[Peace-discussion] Must read.
a.gronowicz@att.net
a.gronowicz@att.net
Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:50:03 +0000
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_20665_1197690603_0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
a provacateur in our midst
-------------- Original message from "John Walsh" <jvwalshmd@gmail.com>: --------------
> I cannot help but notice to FDR - the hero of the Dems. Unwitting
> DemoGreen anyone?
> And so original - I never hear that before and I thank you for
> conveying that entirely new info.
> Have you eve hear of imagination?
> john walsh (MA delegate)
>
>
> On 12/14/07, a.gronowicz@att.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with Nick and David. Ron Paul cannot be for economic justice ( a
> > second pillar) and be a libertarian which is economic nonsense and just
> > plain insensitive to people's needs.
> >
> >
> >
> > We need an economic bill of rights which FDR enunciated on Hamilton's
> > birthday (January 11th) back in 1944.
> >
> >
> >
> > Google "economic bill of rights" or check out my web
> > site (www.greenmayor.org). I ran on FDR's platform plus all the issues
> > Jason West stood for when he was New Paltz Mayor.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > -------------- Original message from Nick Schmader :
> > --------------
> >
> > By saying that David's objections to Ron Paul's politics are standard or
> > predictable, does not vitiate the accuracy or relevance of those objections.
> > If fascism cloaked in libertarian verbiage appeals to folks, then you all
> > can get on the Ron Paul bandwagon. But a confused, meandering critique of
> > the ISO smacks of red baiting, and for what? To legitamize Ron Paul's
> > reactionary agenda?
> >
> > Nick
> > RI
> >
> >
> > John Walsh wrote:
> > Actually Nader has spoken approvingly of Paul - and vice versa. Neither is
> > a socialist in the old 19th century sense of the word - but neither am I and
> > neither is the GP.
> >
> >
> > I do not want to be rude BUT all the points you raise are almost the
> > standard ones that trip off the tongue of Leftists - all very predictable.
> > I am not proposing that we support Paul - but I would damned sure vote for
> > him before any one of the Dems in the field including Kucinich.
> >
> >
> > I find that there is a failure on the "Left" to rethink things in a serious
> > way and form alliances that are not across the board but may exert a pincer
> > movement on the parties of war, death and empire.
> > john walsh (MA delegate)
> >
> >
> > On Dec 14, 2007 3:54 PM, David Strand wrote:
> >
> > > Ron Paul does not deserve the support of any Green in
> > > my opinion.
> > >
> > > To begin with, he opposes every consumer and
> > > environmental protection that Nader has ever worked
> > > for as he feels all those government regulations are
> > > unduly burdensome on business.
> > >
> > > He opposes carbon cap and trade and most all
> > > government regulations of pollution.
> > >
> > > He opposes all forms of public education. In fact his
> > > chief campaign organizer in Iowa is a guy who is paid
> > > for by a conservative think tank that believes public
> > > education undermines parents religious rights by it's
> > > mere existence and at least since he is tied up with
> > > the Ron Paul campaign he not touring the country
> > > trying to defeat public schools systems funding
> > > referenda.
> > >
> > > He opposes civil rights laws and regulations as an
> > > undue monitoring of what he sees as per sonal morality
> > > by the government.
> > >
> > > He is part of the southern Milesian tradition of
> > > libertarianism which often draws white supremacists
> > > and those sentimental for the days of the confederacy
> > > and which tend to be far more socially conservative
> > > than their Cato Institute related brethren. For
> > > example, Ron Paul, for all his libertarian
> > > credentials, believes the government SHOULD use it's
> > > force to restrict abortion and other post
> > > fertilization forms of birth control so he is
> > > decisively anti-abortion and even opposed to numerous
> > > forms of birth control.
> > >
> > > He doesn't support government protection of the right
> > > to unionize either.
> > >
> > > He doesn't support current social safety net programs
> > > such as welfare, medicare, medicaid let alone fully
> > > opposing Green objectives such as universal single
> > > payer healthcare.
> > >
> > > And his immigration policies are as backward from
> > > Green positions as those of the infamously rascist and
> > > ant i-immigrant candidate Tom Tancredo.
> > >
> > > Is it allright to work with him together on the
> > > singular issues we do agree with him on such as
> > > opposing the war though from very different reasonings
> > > and frames?
> > >
> > >
> > > You betch ya!
> > >
> > > However, this should not translate into a campaign in
> > > favor of so so many things which we heartily oppose
> > > and opposed to so so many things we support.
