I couldn't believe my ears today when I heard a talk show host in America dissuading an entire group of people from voting. http://mediamatters.org/items/200610200001
On his radio show today, Sean Hannity addressed any Democratic listeners with:
"I want you to stay home on Election Day because you must accept the fact that your party has abandoned you. You've gotta accept the fact that your vote doesn't matter anyway. So all you Democrats, stay home. So, you know, why don't you stay home on Election Day?"
Does this sound like thoughful speech that should be broadcast through airwaves that belong to the citizens in a democracy that is soon to hold an election--or transparent propaganda from the state-run radio station in a dictatorship? I honestly can't remember anything said in the media that I found to be more irresponsible, reprehensible and unpatriotic.
Then again, judging how he treats his callers with dissenting viewpoints http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/talk-radio-dissenting/, it should be no surprise. These are not the actions a person who respects democracy.
Or maybe Sean was simply regurgitating the Republican "talking points" and marching orders he received from his 90-minute meeting with "President" Chimpy last month: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us/politics/17radio.html. Gee, I'll bet the family and friends of the 2,973 Americans who died on 9/11 wished that almost-President Bush had spent 90-minutes with the CIA briefer who brought him the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Bush listened to the briefing, then told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass now." Apparently, the president didn't find the subject matter interesting or important enough to really engage with and act upon. And then the barely-president resumed his month-long vacation and went fishing.
Did Bush also go fishing after your meeting, Sean? Did he get you, Boortz, Gallagher, Medved and Laura Ingraham whipped into line so you could go back to your microphones and dupe the stupid (like you do every day anyway)? Did Rumsfeld come in with dogs nipping at your crotch while he ordered you all to form a naked human pyramid? Did Cheney come in and ask to put electrodes on anyone's testicles while rubbing his own crotch? Yeah, you sick bastards, I've got your number.
Obviously, Republicans know that they can't win in a straight fight. That's why they constantly need to steal elections (why else would Sean have blurted out "You've gotta accept the fact that your vote doesn't matter anyway"? Oops! Has Sean been clued in on the GOP strategy for stealing the election THIS time? Was he in a different naked human pyramid with Karl Rove and the C.E.O.s of Diebold, Sequoia and E.S.&S.?) and use deception artists like Limbaugh, Hannity and the other people in the naked pyramid.
Mr. Hannity also said: "I don't want everybody to vote; I want well-informed people to vote." He suggests that:
1) His listeners and viewers are better informed than those who are spared from his show; and
2) Democratic voters are not as well-informed as Republican
Yet research indicates the exact opposite to be true. I know how much science scares you right-wingers, but the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) out of the University of Maryland does extensive polling of Americans and their perceptions on many issues. A few years ago, they released their findings after polling 9,611 Americans about their beliefs about different aspects of the Iraq War (such as evidence of al-Qaeda links to Iraq , if WMDs had been found, if world public opinion of the war was favorable). There are a lot of interesting charts and graphs in that document, but if you don't want to look through all of that, here are some of their findings:
--Respondents with one or more misperceptions:
80% of FOX viewers
71% of CBS viewers
61% of ABC viewers
55% of NBC viewers
55% of CNN viewers
47% of Print media
23% of PBS-NPR viewers
---------------------------------------------------
Under the heading of "Evidence of Links Between Iraq and al-Qaeda" the question read: "Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?"
For FOX "News" channel viewers, 67% believed that the U.S. has found evidence of a Saddam-al Qaeda link.
For PBS-NPR channel viewers/listeners, 16% believed that the U.S. has found evidence of a Saddam-al Qaeda link.
------------------------------------------
Under the heading of "Weapons of Mass Destruction," the question read: "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?"
For FOX "News" channel viewers, 33% believe the U.S. has found WMDs.
For PBS-NPR channel viewers/listeners, 11% believe the U.S. has found WMDs.
----------------------------------------
Under the heading of "World Public Opinion," the question read: "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq , do you think: The majority of people favor the US having gone to war?"
For FOX "News" channel viewers, 35% believe the world was with us.
For PBS-NPR, 5% believe the world was with us.
---------------------------------------
See a pattern? It's no wonder why I can so easily beat dittoheads in a debate. Thanks to you and your ilk, they don't know jack.
PIPA did another study that showed that likely voters in the 2004 election had many misperceptions. This study made my jaw drop. Only about 70% of Democratic voters in the survey understood their own presidential candidate's (Kerry) position on major foreign policy issues. Republican/Bush voters? They did WAY worse! Typically only 30% of Bush supporters understood his stance on the same major issues! Duh!
PIPA did yet another study called The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters which showed even more starkly how misinformed and ignorant Republican voters are compared to Democrats.
And we have people like Sean Hannity to thank for that. Here are over 210 examples of Hannity knowingly disseminating or contributing to the dissemination of misinformation to his audience: http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=&start_month=&start_day=&start_year=&end_month=&end_day=&end_year=&issue=&subissue=&topic=&person=Sean+Hannity&show=&outlet =
Additionally, in less than a 30-second period of time, he also made the following statements about the Democratic Party today:
--they want to "give amnesty" to illegal immigrants
--they engage in "tax raising"
--engage in nothing "beyond bashing Bush"
--"they have literally not a single solitary policy or idea that's going to benefit this country, keep you safe, and make the country stronger."
--"abandoning our troops on the battlefield"
--"closing your eyes to enemy communications or listening to enemy communications in our country"
--"killing the economy"
--"supporting illegal immigration"
I could undoubtably refute each of these statements, but combating the sheer number and severity of Hannity's lies would be a full-time job. It's too time-consuming and exhausting. Plus, this email would be twice as long. And it's not my responsibility to put a leash on an irresponsible broadcaster in my employ--that's YOUR responsibility.
Mr. Hannity is too irresponsible to be given such a platform as a talk show on major broadcast networks. There is no tactful way to say this: Sean Hannity is a pathological liar. I am a licensed clinical professional counselor. So that's not just an insult, that's a clinical judgment.
Don't believe me? Try an experiment. Ask Hannity to go one hour without telling a lie that is either pro-GOP or anti-Dem. Then ask the people at MediaMatters.org to verifiy that he didn't lie. I guarantee you, Hannity cannot pass that test. Pathological liars can't help it. They lie and lie and lie. That's what they do.
Please consider one of the following three actions: 1) provide a real progressive talk show host (not a weak centrist like Alan Colmes) as a counter balance; 2) have Mr. Hannity offer corrections and apologies for all lies and misinformation (too impractical--that could take the entire show); or 3) remove Mr. Hannity from your broadcast line-up. He continually performs a disservice to the citizens of our democracy. And you, as his employers, hurt our nation with each broadcast you allow by perpetuating his lies and misinformation. His listeners grew more ignorant each day.
With as much respect as I can muster considering the circumstances,
(Leave Steve Peeved)
cc: The Sean Hannity show
bcc: dozens of caring Americans who I hope to dissuade--not from voting--but from consuming Hannity, ABC and FoxNews media.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Sprawl-Mart vs. the kind shopkeeper
And now, a story.
There were once two shopkeepers in a small village. One was a kind man who treated everyone well--not just his customers. And those with whom he did business also walked away with a smile on their faces (not the yellow smiley face dude!) because they knew they had just dealt with a fair and honest person. He gave freely of his time and money in his community. He was the first to buy the Girl Scout's cookies, sponsor a Little League team, donate supplies to the school, volunteer at the homeless shelter, etc.. Everyone knew that their town was a better place because of the kindly shopkeeper's presence.
But then a different store was built next door and run by an evil shopkeeper. It was called Sprawl-Mart. He sold the same items as the kindly shopkeeper, but ran his business very differently. He squeezed every ounce of work out of his employees. He routinely shorted his employees’ paychecks. He even locked the employees in the store and told them they couldn’t leave until they did his bidding. When any employee complained or suggested making the store a better place to work at, the evil shopkeeper’s retaliation was swift and harsh. Sometimes they were fired. Sometimes they were beaten up by the shopkeeper’s hired thugs.
The evil shopkeeper pitted suppliers against each other, even telling them they had to use slave labor, child labor and yes, even child slave labor so that the evil shopkeeper could pay even less for his wares. Everyone who interacted with him walked away with a bitter taste in their mouths. They knew they had just been pressured into giving up more than their fair share to the evil shopkeeper. And because the evil shopkeeper was so tightfisted and miserly, he was able to sell his wares for as much as 5% less than the kindly shopkeeper.
The townspeople, thinking only of their own pocketbooks and not of the larger community, shopped instead at the evil shopkeeper's store.
Desperate to keep his livelihood, the kind shopkeeper did what he could to lower prices but still try be a good person. But to no avail. He discovered that, in order to lower his prices enough to compete with the evil shopkeeper, he would repeatedly have to hurt his fellow citizens. He would have to cut his employee’s salaries in half. He would have to take away the healthcare plan that kept his workers and their children strong, healthy and pain free. He would have to tell his retired workers—people who gave their all to him for 30 years—who he considered to be like his own family—that the pensions he promised them would be eliminated. He would have to set up sweatshops and factories that don't protect their workers from dangerous conditions, management abuse and take them away from their friends and families. That’s right—12 hour days, seven days per week, no vacations, sick days, etc. “I don't want to deprive children of their loving parents’ time, attentions, energy and money. But I’ll have to do all of these nasty things if I try to compete with the evil Sprawl-Mart.”
"Business used to be a force that operated for the good of society," he sighed. "What happened?!?!"
Sadly, he soon had to close his doors for business.
The evil shopkeeper rubbed his slimy, scaly little hands together at the prospect of no competition. He behaved even worse now because there was nowhere else for the townspeople to work or shop. They were now fully dependent on him. And just like he took advantage of employees and suppliers in the past, he was REALLY going to take advantage of this situation.
He bought up everything in the town: the banks, the newspapers and magazines, radio and television stations (after all, he wanted to control everything that the villagers read, saw and heard)—and almost all local real estate.
The quality of life in the town quickly deteriorated. Jobs which used to pay around $15-30 per hour were now paying only $7 or $8 per hour. Healthcare, which used to be a right of every citizen, now was a privilege offered only to the evil shopkeeper and his management minions. A quality education, which also used to be the right of every child, was now a privilege at a premium price in private schools for the children of the evil shopkeeper and his management minions. The local police tried to keep order in the town, but the evil shopkeeper ordered the city council to take away most of their funds.
“Why should I pay taxes to protect others?” he angrily snorted. “Let them fend for themselves in this hellish world I’ve created. I only care about me. I’ll pay for my own services. I can afford my own police, doctors and teachers. In fact, it works to my advantage if I keep my chattel uneducated, decrepit, scared and tired. They won’t be able to think for themselves. Then they’ll become even more dependent on me!”
The evil shopkeeper then had a huge stately castle built for him and his five bratty children. He had nice McMansions built around the castle to reward his management minions, or “knights,” as he preferred to call them. He had some small, but livable tiny condos also built around his castle for who he called “the help.” You know, the butlers, maids, chauffeurs, barbers, cooks—basically anyone who was willing or able to dedicate their labors in the service of the evil shopkeeper, who now insisted on being addressed as “king.” The rest of the townspeople could now only afford to live in shacks (which of course were owned by the evil shopkeeper). They truly lived in squalor. But did they finally rise up and take a stand against the evil shopkeeper? Did they start to work together again, create and shop at their OWN businesses? Nope. They were more isolated than ever. You see, the evil shopkeeper placed a device in each person's home. He called it the "idiot box." Everyone else called it "T.V." No one knew this, but the device settled people into a hypnotic state. Their brainwaves went from beta to alpha. Don’t believe me? Try just watching someone watch TV. Recognize the dead stare on their faces? It’s called hypnosis. Alpha brain wave state. Hyper-suggestibility. No wonder TV commercials cost way more than other advertisements.
“I have a captive, hypnotized, highly suggestible audience just waiting to soak up whatever I beam at them!” the evil shopkeeper mused.
The evil shopkeeper was no dummy. He recognized the benefits of controlling this device. He replaced all the news anchors, reporters and editors who worked at the local media. He hired new ones who would be “business friendly” and would only send out messages of which he approved.
One time the evil shopkeeper was informed about an uprising in one of his sweatshop towns. The workers kicked out the Sprawl-Mart suppliers and factory owners and held themselves a little election. The evil shopkeeper would have none of this. He told his media to tell the entire town that this distant village had many dangerous weapons that they were ready to use against the village!
“But none of it is true!” said one of the reporters.
“Who cares? Feed them misinformation. Whip up some nationalism. Find a scapegoat for everyone to hate. You guys know all the tricks. Meanwhile, I’ll print some buttons, T-shirts and bumper stickers that will encourage thoughtless patriotism.” The evil shopkeeper was drunk on his own power. He saw the hesitation on the faces of his media employees. “Now shut up and do what I pay you to do!”
So all of them (except the few reporters with integrity) convinced the villagers into going to war against the far away village. Almost all of the reporters, editors and news anchors spewed scary but phony information about the other village. Because of this, thousands of the village’s finest men and women died in a needless war. Tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children died in the other village. But for the evil shopkeeper, it was worth it. After all, it was just one more village that he now controlled. “That worked like a charm,” the evil shopkeeper said hardly containing his glee. “I think I’ll do some more wars!”
One of his workers overheard the evil shopkeeper say this and humbly trudged up to him and said, “But sir, I lost both of my sons in your last war.”
The evil shopkeeper smiled, pointed a finger at the man and said, “Yes, but they weren’t MY sons.”
And naturally, the evil shopkeeper made darn sure that all the radio & TV stations, newspapers and magazines only said good things about him and his Sprawl-Mart. He even made commercials that portrayed his store as having a sense of community—presumably to replaced the sense of community that he helped destroy. . He even had the audacity to run commercials that equated his store with all that was good about America. Even though smart people knew better.
And because there were rumors about what a terrible employer he was, he aired commercials showing all of his employees looking happy and even being grateful to work at Sprawl-Mart. And the villagers bought it hook, line and sinker. They even felt good about shopping at Sprawl-Mart!
“I can get these people to think how I want them to think,” said the evil shopkeeper with a smirk. “They’re like dumb little sheep. I think I’ll call them ‘sheeple.”
"I read about this in a history book once," a smart little boy said. "Didn't they used to call this the 'feudal system'?" His parents shrugged. They were just too tired to respond or even to give their time, love and attention to their son. Just like the rest of the townspeople, they had just worked 80 hours that week for the evil shopkeeper. By "they," that included the smart little boy as well as his parents.
You see, once the evil shopkeeper had amassed his great wealth, with that came great power, too. He made sure that the town’s politicians and government agencies were under his control, too. No one noticed how he slowly de-funded the agencies that looked out for the welfare of the lower and middle classes. You know, the agencies that would have made working 80 hours per week a choice, not an employer's requirement. Or the agencies that would have stop an employer from allowing the smart little boy to work instead of getting an education and playing like a little boy should.
Oh, and the agency that would have stop the employer from using that dangerous box-cutting machine that claimed the smart little boy's right arm. It happened while he was opening one of the boxes that had arrived from the slave labor camp in the Northern Mariana Islands. That’s where the evil shopkeeper just LOVED to obtain the goods he would later sell to the "little people."
Yes, the evil shopkeeper had all kinds of disdainful names for his customers, workers and house servants (besides “sheeple”): serfs, peons, slaves, working stiffs, gofers, inferiors, droids, tools, toilers, peasants, inferiors, lackeys and work-horses.
And he respected women least of all. We won’t dare mention the names he calls women. He gave very few of them pay increases and promotions. Some of his female staff also complained about his unwelcome sexual advances and inappropriate comments. In fact, they complained to the local government agency that handles worker complaints.
