Greg Palast wrote this after Ronald Reagan's death in 2004. But he had it re-printed to counteract the 100th anniversary bullshit we're currently enduring. If anything, this article is too short because Palast didn't tell enough of Reagan's crimes. So I've added my own list below Palast's article.

Reagan: Killer, Coward, Con-man
The Observer London
by Greg Palast
Monday, February 7, 2011

You're not going to like this. You shouldn't speak ill of the dead. But in this case, someone's got to.

On the 100th Anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, as we suffer a week of Reagan-kitcheria and pukey peons, let us remember:

Reagan was a con-man. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.

In 1987, I found myself stuck in a crappy little town in Nicaragua named Chaguitillo. The people were kind enough, though hungry, except for one surly young man. His wife had just died of tuberculosis.

People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan, big-hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to Nicaragua because he didn't like the government that the people there had elected.

Ronnie grinned and cracked jokes while the young woman's lungs filled up and she stopped breathing. Reagan flashed that B-movie grin while they buried the mother of three.

And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American marines in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a whipped dog - then turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med war was a murderous PR stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning down Cubans building an airport.

I remember Nancy, a skull and crossbones prancing around in designer dresses, some of the "gifts" that flowed to the Reagans - from hats to million-dollar homes - from cronies well compensated with government loot. It used to be called bribery.

And all the while, Grandpa grinned, the grandfather who bleated on about "family values" but didn't bother to see his own grandchildren.

The New York Times, in its canned obit, wrote that Reagan projected, "faith in small town America" and "old-time values."

"Values" my ass. It was union-busting and a declaration of war on the poor and anyone who couldn't buy designer dresses. It was the New Meanness, bringing starvation back to America so that every millionaire could get another million.

"Small town" values? From the movie star of the Pacific Palisades, the Malibu mogul? I want to throw up.

And all the while, in the White House basement, as his brain boiled away, Reagan's last conscious act was to condone a coup d'état against our elected Congress. Reagan's Defense Secretary Casper the Ghost Weinberger with the crazed Colonel, Ollie North, plotted to give guns to the Monster of the Mideast, Ayatolla Khomeini.

Reagan's boys called Jimmy Carter a weanie and a wuss although Carter wouldn't give an inch to the Ayatollah. Reagan, with that film-fantasy tough-guy con in front of cameras, went begging like a coward cockroach to Khomeini, pleading on bended knee for the release of our hostages.

Ollie North flew into Iran with a birthday cake for the maniac mullah - no kidding - in the shape of a key. The key to Ronnie's heart.

Then the Reagan roaches mixed their cowardice with crime: taking cash from the hostage-takers to buy guns for the "contras" - the drug-runners of Nicaragua posing as freedom fighters.

I remember as a student in Berkeley the words screeching out of the bullhorn, "The Governor of the State of California, Ronald Reagan, hereby orders this demonstration to disperse" - and then came the teargas and the truncheons. And all the while, that fang-hiding grin from the Gipper.

In Chaguitillo, all night long, the farmers stayed awake to guard their kids from attack from Reagan's Contra terrorists. The farmers weren't even Sandinistas, those 'Commies' that our cracked-brained President told us were 'only a 48-hour drive from Texas.' What the hell would they want with Texas, anyway?

Nevertheless, the farmers, and their families, were Ronnie's targets.

In the deserted darkness of Chaguitillo, a TV blared. Weirdly, it was that third-rate gangster movie, "Brother Rat." Starring Ronald Reagan.

Well, mis amigos, your kids can sleep easy tonight. The Rat is dead.

All week you're going to hear about how Reagan restored America's sense of patriotism - as if heartless slaughter, Club Med wars and making racism respectable are patriotic . (When they said "small town values" you know the color of the town, don't you?).

I wonder if the Reaganauts can recognize any of the weapons they sold the mullahs when they see students gunned down in Teheran.

I do plan a memorial, for the victims, not the victimizer.

Please join me in commemorating the ill star that brought us a celluloid cowboy on his movie-set horsey by lighting a candle for a mom from Chaguitillo.

******
This obituary was originally published in The London Observer on Reagan's death in 2004. The author received close to 150 death threats and suggestions for acrobatic acts of intercourse with beasts and relatives. Therefore, we have reserved a special email, deaththreat@gregpalast.com just for your next threats.

****** Below is Steve's list of additions to the horrid Reagan legacy *******

Reagan ended or gutted government programs for the low-income people, such Medicaid, food stamps and other nutritional programs (such as cutting $1 billion for school lunch programs and re-classifying catsup as a vegetable, justifying the decision by saying it was "red and comes from tomatoes"), job training programs and legal assistance programs. In a heartless and mean-spirited manner, he worked to systematically dismantle programs initiated by Roosevelt and LBJ that were designed to improve people's quality of life. Compassionate conservative, my ass!

In fact, he publicly demonized the poor, creating phony stories of "welfare queens" driving "pink Cadillacs."

Like most Republicans, he worked to undermine Medicare and Social Security. Remember the record album released in 1961 by the AMA called "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine"? In this record he warned, "behind Medicare will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country" and "pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him." Could those quotes be brainfarts that were the precursors to his eventual senility?

As governor of California, he effectively closed the state mental hospitals by turning their management over to the California Department of Corrections, resulting in thousands of former patients becoming homeless.

Then there was the fiscal irresponsibility: creating the largest federal deficit (at that time), mostly to fund his egregious military spending, especially the "Star Wars" missile defense program; and, of course, the deficit was created also so the mega wealthy could get massive tax cuts. You know, so that they would have more money to invest in the economy and how, gosh, that would create the "voodoo economics" in which money would "trickle down" on to the rest of us because, er, um, "a rising tide lifts all boats." Sadly, most conservatives still subscribe to this thoroughly discredited economic theory.

Besides Grenada, Reagan's other "Club Med" war, which was in Panama.

He openly improved diplomatic relationships with dictators, such as Chile's Augusto Pinochet, the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos and, even after he gassed 3,000 Kurds, Saddam Hussein. He also supported the Argentine military junta's "Dirty War," in which up to 30,000 political activists were "disappeared."

Reagan vetoed a bill passed by both (Democrats AND Republicans in Congress) that would impose economic sanctions against the apartheid government in South Africa (Congress overrode his veto). He apparently identified Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress as communists.

He also gutted the Civil Rights Commission and relentlessly attacked Affirmative Action programs.

He opposed making Martin Luther King Day a national holiday.

His assault on unions and working people in general, starting with firing the striking Air Traffic Controllers union, putting public safety at risk; the first time, Reagan made it legal for union-busting companies to hire "permanent replacement workers"; also, average wages did not increase during his presidency--for the first time since World War II; this resulted in a clear erosion of the middle class, at whom Reagan, using his "kindly grandpa" facade, smiled, winked and showered with platitudes while pretending he was looking out for their interests; so much for the "shining city on the hill"

He appointed James Watt as Secretary of the Interior, who had no love of the natural environment and sold off federal lands and mining/ranching rights for pennies (not to mention his plethora of "ethnic jokes"). He also appointed Burford Gorsuch as head of the E.P.A., who brought us the Superfund scandal. He also appointed Anton Scalia to the Supreme Court..., do I really need to add any more information to that one?

Reagan had a unique ability to hire the corrupt and greedy. About a dozen high-level officials in his administration were indicted--more than any other presidential administration in history. Oliver North, John Poindexter, Robert McFarlane and the afore-mentioned James Watt were just a few of Reagan's luminaries. Eventually over 200 Reagan-era officials had faced investigation and prosecution.

