%20%22Hilariously%20Stupid%22%20White%20House%20Attack%20on%20Socialism%20%7C%20News%20%2526%20Views%20&utm_content=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-The%20%22Hilariously%20Stupid%22%20White%20House%20Attack%20on%20Socialism%20%7C%20News%20%2526%20Views%20-_-Peacemakers%2C%20Warmongers%20and%20Fence%20Sitters%3A%20Who%20Represents%20You<https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/23/peacemakers-warmongers-and-fence-sitters-who-represents-you?cd-origin=rss&utm_term=Peacemakers,%20Warmongers%20and%20Fence%20Sitters:%20Who%20Represents%20You&utm_campaign=The%20"Hilariously%20Stupid"%20White%20House%20Attack%20on%20Socialism%20|%20News%20%26%20Views%20&utm_content=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-The%20"Hilariously%20Stupid"%20White%20House%20Attack%20on%20Socialism%20|%20News%20%26%20Views%20-_-Peacemakers,%20Warmongers%20and%20Fence%20Sitters:%20Who%20Represents%20You>

Contrary to some arguments some on this peace-discuss list, On th other hand this is not the whole story.

—mkb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181024/a8bb4194/attachment.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Wed Oct 24 01:02:09 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:02:09 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Who_votes_for_peace=E2=80=A6?=
In-Reply-To: <BF95E5F6-3677-4480-AE42-F537D03FDD5C@illinois.edu>
References: <BF95E5F6-3677-4480-AE42-F537D03FDD5C@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <FEF26F4F-E05C-4A67-8661-8069AD771075@gmail.com>

The important thing is not the views (or votes) of individual members, but what the party organizations do. The Russiagate Democrats demand that ‘Putin’s puppet’ be more belligerent vs. Russia (as Obama was); the grudgingly pro-administration Republicans back Trump’s erratic peace overtures (Singapore; Helsinki). 

The Democrat party should not be given control of Congress. Obama’s mendacious belligerence from Ukraine to the S. China Sea should not be repeated.

—CGE


> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:47 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> FYI
> 
> Published on
> Tuesday, October 23, 2018
> by
> Common Dreams
> …We invite voters to check out the Peace Voter's Guide to see where your Senators and Representatives stand on critical issues of war and peace.  How much money have your representatives collected from the arms industry in this election cycle? How have they voted on critical bills and amendments for war, peace, weapons and military spending during their time in Congress?
> 
> You can use the Guide to compare your representatives with their colleagues. You can check out the differences between Democrats and Republicans, and see who are the real hawks and doves in each party.
> 
> Figures show that arms companies, including their PACS, have contributed about equally to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate in this election cycle, giving an average of over $180,000 to each Senator. In the House, however, they have given more to Republicans (an average of $46,000 each) than to Democrats ($31,000 each).
> 
> The Senators who are most indebted to the arms industry tend to be high-ranking members of committees key to Pentagon funding. In 2017-18, the senator receiving the most weapons industry contributions, $969,550, was Richard Shelby (R-AL). Shelby chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee, the committee that allocates funding for all federal agencies.
> 
> The number one recipient on the Democratic side, with $675,8287 in contributions, is Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member at the Armed Services Committee. Other major recipients, all on key committees, are Tim Kaine (D-VA) with $607,850; Dick Durbin (D-IL) with $550,161; James Inhofe (R-OK) with $478,249; Lindsey Graham (R-SC) with $458,893; Mark Warner (D-VA) with $399,928; and Bill Nelson (D-FL) with $391,800.  The arms industry's most favored House Reps are Armed Services Chair Mac Thornberry (R-TX-13), with $402,250; Appropriations Committee member Kay Granger (R-TX-12) with $368,410 and another Appropriations member Peter Visclosky (D-IN-1) with $328,583.
> 
> When it comes to critical votes on war, peace and militarism, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are more stark. In lifetime voting records tabulated by Peace Action, the average House Democrat has a 72% peace voting record, while the average House Republican scores only 10%. In the Senate, the difference is 69% to 14%.
> 
> There are noteworthy outliers, like Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI-3) with an 82% peace voting record and Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA-31) at only 18%. In the Senate, Republican Rand Paul (KY) has a better voting record (62%) than Democrat Joe Donnelly of Indiana (16%), although even Rand Paul would be below-average if he was a Democrat.
> 
> And then there are real champions for peace and disarmament in Congress: 16 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the House who have run this year's campaigns with no arms industry cash at all; and progressive leaders who stand up to vote for peace at almost every chance they get, like Barbara Lee (CA-13), with a 99% lifetime peace voting record, Katherine Clark (MA-5) at 98%, Jared Huffman (CA-2), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11) and Earl Blumenauer (OR-3) at 96%, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin with the highest score in the Senate at 94%.
> 
> At the other end of the scale, there are 22 Members of Congress (all Republicans) with a 0% peace voting record, meaning that they have never once voted as requested by members of Peace Action, CODEPINK and our partners in the U.S. peace community. They are Senator Tom Cotton (AR) and Representatives McSally (AZ-2), Walters (CA-45), Curbelo (FL-26), Carter (GA-1), Allen (GA-12), Bost (IL-12), LaHood (IL-18), Brooks (IN-5), Poliquin (ME-2), Bishop (MI-8), Emmer (MN-6), Stefanik (NY-21), Katko (NY-24), Rouzer (NC-7), Russell (OK-5), Costello (PA-6), Ratcliffe (TX-4), Hurd (TX-23), Brat (VA-7), Comstock (VA-10) and Newhouse (WA-4).  
> 
> 
> https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/23/peacemakers-warmongers-and-fence-sitters-who-represents-you?cd-origin=rss&utm_term=Peacemakers%2C%20Warmongers%20and%20Fence%20Sitters%3A%20Who%20Represents%20You&utm_campaign=The%20%22Hilariously%20Stupid%22%20White%20House%20Attack%20on%20Socialism%20%7C%20News%20%2526%20Views%20&utm_content=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-The%20%22Hilariously%20Stupid%22%20White%20House%20Attack%20on%20Socialism%20%7C%20News%20%2526%20Views%20-_-Peacemakers%2C%20Warmongers%20and%20Fence%20Sitters%3A%20Who%20Represents%20You
> 
> Contrary to some arguments some on this peace-discuss list, On th other hand this is not the whole story. 
> 
> —mkb
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Wed Oct 24 13:34:54 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:34:54 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Gaza Water Crisis: Political Solution Needed,
	not a Technological One
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyEi1gpcO2D2L8jgoW9c-0RfZY_nMyEbtifFUipNG3R1ZA@mail.gmail.com>

Story Transcript

GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network, and I’m Greg Wilpert, joining you
from Baltimore.

One of the most acute sources of suffering for the 2 million inhabitants of
the Gaza Strip is the contaminated drinking water situation. The RAND
Corporation, a conservative organization that promotes neoliberal policies
and that usually takes very pro-Israeli positions, just published a
detailed report about the water crisis in Gaza. One of the authors of the
report is a former Israeli soldier. It is, thus, surprising that the Rand
Corporation would report on a catastrophe that Israeli policies have caused
and that prevents 2 million Palestinians from living a normal life. The
findings in the report are very grim, and they warn that unsatisfactory
sanitation in Gaza due to contaminated water could cause widespread disease
which could spread into Israel and into Egypt.

Last month, the BBC aired a short report on the power situation in Gaza.
Here’s a segment of that report.

BBC REPORT: Our children suffer to get a bottle of water. The main water
isn’t drinkable. If we don’t have money, they take containers to a communal
water supply.

The electricity problem means in every 24 hours we get only 3 or 4 hours.
When we get electricity, we plug in our mobile phones, the water pump, and
charge the batteries so we can use it for lights when the power is cut.

GREG WILPERT: Already more than a quarter of all disease in Gaza is caused
directly by contaminated water, surpassing any other cause of disease in
the Gaza Strip. Another report on the water situation in Gaza with the
title False Promises for Gaza was just published by This Week in Palestine.
It warns that reports on the water crisis in Gaza such as the one by the
Rand Corporation tend to have sensationalist headlines, but do not deal
with the complexity of the problem. The author of the report, Clemens
Messerschmid, joins us today. Clemens is a hydrogeologist who has been
living and work in Ramallah since 1997. Thanks for being here, Clemens.

CLEMENS MESSERSCHMID: Hello. Thank you for having me.

GREG WILPERT: Your article warns about one-liner headlines that often
accompany reports by international organizations on Gaza, such as the World
Health Organization report which warned that Gaza will become unlivable by
2020. If these headlines draw attention to human suffering in Gaza, what is
wrong with them?

CLEMENS MESSERSCHMID: Drawing attention to human suffering is very good.
Whether you do it the correct way is the question. Claiming that Gaza will
become uninhabitable by 2020 is wrong from two sides. On the one hand, why
2020? Why not ’22 or ’23? I mean, how much can people survive if it’s just
about survival?

On the other hand, Gaza has long stopped being inhabitable, if we talk
about any degree of decency for human life, even the most basic degree of
decency. And the most terrible feature for daily life in Gaza is, of
course, the lack of any perspective under the current regime, under the
current tight blockade, any prospective- any future. So in that respect,
gaza has long become uninhabitable.

GREG WILPERT: You also argue that desalinisation in Gaza is not the answer
for the water crisis. Why not? What is the answer?

CLEMENS MESSERSCHMID: Well, maybe we should first start with the Rand
report, because it has a very long shopping list of interventions proposed
and planned. And what strikes me is that I’ve seen 25 reports like that
before over the past 20 years. And this report comes along giving detailed
recommendations on what to do in wastewater, in water, on the pipes, the
infrastructure, and so on, just as if there was no blockade. As if it
wasn’t impossible to do any step of normal work, of any normal functioning,
under this blockade. So they depoliticised, they blend out the real cause
and the real trouble of the situation, and focus instead- and that is very,
very common in the water sector, in water projects in Palestine- focus
instead on technical fixes, technical solutions, and claim, indeed, that
this is simply not possible.

GREG WILPERT: Tell us specifically about the desalinisation. What is the
issue there?

CLEMENS MESSERSCHMID: Desalinization, or desalination, is a proposal that
dates back 25 years to the very beginning of Oslo. Immediately upon signing
the Oslo agreements, especially Oslo II agreements in 1995, Israel started
claiming now Gaza should desalinate. And that is for a very simple reason.
Israel was never willing to, and isn’t willing, to share the water of the
country, as a whole, with Palestinians. Israel follows the simple logic
what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is ours, or is even mine as well. Israel
doesn’t want to share water. So their solution to the problem was Gaza
shall look after itself. Gaza shall look for other sources of water. Not
water shared with Israel. That is the principle problematic from the point
of view of of water rights, Palestinian water rights, which is a historic
struggle for over 100 years now.

Now, this logic has been picked up recently by Palestinian Authority in the
West Bank, and even more recently by donor states and donor conferences,
like this spring the Union for the Mediterranean has decided to build a
huge desalination plant in Gaza, a central plant with 55 million cubic
meters of desalinated water per year. What is the problem with that
proposal? Well one is the technical problem. Desalination will not work
under a blockade, and will be unaffordably expensive for Gazans. The other
problem is the principal political approach, because the Rand Report and
all these interventions, and also the logic of desalination, is banked on
one idea, trying to make Gaza independent, autonomous.

And this is a fallacy. A principled fallacy. Gaza is not a country. Gaza
actually happens to have the size, the area, of my hometown, Munich, and
about the same population of my hometown. Gaza is a typical city, 362
square kilometers, and about double the population density of Baltimore,
where you are sitting.

Gaza is just a city. There is no city on earth that can supply itself. Gaza
cannot supply itself, will not supply itself, and should not supply itself.
Just imagine you sit in Baltimore, and you will never be able to reach
Washington or any of the lakes and reservoirs around your city. How on
earth do you want to become water independent within the confines of the
city? This is a wrong approach that only serves Israeli interest. In the
words of Rabin, Yitzhak Rabin, may Gaza just sink into the sea. We don’t
want to know about it. We don’t want to hear about it. We don’t want to
have anything to do with it.

This is cutting any lifeline, cutting any perspective for a actually
normally inhabited city on earth.

GREG WILPERT: Well, thank you so much. This is a very important point that
you are making, I think, about the situation of Gaza, and we’ll certainly
continue to follow it like we always do. I was speaking to our Clemens
Messerschmid, a hydrogeologist who is normally based in Ramallah, but is
talking to us today from Germany. Thanks again, Clemens, for having joined
us today.

CLEMENS MESSERSCHMID: Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck.

GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181024/f6d6dd4e/attachment.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Wed Oct 24 13:36:39 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:36:39 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Unintended_Consequences=3A_US_Sanctions?=
	=?utf-8?q?_on_Russia_and_Iran_Weaken_Dollar=E2=80=99s_Rule?=
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyFxPraHTsZBGis8AcbN=N2OjjVSSXF-GtM+0E7M6HF4Pw@mail.gmail.com>

GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network and I’m Greg Wilpert, joining you
from Baltimore.

In its effort to isolate Iran and to tear up the Iranian nuclear agreement,
The United States set a November 4 deadline for all countries to stop
purchasing Iranian oil. However, various countries are showing signs of
defiance against the U.S. now. One of these is India, which recently
announced an agreement to purchase Iranian oil after the November 4
deadline. On top of that, India also signed a 5.4 billion dollar agreement
with Russia to buy five S-400 Triumf anti-aircraft defense systems. The
Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, which
was signed into law last summer, listed banned Russian individuals and
entities, many of which are related to the defense and intelligence sectors.

The U.S. State Department called India’s violation of U.S. sanctions
against Iran and Russia not helpful and implied that there would be
specified consequences for India. Joining me now to make sense of the
changing U.S.-Indian and U.S.-Russian relationship is Vijay Prashad. Vijay
is Executive Director of Tricontinental Institute for Social Research and
he’s also the author or editor of over a dozen other books. His most recent
book is an edited volume called Strongmen: Putin / Erdogan / Duterte /
Trump / Modi. It was just published by OR Books.

Thanks for joining us today, Vijay.

VIJAY PRASHAD: Thanks a lot.

GREG WILPERT: So, what is going on now? Let’s focus on the U.S.-India
relationship. Why is India openly defying the U.S. on sanctions against
Russia and against Iran?

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, Greg, this issue is a pragmatic issue. I mean, India
needs to import oil. India is an oil deficit country, an energy deficit
country, and it has, over the course of the last 50 years, relied upon oil
from the Gulf Arab states and from Iran. Iran, like Venezuela, produces,
and Libya by the way, produces very high quality oil and therefore is
really essential for not only India but China, Sri Lanka, many countries
around the Indian Ocean and in the South China Sea which are able to bring
oil in by oil tanker. So, India’s entire oil infrastructure is geared
toward the kind of oil that comes out of Iran.

It’s been very difficult for India during the entire sanctions period
before the Iran deal, the nuclear deal in 2015, it was very hard for India.
And in that earlier period, India and Iran had made an arrangement for
India to buy oil from Iran and Iran to take payment in rupees. That
agreement was enabled by alternative financial mechanisms. And I think this
is precisely what the Indian government would like to return to, which is
an alternative way to pay Iran for oil that it just cannot but import. I
mean, there is no way for India to stop importing Iranian oil. The question
has always been how India would be able to pay for it without incurring the
heaviest penalty from the United States.

GREG WILPERT: So, do you think that India’s defiance of U.S. sanctions
would become a problem for India? I mean, what do you think will happen
next with regard to the U.S.-India relationship?

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, the United States has an envoy for its Iran policy,
Brian Hook. And Mr. Hook came to India recently, where he met the
government and he said the United States is concerned. But of course, the
United States understands that India has almost no alternative to Iranian
oil. This is something that the U.S. government over the last couple of
years, the last decade in fact, have had to come to terms with. I mean,
there literally is no other way for India to maintain its energy supplies
if it cuts off the Iran road. This is, of course, something that India
shares with the Europeans, with the Sri Lankans, with the Chinese, with
others. These countries have also made it very clear that they rely upon
Iranian oil. It’s important to recognize, the United States cannot prevent
Iran from selling oil.