“Those little chickadees are now without jobs!” the evil shopkeeper chuckled. “And that Dept. of Labor? I made sure the politicians who I own cut their funding to nothing. It’s now a shadow of its former self.” He put his feet on his desk and muttered, “So ladies…, who’s going to stop me now?”
Obviously, he didn't respect his fellow villagers at all. Why should he? He so easily steamrolled over their town. And not only did they offer no resistance—they helped him do it! He replaced all that the town valued--human values like a sense of community, caring for others, respect for each other, feelings of safety and security and personal growth. What did he replace those with? Hard-nosed business values, like "one for you, a thousand for me” and his favorite, “Screw you!” Oh, how he enjoyed watching this "race" over the past years--he called it "the race to the bottom." For everyone except him, of course. Through his deliberate schemes and scams, he ended up right on top.
Years later, confused by the turn of events, a group of serfs traveled to the shack of the good (former) shopkeeper. "What happened?" they asked him. "Our town used to be a lovely place where everyone shared, no one was poor and no one lorded over us."
"But can’t you see? It was you that made him our lord and master," the good man responded. "When you shopped at Sprawl-Mart, where do you think that money went? Do you think the evil shopkeeper was going to put any of it back into our community? Why would he need to? Everything he needed he got from those cheap overseas sweatshops. He wasn't going to shop at our businesses. He didn't care if your children had decent healthcare, education or clean air and water. He doesn't care about the entire village. He's a selfish man. He only cares about his own lifestyle."
"But what can we do now?" whimpered the broken down towns folk. "He owns us. There's nowhere else left in town to shop or work. And we have to pay him rent to live in our pathetic little shacks."
"But," the good (former) shopkeeper said with a twinkle in his eyes, "There is just one place left where we can fight back--and Mr. Evil Shopkeeper can't control it!"
"Where's that?" the townspeople desperately asked.
"In the hearts and minds of you, your families, your friends and your fellow townspeople," the good (former) shopkeeper said. "I've printed this flyer about Sprawl-Mart. In it, I'm telling the people about the evil shopkeeper's deeds. Post this flyer, distribute it to everyone in the town, talk to everyone you know. And most of all--don't shop or work at Sprawl-Mart! We'll work together through this tough time. We'll help each other out the way neighbors used to. Together, we can reclaim our town from the clutches of the evil shopkeeper."
Soon, a miracle happened. Web sites sprung up talking about the evil shopkeeper's way of doing business. And there was nothing he could do about it!!! And soon there was even a film about Sprawl-Mart that was made outside of the studios owned by the evil shopkeeper.
What's that you say? You'd like to see that film? Hey, good for you. Find out where it’s playing near you by clicking here:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
Crap! Do it quickly! I just heard that King Sprawl-Mart is trying to buy and control the Internet, too!
And now, a story.
There were once two shopkeepers in a small village. One was a kind man who treated everyone well--not just his customers. And those with whom he did business also walked away with a smile on their faces (not the yellow smiley face dude!) because they knew they had just dealt with a fair and honest person. He gave freely of his time and money in his community. He was the first to buy the Girl Scout's cookies, sponsor a Little League team, donate supplies to the school, volunteer at the homeless shelter, etc.. Everyone knew that their town was a better place because of the kindly shopkeeper's presence.
But then a different store was built next door and run by an evil shopkeeper. It was called Sprawl-Mart. He sold the same items as the kindly shopkeeper, but ran his business very differently. He squeezed every ounce of work out of his employees. He routinely shorted his employees’ paychecks. He even locked the employees in the store and told them they couldn’t leave until they did his bidding. When any employee complained or suggested making the store a better place to work at, the evil shopkeeper’s retaliation was swift and harsh. Sometimes they were fired. Sometimes they were beaten up by the shopkeeper’s hired thugs.
The evil shopkeeper pitted suppliers against each other, even telling them they had to use slave labor, child labor and yes, even child slave labor so that the evil shopkeeper could pay even less for his wares. Everyone who interacted with him walked away with a bitter taste in their mouths. They knew they had just been pressured into giving up more than their fair share to the evil shopkeeper. And because the evil shopkeeper was so tightfisted and miserly, he was able to sell his wares for as much as 5% less than the kindly shopkeeper.
The townspeople, thinking only of their own pocketbooks and not of the larger community, shopped instead at the evil shopkeeper's store.
Desperate to keep his livelihood, the kind shopkeeper did what he could to lower prices but still try be a good person. But to no avail. He discovered that, in order to lower his prices enough to compete with the evil shopkeeper, he would repeatedly have to hurt his fellow citizens. He would have to cut his employee’s salaries in half. He would have to take away the healthcare plan that kept his workers and their children strong, healthy and pain free. He would have to tell his retired workers—people who gave their all to him for 30 years—who he considered to be like his own family—that the pensions he promised them would be eliminated. He would have to set up sweatshops and factories that don't protect their workers from dangerous conditions, management abuse and take them away from their friends and families. That’s right—12 hour days, seven days per week, no vacations, sick days, etc. “I don't want to deprive children of their loving parents’ time, attentions, energy and money. But I’ll have to do all of these nasty things if I try to compete with the evil Sprawl-Mart.”
"Business used to be a force that operated for the good of society," he sighed. "What happened?!?!"
Sadly, he soon had to close his doors for business.
The evil shopkeeper rubbed his slimy, scaly little hands together at the prospect of no competition. He behaved even worse now because there was nowhere else for the townspeople to work or shop. They were now fully dependent on him. And just like he took advantage of employees and suppliers in the past, he was REALLY going to take advantage of this situation.
He bought up everything in the town: the banks, the newspapers and magazines, radio and television stations (after all, he wanted to control everything that the villagers read, saw and heard)—and almost all local real estate.
The quality of life in the town quickly deteriorated. Jobs which used to pay around $15-30 per hour were now paying only $7 or $8 per hour. Healthcare, which used to be a right of every citizen, now was a privilege offered only to the evil shopkeeper and his management minions. A quality education, which also used to be the right of every child, was now a privilege at a premium price in private schools for the children of the evil shopkeeper and his management minions. The local police tried to keep order in the town, but the evil shopkeeper ordered the city council to take away most of their funds.
“Why should I pay taxes to protect others?” he angrily snorted. “Let them fend for themselves in this hellish world I’ve created. I only care about me. I’ll pay for my own services. I can afford my own police, doctors and teachers. In fact, it works to my advantage if I keep my chattel uneducated, decrepit, scared and tired. They won’t be able to think for themselves. Then they’ll become even more dependent on me!”
The evil shopkeeper then had a huge stately castle built for him and his five bratty children. He had nice McMansions built around the castle to reward his management minions, or “knights,” as he preferred to call them. He had some small, but livable tiny condos also built around his castle for who he called “the help.” You know, the butlers, maids, chauffeurs, barbers, cooks—basically anyone who was willing or able to dedicate their labors in the service of the evil shopkeeper, who now insisted on being addressed as “king.” The rest of the townspeople could now only afford to live in shacks (which of course were owned by the evil shopkeeper). They truly lived in squalor. But did they finally rise up and take a stand against the evil shopkeeper? Did they start to work together again, create and shop at their OWN businesses? Nope. They were more isolated than ever. You see, the evil shopkeeper placed a device in each person's home. He called it the "idiot box." Everyone else called it "T.V." No one knew this, but the device settled people into a hypnotic state. Their brainwaves went from beta to alpha. Don’t believe me? Try just watching someone watch TV. Recognize the dead stare on their faces? It’s called hypnosis. Alpha brain wave state. Hyper-suggestibility. No wonder TV commercials cost way more than other advertisements.
“I have a captive, hypnotized, highly suggestible audience just waiting to soak up whatever I beam at them!” the evil shopkeeper mused.
The evil shopkeeper was no dummy. He recognized the benefits of controlling this device. He replaced all the news anchors, reporters and editors who worked at the local media. He hired new ones who would be “business friendly” and would only send out messages of which he approved.
One time the evil shopkeeper was informed about an uprising in one of his sweatshop towns. The workers kicked out the Sprawl-Mart suppliers and factory owners and held themselves a little election. The evil shopkeeper would have none of this. He told his media to tell the entire town that this distant village had many dangerous weapons that they were ready to use against the village!
“But none of it is true!” said one of the reporters.
“Who cares? Feed them misinformation. Whip up some nationalism. Find a scapegoat for everyone to hate. You guys know all the tricks. Meanwhile, I’ll print some buttons, T-shirts and bumper stickers that will encourage thoughtless patriotism.” The evil shopkeeper was drunk on his own power. He saw the hesitation on the faces of his media employees. “Now shut up and do what I pay you to do!”
So all of them (except the few reporters with integrity) convinced the villagers into going to war against the far away village. Almost all of the reporters, editors and news anchors spewed scary but phony information about the other village. Because of this, thousands of the village’s finest men and women died in a needless war. Tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children died in the other village. But for the evil shopkeeper, it was worth it. After all, it was just one more village that he now controlled. “That worked like a charm,” the evil shopkeeper said hardly containing his glee. “I think I’ll do some more wars!”
One of his workers overheard the evil shopkeeper say this and humbly trudged up to him and said, “But sir, I lost both of my sons in your last war.”
The evil shopkeeper smiled, pointed a finger at the man and said, “Yes, but they weren’t MY sons.”
And naturally, the evil shopkeeper made darn sure that all the radio & TV stations, newspapers and magazines only said good things about him and his Sprawl-Mart. He even made commercials that portrayed his store as having a sense of community—presumably to replaced the sense of community that he helped destroy. . He even had the audacity to run commercials that equated his store with all that was good about America. Even though smart people knew better.
And because there were rumors about what a terrible employer he was, he aired commercials showing all of his employees looking happy and even being grateful to work at Sprawl-Mart. And the villagers bought it hook, line and sinker. They even felt good about shopping at Sprawl-Mart!
“I can get these people to think how I want them to think,” said the evil shopkeeper with a smirk. “They’re like dumb little sheep. I think I’ll call them ‘sheeple.”
"I read about this in a history book once," a smart little boy said. "Didn't they used to call this the 'feudal system'?" His parents shrugged. They were just too tired to respond or even to give their time, love and attention to their son. Just like the rest of the townspeople, they had just worked 80 hours that week for the evil shopkeeper. By "they," that included the smart little boy as well as his parents.
You see, once the evil shopkeeper had amassed his great wealth, with that came great power, too. He made sure that the town’s politicians and government agencies were under his control, too. No one noticed how he slowly de-funded the agencies that looked out for the welfare of the lower and middle classes. You know, the agencies that would have made working 80 hours per week a choice, not an employer's requirement. Or the agencies that would have stop an employer from allowing the smart little boy to work instead of getting an education and playing like a little boy should.
Oh, and the agency that would have stop the employer from using that dangerous box-cutting machine that claimed the smart little boy's right arm. It happened while he was opening one of the boxes that had arrived from the slave labor camp in the Northern Mariana Islands. That’s where the evil shopkeeper just LOVED to obtain the goods he would later sell to the "little people."
Yes, the evil shopkeeper had all kinds of disdainful names for his customers, workers and house servants (besides “sheeple”): serfs, peons, slaves, working stiffs, gofers, inferiors, droids, tools, toilers, peasants, inferiors, lackeys and work-horses.
And he respected women least of all. We won’t dare mention the names he calls women. He gave very few of them pay increases and promotions. Some of his female staff also complained about his unwelcome sexual advances and inappropriate comments. In fact, they complained to the local government agency that handles worker complaints.
“Those little chickadees are now without jobs!” the evil shopkeeper chuckled. “And that Dept. of Labor? I made sure the politicians who I own cut their funding to nothing. It’s now a shadow of its former self.” He put his feet on his desk and muttered, “So ladies…, who’s going to stop me now?”
Obviously, he didn't respect his fellow villagers at all. Why should he? He so easily steamrolled over their town. And not only did they offer no resistance—they helped him do it! He replaced all that the town valued--human values like a sense of community, caring for others, respect for each other, feelings of safety and security and personal growth. What did he replace those with? Hard-nosed business values, like "one for you, a thousand for me” and his favorite, “Screw you!” Oh, how he enjoyed watching this "race" over the past years--he called it "the race to the bottom." For everyone except him, of course. Through his deliberate schemes and scams, he ended up right on top.
Years later, confused by the turn of events, a group of serfs traveled to the shack of the good (former) shopkeeper. "What happened?" they asked him. "Our town used to be a lovely place where everyone shared, no one was poor and no one lorded over us."
"But can’t you see? It was you that made him our lord and master," the good man responded. "When you shopped at Sprawl-Mart, where do you think that money went? Do you think the evil shopkeeper was going to put any of it back into our community? Why would he need to? Everything he needed he got from those cheap overseas sweatshops. He wasn't going to shop at our businesses. He didn't care if your children had decent healthcare, education or clean air and water. He doesn't care about the entire village. He's a selfish man. He only cares about his own lifestyle."
"But what can we do now?" whimpered the broken down towns folk. "He owns us. There's nowhere else left in town to shop or work. And we have to pay him rent to live in our pathetic little shacks."
"But," the good (former) shopkeeper said with a twinkle in his eyes, "There is just one place left where we can fight back--and Mr. Evil Shopkeeper can't control it!"
"Where's that?" the townspeople desperately asked.
"In the hearts and minds of you, your families, your friends and your fellow townspeople," the good (former) shopkeeper said. "I've printed this flyer about Sprawl-Mart. In it, I'm telling the people about the evil shopkeeper's deeds. Post this flyer, distribute it to everyone in the town, talk to everyone you know. And most of all--don't shop or work at Sprawl-Mart! We'll work together through this tough time. We'll help each other out the way neighbors used to. Together, we can reclaim our town from the clutches of the evil shopkeeper."
Soon, a miracle happened. Web sites sprung up talking about the evil shopkeeper's way of doing business. And there was nothing he could do about it!!! And soon there was even a film about Sprawl-Mart that was made outside of the studios owned by the evil shopkeeper.
What's that you say? You'd like to see that film? Hey, good for you. Find out where it’s playing near you by clicking here:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
Crap! Do it quickly! I just heard that King Sprawl-Mart is trying to buy and control the Internet, too!
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Who's REALLY the Dictator: Right-Wingers' Calls to Boycott Citgo."
----- Original mass-email is below, followed by my reply----
PLEASE forward this to as many people as possible.
Venezuela Dictator Vows To Bring Down U.S. Government
Venezuela government is sole owner of Citgo gasoline company Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government. Chavez, president of Venezuela, told a TV audience : "Enough of imperialist aggression; we must tell the world: down with the U.S. empire. We have to bury imperialism this century."The guest on his television program, beamed across Venezuela, was Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar activist. Chavez recently had as his guest Harry Belafonte, who called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world." Chavez is pushing a socialist revolution and has a close alliance with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq, the issue here is that we have a socialist dictator vowing to bring down the government of the U.S. And he is using our money to achieve his goal! The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo gas company Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government.
Take Action Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take down our government?Very important. Please forward this to your friends and family. Most of them don't know that Citgo is owned by the Venezuela government. YOU CAN VERIFY THIS ON THE CITGO WEB PAGE. http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGOjsp Mary
--------------------- my response --------------------
----- Original mass-email is below, followed by my reply----
PLEASE forward this to as many people as possible.
Venezuela Dictator Vows To Bring Down U.S. Government
Venezuela government is sole owner of Citgo gasoline company Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government. Chavez, president of Venezuela, told a TV audience : "Enough of imperialist aggression; we must tell the world: down with the U.S. empire. We have to bury imperialism this century."The guest on his television program, beamed across Venezuela, was Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar activist. Chavez recently had as his guest Harry Belafonte, who called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world." Chavez is pushing a socialist revolution and has a close alliance with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq, the issue here is that we have a socialist dictator vowing to bring down the government of the U.S. And he is using our money to achieve his goal! The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo gas company Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government.
