On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
...The New Deal was the product in part of a rising and militant
trade union movement, many of its activists inspired by the example
of the Russian Revolution... This is so not true. The New Deal started on March 4 1933 with the ank Holiday--an act of naked executive power--and was shaped in the ext "hundred days." At the time the trade union movement was oribund, the CIO not even a glint in John L's eye. The New Deal was haped by the Jesse Joneses and Bernard Baruchs, not the Hillmans and ewises. And the radical threat to FDR came from Dr. Townsend and the reat populist Huey Long, not from the sympathizers with Stalin. Shane Mage
True and not true. John L. Lewis headed the Committee for Industrial Organization within the AF of L before Roosevelt was even elected. The legislation of the first hundred days was not a response to union militancy, but partly to threats from Long, Townsend and Coughlin to unite in a third-party challenge, but also to the sometimes violent rebellion in the Midwestern farm belt. However, the NIRA Legislation of the first hundred days) was overturned by the Supreme Court. What most people refer to as the "New Deal" was Roosevelt's response to the court: the legislative package called the "'Second New Deal" of 1935, which included the Wagner Act (NLRA), giving unions the effective right to organize.
Between the first and second New Deals, significant events transpired, namely three big winning industrial strikes (San Francisco, Minneapolis, Toledo). The Wagner Act, was, at least in part, a response to these strikes.
Jim
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Sat, Oct 30, 2010 4:06 pm Subject: lbo-talk Digest, Vol 1385, Issue 2
Send lbo-talk mailing list submissions to
lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk r, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org You can reach the person managing the list at
lbo-talk-owner at lbo-talk.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific han "Re: Contents of lbo-talk digest..."
oday's Topics:
1. Re: Enthusiasm (Marv Gandall)
2. Re: Black Panther Coloring Book (Wojtek S)
3. Re: Why Capitalism Cannot be Tamed (michael perelman)
4. Re: Enthusiasm (Shane Mage)
5. Re: Why Capitalism Cannot be Tamed (Barry Brooks)
6. Rev. Jon (Dennis Perrin)
7. Re: Rev. Jon (martin schiller)
8. Re: Enthusiasm (Marv Gandall)
9. Dirty Pollitics circa 1800 (Chuck Grimes)
10. Re: Rev. Jon (Max Sawicky)
11. Re: Rev. Jon (martin schiller)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:04:27 -0400 rom: Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Enthusiasm o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <DBEBFDCF-8526-4A88-900A-F269334BD85B at gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
n 2010-10-30, at 9:28 AM, Eric Beck wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
> Even had Fletcher neglected to make that point, he is - and has been for a
ong time - far more politically active, I am sure, than Beck and other cyber
ritics.
Of course, you have little knowledge of what people do away from their
computer screens. But it does beg the question: is it necessarily a
good thing to be politically active if your activities' goals are to
cinch tighter the knot that binds the working class to the Democratic
party?
No, that is not a good thing. IMO, it is only good to be politically active if
ou think those activities can move the working class to the left of the DP or,
s the case may be, of social democracy. Of course, the left has historically
een deeply divided about what kind of activities can bring that about. Take it
rom someone who spent much of his adult life both burrowing from within and
attering from without Canada's social democratic party that nothing works when
he masses aren't moving.
> More generally, it might be worthwhile to question this soft-left
belief in the automatic functioning of democracy that Marv adheres to:
if the left is active and agitating, then the rulers will bend to our
will.
Ha. I wish. Most of my adult life is a testement to the falsity of that
roposition, as noted above.
> Or, in the negative way it gets phrased today, the reason there
is no radical action from governments today is because there is no
internal political mobilization and consciousness and no external
pressure.
That's certainly an important factor. The New Deal was the product in part of a
ising and militant trade union movement, many of its activists inspired by the
xample of the Russian Revolution. The Obama administration doesn't have to
ontend with such pressure. Nor has it been been faced with a depression of 30's
agnitude, the other reason why there is less incentive for reform by the state.