The only leverage the United States has is that this sale of oil cannot be
done using the U.S. dollar as the transaction currency, and nor can this
sale of oil have the payments go through networks that the United States
controls. In other words, mechanisms to transfer money, which is why the
Europeans, the Indians, the Chinese, even the Japanese have been discussing
an alternative banking system to enable transactions for goods coming out
of countries that the United States has decided to sanction. It’s
important, I think, to underscore this. The U.S. government cannot stop
trade itself. It can only sanction countries if they are using its
mechanisms and its currency. And that’s precisely what the Indian
government, I think, is in conversation with other governments to go around.

GREG WILPERT: Well, this actually reminds me of the situation also with
Venezuela, which recently announced that it will stop using the U.S. dollar
to the largest extent it can and use other currencies, precisely because
the U.S. has imposed financial sanctions on Venezuela. And of course, the
other country that’s been very heavily affected by transactions and the
usage of dollar that’s moving away is Russia. But what does this mean now
for the U.S.? I mean, more and more allies of the United States, including
the European Union, are looking for ways to get around these kinds of
sanctions, as you mentioned. Doesn’t that mean that the U.S. is, in effect,
actually isolating itself instead of Iran?

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, I think if I was in the U.S. government, if I was in
the Treasury Department, if I was in Wall Street, I would worry about this.
It’s important to put this in context. About 39 percent of world
transactions are done in dollars. The dollar is not a hundred percent
controlling all transactions, about 30 odd percent is run through the Euro.
So, 39 percent is a considerable amount of global transactions. And often,
these are for some of the most important sectors such as oil, where the
Saudis and others insist upon payments in dollars. Now, if the United
States persists with the sanctions policy against Iran and if this leads
countries … these are quite mainstream countries, not marginal countries,
like Japan and the European Union, India, Russia, China.

If these countries decide to create an alternative mechanism to transact
international trade, to make payments, to run the payments through wire
transfer system that goes around the SWIFT system based in Belgium, if this
infrastructure is created by these other countries, I think this would put
a great deal of pressure on the United States, which has relied on the
global use of the dollar to run up major deficits, to print money inside
the country. Because it knows that if it prints money inside the United
States, it does not incur inflation because this currency is utilized
globally. If the currency is utilized less on a global stage, U.S. deficits
will not so easily be taken care of and inflation might rise inside the
United States. So, this could end up being an own goal for the Trump
administration or indeed any U.S. administration that pushes its own allies
into creating an alternative banking system.

GREG WILPERT: This actually brings me on another issue which might seem a
bit of a tangent, but actually I think it’s very closely related, and
that’s the U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship. I mean, lots of people ask
themselves, especially now with the recent murder of Jamal Khashoggi, why
the United States continues to insist on this close relationship with Saudi
Arabia. And I want to ask you, could it be perhaps also related to the
petrodollar in the sense that, as you said, Saudi Arabia uses the
petrodollar, insists on payments in dollars, and this would be one way of
maintaining the dollar as a global currency?

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, I think the Saudis play such an essential role to the
United States. I mean, it’s U.S. gas purchases, for instance, and gas
purchases around the world that bring in the massive wealth to Saudi Arabia
and its sovereign fund. This wealth is held in dollars. In other words, it
enables the U.S. dollar to remain a global currency. And this wealth is
also recycled into U.S. banks, into Wall Street, and not only by the Saudis
holding their sovereign wealth fund in dollars, but also by the massive,
obscene purchases of arms by Saudi Arabia, which are a kind of subsidy for
the American arms industry. So, Saudi Arabia plays this dual or maybe
triple role. On the one hand, it recycles U.S. dollars into Wall Street,
liquefies Wall Street, enables Wall Street to produce a massive fictional
economy with derivatives and so on.

Secondly, Saudi Arabia buys an enormous amount of arms, subsidizes the U.S.
arms industry. And third, by insisting on taking payments in dollars, it
maintains, particularly with weaker countries, the hegemony of the dollar,
when other countries are quite eager to seek a different way or perhaps
even a combined way of dealing with international trade and their own value
of their currency. Many countries would not like their currency to be
measured only against the U.S. dollar, but against a bundle of currencies,
maybe the euro, maybe the renminbi, maybe even some of the most stable
currencies, such as the currencies of Oman and other Gulf countries which
don’t seem to move very much. So, this utilization of Saudi Arabia as a
kind of trigger to maintain the hegemony of the U.S. dollar is fundamental
in the way things work around the world.

GREG WILPERT: Well, we’re definitely going to come back to this topic I’m
sure, but we’ll leave it there for now. I was speaking to Vijay Prashad,
Executive Director of Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. Thanks
again, Vijay, for having joined us today.

VIJAY PRASHAD: Thanks, Greg.

GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181024/9f0cdf20/attachment-0001.html>

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Wed Oct 24 13:51:19 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:51:19 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?The_Middle_East=2C_Not_Russia=2C_Will_P?=
	=?utf-8?q?rove_Trump=E2=80=99s_Downfall?=
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyHJg6Sp_C8bKNgMJr2A3Rb6qx8fb6cMZTQxgdMUqgo6OA@mail.gmail.com>

The Middle East, Not Russia, Will Prove Trump’s Downfall
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/23/the-middle-east-not-russia-will-prove-trumps-downfall/>

by PATRICK COCKBURN <https://www.counterpunch.org/author/patrick-cockburn/>


The Middle East  <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east>has
a century old tradition of being the political graveyard of American and
British political leaders. The list of casualties is long: Lloyd George,
Anthony Eden, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair and George W Bush.
All saw their careers ended or their authority crippled by failure in the
region.

Will the same thing happen to Donald Trump
<https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/donald-trump> as he struggles with the
consequences of the alleged murder of Jamal Khashoggi? I always suspected
that Trump might come unstuck because of his exaggerated reliance on a weak
state like Saudi Arabia rather than because of his supposed links to Russia
and Vladimir Putin. Contrary to the PR company boosterism of Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and his ambitious projects, Saudi Arabia has oil
and money, but is demonstrably ineffective as an independent operator.

The Middle East disasters that toppled so many Western leaders have a
certain amount in common. In all cases, the strength of enemies and the
feebleness of friends was miscalculated. Lloyd George was forced to resign
as prime minister in 1922 because he encouraged the doomed Greek invasion
of Anatolia which almost led to a renewed Turkish-British war.

George W Bush and Tony Blair never understood that the occupation of Iraq
by American and British ground forces had no support inside Iraq or among
its neighbours and was therefore bound to fail. A British military
intelligence officer stationed in Basra told me that he could not persuade
his superiors of the potentially disastrous fact that “we have no real
allies anywhere in Iraq”.

The political debacle most similar to Trump’s ill-judged reliance on the
Crown Prince and Saudi Arabia over the last three years was American policy
towards the Shah and Iran in the years leading up to his overthrow in 1979.
US humiliation was rubbed in when its diplomats were taken hostages in
Tehran which torpedoed Carter’s hope of a second term in the White House.

There are striking and instructive parallels between US and British policy
towards Iran in the lead up to the revolution and towards Saudi Arabia in
2015-18. In both periods, there was a self-destructive belief that an
increasingly unstable hereditary monarchy was a safe bet as a regional ally
as well as being a vastly profitable market for arms.

The Shah and MBS both promoted themselves as reformers, justifying their
authoritarianism as necessary to drag their countries into the modern era.
Foreign elites fawned on them, ignored their weaknesses, and were fixated
by the mirage of fabulous profits. A British ambassador to Iran in the
1970s was said  – I quote from memory – to have rebuked his embassy staff
with the words: “I don’t want any more elegantly written reports about
social conditions in Iranian villages. What I want is exports, exports,
exports!”

Brexit has taken Britain off the world stage and it must be happy in future
with whatever crumbs it can scrounge in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. But
Trump sounds very much like this long-forgotten ambassador when he
justifies the US strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia by referring
repeatedly to a $110bn in arms contract.

In practice, hereditary monarchies are at their most unstable during a
leadership transition, attempts to reform, efforts to expand as regional
powers or as initiators of war. In England, the pacific and cautious King
James I was succeeded by his arrogant, arbitrary and incautious son, King
Charles I, with unfortunate consequences for the monarchy.

Vulgar display was a feature of the Shah’s Iran 40 years ago as it is of
Saudi Arabia today. In his case, there was the celebration of 2,500 years
of the Persian Empire at Persepolis in 1971, which fed the ruling elites of
the world with exotic delicacies such as 50 roast peacocks with tail
feathers restored and stuffed with foie gras along quail eggs filled with
caviar, which the Shah could not eat because he was allergic to caviar.

The Saudi equivalent to Persepolis is the much-publicised “Davos in the
Desert” or, more prosaically, the “Future Investment Initiative” being held
this week in Riyadh and from which politicians and businessmen have been
very publicly dropping out as mystery over the disappearance of Khashoggi
has deepened. Much of the media is treating their decision to stay at home
as some sort of moral choice and never asks why these luminaries were happy
to act as cheerleaders for Saudi Arabia in the same time the UN was warning
that 13 million Yemenis are on the verge of starvation because of the
Saudi-led military intervention.

It is no excuse for the Trump administration or the defecting guests in
Riyadh to claim that they did not know about Saudi Arabia’s potential for
random violence. As long ago as 2 December 2015,  the German federal
intelligence agency, the BND, published a memo predicting that “the current
cautious diplomatic stance of senior members of the Saudi royal family will
be replaced by an impulsive intervention policy.” It went on to say that
the concentration of so much power in the hands of Prince Mohammed bin
Salman “harbours a latent risk that …he may overreach.”

Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent MindsThe memo
was hurriedly withdrawn at the insistence of the German foreign ministry,
but today it sounds prophetic about the direction in which Saudi Arabia was
travelling and the dangers likely to ensue.

Trump has put a little more distance between himself and the Crown Prince
in the past few days, but he makes no secret of his hope that the crisis in
relations with Saudi Arabia will go away. “This one has caught the
imagination of the world, unfortunately,” he says though he may believe he
can shrug off this affair as he has done with so many other scandals.

Just for once, Trump’s highly developed survival instincts may be at fault.
His close alliance with Saudi Arabia and escalating confrontation with Iran
is the most radical new departure in Trump’s foreign policy. He withdrew
from the Iran nuclear deal in defiance of the rest of the world earlier
this year on the grounds that he can extract more concessions from Iran by
using American power alone than Barack Obama ever did by working in concert
with other states. This  struggle is so important because it is not just
between the US and Iran but is the crucial test case of Trump’s version of
American nationalism in action.

The White House evidently calculates that if it draws out the crisis by
systematic delaying tactics, it will eventually disappear from the top of
the news agenda. This is not a stupid strategy, but it may not work in
present circumstances because the Saudi authorities are too inept – some
would say too guilty – to produce a plausible cover story. The mystery of
Khashoggi’s disappearance is too compelling for the media to abandon and
 give up the the chase for the culprits.

Above all, the anti-Trump portion of the US media and the Democrats smell
political blood and sense that the Khashoggi affair is doing the sort of
serious damage to the Trump presidency that never really happened with the
Russian probe.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181024/0eaeb46f/attachment.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Wed Oct 24 23:23:52 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:23:52 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bombs that explode only politically
Message-ID: <EC84B9AE-89AC-4C6E-A3B4-D8044BC0157E@gmail.com>

Are the pipe-bombs - none of which went off - a false-flag by the 'intelligence community' (FBI, CIA et al.) to convince mid-term voters to support the neoliberal/neoconservative establishment (more war & more inequality) - and of course to convince the Trump administration & reluctant Republicans to continue the belligerent Obama-Clinton policies?  —CGE

From davidgreen50 at gmail.com  Thu Oct 25 16:00:01 2018
From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:00:01 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Prez Pans Saudi Shocker,
	Stays Mum On Mass-Murder Prequel
Message-ID: <CAOiGAyEkEnjHx23YwbznFJuOyLtXHZCEo13s8hMwQHfC7WTN4g@mail.gmail.com>

*- www.counterpunch.org <http://www.counterpunch.org>
- https://www.counterpunch.org <https://www.counterpunch.org> -*

*Prez Pans Saudi Shocker, Stays Mum On Mass-Murder Prequel*

Posted By *Richard Eskow* On October 25, 2018

There should be a simple rule for Trump commentary: Every criticism of his
actions should be placed in historical context by citing any other
politicians, in Washington and elsewhere, who have done similar things.
Appoint a hostile administrator
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster/>
to
gut the EPA? Reagan did that, and her son now sits on the Supreme Court.
Racist rhetoric? See Nixon, Richard and George H. W. Bush’s Willie Horton
ad. Promote a bloated military budget? Most politicians in Washington went
along with Trump’s latest request, and threw in billions he didn’t even ask
for.

I try to keep my Trump-only critiques to a minimum, for four reasons:

+ Everybody knows he’s an asshole. No news value there.

+ Everybody’s knocking Trump. It’s a trend. It’s like the 1970s, when
everyone started recording disco tracks, or the 1990s, when everyone went
country. Don’t follow the herd, I say.

+ Most Trump criticism is a distraction from the systemic political and
oligarchical failures that gave us Trump in the first place.

+ The tendency to characterize Trump as not only horrible, but
*uniquely *horrible,
contributes to our national amnesia regarding the other monsters in the
American id — some of whom still walk among us.

On that last point: Despite his newfound popularity among Democrats, George
W. Bush’s body count vastly surpasses Trump’s — at least so far. Who knew
that handing a favorite personality a piece of candy
<http://time.com/5384902/george-bush-michelle-obama-candy-mccain-funeral/>was
all it took to rehabilitate a war criminal? Abu Ghraib, torture, spying on
American citizens, Dick Cheney: all forgotten in one Hallmark moment.

What used to be called “living memory” — the recollection of events most of
us have personally lived through — is barely on life support nowadays.

*Prez Pans Saudi Shocker*

I was compelled to break my own rule today, however, when I read Trump’s
latest comment about the Saudi cover-up of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. The
President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the largest
military force in human history reportedly said the following:

“They had a very bad original concept. It was carried out poorly, and the
cover-up was one of the worst in the history of cover-ups. Very simple. Bad
deal, should have never been thought of.”

That’s showbiz lingo as practiced by amateurs. It’s the way Hollywood
wannabes sound when they’re talking too loudly during a movie at the
Arclight Cinema in Hollywood. Style notes aside, Trump’s review of the
Saudi murder show was an unequivocal two thumbs down. Once the other world
leaders have filed their reviews we can check ‘em out on Rotten Tomatoes.

In the meantime, Trump isn’t wrong. The Khashoggi cover-up *was *a bad
concept, and it *was *carried out poorly. If Trump is frustrated about
that, he almost certainly has good reason to be. He has
well-documented financial
ties
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/i-love-the-saudis-trump-business-ties-to-kingdom-run-deep/2018/10/12/bcc0eda4-ce78-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html>
to
Saudi Arabia — much better documented, in fact, than any ties to Russia —
and he’d undoubtedly love to sweep this whole ugly matter under the
faux-bearskin rug as soon as possible.

*Town Without Pity*

But — and keeping item #4, above, in mind — there are a lot of people here
in Washington who’d like to bury the Khashoggi matter just as much as Trump
would. This town is awash in Saudi cash. It props up “bipartisan” national
security think tanks, funds research, and some of the “experts” you may
have seen on cable TV.

That’s not new information. The New York Times
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-government-contributions-to-nine-think-tanks.html>
documented
the foreign funding of think tanks in 2014, with Saudi government money
going to the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution, the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, and the Middle East Institute.
Comments from one expert, quoted by Vox’s Max Fisher
<https://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11275354/saudi-arabia-gulf-washington>,
demonstrate exactly what that money buys:

“’I could write about Saudi sectarianism, but then I might lose some
money,'” the expert said, explaining the thoughts a Gulf-funded scholar
might have. “‘I could write about UAE human rights abuses, but, you know,
there are abuses everywhere, and there are a million other things I can
write about.'”

*The King and Us*

Worse, to criticize Saudi brutality is to risk the enmity of the United
States government, which has backed it under both parties. The Obama
Administration’s support for the Saudis’ humanitarian catastrophe
<https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/yemen-saudi-arabia-obama-riyadh/501365/>
in
Yemen was continued and intensified under Trump. The horror has grown even
worse.

A child dies every ten minutes in Yemen, which means one probably died
while you were reading these words. Nearly half of all children aged
between six months and 5 years old are chronically malnourished and
stunted, conditions that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

And that’s just the children. (More statistics here
<https://ourfuture.org/20180410/as-the-world-watches-syria-dont-forget-about-yemen>
.)