> > >
> > > If that's a "sling or arrow", I hope it's hit it's
> > > mark.
> > >
> > > David Strand
> > >
> > >
> > > --- John Walsh wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12053
> > > >
> > > > December 14, 2007
> > > > Ron Paul: Slings and Arrows, Left and Right
> > > > The Trots and the neo-Trots gang up on Ron
> > > > BY JUSTIN RAIMONDO
> > > >
> > > > Ron Paul's simultaneous reenactment of the Goldwater
> > > > and McCarthy
> > > > (Eugene, not Joe) campaigns has excited a wave of
> > > > enthusiasm on both
> > > > sides of the political spectrum – and also a much
> > > > less enthusiastic
> > > > reaction from committed ideologues, left and right.
> > > > While they come at
> > > > the Paul campaign from different angles, both wind
> > > > up with
> > > > surprisingly similar negative analyses of the
> > > > Paulian phenomenon, more
> > > > so than you might imagin e.
> > > >
> > > > Let's take the lefties first, starting with one
> > > > Sherry Wolf, whom, we
> > > > are told, is an editor of the International
> > > > Socialist Review. Writing
> > > > in Counterpunch, she starts out her polemic by
> > > > acknowledging the utter
> > > > lack of any alternative to the object of her intense
> > > > irritation:
> > > >
> > > > "'Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum,' goes the
> > > > revamped aphorism.
> > > > Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's
> > > > surprising stature among
> > > > a small but vocal layer of antiwar activists and
> > > > leftist bloggers
> > > > appears to bear this out."
> > > >
> > > > By way of understanding the full implications of
> > > > this statement,
> > > > perhaps you ought to know that the International
> > > > Socialist Review,
> > > > where Ms. Wolf serves on the editorial board, is the
> > > > quarterly
> > > > theoretical journal of the International Socialist
> > > > Organization (ISO),
> > > &g t; the largest Trotskyist organization in the US,
> > >
> > > > associated with the
> > > > "Third Camp" views of the late Tony Cliff. Last time
> > > > around the ISO
> > > > supported Ralph Nader for President, attracting much
> > > > criticism from
> > > > its more orthodox Trotskyist competitors: I remember
> > > > going to a Nader
> > > > rally at Mission High School in San Francisco at
> > > > which Nader attacked
> > > > the idea of state socialism, much to the
> > > > embarrassment of the ISO,
> > > > which provided the organizational muscle for the
> > > > Nader campaign in
> > > > Northern California – and their embarrassment must
> > > > be even greater
> > > > this time around, when there is no "progressive"
> > > > candidate on the
> > > > ballot or likely to appear on any ballot, and Nader
> > > > is saying good
> > > > things about … Ron Paul! (at around 4:40 minutes
> > > > into this Youtubed
> > > > "Hardball"clip).
> > > >
> > > > Panic! What to do?! Well, Ms. Wolf complains, at
> > > > length, that Ron
> > > > isn't a socialist, which seems to me a rather
> > > > useless pursuit. After
> > > > all, neither is Nader. If they want a socialist,
> > > > then why not run
> > > > their own candidate, like the Socialist Workers
> > > > Party used to do? Oh,
> > > > no, they can't be bothered. Instead, they recycle
> > > > the smears initially
> > > > hurled at Paul by the neocons: he's a "racist,"
> > > > albeit Wolf's
> > > > rationale is even loopier than that dreamt up by
> > > > Ron's opponents on
> > > > the Right. Paul is a racist, you see, because he
> > > > "imagines a
> > > > colorblind world" – as did Martin Luther King, and
> > > > the entire
> > > > integrationist tradition of the civil rights
> > > > movement, oh, but never
> > > > mind. Aside from citing quotes that were not written
> > > > by Rep. Paul, and
> > > > were instead authored by a fired aide, Wolf can't do
> > > > any better than
> > > > that. This is a lot like the Cl intonians implying
> > > > that Barack Obama
> > > > may have been a drug dealer. One can't help
> > > > wondering, if, perhaps,
> > > > the ISO is secretly supporting Hillary – or else,
> > > > why the effort to
> > > > wall off the left from Paul with this ridiculous
> > > > smear of "racism"?
> > > > Who benefits from that? Clearly, the Democrats ….