His fervent deregulation of businesses, such as anti-trust laws, which created behemoths in the retail and media industries, subsequently destroying many small businesses; his deregulation also led to the "mergers & acquisitions" wave, which destroyed countless businesses and jobs; and let's not forget how his deregulation fervor led to the Savings and Loan crisis, which economist John Kenneth Galbraith described as "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."

His phony religiosity that he "wore on his sleeve" (even though the guy almost never went to church) instead of treating it as a personal matter; Reagan worked with and legitimized America's extreme religious fundamentalist leaders, like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. The Religious Right's influence on Reagan and the GOP brought disastrous effects on women's health care, textbook censorship and the AIDS crisis, which Reagan utterly ignored. After his presidency, he claimed God had brought the AIDS plague to America because, in his opinion, too many of us engage in "illicit sex."

His failure to follow up on Carter's Camp David peace accords, thereby leading to more bloodshed in the Middle East.

The use of astrology to help make critical policy decisions.

Because of his horrid foreign policy (some of which was guided by Nancy's astrologer--I'm not kidding!), Americans became targets around the world, including killings, kidnappings and me sewing a Canadian flag on my backpack when I was in Europe in 1985 to counteract the sudden hatred of all Americans there.

Because of the GOP's love affair with their precious boyfriend, we have endured having endless buildings, highways and airports being renamed the "Ronald Reagan Memorial ____," forever rubbing his evil legacy in our faces. Conservatives had even proposed replacing President Grant's picture on the $50 bill with Reagan's. Nothing like having daily reminders of a leader who worked to undermine your nation.

I received the below email from someone (frankly, who is easily bamboozled). My response is below the original nutty email. I know it's long, but I think I did a good job shooting down this kind of crap.

Below is the dumb email I originally received (misspellings left intact):

**********************

I couldn't believe this when it came but at the same time I was listening to Mr. Obama's remarks on Iranian sanctions so I quess NOTHING surprises me now. Please repond and pss this on

I thought this was a joke when I received it.

I read it. I voted.

Just in case you haven’t heard yet Fox News has a Poll--Should the Flag Be Banned at Schools?
Moveon.org, Organizing for America , and SEIU have been twittering today to go to Fox Poll and vote to ban the Flag .... and right now it is working.

SHOW THEM WHAT TRUE PATRIOTS BELIEVE!!! Let's flip those numbers and show the leftists we are organized and on the move....flip the numbers now-FLIP THE HOUSE in November!

GO HERE TO VOTE NOW
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/06/american-flag-banned-america/
..........and then pass it along, please!

***** my response is below ******
Once again, the right-wing is lying to you. Here's my proof:

This email claims that "Moveon.org, Organizing for America , and SEIU have been twittering today to go to Fox Poll and vote to ban the Flag "
This can be easily verified by a simple Google search. Did you know can search the contents of an entire web site for certain keywords? Go to Google, then click "Advanced Search" to the right of the search field (or just click here: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en). The bottom search filed is this: "Search within a site or domain". First I entered this domain (or Internet address): twitter.com/BarackObama/organizing-for-america. Then in the top search field I entered the keywords "ban flag." Here was the result:
"Your search - ban flag site:twitter.com/BarackObama/organizing-for-america - did not match any documents."

I did the same keyword search for these domains: twitter.com/moveon and twitter.com/seiu. But I got the same "did not match any documents" result.

But if I enter different keywords that should be in a Twitter message from those organizations, I do get some results. For example, instead of using the keywords "ban flag" while searching the domain twitter.com/BarackObama/organizing-for-america, I enter the keywords "oil spill" then, BINGO! I get a search result: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=oil+spill+site%3Atwitter.com%2FBarackObama%2Forganizing-for-america&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&gs_rfai=

Just in case Google missed any trace of the alleged call to ban the flag on Obama's Twitter page (http://twitter.com/BarackObama/organizing-for-america), I manually searched every page of "Tweets" in the past week for the word "flag" using the web browser's search function and..., nope--not a single Tweet even mentions the word "flag."

There. I just proved this ridiculous email completely false. Since this email was forwarded to hundreds of people (but it was a lie), don't you think it's a good idea to now forward my response (which shows the truth) to the same people who sent this to you? Why forward a lie when you can forward the truth? And hopefully you can undo some of the damage this lie has already caused.

And..., if you forward it to ten people in the next five minutes, something wonderful will happen to you within the next 24 hours. Just kidding!

One more thing. Just stop and think about the basic premise of this email. I really didn't even need to prove it wrong because it simply doesn't even make sense. Do you really think Barack Obama, MoveOn or the SEIU would actually encourage people to ban the display of the American flag for any reason? What possible advantage would there be for an American president, an American political lobbying organization or a American labor union to advocate the removal of the American flag? It's inconceivable that anyone would do that. Apart from a handful of some really nutty people, can you ever remember any person (on the Left or the Right) actually proposing to ban the display of the American flag in schools (or anywhere else for that matter)? Stop and imagine this scenario: Barack Obama steps up to a podium and announces that he wants to prevent the American flag from being displayed in public schools. Do you really think he would ever say something like that? This email doesn't even pass a simple logic test.

Besides, the moron who originally compose that email didn't even get the basic facts right. The Fox Poll says nothing about displaying the flag in schools. Here is the actual question: "Should the American Flag Be Banned -- in America?" http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/06/american-flag-banned-america/

By the way, if you want to "be a true patriot" as this email suggests, don't just respond to a poll on a web site. My definition of a patriot is a person who continually makes personal sacrifices for the greater good of the nation. For example, you give up your personal time to volunteer somewhere or you give up your money to help a worthy cause. You do something so that the lives of Americans and the overall state of our nation (or the world or the planet) is improved.

By contrast, everything the right-wing does has either two purposes:
1) to keep money, power and other resources flowing to the already wealthy (usually at the expense of the rest of us); and
2) to keep the rest of us distracted so that #1 can keep occurring.
Ask yourself--how patriotic is someone who engages in the above two activities?

And guess which one of the above that this stupid email just accomplished. This is known in the political world as a "wedge issue." It is a tool used by Republicans (very frequently) and Democrats (rarely) to present a controversial and divisive issue in order to get people all riled up--yet it has no real effect on the lives of Americans. So pretend the American flag is somehow under attack and you can manipulate people into getting emotional and even taking (misguided) action--such as voting Republican.., even though Republicans have never done a single thing to improve the lives of non-wealthy Americans. NOT A SINGLE THING. At least the other party occasionally throws the rest of us a few crumbs.

I remember being outraged in June of 1989 when President George H.W. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent any desecration of the American flag. No, I wasn't outraged that he wanted to protect the flag. I was outraged that he had done NOTHING for the American people for the first five months of his term of office, then when he finally steps up to take some action, it was for such a lame reason..., merely to score political points before we celebrate the 4th of July. How gutless.

Other wedge issues to look for that are commonly used by the right-wing (again, that have no real positive effect on the lives of Americans):
1) threats that your gun ownership rights will be taken away
2) threats that abortion on demand will be allowed
3) threats that your freedom of religious expression will be removed
4) threats that homosexuals will somehow ruin "traditional marriage"

American political wedge issues are often put in the simple categories of the Three Gs: "God, guns and gays."