> Besides making politics sound just like my lameass high
school civics teacher used to, and besides taking a naturalized and
unified view of who "the people" are and what they desire, the claim
is empirically wrong, no? Yeah, 30s agitation led to accommodation,
but late 60s and early 70s agitation led to just the opposite:
reaction and repression. But similar conditions existed in both cases:
internal political upheaval and outside socialist threats. Similar conditions did not exist in both periods. Capitalism was threatened by conomic collapse in the 30's. The 60s and 70s were a period of capitalist xpansion. The 30s protests originated from within the industrial working class. he 60's and 70's protests hardly touched it, with the exception of blacks and ther national minorities within it. But most of the protest was peripheral to he working class - among students, women, and gays. The protests in both eriods were met, as they typically are, with a combination of reform and epression, but the working class radicals and trade unionists of the 30s, ontrary to your assertion, were arguably subject to more repression than the tudent protesters of the 60s.
> Working-class action did not lead to beneficial state programs; there
is no straight line from political activity to state response.
Predicting capital's response is a fool's game.
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
----------------------------- Message: 2 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:16:52 -0400 rom: Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Black Panther Coloring Book o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID:
<AANLkTin4LcFtD654s0iZCndjoTHAdmPVSp40xCbj4pCM at mail.gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Max: "I'd say courageous and mistaken" [WS:] I'd say macho and very American. Love of guns is American as lag and apple pie. They just followed the American tradition. Here is what the Old Man says: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; hey do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under ircumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. he tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the rains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with evolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not xist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they nxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, orrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to resent this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and orrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, he Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of he Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 new nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the evolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who as learned a new language always translates it back into his mother ongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and xpresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without ecalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue." ttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm Wojtek
n Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
I'd say courageous and mistaken, rather than baffling.
Actually the inspiration for the tactic was founded on a
more benign view of the state and race relations that
was justified. ?In other words, the tactic was founded on
the hope that the law would protect legal, albeit scary
and provocative, activity.
With the benefit of hindsight, the BPP ought to have adopted
the approach of the older Deacons for Self-Defense in the
deep South. ?Arm yourself legally for protection, but don't
parade the fact around. ?More like the Nation of Islam.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Max: "The deal was armed self-defense, not armed insurrection.:
>
> [WS:] I understand that much, even though my knowledge of the issue is
> limited, as someone else pointed that out. ?But then, I do not pretend
> to know everything, as some on this list do.
>
> I also understand than any social movement - call it self-defense,
> insurrection, revolutionary party or what not - is to redress some
> grievances and accomplish some social goals, and it deploys certain
> strategies and tactics to achieve these goals. ?But what baffles me is
> what makes otherwise intelligent people choose tactics that by a
> rational account not only have a zero chance of success, but also a
> very high chance of backfiring and producing effects that are opposite
> to those sought by the movement in question.
>
> We can say all the good things we want about the Panthers, Weather
> Underground, RAF, Red Brigades, etc. ?- but their choice of tactics is
> baffling. ?I've been involved in protest movements myself, both here
> and overseas, but it never occurred ?to me or anyone I was associated
> with that shooting cops or even higher up political figures would
> accomplish anything other than bringing more repression and destroying
> the movement. ?Au contraire, many demos used the so-called "legal
> observers" to reduce the risk of violent confrontations with the cops.
>
> So the mindset that produces a tactic that entails armed confrontation
> with one of the best armed military machines in the world - or even a
> good chance of such confrontation really baffles me. ?I really want to
> know what people who do or are prepared to do such things are
> thinking. ?I have a few conjectures of my own, but I'd rather hear
> what others have to say on this.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
> > The deal was armed self-defense, not armed insurrection.
> >
> > Since being a gun-carrying black militant was illegal for all practical
> > purposes, and since cops liked to shoot black men, and since the FBI was
> out
> > to demonize and destroy the BPP by any means available, there were a
> batch
> > of those incidents.
> >
> > Panthers were not averse to shooting police under certain circumstances,
> but
> > they understood the difference between that and armed insurrection.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So the following account is not true?