> > > >
> > > > Wolf decries Paul's opposition to a policy of open
> > > > borders, and yet
> > > > Nader took almost the same position as Paul: he
> > > > opposes illegal
> > > > immigration, and pledged to reduce it last time
> > > > around. In an
> > > > interview with Pat Buchanan published in The
> > > > American Conservative,
> > > > when asked about the growth of the US population to
> > > > 400 million in the
> > > > near future, Nader said
> > > >
> > > > "We don't have the absorptive capacity for that many
> > > > people. Over 32
> > > > million came in, in the '90s, which is the highest
> > > > in American
> > > > hist ory. We have to control our immigration. We have
> > > > to limit the
> > > > number of people who come into this country
> > > > illegally. First of all,
> > > > we have to say what is the impact on
> > > > African-Americans and Hispanic
> > > > Americans in this country in terms of wages of our
> > > > present stance on
> > > > immigration? It is a wage-depressing policy."
> > > >
> > > > The hypocrisy of the ISO attack on Paul is
> > > > breathtaking.
> > > >
> > > > Like the neocons, Wolf attacks Paul for supposedly
> > > > being one of those
> > > > dreaded "isolationists." Does she realize that this
> > > > is a code-word for
> > > > anti-war and anti-imperialist? Of course she does,
> > > > yet she cynically
> > > > avers: "In the isolationist fashion of the nation's
> > > > Pat Buchanans, he
> > > > decries intervention in foreign nation's affairs and
> > > > believes
> > > > membership in the United Nations undermines U.S.
> > > > sovereignty." Such a
> > > > sentence, dripping with contempt for Paul's "no
> > > > entangling alliances"
> > > > keep-us-out-of-war stance, might easily have
> > > > appeared in the Weekly
> > > > Standard, or National Review. Out of the United
> > > > Nations?! Oh,
> > > > heavens-to-Betsy, then how would the Security
> > > > Council enforce all
> > > > those delightful sanctions against Iran, and
> > > > threaten to unleash the
> > > > armed might of the West if Tehran doesn't bow to the
> > > > Council's
> > > > demands? Of course, this is par for the course for
> > > > the ISO, whose
> > > > British predecessors, the Cliff-ite Socialist Review
> > > > faction, refused
> > > > to condemn the US invasion of Korea, which was
> > > > sanctioned, you'll
> > > > recall, by the UN and fought under "international"
> > > > auspices.
> > > >
> > > > The ISO is so f*cking clueless, that I have a hard
> > > > time taking Wolf's
> > > > polemic seriously: it is so obviously the result of
> > > > pure political
> > > > cal culation, and sheer panic, that one has to wonder
> > > > if they take it
> > > > seriously. I have to say, however, that they just
> > > > don't get it. They
> > > > don't understand Ron's appeal to the left, aside and
> > > > apart from his
> > > > unrelenting opposition to US intervention abroad.
> > > > They think they can
> > > > gull the left if they bring up his economic views:
> > > >
> > > > "Complaints against 'big government' and
> > > > 'over-regulation,' though
> > > > often justified, also issue from the privileged who
> > > > are frustrated at
> > > > finding that their quest for still greater
> > > > privileges at the expense
> > > > of their community are curtailed by a government
> > > > which, ideally,
> > > > represents that community. Pure food and drug laws
> > > > curtail profits and
> > > > mandate tests as they protect the general public."
> > > >
> > > > Yet Paul's critique of state capitalism takes on the
> > > > commanding
> > > > heights of the syst em: the Federal Reserve.
> > > > Inflation, he says, is the
> > > > means by which the plutocratic elite gets the
> > > > freshly-created assets
> > > > first and gets to spend them at full value – while
> > > > the currency is
> > > > debauched and the poor and the middle class suffer.