I don't know about you, but I'm so tired of these pathetic threats that attempt to play with my emotions. And none of these will ever actually happen. But, in order to keep their "base" of supporters all riled up and sending in campaign contributions, the right-wing will keep trotting out these phony issues. These are all meant to distract, dupe and bamboozle you so that the rich can keep using the political system to rob you. So that Halliburton can keep overcharging us taxpayers billions of dollars to provide overpriced and often inferior services to our military (just Google the keywords "Halliburton scandal"). So that Goldman Sachs (and all the other large financial firms) can keep stealing your investments without that pesky SEC oversight. So that BP can keep drilling for profits while keeping those annoying government safety inspectors off their backs. "Spill, baby, spill!" (isn't that right, Sarah? You betcha!). And so the rich can keep buying off OUR politicians and OUR democracy for their own selfish purposes.

Look at where the ACTUAL damage is done: the mega-rich are hurting our pocketbook and our planet. So how has this phony flag issue hurt anyone? As Representative Gary Ackerman (D-New York) said,
"If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened.
If a jerk burns a flag, democracy is not under siege.
If a jerk burns a flag, freedom is not at risk and we are not threatened.
My colleagues, we are offended; and to change our Constitution because someone offends us is, in itself, unconscionable."

A common magician's trick is to do something interesting with his right hand to distract you while his left hand is doing the so-called "magic," such as pulling something out of his pocket. That's what these emails and wedge issues are designed to do--keep you distracted from their real actions that are actually hurting you: stealing your money (i.e., giving your tax payments to defense contractors), polluting your planet, destroying your democracy, engaging in class warfare to destroy the middle class, etc.--and all while your attention is diverted to the magician's/politician's "other hand": God, guns and gays..., and flags.

Meanwhile, any attempt to bring a decent life (decent wages, health care, education, housing, etc.) to non-wealthy Americans is incorrectly attacked as socialism, communism, fascism and any other scary B.S. the right-wing can throw into the political debate.

So, in conclusion, it's your choice: vote for or against YOUR best interests. Be bamboozled by people who are out to rob your quality life and to benefit the super-wealthy--or work with those who are trying to improve your life in REAL ways.

Try to remember that when you go into the voting booth in November.

Those sad conservatives

A friend sent me this article by Jonah Goldberg of The National Review: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q4NDkzZTVmZjkxYjlmMzExYTBlNTI2ODI3MjI5OTk=

(article is below, with my response below the article): ------------------

Obama Finds the Bush Center

Hypocrite, statesman, or both?

By Jonah Goldberg

Here’s something President Obama’s biggest fans may need to hear: He’s just not that into you.

Recall that, during the primaries, Obama was probably second only to Dennis Kucinich as an anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush candidate. But he has kept President Bush’s defense secretary and appointed a secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted for the war. His vice president, Joe Biden, also voted for the war. Obama himself seems to be in less of a hurry to leave Iraq than we might have expected from listening to him over the last couple of years.

The new president has ordered that his predecessor’s rendition policies remain largely intact, even to the point of using the "state secrets" privilege to block a rendition lawsuit. Obama may have stated categorically that America "will not torture," but outsourcing it is still OK. And Leon Panetta, the new head of the CIA, has said there might be wiggle room on interrogation policy here at home.

The White House also defends the Bush policy of imprisoning, without trial, enemy combatants captured abroad. Obama’s lawyers argued in a court case brought by Afghan prisoners at the U.S. Air Force base at Bagram, Afghanistan, that the "government adheres to its previously articulated position"--the one articulated by those evil Bush lawyers.

Meanwhile, a new Pentagon study commissioned by Obama has found that the prison at Guantanamo Bay meets the standards of the Geneva Conventions. One can only guess how the White House will make use of that finding. At the least, it should provide cover while the administration looks for alternatives to Gitmo that might not be all that alternative.

On the domestic front, Education Secretary Arne Duncan has decided that Bush’s signature No Child Left Behind Act should be retained and moderately reformed. His boldest suggestion so far? "Let’s rebrand it. Give it a new name." Now that’s change even cynics can believe in.

And why not? That strategy worked with Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, now known as Obama’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

There are many lessons one could draw from Obama’s actions. You might conclude that the self-proclaimed pragmatist recognizes that this is a center-right country after all. Or that he is a hypocrite, a statesman, or both, now that the buck stops with him.

You could say this all shows that Bush’s war-on-terrorism policies weren’t nearly as outrageous as his opponents, Obama included, claimed. Some conservatives might argue that it demonstrates how centrist, even liberal, Bush’s domestic policies were. Obama supporters might claim it proves that conservative fears that Obama was a crazy left-winger were always unfounded. And reasonable people in all parties might suspect that Obama is simply winging it.

But how do Obama’s biggest fans reconcile his contradictions? The slickest approach is to chalk up every about-face and inexplicable decision to Obama’s abiding genius.

"Mr. Obama is like a championship chess player, always several moves ahead of friend and foe alike," explained New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. Translation: The One may move in mysterious ways, but that’s no reason to doubt him.

Self-described conservatives who supported Obama in the election have made a similarly non-falsifiable argument about his qualifications (given that his record was patently unconservative): He simply has a superior presidential "temperament."

Such rationalizations reveal more continuity between Bush and Obama. Their biggest fans and foes seem driven by emotion rather than reason. We’ve seen this before. Bill Clinton moved his party to the right, but a lot of conservatives and liberals couldn’t stomach acknowledging it. Bush was mostly a moderate Republican, but his liberal enemies hated him, and anything they hated had to be "right-wing." Even Republicans who admired Bush couldn’t bring themselves to admit that the subject of their adoration might not in fact be a true-blue conservative.

Indeed, thanks in part to the lazy framing by the media and the pressure cooker of partisan Washington, conservatism became defined as Bushism, liberalism as not-Bushism, even though Bush had campaigned as a "different kind of Republican" and said over and over that "compassionate conservatism" was a sharp break from conventional conservatism.

It’s early yet, but I think we’re seeing with Obama what happened with Bush. The chess master is really just a man who’s figuring it out as he goes along. Sometimes he’ll be right; other times, horribly wrong. But whether he’s right or wrong, left-wing or centrist, liberalism will likely mean whatever Barack Obama says it means.

--Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

------------------------- My response below:

How weird that you sent that. My friend Tim and I were just talking over the weekend about how The National Review used to be a reliable source for intelligent conservative thought, but how it has degenerated in recent years, culminating in their dismal of William F. Buckley’s son, Christopher (soon after his father’s death no less). This article is no exception to that deterioration.

The first half is basically fact: he nailed the areas in which Obama has NOT brought change, and I’ve been disappointed in all of them. I predict that most, if not all of those areas Goldberg identified as Obama not changing from the Bush era--will be abject failures (including the troop surge in Afghanistan). Just like when Clinton tried to appease his right-wing critics (and look what it got him--they still treated him like garbage).

Over the years, I’ve developed a track record of successfully predicting what policies will work in the long run and which won’t. As a 19 year-old, I was in front of the student center opposing, among other things, Reagan’s trickle down economic policies. As a 20 or 21 year-old, I was in front of the student center opposing Reagan’s covert wars in Central America. I even opposed lame Bush I’s anti-flag-burning policy (only because it was a cynical attempt for Bush I to garner cheap political support). I opposed Clinton’s support for NAFTA and other policies. I opposed Bush II’s...., well, you name it, I opposed it. In my view, the last eight years have been this strange reverie, an alternate reality worthy of a science fiction novel. I told people that every day was a variation of the children’s game called "Opposite Day"--whatever should have been done (improving the lives of Americans), was not done..., and whatever should not have been done (war, torture, violations of the Bill of Rights), was done.