Take Action Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take down our government?Very important. Please forward this to your friends and family. Most of them don't know that Citgo is owned by the Venezuela government. YOU CAN VERIFY THIS ON THE CITGO WEB PAGE. http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGOjsp Mary
--------------------- my response --------------------
There is a mass email being circulated urging people to boycott Citgo gas claiming that Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, "vowed to bring down the U.S. government." I thought I'd set the record straight.
First, you should know that the email originated as an "action alert" from the conservative Christian organization, American Family Association. Here's an overview of the organization. It's interesting that this controversial organization's sponsorship of this email was eliminated.
Second, the email examines only a small part of a complex, multi-faceted issue. I hope to correct that.
Saying "I like/don't like Citgo gas stations" is an expression of a preference, an opinion. There is no need to argue for or against such a statement. However, "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a dictator" is a statement of fact. Well, not really. It's completely wrong, but the person intended it as a factual statement. Another incorrect statement is "Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government."
First, the definition of a dictator is:
a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome
b : one holding complete autocratic control
c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
Hmmmm, that doesn't sound at all like how Hugo Chavez governs Venezuela.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/05/08/Worldandnation/Venezuela_s_oil_wealt.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coops21aug21,1,3609004.story?coll=la-headlines-business&track=crosspromo
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/680/680p18b.htm
His elections in 1998, 2000 and 2004 were certified by the Carter Center as "fair and open" and "legitimately expressed the will of the people." The most recent one in 2004 was considered a landslide victory of 58%. Although, to be fair and present both sides (unlike how some people present arguments), I found a lot of info on the Net claiming that Chavez rigs his elections ALMOST as well as the GOP does here.
If he's trying to be a dictator as the e-mail claims, he's a pretty lousy one. It sounds to me like a guy who is using the best aspects of capitalism & socialism to try to help his people. Man, that's an antiquated notion, isn't it? The thought of a government using its nation's wealth and resources to actually help its citizens instead of its already wealthy cronies!
But that definition of dictator does ring true with a leader of a different nation. His name escapes me at the moment, but I'll remember it. Let's see, who's that guy who stole two elections (one potato, two potato, Dan Quayle's potatoe), has signed over 800 "signing statements" claiming that he is above the laws passed by the legislature and continues to want to operate outside the law even when it's condemned by the judiciary? He lied for years about running a secret network of gulags where innocent people are kidnapped from their homes and tortured, flown on the CIA's secret airline to countries that routinely practice torture, such as Romania, Poland, Egypt, Syria and Jordan. See, that allows the leader to engage in some word play, like "We don't torture." Nah, President Asshole farms it out to the Syrians instead. Try reading about Khaled El-Masri, Maher Arar and Hassan Osama Nasr. He also lied about the unconstitutional spying on his own citizens, then when the truth came out, attempted to justify it instead of stop it.
Oh, and he's done 1,500 other nasty things, too. Like what? Um, erosion of civil liberties, committing elections fraud, rampant cronyism & corruption in an unnecessary military buildup and during a hurricane cleanup, poor federal response to said hurricane crisis, engaging in fear-mongering, a weakened economy, creating record deficits with nothing positive to show for it, erosion of gay and women's rights, turning healthcare over to corporate interests such as the pharmaceutical industry, the de-funding of education and other social programs, lip service about protecting the environment while tightening the addiction to polluting, terrorist-creating energy sources instead of encouraging research & development on alternative/renewable ones, and diminishing his nation's stature in international arena through unilateralism and committing offensive foreign policy decisions.
He has stripped his citizens of their most cherished set of liberties, too. Today, October 17, 2006, "President" (in this nation, someone has to actually win--not steal--elections in order to legitimately use the title "President") Bush signed the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" into law. It's the scariest piece of legislation in this country's recent history.
Need more? How about going to war against a nation that has never been any threat against his own nation, resulting in 2700 of his soldiers dead (an average of two or three every day) and about 655,000 killed in the other country (mostly civilians and many children). Oh, and he is responsible for the lives of hundreds of thousands of families in both nations being shattered forever.
Man, with an abysmal record like that, I should remember that guy's name. It's on the tip of my tongue. Help me out here. It's not Stalin or Hitler. Mussolini? Nah. Not even Pol Pot or Mao Tse-tung. You know, the guy whose approval rating has sunk like a stone. Man, that chart looks just like a slide on a children's playground. Weeeeeee!
Okay, back to the subject. Now, just like our crappy mainstream media (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity), let's get direct our attention away from the really evil guy and back on to this alleged bogeyman. Now, what were all those terrible things this Chavez guy has done?
Oh, yeah. He said something. Maybe.
The original email's selling point repeatedly is the shrill: "Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government." The only support provided for this statement is this quote from Chavez: "Enough of imperialist aggression; we must tell the world: down with the U.S. empire. We have to bury imperialism this century." I wasn't able to verify that Chavez said this because all references on the Internet to this quote are congested with this silly, ignorant email. But even if he said it, read it carefully. The quote is a criticism of U.S. foreign policy (how our government, corporations and military behave when interacting with foreign entities), and how that aspect of our government behaves, not a threat to "bring down" our government. There's a big difference. Chavez knows. After all, it's certainly possible that Bush sent the CIA in to "bring down" his government in 2002. And it worked. Until the Venezuelans put "dictator" back into power in less than two days!
And let's not forget when the Islamic extremist Pat Robertson suggested that our government should assassinate Chavez on national television. Oh, wait, Robertson is a Christian extremist who declared a fatwa on Chavez. Sorry for the confusion. Well, religious extremists are scary no matter what religion they're twisting, right?
And people think Chavez is trying to "bring down" OUR government? Is that a cuckoo bird I hear in the distance? And does anyone think Chavez doesn't have a right to have a chip on his shoulder with George Bush's name on it?
However, Chavez feels differently about ordinary Americans. Does someone who wants to "bring down" another nation normally offer up to 10% of its heating oil and gasoline to be sold directly to its hospitals, nursing homes, schools and organized poor communities at a 30% discount? Oh, and if your eyes go bad and if you're a poor American without health insurance (something those evil socialists don't have to worry about with their whacky nationalized health care plans), Chavez plans to offer Venezuelan doctors to perform any needed surgery for free!
Wow! Compare Bush with Chazez, and guess who has my vote? Well, I can't vote for Chavez, but I can buy his gas to help him help some poor Venezuelans (and his 40,000 American employees and gas station owners). Or I can buy gas from any other gas station and contribute to unelected, oppressive, monarchs who are unpatriotic, filthy-rich Saudi sheiks billionaires who don't share their wealth with their countrymen who suffer in abysmal poverty. And who look the other way while the madrassas and Wahhabi schools in their countries teach their children to hate and want to kill Americans. Or how they allow a popular Saudi spectator sport: the Friday afternoon beheadings!
Or maybe all that extra money you've been paying at the pump has been going to other oil-rich, oppressive Arab countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
· The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
· The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
· According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
· After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.
If you've bought gas anywhere BUT Citgo, you've even helped to pay for the $1 billion "Mall of the Emirates" in Dubai which has indoor ski slopes so the sheiks can go down the bunny hill in the 120-degree desert heat.
Yeah, those sheiks and emirs are people who I really want to support by buying their gas and oil products! Much better than Hugo Chavez, right?
First, you should know that the email originated as an "action alert" from the conservative Christian organization, American Family Association. Here's an overview of the organization. It's interesting that this controversial organization's sponsorship of this email was eliminated.
Second, the email examines only a small part of a complex, multi-faceted issue. I hope to correct that.
Saying "I like/don't like Citgo gas stations" is an expression of a preference, an opinion. There is no need to argue for or against such a statement. However, "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a dictator" is a statement of fact. Well, not really. It's completely wrong, but the person intended it as a factual statement. Another incorrect statement is "Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government."
First, the definition of a dictator is:
a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome
b : one holding complete autocratic control
c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
Hmmmm, that doesn't sound at all like how Hugo Chavez governs Venezuela.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/05/08/Worldandnation/Venezuela_s_oil_wealt.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coops21aug21,1,3609004.story?coll=la-headlines-business&track=crosspromo
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/680/680p18b.htm
His elections in 1998, 2000 and 2004 were certified by the Carter Center as "fair and open" and "legitimately expressed the will of the people." The most recent one in 2004 was considered a landslide victory of 58%. Although, to be fair and present both sides (unlike how some people present arguments), I found a lot of info on the Net claiming that Chavez rigs his elections ALMOST as well as the GOP does here.
If he's trying to be a dictator as the e-mail claims, he's a pretty lousy one. It sounds to me like a guy who is using the best aspects of capitalism & socialism to try to help his people. Man, that's an antiquated notion, isn't it? The thought of a government using its nation's wealth and resources to actually help its citizens instead of its already wealthy cronies!
But that definition of dictator does ring true with a leader of a different nation. His name escapes me at the moment, but I'll remember it. Let's see, who's that guy who stole two elections (one potato, two potato, Dan Quayle's potatoe), has signed over 800 "signing statements" claiming that he is above the laws passed by the legislature and continues to want to operate outside the law even when it's condemned by the judiciary? He lied for years about running a secret network of gulags where innocent people are kidnapped from their homes and tortured, flown on the CIA's secret airline to countries that routinely practice torture, such as Romania, Poland, Egypt, Syria and Jordan. See, that allows the leader to engage in some word play, like "We don't torture." Nah, President Asshole farms it out to the Syrians instead. Try reading about Khaled El-Masri, Maher Arar and Hassan Osama Nasr. He also lied about the unconstitutional spying on his own citizens, then when the truth came out, attempted to justify it instead of stop it.
Oh, and he's done 1,500 other nasty things, too. Like what? Um, erosion of civil liberties, committing elections fraud, rampant cronyism & corruption in an unnecessary military buildup and during a hurricane cleanup, poor federal response to said hurricane crisis, engaging in fear-mongering, a weakened economy, creating record deficits with nothing positive to show for it, erosion of gay and women's rights, turning healthcare over to corporate interests such as the pharmaceutical industry, the de-funding of education and other social programs, lip service about protecting the environment while tightening the addiction to polluting, terrorist-creating energy sources instead of encouraging research & development on alternative/renewable ones, and diminishing his nation's stature in international arena through unilateralism and committing offensive foreign policy decisions.
He has stripped his citizens of their most cherished set of liberties, too. Today, October 17, 2006, "President" (in this nation, someone has to actually win--not steal--elections in order to legitimately use the title "President") Bush signed the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" into law. It's the scariest piece of legislation in this country's recent history.
Need more? How about going to war against a nation that has never been any threat against his own nation, resulting in 2700 of his soldiers dead (an average of two or three every day) and about 655,000 killed in the other country (mostly civilians and many children). Oh, and he is responsible for the lives of hundreds of thousands of families in both nations being shattered forever.
Man, with an abysmal record like that, I should remember that guy's name. It's on the tip of my tongue. Help me out here. It's not Stalin or Hitler. Mussolini? Nah. Not even Pol Pot or Mao Tse-tung. You know, the guy whose approval rating has sunk like a stone. Man, that chart looks just like a slide on a children's playground. Weeeeeee!
Okay, back to the subject. Now, just like our crappy mainstream media (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity), let's get direct our attention away from the really evil guy and back on to this alleged bogeyman. Now, what were all those terrible things this Chavez guy has done?
Oh, yeah. He said something. Maybe.
The original email's selling point repeatedly is the shrill: "Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government." The only support provided for this statement is this quote from Chavez: "Enough of imperialist aggression; we must tell the world: down with the U.S. empire. We have to bury imperialism this century." I wasn't able to verify that Chavez said this because all references on the Internet to this quote are congested with this silly, ignorant email. But even if he said it, read it carefully. The quote is a criticism of U.S. foreign policy (how our government, corporations and military behave when interacting with foreign entities), and how that aspect of our government behaves, not a threat to "bring down" our government. There's a big difference. Chavez knows. After all, it's certainly possible that Bush sent the CIA in to "bring down" his government in 2002. And it worked. Until the Venezuelans put "dictator" back into power in less than two days!
And let's not forget when the Islamic extremist Pat Robertson suggested that our government should assassinate Chavez on national television. Oh, wait, Robertson is a Christian extremist who declared a fatwa on Chavez. Sorry for the confusion. Well, religious extremists are scary no matter what religion they're twisting, right?
And people think Chavez is trying to "bring down" OUR government? Is that a cuckoo bird I hear in the distance? And does anyone think Chavez doesn't have a right to have a chip on his shoulder with George Bush's name on it?
However, Chavez feels differently about ordinary Americans. Does someone who wants to "bring down" another nation normally offer up to 10% of its heating oil and gasoline to be sold directly to its hospitals, nursing homes, schools and organized poor communities at a 30% discount? Oh, and if your eyes go bad and if you're a poor American without health insurance (something those evil socialists don't have to worry about with their whacky nationalized health care plans), Chavez plans to offer Venezuelan doctors to perform any needed surgery for free!
Wow! Compare Bush with Chazez, and guess who has my vote? Well, I can't vote for Chavez, but I can buy his gas to help him help some poor Venezuelans (and his 40,000 American employees and gas station owners). Or I can buy gas from any other gas station and contribute to unelected, oppressive, monarchs who are unpatriotic, filthy-rich Saudi sheiks billionaires who don't share their wealth with their countrymen who suffer in abysmal poverty. And who look the other way while the madrassas and Wahhabi schools in their countries teach their children to hate and want to kill Americans. Or how they allow a popular Saudi spectator sport: the Friday afternoon beheadings!
Or maybe all that extra money you've been paying at the pump has been going to other oil-rich, oppressive Arab countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
· The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
· The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
· According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
· After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.
If you've bought gas anywhere BUT Citgo, you've even helped to pay for the $1 billion "Mall of the Emirates" in Dubai which has indoor ski slopes so the sheiks can go down the bunny hill in the 120-degree desert heat.
Yeah, those sheiks and emirs are people who I really want to support by buying their gas and oil products! Much better than Hugo Chavez, right?
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
We only buy gas from Citgo...
Steve sent this: He said that no matter where you go for gas, you're going to get ripped off and you're helping pollute the Earth. But at least when you buy gas at Citgo, it goes back into the Venezuelan treasury, much of which is used for positive programs that Hugo Chavez is doing for his citizens. I think I sent you that "buycott" (the opposite of a boycott) notice on Citgo, right? Here it is: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-25.htm
Plus, it's the only nation with a major source of oil that is a real democracy (where the election was stolen or a leader who gained power through violence). I haven't bought gas anywhere else for over a year. Just think, with that one small, simple act I'm doing, I'm am doing more to "promote democracy" in the world than our own government!
----------------------
Then my thoughts ended up being sent to a sweetheart of a guy named Grant. Here's his response:
----- Original Message -----
From: Grant
Don't send me any more crap with that guys name on it!!!!
You people are really mis-informed. This guy Chavez robs from the rich and steals from the poor. He talks a good game but he always loses. He is a dictator with a smiley look on his face. Thats why he's kissing Fidel's A__ right now. One communist to another. He wants to wipe us off the map just like the terrorists. My suggestion to you is watch FNC instead of CNN. At least you can get both sides of the story there.
DO NOT BUY CITGO GAS.
==================== my response to Grant's eloquent argument: ============
Mr. _________, though his opinion differs from mine, does nonetheless offer a persuasive argument. Let's go through it point by point, shall we?
1) Grant ________wrote: "Don't send me any more crap with that guys name on it!!!!" Hard to argue with that. He doesn't want to receive any alternative viewpoints. In fact, Mr. ________has quickly relegated the alternative viewpoint to simply being "crap." And as we'll soon see, he certainly offers much evidence to back his assertion--and he wraps in pure eloquence befitting of such a scholarly mind as his.