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#Violence
> >>
> >> "From the beginning the Black Panther Party's focus on militancy came
> >> with a reputation for violence. They employed a California law which
> >> permitted carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun as long as it was
> >> publicly displayed and pointed at no one.[38] Carrying weapons openly
> >> and making threats against police officers, for example, chants like
> >> "The Revolution has co-ome, it's time to pick up the gu-un. Off the
> >> pigs!",[39] helped create the Panthers' reputation as a violent
> >> organization.
> >>
> >> On October 17, 1967, Oakland police officer John Frey was shot to
> >> death in an altercation with Huey P. Newton during a traffic stop. In
> >> the stop, Newton and backup officer Herbert Heanes also suffered
> >> gunshot wounds. Newton was convicted of voluntary manslaughter at
> >> trial. This incident gained the party even wider recognition by the
> >> radical American left, and a "Free Huey" campaign ensued.[40] Newton
> >> was released after three years, when his conviction was reversed on
> >> appeal.
> >>
> >> On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal
> >> Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the
> >> "Mulford Act", which would ban public displays of loaded firearms.
> >> Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of about 30
> >> Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill.
> >> The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident
> >> which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale
> >> and five others. The group pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of
> >> disrupting a legislative session.[41]
> >>
> >> On April 7, 1968, Panther Bobby Hutton was killed, and Cleaver was
> >> wounded in a shootout with the Oakland police. Each side called the
> >> event an ambush by the other. Two policemen were shot in the
> >> incident.[42]
> >>
> >> >From the fall of 1967 through the end of 1970, nine police officers
> >> were killed and 56 were wounded, and ten Panther deaths and an unknown
> >> number of injuries resulted from confrontations. In 1969 alone, 348
> >> Panthers were arrested for a variety of crimes.[43] On February 18,
> >> 1970 Albert Wayne Williams was shot by the Portland Police Bureau
> >> outside the Black Panther party headquarters in Portland, Oregon.
> >> Though his wounds put him in a critical condition, he made a full
> >> recovery.[44]"
> >>
> >> end-quote
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Dennis Claxton <
> ddclaxton at earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > At 11:56 AM 10/28/2010, Wojtek S wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I do not want to split hair, but they did not stand a chance -
> >> >> cointelpro or not. ?No armed insurrection in the US stands a chance.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > To call the Panthers an armed insurrection is to miss what they were
> >> about.
> >> > ?As is comparing them to the Red Brigades.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ___________________________________
> >> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >> >
> >>
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
------------------------------ Message: 3 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:27:33 -0700 rom: michael perelman <michael.perelman3 at gmail.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Why Capitalism Cannot be Tamed o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID:
<AANLkTikJLu9gy-6b0EF1rkhorSY-g9k=bF8p_8N7m4+M at mail.gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Wojtek is absolutely correct. Here is a snippet from my book, ranscending The Economy. George Akerlof, together with his wife, Janet Yellen, who later became
former governor of the Federal Reserve Board and then the chief conomic advisor for President Clinton, analyzed a somewhat similar ituation (Akerlof and Yellen 1993). They described a three-party ame among potential criminals, the law, and the community. In their ame, the community decides whether or not to cooperate with the olice based on their fear of retaliation, hatred of gang activities, s well as their judgement of the fairness of police. Gang members an profit from crimes so long as they elude the law. If they fail, hey suffer from punishment. Finally, in their game, the government ants to minimize both crime and spending on police. hey consider three alternative outcomes. In one regime, punishment evels are severe. The community considers punishment to be unfair nd refuses to cooperate with police. As a result, crime rates are igh. In another regime, the government sets punishment levels low nough to be considered fair. Even so, some crime exists because onsequences of punishment are not severe. In the third, norms of ooperation are so high that no crime exists. In their model, all hree outcomes are possible. Once any of the three regimes comes into eing, it can be stable. Back to Wojtek's point now: few people in the community have any otion of economic crime until it hits them personally and they can dentify the malefactor in question. Within the business community, eople take pride in skirting the law. I have a hard time imagining someone at the country club loudly roclaiming that he had a great weekend will molesting young children.