In February 2003, as the Bush clods were gearing up for war with Iraq, I was one of lone voices in the wilderness, showing people U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter’s reports that confirmed there were no WMDs or related programs in Iraq. People mocked me and said, "Wait and see--they’ll find them." (like they would know more than the professional weapons hunters who spent nine years scouring Iraq!). Well. . . ? I’m still waiting. Not Bush. He gave up pretty quickly, acted surprised and then, in consonance with his sociopathic nature, blamed others for it. "Faulty intelligence," I think he said. Either he didn't access to same non-classifed information I had or he is a liar. I'd bet on the latter. It's another behavior common with sociopaths.

Some people also argued with me when I told them how the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. You’d think I’d get tired of being right about everything, but..., look at everyone who was wrong: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842 And most of those clowns still have jobs.

Do I claim to be freakin’ genius? Not at all. I just learned a long time ago not to trust information dispensed by those in power, whether it was the Soviet’s Communists Party’s Pravda or the flying circus that comprises the U.S. mainstream media, which is owned and advertiser-supported by the richest corporations in the world. So of course they’re going to present a conservative viewpoint. They use our systems (political, economic, military, media) to further tilt the playing field in their favor and they will refuse to air any viewpoint that doesn’t advocate them being able to "conserve" their hold on power. A defense contractor (G.E.) owns one of our major channels, for god’s sake! How warped is that? Do you think they’ll consistently allow viewpoints on the air that are not favorable to their bottom line, such as ending wars or cutting defense spending? Hello?

But the second half of the Goldberg article is filled with simplistic assumptions, revisionism and overgeneralizations.

Goldberg claims that, because Obama isn’t changing certain Bush policies "it demonstrates how centrist, even liberal, Bush’s domestic policies were." Huh?!?!? Gee, I thought it instead shows where Obama has moved to the Right, where he lacks courage and is, without success, trying to please the GOP stalwarts in a hopeless attempt to appear "bipartisan." I doubt there is any thoughtful, informed person who describes Bush’s domestic policies as being even remotely close to centrist (not to mention liberal). I don’t seem to remember liberal organizations like the ACLU or Amnesty International being happy with Bush’s so-called "liberal" domestic policies. "Bush was mostly a moderate Republican." Huh?!?!? Does Goldberg even understand basic political identities such as "liberal" or "moderate" or "left-wing" or "right-wing?" I wonder what the old Goldwater Republicans would think about Goldberg’s supposition that "Bush was mostly a moderate Republican." Wait. I have someone here who wants to type the next sentence: "Bob Dole here thinks that Bob Dole was a moderate Republican--not W. Signed, Bob Dole."

Whatever Goldberg is selling, I’m not buying. Goldberg even swallows Bush’s ancient campaign line that he was a "compassionate conservative." Bush, more than any politician in recent history, is utterly lacking in compassion. Articles--in fact, entire books--have been written about Bush’s sociopathic traits. One obvious example of this: http://www.slate.com/id/2131451/ But maybe his alleged compassion manifests in his self-proclaimed "sanctity of life": http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bushs-lethal-legacy-more-executions-461610.html

President Bush has always been a death penalty enthusiast. The 152 prisoners he dispatched to their deaths in his eight years as governor of Texas set a high-water mark unmatched before or since.

At no time has Mr Bush seen any contradiction with his avowed commitment to the sanctity of life. As President he has even instituted a National Sanctity of Human Life Day, which, he has said, "serves as a reminder we must value human life in all its forms, not just those considered healthy, wanted, or convenient".

Say, let’s review the trail of death, injuries, maiming and torture Bush has left behind: American soldiers, victims of 9/11 (which he did NOTHING to prevent despite clear warnings given personally to him), coalition forces, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, people from all over the Middle East jailed and tortured, the victims of his and Clinton’s extraordinary rendition program (almost all innocent civilians from Canada, Germany, Italy). But perhaps the greatest harm came from Bush’s clandestine "War on Non-Wealthy Americans," in which he left another trail of less noticeable victims by harming domestic programs, such as social services, health, housing and education. He used two typical Republican mechanisms to render needed government programs less effective: 1) de-funding; and 2) filling the top levels with incompetent, partisan lackeys (who Bush thought did "a heck of a job"). One of Bush’s early strategists and famous NeoCon, Grover Norquist, is famous for this quote: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." He still wants to abolish the F.D.A., despite the rise in corporate and Chinese poisonings.

I like this quote better: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

One quick look around the American landscape these days and there is no denying that conservatism has laid waste to our once great nation--and Bush II is to blame for much of that.

Yeah, Bush was a real compassionate soul.

Want to try again, Goldberg?

Not a single one of Bush’s policies (or GOP policies since 1981) ever did any good for non-wealthy Americans--at least none of which I’m aware. How’s that for "compassion?" I’m sure Jesus (supposedly Bush’s "favorite philosopher") would be quite pleased with Bush’s performance.

I know why Bush aped the line "compassionate conservative." Did you know that Karl Rove had only two major tactics, and he used them repeatedly (to the detriment of our nation)? First, you identify the weakest aspect of your candidate and then 1) advertise that aspect as one of your candidate’s strengths; and 2) advertise that aspect as one of your opponent’s weaknesses. And, of course, this is Karl Rove we’re talking about, so neither assertion even has to be true! What a great gig Karl had. And he gets to continue it by being a full-time liar on FauxNews!

Back to the silly Goldberg article. "Liberalism will likely mean whatever Barack Obama says it means." I actually laughed out loud at that. Jonah Goldberg, of all people, and only one month into the Obama presidency, is trying to tell us how liberalism will be defined? And he says it will be defined by a centrist, or slightly left-of-center Obama? Did Bill Clinton "define" liberalism? No. If you recall, liberals did and still dislike him because he was a Republican Lite and a D.I.N.O. (a Democrat In Name Only) and sold us out repeatedly. Mike Malloy, a liberal commentator, calls Clinton "the best Republican president in recent history."

"Obama is simply winging it" Again, HUH??? Come on! Really? He honestly believes there’s no thought, planning, researching, evaluation or discussions in Obama’s actions??? Obama thoughtlessly looks at each decision he has to make and just "wings it?" That sounds more like In-Curious George, who bragged about not preparing or being briefed but instead he went with his "gut": http://outfoxingkarlrove.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/woodward-bush-%E2%80%98doesn%E2%80%99t-like-homework%E2%80%99-which-means-%E2%80%98reading%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98getting-briefed%E2%80%99-or-%E2%80%98having-a-debate%E2%80%99/ Sounds like "winging it" to me. And it also sounds goddamn frightening that someone with such an obvious lack of thoughtfulness ever got to play with the highest levers of power in our society.

Goldberg continues: "You might conclude that the self-proclaimed pragmatist (he’s referring to Obama here) recognizes that this is a center-right country after all." It’s a center-right country?!?! Again, I’m laughing as I’m typing this. Is Goldberg referring to country that just voted in large numbers for a guy who shrieking right-wingers accused of being a raging liberal (although Obama is NOT a liberal)? Pssst! Here’s a dirty little secret conservatives don’t want Americans to know: on issue after issue, Americans are more liberal than even they themselves know. When polled simply about their political affiliation, generally 40% described themselves as conservatives, 40% say they are moderates and 20% say they’re liberal (only because people like Oxy-Rush have pounded the drum for the past few decades that "liberal" is a dirty word). However, when polled on their specific stances on specific issues, we have a nation of liberals: http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report and http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/02/02/cbs-cites-poll-numbers-show-americans-more-liberal and http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/alterman_book.html

So, nice try, Goldberg. You and your conservative lapdogs can keep trying all you want to fool Americans. You can keep revising history in a lame attempt to do a makeover on Bush’s horrid legacy and to persuade the more gullible among us that the Republicans’ foot print on America has NOT been disastrous. Keep desperately throwing those race and wedge issues at us. But it would seem that you are now coming face to face with the truism at the back end of that famous Lincoln quote: you can’t fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time.