2) Grant ________wrote: "You people are really mis-informed." Hmmm. No evidence presented as to why the authors of the series of emails are "really mis-informed." Surely he sent that evidence in a separate email. I'll just wait here until I receive that from Mr. ________ Ta da dee..., dumpty doo..., la de dah de doo..., Hmmm..., I'm still waiting.
3) Grant ________wrote: "This guy Chavez robs from the rich and steals from the poor." I see, Chavez robs from the..., I mean..., um..., he steals from the..., wait, he's robbing his citizens on BOTH sides of the economic spectrum? Man, that sounds like a retarded version of Robin Hood. But who am I to jest like a merry man? Certainly your evidence of this is..., um..., is..., around here somewhere. Tell you what. Maybe you need some help with presenting an argument. Let's start with some articles I found while doing a Google search for a couple of minutes.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/05/08/Worldandnation/Venezuela_s_oil_wealt.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coops21aug21,1,3609004.story?coll=la-headlines-business&track=crosspromo
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/680/680p18b.htm
4) Grant ________wrote: "He talks a good game but he always loses." Yeah, that's what everyone says about Chavez. He always loses. That's a great point. As a matter of fact, I was--wait, what did he lose again? I must have missed that intensive documentation you provided to back up your point, right? I mean, you wouldn't just be talking out your ass, right? Not that your ass doesn't have some credibility compared to serious investigative journalists who I've been quoting throughout this email. I mean, maybe your cute little ass has won a Pulizer Prize, but I just haven't found out yet. But then again, you conservatives are famous for mixing up what journalistic awards you've won. After all, Bill O'Reilly said he won a Pulitzer. Oops, he meant a Peabody--not a Peabody, but a Polk award. Wait, he didn't even win a Polk award--O'really, O'Reilly?
Anyway, I'd just like to find out what Chavez "always loses." Let's see. He won, not lost, two elections. The second one in 2004 was considered a landslide victory of 58%. Evidence? We don't need know stinking evidence! This "talking out my ass" thing is fun. If I can't lick your ass, I'll join it, Grant! I can say whatever I want and think I'm right, even though I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't need to actually be right--it just feels good to SHOUT my opinion. I feel that adrenaline flowing from the reptilian part of my brain. For this moment, Grant, you and I are brothers. Aw, shucks. I can't stay mad at you, cutie-pie. Here's some documentation: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-01.htm
5) Grant ________wrote: "He is a dictator with a smiley look on his face." What a cute idea. A dictator with a smiley look on his face. But hold on--to describe a leader of a nation as a "dictator" is quite serious. Let's look up that word and make sure that we really understand our terms here. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's definition for the word "dictator" is: Pronunciation: 'dik-"tA-t&r, dik-'Function: nounEtymology: Latin, from dictare1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
Hmmmm, that doesn't sound at all like how Hugo Chavez governs Venezuela. But that definition does ring true with another leader of a nation. Man, it's on the tip of my tongue. Let's see, who's that guy who stole two elections (one potato, two potato, Dan Quayle's potatoe), has signed over 800 statements claiming that he is above the laws passed by the legislature and continues to want to operate outside the law even when it's condemned by the judiciary? His name escapes me at the moment, but I'll bet you know, right, Grant? I'll bet you voted for him--TWICE, didn't you? I'll bet you're still in that 30% who still doesn't regret it, huh? Man, that graphic looks just like a slide on a children's playground. Weeeeeee!
6) Grant ________wrote: "Thats why he's kissing Fidel's A__ right now. One communist to another." Ooooooh, Grant said the "C" word. What is this, freakin' 1958? Are we still supposed to be scared of those big, bad Reds? By the way, I think Chavez considers himself more of a socialist. But to people like you, socialist and communist are both dirty words, aren't they? And so are words (and human beings) like gay, lesbian, single mother, liberal, immigrant, Arab, Muslim. Come on, Grant, join in! Who else to you hate? Who else has Karl Rove brainwashed you into hating? Lay it all out there, baby! Use the words you and your buddies ACTUALLY use behind closed doors when you talk about those "other people" who aren't like you. Come on, Grant, whaddya call them: towelheads, dot heads, sand niggers? One of your buddies, Virginia Senator George Allen (Republican, of course!), called the only non-white member of his audience a "macaca," which is known to be a racial slur meaning "monkey." Come on, we all know what you right-wingers are REALLY all about. I want to hear all the hatred in your heart come spewing forth. Come on, I'll bet you're a good Christian. Church ain't for a few more days. Let it all hang out, baby!
7) Grant ________wrote: "He wants to wipe us off the map just like the terrorists." And which quote would that be? Certainly you have some evidence to back up this inflammatory assertion that Hugo Chavez wants to wipe the United States off the map. Maybe you're confused and you're thinking about when another good Christian named Pat Robertson suggested that our government should assassinate Chavez. Or when the CIA participated in a coup to overthrow Chavez. And Chavez is trying to wipe us off the map? Are you sure you're not a little confused and misinformed yourself, Grant?
No! Not you! You've obviously studied this issue, so I'll have to defer to your more in-depth analysis of the situation. Oh, say, Grant--I got a question for you. Does someone who wants to destroy the United States normally offer up to 10% of its heating oil and gasoline to be sold directly to hospitals, nursing homes, schools and organized poor communities in U.S.at a 30% discount? Oh, and if your eyes go bad and if you're a poor American without health insurance (something those commies don't have to worry about with their whacky nationalized health care plans), Chavez will have a Venezuelan doctor perform any needed surgery for free! And you are dead right because Chavez is, as you said, "just like the terrorists." You remember when al-Qaeda made the United States the same offer to provide our poor people and non-profit organizations cheap energy and free health care, don't you? Yep, just like those damned terrorists.
Dude! You were so right! Chavez is really out to get us! Hey, Grant. You're the guy who still lives in the 1950s, right? I'll bet you have a bomb shelter in your backyard. Go in there quickly--don't ask questions (that's right, be a good little Republican). Take all of your conservative dittohead friends in there with you. Quick! Now! Go! The Chavez bogeyman is coming at ya! Lock yourself and your fifty of your favorite fascist friends in there with you. We'll come knock on your twelve inch thick titanium alloy bomb shelter door when it's safe from the commies! Make sure you take about 80 years of supplies in there with you. And please, Grant: pray for us. It's a dangerous world out there. Chavez' terror squads have already destroyed three neighborhoods in my quiet little town just this week. Go, man, go! I want to hear that bomb shelter door clang!
8) Grant ________wrote: "My suggestion to you is watch FNC instead of CNN. At least you can get both sides of the story there." Fox News, eh? Now that's one respected institution of journalism. That's where you get your news!?!? They tell BOTH sides of a story?!?!? Fair and balanced!?!?! Oh, man, Grant--that explains a lot about where your head is at. But thanks, I needed a good laugh after reading your kind, loving, caring email. Dive into this, I dare you:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/foxnewschannel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/16/148232
9) Grant ________wrote: "DO NOT BUY CITGO GAS." Hmmm. Just a piece of advice to Mr. ________ When trying to persuade people to take some action, it can work against your argument when you simply make a declarative statement such as "Do not buy Citgo gas." Actually, it sounds more like an order. But then again, I'm not being fair. Right-wingers are used to shouting orders instead of constructing intelligent arguments. Might makes right, eh, Grant? Why think through an issue when you can just yelp out your uninformed opinion, like your buddies Oxycontin Rush and O'Shithead O'Reilly?
Steve sent this: He said that no matter where you go for gas, you're going to get ripped off and you're helping pollute the Earth. But at least when you buy gas at Citgo, it goes back into the Venezuelan treasury, much of which is used for positive programs that Hugo Chavez is doing for his citizens. I think I sent you that "buycott" (the opposite of a boycott) notice on Citgo, right? Here it is: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-25.htm
Plus, it's the only nation with a major source of oil that is a real democracy (where the election was stolen or a leader who gained power through violence). I haven't bought gas anywhere else for over a year. Just think, with that one small, simple act I'm doing, I'm am doing more to "promote democracy" in the world than our own government!
----------------------
Then my thoughts ended up being sent to a sweetheart of a guy named Grant. Here's his response:
----- Original Message -----
From: Grant
Don't send me any more crap with that guys name on it!!!!
You people are really mis-informed. This guy Chavez robs from the rich and steals from the poor. He talks a good game but he always loses. He is a dictator with a smiley look on his face. Thats why he's kissing Fidel's A__ right now. One communist to another. He wants to wipe us off the map just like the terrorists. My suggestion to you is watch FNC instead of CNN. At least you can get both sides of the story there.
DO NOT BUY CITGO GAS.
==================== my response to Grant's eloquent argument: ============
Mr. _________, though his opinion differs from mine, does nonetheless offer a persuasive argument. Let's go through it point by point, shall we?
1) Grant ________wrote: "Don't send me any more crap with that guys name on it!!!!" Hard to argue with that. He doesn't want to receive any alternative viewpoints. In fact, Mr. ________has quickly relegated the alternative viewpoint to simply being "crap." And as we'll soon see, he certainly offers much evidence to back his assertion--and he wraps in pure eloquence befitting of such a scholarly mind as his.
2) Grant ________wrote: "You people are really mis-informed." Hmmm. No evidence presented as to why the authors of the series of emails are "really mis-informed." Surely he sent that evidence in a separate email. I'll just wait here until I receive that from Mr. ________ Ta da dee..., dumpty doo..., la de dah de doo..., Hmmm..., I'm still waiting.
3) Grant ________wrote: "This guy Chavez robs from the rich and steals from the poor." I see, Chavez robs from the..., I mean..., um..., he steals from the..., wait, he's robbing his citizens on BOTH sides of the economic spectrum? Man, that sounds like a retarded version of Robin Hood. But who am I to jest like a merry man? Certainly your evidence of this is..., um..., is..., around here somewhere. Tell you what. Maybe you need some help with presenting an argument. Let's start with some articles I found while doing a Google search for a couple of minutes.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/05/08/Worldandnation/Venezuela_s_oil_wealt.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coops21aug21,1,3609004.story?coll=la-headlines-business&track=crosspromo
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/680/680p18b.htm
4) Grant ________wrote: "He talks a good game but he always loses." Yeah, that's what everyone says about Chavez. He always loses. That's a great point. As a matter of fact, I was--wait, what did he lose again? I must have missed that intensive documentation you provided to back up your point, right? I mean, you wouldn't just be talking out your ass, right? Not that your ass doesn't have some credibility compared to serious investigative journalists who I've been quoting throughout this email. I mean, maybe your cute little ass has won a Pulizer Prize, but I just haven't found out yet. But then again, you conservatives are famous for mixing up what journalistic awards you've won. After all, Bill O'Reilly said he won a Pulitzer. Oops, he meant a Peabody--not a Peabody, but a Polk award. Wait, he didn't even win a Polk award--O'really, O'Reilly?
Anyway, I'd just like to find out what Chavez "always loses." Let's see. He won, not lost, two elections. The second one in 2004 was considered a landslide victory of 58%. Evidence? We don't need know stinking evidence! This "talking out my ass" thing is fun. If I can't lick your ass, I'll join it, Grant! I can say whatever I want and think I'm right, even though I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't need to actually be right--it just feels good to SHOUT my opinion. I feel that adrenaline flowing from the reptilian part of my brain. For this moment, Grant, you and I are brothers. Aw, shucks. I can't stay mad at you, cutie-pie. Here's some documentation: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-01.htm
5) Grant ________wrote: "He is a dictator with a smiley look on his face." What a cute idea. A dictator with a smiley look on his face. But hold on--to describe a leader of a nation as a "dictator" is quite serious. Let's look up that word and make sure that we really understand our terms here. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's definition for the word "dictator" is: Pronunciation: 'dik-"tA-t&r, dik-'Function: nounEtymology: Latin, from dictare1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
Hmmmm, that doesn't sound at all like how Hugo Chavez governs Venezuela. But that definition does ring true with another leader of a nation. Man, it's on the tip of my tongue. Let's see, who's that guy who stole two elections (one potato, two potato, Dan Quayle's potatoe), has signed over 800 statements claiming that he is above the laws passed by the legislature and continues to want to operate outside the law even when it's condemned by the judiciary? His name escapes me at the moment, but I'll bet you know, right, Grant? I'll bet you voted for him--TWICE, didn't you? I'll bet you're still in that 30% who still doesn't regret it, huh? Man, that graphic looks just like a slide on a children's playground. Weeeeeee!
6) Grant ________wrote: "Thats why he's kissing Fidel's A__ right now. One communist to another." Ooooooh, Grant said the "C" word. What is this, freakin' 1958? Are we still supposed to be scared of those big, bad Reds? By the way, I think Chavez considers himself more of a socialist. But to people like you, socialist and communist are both dirty words, aren't they? And so are words (and human beings) like gay, lesbian, single mother, liberal, immigrant, Arab, Muslim. Come on, Grant, join in! Who else to you hate? Who else has Karl Rove brainwashed you into hating? Lay it all out there, baby! Use the words you and your buddies ACTUALLY use behind closed doors when you talk about those "other people" who aren't like you. Come on, Grant, whaddya call them: towelheads, dot heads, sand niggers? One of your buddies, Virginia Senator George Allen (Republican, of course!), called the only non-white member of his audience a "macaca," which is known to be a racial slur meaning "monkey." Come on, we all know what you right-wingers are REALLY all about. I want to hear all the hatred in your heart come spewing forth. Come on, I'll bet you're a good Christian. Church ain't for a few more days. Let it all hang out, baby!
7) Grant ________wrote: "He wants to wipe us off the map just like the terrorists." And which quote would that be? Certainly you have some evidence to back up this inflammatory assertion that Hugo Chavez wants to wipe the United States off the map. Maybe you're confused and you're thinking about when another good Christian named Pat Robertson suggested that our government should assassinate Chavez. Or when the CIA participated in a coup to overthrow Chavez. And Chavez is trying to wipe us off the map? Are you sure you're not a little confused and misinformed yourself, Grant?
No! Not you! You've obviously studied this issue, so I'll have to defer to your more in-depth analysis of the situation. Oh, say, Grant--I got a question for you. Does someone who wants to destroy the United States normally offer up to 10% of its heating oil and gasoline to be sold directly to hospitals, nursing homes, schools and organized poor communities in U.S.at a 30% discount? Oh, and if your eyes go bad and if you're a poor American without health insurance (something those commies don't have to worry about with their whacky nationalized health care plans), Chavez will have a Venezuelan doctor perform any needed surgery for free! And you are dead right because Chavez is, as you said, "just like the terrorists." You remember when al-Qaeda made the United States the same offer to provide our poor people and non-profit organizations cheap energy and free health care, don't you? Yep, just like those damned terrorists.
Dude! You were so right! Chavez is really out to get us! Hey, Grant. You're the guy who still lives in the 1950s, right? I'll bet you have a bomb shelter in your backyard. Go in there quickly--don't ask questions (that's right, be a good little Republican). Take all of your conservative dittohead friends in there with you. Quick! Now! Go! The Chavez bogeyman is coming at ya! Lock yourself and your fifty of your favorite fascist friends in there with you. We'll come knock on your twelve inch thick titanium alloy bomb shelter door when it's safe from the commies! Make sure you take about 80 years of supplies in there with you. And please, Grant: pray for us. It's a dangerous world out there. Chavez' terror squads have already destroyed three neighborhoods in my quiet little town just this week. Go, man, go! I want to hear that bomb shelter door clang!