Only one thing could make the Saudi/think tank story even worse: That’s
right, it’s Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook announced
<https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/18/alarming-facebook-teams-think-tank-funded-saudi-arabia-and-military-contractors>
last
May that it’s “partnering” with one of those Saudi-funded think tanks, the
Atlantic Council, to censor political speech on its platform. (They don’t
put it quite that way, but that’s what they mean.)

*Conscience and Cocktails*

The insiders who are genuinely outraged by Khashoggi’s murder — and who
weren’t outraged before — don’t deserve much credit. What does it say about
the empathy of our elites when they are unmoved by the deaths of children,
and can only summon emotion when the brutality extends to someone they
might have met at a cocktail party?

It’s useful hypocrisy, I suppose, if it can be used to muster support for
ending US involvement in Yemen. But there’s not much chance of that.

Michael J. Glennon, professor of international law at Tufts University’s
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, explained why bad foreign policy
remains largely unchanged from administration to administration. In his
book, “National Security and Double Government,”

Glennon characterizes the “several hundred officials” who shape that policy
as answerable to no one and indifferent to the consequences and costs of a
metastasizing military machine. Glennon writes that their “dynamic”
promotes “encourages the exaggeration of existing threats and the creation
of imaginary ones.”

Those officials like things the way they are, and they set the rules
politicians must follow — unless they’re brave.

No wonder a “bipartisan” Congress gave the Pentagon billions of dollars more
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/06/20/house-and-senate-democrats-vote-68-percent-and-85-percent-for-massive-military-spending/#7efefc1e5101>
than
the Trump administration had asked for — with yes votes from a lot of
“Resistance” heroes. That may explain the course of action Trump says he
plans to take regarding Saudi Arabia.

“In terms of what we ultimately do,” Trump said
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/politics/khashoggi-cover-up-trump.html?action=click>,
“I’m going to leave it very much — in conjunction with me — up to Congress.”

*A Full Investigation*

When my broadcast team and I released a secretly-recorded audio tape of
Trump speaking at a June, 2017 fundraiser, I wondered in The Intercept
<https://theintercept.com/2017/06/30/leaked-trump-tape-could-raise-diplomatic-political-problems/>
why
Trump had “waded heavily into an ongoing confrontation involving Saudi
Arabia and its allies on one side and Qatar on the other” and suggested
further investigations into Trump’s financial dealings with Saudi Arabia.

There was one problem with that idea: The national security establishment
wants to protect its relationships with Saudi Arabia, and it wants to
escalate tensions with Russia. Predictably, Trump’s Russia ties have
received widespread coverage and investigation, while his Saudi ties have
gone all but unremarked.

Now, Trump is reportedly sending CIA Director Gina Haspel to help with the
investigation — because, when it comes to uncovering the truth about a
state’s brutal actions, who has more credibility than someone who participated
in an illegal torture program and systematically destroyed evidence
<https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/torture/haspels-cia-torture-defenders-have-no-case>
?

Haspel would never have become CIA director if President Obama had not
chosen to ignore evidence of war crimes by proclaiming
<https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html>, “We need
to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” (Until we develop
“minority report” technology — you can be sure they’re working on it right
now — that statement would make it impossible to investigate *any *crime.)

*Concept and Execution*

Nobody ever expected the Saudi’s cover story to be plausible. It wasn’t
meant to be believed, at least by anyone familiar with foreign policy. But
it needed to be a simulacrum of plausibility, something official-sounding
and obfuscating enough to provide cover for the DC establishment as the
money spigot was re-opened. Unfortunately, their story is so preposterous —
a “bad original concept” that was indeed “carried out poorly”— that it’s
likely to take some time before the cash can start flowing again.

Given the gravity of the horror and the enormity of the crime, it could
take as long as six weeks.

No wonder the Saudi story got such a bad review. Trump, and the entire city
of Washington, was hoping for a halfway decent performance on opening
night. But, when the curtain rose, the Saudis did the same thing on the
world stage that they’ve been doing in Yemen for years:

They bombed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181025/330ac98b/attachment-0001.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Fri Oct 26 01:08:18 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:08:18 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fwd: Ford Fischer - My info
In-Reply-To: <CAFLceaxL2R+XuzWE05ZC_PXjBBp6-+gwepoU-P_RxD9nWCKPeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <083E277A-D9EE-4FD2-89E2-8E5263AFEC17@gmail.com>
 <CAFLceaxYaHOt=N+c7qu2piLHxE-X44WktmbppHfk57_DRRGdDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <18881E37-C654-4423-AEE0-854CBE12A317@gmail.com>
 <CAFLceaxL2R+XuzWE05ZC_PXjBBp6-+gwepoU-P_RxD9nWCKPeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00bf01d46cc8$61b703b0$25250b10$@comcast.net>

Thanks for sharing this Niloofar !

 

David J.

 

From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Niloofar Shambayati via Peace
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 5:17 PM
To: Peace List
Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Ford Fischer - My info

 

 

Below is the link to the original livestream of the Women's March on Pentagon.  

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ford Fischer <fordfischervideo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Ford Fischer - My info
To: Niloofar Shambayati <niloofar.peace at gmail.com>

 

Check out my YouTube channel though and you’ll see the videos I’ve put out, including the 4.5 hour livestream of the whole thing!

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbBm6SZ235HFxwVKC7Po5IA?app=desktop

 

This was the original livestream with the live views/reactions and stuff!

https://www.facebook.com/N2Sreports/videos/303558080478049/

 

I got HD videos of more speeches than just the ones on the channel. If there’s anything on the livestream you want a higher quality version of, I can check and see if I have it!

Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 24, 2018, at 12:46 AM, Niloofar Shambayati <niloofar.peace at gmail.com> wrote:

Hey Ford,

 

It was a pleasure meeting you at the workshop and learning about the important independent journalism and videography you've been doing. I went to News2share for the coverage of the women's march on Pentagon but was unable to find it. Where should I be looking for it?

 

In solidarity,

Niloofar

 

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 4:18 PM Ford Fischer <fordfischervideo at gmail.com> wrote:

News2Share.com
@fordfischer and @n2sreports on twitter
Ford Fischer and News2Share on Facebook 

SUPPORT US: Patreon.com/fordfischer

Sent from my iPhone

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181025/1b617969/attachment.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Fri Oct 26 19:01:02 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:01:02 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR  ( SAT. OCT. 27TH )
Message-ID: <005301d46d5e$3e5de000$bb19a000$@comcast.net>

 

WORLD LABOR HOUR

 

Saturday October 27th , 11AM - 1 PM  Central Time

 

104.5 FM and LIVE worldwide at ; www.wrfu.net 

 

MARK JOHNSON - Chicago area Princeton trained Economist will call in to the
program to discuss  MODERN MONETARY THEORY  (M.M. T. ) and how it debunks
the lies of U.S. politicians who claim that there is no money for Medicare
for All and other programs for human needs.

 

WRFU- Radio Free Urbana - Listener supported corporate free community radio
for East Central Illinois and the world.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181026/f4b86cbf/attachment.html>

From r-szoke at illinois.edu  Fri Oct 26 19:38:13 2018
From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 19:38:13 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bombs that explode only politically
In-Reply-To: <EC84B9AE-89AC-4C6E-A3B4-D8044BC0157E@gmail.com>
References: <EC84B9AE-89AC-4C6E-A3B4-D8044BC0157E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8B6F8C56-91CB-49AF-B0F8-97CFB6091C35@illinois.edu>

Who do we BLAME?  V102418

“ Are the pipe-bombs - none of which went off - a false-flag by the 'intelligence community' (FBI, CIA et al.) to convince mid-term voters to support the neoliberal/neoconservative establishment (more war & more inequality) - and of course to convince the Trump administration & reluctant Republicans to continue the belligerent Obama-Clinton policies? “  (10/24/18, 6:24 pm)

——

'False Flag’ Theory on Pipe Bombs Zooms From Right-Wing Fringe to Mainstream

Explosive devices were sent this week to CNN, at the Time Warner Center in Manhattan, as well as to prominent Democrats and critics of the president.

By Kevin Roose<https://www.nytimes.com/by/kevin-roose> NYT  Oct. 25, 2018

Just hours after the news broke this week that explosive devices had been sent to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats, a conspiracy theory began to take shape in certain corners of conservative media.
The bombs, this theory went, were not actually part of a plot to harm Democrats, but were a “false flag” operation concocted by leftists in order to paint conservatives as violent radicals ahead of the elections next month.
“These ‘Suspicious Package’ stories are false flags, carefully planned for the midterms,” tweeted<https://twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1055105429712207872> Jacob Wohl, a pro-Trump internet troll who writes for Gateway Pundit, a right-wing news site.

By nightfall, as more explosives were discovered addressed to Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, and Eric H. Holder Jr., an attorney general under Mr. Obama, the fact-free explanation had gelled: The bombs were props, planted by Democratic operatives and amplified by a biased liberal media. A woman arrived at a debate between the two candidates for Florida governor, Ron DeSantis and Andrew Gillum,<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/us/politics/gillum-desantis-florida-debate.html?module=inline> with a sign that read “Democrats Fake News Fake Bombs.” Lou Dobbs, the Fox Business host and confidant of President Trump, echoed that line in a tweet<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/media/lou-dobbs-fake-bombs/index.html> that he later deleted.

Conspiratorial thinking has always been with us — the grassy knoll, the moon landing, the Freemasons. But it has been turbocharged in the Trump era, as cable news networks and pliant social media networks allow hastily assembled theories to spread to millions in an instant. Often, by the time the official, evidence-based explanation has taken shape, it has already been drowned out by a megaphonic chorus of cranks and attention-hungry partisans.
“The process by which something gets called a false flag has accelerated,” said Anna Merlan, the author of “Republic of Lies,” a coming book about conspiracy theories. “People who make a living conspiracy-peddling are in an arms race with each other, so there’s a rush to stake out that territory and start spinning their narratives about what happened.”
[READ MORE: Two more bombs<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/nyregion/cnn-cory-booker-pipe-bombs-sent.html?module=inline> have been found, authorities said on Friday.]
Within hours of the first bomb’s discovery, conservative media figures were openly speculating about the true motives behind the campaign. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and other high-profile commentators flocked to an alternative narrative that could explain the targeted threats to top Democrats without blaming those Democrats’ political opponents.
“Republicans just don’t do this kind of thing,” Mr. Limbaugh said on his radio show. (Critics quickly provided<https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1055137480863858688> Mr. Limbaugh with plenty of counterexamples, including abortion clinic bombings committed by right-wing extremists.)
As prominent conservatives tiptoed around the conspiracy theory swamps, the right-wing internet dove in headfirst. Users on a pro-Trump Reddit forum called r/the_donald frantically assembled evidence to buttress the unfounded theory that the bombs were a left-wing setup. Conservatives on Facebook and Twitter distilled the theory into memes and talking points that were shared thousands of times<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/pipe-bomb-hoaxes-conspiracies-misinformation-debunked?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc>. Groups originally formed to promote QAnon, a sprawling pro-Trump conspiracy theory, latched on and turned up the volume even higher.

Historically, “false flag” conspiracy theories — named for a naval maneuver in which a ship flies a different country’s flag in order to trick enemies into retreating or to facilitate an escape — have remained on the edges of American discourse. Alex Jones, the conspiracy-theory-loving Infowars founder, was labeled a crank and worse for theorizing that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were an “inside job,” and suggesting that the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was an elaborate hoax concocted in order to promote gun control.
Mr. Jones has been largely pushed <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/technology/alex-jones-infowars-bans-traffic.html?module=inline> to the fringes of the internet — kicked off Twitter, Facebook and a dozen other services — and his cries for attention now seem mostly pitiful. (This week, he was filmed yelling at a pile of manure<https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/InfoWars-host-Alex-Jones-filmed-screaming-at-pile-13329479.php> outside a rally for President Trump in Texas.)

But his spirit lives on in the larger universe of pro-Trump media, which has fused the conspiratorial grandeur of Infowars with an unshakable faith in Mr. Trump’s righteousness. Conspiracy theorists who might once have resorted to handing out subway pamphlets and shouting from street corners have found hungry, durable audiences on cable news shows and social networks. And false flag philosophy — the idea that powerful groups stage threats and tragic events to advance their agendas — is now a bizarrely common element of national news stories.
“The reason we’re seeing more false flag narratives is not that there are necessarily more of them, but that they’re more visible,” Ms. Merlan said. “It’s much easier for a casual news consumer to see them on Twitter.”
Conspiracy theories most often rise around fast-moving news events, like mass shootings and bomb threats, in which fuzzy initial reports often give way to more accurate explanations later on. And sometimes, those questioning the most apparent motives turn out to be justified.

Last year, a string of bomb threats against Jewish institutions in the United States was thought to be an act of anti-Semitic intimidation until police apprehended a Jewish teenager in Israel<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/jcc-bomb-threats.html?module=inline>, whom they suspected of making the threats. The 2016 mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was thought to be an anti-L.G.B.T. hate crime until further evidence suggested<https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/5/17202026/pulse-shooting-lgbtq-trump-terror-hate> the shooter had no idea it was a gay club.

One appeal of heat-of-the-moment conspiracy theories is that they allow for blame-shifting. Candace Owens, a right-wing activist and media personality who has been invited to the White House<https://www.axios.com/trump-huddles-with-charlie-kirk-and-candace-owens-5c56ee7d-89ec-48b5-ae0f-88dde581e67b.html>, earlier this week responded to the bombs by tweeting that “these leftists are going ALL OUT for midterms.” (Ms. Owens, who is now the communications director for the conservative student group Turning Point USA, appeared<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKNzKUSgyeo> on Infowars with Mr. Jones as recently as last year.) She later deleted the tweet, but wrote another one in which she said that she still believed that “when it comes to political violence, the left is the likely culprit.”

There are structural reasons for the conspiracy theory boom. Social media platforms like YouTube, Reddit and Facebook have allowed fringe thinkers to bypass traditional gatekeepers and reach millions of people directly. In addition, the dominance of Fox News and other partisan media outlets has created a flourishing market for conspiracy-driven outrage. And a polarized electorate has eagerly lapped up explanations for major news events that conform to their views.
The desire for politically convenient explanations is not contained to the right. Soon after the bombs were reported, and before key facts about them were known, liberals on Twitter adopted the term “MAGAbomb” to describe the campaign, referring both to the explosive devices and to Mr. Trump’s signature rallying cry.

It is Mr. Trump, of course, who has done more than any other prominent figure to promote (or in the case of the racist conspiracy theory about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, to popularize) a number of conspiracy theories. Other theories have taken root among his followers — like Pizzagate, QAnon<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/us/politics/what-is-qanon.html?module=inline> and the baseless, sensational claims<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaughs-fact-check.html?module=inline> made about Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault — often without official censure.
“We have a president who pushes these ideas because he built a coalition that believes in conspiracy theories,” said Joseph Uscinski, an associate professor of political science at the University of Miami who studies conspiracy theories. “He has to continue pushing these ideas to keep his people motivated.”
Conspiracy theories play especially well on social media, which amplifies provocative and engaging content by design and often rewards misinformation with increased distribution. One study published this year, led by M.I.T. researchers<https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/largest-study-ever-fake-news-mit-twitter/555104/>, found that on Twitter, falsehoods were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than accurate news.

Conspiracy theories are not false news, exactly. They often rely on a speck of doubt, or a gap in the evidentiary trail, to make a bold claim, even if they ignore some of the other available proof. But they do travel over the same networks, and stand out from more accurate — if predictable — stories in much the same way.

Fact-checking, long offered as a possible antidote to misinformation, is not likely to solve the problem. The available data on the effectiveness of fact-checking, especially on social media, is mixed<https://www.poynter.org/news/what-does-research-say-about-fact-checking-find-out-our-new-database>. Facebook halted a program last year that labeled false news stories with red flags, after finding<https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/27/facebook-false-news/> that the labels actually induced more people to click. The company’s current approach is to decrease the visibility of stories labeled false by third-party fact-checkers, in hopes of starving them of oxygen.