And there are many of us who know better and will never forgive or forget what harm the GOP has done to this nation we love. And, despite the lack of backbone displayed by Democratic politicians, there are REAL liberals out here with a lot of fire in our bellies who continue to fight the good fight against the evils perpetrated by the GOP.

Goldberg’s sad article is just one more example of misguided conservatives desperately trying to save their ragged little party that, frankly, just needs to go away. Since January 20, 1981, with the exception of the 9/11 attacks, the Republican Party has been more damaging to America than any terrorists or other enemies, foreign and domestic. They are unable to produce a simple list of accomplishments (that have helped non-wealthy Americans). I’d welcome the emergence of a real opposition party that would go toe-to-toe with Obama and present a series of ideas that would actually help instead of harm ordinary Americans. Such a true opposition party already exists but, unfortunately, the Green Party has been kept out of the political debate by the Republicrats. The Republicans tired old "more tax cuts" along with their standard "god, guns and blastocysts" isn’t a strong enough platform to sustain a national politic party. Their current crop of destructive obstructionists in Congress will only continue to further marginalize themselves. I shake my head in disbelieve as I watch Boehner, McCain, Cantor and McConnell call Obama’s stimulus plan proposal to be "irresponsible spending," after they just presided over the biggest drain in on the U.S. Treasury in history--and with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT except for death and fat government contractors! When the stimulus plan money is spent, we’ll have millions of jobs that are doing productive activities. We’ll have new schools, roads, bridges, hospitals--infrastructures that will serve all Americans.

How dumb do they think we are? A lot of us don’t have short-term memory problems. We remember you guys rubber-stamping (along with your compliant post-2006 election Democratic colleagues) the god awful Bush administrations policies. And you start complaining now? It’s so obvious you’re doing this out of pure partisanship, not out of principles, as you would have your base believe.

And as I watch them position Palin, Jindal, Limbaugh and Joe the fucking lying unlicensed plumber as their future party leaders, I simply rub my hands together with excitement and joy and say, with that phony Bush gusto in my voice, "Bring it on!"

How many ignorant Pollacks does it take to write to a Senator?

This woman wrote to Senator Obama about immigrants from Mexico:

Subject: My reply to Senator Obama on Immigration

Senator Obama,

I am replying to your reply. I am a supporter of yours and truly hope that you will run for the

Presidency in 2008. I know that is asking a lot of you and your family.

However, I must say that I do not agree with all of your views on this immigration problem.

I along with I am willing to bet 90% of Americans want the illegals deported back to the

Mexico which has the largest amount of illegals in this country.

I want to know why the illegals from other countries are deported and not the Mexicans???

I am of Polish heritage and we just had a Polish couple who came here several years ago

and when their visa expired they remained here. They were a young couple and married. They had bought a condominium and both worked. Then one day the immigration people

knocked on their door and took them and deported them back to Poland.This just happened recently in the last couple months. My daughter knew the young woman because she painted nails in the nail salon where my daughter has her nails done.

Now I want to know why our immigration authorities will deport the Polish and not the Mexicans. At least the Polish all work hard and pay their bills and save their money to buy their home here. They learn to speak English and most today learn English in Poland and

speak very good English. They are proud to live here and they don't march for rights and

they don't demand to get everything free. They don't sneak into this country. They come on

a visa even if they stay after the expiration date but they come here legally even if it is on a

temporary basis. I don't see them going on Public Aid and I don't see them sending all of

their money back to Poland. They don't come here and have a baby immediately so they

can scream that their child or children are citizens and they have a right to stay.

I would like an answer to this question as to WHY ARE THE POLISH DEPORTED AND NOT THE MEXICANS? THIS IS DISCRIMINATION. I am going to get the Polish communities

to start marching for equal rights. I am going to send notice of this recent deportation to

all the Polish organizations.

This is America and we speak English here. They can speak whatever language they want

in their homes but outside of the homes and in the businesses and schools it MUST BE ENGLISH.

I haven't seen the Polish demand that everything be in Polish. They speak English and

speak Polish in their homes and among themselves.

Now I want equal rights for the Polish people.

Elaine K.

Des Plaines, IL
------------------------- my reply is below:

This woman is citing only one family as an example of people of Polish nationality who were here in the U.S. illegally being deported. This is known as anecdotal evidence--a logical fallacy that creates a very weak argument. Because of this, she jumps to an erroneous conclusion that Polish people are being deported by immigration officials, while Mexican people are not.

When I read her assertions, I spent only five minutes on the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' website (formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or the INS) and got the facts. They have a spreadsheet which shows how many people were deported in the year 2004 (the most recent year for which they supply statistics) and their country of origin: http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/2004/Table36.xls

Get ready for this, Elaine. I know facts are bothersome to bad arguments, but the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2004:

• deported a total of 1,241,089 people
• deported 1,142,807 Mexicans (a whopping 92% of all deportations!) back to Mexico
• deported only 440 Polish people (a tiny .0003% of all deporations) back to Poland.

Oh, my God! No wonder Elaine is so upset! The immigration authorities are really out to get Polish people. She's right. It's soooooooooooo unfair! Whaaaaaa!

Seriously though, Elaine heard of one family she cares about being deported and was upset by that. That's understandable. But then she gets racist. She states that the Polish immigrants:

--all work hard and pay their bills and save their money to buy their home here (all Polish immigrants work hard and pay their bills? I know a Polish couple that immigrated to the U.S. and drank themselves literally to death, causing the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services to take protective custody of their three young daughters--who we taxpayers are now subsidizing)

--learn to speak English (not true--I know several Polish immigrants who only speak Polish)

--are proud to live here (has she conducted a poll of Poles asking if they are proud to be here? What was the sample size in the poll? The margin of error?)

Next, Elaine lists several bad things she claims that Polish immigrants don't do, but implies that Mexican immigrants do:

--they don't march for rights and they don't demand to get everything free

--they don't sneak into this country

--they come on a visa even if they stay after the expiration date but they come here legally even if it is on a temporary basis

--go on Public Aid and send all of their money back to Poland.

--They don't come here and have a baby immediately so they can scream that their child or children are citizens and they have a right to stay.

As a counselor who has provided services in the homes of people in two counties in the Chicago suburbs for the past seven years, I have had the privilege to work with families born in this country, as well as families who immigrated from around the world, including several Polish and Mexican families. I have seen both Polish and Mexican families who work hard, pay their bills and save their money to buy a home in the U.S.. I have seen both Polish and Mexican families who learn to speak English (and some from both countries who don't). People from both nationalities seem equally proud to live here.

I wonder how many Mexican people Elaine actually knows. Can she point to specific Mexican immigrants who "demand to get everything free," are "on Public Aid," send "all their money back to Mexico," "come here and have a baby immediately so they can scream that their child or children are citizens and they have a right to stay?" I know many Mexican immigrants and I don't know a single one that fits into any of Elaine's categories. I'll bet she also can't point to one specific person who immigrated from Mexico who is doing ANY of these things that she is complaining about. In fact, I'll bet she doesn't even know one Mexican person. I'll bet that those qualities that Elaine attributes to Mexican immigrants truly exist in only one person: Elaine. Those qualities exists as an ignorant, uninformed, racist construct in Elaine's mind--not in any person she actually knows. If she doesn't know enough Mexican immigrants to intelligently form her opinions of them, then WHERE do these contructs come from? The same places that other stupid white people get their misinformation from: yeah, I'm talking to you, FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative purveyors of hate and ignorance.