8) Grant ________wrote: "My suggestion to you is watch FNC instead of CNN. At least you can get both sides of the story there." Fox News, eh? Now that's one respected institution of journalism. That's where you get your news!?!? They tell BOTH sides of a story?!?!? Fair and balanced!?!?! Oh, man, Grant--that explains a lot about where your head is at. But thanks, I needed a good laugh after reading your kind, loving, caring email. Dive into this, I dare you:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/foxnewschannel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/16/148232
9) Grant ________wrote: "DO NOT BUY CITGO GAS." Hmmm. Just a piece of advice to Mr. ________ When trying to persuade people to take some action, it can work against your argument when you simply make a declarative statement such as "Do not buy Citgo gas." Actually, it sounds more like an order. But then again, I'm not being fair. Right-wingers are used to shouting orders instead of constructing intelligent arguments. Might makes right, eh, Grant? Why think through an issue when you can just yelp out your uninformed opinion, like your buddies Oxycontin Rush and O'Shithead O'Reilly?
The Wrong Army? (original email is below, followed by my response)
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THEWRONGARMY.HTML
Author Jeff Edwards
This article was written by retired Chief Petty Officer and award winning novelist, Jeff Edwards.
America's military can win wars. We've done it in the past, and I have absolute confidence that we'll continue to do it in the future. We've won fights in which we possessed overwhelming technological superiority (Desert Storm)
as well as conflicts in which we were the technical underdogs (the American Revolution)
We've crossed swords with numerically superior foes, and with militaries a fraction of the size of our own. We've battled on our own soil (Civil War)
and on the soil of foreign lands(Iwo Jima)
On the sea
Under the sea
And in the skies
We've even engaged in a bit of cyber-combat, way out there on the electronic frontier.
At one time or another, we've done battle under just about every circumstance imaginable, armed with everything from muskets
to cruise missiles.
And, somehow, we've managed to do it all with the wrong Army.
That's right, America has the wrong Army. I don't know how it happened, but it did. We have the wrong Army. It's too small; it's not deployed properly; it's inadequately trained, and it doesn't have the right sort of logistical support. It's a shambles. I have no idea how those guys even manage to fight.
Now, before my brothers and sisters of the OD green persuasion get their fur up, I have another revelation for you We also have the wrong Navy.
And if you want to get down to brass tacks, we've got the wrong Air Force
The wrong Marine Corps
And the wrong Coast Guard
Don't believe me? Pick up a newspaper or turn on your television.
In the past week, I've watched or read at least a dozen commentaries on the strength, size, and deployment of our military forces. All of our uniform services get called on the carpet for different reasons, but our critics unanimously agree that we're doing pretty much everything wrong
Ramsey Clark--George Clooney--Richard Gere
I think it's sort of a game. The critics won't tell you what the game is called, so I've taken the liberty of naming it myself. I call it the 'No Right Answer' game. It's easy to play, and it must be a lot of fun because politicos and journalists can't stop playing it.
I'll teach you the rules.
No matter how the U.S. military is organized, it's the wrong force. Actually, that's the only rule in this game. We don't really need any other rules, because that one applies in all possible situations. Allow me to demonstrate...
Desert Storm Jet Fighter Plane
If the Air Force's fighter jets are showing their age, critics will tell us that Air Force leaders are mismanaging their assets, and endangering the safety of their personnel.
If the Air Force attempts to procure new fighter jets, they are shopping for toys and that money could be spent better elsewhere.
Are you getting the hang of the game yet? It's easy; keeping old planes is the wrong answer, but getting new planes is also the wrong answer. There is no right answer, not ever.
Isn't that fun?It works everywhere.
When the Army is small, it's TOO small. Then we start to hear phrases like 'over-extended' or 'spread too thin,' and the integrity of our national defense is called into question.
When the Army is large, it's TOO large, and it's an unnecessary drain on our economy. Terms like 'dead weight,' and 'dead wood' get thrown around.
I know what you're thinking. We could build a medium-sized Army, and everyone would be happy Think again!!! A medium-sized Army is too small to deal with large-scale conflicts, and too large to keep military spending properly muzzled. The nay sayers will attack any middle of the road solution anyway, on the grounds that it lacks a coherent strategy.
SO SMALL IS WRONG
LARGE IS WRONG
AND MEDIUM SIZE IS WRONG
Now you're starting to understand the game. Is this fun, or what? No branch of the military is exempt
When the Navy builds aircraft carriers, we are told that we really need small, fast multipurpose ships.
When the Navy builds small, fast multi-mission ships (AKA the Arleigh Burke class), we're told that blue water ships are poorly suited for littoral combat, and we really need brown water combat ships.
The Navy's answer, the Littoral Combat, isn't even off the drawing boards yet, and the critics are already calling it pork barrel politics and questioning the need.
The fun never stops when we play the 'No Right Answer' game. If we centralize our military infrastructure, the experts tell us that we are vulnerable to attack. We're inviting another Pearl Harbor.
If we decentralize our infrastructure, we're sloppy and overbuilt, and the BRAC experts break out the calculators and start dismantling what they call our excess physical capacity.
If we leave our infrastructure unchanged, we are accused of becoming stagnant in a dynamic world environment.
Even the lessons of history are not sacrosanct. When we learn from the mistakes we made in past wars, we are accused of failing to adapt to emerging realities. When we shift our eyes toward the future, the critics quickly tell us that we've forgotten our history and we are therefore doomed to repeat it.
If we somehow manage to assimilate both past lessons and emerging threats, we're informed that we lack focus.
Where does it come from: This default assumption that we are doing the wrong thing, no matter what we happen to be doing? How did our military wind up in a zero-sum game?
We can prevail on the field of battle, but we can't win a war of words where the overriding assumption is that we are always in the wrong.
I can't think of a single point in history where our forces were of the correct size, the correct composition, correctly deployed, and appropriately trained all at the same time.
Pick a war, any war. (For that matter, pick any period of peace.) Then dig up as many official and unofficial historical documents, reports, reconstruction's, and commentaries as you can. For every unbiased account you uncover, you'll find three commentaries by revisionist historians who cannot wait to tell you how badly the U.S. military bungled things.
Revisionist Historians
To hear them tell it we could take lessons in organization and leadership from the Keystone Cops.
We really only have one defense against this sort of mudslinging. Success. When we fight, we win, and that's got to count for something. When asked to comment on Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. Army's Lieutenant General Tom Kelly reportedly said, "Iraq went from the fourth-largest army in the world, to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours."
-------------------- my response ----------------------
Whhhaaaaaa! The poor military. Such victims. Poor little babies. I'm so sick of hearing all this crap about how the military isn't appreciated enough. First of all, EVERY public institution has its detractors and critics. It's doesn't matter whether you're the miliary, congress, corporations, the ACLU, the NRA--even fairly innocuous groups like the AARP. If you form a public institution, you have to expect criticism.
I thought these military guys were so tough. Why are they so thin-skinned when it comes to criticism? I'm not sure I want such pansies protecting us. I'm sorry, but if you WILLINGLY (there's no draft) join an organization that has such a terrible and dishonorable history of hurting and killing so many innocent people, don't come crying when people call you out on it.
Go on the ACLU's website. Do you see them whining about how some people don't like what they're doing? No, they just quietly go about the work of dismantling George Bush's fascist America piece by piece. I respect what they do.
I don't respect needless killers. Why should I say "thank you" to a soldier? What the fuck are they doing that's so great? They're in a country that did NOTHING to us. They're not defending America, or freedom or any other "noble cause." All they are is a cheap security force for the corporations like Halliburton that are bilking us taxpayers.
And last time I checked, military personnel get basically free college and tens of thousands of dollars in sign-up bonus money. Unlike military people, there are a lot of us in the world that are ACTUALLY DOING THINGS THAT HELP PEOPLE instead of killing them. But we don't get applause, parades and thank-yous. We don't get free college and a $60,000 bonus for deciding to be a child care worker, social worker or a counselor (instead of killing innocent people like they're doing).
Also, last time I checked, the military gets most of our budget. Way more than the all of the worthwhile programs (health, education, social services, anti-poverty, nutrition, immunization and other child health, day care, Head Start, etc.) COMBINED!!! Did you know that our tax money pays for a military that costs more than all of the other countries' militaries COMBINED? Protecting us from who?!?!? Who the hell would be stupid enough to attack the U.S. with a military (terrorism is a different story)?
So, you're in an organization that spends about 20 times more than it should, engages in massive fraud, kills innocent people--and you want to be spared from criticism? Is this guy nuts?!?!The military today is a perversion of what if once was. The original purpose was to stop invading armies. When was the last time a U.S. civilian got injured or killed by a foreign army on U.S. soil? I think it was the Mexican-American War in the 1840s!!! If the only objective was protecting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, we could cut our military to 10% of what it is now and still do that job.
Americans aren't in any danger of losing their freedom from the OUTSIDE WORLD. George Bush is doing that to us. If the military really cared about the freedoms and civil liberties of Americans, they would storm the White House and set up war crime tribunals. Obviously, since the Spanish-American War, the purpose of the military switched from protecting our citizen within our borders, to implementing horrific foreign policy goals that only help U.S. corporate and political interests. The military has become a pawn of sick bastards who already have tons of power and money and are so greedy that they're willing to have our soldiers die so that they can get more of it.
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THEWRONGARMY.HTML
Author Jeff Edwards
This article was written by retired Chief Petty Officer and award winning novelist, Jeff Edwards.
America's military can win wars. We've done it in the past, and I have absolute confidence that we'll continue to do it in the future. We've won fights in which we possessed overwhelming technological superiority (Desert Storm)
as well as conflicts in which we were the technical underdogs (the American Revolution)
We've crossed swords with numerically superior foes, and with militaries a fraction of the size of our own. We've battled on our own soil (Civil War)
and on the soil of foreign lands(Iwo Jima)
On the sea
Under the sea
And in the skies
We've even engaged in a bit of cyber-combat, way out there on the electronic frontier.
At one time or another, we've done battle under just about every circumstance imaginable, armed with everything from muskets
to cruise missiles.
And, somehow, we've managed to do it all with the wrong Army.
That's right, America has the wrong Army. I don't know how it happened, but it did. We have the wrong Army. It's too small; it's not deployed properly; it's inadequately trained, and it doesn't have the right sort of logistical support. It's a shambles. I have no idea how those guys even manage to fight.
Now, before my brothers and sisters of the OD green persuasion get their fur up, I have another revelation for you We also have the wrong Navy.
And if you want to get down to brass tacks, we've got the wrong Air Force
The wrong Marine Corps
And the wrong Coast Guard
Don't believe me? Pick up a newspaper or turn on your television.
In the past week, I've watched or read at least a dozen commentaries on the strength, size, and deployment of our military forces. All of our uniform services get called on the carpet for different reasons, but our critics unanimously agree that we're doing pretty much everything wrong
Ramsey Clark--George Clooney--Richard Gere
I think it's sort of a game. The critics won't tell you what the game is called, so I've taken the liberty of naming it myself. I call it the 'No Right Answer' game. It's easy to play, and it must be a lot of fun because politicos and journalists can't stop playing it.
I'll teach you the rules.
No matter how the U.S. military is organized, it's the wrong force. Actually, that's the only rule in this game. We don't really need any other rules, because that one applies in all possible situations. Allow me to demonstrate...
Desert Storm Jet Fighter Plane
If the Air Force's fighter jets are showing their age, critics will tell us that Air Force leaders are mismanaging their assets, and endangering the safety of their personnel.
If the Air Force attempts to procure new fighter jets, they are shopping for toys and that money could be spent better elsewhere.
Are you getting the hang of the game yet? It's easy; keeping old planes is the wrong answer, but getting new planes is also the wrong answer. There is no right answer, not ever.
Isn't that fun?It works everywhere.
When the Army is small, it's TOO small. Then we start to hear phrases like 'over-extended' or 'spread too thin,' and the integrity of our national defense is called into question.
When the Army is large, it's TOO large, and it's an unnecessary drain on our economy. Terms like 'dead weight,' and 'dead wood' get thrown around.
I know what you're thinking. We could build a medium-sized Army, and everyone would be happy Think again!!! A medium-sized Army is too small to deal with large-scale conflicts, and too large to keep military spending properly muzzled. The nay sayers will attack any middle of the road solution anyway, on the grounds that it lacks a coherent strategy.
SO SMALL IS WRONG
LARGE IS WRONG
AND MEDIUM SIZE IS WRONG
Now you're starting to understand the game. Is this fun, or what? No branch of the military is exempt
When the Navy builds aircraft carriers, we are told that we really need small, fast multipurpose ships.
When the Navy builds small, fast multi-mission ships (AKA the Arleigh Burke class), we're told that blue water ships are poorly suited for littoral combat, and we really need brown water combat ships.
The Navy's answer, the Littoral Combat, isn't even off the drawing boards yet, and the critics are already calling it pork barrel politics and questioning the need.
The fun never stops when we play the 'No Right Answer' game. If we centralize our military infrastructure, the experts tell us that we are vulnerable to attack. We're inviting another Pearl Harbor.
If we decentralize our infrastructure, we're sloppy and overbuilt, and the BRAC experts break out the calculators and start dismantling what they call our excess physical capacity.
If we leave our infrastructure unchanged, we are accused of becoming stagnant in a dynamic world environment.
Even the lessons of history are not sacrosanct. When we learn from the mistakes we made in past wars, we are accused of failing to adapt to emerging realities. When we shift our eyes toward the future, the critics quickly tell us that we've forgotten our history and we are therefore doomed to repeat it.
If we somehow manage to assimilate both past lessons and emerging threats, we're informed that we lack focus.
Where does it come from: This default assumption that we are doing the wrong thing, no matter what we happen to be doing? How did our military wind up in a zero-sum game?
We can prevail on the field of battle, but we can't win a war of words where the overriding assumption is that we are always in the wrong.
I can't think of a single point in history where our forces were of the correct size, the correct composition, correctly deployed, and appropriately trained all at the same time.
Pick a war, any war. (For that matter, pick any period of peace.) Then dig up as many official and unofficial historical documents, reports, reconstruction's, and commentaries as you can. For every unbiased account you uncover, you'll find three commentaries by revisionist historians who cannot wait to tell you how badly the U.S. military bungled things.
Revisionist Historians
To hear them tell it we could take lessons in organization and leadership from the Keystone Cops.
We really only have one defense against this sort of mudslinging. Success. When we fight, we win, and that's got to count for something. When asked to comment on Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. Army's Lieutenant General Tom Kelly reportedly said, "Iraq went from the fourth-largest army in the world, to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours."
-------------------- my response ----------------------
Whhhaaaaaa! The poor military. Such victims. Poor little babies. I'm so sick of hearing all this crap about how the military isn't appreciated enough. First of all, EVERY public institution has its detractors and critics. It's doesn't matter whether you're the miliary, congress, corporations, the ACLU, the NRA--even fairly innocuous groups like the AARP. If you form a public institution, you have to expect criticism.
I thought these military guys were so tough. Why are they so thin-skinned when it comes to criticism? I'm not sure I want such pansies protecting us. I'm sorry, but if you WILLINGLY (there's no draft) join an organization that has such a terrible and dishonorable history of hurting and killing so many innocent people, don't come crying when people call you out on it.
Go on the ACLU's website. Do you see them whining about how some people don't like what they're doing? No, they just quietly go about the work of dismantling George Bush's fascist America piece by piece. I respect what they do.
I don't respect needless killers. Why should I say "thank you" to a soldier? What the fuck are they doing that's so great? They're in a country that did NOTHING to us. They're not defending America, or freedom or any other "noble cause." All they are is a cheap security force for the corporations like Halliburton that are bilking us taxpayers.
And last time I checked, military personnel get basically free college and tens of thousands of dollars in sign-up bonus money. Unlike military people, there are a lot of us in the world that are ACTUALLY DOING THINGS THAT HELP PEOPLE instead of killing them. But we don't get applause, parades and thank-yous. We don't get free college and a $60,000 bonus for deciding to be a child care worker, social worker or a counselor (instead of killing innocent people like they're doing).