The real solution, of course, is likely to be cultural, rather than technological. A White House occupied by a conspiracist-in-chief is not likely to do much to quell the spread of implausible narratives, nor is a conservative media apparatus that profits from the popularity of these theories. As long as Mr. Trump is in office, conspiracy theorists will continue to raise the specter of false flags, and some in power will feel empowered to take them seriously.

“If we had President Jeb Bush, we wouldn’t be wondering if he believed these theories,” Mr. Uscinski said.

(The New York Times needs your help. We’re looking for false information being spread deliberately to confuse, mislead, or influence voters ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. Click here to tell us what you’re seeing<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/technology/disinformation-tipsheet.html?module=inline>.)¶<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/technology/disinformation-tipsheet.html?module=inline#link-355c189e>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181026/f4ac6bf4/attachment-0001.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Fri Oct 26 20:10:38 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:10:38 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]  Bombs that explode only politically
In-Reply-To: <8B6F8C56-91CB-49AF-B0F8-97CFB6091C35@illinois.edu>
References: <EC84B9AE-89AC-4C6E-A3B4-D8044BC0157E@gmail.com>
 <8B6F8C56-91CB-49AF-B0F8-97CFB6091C35@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <00c701d46d67$f6861b30$e3925190$@comcast.net>

False flag actions have happened, rather or not this is the case is uncertain.

 

Remember the Anthrax mailings after the 9-11-2001 attacks ?  The FBI framed an innocent man for the incident and who was behind it is still an unsolved mystery. 

The bottom line is – do you believe everything the U.S. government and the corporate media says ? 

If you do, then I have MANY historical examples for you that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that both are NOT credible sources.

 

Of course the U.S. oligarchy wants you to believe that the U.S. government and corporations have never lied to the American people. That collusion and YES CONSPIRACY  ( an illegal act involving two or more people that one can be prosecuted for ) has never happened involving the wealthy and powerful. And that in fact the wealthy and powerful never talk to each other.

 

The corporate media does no investigative journalism these days. It’s role is that of propagandists and stenographers for the corporate state. When the corporate media “ reports “ an incident that has happened ( like this recent incident ) one can usually believe the ; what, when, where. However, one should ALWAYS be skeptical of the ; who, how, and why.

 

David J.

 

From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Szoke, Ron via Peace
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 2:38 PM
To: Peace
Cc: Peace Discuss; peace
Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Bombs that explode only politically

 

Who do we BLAME?  V102418

 

“ Are the pipe-bombs - none of which went off - a false-flag by the 'intelligence community' (FBI, CIA et al.) to convince mid-term voters to support the neoliberal/neoconservative establishment (more war & more inequality) - and of course to convince the Trump administration & reluctant Republicans to continue the belligerent Obama-Clinton policies? “  (10/24/18, 6:24 pm)

 

——

 

'False Flag’ Theory on Pipe Bombs Zooms From Right-Wing Fringe to Mainstream

 

Explosive devices were sent this week to CNN, at the Time Warner Center in Manhattan, as well as to prominent Democrats and critics of the president.

 

By  <https://www.nytimes.com/by/kevin-roose> Kevin Roose

NYT  Oct. 25, 2018

 

Just hours after the news broke this week that explosive devices had been sent to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats, a conspiracy theory began to take shape in certain corners of conservative media.

The bombs, this theory went, were not actually part of a plot to harm Democrats, but were a “false flag” operation concocted by leftists in order to paint conservatives as violent radicals ahead of the elections next month.

“These ‘Suspicious Package’ stories are false flags, carefully planned for the midterms,”  <https://twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1055105429712207872> tweeted Jacob Wohl, a pro-Trump internet troll who writes for Gateway Pundit, a right-wing news site.

 

By nightfall, as more explosives were discovered addressed to Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, and Eric H. Holder Jr., an attorney general under Mr. Obama, the fact-free explanation had gelled: The bombs were props, planted by Democratic operatives and amplified by a biased liberal media. A woman arrived at  <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/us/politics/gillum-desantis-florida-debate.html?module=inline> a debate between the two candidates for Florida governor, Ron DeSantis and Andrew Gillum, with a sign that read “Democrats Fake News Fake Bombs.” Lou Dobbs, the Fox Business host and confidant of President Trump, echoed that line in a  <https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/media/lou-dobbs-fake-bombs/index.html> tweet that he later deleted.

 

Conspiratorial thinking has always been with us — the grassy knoll, the moon landing, the Freemasons. But it has been turbocharged in the Trump era, as cable news networks and pliant social media networks allow hastily assembled theories to spread to millions in an instant. Often, by the time the official, evidence-based explanation has taken shape, it has already been drowned out by a megaphonic chorus of cranks and attention-hungry partisans.

“The process by which something gets called a false flag has accelerated,” said Anna Merlan, the author of “Republic of Lies,” a coming book about conspiracy theories. “People who make a living conspiracy-peddling are in an arms race with each other, so there’s a rush to stake out that territory and start spinning their narratives about what happened.”

[READ MORE:  <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/nyregion/cnn-cory-booker-pipe-bombs-sent.html?module=inline> Two more bombs have been found, authorities said on Friday.]

Within hours of the first bomb’s discovery, conservative media figures were openly speculating about the true motives behind the campaign. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and other high-profile commentators flocked to an alternative narrative that could explain the targeted threats to top Democrats without blaming those Democrats’ political opponents.

“Republicans just don’t do this kind of thing,” Mr. Limbaugh said on his radio show. (Critics quickly  <https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1055137480863858688> provided Mr. Limbaugh with plenty of counterexamples, including abortion clinic bombings committed by right-wing extremists.)

As prominent conservatives tiptoed around the conspiracy theory swamps, the right-wing internet dove in headfirst. Users on a pro-Trump Reddit forum called r/the_donald frantically assembled evidence to buttress the unfounded theory that the bombs were a left-wing setup. Conservatives on Facebook and Twitter distilled the theory into memes and talking points that were  <https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/pipe-bomb-hoaxes-conspiracies-misinformation-debunked?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc> shared thousands of times. Groups originally formed to promote QAnon, a sprawling pro-Trump conspiracy theory, latched on and turned up the volume even higher.

 

Historically, “false flag” conspiracy theories — named for a naval maneuver in which a ship flies a different country’s flag in order to trick enemies into retreating or to facilitate an escape — have remained on the edges of American discourse. Alex Jones, the conspiracy-theory-loving Infowars founder, was labeled a crank and worse for theorizing that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were an “inside job,” and suggesting that the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was an elaborate hoax concocted in order to promote gun control.

Mr. Jones has been largely  <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/technology/alex-jones-infowars-bans-traffic.html?module=inline> pushed to the fringes of the internet — kicked off Twitter, Facebook and a dozen other services — and his cries for attention now seem mostly pitiful. (This week, he was filmed <https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/InfoWars-host-Alex-Jones-filmed-screaming-at-pile-13329479.php>  yelling at a pile of manure outside a rally for President Trump in Texas.)

 

But his spirit lives on in the larger universe of pro-Trump media, which has fused the conspiratorial grandeur of Infowars with an unshakable faith in Mr. Trump’s righteousness. Conspiracy theorists who might once have resorted to handing out subway pamphlets and shouting from street corners have found hungry, durable audiences on cable news shows and social networks. And false flag philosophy — the idea that powerful groups stage threats and tragic events to advance their agendas — is now a bizarrely common element of national news stories.

“The reason we’re seeing more false flag narratives is not that there are necessarily more of them, but that they’re more visible,” Ms. Merlan said. “It’s much easier for a casual news consumer to see them on Twitter.”

Conspiracy theories most often rise around fast-moving news events, like mass shootings and bomb threats, in which fuzzy initial reports often give way to more accurate explanations later on. And sometimes, those questioning the most apparent motives turn out to be justified.

 

Last year, a string of bomb threats against Jewish institutions in the United States was thought to be an act of anti-Semitic intimidation until police  <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/jcc-bomb-threats.html?module=inline> apprehended a Jewish teenager in Israel, whom they suspected of making the threats. The 2016 mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was thought to be an anti-L.G.B.T. hate crime until  <https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/5/17202026/pulse-shooting-lgbtq-trump-terror-hate> further evidence suggested the shooter had no idea it was a gay club.

 

One appeal of heat-of-the-moment conspiracy theories is that they allow for blame-shifting. Candace Owens, a right-wing activist and media personality who has been  <https://www.axios.com/trump-huddles-with-charlie-kirk-and-candace-owens-5c56ee7d-89ec-48b5-ae0f-88dde581e67b.html> invited to the White House, earlier this week responded to the bombs by tweeting that “these leftists are going ALL OUT for midterms.” (Ms. Owens, who is now the communications director for the conservative student group Turning Point USA,  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKNzKUSgyeo> appeared on Infowars with Mr. Jones as recently as last year.) She later deleted the tweet, but wrote another one in which she said that she still believed that “when it comes to political violence, the left is the likely culprit.”

 

There are structural reasons for the conspiracy theory boom. Social media platforms like YouTube, Reddit and Facebook have allowed fringe thinkers to bypass traditional gatekeepers and reach millions of people directly. In addition, the dominance of Fox News and other partisan media outlets has created a flourishing market for conspiracy-driven outrage. And a polarized electorate has eagerly lapped up explanations for major news events that conform to their views.

The desire for politically convenient explanations is not contained to the right. Soon after the bombs were reported, and before key facts about them were known, liberals on Twitter adopted the term “MAGAbomb” to describe the campaign, referring both to the explosive devices and to Mr. Trump’s signature rallying cry.

 

It is Mr. Trump, of course, who has done more than any other prominent figure to promote (or in the case of the racist conspiracy theory about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, to popularize) a number of conspiracy theories. Other theories have taken root among his followers — like Pizzagate,  <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/us/politics/what-is-qanon.html?module=inline> QAnon and the  <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaughs-fact-check.html?module=inline> baseless, sensational claims made about Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault — often without official censure.

“We have a president who pushes these ideas because he built a coalition that believes in conspiracy theories,” said Joseph Uscinski, an associate professor of political science at the University of Miami who studies conspiracy theories. “He has to continue pushing these ideas to keep his people motivated.”

Conspiracy theories play especially well on social media, which amplifies provocative and engaging content by design and often rewards misinformation with increased distribution. One  <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/largest-study-ever-fake-news-mit-twitter/555104/> study published this year, led by M.I.T. researchers, found that on Twitter, falsehoods were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than accurate news.

 

Conspiracy theories are not false news, exactly. They often rely on a speck of doubt, or a gap in the evidentiary trail, to make a bold claim, even if they ignore some of the other available proof. But they do travel over the same networks, and stand out from more accurate — if predictable — stories in much the same way.

 

Fact-checking, long offered as a possible antidote to misinformation, is not likely to solve the problem. The available data on the effectiveness of fact-checking, especially on social media, is  <https://www.poynter.org/news/what-does-research-say-about-fact-checking-find-out-our-new-database> mixed. Facebook halted a program last year that labeled false news stories with red flags, after  <https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/27/facebook-false-news/> finding that the labels actually induced more people to click. The company’s current approach is to decrease the visibility of stories labeled false by third-party fact-checkers, in hopes of starving them of oxygen.

 

The real solution, of course, is likely to be cultural, rather than technological. A White House occupied by a conspiracist-in-chief is not likely to do much to quell the spread of implausible narratives, nor is a conservative media apparatus that profits from the popularity of these theories. As long as Mr. Trump is in office, conspiracy theorists will continue to raise the specter of false flags, and some in power will feel empowered to take them seriously.

 

“If we had President Jeb Bush, we wouldn’t be wondering if he believed these theories,” Mr. Uscinski said.

 

(The New York Times needs your help. We’re looking for false information being spread deliberately to confuse, mislead, or influence voters ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.  <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/technology/disinformation-tipsheet.html?module=inline> Click here to tell us what you’re seeing.)¶ <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/technology/disinformation-tipsheet.html?module=inline#link-355c189e> 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181026/e890e28a/attachment-0001.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Fri Oct 26 20:35:10 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:35:10 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [New post] Nation Transfixed In Horror By Toy
	Bombs While Destroying Lives With Real Ones
In-Reply-To: <139971992.5467.0@wordpress.com>
References: <139971992.5467.0@wordpress.com>
Message-ID: <00e901d46d6b$64625080$2d26f180$@comcast.net>

 

 

 


 



	

 



New post on Caitlin Johnstone 

Image removed by sender.

 




 <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?author=2> Image removed by sender.


 <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/25/nation-transfixed-in-horror-by-toy-bombs-while-destroying-lives-with-real-ones/> Nation Transfixed In Horror By Toy Bombs While Destroying Lives With Real Ones


by  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?author=2> Caitlin Johnstone 

Media headlines have been dominated for the last two days by the news that pipe bombs are being sent to Democratic Party elites and their allies, a  <https://www.vox.com/2018/10/25/18022376/pipe-bomb-targets-packages-democrats-clinton-obama-soros-de-niro> list of whom as of this writing consists of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, George Soros, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder, Robert De Niro, and the CNN office (addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan who actually works for NBC). As of this writing nobody has been killed or injured in any way by any of these many explosive devices, and there is as of this writing no publicly available evidence that they were designed to. As of this writing there is no evidence that the devices were intended to do anything other than what they have done: stir up fear and grab headlines.

And of course it is a good thing that nobody has been hurt by these devices. Obviously targeting anyone with packages containing explosive materials is terrible, even if those devices were not rigged with the intention of detonating and harming anyone, and it is a good thing that not a single one of them has done so. It is a good thing that none of America's political elites were targeted by the sort of explosive device that America drops on people in other countries every single day. You know, the kind that actually explode.

Apparently some Acme comedy bombs mailed to a number of extremely rich people, which thankfully did not hurt anybody at all, are infinitely more newsworthy than the real bombs which maim and destroy children in Yemen on an industrial scale.

— Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg)  <https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1055224530199855104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw> October 24, 2018

It is good that Barack Obama was never sent anything resembling the  <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy> 26,171 bombs that his administration dropped in the final year of his presidency, for example. It is good that neither  <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/06/last-foreign-policy-speech-obama-argues-sustainable-strategy-terror/95012796/> the first US president to serve every minute of his administration under wartime, nor those who served as part of that administration like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton, were targeted with the kinds of weapons which were deployed against impoverished people in other nations every single day for all eight years. People would have been killed and badly injured if anyone had been sent anything like those kinds of explosive devices, their bodies ripped to shreds like the countless civilians killed in the airstrikes which resulted from the Obama administration's  <http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/> expansion of Bush's so-called "war on terror".

President Trump, whose administration has been  <https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trumps-military-drops-a-bomb-every-12-minutes-and-no-one-is-talking-about-it/> dropping even more bombs than its predecessor after  <https://www.axios.com/trump-drone-strikes-iraq-and-syria-8a242b2b-2387-4153-ad9d-68ecda71b344.html> expanding the use of drone strikes and  <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/rules-of-engagement-military-force-mattis.html> peeling back regulations on  <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-military-africa-command-somalia-airstrikes-al-shabaab-yemen-mosul-iraq-a7661181.html> air strikes designed to  <https://www.cato.org/blog/increased-civilian-casualties-disturbing-question-president-trump> protect civilians, was quick to condemn the headline-grabbing pipe bomb campaign which did not hurt anyone whatsoever.

“A major federal investigation is now underway,"  <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/oct/24/bombs-clintons-obamas-latest-live-news-updates-cnn-time-warner-evacuations-explosive-devices> said the president who continues to assist Saudi Arabia in murdering  <https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/12/29/its-time-to-get-real-about-yemens-death-toll> untold tens of thousands of civilians in Yemen. "The full weight of our government is being deployed to conduct this investigation and bring those responsible for these despicable acts to justice.”

 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGmR-nlbwgg&w=840&h=473> Image removed by sender.

Right now the only political debate happening over these bomb scares is who is responsible for them. I am being told by everyone to the left of Ted Cruz that I am required to believe that this was with 100 percent certainty a terrorist plot orchestrated by a Trump supporter due to the president's hateful rhetoric against the people who've been targeted, and if I don't subscribe to that belief it means I'm a Nazi. Meanwhile Trump supporters are telling me this is a deep state false flag designed to get Democrats elected in the midterms, because <sarcasm> Republicans are totally not in bed with the alliance of plutocrats and government agencies known as the deep state.</sarcasm>

But the fact of the matter is that next to nothing is known about this case; as of this writing there isn't even a suspect yet. The proper thing to do when the mass media is telling us with a unified voice to be afraid of something is to remain agnostic and very, very skeptical of everything we are being told. There are any number of possible explanations for this spate of impotent pipe bombs, many of which don't involve a partisan explanation at all. Without endorsing any particular one, there are for example a few sociopathic government agencies in the US which would love nothing more than to manufacture support for more intrusive domestic "counter-terrorism" powers.