In a supposedly enlightened society, shouldn't we all understand that there are good and bad people in every gender, race, nationality, religion, etc.? Whenever you attempt to dismiss or denigrate an entire group of people, it is YOU who looks foolish.

I suspect that Elaine's letter to Senator Obama will be read by one of his staffers who will simply add one more tick mark to the tally of ignorant, racist letters regarding immigration that his office receives daily, then dispose of it. But as a man whose father was an immigrant from Kenya, and who himself immigrated with his mother from Indonesia back to the U.S., and who has been exposed to horrid racial attitudes throughout his life, I suspect that Senator Obama wouldn't appreciate Elaine's racist immigrant-bashing.

And I remember as a child, we used to tell some jokes that seemed fun and harmless at the time. But looking back, they were mean. They started like this: "How many Polacks does it take to..." You know, the ones about screwing in a lightbulb. But then I grew up, developed a more sophisticated view of life and people, and no longer make those kinds of jokes. And I no longer subscribe to the notion that people of Polish (or any other) descent are stupid or otherwise inferior in any way. Come to think of it, I haven't heard a "Polack joke" in over 20 years.

I wonder if Elaine is old enough to remember those mean jokes and stereotypes about her people.

I wonder if Elaine is glad that Americans have dropped those stereotypes about Polish people and fully accepted them into the melting pot of America.

I wonder if Elaine will ever pass along that kindness and drop her own stereotypes about Mexican people.

Boycotting Target stores for (allegedly) not supporting veterans?

Below is another mass email I received, followed by my response below that:

---------------------- the original mass email:

Look who owns Target!

Wasn't it last Christmas that Target refused to let the Salvation Army ring their bells in front of their stores?

Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association wrote."Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during ourspring recognition event. We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
"Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the arts, social action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and education." So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in general, do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really wrong at this TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of dollars, not even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial remembrance.

As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET U.S. Corporate Headquarters and their response was the same. That's their national policy. Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the Marines to collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores. And during the recent Iraq deployment, they wouldnot allow families of employees who were called up for active duty to continue their insurance coverage while they were on military service.

Then as I dig further, TARGET is a French-owned corporation. Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET cannot support AmericanVeterans, then why should my family and I support theirstores by spending our hard earned American dollars! And, have their profits sent to France. Without the American Vets, where would France be today? "They, most likely would be speaking German and trading in Deutsch Marks"

Sincerely,
Dick Forrey
Veterans Helping Veterans

Please send this on to everyone you know let Target know we don't need them either!

------------------- my response to the above mass email:

Almost all of the information provided in the original email about Target is false. Click here. Or here.
The Target Corporation does not contribute to veterans' causes: False.
The Target Corporation is French-owned: False.
The Target Corporation provides corporate grants only for 'gay and lesbian causes': False.
The Target Corporation does not contribute to the U.S. Marines 'Toys for Tots' program: False. The Target Corporation does not allow reservists called to active duty to continue their health benefits: False.
The Target Corporation does not allow Salvation Army bell ringers to solicit contributions in front of its stores: True

Dick Forrey, a member of the Indiana-based Howard County Vietnam Veterans organization, rashly penned the email message in March 2002 after failing to secure a $100 sponsorship for a travelling Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Wall exhibit from his local Target store. Mr. Forrey was rebuffed, because Target does not give out cash donations through local stores; they donate money only at the corporate level, and only through grants to organizations falling within their defined general areas of giving. Mr. Forrey has since apologized for his mistake and issued a retraction:"I made a mistake on this one, and I've learned a hard lesson — that's for sure. What started out as a message for the members in our organization has turned into a hate-type thing. I never wanted to start any national boycott. I just wish it would all stop. Some people have used my words and perpetuated lies. It's sad that some of these people would use veterans as a way to push their own political views. I've sent out a retraction, and no one pays any attention."

Now the other issue: on so many levels, shopping at ANY "box box retailer" is bad for you, your family, your town, America and the people they also exploit elsewhere around the world. WalMart deservedly gets the most grief, but Target isn't much better.

Here is what WalMart (and the other giant retailers) do to America and the world:

• Devastating effect on local communities and other businesses
• Devasting effect on the American economy (net jobs losses and eroding local tax bases)
• Main contributor to our burdgeoning trade deficit with China
• Poverty wages for their workers (usually 40% less than from traditional retailers)
• Poor working conditions, including many violations from Dept. of Labor and U.S. Justice Dept.
• Encourage and purchase from overseas "sweat shops"

Don't believe me? Check these out:
http://www.walmartwatch.com
http://www.sprawl-busters.com
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/walmart/walmart_2.cfm
http://vfp92.org/walmart.html
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17618
You can watch the PBS documentary "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/
Here's an informative PowerPoint presentation: http://walmartwatch.com/img/documents/battlemart_docs/WhatHappensWhenWalMartComesToTown.ppt
And a great video called Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices http://www.walmartmovie.com/
For a entertaining parable explaining how WalMart affects towns and people, try this: http://leavestevepeeved.blogspot.com/2006/10/sprawl-mart-vs.html

So what are the alternatives to shopping at WalMart and other harmful big box retailers? http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/action_guides/localfirst_qa.pdfhttp://www.vermontwalmartwatch.org/box_store_alternatives.html
And what about CostCo? http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/02/16/editorial3.html

Now, the final issue: Does Wal-Mart REALLY have the lowest prices?
Not really. Read on:
From the PBS program Frontline, an interview titled Is Wal-Mart Good For America? with former Wal-Mart store manager Jon Lehman:

What is the opening price point? Why is it so key to Wal-Mart's strategy?

OK, it's lawn-and-garden time. Your grass is getting high. Your lawn mower is broken from last year, or you need a new lawn mower. You're going to go to Wal-Mart. So you go to Wal-Mart, and you're looking for a lawn mower, and to your delight, you walk in, and you see this $99 lawn mower. You may not want a cheap, basic lawn mower, but you see that price point on an end cap or a big display stack base, and you say, "Wow, what a great price." And it draws you in. It lures you into the department, and you form the perception immediately that "Hey, Wal-Mart's got the lowest prices in town. Look at this item right here. How could they sell it for $99?" ...But as you walk into the department and look for that $269 power-drive lawn mower that you really are after, they're not losing money on that item. And it may not be the lowest price in town. Wal-Mart used to advertise "Always the low price." They don't do that anymore.

Because?

They got in trouble. Some of the other competitors sued them, tried to go after them and say, "You can't say 'Always the low price,' because you're not always the low price." They did a study -- a very critical study, very thorough study -- and found that Wal-Mart was not always the low price. And Target and Kmart got a little miffed, and some other competitors that [said], "How can Wal-Mart advertise this and it's not true?"

So what you're saying is Wal-Mart, when it says, "Always low prices," it's not always the lowest price on every lawn mower or every microwave oven or every vacuum cleaner or every TV set.

Absolutely not.

So what does the opening price point mean?

The opening price point is ... to get you in. You look at that, and you think, "Wow, what a great price." ... And usually, more times than not, those items are imports. They're not domestically made; they're from other countries.

Why?

Well, the price of labor is so cheap. In China, Malaysia, Bangladesh, you can make stuff for a fraction of the cost that you can domestically, so that price is the rock-bottom price.