> > > > His
> > > === message truncated ===
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> ____
> > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discussion mailing list
> Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_20665_1197690603_0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<head></head>
<body>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
<DIV></DIV>a provacateur in our midst<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message from "John Walsh" <jvwalshmd@gmail.com>: -------------- <BR><BR><BR>> I cannot help but notice to FDR - the hero of the Dems. Unwitting <BR>> DemoGreen anyone? <BR>> And so original - I never hear that before and I thank you for <BR>> conveying that entirely new info. <BR>> Have you eve hear of imagination? <BR>> john walsh (MA delegate) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On 12/14/07, a.gronowicz@att.net <A.GRONOWICZ@ATT.NET>wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > I agree with Nick and David. Ron Paul cannot be for economic justice ( a <BR>> > second pillar) and be a libertarian which is economic nonsense and just <BR>> > plain insensitive to people's needs. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > We need an economic bill of rights which FDR enunciated on Hamilton's <BR>> > birt
hday (January 11th) back in 1944. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Google "economic bill of rights" or check out my web <BR>> > site (www.greenmayor.org). I ran on FDR's platform plus all the issues <BR>> > Jason West stood for when he was New Paltz Mayor. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Tony <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Tony <BR>> > <BR>> > -------------- Original message from Nick Schmader <NSCHMADER@COX.NET>: <BR>> > -------------- <BR>> > <BR>> > By saying that David's objections to Ron Paul's politics are standard or <BR>> > predictable, does not vitiate the accuracy or relevance of those objections. <BR>> > If fascism cloaked in libertarian verbiage appeals to folks, then you all <BR>> > can get on the Ron Paul bandwagon. But a confused, meandering critique of <BR>> > the ISO smacks of red baiting, and for what? To legitamize Ron Paul's <
BR>> > reactionary agenda? <BR>> > <BR>> > Nick <BR>> > RI <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > John Walsh wrote: <BR>> > Actually Nader has spoken approvingly of Paul - and vice versa. Neither is <BR>> > a socialist in the old 19th century sense of the word - but neither am I and <BR>> > neither is the GP. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > I do not want to be rude BUT all the points you raise are almost the <BR>> > standard ones that trip off the tongue of Leftists - all very predictable. <BR>> > I am not proposing that we support Paul - but I would damned sure vote for <BR>> > him before any one of the Dems in the field including Kucinich. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > I find that there is a failure on the "Left" to rethink things in a serious <BR>> > way and form alliances that are not across the board but may exert a pincer <BR>> > movement on the parties of war, death and empire. <
BR>> > john walsh (MA delegate) <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > On Dec 14, 2007 3:54 PM, David Strand <MNCIVIL@YAHOO.COM>wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > > Ron Paul does not deserve the support of any Green in <BR>> > > my opinion. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > To begin with, he opposes every consumer and <BR>> > > environmental protection that Nader has ever worked <BR>> > > for as he feels all those government regulations are <BR>> > > unduly burdensome on business. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > He opposes carbon cap and trade and most all <BR>> > > government regulations of pollution. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > He opposes all forms of public education. In fact his <BR>> > > chief campaign organizer in Iowa is a guy who is paid <BR>> > > for by a conservative think tank that believes public <BR>> > > education undermines parents religious rights by it's <BR>>
> > mere existence and at least since he is tied up with <BR>> > > the Ron Paul campaign he not touring the country <BR>> > > trying to defeat public schools systems funding <BR>> > > referenda. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > He opposes civil rights laws and regulations as an <BR>> > > undue monitoring of what he sees as per sonal morality <BR>> > > by the government. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > He is part of the southern Milesian tradition of <BR>> > > libertarianism which often draws white supremacists <BR>> > > and those sentimental for the days of the confederacy <BR>> > > and which tend to be far more socially conservative <BR>> > > than their Cato Institute related brethren. For <BR>> > > example, Ron Paul, for all his libertarian <BR>> > > credentials, believes the government SHOULD use it's <BR>> > > force to restrict abortion and other post <B