Also, last time I checked, the military gets most of our budget. Way more than the all of the worthwhile programs (health, education, social services, anti-poverty, nutrition, immunization and other child health, day care, Head Start, etc.) COMBINED!!! Did you know that our tax money pays for a military that costs more than all of the other countries' militaries COMBINED? Protecting us from who?!?!? Who the hell would be stupid enough to attack the U.S. with a military (terrorism is a different story)?
So, you're in an organization that spends about 20 times more than it should, engages in massive fraud, kills innocent people--and you want to be spared from criticism? Is this guy nuts?!?!The military today is a perversion of what if once was. The original purpose was to stop invading armies. When was the last time a U.S. civilian got injured or killed by a foreign army on U.S. soil? I think it was the Mexican-American War in the 1840s!!! If the only objective was protecting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, we could cut our military to 10% of what it is now and still do that job.
Americans aren't in any danger of losing their freedom from the OUTSIDE WORLD. George Bush is doing that to us. If the military really cared about the freedoms and civil liberties of Americans, they would storm the White House and set up war crime tribunals. Obviously, since the Spanish-American War, the purpose of the military switched from protecting our citizen within our borders, to implementing horrific foreign policy goals that only help U.S. corporate and political interests. The military has become a pawn of sick bastards who already have tons of power and money and are so greedy that they're willing to have our soldiers die so that they can get more of it.
The Budweiser Story (not a joke) This is TRUE! (original mail is below, followed by my response)
How Budweiser handled those who laughed at those who died on the 11th of September, 2001...Thought you might like to know what happened in a little town north of Bakersfield, California.
After you finish reading this, please forward this story on to others so that our nation and people around the world will know about those who laughed when they found out about the tragic events in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon.
On September 11th, a Budweiser employee was making a delivery to a convenience store in a California town named McFarland. He knew of the tragedy that had occurred in New York when he entered the business to find the two Arabs, who owned the business, whooping and hollering to show their approval and support of this treacherous attack.
The Budweiser employee went to his truck, called his boss and told him of the very upsetting event! He didn't feel he could be in that store with those horrible people. His boss asked him, "Do you think you could go in there long enough to pull every Budweiser product and item our beverage company sells there? We'll never deliver to them again." The employee walked in, proceeded to pull every single product his beverage company provided and left with an incredible grin on his face. He told them never to bother to call for a delivery again.
Budweiser happens to be the beer of choice for that community. Just letting you know how Kern County handled this situation.
And Now The Rest Of The Story:
It seems that the Bud driver and the Pepsi man are neighbors. Bud called Pepsi and told him. Pepsi called his boss who told him to pull all Pepsi products as well!!! That would include Frito Lay, etc. Furthermore, word spread and all vendors followed suit! At last report, the store was closed indefinitely. Good old American Passive-Aggressive A$$ Whoopin!
Pass this along, America needs to know that we're all working together!
If you can read this...Thank a teacher... If you are reading it in English....THANK A SOLDIER!!! God Bless America !! If you do not send this you have no soul!!!!
---------------------- my response is below ---------------------------------
As I was reading this, it smelled like horseshit. Why? First, the story had corporations like Budweiser and PepsiCo putting patriotism over profits. I'd never buy that. Second, the story seemed designed to play on racist stereotypes many have of Arab-Americans. Nothing will anger your average Joe Six-pack American (who lacks an understanding of the full context of and the history that preceded the 9/11 attacks) more than a story about Arabs celebrating the tragedy of 9/11.
Those of us who bother to step away from Fox News, CNN and Oxycontin Rush so we can really learn about current events discovered that, apart from some extremist pockets outside of America, most people (including Arabs) in the world felt terrible about the events of 9/11. Countless Americans who were outside of the country reported that people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds expressed their condolences to them. Strangers walked up to them and said things like "We know how you feel," because THEY had been dealing with terrorism for decades, and have known the pain and misery that terrorism brings--and we Americans just got our first big taste of it.
One of Bush's (countless) mistakes was that he missed a real opportunity. There was so much sympathy and good will toward America after the attacks. He could have used that to do something to effectively fight terrorism. He could have built an international anti-terrorist police force (terrorism requires police work, not a military response as the alleged foiled plot in Britain just showed us). He could have at least acknowledged WHY America became a target of terrorists (our brutal, deadly foreign policy over the past 100 years, our ruthless quest to dominate oil and other resources that don't belong to us) and reached out to the rest of the world and say, "We are going to eliminate the roots of terrorism but finally being a good citizen of the world. Instead of using our military, we are going to seek peace. Instead of fighting the rest of the world for oil, we're going to commit to an Apollo-style program to create clean, renewable energy sources by the end of this decade." But no! That fucker just had to invade Iraq. He just had to go for the oil. He had to give no-bid contracts to his buddies like Cheney's Halliburton. He did everything wrong he possibly could have. Five years after 9/11, we could have had a better world with less war and pollution and a great economy. But he chose to plunge us into dirt, debt, darkness and the endless death.
Arab-Americans were just as saddened as any Americans. Why? Because THEY ALSO are Americans! And on top of that, they had to put up with an anti-Arab backlash, in which ignorant, hostile Americans mocked their dress and culture, made death threats, attacked mosques, etc.. Exactly what did they have to celebrate about 9/11 and its aftermath? Duh.
Anyway, I did a Google search and in a matter of seconds found out that it wasn't true. Not even a little bit: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/budweiser.asp. Meanwhile, thousands of people have been mindlessly circulating this, feeding off of anti-Arab sentiment. And in the time it took for people to add recipients to their forward list, they could have spent less than a minute to see if it was true. No one bothered to check, so the ignorance and prejudice continues to fly around the world.
Also, I love how these people end their emails. Whenever I get a forwarded email that expresses a right-wing point of view, the fascist who wrote it either has to order us how to handle the email or demeans those of us who don't agree with their message. You've probably seen the one that says, "If you agree with this, pass it on. If you don't, just delete it." In other words, people like me are being ordered to not respond; to not give our opinions back. They can spew their hatred and ignorance all they want, but they are commanding me not to respond back to them and give my opinion. They insist on a one-sided conversation. They don't want to hear any different viewpoints. They're good little dittoheads, aren't they?
At the end of this email the author says that those who don't forward this "have no souls." Really? I don't have a soul but he, a hateful and ignorant shithead, DOES?!?!? It's a deliberate attempt to de-humanize those who don't agree with him. Hmmm..., didn't the Nazis say things like that about the Jews during their rallies, so that their followers wouldn't feel so bad about committing genocide? Their message was, this group of people is worthless, so it's okay to treat them terribly. Zeig Heil!
Just some thoughts from a guy who bothers to think!
How Budweiser handled those who laughed at those who died on the 11th of September, 2001...Thought you might like to know what happened in a little town north of Bakersfield, California.
After you finish reading this, please forward this story on to others so that our nation and people around the world will know about those who laughed when they found out about the tragic events in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon.
On September 11th, a Budweiser employee was making a delivery to a convenience store in a California town named McFarland. He knew of the tragedy that had occurred in New York when he entered the business to find the two Arabs, who owned the business, whooping and hollering to show their approval and support of this treacherous attack.
The Budweiser employee went to his truck, called his boss and told him of the very upsetting event! He didn't feel he could be in that store with those horrible people. His boss asked him, "Do you think you could go in there long enough to pull every Budweiser product and item our beverage company sells there? We'll never deliver to them again." The employee walked in, proceeded to pull every single product his beverage company provided and left with an incredible grin on his face. He told them never to bother to call for a delivery again.
Budweiser happens to be the beer of choice for that community. Just letting you know how Kern County handled this situation.
And Now The Rest Of The Story:
It seems that the Bud driver and the Pepsi man are neighbors. Bud called Pepsi and told him. Pepsi called his boss who told him to pull all Pepsi products as well!!! That would include Frito Lay, etc. Furthermore, word spread and all vendors followed suit! At last report, the store was closed indefinitely. Good old American Passive-Aggressive A$$ Whoopin!
Pass this along, America needs to know that we're all working together!
If you can read this...Thank a teacher... If you are reading it in English....THANK A SOLDIER!!! God Bless America !! If you do not send this you have no soul!!!!
---------------------- my response is below ---------------------------------
As I was reading this, it smelled like horseshit. Why? First, the story had corporations like Budweiser and PepsiCo putting patriotism over profits. I'd never buy that. Second, the story seemed designed to play on racist stereotypes many have of Arab-Americans. Nothing will anger your average Joe Six-pack American (who lacks an understanding of the full context of and the history that preceded the 9/11 attacks) more than a story about Arabs celebrating the tragedy of 9/11.
Those of us who bother to step away from Fox News, CNN and Oxycontin Rush so we can really learn about current events discovered that, apart from some extremist pockets outside of America, most people (including Arabs) in the world felt terrible about the events of 9/11. Countless Americans who were outside of the country reported that people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds expressed their condolences to them. Strangers walked up to them and said things like "We know how you feel," because THEY had been dealing with terrorism for decades, and have known the pain and misery that terrorism brings--and we Americans just got our first big taste of it.
One of Bush's (countless) mistakes was that he missed a real opportunity. There was so much sympathy and good will toward America after the attacks. He could have used that to do something to effectively fight terrorism. He could have built an international anti-terrorist police force (terrorism requires police work, not a military response as the alleged foiled plot in Britain just showed us). He could have at least acknowledged WHY America became a target of terrorists (our brutal, deadly foreign policy over the past 100 years, our ruthless quest to dominate oil and other resources that don't belong to us) and reached out to the rest of the world and say, "We are going to eliminate the roots of terrorism but finally being a good citizen of the world. Instead of using our military, we are going to seek peace. Instead of fighting the rest of the world for oil, we're going to commit to an Apollo-style program to create clean, renewable energy sources by the end of this decade." But no! That fucker just had to invade Iraq. He just had to go for the oil. He had to give no-bid contracts to his buddies like Cheney's Halliburton. He did everything wrong he possibly could have. Five years after 9/11, we could have had a better world with less war and pollution and a great economy. But he chose to plunge us into dirt, debt, darkness and the endless death.
Arab-Americans were just as saddened as any Americans. Why? Because THEY ALSO are Americans! And on top of that, they had to put up with an anti-Arab backlash, in which ignorant, hostile Americans mocked their dress and culture, made death threats, attacked mosques, etc.. Exactly what did they have to celebrate about 9/11 and its aftermath? Duh.
Anyway, I did a Google search and in a matter of seconds found out that it wasn't true. Not even a little bit: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/budweiser.asp. Meanwhile, thousands of people have been mindlessly circulating this, feeding off of anti-Arab sentiment. And in the time it took for people to add recipients to their forward list, they could have spent less than a minute to see if it was true. No one bothered to check, so the ignorance and prejudice continues to fly around the world.
Also, I love how these people end their emails. Whenever I get a forwarded email that expresses a right-wing point of view, the fascist who wrote it either has to order us how to handle the email or demeans those of us who don't agree with their message. You've probably seen the one that says, "If you agree with this, pass it on. If you don't, just delete it." In other words, people like me are being ordered to not respond; to not give our opinions back. They can spew their hatred and ignorance all they want, but they are commanding me not to respond back to them and give my opinion. They insist on a one-sided conversation. They don't want to hear any different viewpoints. They're good little dittoheads, aren't they?
At the end of this email the author says that those who don't forward this "have no souls." Really? I don't have a soul but he, a hateful and ignorant shithead, DOES?!?!? It's a deliberate attempt to de-humanize those who don't agree with him. Hmmm..., didn't the Nazis say things like that about the Jews during their rallies, so that their followers wouldn't feel so bad about committing genocide? Their message was, this group of people is worthless, so it's okay to treat them terribly. Zeig Heil!
Just some thoughts from a guy who bothers to think!
WHERE YOUR TAXES GO - ILLEGAL ALIENS (original email with my response below)
Attributed to the LA Times, June 2002:
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County). (All 10 from the Los Angeles Times) Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.
See... http://www.cis.org/ Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University]. The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
------------------ my response to the sender -----------------------------
I've researched this by reading from a lot of different sources. This email has been forwarded, added to and revised repeatedly, resulting in these alleged "facts" being distorted and taken out of context. From what I can see, the original sources were a hodgepodge of conservative bloggers and the testimony of Heather Mac Donald (a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute for Policy Research) before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims last year. I assume because of the Manhatten Institute's reputation as a right-wing, libertarian think tank, the bloggers decided to erroneously attribute these statistics a more respected and palatable source, the newspaper The L.A. Times. The newspaper went through each statistic, showed any citations from their newspaper (almost none except for quoting Ms. MacDonald) and then tried to verify or refute each "fact."
You can see the results here: http://opinion.latimes.com/immigration/2006/05/according_to_th.html and here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp (where some of the facts from your email are shown to be true--like the number of Spanish-speaking radio & TV stations in certain markets).
I like Chuck Colson's response to the email, especially about how we need to be careful to try to understand this issue using reason and our intellect, and not with our prejudices and emotions. Or, as he puts it, "see that the immigration debate generates light instead of heat."http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2006/06/09/defending_the_strangers_in_our_midst#cooliris
Steve
Attributed to the LA Times, June 2002:
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County). (All 10 from the Los Angeles Times) Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.
See... http://www.cis.org/ Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University]. The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
------------------ my response to the sender -----------------------------
I've researched this by reading from a lot of different sources. This email has been forwarded, added to and revised repeatedly, resulting in these alleged "facts" being distorted and taken out of context. From what I can see, the original sources were a hodgepodge of conservative bloggers and the testimony of Heather Mac Donald (a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute for Policy Research) before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims last year. I assume because of the Manhatten Institute's reputation as a right-wing, libertarian think tank, the bloggers decided to erroneously attribute these statistics a more respected and palatable source, the newspaper The L.A. Times. The newspaper went through each statistic, showed any citations from their newspaper (almost none except for quoting Ms. MacDonald) and then tried to verify or refute each "fact."
You can see the results here: http://opinion.latimes.com/immigration/2006/05/according_to_th.html and here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp (where some of the facts from your email are shown to be true--like the number of Spanish-speaking radio & TV stations in certain markets).
I like Chuck Colson's response to the email, especially about how we need to be careful to try to understand this issue using reason and our intellect, and not with our prejudices and emotions. Or, as he puts it, "see that the immigration debate generates light instead of heat."http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2006/06/09/defending_the_strangers_in_our_midst#cooliris
Steve
The immigration issue is super-complicated and multi-faceted. My email wasn't intended to address all of them, it was simply meant to challenge some American's very simplistic beliefs about the immigration issue. Some Americans have these notions in their heads that "these people" sneak into the country and take, take, take. It's just not true. Like any other group of people, they give and take. There are advantages to having them here and disadvantages. Some Americans benefit more from their presence (businesses and people who can hire them cheaply) and some Americans are hurt by their presence (low-educated, low-skilled workers who would compete for SOME of those jobs). The reality is that immigration is a mixed bag of results.
Some of American's concerns are possibly based in reality:
--fear of influx of cheap immigrant labor driving down wages, benefits and working conditions for everyone, including Americans
--use of public services by the immigrants and their families
--some of the immigrants also being dangerous criminals or terrorists
But, let's face it, some of the opposition is NOT based in reality, but on American's fears and ignorance (such as xenophobia and yes, even outright racism).
But all that my email was trying to say basically this: when the Europeons (our ancestors) illegally (or at least immorally) immigrated here, they were fucking pigs. They did everything wrong and immoral they possibly could--and it was the native population that suffered. And for the past 500 years, the future generations (including ours) of those immigrants haven't done squat to make amends. We haven't done squat to make amends to those who our nation enslaved and discriminated against either.