But partisan explanations are possible as well; maybe there really is a Trump supporter out there who either (A) wanted to scare Democratic elites without hurting them and didn't realize doing so would only generate sympathy and unify Democrats right before midterms, or (B) is really, really consistent in being really, really bad at making pipe bombs. Who knows. The important thing is to remain agnostic and skeptical.

Image removed by sender.

Meanwhile, while we wait for copious amounts of facts and evidence before forming a solid opinion one way or the other, how about a little interest in the people who are being targeted with actual bombs that actually explode by the empire these Democratic elites serve? That, in my opinion, is one debate we should all always be having.

___________________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my  <http://caitlinjohnstone.com/> website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on  <https://www.facebook.com/CaitlinAJohnstone/> Facebook, following my antics on  <https://twitter.com/caitoz> Twitter, checking out my  <https://soundcloud.com/going_rogue> podcast, throwing some money into my hat on  <https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4445783> Patreon or  <http://paypal.me/caitlinjohnstone> Paypal,buying my new book  <https://gumroad.com/l/roguenation> Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book  <https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Field-Guide-Utopia-Preppers/dp/064823455X/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8> Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Image removed by sender.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

 <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?author=2> Caitlin Johnstone | October 25, 2018 at 10:04 pm | Tags:  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=biden> biden,  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=bomb> bomb,  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=clinton> clinton,  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=obama> obama,  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=peace> peace,  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=pipe-bombs> pipe bombs,  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=war> war | Categories:  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?taxonomy=category&term=article> Article,  <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/?taxonomy=category&term=news> News | URL:  <https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1qb> https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1qb 


 <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/25/nation-transfixed-in-horror-by-toy-bombs-while-destroying-lives-with-real-ones/#respond> Comment

    <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/25/nation-transfixed-in-horror-by-toy-bombs-while-destroying-lives-with-real-ones/#comments> See all comments

 


 <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=dab068b15d9bb0ce19263fd4b5aac4b6&email=davidjohnson1451%40comcast.net&b=-AE9HBbwAwOsyrO1owpcdJd41sAWTFTC9Y23id-2Zbh3eCzDCy_nKfHHz_U2KJ-I1lgHvsyY46ovoC4GDYP0Zl4fTj8zb8UUJCJRdlzP15WKveg%3D> Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone.
Change your email settings at  <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=dab068b15d9bb0ce19263fd4b5aac4b6&email=davidjohnson1451%40comcast.net> Manage Subscriptions. 

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: 
 <https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/25/nation-transfixed-in-horror-by-toy-bombs-while-destroying-lives-with-real-ones/> https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/10/25/nation-transfixed-in-horror-by-toy-bombs-while-destroying-lives-with-real-ones/ 

 

	

Image removed by sender.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181026/21ba79be/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181026/21ba79be/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181026/21ba79be/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 368 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181026/21ba79be/attachment-0006.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 332 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181026/21ba79be/attachment-0007.jpg>

From karenaram at hotmail.com  Sat Oct 27 14:48:21 2018
From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 14:48:21 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Protest today
Message-ID: <MWHPR08MB2382468FB844E2186EC98C3FA3F10@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

Details
***11am: Pancake breakfast at the Flyover (214 N. Washington St.)

1pm: Meetup for carpools at the Flyover

2pm: Caravan to Southern Illinois Airport***

TRUMP WANTS US TO HATE, DEMOCRATS WANT US TO WAIT. WE'RE GETTING ORGANIZED.

This Saturday, a monstrous and unwelcome person is going to speak at the airport in Murphysboro and you have decided to protest. Perhaps this will be your first or maybe you have marched before. However, something feels different this time. You may feel a sense of dread, or hopelessness, or fear, or even righteous rage hinting at your power. Probably an unsettling combination within. Something is wrong and you have decided to tell someone about it and that so-called person is Donald J. Trump. Good for you!

But this won't be just another protest. Protests are not enough, and we don't have any time left to waste: we in southern Illinois need to immediately begin organizing ourselves to address the crises we face on all fronts, from climate change to mass incarceration; from poverty to racism; and from patriarchy to the opioid crisis.

Dozens of groups and individuals have reached out for information and for comfort. We at Carbondale Solidarity Network hope to provide exactly that. We aim to serve you and commune with you. Dozens of groups and individuals have reached out in our communities for unifying leadership. We at Carbondale Solidarity Network hear that call and love you for it. However, we respectfully turn to you and say we can't be leaders, as every person must find the capacities within and use those talents as a gift to each other.

We at Carbondale Solidarity Network want to empower those who have said enough is enough to use this day to help build a movement. Find those who you share affinity, with whose plans and desires match your own. Activate those desires on Saturday, knowing that we will all be unified in our humanity and our struggle for change.

We believe action under such stress and pressure requires a holistic approach. Please join us for Pancakes and Protest 101, where safety tips will be shared and carbs consumed. From here, you can caravan to the Southern Illinois Airport. Upon arrival, expect to be placed inside of a "Free Speech Zone," a dastardly designed mechanism that oppresses the very value it claims to uphold. Here, there will be multiple means of support: Legal Observers, Medics, security support, sources of communication, and allies dedicated to the comfort of all involved.

As for ourselves; we will be organizing a few actions to practice and demonstrate the future we need. We will take a first step toward addressing the opioid crisis, which is killing people regardless of their political affiliation. We will have trainers on-hand conducting workshops in administering Nalaxone, an opioid overdose antidote, and introducing a harm-reduction approach to addiction treatment. With a little training, anyone can save the life of someone overdosing from opioids, and our aim is to make that training and that life-saving drug as widely available in Little Egypt as possible. We will be conducting these trainngs at the protest site at the Southern Illinois Airport, and have doses of Nalaxone available at the Flyover Social Center for those who attended the trainings. We will also offer deescalation techniques and practice sessions at the protest. The goal with these is to introduce and further understanding of safety and how our common humanity affects it.

This demonstration is a time for us to meet and organize. There will be speakers focusing on transgender rights, on immigrants, on the fascist creep, nay current, that this unwelcomed visitor brings everywhere he goes. We encourage people to bring water and snacks to share, and to use this time to meet members of our community who share their outrage at this re-emergent fascist movement.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are going to save us. We need to lose hope in politicians, and find it in ourselves. Please join us on Saturday for a day of events oriented toward organizing ourselves in the face of a world gone crazy.

11am: Pancake breakfast at the Flyover (214 N. Washington St.)

1pm: Meetup for carpools at the Flyover

2pm: Caravan to Southern Illinois Airport

<https://www.facebook.com/PSL.CU/photos/pcb.325924821319718/325924611319739/?type=3&__tn__=HH-R&eid=ARBzKaHZtRMPvwOtaWPnQs9NgcB7F87HyBEGnD9omrVyyvIam41mOauxXLBWBlqM3cfZwmeYRj3RTb2w&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARB1w1Y1d9wUtn_j9Fo578c8jJ6tmiY-jDjm2vWPJN9E6o5z_safysj42nKFTP4K_NpYc0XijztStBWz02GRtc-k8ttMVuGcq1xzIHLm2WV0yHDWS6-_YcLc7FLu2sR8xWHwvltX7cpvoZ28HrNbfli_j8Oso2XqccJpNUpdIAj9Z4a6nnYYmmCc4LEFP0lywsKTkciuboYUbrhxKU73or8VjI5iLQ>
[No automatic alt text available.]
<https://www.facebook.com/PSL.CU/photos/pcb.325924821319718/325924617986405/?type=3&__tn__=HH-R&eid=ARB7w6sMCbpMARzdLikGvSFLu1YOLTNb8ncS-kGEWo-L7onsws5AS0Wi52Py_xbVlSHlf1uASGfPs-Zs&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARB1w1Y1d9wUtn_j9Fo578c8jJ6tmiY-jDjm2vWPJN9E6o5z_safysj42nKFTP4K_NpYc0XijztStBWz02GRtc-k8ttMVuGcq1xzIHLm2WV0yHDWS6-_YcLc7FLu2sR8xWHwvltX7cpvoZ28HrNbfli_j8Oso2XqccJpNUpdIAj9Z4a6nnYYmmCc4LEFP0lywsKTkciuboYUbrhxKU73or8VjI5iLQ>
[Image may contain: 6 people, people smiling, people standing]
Party for Socialism and Liberation - Champaign-Urbana<https://www.facebook.com/PSL.CU/?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBlcKfwmSF_4E99uCH1b3KalW3yu635jmg8UKSzEVtmh5q6HGzdUKT9zF_eA_2JEFL-FU5wPxHBh8j-Oi-tvmXXvv5099jTAu6GxjhMDNWsVf63UoWqme7gHgr7nM-3tl2zEdhc5TtLSNcNcR_bY7fFjgaVZ9GAsrVcdvMom9fUan60A7MABF9UBOWsnsWjWJShM3GmOTKoZZhBn43AKXhdwZTDSg&__xts__%5B1%5D=68.ARB1w1Y1d9wUtn_j9Fo578c8jJ6tmiY-jDjm2vWPJN9E6o5z_safysj42nKFTP4K_NpYc0XijztStBWz02GRtc-k8ttMVuGcq1xzIHLm2WV0yHDWS6-_YcLc7FLu2sR8xWHwvltX7cpvoZ28HrNbfli_j8Oso2XqccJpNUpdIAj9Z4a6nnYYmmCc4LEFP0lywsKTkciuboYUbrhxKU73or8VjI5iLQ&__tn__=kCH-R&eid=ARBUAuYZwS4DfE3ndLIh6-EsHjc3P7B2rzj7IFjWQ4mZDzCIRR8_r0QW0qA6lCIOBHRvNIxbR2QJUAnL&hc_ref=ARSd_hRB7g_gAvUSNUa21Os9HqbuuUwSc4IazRBFuhwBLX0wXToFBvlNO7j4K12ugaI&fref=nf><https://www.facebook.com/PSL.CU/?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBlcKfwmSF_4E99uCH1b3KalW3yu635jmg8UKSzEVtmh5q6HGzdUKT9zF_eA_2JEFL-FU5wPxHBh8j-Oi-tvmXXvv5099jTAu6GxjhMDNWsVf63UoWqme7gHgr7nM-3tl2zEdhc5TtLSNcNcR_bY7fFjgaVZ9GAsrVcdvMom9fUan60A7MABF9UBOWsnsWjWJShM3GmOTKoZZhBn43AKXhdwZTDSg&__xts__%5B1%5D=68.ARB1w1Y1d9wUtn_j9Fo578c8jJ6tmiY-jDjm2vWPJN9E6o5z_safysj42nKFTP4K_NpYc0XijztStBWz02GRtc-k8ttMVuGcq1xzIHLm2WV0yHDWS6-_YcLc7FLu2sR8xWHwvltX7cpvoZ28HrNbfli_j8Oso2XqccJpNUpdIAj9Z4a6nnYYmmCc4LEFP0lywsKTkciuboYUbrhxKU73or8VjI5iLQ&__tn__=kCH-R&eid=ARBUAuYZwS4DfE3ndLIh6-EsHjc3P7B2rzj7IFjWQ4mZDzCIRR8_r0QW0qA6lCIOBHRvNIxbR2QJUAnL&hc_ref=ARSd_hRB7g_gAvUSNUa21Os9HqbuuUwSc4IazRBFuhwBLX0wXToFBvlNO7j4K12ugaI&fref=nf>
10 hrs<https://www.facebook.com/PSL.CU/posts/325924821319718?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARB1w1Y1d9wUtn_j9Fo578c8jJ6tmiY-jDjm2vWPJN9E6o5z_safysj42nKFTP4K_NpYc0XijztStBWz02GRtc-k8ttMVuGcq1xzIHLm2WV0yHDWS6-_YcLc7FLu2sR8xWHwvltX7cpvoZ28HrNbfli_j8Oso2XqccJpNUpdIAj9Z4a6nnYYmmCc4LEFP0lywsKTkciuboYUbrhxKU73or8VjI5iLQ&__tn__=H-R> · <https://www.facebook.com/karen.aram.1/posts/10217108403971444?__tn__=K-R#>

100 signs ready to go for tomorrow!

https://www.facebook.com/events/2313294865614004/?ti=cl<https://www.facebook.com/events/2313294865614004/?acontext=%7B%22source%22%3A108%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22%5B%7B%5C%22surface%5C%22%3A%5C%22post_page%5C%22%2C%5C%22mechanism%5C%22%3A%5C%22surface%5C%22%2C%5C%22extra_data%5C%22%3A%5B%5D%7D%5D%22%2C%22has_source%22%3Atrue%7D&source=108&action_history=%5B%7B%22surface%22%3A%22post_page%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22surface%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%5B%5D%7D%5D&has_source=1&__tn__=KH-R&eid=ARC7hrkoy2IoT3qeB55mSK8pmTq9t0w0oib_z6j9nbQcjakF1i6tLenQfH2uzonCwZazOckJSZ4s5OUE&fref=mentions&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARB1w1Y1d9wUtn_j9Fo578c8jJ6tmiY-jDjm2vWPJN9E6o5z_safysj42nKFTP4K_NpYc0XijztStBWz02GRtc-k8ttMVuGcq1xzIHLm2WV0yHDWS6-_YcLc7FLu2sR8xWHwvltX7cpvoZ28HrNbfli_j8Oso2XqccJpNUpdIAj9Z4a6nnYYmmCc4LEFP0lywsKTkciuboYUbrhxKU73or8VjI5iLQ>

Like<https://www.facebook.com/karen.aram.1/posts/10217108403971444?__tn__=K-R#>Show more reactions
Comment<https://www.facebook.com/karen.aram.1/posts/10217108403971444?__tn__=K-R#>
Share<https://www.facebook.com/karen.aram.1/posts/10217108403971444?__tn__=K-R#>
Comments
[Karen Aram]
Write a comment...
<https://www.facebook.com/karen.aram.1/posts/10217108403971444?__tn__=K-R#>
<https://www.facebook.com/karen.aram.1/posts/10217108403971444?__tn__=K-R#>
<https://www.facebook.com/karen.aram.1/posts/10217108403971444?__tn__=K-R#>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181027/fa42977f/attachment-0001.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Sun Oct 28 02:57:27 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 21:57:27 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted
 it on the NFN Utube page.
References: <0CA51F73-630D-4EEC-9FC8-70541F03EA20@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46572B85-FE32-4F79-B142-56CC11C7A7CB@gmail.com>



> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.
> Date: October 27, 2018 at 9:43:49 PM CDT
> To: Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com>
> Cc: David Green <davidgreen50 at gmail.com>, peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>, Peace <peace at anti-war.net>
> 
> Karen—
> 
> Thank you indeed for listening to and commenting on the program. 
> 
> As you acknowledge, Rosa Luxemburg was indeed murdered by Freikorps at the direction of the socialist government of Friedrich Ebert. She was of course a critic of that government -  from the Left, not from the Right.
> 
> Chomsky admires Luxemburg’s politics and her critique of Leninism - which is why contemporary Marxist-Leninists attack them both. —CGE
> 
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 
>> David
>> : Why quote Louis Proyect, he is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing. “Unrepentant
>> Marxist” my foot, and he is not the only one. A true socialist has no problem recognizing Khashoggi is not a "kind or good" man. 
>> 
>> Carl:
>> your statement that Rosa Luxembourg was murdered by socialists is a bit disingenuous, given she was murdered by Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert, who ordered a division of the German military, known as the Freikorps. Rosa Luxemburg,
>> with Karl Liebknecht, organized a strong movement in Germany with these views, but was imprisoned and, after her release, killed at Eberts instructions, for her work during the failed German Revolution of 1919 - a revolution which the German Social Democratic
>> Party, violently opposed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> David:
>> I too was outraged over Rula Jabreal’s spin on Kashoggi,
>> on Democracy Now, and posted on my FB page, the following statement to which many were in agreement:
>> 
>> Evening rant: Democracy Now, this morning with Rula Jabreal speaking of her recent interview with Jamal Kashoggi, made me ill. Her portrait of him as a "kind man, wanting democracy and human rights blah, blah for his people." And, Amy never said a word. This "kind man" as she referred to him, was tortured, murdered, dismembered and buried in the Embassy/Consulate grounds. However, he supported the KSA in their war efforts, specifically in Yemen. No one deserves to die as he did, certainly none of the Yemeni civilians who have been dying in record numbers since March 2015 due to US and Saudi efforts. Their bodies aren't even buried, just left to rot in the rubble from the Saudi bombings, which take place only with USG support, our weapons, our training, logistics, refueling etc.
>> MBS the new guy responsible for J. Kashoggi's death, visited the US after his coup, with our ruling elites, especially the Trump Administration, promoting him as a reformer, because he planned to allow Saudi women the right to drive. This was proven to be a facade, when he had the woman leading the call for driving privileges, incarcerated. A protestor, also a woman was beheaded recently, for some minor infraction, like speaking out against abuse by the gov.. The Saudi's are brutal leaders, treating their people with utter disdain, allowing absolutely no challenge to their authority.
>> The Saudi Royal family is a US construct, supported by us, since WW2 as "our dictators." "Pseudo journalists" like Rula, Amy and others supported by our ruling elites are playing politics, and its looking quite obvious, to have something to do with upcoming elections. As despicable as the Republicans are, the Democrats within the Beltway are no better, playing good cop, bad cop. I do vote for local Democrats, but recognize how unimportant and corrupt elections are, if only because mainstream media has been bought, and the people have been blinded.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace mailing list
>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181027/c6905256/attachment.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Sun Oct 28 18:31:09 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:31:09 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted
 it on the NFN Utube page.
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR08MB23821844CB29756DBF7D49ECA3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MWHPR08MB2382A782F2FDB2EAEDD729BDA3F10@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <0CA51F73-630D-4EEC-9FC8-70541F03EA20@gmail.com>
 <MWHPR08MB23821844CB29756DBF7D49ECA3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <3D033CCF-D40F-4C11-B232-E3A4F40DA651@gmail.com>

Does this approach the “No true Scotsman” argument? Or does it help us to say what a real critique of capitalism looked like a century ago?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

—CGE

> On Oct 28, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Carl: 
> 
> Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert,”
>> 
>> 
>> Social Democrats are NOT real Socialists – They are not anti-capitalists. They want to reform capitalism so it is more humane, but they will go to whatever lengths ( including murder ) to save capitalism. Ebert may have started out socialist, but moved to the right, joining the liberals and conservatives, with the SDP violently opposing the revolution of 1919.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 19:43, C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Karen—
>> 
>> Thank you indeed for listening to and commenting on the program. 
>> 
>> As you acknowledge, Rosa Luxemburg was indeed murdered by Freikorps at the direction of the socialist government of Friedrich Ebert. She was of course a critic of that government -  from the Left, not from the Right.
>> 
>> Chomsky admires Luxemburg’s politics and her critique of Leninism - which is why contemporary Marxist-Leninists attack them both. —CGE
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> David
>>> : Why quote Louis Proyect, he is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing. “Unrepentant
>>> Marxist” my foot, and he is not the only one. A true socialist has no problem recognizing Khashoggi is not a "kind or good" man. 
>>> 
>>> Carl:
>>> your statement that Rosa Luxembourg was murdered by socialists is a bit disingenuous, given she was murdered by Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert, who ordered a division of the German military, known as the Freikorps. Rosa Luxemburg,
>>> with Karl Liebknecht, organized a strong movement in Germany with these views, but was imprisoned and, after her release, killed at Eberts instructions, for her work during the failed German Revolution of 1919 - a revolution which the German Social Democratic
>>> Party, violently opposed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> David:
>>> I too was outraged over Rula Jabreal’s spin on Kashoggi,
>>> on Democracy Now, and posted on my FB page, the following statement to which many were in agreement:
>>> 
>>> Evening rant: Democracy Now, this morning with Rula Jabreal speaking of her recent interview with Jamal Kashoggi, made me ill. Her portrait of him as a "kind man, wanting democracy and human rights blah, blah for his people." And, Amy never said a word. This "kind man" as she referred to him, was tortured, murdered, dismembered and buried in the Embassy/Consulate grounds. However, he supported the KSA in their war efforts, specifically in Yemen. No one deserves to die as he did, certainly none of the Yemeni civilians who have been dying in record numbers since March 2015 due to US and Saudi efforts. Their bodies aren't even buried, just left to rot in the rubble from the Saudi bombings, which take place only with USG support, our weapons, our training, logistics, refueling etc.
>>> MBS the new guy responsible for J. Kashoggi's death, visited the US after his coup, with our ruling elites, especially the Trump Administration, promoting him as a reformer, because he planned to allow Saudi women the right to drive. This was proven to be a facade, when he had the woman leading the call for driving privileges, incarcerated. A protestor, also a woman was beheaded recently, for some minor infraction, like speaking out against abuse by the gov.. The Saudi's are brutal leaders, treating their people with utter disdain, allowing absolutely no challenge to their authority.
>>> The Saudi Royal family is a US construct, supported by us, since WW2 as "our dictators." "Pseudo journalists" like Rula, Amy and others supported by our ruling elites are playing politics, and its looking quite obvious, to have something to do with upcoming elections. As despicable as the Republicans are, the Democrats within the Beltway are no better, playing good cop, bad cop. I do vote for local Democrats, but recognize how unimportant and corrupt elections are, if only because mainstream media has been bought, and the people have been blinded.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace mailing list
>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace


From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Sun Oct 28 21:15:30 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:15:30 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted
	it on the NFN Utube page.
In-Reply-To: <3D033CCF-D40F-4C11-B232-E3A4F40DA651@gmail.com>
References: <MWHPR08MB2382A782F2FDB2EAEDD729BDA3F10@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <0CA51F73-630D-4EEC-9FC8-70541F03EA20@gmail.com>
 <MWHPR08MB23821844CB29756DBF7D49ECA3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <3D033CCF-D40F-4C11-B232-E3A4F40DA651@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c301d46f03$5ba015b0$12e04110$@comcast.net>

What is your SPECIFIC point Carl ?

Are you denying or trying intentionally to confuse the issue of the difference between a REAL Socialist ( anti-capitalist ) and a Social Democrat ( Pro-Capitalist Liberal ) ?

David J.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:31 PM
To: Karen Aram
Cc: peace; Peace; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.

Does this approach the “No true Scotsman” argument? Or does it help us to say what a real critique of capitalism looked like a century ago?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

—CGE

> On Oct 28, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Carl: 
> 
> Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert,”
>> 
>> 
>> Social Democrats are NOT real Socialists – They are not anti-capitalists. They want to reform capitalism so it is more humane, but they will go to whatever lengths ( including murder ) to save capitalism. Ebert may have started out socialist, but moved to the right, joining the liberals and conservatives, with the SDP violently opposing the revolution of 1919.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 19:43, C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Karen—
>> 
>> Thank you indeed for listening to and commenting on the program. 
>> 
>> As you acknowledge, Rosa Luxemburg was indeed murdered by Freikorps at the direction of the socialist government of Friedrich Ebert. She was of course a critic of that government -  from the Left, not from the Right.
>> 
>> Chomsky admires Luxemburg’s politics and her critique of Leninism - which is why contemporary Marxist-Leninists attack them both. —CGE
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> David
>>> : Why quote Louis Proyect, he is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing. “Unrepentant
>>> Marxist” my foot, and he is not the only one. A true socialist has no problem recognizing Khashoggi is not a "kind or good" man. 
>>> 
>>> Carl:
>>> your statement that Rosa Luxembourg was murdered by socialists is a bit disingenuous, given she was murdered by Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert, who ordered a division of the German military, known as the Freikorps. Rosa Luxemburg,
>>> with Karl Liebknecht, organized a strong movement in Germany with these views, but was imprisoned and, after her release, killed at Eberts instructions, for her work during the failed German Revolution of 1919 - a revolution which the German Social Democratic
>>> Party, violently opposed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> David:
>>> I too was outraged over Rula Jabreal’s spin on Kashoggi,
>>> on Democracy Now, and posted on my FB page, the following statement to which many were in agreement:
>>> 
>>> Evening rant: Democracy Now, this morning with Rula Jabreal speaking of her recent interview with Jamal Kashoggi, made me ill. Her portrait of him as a "kind man, wanting democracy and human rights blah, blah for his people." And, Amy never said a word. This "kind man" as she referred to him, was tortured, murdered, dismembered and buried in the Embassy/Consulate grounds. However, he supported the KSA in their war efforts, specifically in Yemen. No one deserves to die as he did, certainly none of the Yemeni civilians who have been dying in record numbers since March 2015 due to US and Saudi efforts. Their bodies aren't even buried, just left to rot in the rubble from the Saudi bombings, which take place only with USG support, our weapons, our training, logistics, refueling etc.
>>> MBS the new guy responsible for J. Kashoggi's death, visited the US after his coup, with our ruling elites, especially the Trump Administration, promoting him as a reformer, because he planned to allow Saudi women the right to drive. This was proven to be a facade, when he had the woman leading the call for driving privileges, incarcerated. A protestor, also a woman was beheaded recently, for some minor infraction, like speaking out against abuse by the gov.. The Saudi's are brutal leaders, treating their people with utter disdain, allowing absolutely no challenge to their authority.
>>> The Saudi Royal family is a US construct, supported by us, since WW2 as "our dictators." "Pseudo journalists" like Rula, Amy and others supported by our ruling elites are playing politics, and its looking quite obvious, to have something to do with upcoming elections. As despicable as the Republicans are, the Democrats within the Beltway are no better, playing good cop, bad cop. I do vote for local Democrats, but recognize how unimportant and corrupt elections are, if only because mainstream media has been bought, and the people have been blinded.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace mailing list
>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Sun Oct 28 21:16:55 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:16:55 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted
	it on the NFN	Utube page.
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR08MB23820998E6D7203420DB8B11A3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MWHPR08MB2382A782F2FDB2EAEDD729BDA3F10@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAOiGAyGaC01WG6vE+V2k4tebV32ep3dA4wTO_=GUNhD=AJk=yA@mail.gmail.com>
 <MWHPR08MB23820998E6D7203420DB8B11A3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <00c501d46f03$8dfbc720$a9f35560$@comcast.net>

Well said Karen !

 

David J.

 

From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:00 PM
To: David Green
Cc: peace; peace at anti-war.net
Subject: Re: [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.

 

David 

 

Then by all means, don’t let me deter you, keep up the good work, defrocking this guy. Going after Max Blumenthal in and of itself, is a clear indication of Proyect’s support for hegemony and imperialism.

 

 

On Oct 28, 2018, at 10:13, David Green <davidgreen50 at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Hi Karen, 

 

Since Proyect has a decent following both on his blog and Marxmail, and because the views on Syria that shape his criticism of TRNN are common among a certain faction of the left (ISO, John Reimann, etc.) I think it's notable when the debate about Syria carries over into other contexts; many are not aware of the ideological connections between these contexts. This discourse tell us something about the challenges of the anti-war & anti-imperialist movements, such as they are, in this country. Proyect has been fundamental, in his own minor way, in defining these fractures. Nevertheless, part of my interest in him stems from the informative nature of his blog and Marxmail (although I don't read his movie reviews), as well as his weekly presence on Counterpunch. Admittedly, Proyect's demonization of someone like Max Blumenthal is perhaps too morbidly interesting to me; but his "support" for Kashoggi is of a somewhat different order than Jebreal's, and I felt it was worth noting the distinction.

 

Best,

 

David

 

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:10 PM Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> wrote:

David: Why quote Louis Proyect, he is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing. “Unrepentant Marxist” my foot, and he is not the only one. A true socialist has no problem recognizing Khashoggi is not a "kind or good" man.  Carl: your statement that Rosa Luxembourg was murdered by socialists is a bit disingenuous, given she was murdered by Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert, who ordered a division of the German military, known as the Freikorps. Rosa Luxemburg, with Karl Liebknecht, organized a strong movement in Germany with these views, but was imprisoned and, after her release, killed at Eberts instructions, for her work during the failed German Revolution of 1919 - a revolution which the German Social Democratic Party, violently opposed. 





David: I too was outraged over Rula Jabreal’s spin on Kashoggi, on Democracy Now, and posted on my FB page, the following statement to which many were in agreement: 

Evening rant: Democracy Now, this morning with Rula Jabreal speaking of her recent interview with Jamal Kashoggi, made me ill. Her portrait of him as a "kind man, wanting democracy and human rights blah, blah for his people." And, Amy never said a word. This "kind man" as she referred to him, was tortured, murdered, dismembered and buried in the Embassy/Consulate grounds. However, he supported the KSA in their war efforts, specifically in Yemen. No one deserves to die as he did, certainly none of the Yemeni civilians who have been dying in record numbers since March 2015 due to US and Saudi efforts. Their bodies aren't even buried, just left to rot in the rubble from the Saudi bombings, which take place only with USG support, our weapons, our training, logistics, refueling etc.

MBS the new guy responsible for J. Kashoggi's death, visited the US after his coup, with our ruling elites, especially the Trump Administration, promoting him as a reformer, because he planned to allow Saudi women the right to drive. This was proven to be a facade, when he had the woman leading the call for driving privileges, incarcerated. A protestor, also a woman was beheaded recently, for some minor infraction, like speaking out against abuse by the gov.. The Saudi's are brutal leaders, treating their people with utter disdain, allowing absolutely no challenge to their authority.

The Saudi Royal family is a US construct, supported by us, since WW2 as "our dictators." "Pseudo journalists" like Rula, Amy and others supported by our ruling elites are playing politics, and its looking quite obvious, to have something to do with upcoming elections. As despicable as the Republicans are, the Democrats within the Beltway are no better, playing good cop, bad cop. I do vote for local Democrats, but recognize how unimportant and corrupt elections are, if only because mainstream media has been bought, and the people have been blinded.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181028/a54478fa/attachment.html>

From r-szoke at illinois.edu  Sun Oct 28 23:09:15 2018
From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 23:09:15 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] On the bookshelf
Message-ID: <AE9DF44D-2AF7-440E-85EC-745896C74229@illinois.edu>


Jason Stanley, How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them  (Random House, 2018, 218 pages).

The initial move in nascent fascism is usually a matter of identifying some group as troublemakers & the “root cause” of all our problems.  Current favorites  include: immigrants, refugees, aliens, criminals, liberals, neoliberals, Deep State, Jews, anti-Semites, Republicans, Democrats, warmongers, War Party, racists, white males, pro-choice murderers, etc.

Also see his earlier book:
How Propaganda Works  (Princeton U.P., 2015, 353 pages).



> Stanley is a professor of philosophy at Yale.

And compare:

David Neiwert, The Eliminationists : How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (PoliPoint Press, 2009, 281 pp.)   Esp. chapters 6 & 7, “Understanding Fascism” &  “Proto-Fascism, Para-Fascism, and the Real Thing,” pp. 103—147.

Bertram Gross, Friendly Fascism : The New Face of Power in America  (M. Evans & Co., 1980, 410 pages).
Note:  Published 38 years ago and an astonishing anticipation of much that has happened since.  Mentions Sinclair Lewis’s novel It Can’ t Happen Here (1935).
——

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181028/03be1b11/attachment-0001.html>

From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Sun Oct 28 23:41:18 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 18:41:18 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted
 it on the NFN Utube page.
In-Reply-To: <00c301d46f03$5ba015b0$12e04110$@comcast.net>
References: <MWHPR08MB2382A782F2FDB2EAEDD729BDA3F10@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <0CA51F73-630D-4EEC-9FC8-70541F03EA20@gmail.com>
 <MWHPR08MB23821844CB29756DBF7D49ECA3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <3D033CCF-D40F-4C11-B232-E3A4F40DA651@gmail.com>
 <00c301d46f03$5ba015b0$12e04110$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <720D9578-0FCE-47AE-AF24-6AFDE1865EF8@gmail.com>

My specific point is that Luxemburg was murdered on the orders of a socialist government.

It’s undeniable that there have been murderous disputes among groups belonging to the socialist tradition.