R>> > > fertilization forms of birth control so he is <BR>> > > decisively anti-abortion and even opposed to numerous <BR>> > > forms of birth control. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > He doesn't support government protection of the right <BR>> > > to unionize either. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > He doesn't support current social safety net programs <BR>> > > such as welfare, medicare, medicaid let alone fully <BR>> > > opposing Green objectives such as universal single <BR>> > > payer healthcare. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > And his immigration policies are as backward from <BR>> > > Green positions as those of the infamously rascist and <BR>> > > ant i-immigrant candidate Tom Tancredo. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > Is it allright to work with him together on the <BR>> > > singular issues we do agree with him on such as <BR>> > > opposing the war though
from very different reasonings <BR>> > > and frames? <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > You betch ya! <BR>> > > <BR>> > > However, this should not translate into a campaign in <BR>> > > favor of so so many things which we heartily oppose <BR>> > > and opposed to so so many things we support. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > If that's a "sling or arrow", I hope it's hit it's <BR>> > > mark. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > David Strand <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > --- John Walsh <JVWALSHMD@GMAIL.COM>wrote: <BR>> > > <BR>> > > > http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12053 <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > December 14, 2007 <BR>> > > > Ron Paul: Slings and Arrows, Left and Right <BR>> > > > The Trots and the neo-Trots gang up on Ron <BR>> > > > BY JUSTIN RAIMONDO <BR>> > > > <BR>> >
; > > Ron Paul's simultaneous reenactment of the Goldwater <BR>> > > > and McCarthy <BR>> > > > (Eugene, not Joe) campaigns has excited a wave of <BR>> > > > enthusiasm on both <BR>> > > > sides of the political spectrum – and also a much <BR>> > > > less enthusiastic <BR>> > > > reaction from committed ideologues, left and right. <BR>> > > > While they come at <BR>> > > > the Paul campaign from different angles, both wind <BR>> > > > up with <BR>> > > > surprisingly similar negative analyses of the <BR>> > > > Paulian phenomenon, more <BR>> > > > so than you might imagin e. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Let's take the lefties first, starting with one <BR>> > > > Sherry Wolf, whom, we <BR>> > > > are told, is an editor of the International <BR>> > > > Socialist Review. Writing <BR>
> > > > in Counterpunch, she starts out her polemic by <BR>> > > > acknowledging the utter <BR>> > > > lack of any alternative to the object of her intense <BR>> > > > irritation: <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > "'Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum,' goes the <BR>> > > > revamped aphorism. <BR>> > > > Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's <BR>> > > > surprising stature among <BR>> > > > a small but vocal layer of antiwar activists and <BR>> > > > leftist bloggers <BR>> > > > appears to bear this out." <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > By way of understanding the full implications of <BR>> > > > this statement, <BR>> > > > perhaps you ought to know that the International <BR>> > > > Socialist Review, <BR>> > > > where Ms. Wolf serves on the editorial board, is the <BR>> >
> > quarterly <BR>> > > > theoretical journal of the International Socialist <BR>> > > > Organization (ISO), <BR>> > > &g t; the largest Trotskyist organization in the US, <BR>> > > <BR>> > > > associated with the <BR>> > > > "Third Camp" views of the late Tony Cliff. Last time <BR>> > > > around the ISO <BR>> > > > supported Ralph Nader for President, attracting much <BR>> > > > criticism from <BR>> > > > its more orthodox Trotskyist competitors: I remember <BR>> > > > going to a Nader <BR>> > > > rally at Mission High School in San Francisco at <BR>> > > > which Nader attacked <BR>> > > > the idea of state socialism, much to the <BR>> > > > embarrassment of the ISO, <BR>> > > > which provided the organizational muscle for the <BR>> > > > Nader campaign in <BR>> > >
> Northern California – and their embarrassment must <BR>> > > > be even greater <BR>> > > > this time around, when there is no "progressive" <BR>> > > > candidate on the <BR>> > > > ballot or likely to appear on any ballot, and Nader <BR>> > > > is saying good <BR>> > > > things about … Ron Paul! (at around 4:40 minutes <BR>> > > > into this Youtubed <BR>> > > > "Hardball"clip). <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Panic! What to do?! Well, Ms. Wolf complains, at <BR>> > > > length, that Ron <BR>> > > > isn't a socialist, which seems to me a rather <BR>> > > > useless pursuit. After <BR>> > > > all, neither is Nader. If they want a socialist, <BR>> > > > then why not run <BR>> > > > their own candidate, like the Socialist Workers <BR>> > > > Party used to do? Oh, <BR>> > > > no,
they can't be bothered. Instead, they recycle <BR>> > > > the smears initially <BR>> > > > hurled at Paul by the neocons: he's a "racist," <BR>> > > > albeit Wolf's <BR>> > > > rationale is even loopier than that dreamt up by <BR>> > > > Ron's opponents on <BR>> > > > the Right. Paul is a racist, you see, because he <BR>> > > > "imagines a <BR>> > > > colorblind world" – as did Martin Luther King, and <BR>> > > > the entire <BR>> > > > integrationist tradition of the civil rights <BR>> > > > movement, oh, but never <BR>> > > > mind. Aside from citing quotes that were not written <BR>> > > > by Rep. Paul, and <BR>> > > > were instead authored by a fired aide, Wolf can't do <BR>> > > > any better than <BR>> > > > that. This is a lot like the Cl intonians implying <BR>> > > > that Ba