What I'm saying is: now that there's a group (Mexicans and other immigrants) that are also coming to these lands (but causing a lot less harm than our ancestors did), I don't believe we have a leg to stand on. What moral authority do we have to say, "Hey, you're here illegally," or "Hey, a small percentage of you are collecting food stamps--you're ripping us off!"? None, in my opinion. If we hadn't TOTALLY screwed over the people who were here originally, then maybe we'd have a right to complain--in my opinion, we don't. The cat's out of the bag. We can't come into this country like a pig rolling over the natives like steamroller and then throw up fences (both literally and figuratively) once we're here. How hypocritical is that?
And then when you add the Mexican-American War into the mix, it's gets even more complicated. Only 150 years ago, the states that are now complaining about the most "illegal" immigrants (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Utah--Texas was stolen previously) belonged to Mexico!!! President Polk made it publicly known that he wanted those territories. He sent a negotiator there to "buy" the lands. When the Mexican government refused, the United States government stole all of that property through an "illegal" war!
So if you know your history, it seems absurd for we descendents of European countries to claim these lands as ours! If you're upset with some "illegals" sliding under a fence to get into a land that rightfully belonged to their descendants, then you should really have a much bigger problem with all of the illegal things our country did to obtain these lands. It would be like us taking over half of Iraq, killing the natives, sending a bunch of white Americans to live there, created immigration laws, threw up fences and border patrols, then getting pissed when some of the Iraqis snuck into "our" land. Absurd!
On the language issue, maybe Americans are offended that the immigrants speak Spanish and not English. --First, as was true during past waves of immigration into America, the first generation immigrants don't assimilate very well, but their children do. And by the time their grandchildren go to school, they are more American in their language, dress, etc. than they are Mexican. I work in a school that has a large Hispanic population. The kids are VERY Americanized and speak Engish as well as the white kids. --Second, I don't recall our immigrant ancestors "learning the language." Let's see, we were raised in Illinois, so we should have learned the Algic language (http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html), which is what the BlackHawk tribe was speaking when they were in Illinois. If our ancestors didn't bother to learn the languages that exists here when they came to America, isn't it hypocritical to impose that demand on the new immigrants?
And according to what I've read, most of the Mexicans are descendants of the pre-Columbus inhabitants--so they WERE here before us, so my comparison isn't as far off-base as you think:
http://people.colgate.edu/emulhare/CORE171/syllabus.html
http://www.a2zlanguages.com/Mexico/country_guide/mex_culture.htm
However, you were right about how Mexico handles illegal (and even legal) immigrants. I wasn't aware of this. Pretty frightening: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=06-D_18 So, yes, it's also hypocritical for Mexicans to have the knee-jerk reaction calling Americans who oppose them as automatically racsists and xenophobes. The Mexican people are also to blame for not dealing with their corrupt governments. The nasty PRI party held sole power for 70 years (until 2000) and really fucked things up. So the Mexicans are also to blame because they couldn't get their political and economic shit together, so their citizens want to look for a better life. And the U.S. happens to be right next to them.
As far as the legal vs. illegal issue. I don't know as much about that. I'm assuming that it's just about impossible for a Mexican to both come here legally and be able to stay legally past their visa expiration date, not to mention the difficulty to obtain citizenship. And don't forget, what's driving the immigration is the ILLEGAL hiring by American employers. It's like drugs: going after the growers and transporters of the drugs is backasswards--you have to get at the root cause: the demand. American employers are creating the demand, the immigrants are providing the supply.
In a courtroom, a judge will not let a case go forward until the defendant can establish that he or she has been harmed somehow by the plantiff. If that standard were used with illegal immigration, would Americans who are against it have a case? Maybe or maybe not.
This guy argues that immigrants leave an economic surplus from their activities. He basically argues that illegal immigrants come here to work, generally are too young to need a lot of services like healthcare, so they don't cost American taxpayers much in services but contribute by paying taxes and into the Social Security fund:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Immigration/CHAPTER5.txt
On the other hand, this guy argues that immigrants leave an economic deficit from their activities. While Mexicans do come here to work (and not to use U.S. social services), because of their low education and therefore low wages, they only pay about 28% of the taxes that an average American does, but that they use 46% of the tax-funded services that an average American uses:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalconclusion.html
So who really knows? I just want people to see the whole picture, not just a bumper sticker mentality. On a South Park episode, some humans from the future used a time machine to come to the present day. And these "aliens" worked cheap, resulting in a lowering of wages, layoffs, etc. for the townspeople. Part of what was so funny was the local yokels only had one response: "They took our jobs!" It was funny because it was clear that a more complex analysis of the situation was warranted, but the townspeople were either too stupid or mentally lazy to really understand the bigger, more complex picture. It's just easier to get mad, comically stomp around and yell, "They took our jobs!" I'm sorry, but when it comes to understanding the complexities of this issue, I think most Americans fit that model, too. So when someone sends me a simple-minded, one-sided email, I can't help it--I have to respond. It drives me crazy to think that most Americans go into the voting booth about 90% ignorant on every issue, and then make stupid decisions--like voting for Republicans. Yes, Republicans are generally TWICE as ignorant about major issues are as Democrats: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20rpt.pdf Scroll down to page 5 and look at the responses. It's very scary but kind of entertaining.
Anyway, thanks for challenging me. You forced me to take a more detailed look myself into this issue.
And again, sorry for the long email, but this is main hobby.
Some of American's concerns are possibly based in reality:
--fear of influx of cheap immigrant labor driving down wages, benefits and working conditions for everyone, including Americans
--use of public services by the immigrants and their families
--some of the immigrants also being dangerous criminals or terrorists
But, let's face it, some of the opposition is NOT based in reality, but on American's fears and ignorance (such as xenophobia and yes, even outright racism).
But all that my email was trying to say basically this: when the Europeons (our ancestors) illegally (or at least immorally) immigrated here, they were fucking pigs. They did everything wrong and immoral they possibly could--and it was the native population that suffered. And for the past 500 years, the future generations (including ours) of those immigrants haven't done squat to make amends. We haven't done squat to make amends to those who our nation enslaved and discriminated against either.
What I'm saying is: now that there's a group (Mexicans and other immigrants) that are also coming to these lands (but causing a lot less harm than our ancestors did), I don't believe we have a leg to stand on. What moral authority do we have to say, "Hey, you're here illegally," or "Hey, a small percentage of you are collecting food stamps--you're ripping us off!"? None, in my opinion. If we hadn't TOTALLY screwed over the people who were here originally, then maybe we'd have a right to complain--in my opinion, we don't. The cat's out of the bag. We can't come into this country like a pig rolling over the natives like steamroller and then throw up fences (both literally and figuratively) once we're here. How hypocritical is that?
And then when you add the Mexican-American War into the mix, it's gets even more complicated. Only 150 years ago, the states that are now complaining about the most "illegal" immigrants (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Utah--Texas was stolen previously) belonged to Mexico!!! President Polk made it publicly known that he wanted those territories. He sent a negotiator there to "buy" the lands. When the Mexican government refused, the United States government stole all of that property through an "illegal" war!
So if you know your history, it seems absurd for we descendents of European countries to claim these lands as ours! If you're upset with some "illegals" sliding under a fence to get into a land that rightfully belonged to their descendants, then you should really have a much bigger problem with all of the illegal things our country did to obtain these lands. It would be like us taking over half of Iraq, killing the natives, sending a bunch of white Americans to live there, created immigration laws, threw up fences and border patrols, then getting pissed when some of the Iraqis snuck into "our" land. Absurd!
On the language issue, maybe Americans are offended that the immigrants speak Spanish and not English. --First, as was true during past waves of immigration into America, the first generation immigrants don't assimilate very well, but their children do. And by the time their grandchildren go to school, they are more American in their language, dress, etc. than they are Mexican. I work in a school that has a large Hispanic population. The kids are VERY Americanized and speak Engish as well as the white kids. --Second, I don't recall our immigrant ancestors "learning the language." Let's see, we were raised in Illinois, so we should have learned the Algic language (http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html), which is what the BlackHawk tribe was speaking when they were in Illinois. If our ancestors didn't bother to learn the languages that exists here when they came to America, isn't it hypocritical to impose that demand on the new immigrants?
And according to what I've read, most of the Mexicans are descendants of the pre-Columbus inhabitants--so they WERE here before us, so my comparison isn't as far off-base as you think:
http://people.colgate.edu/emulhare/CORE171/syllabus.html
http://www.a2zlanguages.com/Mexico/country_guide/mex_culture.htm
However, you were right about how Mexico handles illegal (and even legal) immigrants. I wasn't aware of this. Pretty frightening: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=06-D_18 So, yes, it's also hypocritical for Mexicans to have the knee-jerk reaction calling Americans who oppose them as automatically racsists and xenophobes. The Mexican people are also to blame for not dealing with their corrupt governments. The nasty PRI party held sole power for 70 years (until 2000) and really fucked things up. So the Mexicans are also to blame because they couldn't get their political and economic shit together, so their citizens want to look for a better life. And the U.S. happens to be right next to them.
As far as the legal vs. illegal issue. I don't know as much about that. I'm assuming that it's just about impossible for a Mexican to both come here legally and be able to stay legally past their visa expiration date, not to mention the difficulty to obtain citizenship. And don't forget, what's driving the immigration is the ILLEGAL hiring by American employers. It's like drugs: going after the growers and transporters of the drugs is backasswards--you have to get at the root cause: the demand. American employers are creating the demand, the immigrants are providing the supply.
In a courtroom, a judge will not let a case go forward until the defendant can establish that he or she has been harmed somehow by the plantiff. If that standard were used with illegal immigration, would Americans who are against it have a case? Maybe or maybe not.
This guy argues that immigrants leave an economic surplus from their activities. He basically argues that illegal immigrants come here to work, generally are too young to need a lot of services like healthcare, so they don't cost American taxpayers much in services but contribute by paying taxes and into the Social Security fund:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Immigration/CHAPTER5.txt
On the other hand, this guy argues that immigrants leave an economic deficit from their activities. While Mexicans do come here to work (and not to use U.S. social services), because of their low education and therefore low wages, they only pay about 28% of the taxes that an average American does, but that they use 46% of the tax-funded services that an average American uses:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalconclusion.html
So who really knows? I just want people to see the whole picture, not just a bumper sticker mentality. On a South Park episode, some humans from the future used a time machine to come to the present day. And these "aliens" worked cheap, resulting in a lowering of wages, layoffs, etc. for the townspeople. Part of what was so funny was the local yokels only had one response: "They took our jobs!" It was funny because it was clear that a more complex analysis of the situation was warranted, but the townspeople were either too stupid or mentally lazy to really understand the bigger, more complex picture. It's just easier to get mad, comically stomp around and yell, "They took our jobs!" I'm sorry, but when it comes to understanding the complexities of this issue, I think most Americans fit that model, too. So when someone sends me a simple-minded, one-sided email, I can't help it--I have to respond. It drives me crazy to think that most Americans go into the voting booth about 90% ignorant on every issue, and then make stupid decisions--like voting for Republicans. Yes, Republicans are generally TWICE as ignorant about major issues are as Democrats: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20rpt.pdf Scroll down to page 5 and look at the responses. It's very scary but kind of entertaining.
Anyway, thanks for challenging me. You forced me to take a more detailed look myself into this issue.
And again, sorry for the long email, but this is main hobby.
Those darned immigrants... er, which ones?
I received the below email last night. It's been circulating around the Net now that the immigration debate is heating up. I composed a similar response and emailed it back to the sender. He's probably not too happy with me right now. The original email is immediately below and my response is below that:
------------------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------------
Dear Mr. President:
I'm about to plan a little trip with my family and extended family, and I would like to ask for your assistance. I'm going to walk across the border from the U.S.into Mexico and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this.I plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All government forms need to be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of the flag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower down.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make any effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes and don?t enforce any labor laws or tax laws.
13. Please tell all the people in the country to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on the economy.I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico . I am sure that Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.Your assistance in this matter would be most appreciated!
Sincerely,
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
~Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
-------------------------- My response to the above: ----------------------------------
That's weird. That letter is a more recent version of one that's been around for over 500 years.
Here's the original:
Dear Native Americans:
We're about to plan a little trip with tens of millions of our families, and we would like to ask for your compliance. We're going to sail across the ocean into what we will later call North America, South America and Latin America.
We plan to skip all the humane stuff that you're all used to, like sharing and caring for your fellow man.
So, we're just letting you know that we're on our way over! Over the next 500 years or so, please expect the following:
1. We will kill millions of you for absolutely no reason except that we want what you have.
2. We will create giant armies whose sole purpose is to hunt you down and destroy entire tribes of your people.
3. Those of you who we can't enslave will be killed.
4. We will routinely rape your women and children.
5. We will desecrate the graves of your dead.
6. We will show absolutely no respect for your lifestyle or customs.
7. We will deliberately destroy the buffalo and other game that your people depend on to survive. We will also destroy many of your crops and food sources. And, what the hell, many of your homes, too.
8. Once we see how easily you succumb to alcoholism, you will take full advantage of that weakness of yours. We will distribute our liquor or "firewater" to you--for a price, of course.
9. We will violate almost every agreement and treaty we make with you.
10. We will constantly lie to and take advantage of you.
11. We impose our beliefs about our messiah and our God, but will treat you as if we were immoral and godless.
12. We will expect you to embrace our God and discard yours. Your worship will be censored and your rituals will be outlawed and deemed offensive to decent society.
13. We will call you savages, but we will demonstrate savagery toward you that will be beyond your people's comprehension.
14. We will destroy your culture. We will take your children away from you and send them to our schools so that they will become "civilized."
15. We will teach your children and ours something we'll call "American History." Of course, your people will be portrayed as inferiors and villains while we will be shown as superior and justified in all of our injustices toward you.
16. We will use treachery, such as giving you blankets infected with smallpox under the guise that the blankets are gifts of our kindness and generosity.
17. We will willfully withhold our medical supplies from you when your people contract our contagious diseases.
18. We will distribute tainted meat and rotting food to your people.
19. We will conduct forced round-ups and marches in conditions in which most of your people will not be equipped to survive and will not be expected to survive. Then we will deliberately murder anyone who cannot march and also murder those who are too slow, too sick, too old, etc..
20. We will round up what's left of your population into "reservations." These lands will be harsh and barren and will result in even more starvation of your people. More promises will be made to you, but never kept. You'll be totally neglected. There you will be denied your previous lifestyle, culture, economy and worst of all, any shred of dignity. Your people will suffer in abject poverty and squalor.
21. In only a few hundred years, we will horribly pollute the land, water and air that you so respectfully preserved for 10,000 years.
22. Then when other groups of people try to come into your lands (just like we're about to), we'll become indignant. We will conveniently forget how we came into possession of your land. We'll call these new people invaders and blame them for somehow diminishing our lifestyle, although there will be no evidence of that. This will be puzzling because they'll work for a few dollars an hour and do dirty jobs that we don't want to do. But that won't stop us from calling right-wing talk shows, and whining and complaining like little pansies. Other races who have been victimized by us will then shake their heads at us while we try to claim that we're somehow a victim in all of this horseshit we've perpetrated.
How does that sound? Look forward to meeting, exploiting and killing y'all!
Sincerely,
Europeans (your future masters and destroyers)
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. (Republican)
I received the below email last night. It's been circulating around the Net now that the immigration debate is heating up. I composed a similar response and emailed it back to the sender. He's probably not too happy with me right now. The original email is immediately below and my response is below that:
------------------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------------
Dear Mr. President:
I'm about to plan a little trip with my family and extended family, and I would like to ask for your assistance. I'm going to walk across the border from the U.S.into Mexico and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this.I plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All government forms need to be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of the flag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower down.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make any effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes and don?t enforce any labor laws or tax laws.
13. Please tell all the people in the country to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on the economy.I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico . I am sure that Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.Your assistance in this matter would be most appreciated!