"Friedrich Ebert was a German politician of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the first President of Germany from 1919 until his death in office in 1925 … Some historians have defended Ebert's actions as unfortunate but inevitable if the creation of a socialist state on the model that had been promoted by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and the communist Spartacists was to be prevented … [Ebert] has been called a traitor by leftists … whereas those who think his policies were justified claim that he saved Germany from Bolshevik excesses.” [Wikipedia]


> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:15 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> What is your SPECIFIC point Carl ?
> 
> Are you denying or trying intentionally to confuse the issue of the difference between a REAL Socialist ( anti-capitalist ) and a Social Democrat ( Pro-Capitalist Liberal ) ?
> 
> David J.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:31 PM
> To: Karen Aram
> Cc: peace; Peace; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.
> 
> Does this approach the “No true Scotsman” argument? Or does it help us to say what a real critique of capitalism looked like a century ago?
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>
> 
> —CGE
> 
>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Carl: 
>> 
>> Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert,”
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Social Democrats are NOT real Socialists – They are not anti-capitalists. They want to reform capitalism so it is more humane, but they will go to whatever lengths ( including murder ) to save capitalism. Ebert may have started out socialist, but moved to the right, joining the liberals and conservatives, with the SDP violently opposing the revolution of 1919.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 19:43, C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Karen—
>>> 
>>> Thank you indeed for listening to and commenting on the program. 
>>> 
>>> As you acknowledge, Rosa Luxemburg was indeed murdered by Freikorps at the direction of the socialist government of Friedrich Ebert. She was of course a critic of that government -  from the Left, not from the Right.
>>> 
>>> Chomsky admires Luxemburg’s politics and her critique of Leninism - which is why contemporary Marxist-Leninists attack them both. —CGE
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> : Why quote Louis Proyect, he is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing. “Unrepentant
>>>> Marxist” my foot, and he is not the only one. A true socialist has no problem recognizing Khashoggi is not a "kind or good" man. 
>>>> 
>>>> Carl:
>>>> your statement that Rosa Luxembourg was murdered by socialists is a bit disingenuous, given she was murdered by Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert, who ordered a division of the German military, known as the Freikorps. Rosa Luxemburg,
>>>> with Karl Liebknecht, organized a strong movement in Germany with these views, but was imprisoned and, after her release, killed at Eberts instructions, for her work during the failed German Revolution of 1919 - a revolution which the German Social Democratic
>>>> Party, violently opposed.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> David:
>>>> I too was outraged over Rula Jabreal’s spin on Kashoggi,
>>>> on Democracy Now, and posted on my FB page, the following statement to which many were in agreement:
>>>> 
>>>> Evening rant: Democracy Now, this morning with Rula Jabreal speaking of her recent interview with Jamal Kashoggi, made me ill. Her portrait of him as a "kind man, wanting democracy and human rights blah, blah for his people." And, Amy never said a word. This "kind man" as she referred to him, was tortured, murdered, dismembered and buried in the Embassy/Consulate grounds. However, he supported the KSA in their war efforts, specifically in Yemen. No one deserves to die as he did, certainly none of the Yemeni civilians who have been dying in record numbers since March 2015 due to US and Saudi efforts. Their bodies aren't even buried, just left to rot in the rubble from the Saudi bombings, which take place only with USG support, our weapons, our training, logistics, refueling etc.
>>>> MBS the new guy responsible for J. Kashoggi's death, visited the US after his coup, with our ruling elites, especially the Trump Administration, promoting him as a reformer, because he planned to allow Saudi women the right to drive. This was proven to be a facade, when he had the woman leading the call for driving privileges, incarcerated. A protestor, also a woman was beheaded recently, for some minor infraction, like speaking out against abuse by the gov.. The Saudi's are brutal leaders, treating their people with utter disdain, allowing absolutely no challenge to their authority.
>>>> The Saudi Royal family is a US construct, supported by us, since WW2 as "our dictators." "Pseudo journalists" like Rula, Amy and others supported by our ruling elites are playing politics, and its looking quite obvious, to have something to do with upcoming elections. As despicable as the Republicans are, the Democrats within the Beltway are no better, playing good cop, bad cop. I do vote for local Democrats, but recognize how unimportant and corrupt elections are, if only because mainstream media has been bought, and the people have been blinded.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace mailing list
>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace mailing list
>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss


From cgestabrook at gmail.com  Mon Oct 29 02:23:01 2018
From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 21:23:01 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted
 it on the NFN Utube page.
In-Reply-To: <00c301d46f03$5ba015b0$12e04110$@comcast.net>
References: <MWHPR08MB2382A782F2FDB2EAEDD729BDA3F10@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <0CA51F73-630D-4EEC-9FC8-70541F03EA20@gmail.com>
 <MWHPR08MB23821844CB29756DBF7D49ECA3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <3D033CCF-D40F-4C11-B232-E3A4F40DA651@gmail.com>
 <00c301d46f03$5ba015b0$12e04110$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <C4BE557B-73C4-4D87-BD04-3145B63F8FFA@gmail.com>

“...trying intentionally to confuse…,” David? Do you mean that?

I’ve long agreed with what Chomsky said long ago: "I think that the libertarian socialist concepts - and by that I mean a range of thinking that extends from left-wing Marxism through anarchism - are fundamentally correct…”

(You will recognize that Chomsky is here using ‘libertarian’ in the 19th-century European sense of, say, Anton Pannekoek - not the 20th-century American sense of Ron Paul.)

—CGE


> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:15 PM, David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> ...Are you denying or trying intentionally to confuse the issue of the difference between a REAL Socialist ( anti-capitalist ) and a Social Democrat ( Pro-Capitalist Liberal ) ?
> 
> David J.


From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com  Mon Oct 29 11:32:50 2018
From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:32:50 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nationalism, Racism...multiculturalism
References: <1241793494.651134.1540812770207.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1241793494.651134.1540812770207@mail.yahoo.com>

just a thought:
Nationalism is a form of animalistic territoriality and is a stronger human force than racism. Study this thought as a basis for problem resolution in the context of multiculturalism.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181029/4b7a3107/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1540812687162blob.jpg
Type: image/png
Size: 50190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181029/4b7a3107/attachment-0001.png>

From ewj at pigs.ag  Mon Oct 29 11:47:12 2018
From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:47:12 +0800
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nationalism, Racism...multiculturalism
In-Reply-To: <1241793494.651134.1540812770207@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <1241793494.651134.1540812770207.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1241793494.651134.1540812770207@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b99de3ac-8424-2551-9c51-77be79e2de40@pigs.ag>

Nationalism is a sort of animalistic territoriality sort of like a toy 
poodle pissing on a fire hydrant.

Stephen Francis via Peace-discuss wrote:
> just a thought:
>
> Nationalism is a form of animalistic territoriality and is a stronger 
> human force than racism. Study this thought as a basis for problem 
> resolution in the context of multiculturalism.
> Inline image
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181029/4e1d6646/attachment.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Mon Oct 29 12:43:23 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:43:23 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted
	it on the NFN Utube page.
In-Reply-To: <720D9578-0FCE-47AE-AF24-6AFDE1865EF8@gmail.com>
References: <MWHPR08MB2382A782F2FDB2EAEDD729BDA3F10@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <0CA51F73-630D-4EEC-9FC8-70541F03EA20@gmail.com>
 <MWHPR08MB23821844CB29756DBF7D49ECA3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <3D033CCF-D40F-4C11-B232-E3A4F40DA651@gmail.com>
 <00c301d46f03$5ba015b0$12e04110$@comcast.net>
 <720D9578-0FCE-47AE-AF24-6AFDE1865EF8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006e01d46f84$fb2f1500$f18d3f00$@comcast.net>

Carl,

It was a SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC ( Liberal ) Government, NOT an anti-capitalist SOCIALIST government.

As you mentioned in an earlier post, Rosa Luxemburg and Liebknecht were critics of Lenin and the Bolsheviks but they were still anti-capitalists. The type of government they would have created if the German revolution of 1918 / 1919 had not been brutally repressed by Ebert and the Social Democrats ( Liberals ) with the use of the pre-Nazi Freikorp in order to save capitalism, would have been much different ( better ) than what existed in Lenin's Russia. An example of what it may have looked like was the Bavarian Socialist government that was established with Kurt Eisner that lasted a brief time before the Freikorp destroyed it after securing the major cities of Berlin, Hamburg, etc..

David J.

-----Original Message-----
From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 6:41 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.

My specific point is that Luxemburg was murdered on the orders of a socialist government.

It’s undeniable that there have been murderous disputes among groups belonging to the socialist tradition.

"Friedrich Ebert was a German politician of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the first President of Germany from 1919 until his death in office in 1925 … Some historians have defended Ebert's actions as unfortunate but inevitable if the creation of a socialist state on the model that had been promoted by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and the communist Spartacists was to be prevented … [Ebert] has been called a traitor by leftists … whereas those who think his policies were justified claim that he saved Germany from Bolshevik excesses.” [Wikipedia]


> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:15 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> What is your SPECIFIC point Carl ?
> 
> Are you denying or trying intentionally to confuse the issue of the difference between a REAL Socialist ( anti-capitalist ) and a Social Democrat ( Pro-Capitalist Liberal ) ?
> 
> David J.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:31 PM
> To: Karen Aram
> Cc: peace; Peace; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.
> 
> Does this approach the “No true Scotsman” argument? Or does it help us to say what a real critique of capitalism looked like a century ago?
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>
> 
> —CGE
> 
>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Carl: 
>> 
>> Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert,”
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Social Democrats are NOT real Socialists – They are not anti-capitalists. They want to reform capitalism so it is more humane, but they will go to whatever lengths ( including murder ) to save capitalism. Ebert may have started out socialist, but moved to the right, joining the liberals and conservatives, with the SDP violently opposing the revolution of 1919.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 19:43, C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Karen—
>>> 
>>> Thank you indeed for listening to and commenting on the program. 
>>> 
>>> As you acknowledge, Rosa Luxemburg was indeed murdered by Freikorps at the direction of the socialist government of Friedrich Ebert. She was of course a critic of that government -  from the Left, not from the Right.
>>> 
>>> Chomsky admires Luxemburg’s politics and her critique of Leninism - which is why contemporary Marxist-Leninists attack them both. —CGE
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> : Why quote Louis Proyect, he is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing. “Unrepentant
>>>> Marxist” my foot, and he is not the only one. A true socialist has no problem recognizing Khashoggi is not a "kind or good" man. 
>>>> 
>>>> Carl:
>>>> your statement that Rosa Luxembourg was murdered by socialists is a bit disingenuous, given she was murdered by Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert, who ordered a division of the German military, known as the Freikorps. Rosa Luxemburg,
>>>> with Karl Liebknecht, organized a strong movement in Germany with these views, but was imprisoned and, after her release, killed at Eberts instructions, for her work during the failed German Revolution of 1919 - a revolution which the German Social Democratic
>>>> Party, violently opposed.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> David:
>>>> I too was outraged over Rula Jabreal’s spin on Kashoggi,
>>>> on Democracy Now, and posted on my FB page, the following statement to which many were in agreement:
>>>> 
>>>> Evening rant: Democracy Now, this morning with Rula Jabreal speaking of her recent interview with Jamal Kashoggi, made me ill. Her portrait of him as a "kind man, wanting democracy and human rights blah, blah for his people." And, Amy never said a word. This "kind man" as she referred to him, was tortured, murdered, dismembered and buried in the Embassy/Consulate grounds. However, he supported the KSA in their war efforts, specifically in Yemen. No one deserves to die as he did, certainly none of the Yemeni civilians who have been dying in record numbers since March 2015 due to US and Saudi efforts. Their bodies aren't even buried, just left to rot in the rubble from the Saudi bombings, which take place only with USG support, our weapons, our training, logistics, refueling etc.
>>>> MBS the new guy responsible for J. Kashoggi's death, visited the US after his coup, with our ruling elites, especially the Trump Administration, promoting him as a reformer, because he planned to allow Saudi women the right to drive. This was proven to be a facade, when he had the woman leading the call for driving privileges, incarcerated. A protestor, also a woman was beheaded recently, for some minor infraction, like speaking out against abuse by the gov.. The Saudi's are brutal leaders, treating their people with utter disdain, allowing absolutely no challenge to their authority.
>>>> The Saudi Royal family is a US construct, supported by us, since WW2 as "our dictators." "Pseudo journalists" like Rula, Amy and others supported by our ruling elites are playing politics, and its looking quite obvious, to have something to do with upcoming elections. As despicable as the Republicans are, the Democrats within the Beltway are no better, playing good cop, bad cop. I do vote for local Democrats, but recognize how unimportant and corrupt elections are, if only because mainstream media has been bought, and the people have been blinded.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace mailing list
>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace mailing list
>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss



From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com  Mon Oct 29 13:34:38 2018
From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 13:34:38 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nationalism, Racism...multiculturalism
In-Reply-To: <b99de3ac-8424-2551-9c51-77be79e2de40@pigs.ag>
References: <1241793494.651134.1540812770207.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1241793494.651134.1540812770207@mail.yahoo.com>
 <b99de3ac-8424-2551-9c51-77be79e2de40@pigs.ag>
Message-ID: <1317611181.710340.1540820078063@mail.yahoo.com>

 Yea, but the little poodle saved a bit for Angela Merkel.... with a sigh of relief.
    On Monday, October 29, 2018, 5:47:34 AM CST, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:  
 
  Nationalism is a sort of animalistic territoriality sort of like a toy poodle pissing on a fire hydrant.
 
 Stephen Francis via Peace-discuss wrote:
  
 
just a thought: 
  Nationalism is a form of animalistic territoriality and is a stronger human force than racism. Study this thought as a basis for problem resolution in the context of multiculturalism.
    
  
 _______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss 
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181029/45bc473b/attachment.html>

From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Mon Oct 29 13:40:34 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 08:40:34 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted
	it on the NFN Utube page.
References: <MWHPR08MB2382A782F2FDB2EAEDD729BDA3F10@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <0CA51F73-630D-4EEC-9FC8-70541F03EA20@gmail.com>
 <MWHPR08MB23821844CB29756DBF7D49ECA3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <3D033CCF-D40F-4C11-B232-E3A4F40DA651@gmail.com>
 <00c301d46f03$5ba015b0$12e04110$@comcast.net>
 <720D9578-0FCE-47AE-AF24-6AFDE1865EF8@gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <009201d46f8c$f829caa0$e87d5fe0$@comcast.net>

Albert Gurganus

Kurt Eisner

A Modern Life

Camden House 2018

June 6, 2018 Mark Klobas

Though Germany was convulsed by violent unrest in the weeks following the end of the First World War, one of the few places where a new republican government was established peacefully was Munich. Central to this was Kurt Eisner, for whom this was among his proudest achievements. As Albert Earle Gurganus explains in Kurt Eisner: A Modern Life (Camden House, 2018), the success of this transition and the framework for the government he led in the months following the deposition of the Bavarian monarchy reflected his firm commitment to the long-held principles that defined his politics. The son of a merchant who provided military uniforms for the Prussian court, as a student Eisner abandoned his studies for a life as a journalist. His writings soon earned him both admiration and a term of imprisonment for lèse majesté. Yet Eisner’s time in prison did nothing to dampen his career prospects, and upon his release he soon rose to become the chief editor of the Social Democratic Party’s leading newspaper. Though ideological struggles led to his dismissal from his position as editor in 1905, he remained a leading critic and commentator until his opposition to Germany’s involvement in the First World War constrained his opportunities. As Gurganus explains, his idealism was both key to his sudden ascent to his power in November 1918 and his downfall three months later, when he was assassinated while on his way to deliver his government’s resignation.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Johnson [mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 7:43 AM
To: 'C G Estabrook'; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.

Carl,

It was a SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC ( Liberal ) Government, NOT an anti-capitalist SOCIALIST government.

As you mentioned in an earlier post, Rosa Luxemburg and Liebknecht were critics of Lenin and the Bolsheviks but they were still anti-capitalists. The type of government they would have created if the German revolution of 1918 / 1919 had not been brutally repressed by Ebert and the Social Democrats ( Liberals ) with the use of the pre-Nazi Freikorp in order to save capitalism, would have been much different ( better ) than what existed in Lenin's Russia. An example of what it may have looked like was the Bavarian Socialist government that was established with Kurt Eisner that lasted a brief time before the Freikorp destroyed it after securing the major cities of Berlin, Hamburg, etc..

