My choices

[Louis Proyect]

The NY Times has an interactive feature that allows readers to enter the
names of people to serve in Obama's cabinet.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/11/us/politics/20081111_CABINET_PICKER.html

My choices:

Secretary of Defense: Bill Ayers (I cribbed this)

Secretary of State: Rashid Khalidi

Secretary of Homeland Security: Alexander Cockburn

Attorney General: Michael Ratner

Treasury Secretary: Michael Perelman

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

[ravi-43]

On Nov 12, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
> My choices:
>
> Secretary of Defense: Bill Ayers (I cribbed this)

Dennis Kucinich.

> Secretary of State: Rashid Khalidi

Noam Chomsky.

> Secretary of Homeland Security: Alexander Cockburn

Al Sharpton.

> Attorney General: Michael Ratner

Ralph Nader.

> Treasury Secretary: Michael Perelman


But of course!

        --ravi

--
Support something better than yourself ;-)
PeTA       => http://peta.org/
Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/
If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

[Carrol Cox]

ravi wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
> > My choices:
> >
> > Secretary of Defense: Bill Ayers (I cribbed this)
>
> Dennis Kucinich.

Cynthia Mckinney

>
> > Secretary of State: Rashid Khalidi
>
> Noam Chomsky.

He would have to turn himself in as a war criminal.

>
> > Secretary of Homeland Security: Alexander Cockburn
>
> Al Sharpton.
>
> > Attorney General: Michael Ratner
>
> Ralph Nader.

I understand the various black political lists (both pro- and
anti-Obama) are in a serious uproar about his Uncle Tom reference. There
has been a good deal of pure envy in many of the barbs thrown his way
over the last several years on this list and lbo, but "tone deaf"
doeesn't begin to describe the offensiveness of his use of this term. As
a matter of solidarity with black leftists I think we should just simply
blot him from our writing.

How about Mumia (I cribbed this one)

(And incidentally, Obama can't do anything official on Mumia, but a
president can pull strings, and the Pennsylvania people could suddenly
have new thoughts! But he won't.)

Carrol

> > Treasury Secretary: Michael Perelman
>
> But of course!
>
>         --ravi
>

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

[Dan Scanlan]

On Nov 12, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:

>> Ralph Nader.
>
> I understand the various black political lists (both pro- and
> anti-Obama) are in a serious uproar about his Uncle Tom reference.  
> There
> has been a good deal of pure envy in many of the barbs thrown his way
> over the last several years on this list and lbo, but "tone deaf"
> doeesn't begin to describe the offensiveness of his use of this  
> term. As
> a matter of solidarity with black leftists I think we should just  
> simply
> blot him from our writing.

Nader's use of the historic phrase "Uncle Tom" was right on the money  
in my estimation, regardless of who jerks their knees in response.  
Nader did not call Obama an  Uncle Tom. He said Obama has to make a  
choice -- whether he would be an Uncle Sam for the people (a  
progressive populist), or an Uncle Tom for the corporations (a shill  
for the wealthy manipulators, a la Clinton, et al). Sure, it hurts to  
the quick. That's one of the functions of artful, dynamic discourse.  
There is a good chance that Obama will sell out the very people to  
whom he gave the most hope. It's up to leftists to keep his feet to  
the fire to keep him from being an Uncle Tom. Sticking one's head in  
the anti-Nader muck doesn't do anything to achieve that end.

Dan


_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

[Colin Brace]

Louis Proyect wrote:

The NY Times has an interactive feature that allows readers to enter the
names of people to serve in Obama's cabinet.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/11/us/politics/20081111_CABINET_PICKER.html

My choices:

While we are at it, let's give Rev Wright a job. How about Department of Education?

Or better yet, a non-cabinet position: Press Secretary. That would make for some lively press conferences.

[Chris Burford]

>From the perspectives that come over to us east of the Atlantic, Obama is
making progress slowly with a quite different style of leadership to that of
Bush. Whereas Bush had a business management model, Obama is creating
integrated teams.

One of the challenges has to be to progress interest and the agenda enough
to get Hillary on board but as someone accountable to a collective approach.

It is a style of whole social management, reminiscent of the approaches of
New Labour in the UK. Thus, even though he probably does not want McCane in
his cabinet, it is useful to have him as part of a debate about stopping
torture, closing Guantanamo Bay, and revising migration policy.

This approach has a better chance of marginalising the dogmatic right of the
Republican party and making it difficult for them to regroup for a couple
more terms.

Meanwhile today, The Conservative Party has been so squeezed by the change
of events that in order to rescue his upper class pal, George Osborne, David
Cameron has had to come out today supporting the line of the anti-Keynesian
right of the Conservative Party, saying it is essential to balance books,
that at the next election the Conservative Party will not be able to match
Labour promises on spending on education and schools, otherwise there will
be bigger tax cuts later. So the class basis of this position becomes
clearer. There is no acknowledgement that Brown will probably succeed,
particularly when Obama is in power, in enhancing Keynesian credit
facilities for the IMF to cover a multitude of needs and sins, including the
relative decline in exchange value of the pound and the dollar.

The liberal democrats are totally on side with Brown and Darling that at the
present there must be tax cuts that recognise the greater propensity of
people on limited incomes to spend what they get.

Chris Burford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Brace" <cb@...>
To: <pen-l@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] My choices


|
|
| Louis Proyect wrote:
| >
| > The NY Times has an interactive feature that allows readers to enter the
| > names of people to serve in Obama's cabinet.
| >
| >
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/11/us/politics/20081111_CABINET_PICKER.html
| >
| > My choices:
| >
|
| While we are at it, let's give Rev Wright a job. How about Department of
| Education?
|
| Or better yet, a non-cabinet position: Press Secretary. That would make
for
| some lively press conferences.
|
| -----
|  Colin Brace
|  Amsterdam
|  http://lim.nl
| --
| View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/My-choices-tp20464150p20515125.html
| Sent from the Progressive economics (PEN) mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
|
| _______________________________________________
| pen-l mailing list
| pen-l@...
| https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

[Louis Proyect]

>This approach has a better chance of marginalising the dogmatic right of the
>Republican party and making it difficult for them to regroup for a couple
>more terms.

No it doesn't. When Clinton was in office, he stuck to the rightist
agenda of the DLC and was constantly triangulating with Republicans.
That did not prevent the ultraright from going for his jugular. Our
problem is that the Democrats do not go for the jugular. They go for
the genitals and the rectum with big wet kisses.


_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l