Sincerely,
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
~Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
-------------------------- My response to the above: ----------------------------------
That's weird. That letter is a more recent version of one that's been around for over 500 years.
Here's the original:
Dear Native Americans:
We're about to plan a little trip with tens of millions of our families, and we would like to ask for your compliance. We're going to sail across the ocean into what we will later call North America, South America and Latin America.
We plan to skip all the humane stuff that you're all used to, like sharing and caring for your fellow man.
So, we're just letting you know that we're on our way over! Over the next 500 years or so, please expect the following:
1. We will kill millions of you for absolutely no reason except that we want what you have.
2. We will create giant armies whose sole purpose is to hunt you down and destroy entire tribes of your people.
3. Those of you who we can't enslave will be killed.
4. We will routinely rape your women and children.
5. We will desecrate the graves of your dead.
6. We will show absolutely no respect for your lifestyle or customs.
7. We will deliberately destroy the buffalo and other game that your people depend on to survive. We will also destroy many of your crops and food sources. And, what the hell, many of your homes, too.
8. Once we see how easily you succumb to alcoholism, you will take full advantage of that weakness of yours. We will distribute our liquor or "firewater" to you--for a price, of course.
9. We will violate almost every agreement and treaty we make with you.
10. We will constantly lie to and take advantage of you.
11. We impose our beliefs about our messiah and our God, but will treat you as if we were immoral and godless.
12. We will expect you to embrace our God and discard yours. Your worship will be censored and your rituals will be outlawed and deemed offensive to decent society.
13. We will call you savages, but we will demonstrate savagery toward you that will be beyond your people's comprehension.
14. We will destroy your culture. We will take your children away from you and send them to our schools so that they will become "civilized."
15. We will teach your children and ours something we'll call "American History." Of course, your people will be portrayed as inferiors and villains while we will be shown as superior and justified in all of our injustices toward you.
16. We will use treachery, such as giving you blankets infected with smallpox under the guise that the blankets are gifts of our kindness and generosity.
17. We will willfully withhold our medical supplies from you when your people contract our contagious diseases.
18. We will distribute tainted meat and rotting food to your people.
19. We will conduct forced round-ups and marches in conditions in which most of your people will not be equipped to survive and will not be expected to survive. Then we will deliberately murder anyone who cannot march and also murder those who are too slow, too sick, too old, etc..
20. We will round up what's left of your population into "reservations." These lands will be harsh and barren and will result in even more starvation of your people. More promises will be made to you, but never kept. You'll be totally neglected. There you will be denied your previous lifestyle, culture, economy and worst of all, any shred of dignity. Your people will suffer in abject poverty and squalor.
21. In only a few hundred years, we will horribly pollute the land, water and air that you so respectfully preserved for 10,000 years.
22. Then when other groups of people try to come into your lands (just like we're about to), we'll become indignant. We will conveniently forget how we came into possession of your land. We'll call these new people invaders and blame them for somehow diminishing our lifestyle, although there will be no evidence of that. This will be puzzling because they'll work for a few dollars an hour and do dirty jobs that we don't want to do. But that won't stop us from calling right-wing talk shows, and whining and complaining like little pansies. Other races who have been victimized by us will then shake their heads at us while we try to claim that we're somehow a victim in all of this horseshit we've perpetrated.
How does that sound? Look forward to meeting, exploiting and killing y'all!
Sincerely,
Europeans (your future masters and destroyers)
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. (Republican)
High School Teacher "Muzzled" And Suspended For Saying 911 Was An Inside Job
Thomas Mustric made a casual comment in the lunchroom to a fellow teacher who then "ratted" on him, leading to his suspension
18 May 2006
By Greg Szymanski
The screws are being tightened down hard on free thought, free will and free speech in today's fascist America even substitute high school teachers are being treated like common thought criminals.
It's bad enough teachers are paid slave wages, but now it appears the "slaves" of America's floundering public education system are even being told by their "masters" what to say, do and think.
And Thomas Mustric, a substitute teacher in the Columbus, Ohio, public school system found out the hard way that saying 911 was a government inside job on school grounds is absolutely prohibited in the Bush crime family's version of modern day America.
Mustric was put on administrative leave last week after the 911 comment made in a high school lunch room landed him in hot water with school "Gestapo" authorities.
The incident blew up into a suspension of Mustric's livelihood after his casual comments made to another teacher in a lunchroom were passed on to the administration by the teacher who decided to rat on Mustric, considering his views a threat to the student body.
A school board hearing on Mustric's statements scheduled for Monday but a finding which could lead to his firing was delayed pending further investigation. The story broke on a Columbus NBC local television affiliate, but the story was not posted on the station's web site.
In an interview with school officials, an official statement on the matter was released, saying in part:
"He had told her (the teacher in the lunchroom) that 911 was planned and orchestrated by the U.S. government. If these ideas are delusions, I believe Mr. Mustric should not be allowed to teach in schools where students would gullibly believe his statements."
Mustric was unavailable for comment after repeated calls by the Arctic Beacon went unanswered, but Mustric released an email statement to cross-country traveling activist, Amy Sasser, saying:
"Thank you for your kind support in the context of free speach. There is no way that a private conversation where the questioner did not like the answers to her questions is anyway like someone screaming "fire" in a theater.
"I expect that the Columbus Board of Education's pre-hearing decision will find that all of her allegations that caused me to lose seven days of work were unfounded. I am shocked to my very foundation---for a social studies teacher not to show up at the hearing, nor have I been given a copy of her complaint prior to hearing or to this writing---something is very wrong, where the slow release of discovery (the Complaint) is released so slowly as not to be available in a copy for me to read prior to hearing, during hearing, or after hearing---although it was promised, but when?"
Sasser, who travels the country trying to rally America before it's too late, told the Arctic Beacon this is just another clear sign of the lock down on free speech in America, while adding her encouragement and support to Mustric:
"We know 911 was an inside job, keep the faith, Mr Mustric. You are another hero in our eyes! Bravo."
The story also caused a flurry of comments on the internet both pro and con. Here is a sampling:
"If he had told his views to the kids, then I could see the whacky wheels of the gestapo rolling into motion. But he merely mentioned his views to another teacher in private?
I hope this guy sues for 3 million and wins."
"Wow, two different school incidents in two days with student and faculty in trouble for not bowing down to the official kook story. Crikey!"
"Another censorship by mass media. Amazon and B&N recently censored the book "America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III for 9/11 views as well as mentioning Operation Northwoods, USS Liberty and the Lavon Affair. Here's the only link left for the banned book selling underground :http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0"
"Wow�what a precedent! And to think that we are preparing an info-blitz targeted at teachers, educators and guardians here on the Front Range�hmmm. We'll have to see what reaction we get out here in the Rocky Mtn region in the fall."
"Congratulation America!You have finally qualified as a fascist dictatorship. Misery Accomplished!"
"Freedom of Speech destroyed�check. how many more to go before people wake up and start fighting back?"
"I very highly doubt that his opinion was expressed during a casual, rational conversation. Although it certainly sounds as though this teacher's rights were violated, this is not necessarily a topic I'd openly discuss with coworkers. In fact, I think it is sensible not to discuss your political beliefs and opinions at the workplace. People have prejudices and the wise learn to exercise caution in professional situations.
"If a teacher spouted on about crop circles, or that the Holocaust never happened, would that be acceptable. Remember that 911 "truth movement" stuff is an offensive hoax against most people. It is an insult and unacceptable for people who teach children. However, the question of whether it is a private and never mentioned secret of his private life is an issue.If I were to believe in crop circles or 911 denial and I kept it to myself and never mentioned it to the kids, would that constitute a grounds for suspension or dismissal. Tough question."
---------- my email to the Columbus Public Schools: Factline@columbus.k12.oh.us --------------Dear Sir or Ma'am:
I was disturbed to hear of the disciplinary action taken against Mr. Mustric as a result of a comment he made in a school lunchroom. Is it REALLY because he made a statement with political undertones? He allegedly questioned the official story about who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. I wonder if he would have suffered any disciplinary action if instead he had made any of the following lunchroom comments: "President Bush is sure doing a heck of a job! Hey, is that a Brownie?""We all need to support the troops.""We really do need to be in Iraq." "We're bringing democracy to Iraq.""I think Democrats are wrong about everything.""I'm proud to live in the most corrupt state in the Union.""I'm glad Kenneth Blackwell subverted democracy in the last election."
See my point? If you censor political speech, where do you draw the lines? Are you censoring ALL political speech, or just dissent? Is speech supporting a current administration (no matter how corrupt and evil it is) acceptable while speech which challenges current policy is NOT acceptable? Looking at a bell curve of political thought, are centrist, popular views okay but those on the fringes not okay? Again, where do you draw the lines?
If I was Mr. Mustric's supervisor, I would have reacted very differently. I would have asked him if he were willing to give a presentation AFTER SCHOOL (not in front of the students) in which he would present his beliefs. I would then invite parents and other concerned members of the community to attend. I would have a Q&A session following his presentation. I would videotape the event and sell copies at a nominal cost. I would invite rebuttals to the presentation to get all sides of the debate.
I know this is a strange concept, but I believe that education should be the uninhibited search for truth and meaning. Think about how the students' critical thinking skills and citizenship skills could have been enhanced as a result of an open debate on this matter. This is truly an opportunity missed. Shutting down alternative viewpoints diminishes us all. And the fact that this type of censorship occurred in an educational institution demonstrates the current state of the concept of freedom of speech. And the fact that disciplinary action has occurred because of a private conversation between two adults (and not while speaking at the head of a classroom of students) is particularly chilling.
Once again, the nation is shaking its collective head at our most pathetic State.
Sincerely, Steve
Thomas Mustric made a casual comment in the lunchroom to a fellow teacher who then "ratted" on him, leading to his suspension
18 May 2006
By Greg Szymanski
The screws are being tightened down hard on free thought, free will and free speech in today's fascist America even substitute high school teachers are being treated like common thought criminals.
It's bad enough teachers are paid slave wages, but now it appears the "slaves" of America's floundering public education system are even being told by their "masters" what to say, do and think.
And Thomas Mustric, a substitute teacher in the Columbus, Ohio, public school system found out the hard way that saying 911 was a government inside job on school grounds is absolutely prohibited in the Bush crime family's version of modern day America.
Mustric was put on administrative leave last week after the 911 comment made in a high school lunch room landed him in hot water with school "Gestapo" authorities.
The incident blew up into a suspension of Mustric's livelihood after his casual comments made to another teacher in a lunchroom were passed on to the administration by the teacher who decided to rat on Mustric, considering his views a threat to the student body.
A school board hearing on Mustric's statements scheduled for Monday but a finding which could lead to his firing was delayed pending further investigation. The story broke on a Columbus NBC local television affiliate, but the story was not posted on the station's web site.
In an interview with school officials, an official statement on the matter was released, saying in part:
"He had told her (the teacher in the lunchroom) that 911 was planned and orchestrated by the U.S. government. If these ideas are delusions, I believe Mr. Mustric should not be allowed to teach in schools where students would gullibly believe his statements."
Mustric was unavailable for comment after repeated calls by the Arctic Beacon went unanswered, but Mustric released an email statement to cross-country traveling activist, Amy Sasser, saying:
"Thank you for your kind support in the context of free speach. There is no way that a private conversation where the questioner did not like the answers to her questions is anyway like someone screaming "fire" in a theater.
"I expect that the Columbus Board of Education's pre-hearing decision will find that all of her allegations that caused me to lose seven days of work were unfounded. I am shocked to my very foundation---for a social studies teacher not to show up at the hearing, nor have I been given a copy of her complaint prior to hearing or to this writing---something is very wrong, where the slow release of discovery (the Complaint) is released so slowly as not to be available in a copy for me to read prior to hearing, during hearing, or after hearing---although it was promised, but when?"
Sasser, who travels the country trying to rally America before it's too late, told the Arctic Beacon this is just another clear sign of the lock down on free speech in America, while adding her encouragement and support to Mustric:
"We know 911 was an inside job, keep the faith, Mr Mustric. You are another hero in our eyes! Bravo."
The story also caused a flurry of comments on the internet both pro and con. Here is a sampling:
"If he had told his views to the kids, then I could see the whacky wheels of the gestapo rolling into motion. But he merely mentioned his views to another teacher in private?
I hope this guy sues for 3 million and wins."
"Wow, two different school incidents in two days with student and faculty in trouble for not bowing down to the official kook story. Crikey!"
"Another censorship by mass media. Amazon and B&N recently censored the book "America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III for 9/11 views as well as mentioning Operation Northwoods, USS Liberty and the Lavon Affair. Here's the only link left for the banned book selling underground :http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0"
"Wow�what a precedent! And to think that we are preparing an info-blitz targeted at teachers, educators and guardians here on the Front Range�hmmm. We'll have to see what reaction we get out here in the Rocky Mtn region in the fall."
"Congratulation America!You have finally qualified as a fascist dictatorship. Misery Accomplished!"
"Freedom of Speech destroyed�check. how many more to go before people wake up and start fighting back?"
"I very highly doubt that his opinion was expressed during a casual, rational conversation. Although it certainly sounds as though this teacher's rights were violated, this is not necessarily a topic I'd openly discuss with coworkers. In fact, I think it is sensible not to discuss your political beliefs and opinions at the workplace. People have prejudices and the wise learn to exercise caution in professional situations.
"If a teacher spouted on about crop circles, or that the Holocaust never happened, would that be acceptable. Remember that 911 "truth movement" stuff is an offensive hoax against most people. It is an insult and unacceptable for people who teach children. However, the question of whether it is a private and never mentioned secret of his private life is an issue.If I were to believe in crop circles or 911 denial and I kept it to myself and never mentioned it to the kids, would that constitute a grounds for suspension or dismissal. Tough question."
---------- my email to the Columbus Public Schools: Factline@columbus.k12.oh.us --------------Dear Sir or Ma'am:
I was disturbed to hear of the disciplinary action taken against Mr. Mustric as a result of a comment he made in a school lunchroom. Is it REALLY because he made a statement with political undertones? He allegedly questioned the official story about who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. I wonder if he would have suffered any disciplinary action if instead he had made any of the following lunchroom comments: "President Bush is sure doing a heck of a job! Hey, is that a Brownie?""We all need to support the troops.""We really do need to be in Iraq." "We're bringing democracy to Iraq.""I think Democrats are wrong about everything.""I'm proud to live in the most corrupt state in the Union.""I'm glad Kenneth Blackwell subverted democracy in the last election."
See my point? If you censor political speech, where do you draw the lines? Are you censoring ALL political speech, or just dissent? Is speech supporting a current administration (no matter how corrupt and evil it is) acceptable while speech which challenges current policy is NOT acceptable? Looking at a bell curve of political thought, are centrist, popular views okay but those on the fringes not okay? Again, where do you draw the lines?
If I was Mr. Mustric's supervisor, I would have reacted very differently. I would have asked him if he were willing to give a presentation AFTER SCHOOL (not in front of the students) in which he would present his beliefs. I would then invite parents and other concerned members of the community to attend. I would have a Q&A session following his presentation. I would videotape the event and sell copies at a nominal cost. I would invite rebuttals to the presentation to get all sides of the debate.
I know this is a strange concept, but I believe that education should be the uninhibited search for truth and meaning. Think about how the students' critical thinking skills and citizenship skills could have been enhanced as a result of an open debate on this matter. This is truly an opportunity missed. Shutting down alternative viewpoints diminishes us all. And the fact that this type of censorship occurred in an educational institution demonstrates the current state of the concept of freedom of speech. And the fact that disciplinary action has occurred because of a private conversation between two adults (and not while speaking at the head of a classroom of students) is particularly chilling.
Once again, the nation is shaking its collective head at our most pathetic State.
Sincerely, Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)