David J.

-----Original Message-----
From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 6:41 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.

My specific point is that Luxemburg was murdered on the orders of a socialist government.

It’s undeniable that there have been murderous disputes among groups belonging to the socialist tradition.

"Friedrich Ebert was a German politician of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the first President of Germany from 1919 until his death in office in 1925 … Some historians have defended Ebert's actions as unfortunate but inevitable if the creation of a socialist state on the model that had been promoted by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and the communist Spartacists was to be prevented … [Ebert] has been called a traitor by leftists … whereas those who think his policies were justified claim that he saved Germany from Bolshevik excesses.” [Wikipedia]


> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:15 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> What is your SPECIFIC point Carl ?
> 
> Are you denying or trying intentionally to confuse the issue of the difference between a REAL Socialist ( anti-capitalist ) and a Social Democrat ( Pro-Capitalist Liberal ) ?
> 
> David J.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:31 PM
> To: Karen Aram
> Cc: peace; Peace; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.
> 
> Does this approach the “No true Scotsman” argument? Or does it help us to say what a real critique of capitalism looked like a century ago?
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>
> 
> —CGE
> 
>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Carl: 
>> 
>> Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert,”
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Social Democrats are NOT real Socialists – They are not anti-capitalists. They want to reform capitalism so it is more humane, but they will go to whatever lengths ( including murder ) to save capitalism. Ebert may have started out socialist, but moved to the right, joining the liberals and conservatives, with the SDP violently opposing the revolution of 1919.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 19:43, C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Karen—
>>> 
>>> Thank you indeed for listening to and commenting on the program. 
>>> 
>>> As you acknowledge, Rosa Luxemburg was indeed murdered by Freikorps at the direction of the socialist government of Friedrich Ebert. She was of course a critic of that government -  from the Left, not from the Right.
>>> 
>>> Chomsky admires Luxemburg’s politics and her critique of Leninism - which is why contemporary Marxist-Leninists attack them both. —CGE
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> : Why quote Louis Proyect, he is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing. “Unrepentant
>>>> Marxist” my foot, and he is not the only one. A true socialist has no problem recognizing Khashoggi is not a "kind or good" man. 
>>>> 
>>>> Carl:
>>>> your statement that Rosa Luxembourg was murdered by socialists is a bit disingenuous, given she was murdered by Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert, who ordered a division of the German military, known as the Freikorps. Rosa Luxemburg,
>>>> with Karl Liebknecht, organized a strong movement in Germany with these views, but was imprisoned and, after her release, killed at Eberts instructions, for her work during the failed German Revolution of 1919 - a revolution which the German Social Democratic
>>>> Party, violently opposed.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> David:
>>>> I too was outraged over Rula Jabreal’s spin on Kashoggi,
>>>> on Democracy Now, and posted on my FB page, the following statement to which many were in agreement:
>>>> 
>>>> Evening rant: Democracy Now, this morning with Rula Jabreal speaking of her recent interview with Jamal Kashoggi, made me ill. Her portrait of him as a "kind man, wanting democracy and human rights blah, blah for his people." And, Amy never said a word. This "kind man" as she referred to him, was tortured, murdered, dismembered and buried in the Embassy/Consulate grounds. However, he supported the KSA in their war efforts, specifically in Yemen. No one deserves to die as he did, certainly none of the Yemeni civilians who have been dying in record numbers since March 2015 due to US and Saudi efforts. Their bodies aren't even buried, just left to rot in the rubble from the Saudi bombings, which take place only with USG support, our weapons, our training, logistics, refueling etc.
>>>> MBS the new guy responsible for J. Kashoggi's death, visited the US after his coup, with our ruling elites, especially the Trump Administration, promoting him as a reformer, because he planned to allow Saudi women the right to drive. This was proven to be a facade, when he had the woman leading the call for driving privileges, incarcerated. A protestor, also a woman was beheaded recently, for some minor infraction, like speaking out against abuse by the gov.. The Saudi's are brutal leaders, treating their people with utter disdain, allowing absolutely no challenge to their authority.
>>>> The Saudi Royal family is a US construct, supported by us, since WW2 as "our dictators." "Pseudo journalists" like Rula, Amy and others supported by our ruling elites are playing politics, and its looking quite obvious, to have something to do with upcoming elections. As despicable as the Republicans are, the Democrats within the Beltway are no better, playing good cop, bad cop. I do vote for local Democrats, but recognize how unimportant and corrupt elections are, if only because mainstream media has been bought, and the people have been blinded.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace mailing list
>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace mailing list
>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss



From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net  Mon Oct 29 13:45:55 2018
From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 08:45:55 -0500
Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted
	it on the NFN Utube page.
References: <MWHPR08MB2382A782F2FDB2EAEDD729BDA3F10@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <0CA51F73-630D-4EEC-9FC8-70541F03EA20@gmail.com>
 <MWHPR08MB23821844CB29756DBF7D49ECA3F20@MWHPR08MB2382.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <3D033CCF-D40F-4C11-B232-E3A4F40DA651@gmail.com>
 <00c301d46f03$5ba015b0$12e04110$@comcast.net>
 <720D9578-0FCE-47AE-AF24-6AFDE1865EF8@gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <009401d46f8d$b7c88270$27598750$@comcast.net>

Also Carl,

As you probably are aware of but I thought I should mention it anyway, is that the break / division in the Socialist movement in Germany that led to the creation of the separate political tendencies of Social Democrats ( Liberals who wanted to only reform capitalism ) and Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists who wanted to abolish capitalism was the Social Democratic faction supporting World War 1.

David J. 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Johnson [mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 7:43 AM
To: 'C G Estabrook'; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.

Carl,

It was a SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC ( Liberal ) Government, NOT an anti-capitalist SOCIALIST government.

As you mentioned in an earlier post, Rosa Luxemburg and Liebknecht were critics of Lenin and the Bolsheviks but they were still anti-capitalists. The type of government they would have created if the German revolution of 1918 / 1919 had not been brutally repressed by Ebert and the Social Democrats ( Liberals ) with the use of the pre-Nazi Freikorp in order to save capitalism, would have been much different ( better ) than what existed in Lenin's Russia. An example of what it may have looked like was the Bavarian Socialist government that was established with Kurt Eisner that lasted a brief time before the Freikorp destroyed it after securing the major cities of Berlin, Hamburg, etc..

David J.

-----Original Message-----
From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 6:41 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.

My specific point is that Luxemburg was murdered on the orders of a socialist government.

It’s undeniable that there have been murderous disputes among groups belonging to the socialist tradition.

"Friedrich Ebert was a German politician of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the first President of Germany from 1919 until his death in office in 1925 … Some historians have defended Ebert's actions as unfortunate but inevitable if the creation of a socialist state on the model that had been promoted by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and the communist Spartacists was to be prevented … [Ebert] has been called a traitor by leftists … whereas those who think his policies were justified claim that he saved Germany from Bolshevik excesses.” [Wikipedia]


> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:15 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> What is your SPECIFIC point Carl ?
> 
> Are you denying or trying intentionally to confuse the issue of the difference between a REAL Socialist ( anti-capitalist ) and a Social Democrat ( Pro-Capitalist Liberal ) ?
> 
> David J.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:31 PM
> To: Karen Aram
> Cc: peace; Peace; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] My response to NFN yesterday. I pasted it on the NFN Utube page.
> 
> Does this approach the “No true Scotsman” argument? Or does it help us to say what a real critique of capitalism looked like a century ago?
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>
> 
> —CGE
> 
>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Carl: 
>> 
>> Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert,”
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Social Democrats are NOT real Socialists – They are not anti-capitalists. They want to reform capitalism so it is more humane, but they will go to whatever lengths ( including murder ) to save capitalism. Ebert may have started out socialist, but moved to the right, joining the liberals and conservatives, with the SDP violently opposing the revolution of 1919.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 19:43, C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Karen—
>>> 
>>> Thank you indeed for listening to and commenting on the program. 
>>> 
>>> As you acknowledge, Rosa Luxemburg was indeed murdered by Freikorps at the direction of the socialist government of Friedrich Ebert. She was of course a critic of that government -  from the Left, not from the Right.
>>> 
>>> Chomsky admires Luxemburg’s politics and her critique of Leninism - which is why contemporary Marxist-Leninists attack them both. —CGE
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> : Why quote Louis Proyect, he is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing. “Unrepentant
>>>> Marxist” my foot, and he is not the only one. A true socialist has no problem recognizing Khashoggi is not a "kind or good" man. 
>>>> 
>>>> Carl:
>>>> your statement that Rosa Luxembourg was murdered by socialists is a bit disingenuous, given she was murdered by Social Democratic leader Friedrich Ebert, who ordered a division of the German military, known as the Freikorps. Rosa Luxemburg,
>>>> with Karl Liebknecht, organized a strong movement in Germany with these views, but was imprisoned and, after her release, killed at Eberts instructions, for her work during the failed German Revolution of 1919 - a revolution which the German Social Democratic
>>>> Party, violently opposed.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> David:
>>>> I too was outraged over Rula Jabreal’s spin on Kashoggi,
>>>> on Democracy Now, and posted on my FB page, the following statement to which many were in agreement:
>>>> 
>>>> Evening rant: Democracy Now, this morning with Rula Jabreal speaking of her recent interview with Jamal Kashoggi, made me ill. Her portrait of him as a "kind man, wanting democracy and human rights blah, blah for his people." And, Amy never said a word. This "kind man" as she referred to him, was tortured, murdered, dismembered and buried in the Embassy/Consulate grounds. However, he supported the KSA in their war efforts, specifically in Yemen. No one deserves to die as he did, certainly none of the Yemeni civilians who have been dying in record numbers since March 2015 due to US and Saudi efforts. Their bodies aren't even buried, just left to rot in the rubble from the Saudi bombings, which take place only with USG support, our weapons, our training, logistics, refueling etc.
>>>> MBS the new guy responsible for J. Kashoggi's death, visited the US after his coup, with our ruling elites, especially the Trump Administration, promoting him as a reformer, because he planned to allow Saudi women the right to drive. This was proven to be a facade, when he had the woman leading the call for driving privileges, incarcerated. A protestor, also a woman was beheaded recently, for some minor infraction, like speaking out against abuse by the gov.. The Saudi's are brutal leaders, treating their people with utter disdain, allowing absolutely no challenge to their authority.
>>>> The Saudi Royal family is a US construct, supported by us, since WW2 as "our dictators." "Pseudo journalists" like Rula, Amy and others supported by our ruling elites are playing politics, and its looking quite obvious, to have something to do with upcoming elections. As despicable as the Republicans are, the Democrats within the Beltway are no better, playing good cop, bad cop. I do vote for local Democrats, but recognize how unimportant and corrupt elections are, if only because mainstream media has been bought, and the people have been blinded.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace mailing list
>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace mailing list
>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss



From r-szoke at illinois.edu  Tue Oct 30 04:19:50 2018
From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 04:19:50 +0000
Subject: [Peace-discuss] About the "invasion" from Mexico
References: <93c5-b16-5bd7a0ef@list.winwithoutwar.org>
Message-ID: <6548799C-1A3A-4511-953D-F83F63770A8B@illinois.edu>


From: Stephen Miles <info at winwithoutwar.org<mailto:info at winwithoutwar.org>>
Subject: BREAKING: Sec. Mattis sending 14,000 troops to U.S-Mexico border
Date: October 29, 2018

Mattis is ordering up to 14,000 troops to the southern border. We CANNOT accept this.

[Win Without War]

Ron — America is in dark times. News just broke that Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis is ordering up to 14,000 troops armed with lethal ammunition to the U.S. Mexico border. [1]

Let’s be clear: The United States is not under attack. Donald Trump is creating a crisis out of vulnerable asylum seekers roughly 1,000 miles away from the U.S. border and using our military to seed and stoke fear to score political points.

It’s beyond dangerous — especially after a terrible week of white supremacist violence and hate. We cannot allow the war on migrants to continue. We must act quickly, and we must act now.

Sign now and tell Sec. Mattis to cancel 14,000 troops deploying to the U.S.-Mexico border.<https://act.winwithoutwar.org/act/sec-mattis-cancel-troops-us-mexico-border?source=em20181029&t=1&akid=2838%2E37829%2EzN7cYq>

[https://s3.amazonaws.com/www-ak-assets/images/WWW_ActNow_Button.png]<https://act.winwithoutwar.org/act/sec-mattis-cancel-troops-us-mexico-border?source=em20181029&t=2&akid=2838%2E37829%2EzN7cYq>

Trump’s plan to terrorize migrants with military force goes hand in hand with his fear-mongering and rising authoritarianism. His rhetoric is fueling terrifying white supremacist violence: Jewish elders murdered at synagogue. Black elders murdered at a supermarket. Bombs mailed to his political opponents. And instead of denouncing these hateful acts, Trump is stoking more fear and violence against migrants.

But we see through Trump's white supremacy and bigotry in all its forms. Asylum seekers aren’t a threat to the United States. Trump’s hatred and rising authoritarianism are the actual emergency.

The families walking from Central America to the U.S. southern border are survivors of deadly state and domestic violence, climate devastation, and poverty. Migration is a human right. And the southern border should be a place of refuge and hope, not a site of potential violent conflict.

Instead of fulfilling our legal obligation to evaluate their asylum claims, Trump is further militarizing the borderlands, breaking the law that bars servicemembers from domestic enforcement, and threatening to both ban Central American asylum seekers [2] and cut off life-saving assistance to migrants’ countries of origin [3].

Further militarizing the border will do nothing to keep our country safe and will instead further terrorize and harm vulnerable asylum seekers, doubling down on Trump’s violence-first policies. We MUST speak up and prevent Mattis from enabling Trump’s desperate, dangerous fear-mongering.

Demand Sec. Mattis cancel the 14,000 troops deploying to the U.S.-Mexico border NOW!<https://act.winwithoutwar.org/act/sec-mattis-cancel-troops-us-mexico-border?source=em20181029&t=3&akid=2838%2E37829%2EzN7cYq>

Grief is weighing heavy across progressive communities right now, as news of hate crimes stack upon our shoulders and hearts. Win Without War knows that the only way forward from senseless acts of violence and further calls for militarization is uniting across difference for justice and peace. We know that the power and possibility of building a progressive foreign and domestic policy relies on open minds, open hearts and open borders. Let us continue to move forward, together.

Thank you for working for peace,

Stephen, Mariam, Tara, and the Win Without War team


---

[1] Newsweek<https://act.winwithoutwar.org/go/14563?t=7&akid=2838%2E37829%2EzN7cYq>

[2] Politico<https://act.winwithoutwar.org/go/14565?t=8&akid=2838%2E37829%2EzN7cYq>

[3] Washington Office on Latin America<https://act.winwithoutwar.org/go/14520?t=9&akid=2838%2E37829%2EzN7cYq>

[https://act.winwithoutwar.org/o.gif?akid=2838.37829.zN7cYq]





Donate<https://secure.actblue.com/donate/winwithoutwar?refcode=emfooter&t=4&akid=2838%2E37829%2EzN7cYq> [Like on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/winwithoutwar>     [Follow on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/winwithoutwar>

Win Without War is a project of the Center for International Policy.
1 Thomas Circle NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005
(202) 656-4999 | info at winwithoutwar.org<mailto:info at winwithoutwar.org>

This email was sent to r-szoke at illinois.edu<x-msg://4/#>. Email is the most important way for us to reach you about opportunities to act. If you'd like to receive fewer mailings, click here<http://act.winwithoutwar.org/signup/receive_fewer_emails/?t=5&akid=2838%2E37829%2EzN7cYq>. If you need to remove yourself from our email list, click here to unsubscribe<http://act.winwithoutwar.org/unsubscribe/unsubscribe/?t=6&akid=2838%2E37829%2EzN7cYq>.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181030/5e02486c/attachment-0001.html>

From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com  Wed Oct 31 11:48:17 2018
From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:48:17 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chosenness
References: <1053678022.686808.1540986497779.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1053678022.686808.1540986497779@mail.yahoo.com>

NeoNazism, Chosenness, White Supremacism can all be logically lumped together as supremacist behaviors. They are all self-proclaimed, arbitrary, and not based on scientific fact.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20181031/66eeddfc/attachment.html>