rack Obama <BR>> > > > may have been a drug dealer. One can't help <BR>> > > > wondering, if, perhaps, <BR>> > > > the ISO is secretly supporting Hillary – or else, <BR>> > > > why the effort to <BR>> > > > wall off the left from Paul with this ridiculous <BR>> > > > smear of "racism"? <BR>> > > > Who benefits from that? Clearly, the Democrats …. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Wolf decries Paul's opposition to a policy of open <BR>> > > > borders, and yet <BR>> > > > Nader took almost the same position as Paul: he <BR>> > > > opposes illegal <BR>> > > > immigration, and pledged to reduce it last time <BR>> > > > around. In an <BR>> > > > interview with Pat Buchanan published in The <BR>> > > > American Conservative, <BR>> > > > when asked about the growth of the US population to <BR>>
> > > 400 million in the <BR>> > > > near future, Nader said <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > "We don't have the absorptive capacity for that many <BR>> > > > people. Over 32 <BR>> > > > million came in, in the '90s, which is the highest <BR>> > > > in American <BR>> > > > hist ory. We have to control our immigration. We have <BR>> > > > to limit the <BR>> > > > number of people who come into this country <BR>> > > > illegally. First of all, <BR>> > > > we have to say what is the impact on <BR>> > > > African-Americans and Hispanic <BR>> > > > Americans in this country in terms of wages of our <BR>> > > > present stance on <BR>> > > > immigration? It is a wage-depressing policy." <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > The hypocrisy of the ISO attack on Paul is <BR>> > > > breathtaking
. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Like the neocons, Wolf attacks Paul for supposedly <BR>> > > > being one of those <BR>> > > > dreaded "isolationists." Does she realize that this <BR>> > > > is a code-word for <BR>> > > > anti-war and anti-imperialist? Of course she does, <BR>> > > > yet she cynically <BR>> > > > avers: "In the isolationist fashion of the nation's <BR>> > > > Pat Buchanans, he <BR>> > > > decries intervention in foreign nation's affairs and <BR>> > > > believes <BR>> > > > membership in the United Nations undermines U.S. <BR>> > > > sovereignty." Such a <BR>> > > > sentence, dripping with contempt for Paul's "no <BR>> > > > entangling alliances" <BR>> > > > keep-us-out-of-war stance, might easily have <BR>> > > > appeared in the Weekly <BR>> > > > Standard, or
National Review. Out of the United <BR>> > > > Nations?! Oh, <BR>> > > > heavens-to-Betsy, then how would the Security <BR>> > > > Council enforce all <BR>> > > > those delightful sanctions against Iran, and <BR>> > > > threaten to unleash the <BR>> > > > armed might of the West if Tehran doesn't bow to the <BR>> > > > Council's <BR>> > > > demands? Of course, this is par for the course for <BR>> > > > the ISO, whose <BR>> > > > British predecessors, the Cliff-ite Socialist Review <BR>> > > > faction, refused <BR>> > > > to condemn the US invasion of Korea, which was <BR>> > > > sanctioned, you'll <BR>> > > > recall, by the UN and fought under "international" <BR>> > > > auspices. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > The ISO is so f*cking clueless, that I have a hard <BR>> > > > ti
me taking Wolf's <BR>> > > > polemic seriously: it is so obviously the result of <BR>> > > > pure political <BR>> > > > cal culation, and sheer panic, that one has to wonder <BR>> > > > if they take it <BR>> > > > seriously. I have to say, however, that they just <BR>> > > > don't get it. They <BR>> > > > don't understand Ron's appeal to the left, aside and <BR>> > > > apart from his <BR>> > > > unrelenting opposition to US intervention abroad. <BR>> > > > They think they can <BR>> > > > gull the left if they bring up his economic views: <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > "Complaints against 'big government' and <BR>> > > > 'over-regulation,' though <BR>> > > > often justified, also issue from the privileged who <BR>> > > > are frustrated at <BR>> > > > finding that their quest for still grea
ter <BR>> > > > privileges at the expense <BR>> > > > of their community are curtailed by a government <BR>> > > > which, ideally, <BR>> > > > represents that community. Pure food and drug laws <BR>> > > > curtail profits and <BR>> > > > mandate tests as they protect the general public." <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Yet Paul's critique of state capitalism takes on the <BR>> > > > commanding <BR>> > > > heights of the syst em: the Federal Reserve. <BR>> > > > Inflation, he says, is the <BR>> > > > means by which the plutocratic elite gets the <BR>> > > > freshly-created assets <BR>> > > > first and gets to spend them at full value – while <BR>> > > > the currency is <BR>> > > > debauched and the poor and the middle class suffer. <BR>> > > > His <BR>> > > === message truncated ==
= <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > <BR>> ________________________________________________________________________________ <BR>> ____ <BR>> > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. <BR>> > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs <BR>> > > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> Peace-discussion mailing list <BR>> Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org <BR>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion </BLOCKQUOTE>
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
</body>
</html>
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_20665_1197690603_0--