can imagine somebody bragging about how he just saved $2 million in axes by fictitiously moving money into Bermuda. he case of the synthetic drugs has another dimension: globalization. aws which might be effective in a local community become much more ifficult to enforce where money and products easily can move across orders as in the case of the synthetic drugs.
n Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
[WS:] By this logic, the legal system and norms make no sense, because
people will always find a way and commit crimes. ?Yet, criminal
activity is rather rare - only a small number of people engage in it
and only occasionally. ?In other words, most people are honest most of
the time. ?It might be a mind boggling mystery to economists, but not
to sociologists. ?It is so, because economics has a fundamentally
flawed concept of human behavior that misses its most important aspect
- social connections and networks.
Plenty has been written about the importance of social networks in
prevention of malfeasance in business and everyday life (references
available upon request.) ?The bottom line is that delinquency is
effectively controlled in most human societies through informal social
controls. ?The fact that criminal gangs, which include many financial
institutions and corporations, developed criminal subculture that
justifies malfeasance instead of controlling it is further case in
point. ?Banksters break the law (regulations) because they are a part
of criminal culture - glorified by economic theory - that puts a
premium on lawbreaking behavior.
Wojtek
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:51 PM, michael perelman
<michael.perelman3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> A little more than a year ago, I posted a note using football as a metaphor
> for the futility of effective regulation.
>
> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/the-futility-of-financial-regulation-lessons-from-science-and-professional-football/
>
> Some people dismissed the football metaphor. ?The Wall Street Journal today
> has a story about how people design new psychotropic drugs to get around
> regulation. ?It may be that these new drugs are more dangerous than banned
> drugs. ?In all likelihood, they can design these drugs faster than the
> government can make regulations.
>
> How in the world can regulators get ahead of financial industry or tax
> lawyers, even if the lobbyists were not writing the regulations or the tax
> codes.
>
>
> Whalen, Jeanne. 2010. "In Quest for 'Legal High,' Chemists Outfox Law." Wall
> Street Journal (30 October).
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704763904575550200845267526.html?mod=WSJ_World_LeadStory
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA
> 95929
>
> 530 898 5321
> fax 530 898 5901
> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- ichael Perelman conomics Department alifornia State University hico, CA 5929 530 898 5321 ax 530 898 5901 ttp://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
------------------------------ Message: 4 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:38:40 -0400 rom: Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Enthusiasm o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <0431EB71-9A20-4C8F-9598-DC438519732D at pipeline.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
n Oct 30, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
...The New Deal was the product in part of a rising and militant
trade union movement, many of its activists inspired by the example
of the Russian Revolution... This is so not true. The New Deal started on March 4 1933 with the ank Holiday--an act of naked executive power--and was shaped in the ext "hundred days." At the time the trade union movement was oribund, the CIO not even a glint in John L's eye. The New Deal was haped by the Jesse Joneses and Bernard Baruchs, not the Hillmans and ewises. And the radical threat to FDR came from Dr. Townsend and the reat populist Huey Long, not from the sympathizers with Stalin. Shane Mage
he communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each ccording to his need. The apitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each ccording to his greed. Joe Stack (1956-2010)
------------------------------ Message: 5 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:03:24 -0500 rom: Barry Brooks <durable at earthlink.net> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Why Capitalism Cannot be Tamed o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <4CCC5DEC.1020105 at earthlink.net> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
ojtek has made the most important and hopeful comment ...