So are you saying that the opening price is the lowest price and actually will beat the competition, but maybe other items in the same category aren't necessarily the lowest price?

Oh, absolutely not. It's just like fishing: You want to entice that fish to that lure. ... Once you walk past that opening price point, they've got you, because you've already formed the perception that everything in that department is the lowest price in town.

And maybe it's not.

No, it's not. No, I can tell you it's not. I can tell you from experience it's not.

How central is [the opening price point] to Wal-Mart's marketing strategy?

It's the heart of Wal-Mart's pricing strategy. Wal-Mart puts [a] tremendous amount of planning, organization and thinking into what their opening price points are going to be, based on last year's sales, based on customer requests, what's in demand this year, what's the newest, hottest item on the market.

A challenge to Republicans: Can you answer these questions?

1) Can you name any program or law enacted by the GOP that was both intended to and has concretely improved the quality of life of NON-WEALTHY Americans (actual human beings, not fetuses or other collections of cells--see below *)? If so, please show viable statistics from respected, non-biased sources (for example, NOT the Heritage Foundation) to back it up your assertion. Democrats, for all of their failings, can easily identify a plethora of their health, education, safety and anti-poverty programs that have been statistically shown to have noticeably improved the lives of ordinary Americans (or at least were intended to) for decades. What about you guys?

2) Can you identify a group of NON-WEALTHY Americans that the GOP has consistently supported not just with lip service but through their actions (again, fetuses and other cellular structures don't count*)? Dems can point to their concrete support for unions (and working people in general), educators, farmers, children in poor families, single mothers, etc.. Can the GOP point to anyone they have helped other than the already rich & powerful (such as CEOs and other rich people who either obtained their wealth through other channels besides HARD WORK [like through inheritance or unethically, like Halliburton, Bechtel, Enron, defense contractors or through their manipulation of financial systems obtained more than their fair share of available money and other desirable resources, like CEOs])?

3) Can you identify a group of NON-POLITICALLY POWERFUL Americans that the GOP has consistently supported not just with lip service but through their actions (again, leave fetuses and other groups of cells out of the equation*)? Dems can point to long-term support of classes of citizens who require protection from the ravages of runaway capitalism, bigotry and discrimination, such as racial & religious minorities, women, children, older Americans, people with disabilities, gays & lesbians, workers in hazardous workplaces, even the environment. Who or what specifically does the GOP protect besides those who DO NOT NEED protection because they already benefit disproportionately and unfairly from the current system?

4) If you have been unable to adequately answer the above three questions (and I KNOW you haven't!), are you willing to admit that:
a) the primary purpose of the GOP is to, as conservatives, "conserve" and even enhance the current misallocation of wealth and other resources that benefit the WEALTHY? Conversely, are you willing to admit that the GOP also fights any attempts to "level the playing field," such as instituting a "living wage" (or at least increasing the minimum wage), preserving Social Security, creating a progressive, fair tax code, affirmative action, etc.
b) all of the usual right-wing political rhetoric has only one purpose: to psychologically manipulate (i.e., through the use of wedge issues and Orwellian language) just enough NON-WEALTHY Americans to vote for and work against their own self-interests so that the GOP can pull off constantly helping only the WEALTHY? If you disagree with the assumption underlying that question, refute it by identifying language and tactics similarly used by Dems to manipulate Americans. Can you identify Democratic Party counterparts to Karl Rove and Frank Luntz? If you think the GOP doesn't use mass psychological manipulation on Americans, can you explain why people like Rove and Luntz are employed by the GOP? Why does the GOP need them? What other and legitimate purpose could they possibly serve?

By the way, these questions were composed by someone who is NOT a Democrat, thinks the Democratic Party has failed to adequately serve the needs of Americans, but believes that the GOP has not only failed at an exponentially greater extent than the Democrats, but has willfully tried to harm the general welfare of NON-WEALTHY Americans.

* - Note: the reason I have removed fetuses from this debate is because the abortion issue is clearly another GOP manipulation. The GOP realizes that no sane populace is going to willingly vote for and support candidates who work against their own interests. This forces the GOP to trick certain groups into supporting them. They normally do this through divisive Rovian tactics such as phony patriotism & rabid nationalism, hatred of homosexuals & gay marriage and creating misperceptions that poor & middle-class white people are somehow being cheated by minorities and immigrants. You know, the old "wedge issues" trick. This has gained them the support of entire groups of white people. Some have given these voter demographics names such as "Reagan Democrats," "Office Park Dads," "NASCAR Dads," or single-issue voters such as "The Gun Nuts." After observing their lack of critical thinking skills, their simplistic world view and how easily they have been suckered, I've given them a different name: "stupid people."
On the other hand, the GOP has gained the support of evangelical Christians through a different tactic: by pretending to agree with them on so-called "moral issues" such as abortion. However, as we've seen with evangelical leaders such as Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, W.V. Grant, Benny Hinn, Kent Hovind, Peter Popoff, Robert Tilton, Jim Whittington and, more recently, freakin' Ted Haggard, these guys don't walk the walk. Take this challenge: sit through one service at a "mega church" and listen to how they distort the teachings of Jesus (such as having the accumulation of wealth as your primary spiritual goal), and you'll get another glaring example of how these guys no longer even bother to "talk the talk."
And earlier this year, David Kuo (former head of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and author of the best-seller "A Loss of Faith") finally revealed what most smart people have known for decades: the GOP does not agree or even respect evangelical Christians--and, in fact, privately mocks them. Any evangelical Christian who still thinks GOP leaders and even their own religious leaders are moral people or somehow represent their values--I again refer you to the voter demographic group I created: "stupid people."
The arguments the GOP have used to support their "pro life" stance can be boiled down to two assertions: 1) a fetus, regardless of its developmental stage, is a human life (I won't address that issue or if abortion is "right" or "wrong") 2) it is a defenseless person that needs protection. But because the GOP has consistently shown that it has no interest in protecting actual human beings who NEED protection (see above), their contention that they want to uncharacteristically protect a fetus rings hollow and can be very easily dismissed. It's obvious that it is politically expedient to be anti-abortion. But after years of the GOP refusing to support programs that benefit living, breathing children (like a quality education for even poor children, Head Start and other preschool programs, school lunches, immunizations, etc.) anyone who honestly believes that the GOP gives a rat's ass about a fetus also belongs to my voter demographic creation, the "stupid people."
-----------------------------------------------
By the way, if you're worried that you may fall into my newly created voter demographic group, don't sweat it. Every politician in the world caters to you. Every major media outlet views you as a highly priced demographic. So, then, do almost all of their advertisers. In fact, the whole freaking world caters to you. Relax, breathe easy and know that you're right at home here in 2007 America!

Pass this on instead of another "chain email"

I just received another "chain email" (second one down the page) asking me to forward it to five friends in the next hour and that, if I do that, something good will happen to me at 11:11 (didn't specify a.m. or p.m.). I replied with this:

Now, here's a true story..., honestly. I had a grandma who really thought she was psychic. She proudly declared that at every family gathering and during just about every phone call. One time about 20 years ago she called us in the middle of the night very upset. She said that she had just had a terrible dream that ended with an image of a huge number 11 looming over her. She admitted that she didn't know exactly what that meant but she was certain that something bad would happen on the 11th day or the 11th month. Because it was early November, she told us not to leave the house on November 11th. She called us (and the rest of her friends and relatives) on November 10th to warn all of us, in her usual dramatic & frantic tone, to not leave the house the next day.