... The bottom line is that delinquency is effectively controlled in most
human societies through informal social controls.... Banksters break the law
(regulations) because they are a part of criminal culture - glorified by
economic theory - that puts a premium on lawbreaking behavior. We need a war on selfishness. If that war had the level of impact that the war n drugs has had then greed would no longer be socially acceptable. The seven deadly sins have had little notice lately. We have pride high school nd no one seems to know that pride is the first of the seven deadly sins. Now, e need to try to name a high school lust high school. A "lust high school" ould face rejection, because immorality implies sex, rather than greed etc, in opular belief. The order has been rearranged, but the Catholic version is ride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth/acedia http://www.counterpunch.org/brook1126.html t was once earnestly asked by Native Americans, "Why do you take by force what ou can have by love?" Christopher Columbus reports in his personal diary that hen he arrived in the Americas he was amazed... Barry
----------------------------- Message: 6 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:05:55 -0400 rom: "Dennis Perrin" <dperrin at comcast.net> ubject: [lbo-talk] Rev. Jon o: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> essage-ID: <2500C8ABE76F4373A36FC0CC85C35CBD at BauerPerrinPC> ontent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response Quite a closing sermon from the Sane Rev. Stewart. I'm sure most LOBsters re happy that he conflated Marxists with racists, while preaching tolerance oward NRA members (at least while in traffic) and respectful submission to hose who rule us. Also, Kid Rock, T.I. and Sheryl Crow telling us that we an't stop war, house the homeless or feed the poor. But we can Care (the east we can do). Uplifting all around. Cute bit with Yusuf (Cat Stevens), Ozzy Osbourne and the O'Jays. A few funny oments. Overall, a big so what. But then, I'm standing in my yard, yelling at kids. Dennis
------------------------------ Message: 7 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:14:44 -0700 rom: martin schiller <mschiller at pobox.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Rev. Jon o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <E9505CE4-7E4D-42D4-8604-0C6581271B51 at pobox.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
n Oct 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Dennis Perrin wrote:
> Overall, a big so what.
Yes, big.
----------------------------- Message: 8 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:15:39 -0400 rom: Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Enthusiasm o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <B233DFB4-734A-4C39-9007-045693EF515D at gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
n 2010-10-30, at 12:38 PM, Shane Mage wrote:
>
On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
> ...The New Deal was the product in part of a rising and militant trade union
ovement, many of its activists inspired by the example of the Russian
evolution...
This is so not true. The New Deal started on March 4 1933 with the Bank oliday--an act of naked executive power--and was shaped in the next "hundred ays." At the time the trade union movement was moribund, the CIO not even a lint in John L's eye. Agreed - my formulation was sloppy. The unions became important in FDR's second erm. Funny, I corrected Woj on this point yesterday: "I suggest you go back and tudy the size and influence of the US trade unions and Socialist and Communist arties before and after the New Deal, as well as the pre-Keynesian economic rthodoxy prevailing in 1932. It was the rhetoric and policies of the New Deal hich gave a powerful stimulus to the subsequent growth of the mass rganizations and mass protest - not because FDR and the DP were radicals, but ecause their foremost concern was to boost mass purchasing power and revive rowth."
----------------------------- Message: 9 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:28:01 -0700 rom: "Chuck Grimes" <c123grimes at att.net> ubject: [lbo-talk] Dirty Pollitics circa 1800 o: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> essage-ID: <D8684000B8FE4E78B3CF89A42A24FCFC at fx0> ontent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original Get a laugh for a change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI&feature=share CG
----------------------------- Message: 10 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:44:20 -0400 rom: Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Rev. Jon o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID:
<AANLkTinR=YAcsCMq9e1maUP5O_aJM2pXOimY7KDhQMDN at mail.gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Kid Rock, who once said at one of his concerts (sic) I'm tired of pologizing for being white: 'screaming on the right, screaming on the left
. . ' It's really a rally to abstain from politics and let the serious grown-ups n the center do what needs to be done. Feh.
n Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:14 PM, martin schiller <mschiller at pobox.com>wrote:
>
On Oct 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Dennis Perrin wrote:
> Overall, a big so what.
Yes, big.
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
----------------------------- Message: 11 ate: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:05:33 -0700 rom: martin schiller <mschiller at pobox.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Rev. Jon o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <290E4015-BDD7-4564-B682-48E50E353CEF at pobox.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
n Oct 30, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Max Sawicky wrote:
> It's really a rally to abstain from politics and let the serious grown-ups
in the center do what needs to be done. And yet, somehow, political.
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ bo-talk mailing list bo-talk at lbo-talk.org ttp://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk End of lbo-talk Digest, Vol 1385, Issue 2 ****************************************