As far as I knew, we all ignored her warning because not a single one of her dozens of previous warnings, premonitions, prognostications and other claims of being psychic EVER panned out. So all of us left our houses and otherwise went about our business on November 11th anyway--but of course some of us were a bit wary and walked around with a slight sense of dread for the whole day. She called us (and presumably a lot of other people) a few times during the day to see if anything had happened. The day ended with nothing noticeably bad happening to any of us (with the exception of me losing my favorite pen at school. Kidding).

I remember her calling the next day and telling my mom, since she acknowledged that nothing seriously bad happened on November 11th, that maybe the "Big 11" she saw in the dream meant 11:11am or 11:11pm on an unknown day. So she warned us all to be real careful at those two times for the next several days. Well, you can imagine how we were all trembling at that warning. Again, nothing noticeably bad happened at all, much less at those specific times over the next several days. Or weeks. Or ever.

In fact, it has become a running joke in my extended family. For years afterward we called each other every November 10th and jokingly (or maybe with only half-jokingly) reminded ourselves about grandma's warning. When something bad (such as a car accident) happens to any of us, we break the tension by asking, "Um, I hate to ask this, but did you notice what time it happened? Was it..., (dramatic pause) 11:11????"

Gotcha! While the above story is true and my grandma really did all that, I'll bet you were disappointed that her warning wasn't accurate. Admit it: You were rooting for my grandma to be vindicated--even if that meant that something bad to happen to me or someone I cared about, that was of secondary concern. I'll tell you that all of us were pleased that nothing bad happened to us. As someone in the field of psychology, I'm interested to know why we WANT things like that to happen. What I want to know is, why would people WISH that my grandma's warning came to pass? Why is it important to some of us that there be psychics, prophets, angels, miracles, extraterrestrials, even when there is a complete absence of evidence? Isn't life itself interesting enough?

Now--if forward that story to five people in the next 20 minutes, you will have something kind of nice happen in the next month. Or two. It might not be anything miraculous. It might just be a friend buying you a cup of coffee. Or you might drop something and, to your surprise, it won't break into a million pieces. That will be the spirit of my deceased grandma holding it together so it doesn't break. BUT ONLY IF YOU PASS THIS EMAIL ALONG.

Comparing a blizzard to Katrina? Or is it white vs. black?

Here is the original email sent to me, followed by my response below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: This is good and an excellent example of what people can do w/o the government

The following was written by a county emergency manager located in central Colorado after last week's blizzard: WEATHER BULLETINUp here, in the Northern Plains, we just recovered from a Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" ---with a historic blizzard of up to 44" inches of snow and winds to 90MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.
FYI:
George Bush did not come.
FEMA did nothing.
No one howled for the government.
No one blamed the government.
No one even uttered an expletive on TV.
Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.
Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.
Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.
Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.
No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.
No one looted.
Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.
Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.
No Larry King, No Bill O'Rielly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Geraldo Rivera. No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water.
Sent out caravans of SUV's to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.
The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a penny.
Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families.
Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.
We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.
We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work orDie".
We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks.
Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves. Maybe some people will get the message. The world does NOT owe you a living.

--------------- My response to the person who sent me the above email:

Sorry to be a spoil sport, but just about everything in this email is false. It was actually written about a snowstorm that occurred in 2005 in the North Plain states (Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas) and it was filled with falsehoods about that storm, too. And now some yokel just changed the setting to Colorado and the time to 2006. And the South Dakotans did in fact "howl for the government" after that 2005 blizzard--click here. The governor formally requested federal assistance and 25 counties were declared FEDERAL disaster areas (eligible for those damned government handouts that white people supposedly don't get) and, yes, Virginia, FEMA was there, too. Additionally, National Guard troops were dispatched on the same day in North Dakota to deal with that disaster. The Louisana National Guard was also able to respond to the far more severe disaster called Katrina--but two days AFTER Katrina's landfall and with 40% of its troops unable to help (they were stuck in Iraq fighting King George's unnecessary war).

Most importantly, read between the lines. What is this email REALLY trying to say? It implies that two natural disasters occurred and that one group responded by wallowing in helplessness and self-pity while the other group admirably rose to the challenge, pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and selflessly performed acts of heroism (what a bunch of horse feathers!). Plus, we have to admit, many Americans reading this will equate the sturdy, hard-working, self-reliant people portrayed in the blizzard as white, while they will envision the whiny, lazy, dependent people with a huge sense of entitlement affected by Hurricane Katrina as black.

Not sure if that's true? Read the email again and see how many references you can spot that are supposed to get you to think about and have no respect for the black people affected by Katrina. I found more than a typical "Where's Waldo?" I found these: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the person who "uttered an expletive on TV" (referring to Kanye West, a black hip-hop artist), the people waiting for "some affirmative action government," the mayor who blamed Bush (a reference to New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, who is African-American), and the so-called looting (the racist media planted this idea. In fact, white people only saw Kanye West say "George Bush doesn't care about black people." But the same media didn't report him saying: "I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says they're looting. You see a white family, it says they're looking for food."). The author of the email didn't come right out and contrast what he or she believes were white vs. black people's responses, but it is STRONGLY implied. This fits right into the stereotype of African-Americans who supposedly don't work as hard as whites yet demand handouts from the government.

This email is already too long, but if you want to see how most government handouts go to non-poor, mostly white, mostly Republican folks, click here, scroll about halfway down and start reading the paragraph that starts "Here are quotes from a book written by John Sperling (an entrepreneur and the founder of the University of Phoenix)". It's blog page I wrote in which I debunk yet another silly, racist email. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, South Dakota (and all its white folks) gets $1.49 in federal expenditures for each tax dollar they pay into the Federal treasury. Louisiana (with all its black folks) gets slightly LESS ($1.47 from the Feds for each $1 paid to the Feds in taxes).

Click here and scroll down to Table 5 if you want to see for yourself. And to compare a blizzard in the Northern Plains to the worst natural disaster in our nation's history is also inappropriate. As Mark Woods (a columnist for the Florida Times-Union) wrote:
People on the Gulf Coast didn't lose power. They lost homes, jobs, hospitals, churches, grocery stores, cities.
I've been to New Orleans three times since Katrina. And each time I have been struck by the misconceptions still swirling. One is that Katrina affected poor blacks. Another is that people are waiting for government to get them back on their feet.
Katrina, of course, did affect poor blacks. But it didn't discriminate. It destroyed poor neighborhoods, rich neighborhoods, middle-class neighborhoods. It killed people of all races. And while I'm sure some of the survivors are waiting for others to solve their problems, I haven't met them.
I have met people -- rich, poor, black, white, young, old -- who are working incredibly hard to rebuild their houses, their businesses, their city.

Man, if I had survived Katrina, had been working to rebuild my home and the rest of my life, and then read this email--I'd be hoppin' mad!

What amazes me about emails like this is how one ignorant individual can fabricate a story like this with clear racist overtones--and almost NO ONE BOTHERS TO CHALLENGE IT!!! Most readers will mindlessly soak it up like a sponge because it merely reinforces their prejudices. It makes them feel good about their race and who (they believe) they are. Just imagine how many thousands of people will get this in their Inbox, not bother to check out the veracity but instead nod their heads in agreement. Look how many web pages have regurgitated this email and are presenting it as fact. And round and round the world this and other harmful emails continue to roll. To quote the old Negro spiritual, "Will The Circle Be Unbroken?"

So people can either strive to learn the truth or they can believe lies that make them feel good about themselves. Maybe instead of wanting to know the truth, most people would prefer to simply feel good--knowing that they're not like "those people" we all saw on TV in New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina.