Leave Steve Peeved

2011-02-07T14:07:00.006-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He opposed making Martin Luther King Day a national holiday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The use of astrology to help make critical policy decisions.

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

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

2010-06-14T07:27:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

I thought this was a joke when I received it.

I read it. I voted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-02-26T17:29:00.014-06:00

Those sad conservatives

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

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

Obama Finds the Bush Center

Hypocrite, statesman, or both?

By Jonah Goldberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, Bush was a real compassionate soul.

Want to try again, Goldberg?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-03-05T22:50:00.000-06:00

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

This woman wrote to Senator Obama about immigrants from Mexico:

Subject: My reply to Senator Obama on Immigration

Senator Obama,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

all the Polish organizations.

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

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

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

speak Polish in their homes and among themselves.

Now I want equal rights for the Polish people.

Elaine K.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--they don't sneak into this country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-01-08T00:31:00.000-06:00

Boycotting Target stores for (allegedly) not supporting veterans?

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

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

Look who owns Target!

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Dick Forrey
Veterans Helping Veterans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because?

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

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

Absolutely not.

So what does the opening price point mean?

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

Why?

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

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

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

And maybe it's not.

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

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

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

2007-01-08T00:08:00.000-06:00

A challenge to Republicans: Can you answer these questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-01-07T23:49:00.000-06:00

Pass this on instead of another "chain email"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-01-07T23:35:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006-10-26T22:55:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-10-19T10:28:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-10-10T14:48:00.000-05:00

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 --------------------

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?

2006-10-04T03:10:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-10-04T03:03:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-10-04T03:01:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-10-04T02:52:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-04T02:50:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-10-04T02:40:00.000-05:00

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)

2006-10-04T02:37:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-04T02:31:00.000-05:00

Original article published in "The American Thinker"

Rush Limbaugh and Liberalism’s Fatal FlawMay 15th, 2006
One of the Left’s great agonies and frustrations of the past fifteen years has been its abortive quest to field a counterpart to Rush Limbaugh. Fully cognizant of the massive damage inflicted on it by talk radio, a number of contenders placed bids to mount a counterattack. To their bitter dismay, they all came to grief despite the great hype and hope that surrounded each successive attempt.

A decade and a half worth of feverish effort thus produced no headway, not even a single nationally viable liberal host. With nothing to show for, the time has surely come to ask the obvious question: Why?

Why have liberals failed to make any inroads in talk radio? And why has their failure been so complete?

It surely cannot be due to a lack of trying or will, since they have done everything they could to prop up their hopefuls, even to the point of raising donations in this consummately commercial medium. All to no avail.

But rather than to reevaluate their obviously failing approach, they stubbornly carry on in the same way with predicable results. Again and again they run headlong into the same wall, each crash more pathetic and embarrassing than the one before. So bad things have gotten that most recently they placed their bets on Al Sharpton, hoping that the kooky reverend would carry their water on national airways. A futile dream if there ever were one. Rather than pursuing vain hopes, liberals would do much better to take a pause and search for the root cause of their fiasco.

Any such effort would have to begin with a hard look at the format in which they are trying to succeed.

In the type of political talk show invented by Rush Limbaugh, the host openly takes an ideological stance (conservative or liberal) and then applies it to the issues of the day during his hours on the air. What this in effect amounts to is in-depth analysis of current affairs from a specific political point of view.

The key to success in this kind of enterprise is the host’s ability to articulate his positions in a logical and cogent manner. This is because most people will not listen for very long to an analysis-driven program if the analysis itself does not make rational sense.

And this is precisely where the crux of liberals’ problem lies. They are simply not able to explain and defend their views in rational fashion. This is not at all surprising, for how does one justify high taxes, gay marriage, abortion, multiculturalism and such? They are all based on false premises and they all produce disastrous outcomes. Anything more than a superficial examination must reveals them for the frauds and failures that they in truth are. This is why liberalism cannot withstand the analytical vigor of talk radio and why it has failed so abysmally in it.

Talk radio has thus exposed in a striking way a fatal flaw at the very heart of liberalism – its indefensibility by rational argument. Without having yet grasped it, it is the medium’s format that became liberals’ stumbling block.

However abysmal their current predicament may be, the future holds bleaker prospects still. Most liberals do not yet realize that they will never be able to succeed in talk radio. To make it there – at least in the form in which it is currently practiced – requires that hosts do something which liberals simply can’t: logically and rationally expound their views. To make matters even more desperate there is nothing they can do about it short of abandoning their untenable ideology. In popular parlance, they are cooked… completely and utterly cooked.

Things used to be infinitely more palatable (for liberals) when the television talk show was the main forum for the mass dissemination of political opinion. Its relatively short broadcast time – rarely more than fifty minutes – is usually intensely contested by several guests. As a result of severe time constraints, the discussants rarely speak for more than a couple of minutes at a time. This, of course, makes any serious analysis all but impossible. This problem is made all the more acute by the fact that the guests’ statements are routinely intended to rebuff points made by their opponents which themselves are often quite irrelevant to the topic under consideration.
This format is just fine with liberals who – knowing instinctively that their positions cannot withstand thorough scrutiny – are always happy to avoid in-depth discussion of anything. Conservatives, on the other hand, are badly disadvantaged in this kind of environment.

Conservatism requires methodical exposition, quite unlike liberalism which can only survive in the realm of disjointed statements and unsupported assertions. The television talk show is thus liberalism’s perfect vehicle. Often nothing more than a scattered clash of personalities, it is normally dominated by those with the biggest mouth. And since liberals have almost a complete grip on television, they make sure that the biggest mouths on their programs come from their own camp.

But things changed dramatically with the advent of Rush Limbaugh, when the program format he made commonplace became the first ever forum in the mass-media that allowed for the systematic analysis of issues. Nowhere indeed are things discussed more deeply and thoroughly than in talk radio where not infrequently the whole show revolves around two or three subjects. The level of analysis is further deepened by the input from callers who enrich the discussion with their unique input and perspective.

And then, of course, there are those who disagree and openly challenge the host’s positions. To retain his audience’s trust he must be able to deal with their objections in an honest and fair manner. Woe be to the host who keeps dismissing those who oppose him without properly addressing the points they raise. Sooner or later he will be abandoned by all except the most narrow-minded in his audience. No one understands this better than Rush Limbaugh who accords those who contradict him the time and courtesy which go far beyond the bounds of common politeness.

Unable to face the unsavory truth, liberals charge that Mr. Limbaugh owes his success to his showmanship and that their failure to compete is due to their inability to field an equally talented performer. But this surely is not the case. Success in talk radio is not contingent on the host’s ability to be funny. There have been a number of other conservatives who succeeded in this medium without possessing Mr. Limbaugh’s flair for entertaining. Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and Oliver North immediately come to mind. Funny or not, not a single liberal talk show host has come even close to matching their level of success.

The most acute observer of the American scene, it is his intelligence, penetration, and grasp of issues that primarily account for Rush Limbaugh’s success. His sparkling humor is merely the icing on the sumptuous cake of analysis he serves up on a daily basis. To liberals, however, it does not taste as delicious and understandably so. To them his wit feels more like a stinging petard in their rear regions as they lie prostrate in the ruins of their ideology brought down by the power of his analytical firestorm.

Vasko Kohlmayer is a frequent contributor.

------------------- my response --------------------------
Look carefully at the arguments and language used by Mr. Kohlmayer: they’re arrogant, filled with abstractions, overly-emotional and rife with dramatic pronouncements that are conveniently unaccompanied by facts to back them up. And the occasional facts presented cannot withstand scrutiny.

Sound like anyone you know? Like Rush, perhaps?

The premise of the entire article is wrong, so how does one argue against it?

I can boldly announce that the citizens of the distant Island of Oxycontin are complete failures as human beings. I will offer no concrete information but stay in the abstract: They’re mean blowhards. They're drug addicts. They're hypocrites. They're cowards. Notice I don't say WHY I make those contentions.

Therefore, you can’t refute my argument, can you? All you can do ask questions: I’ve scoured my atlas and can’t find this Island of Oxycontin of which you speak—where is it exactly? What drug do the alleged inhabitants of this alleged island allegedly take? What specific evidence do you have that to validate your argument that these people are complete failures? Can you show me specific, observable behaviors (ie, the inhabitants buying the drugs, taking the drugs, ) you have documented? You know, like a court case against a drug-addicted radio personality. Okay, I could add these specific behaviors about the alleged people on the Island of Oxycontin: They don’t have to interact with people who disagree with them because they have them “screened out.” They cowardly avoid invitations by their opponents to an open debate. They use their garish, brash, ostentatious personality in vain attempts to project phony authoritativeness. They’re willing to put their housekeepers at legal and personal risk to obtain their drugs for them. They hypocritically insist that drug addicts should be “locked away” in prison but hide under expensive legal protection when their own drug habits are discovered.

Now, let's look at your argument. Did you provide any specific, observable, measurable facts? No, you didn’t. And I believe that's because, with your faulty premise, you can't. After all, your argument is a house of cards.

Oh, I forgot—your type doesn’t like science. Or facts. As Stephen Colbert says when he nails conservatives, “I don’t need facts. It just has to feel right in my gut.”

You state that liberal talk radio is a failure. Okay, where is your evidence for your assertion? Gee, you don’t present any. If I were to ask detectives (like the ones at the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Dept. who investigated Rush’s criminal behaviors) for evidence to support or refute your argument, what might they suggest? What about the nationally recognized company that measures the size of radio show audiences—Arbitron? You asserted over and over that Rush’s program is a huge success while liberal radio shows are failures, yet never once mentioned Arbitron or quoted any of their ratings. Don’t you see a problem with that?

I could just as easily declare Rush Limbaugh’s show as a failure and tout the huge audiences for liberal radio shows. Since neither of us bothers to quote from factual sources, why is your argument any better than mine? But I wouldn't present an argument without some facts. After all, I don't want BOTH of us to sound foolish.

Me? I’ve scoured the Net and Arbitron’s web site for information. I just called Arbitron’s local office at (312) 542-1900 and am trying to get information about their ratings of political radio programs. Did you bother to do any of that? Did you talk to one of their employees like I just did to learn how they come by their ratings and how they can be obtained by the public? If you had, perhaps you would have found information that would make your argument stronger. Nah!

This is from Arbitron’s Summer 2005 Metro edition regarding the performance of WLIB, Air America Radio's "flagship station" in New York:
Mon-Sun 6a12m, AQH, Share and Cume have all increased for both Persons 12+ and Adults 25-54. For Adults 25-54, WLIB’s target audience, AQH is up 29%, Share increased 40% (from 1.0 to 1.4) and Cume increased 9%; for Persons 12+, AQH is up 6%, Share is up 20% and Cume is up 11%. WLIB ranks #2 in A25-54 TSL MSu6a12m (10h30m per week), a 20% increase since the Spring 2005 book.

And look at the previous edition’s numbers for Air America (admittedly, from their own website):
http://www.airamericaradio.com/node/657
Some estimates of Rush Limbaugh’s audience are as low as three million: http://infrared41.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?topic_id=3316
Has Air America Radio already beaten Rush? Yes! In San Francisco and Portland anyway:
http://www.airamericaradio.com/press?from=8
Actually, I found roughly equal amounts of information that both support and refute your argument. I did the research work for you, now you look at it (if it’s not too much effort):

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/27/133632.php

http://infrared41.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?topic_id=3316

http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_eclipseweb_archive.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902345.html
And guess what? Two of those links support your argument and two refute it.

That’s right—unlike conservatives, I showed BOTH sides of the story. I didn’t edit out the facts that I don’t like. That’s called being intellectually honest. You might want to try it sometime.

The truth is (brace yourself): inconclusive. There are no clear numbers available to the public to prove or disprove whether conservative or liberal radio is an overall clear success or failure.

Ouch! Living with uncertainty. Dealing with shades of gray. I know, I know. That makes you conservatives squirm. You have to trade in your bumper sticker mentality for the larger, murkier picture known as reality. It’s complicated. It takes work to decipher. Like the research I did to bring you the above links, facts and statistics. You obviously lacked the intellectually curiosity to obtain them yourself. It's easier just to make sweeping generalizations. Yeah, I know--it FEELS good.

Sorry, Mr. Kohlmayer. Next time, present some facts instead of simplistic abstractions.

2006-10-04T02:28:00.000-05:00

Throughout human history, there has always been a small percentage of people who weren't satisfied to live in harmony with their neighbors and share existing resources equitably. Those personality types have done a variety of things to generally un-level the playing field in their favor so that more of society's goodies roll toward them and.

In the caveman days, you simply stole from the other guy. If he got in your way, you clubbed him. If he still fought back, you might beat him until he was unconscious or even dead. With him out of the way, the caveman was then free to steal whatever previously belonged to the other caveman he had just beaten: food, animal hides, shoes, even his woman.

But these piggies personality types eventually weren't satisfied just stealing the possessions of a few other people. These sickos not only wanted to steal more material stuff, but wanted to make themselves FEEL better by obtaining power. If other people were giving them stuff, swearing allegiance to them, even bowing before them like they were some kind of god, they could then feel better about themselves. "Since I managed to get all these people to acquiesce to me, I must be a superior person," they might think as they swell with pride.

Now here comes the tricky part. In order to achieve that, you have to disempower all of those around you. You either disempower them without their consent (by using force) or disempower them with their consent (using trickery).

In the caveman days, you simply clubbed the other guy. But when civilization developed, so did basic morality, along with concepts of fairness and equality. Then it became unacceptable to just be physically aggressive toward other people to get what you want.

Now it becomes psychological. The greedy sickos have to trick everyone else into following them. How do you do that? How do I get everyone else to willingly let me have 95% of society's resources while the millions of others have to fight over the remaining 5% while I sit back and laugh at them living in the deprivation that I've created? What possible justification could I use to create such unfair conditions?

So before the stealing and aggression can occur, our supposed civilized society now requires that some justification be interjected beforehand into the equation. Look at history. Before I'm allowed to steal and beat or kill people and then take more than my share of all resources, I have to convince at least most of the people around me to willingly obey me. Here are some justifications that have worked in the past: 1) I'm from a royal bloodline and only male descendents of the Meisner family can rule all of you pathetic slobs. 2) I've been ordained by God (or one of his representatives like the Bishop from the Church of England) to rule over all of you. 3) I AM God or your messiah and you should serve me in order to serve God.

After a few thousand years, most people saw through all of that bullshit, so the justification needed to take the path of a boomerang: 1) listen to me while I tell you why your life isn't that great (even though it's probably my fault for fucking all of you over while stealing from you). 2) Next, I, your great leader, focus the people's attention AWAY from himself by using some form of manipulation, usually the classic "divide and conquer" tactic. He says to the people: "if only ______ (fill in the blank), your lives would be better." 3) Final step: now listen to me for a solution. I, your glorious leader, being on your side, want to help you with this (usually non-existent) problem by having all of you take the following action _______ (fill in the blank). Or under Bush, it's "let me get away with doing _______ to solve this problem that Karl Rove has defined for you."

As time goes on and people slowly get more savvy to these manipulations, they have to take more subtle forms.

For example, let's say I want to steal the oil in Iraq. In the good old days (like Europe circa 1600 A.D.), I could simply send my giant army to ravage the land of Iraq, then send the oil companies in to suck the ground dry (after paying me royalties) and sit back and collect the profits (that's how the Saudi Arabian sheiks do it). If my army was able to defeat the other guy's army, then I got to keep the "spoils of war." There were no concepts of morality or justifications required--simply "might makes right." My army kicked your army's ass, so I get to keep all the booty.

But that eventually wore thin and some people grew tired of being used as pawns to fight these silly wars just to make sickos even richer and even more powerful. Nowadays, the American people and the rest of the world PROBABLY wouldn't stand for that. So BushInc first had to interject a justification. They actually did better than that and threw in a hodge-podge of justifications hoping one or more would stick. Let's see, there was Saddam was an evil dictator, he didn't follow UN rules, he had WMDs, we came to liberate the good people of Iraq, and we want to help bring peace and stability to the region by creating a democracy in the Middle East. All bullshit but at least they gave Bush carte blanche to invade. Those excuses seemed better than just brutally attacking because Bush wanted the fucking oil. You know, more "civilized."

Once he tricked enough people to get them to support him, THEN he sent in the military. He basically did what the caveman used to do. He saw something the other caveman had, he wanted it and didn't want to share or offer a fair trade for it, so he walked right up and clubbed Saddam. Bush is a fucking stupid, greedy, evil little caveman.

So, in a nutshell: that dark, evil side of human nature hasn't evolved in millennia. But as civilization spreads, stealing and beating need to take more "civilized" forms in order to be acceptable so that the evildoer can avoid negative consequences. Folk singer Woody Guthrie wrote,

Now as through this world I ramble
I see lots of funny men
Some will rob you with a Six gun
And some with a fountain pen.

So, if I'm a greedy evil little snake, I won't go far in today's "civilized" world by using caveman aggression to steal from my fellow citizens. So I need to use more modern and "civilized" tactics to steal from others so I can achieve my two goals: 1) get more than my fair share of society's resources and 2) fulfill my sick psychological need to view most other people at a lower status than me.

What are these more civilized tactics? Since this is a capitalistic culture, I need to have people work for me so I can exploit their labor. I have them, through THEIR hard work, generate $100 of income for me. But in return, I'll repay their work for me with only the minimum wage--and keep the rest. I also engage in clear class warfare against them. I keep them beat down and submissive by subjugating them to unpleasant things I will never have to endure: difficult working conditions, poor pay so they're forced to work overtime and get exhausted, threats to lay them off, etc. I subject them to humiliations that I also never have to endure: workplace surveillance, drug tests, and performance reviews (nobody ever reviews my performance). Heck, let's even implant them with some RFID chips so they know I'm REALLY monitoring them. And if they try to improve their lot by, say, trying to form a union, I bring in professional union busters to break their spirits, if not also their legs. I need to use my corporation to absolve me of any personal liability. I need to pay politicians and lobbyists to write laws that allow me to steal legally. And if I step past that line and get caught, I need to use lawyers and bribes to avoid negative consequences from my actions. Then I'm free to rob from others by engaging in various forms of white collar crime, like fraud, price fixing, creating monopolies or other ways to reduce competition, bribery, declaring bankruptcy when I really don't need to, embezzlement, money laundering, tax evasion, insider trading, investment schemes, government kickbacks.

You know: treachery instead of brute force. Like the super-rich and powerful do in today's "civilized" society.

What's sad is these tactics are more insidious and hard to stop. If we saw Bush on TV engaging in a killing spree at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and watched him murder 3000 people, we would all be against him. He could be easily stopped and nearly 100% of Americans would want him convicted and imprisoned. He would be rendered completely powerless (like Saddam is now).

However, if Bush and his cronies planned September 11th in hiding, executed it covertly and then had the FBI (and who knows who else?) cover it up and 3000 people died as a result--it's much harder to point to Bush, accuse him of mass murder and get the American people to believe it and stop supporting him. And when we do try to convince others, WE sound crazy!

Similarly, let's pretend Bush himself went to an Iraqi oil production facility with a bunch of weapons (like a Schwarzenegger flick). He kills a few hundred American and Iraqi soldiers, and then turned his weapons on innocent Iraqi men, women and children. Then, stepping over all the bloody bodies, plants a flag (not the U.S. flag, but one that says "Bush crime family") at the oil facility, grins at the CNN cameras and proudly says in his phony macho cowboy drawl, "All mine!"

All Americans (except some sickos) would be horrified. He would lose all support and no one would let him keep the oil field. But...,

If instead he and his family spend their lives doing questionable deals with slimy Saudi oil sheiks and American oil company CEOs (who fund the Bush crime family's personal and political lives), use Karl Rove to whip up some lies designed to manipulate the dumbest 51% of Americans into an emotional frenzy filled with phony patriotism and divide and conquer tactics (Rove put anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballots of eleven key swing states during the 2004 election just to get the Moral Majority crazies to the polls) to get that dumb 51% to hate gays, immigrants, single mothers, welfare recipients and even liberals." Then have Rove, Condi, Colin, Rummie, etc. create silly lies to go to war then--HEY! YOU'VE REALLY GOT SOMETHING THERE!

If you do all that--you can get away with murder! And he has! God bless America!

2006-10-04T02:25:00.000-05:00

Think something like this isn't happening? Scary, but it is happening as you read this.

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context, his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration over-
population conference in Washington DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"
"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:
"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that n o nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence.
Pakistan and Cyprus have divided Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion.
France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."
Lamm went on: "Second, to destroy America, invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, "We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multi-cultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."
"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."
"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other. That is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E Pluribus Unum" -- from many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'Pluribus', instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."
"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate.
Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book 'Mexifornia.' His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures, such as those that practice female genital mutilation, are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America. Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book 1984" In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: 'War is peace,' 'Freedom is slavery,' and 'Ignorance is strength.'"
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast, if we don't get this immigration monster stopped. Within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream .
------------------------------- my response ----------------------------------
Dad: feel free to send my response (below) to Carol or anyone else to whom you sent the original mail. This email has been circulating around the Net for a long time. Unchallenged..., until now.
--------------------------------------------
Wow. That guy was actually a governor of one of our states. Even though he thinks illogically and has such poor critical thinking skills. I can shoot down his argument in a matter of minutes. And he ran a state. Sad that people even voted for him. However, he would be an excellent governor of the State of Non-sequiturs.

Like all organizations and people who compose them, nations are mortal entities. Nation rise, nations fall. To expect any nation to survive indefinitely, including ours, is pure folly. How many Chinese dynasties have come and gone over the centuries? Look at the great civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Peru, India, Babylon, Turkey, Persia, Greece and Italy. How many native or indigenous societies have been wiped off the face of the planet? No immigration, multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural or multi-lingual issues there, right? Were Charlemagne, Emperor Frederick II, Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV of France, Napoleon and Hitler brought down by rampant immigration and multiculturalism in their nations? I don't think so. How about Russia? They're about as mono-cultural and mono-ethnic as you can get: yet they've never been able to get their act together as a nation.

Most nations are already dead or in decline, including the United States. I can point to any nation on Earth past or present, randomly choose one quality I don't like, then point to it as the thing that led to that nation's downfall. For example, someone I know (who believes strongly that homosexuality is evil) recently told me that he thought that a primary reason for the decline of the Roman Empire was due to its acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Let see, what can I cherry-pick? Oh, yeah, how about imperialistic tendencies? Yeah, so THAT's what did in the Roman Empire. Or was it those skirts that those Centurions wore? Yeah, I never liked cross-dressers. So I've changed my mind--cross-dressing is why the Roman Empire fell.

England? Well, I've never liked monarchies. So that's why they declined. I like my assumption. It fits with my worldview. It doesn't have to be true. I don't have to back it up with any facts. I just like it. So there.
Napoleon? Well, Randy Newman "don't like short people." So let's say it was his short stature that led to his defeat at Waterloo and the subsequent decline of France as a world power.

No, the fact is, most nations fall due to the greed of just one or a few megalomaniacs who each society produces. I'm talking about the few intelligent psychopaths who manage to charm the pants off their stupid citizens enough to convince them to go to war and/or take up other destructive pursuits. Then they run like a steamroller over the "hated" nation or group. This doesn't last forever, because people eventually push back against bullies. Like Hitler. Like Stalin. Like Mussolini. Like Adi Amin. Like Pol Pot. Like Genghis Khan. Like Napoleon. Like Kenneth Lay. Like Alexander the Great. Like Attila the Hun. Like Bush the Asswipe. Let's get real. I see these crazy leaders and their dumbass followers as far more dangerous than (even 10 million) people who happen to speak a different language who hop a fence so that they can make shitty wages to mow our lawns, clean our homes, take care of our children and generally behave as good citizens. Yeah, they’re really a threat, aren’t they?

It's an age-old tactic--get the populace all riled up against the most powerless members of a society. They take the heat and attention off of the real culprits (corporations and government) and place it onto the powerless, already marginalized portions of society: immigrants, welfare recipients, single mothers, homosexuals and lesbians. Easy targets.

Hitler did the same thing: He fomented the masses' hatred toward Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, communists, etc.. Worked great for him, too.

Let's put the responsibility and blame for our nation's problems where they belong: the greedy, rich and powerful who haven't learned to share with the rest of us. These brats lay off tens of thousands of workers who gave them years of loyal services, they ship our jobs to foreign lands, they make trade deals that sell us out, they collude to jack up the price of oil and gasoline, they start phony wars so they can hand out lucrative, no-bid government contracts to their campaign donors.

Why don't we stop pointing the finger at poor Pedro? Instead we should stop these white collar crooks and their puppet politicians who are waging class warfare against all of us--and laughing at our ignorance of their deceptions. Yep, laughing all the way to the bank!

2006-10-04T02:18:00.000-05:00

Subject: Stuck on Stupid (original email)

Ever wonder what the _expression "stuck on stupid" meant?
Well here is an example:

The grinning idiot clinging to Je$$e Jack$on is Cindy Sheehan... the sob sister protesting the war at Bush's ranch, who lost her son in the war, the same son she gave up in her divorce when he was 7 years old.
And by the way if you wonder why she has so much free time ... she is going through another divorce right now and guess what? She is giving up custody of another son.
As Forest Gump once wisely proclaimed, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Please DO pass this one along.
----------------- my response ------------------------------------------
There are a few inaccuracies in that email (as is true with most forwarded, politically-charged emails).

Cindy Sheehan has only been married once: to Patrick Sheehan, father of Casey. The two were high school sweethearts and raised Casey and their three younger children together. Neither has been married to anybody else. They have been married for 28 years.

And they are currently still married. But unfortunately, as is common when a couple's child dies, they are divorcing (the email was correct about one thing!). They've been separated since June, 2005, due to disagreements over Mrs. Sheehan's political activities. Patrick filed for divorce in August 2005, citing irreconcilable differences.

This is partly addressed on the urban legends-busting site, Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehan.asp

Ms. Sheehan originally met the president with 17 other parents of dead soldiers at Fort Lewis outside of Seattle. He only said he was sorry for their loss. The meeting lasted about ten minutes. Mrs. Sheehan said that the president didn't know the names of the dead or of their parents. She later expressed her disappointment at the meeting's lack of substance and sincerity.

Later, she seemed to be particularly irked by Bush's statements that the sacrifices made by soldiers killed in Iraq were for a "noble cause."

Sheehan told reporters: "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is."

"Sob sister?" A mother endures one of the most horrible things possible (the death of a child) so she's a "sob sister?" Man, that's cold!

As a counselor, I always become interested when a public figure comes to be so widely despised. I try to figure out how it happens and why. Who generates the hatred? What is their agenda? It's especially interesting to me when that person is not powerful in the traditional sense, such as a politician or CEO. Normally, when a mother loses a child, we very much sympathize with her. We see her as a victim and generally want to offer comfort and condolences. So what happened here? Why is Ms. Sheehan so hated? What mechanism(s) came into play to generate these feelings? Why does she deserve it? I guess it's because she refused to grieve silently and dared to challenge the most powerful man in the world who, as "The Decider," made decisions that ultimately resulted in the death of her child.

Especially for a woman to challenge the top male authority figure, that seems particularly offensive to some. This issue was addressed in an interesting article recently. If you're ready to have your thinking challenged, here it is:
It's called "Why Natalee Holloway Is Lucky She Is Not Around to Make Accusations"http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/20/why_natalee_holloway_is_lucky_she_is_not_around_to_make_accusations.php
The email also implies that Jesse Jackson is stupid. Since he and Cindy are protesting the actions of George Bush, I'm not sure conservatives would benefit from any comparisons of intelligence to him. They might want to try a different tactic. Just a suggestion.

2006-10-04T02:15:00.000-05:00

From its beginnings, the Internet was built on a cooperative, democratic ideal. It has leveled the playing field for all comers. Everyday people can have their voices heard by thousands, even millions of people. Network neutrality has prevented gatekeepers from blocking or discriminating against new economic, political and social ideas.

The major telecommunications legislation now under consideration in Congress is threatening this "network neutrality" to keep the Internet free and open to all.

Last Wednesday, as part of a vote on new telecommunications legislation, House Commerce Committee members defeated an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) to protect net neutrality, 34-22.

However, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-MI), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) have all introduced legislation in the Senate that would ban network providers from degrading content or creating “toll lanes” where content providers can ensure better access to their sites in exchange for paying more money.

In other words, the Internet of the future could have a fork in the road of the Information Highway: One will lead to a fast lane (containing your internet provider's choices and paying customers); the other will be a dirt road with lots of potholes and dead ends.

How could his affect you? What if AT&T and Verizon blocked you from viewing your favorite podcasts and blogs? BellSouth cut off your net phone because you weren’t using their service? Comcast forced you to download MP3s from their store while slowing other music sites? How about being charged for every email you send? More: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat

This isn’t just speculation -- we've already seen what happens elsewhere when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Last year, Telus -- Canada's version of AT&T -- blocked their Internet customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to workers with whom the company was having a labor dispute. And Madison River, a North Carolina ISP, already tried to block its customers from using any competing Internet phone service.

This threat is more real than you might think. The telecom companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and many years lobbying for their position. Right now, CEOs of major telecommunications companies are planning to discriminate against the online content and services that they don’t yet control.

Big telecom execs are on the record:
AT&T’s Ed Whitacre wants consumers and content providers to pay for use of his network. “The Internet can’t be free … for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts.”
BellSouth’s William Smith told reporters that he would like to turn the Internet into a “pay-for-performance marketplace” where his company could charge for the “right” to have certain services load faster than others.
Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg says that Web applications need to “share the cost” of the broadband services already paid for by consumers. “We need to pay for the pipe.”

These bosses want to have it both ways — charging customers for access to broadband and content providers for access to those customers. Their comments are designed to boost revenues by giving preferential treatment to in-house high-end services (or those of other businesses who pay for the privilege of Net speed) while blocking or slowing access to the ones that you would rather use.

Here are the goals:
* Access Internet content of your choice (ie, web sites that your internet provider doesn't agree with or hasn't charged for faster speed);
* Run online applications and services of your choice (such as web browsers, email programs and music programs like iTunes);
* Connect your choice of devices (like webcams); and
* Have fair competition among network, application, service and content providers.

Here's a quick, easy and free way to let your voice be heard by all three of your congressional leaders at once:http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
Vinton Cerf, “Father of the Internet”Computer networking pioneer Cerf asked Congress to rethink any legislation that would not contain tough neutrality provisions."This bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it … Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online."
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

2006-10-04T02:14:00.000-05:00

Health Insurance Modernization and Affordability Act

It's puzzling that there is so little info about it on the Net. In fact, I was surprised because this looks like it's an important piece of legislation. This was all I could find:

Supports:
http://www.afsinc.org/Govn/SBHP_Letter.html
Opposes:
http://www.ag.state.mn.us/consumer/PDF/HealthInsuranceActS1955.pdf
News article: http://www.inc.com/criticalnews/articles/200603/committee.html

The supporters say it will take a large burden off of small businesses and allow them to access insurance risk pools OUTSIDE OF THEIR STATE. When I lived in Texas, I worked for a risk pool that supplied insurance for Texas municipal employees at a lower price than if they got standard group coverage. So I can see why small business owners want this.

The opposers say it's a special interest giveway for insurance companies. It would allow the companies to create "swiss cheese" insurance plans. In other words, the floodgates would be open to plans that have all kinds of exclusions that are currently not allowed. Basically, if you are young and/or healthy, there will be plans that cover very little but cost less. That means those that want REAL coverage will have to pay much higher premiums. The original idea of insurance is to put EVERYONE in a pool to spread the risk around.

On the other hand, I was recently shopping for my own insurance policy. They had plans that included and excluded maternity. I was delighted that I could go with a lower cost plan, since I certainly don't need maternity coverage.

But what if, a few years from now, I'm shopping for a plan that excludes not only maternity coverage, but cancer, diabetes or heart disease coverage. Then it gets mighty tricky.

Obviously, the clear solution is a national health care system, but as long as politics remains marinated in special interest money, that will never happen.

2006-10-04T02:13:00.000-05:00

Sent to AT&T/SBC Abuse/Spam customer service on 4/13/06:

A recent article in the N.Y. Times states that AT&T (which has recently purchased or merged with SBC) cooperated with the National Security Agency (NSA) in 2003 to install equipment capable of "vacuum-cleaner surveillance" of e-mail messages and other Internet traffic--and even did this WITHOUT A WARRANT! As an unwilling customer of AT&T (I signed up with SBC and was never asked if I agreed with the merger) what assurances can AT&T offer to guarantee my and your other customers' privacy? To put it more bluntly, how do we know that you won't sell out your customers again?

Also, I would appreciate a real answer, not one filled with corporate niceties like "We appreciate your concerns and that you took the time to convey them to us. We can assure you that it was never our intention to violate our customers’ privacy and can assure you that in the future we..., BLAH BLAH BLAH."

Please know that if I don't receive a straight answer to this and an assurance of privacy to which I am satisfied, I will react accordingly.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my email. I know that you're busy and certainly appreciate any effort to help me. BLAH BLAH.

Steve

The N.Y. Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/us/nationalspecial3/07spy.html?_r=5&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login:

More coverage here: http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.asp and http://www.effaustin.org/

2006-10-04T02:11:00.000-05:00

How Long Do We Have? (original email)

4-12-06 About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."The average age of the world's greatest civilizations, from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: 1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency;6. From complacency to apathy; 7. From apathy to dependence;8. From dependence back into bondage."Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million.Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000.States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29.Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1.Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by tax-paying citizens. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements living off government welfare."Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.Pass this along to help everyone realize that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom

Character and Integrity are not occasional traits.

--------------------- My response is below: -----------------------------------
Please forward my response to the person who sent this email to you.

Immediately upon reading this, I know it was dead wrong. As with all things generated by the right-wingers, this is filled with stupidity, misinformation, inaccurate statistics, erroneous logic, implied racism and outright lies. Or more concisely, just pure bullshit.
Yes, it's another "urban legend" floating around the Internet.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp
The worst, most ignorant and damaging lie is that statistic: Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1. On the above Snopes.com page, their calculation rendered this statistic:
· Gore: 6.5
· Bush: 4.1
Next, I went to see if there really was a "Professor Joseph Olson" and/or a "Hamline University" and/or if they had a School of Law. To my surprise, there is a Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law. Imagine my shock that there was even one true item in a right-winger's email.

http://www.hamline.edu/law/professors/joseph_olson.html
Interestingly, at the very bottom of his faculty profile page is this:
DISCLAIMER: There is an e-mail floating around the internet dealing with the 2000 Bush/Gore election, remarks of a Scotish philosopher named Alexander Tyler, etc. Part of it is attributed to me. It is entirely BOGUS as to my authorship. I've been trying to kill it for 3 years. For details see: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp.
As far as the implication that the Democrats receive their votes thusly:
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by tax-paying citizens. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements living off government welfare."

Even ignoring that Professor Olson himself has directly denied ever making any such statement, this is still a common misconception and with racist undertones. A lot of white folks believe that most people in the "red" or Republican areas (suburban and rural) pay most of the taxes while those darned Negros in the "blue" or Democratic areas (urban/metro) use most of the tax money through welfare and "government-owned tenements" (a term not only not used by Professor Olson, but also not used since the 1960s, so we can assume the liar/author is an older gentleman). But, by far, most of the government's money is earned and paid in the form of taxes by the Democratic areas. And then it goes to white Republicans in suburban and rural areas in the form of subsidies and government contracts: farmers, ranchers, miners, defense contractors other and businesses. Damned lazy welfare cheats and layabouts.

Here are quotes from a book written by John Sperling (an entrepreneur and the founder of the University of Phoenix) in collaboration with a team of political and economic analysts) called "The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America."

White, rural America, or Retro America, is heavily dependent on government subsidies that underpin oil, gas and coal interests, large-scale farming and military installations, and low-wage manufacturing. It receives far more in federal money than it pays in taxes each year.

The Republican Party has taken advantage of flaws in the outdated electoral college system, as well as constitutional guarantees given small states two centuries ago, to build a powerful base even as the Retro population shrinks. In 2004, 13 small states in Retro America with a combined population of just over 18 million had electoral college voting power equal to California, with its 34 million residents.

A "Retro" minority is effectively running roughshod on the values and agenda of the Metro majority who live in more urban, economically prosperous, and culturally diverse Metro urban-suburban areas.

Retro America is made up of 25 states where low wages, subsidies, religious zealotry and social rigidity trump diversity, innovation and educational and scientific achievement. They are states dominated by a mostly rural, conservative, intolerant white male political leadership (though many have large, poor minority populations) for whom social services, public education and economic and cultural change are more worrisome than welcome.

Metro America, on the other hand, is the nation's engine of economic growth and innovation. It has two-thirds of the country's population, mostly urban and suburban. Some Metro states have important agricultural sectors, but their real growth is in financial and other service industries, which alone account for 41% of the nation's total gross domestic product, as well as in major manufacturing.

More than 80% of all high technology jobs are in Metro America, and Metro America residents pay the taxes that subsidize Retro states. In the 10-year period between 1991-2001, nearly $1.7 trillion in federal tax transfers went from Metro America to Retro America. Ironically, Retro America politicians frequently speak against government spending and taxation, even as they work to preserve this skewed status quo.
The specific statistics behind the contention that Republican areas generally are the main recipients of government welfare are presented in this study:
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF
Look at the table at the bottom of page 16. It clearly shows that states that receive more money from the federal government than they paid in federal taxes VOTED PREDOMINATELY FOR BUSH IN THE 2000 ELECTION.

Lastly, look at the overall construction of the original email. It haphazardly mentions a hodgepodge of falsely attributed ideas about the cycle of democracy, some erroneous statistics, then attempts to arrive at a prejudiced conclusion.

Let's try to follow the logic:

1. Democracies are temporary (so are all forms of government--duh!).

2. Democracies become fiscally endangered when voters elect candidates who give them pork from the public treasury (my God, that actually makes sense).

3. This is necessarily followed by a dictatorship (that's a non-sequitur: no examples, no reasons, no proof).

4. The email then presents a rip-off of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' stages of dying: cycles that democracies supposedly "always" follow from birth to death. Again, no examples, no reasons, no evidence. Just believe it and shut up. And the Snopes.com link above shows that the author (Tytler, not Tyler) attributed to those stages never wrote anything even remotely close to this. This "stages of democracies" wasn't written 200 years ago by a Scottish history professor. It was conjured up by some modern-day lame-o.

5. Next, it jumps to phony statistics and statements from Professor Olson about the 2000 presidential election. First of all, any statistics from the 2000 election will be flawed, because of the massive fraud committed by the Republican Party: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=2\
http://www.legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html

6. Then the lie about how counties that voted for Gore had a murder rate over SIX TIMES that of counties that voted for Bush. An absolute lie.

7. Then the email jumps to the erroneously attributed and factually incorrect statement about how "red" or Bush areas were mostly tax-paying citizens, while "blue" or Gore areas were mostly filled with people living in government-owned tenements and on welfare.

8. More bullshit about what Professor Olson supposedly "believes": that the U.S. as a whole is in between the "complacency and apathy" phases and that 40% of the U.S. population has reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

9. A puzzling statement is tacked on to the end of this email: Character and Integrity are not occasional traits. This is a truism, yes, but has nothing to do with the rest of the email.

Similarly, I could compose an email in which I invent some idea and, to give it more weight, falsely attribute it to a dead author. Then I could fill the email with prejudices that suit my political leanings. I could throw in phony statistics. And I could staple a truism no one could possibly disagree with (like "a man is only as good as his word") hoping that its truth would make the rest of my silly email true. Then I could send it to people who I thought wouldn't think it through, double-check the accuracy of the attributions and facts, and who wouldn't call me on my bullshit.

Except maybe one person. Like me. Who spends hours each day fighting the juggernaut of ignorance coming his way via the Internet.

To prevent further idiocy, please refer the author of this email to this page of logical fallacies.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
In particular, he should learn about non-sequiturs. The term translated from Latin means, "it does not follow."

2006-10-04T02:10:00.000-05:00

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 fucked 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 fucking 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!

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.

Steve

2006-10-04T02:09:00.000-05:00

Subject:
Something smells foul in Prescott, Arizona...,

And I mean more than the dark end of a certain flashlight.

Two men, including the 18-year-old son of Arizona's Senate President Ken Bennett (a Republican, mind you), pleaded guilty Monday to one count of aggravated assault for shoving broomsticks and flashlights up the rectums of 18 young boys while they were counselors at a camp last year.

Clifton Bennett, of Prescott, and Kyle Wheeler, 19, of Glendale, accepted a deal offered by the Yavapai County Attorney's Office to drop all but one of 36 original charges in exchange for the guilty plea.

Wheeler also pleaded guilty to an additional aggravated assault charge for choking three of the boys until they passed out.

Parents of the victims expressed frustration and anger over the plea deal, saying it was too lenient. The pleas describe the assault charge as "a non-dangerous, non-repetitive offense." The outraged parents say their sons were victims of violent sexual attacks. The boys, who were 11 to 14 years old at the time, have had trouble going to the bathroom, sleep with clothes on, are afraid at night, and have undergone sexual-assault counseling. Here are articles from the Arizona Republican (gee, already I know they're unbiased--talking about the son of REPUBLICAN state senate president)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0402bennett02.html
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0403az-camphazing03-ON.html
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0404bennett0404.html
One from (the slightly-less-to-the-Right) Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3670346
More comments, including one which vouches for the character of the senate president's "upstanding" family and his twisted f*ck of a son: http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/2006/01/family_values_a.html
======== And now, a phony editorial by Steve ========

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. My parents routinely "disciplined" me in the same manner. If I didn't get something rammed up my "Hershey Highway" every day, I was worried that something was wrong.

As a different type of counselor (trained, educated, licensed, and non-molesting) than these young Republicans, I often instruct the parents with whom I work to similarly perform such "broomings" on their own children. There is no better way to lovingly teach a child to improve his behavior and build better character than to plow a nice firm broomstick up his "Fudge Tunnel." Nothing at all wrong with this. And look at me--despite almost daily such punishments, I turned out just fine. My psychiatrist believes that my bed-wetting, night terrors, bouts of crying and screaming, hallucinations, psychotic ramblings and paranoid delusions are more likely caused by my own dysfunctional "self-talk." It was NOT the broomings, okay?!?!?

And for those of you who believe that the plea agreements are too lenient (dropping all but one of the original 36 charges and changing the remaining charge from a felony to a misdemeanor), think again. I'm confident that the next time a defendant, (let's say, a young African-American male, or Hispanic immigrant) is similarly charged with sodomizing 18 underage children, you better believe that the Yavapai County Attorney's Office will also give him a slap on the wrist or, at the most, a police baton up the rectum, as some men in blue are want to do.

Our criminal justice system is structured in a way so as to rehabilitate, and NOT forever ruin, the lives of young offenders--as long as their skin color resembles paste and they have a rich and/or politically-connected member of their immediate families. Apparently Lady Justice is still peeking above that blindfold of hers. And maybe it's finally time to adjust her scales..., they never were quite balanced. This wouldn't happen to be a case of excessive leniency because of who you know, would it, Lady Justice?

And just because these incidents occurred at a place called Chapel Rock Camp, let's not draw any further parallels between men who manage to obtain power at Christian institutions and their seeming affinity for penetrating the sphincters of terrified, helpless boys. It must just be some terrible coincidence.

But as that foul-smelling goo is being wiped from away from broom handles and flashlights in Arizona, a similar substance was just removed today (after a 20-year "Delay") from Texas' 22nd congressional district. So.., hey! Things are looking up! And as I watched that forced smile and trademark plastic Conservative optimism on Tom's mask on TV tonight, all I can wish on Mr. Bennett, Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Delay is that they all similarly experience that "non-dangerous, non-repetitive offense" from their cellmates.

Mr. Delay again touted his "party of family values." But, say, can anyone remember similar behavior by a child of a DEMOCRATIC politician? Makes ya think, don't it? And Republicans always tell us Hillary's book title "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child" was wrong. They argue that it takes a family, not a village. So tell me, Senate President Bennett, Republicans always tell us that children learn their values from..., now who would that be??? Compare Chelsea Clinton's behavior with the Bush twins. This just gets more interesting.

Maybe the next GOP initiative should be called "Leave Behind No Child's Behind." Actually, once Bush hears about this (we have a Leader of the Free World who doesn't bother to read newspapers, remember?), his response is likely to be: "That Brownie end of the flashlight was doing a heck of a job!"

2006-10-04T02:00:00.000-05:00

If you get your news from these mostly corporate-owned sources, you're getting a very inaccurate picture of the world, and certainly not an objective one.

On this third anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq, here are some of the most notable media comments from the early days of the war. These are from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842. Note how many of these are from Foxhole News and, to a lesser extent, MSNBS and CNN. Read how inaccurate, biased, war-mongering, Bush-supporting, sensationalistic and just downright idiotic these morons were. Not to mention just dead wrong, too. And next time you tune into these clowns, remember this: they haven't corrected or apologized for what you're about to read. In fact, they're just as ridiculous and unworthy of our attention today as they were back three years ago.

Most are from the Right, yet they've all been proven wrong. They love to bash the Left. But, as usual, it was Left that was actually right: about the Bush admin's incompetence and evilness {torture, gulags, renditions}; about no WMDs; about no support from the rest of the world or a true "coalition of the willing"; that the Iraqis would view us as invaders and not "welcomed as a liberator with chocolates and flowers" as Rumsfeld predicted; and that this war would NOT being easily won and would turn into a quagmire.

Tens of thousands dead. Many more wounded, maimed and/or psychologically damaged. Many Iraqis left homeless. Families ripped apart. Iraq possibly falling into civil war. No WMDs ever found. America's standing in the world diminished. Orwell's "Big Brother" becoming a reality. The Diebold machines rolled into almost every voting precinct, ready to steal their FOURTH election (2000, 2002, 2004, 2006) and make a mockery of what's left of our democracy. Our economy plunged into unimaginable debt. Americans will be paying for King George's horrible reign for generations to come. And now BushInc has been dropping hints that Iran is next in their gun sights. And Bush & Cheney's henchmen at Halliburton salivating at the prospect of siphoning off billions more of our tax dollars and providing virtually nothing in return.

Since the last election, I've shut up. But now I'm going to say it: "I told you so." And to those of you who accused me of being a conspiracy nut or being un-American or that I should "Support his Oops!"--I'm ready to hear your apology.

So, get your news from these Republican rah-rahs at your own risk:

Declaring Victory
"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?"(Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)
"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it." (CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)
"Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention." (NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)
"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints." (Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/27/03)
"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington."(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)
"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back."(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)
"We're all neo-cons now." (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war." (Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)
"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine _expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional _expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking." (Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)

Mission Accomplished?

"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific." (PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)
"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits." (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)
"He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star, and one of the guys." (CNN's Lou Dobbs, on Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 5/1/03)
Neutralizing the Opposition "Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today." (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?" (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)
"If image is everything, how can the Democratic presidential hopefuls compete with a president fresh from a war victory?" (CNN's Judy Woodruff, 5/5/03)
"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically." (Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03) Nagging the "Naysayers""Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?" (Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03) "I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC or at CNN are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative pronouncements were over the past four weeks." (MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03)
"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war.... "Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again."Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing." (MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)
"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years." (Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)
"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right." (New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)
"Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far.... The final word on this is, hooray." (Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)
"Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters." (CNN's Lou Dobbs, 4/14/03)
"Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad out in the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still hasn't figured out we won the war." (MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03)

Cakewalk?

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)
"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?" (Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)
"It won't take weeks. You know that, professor. Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will." (Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)
"There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going to fold like that." (Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)
"He [Saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the debate worldwide. But he didn't--he didn't bargain on a two- or three week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks." (NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)

Weapons of Mass Destruction

NPR's Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it...Brit Hume: No, there wasn't. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't have them beforehand. Nobody. (Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)
"Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it." (Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)
"Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of 'the green mushroom' over Baghdad--the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time." (Newsweek, 3/17/03)
"Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them." (MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03)
"Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the supplies of germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets of resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.)" (New York Times' William Safire, 4/10/03)

I was watching "Democracy Now" this morning and heard that science fiction writer Octavia Butler died after she fell outside her home. She was only 58 years old.

The Washington Post has called Octavia Butler “one of the finest voices in fiction period. A master storyteller who casts an unflinching eye on racism, sexism, poverty and ignorance and lets the reader see the terror and beauty of human nature.”

Here's a portion of an interview she did last November. If you don't want to read it all, just read the bolded parts. It amazed me:

OCTAVIA BUTLER: I'm going to read a verse or two. And keep in mind these were written early in the 1990s. But I think they apply forever, actually. This first one, I have a character in one of my books who is, well, someone who is taking the country fascist and who manages to get elected President and, who oddly enough, comes from Texas. And here is one of the things that my character is inspired to write about, this sort of situation. She says:

"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears. To be led by a fool is to be led by the opportunists who control the fool. To be led by a thief is to offer up your most precious treasures to be stolen. To be led by a liar is to ask to be lied to. To be led by a tyrant is to sell yourself and those you love into slavery."

And there's one other that I thought I should read, because I see it happening so much. I got the idea for it when I heard someone answer a political question with a political slogan. And he didn't seem to realize that he was quoting somebody. He seemed to have thought that he had a creative thought there. And I wrote this verse:

"Beware, all too often we say what we hear others say. We think what we are told that we think. We see what we are permitted to see. Worse, we see what we are told that we see. Repetition and pride are the keys to this. To hear and to see even an obvious lie again and again and again, maybe to say it almost by reflex, and then to defend it because we have said it, and at last to embrace it because we've defended it."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11696.htm

2006-10-04T01:59:00.000-05:00

Great news about how your government spends your tax dollars and treats humans:

1) Dept. of Homeland Security has already announced its going to greatly increase the incarceration of undocumented immigrants, including the opening of new detention facilities for this purpose.
2) And guess who's ready to build 'em? That's right, a Halliburton subsidiary!
3) And Congress is ready to supply the people to fill them. With HR 4437's provisions for indefinite detention and the reclassification of even minor offenses as aggravated felonies it is quite possible that many of the 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country could shortly end up in internment camps no different from the refugee camps we see throughout the rest of the world. We just never think it will happen here.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the Department of Homeland Security would be opening detention facilities in the next few weeks to house thousands of Chinese immigrants who have been denied immigration to the United States, yet were refused readmission by the Chinese government:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11825816/

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets $385 Million Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/national/04halliburton.html?ex=1296709200&en=0172899afda059e4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to know more about our government's new "mandatory" and "indefinite" detentions? Or how about a new bill that creates a new felony called "Illegal Presence?"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/17/13272/4156
-------------------- And now some fun: -------------- On this Day in History...,

An article in the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten (The Munich Latest News) of March 21, 1933 printed a press release from the Munich Chief of Police, Heinrich Himmler.

Himmler believed Hitler was the Messiah who was destined to lead Germany to greatness. Hitler recognized such astuteness, and decided to have Himmler head the S.S. or Schutzstaffel--Hitler's group of personal bodyguards. He later ran the German secret police or the Gestapo, who, under his Rumsfeldian leadership, quickly developed a reputation for using brutal interrogation methods in order to obtain confessions. Sound familiar? Here's the 1933 press release:
On Wednesday the first concentration camp is to be opened in Dachau with an accommodation for 5000 persons. All Communists and -- where necessary -- Reichsbanner and Social Democratic functionaries who endanger state security are to be concentrated here, as in the long run it is not possible to keep individual functionaries in the state prisons without overburdening these prisons, and on the other hand these people cannot be released because attempts have shown that they persist in their efforts to agitate and organize as soon as they are released.
I've attached a copy of the article to this email. The next similar article you read will be dated 2006 and will be in English. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Zeig Heil!

Most of you saw the "feel good" story about Bush meeting Jason McElwain, aka "J-Mac," the autistic basketball manager who scored 20 points in four minutes for his high school team. Many of you probably also the picture of Bush giving him a hug.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/basketball/2006-03-14-bush-autistic_x.htm

Great photo-op. But here's what he really thinks of kids with autism:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/15/bush-jmac/

While President Bush has publicly acknowledged his admiration for the young star, his FY07 budget shows an indifference towards autistic children:
- In his proposed budget for next year, Bush has cut all funding for the National Children’s Study, a project that planned to investigate the causes of autism, asthma, and other serious illnesses.
- The President’s budget will eliminate Medicaid reimbursements for schoolchildren with disabilities, denying them “access to medical services they need to fully participate in school and learn to their greatest abilities.”
- The number of children diagnosed with autism and served by schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) increased by more than 500 percent in the last decade, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The President’s FY07 budget, however, will fund IDEA at $6.3 billion below the amount Congress recommended.
Bush’s visit with J-Mac was a great photo-op. But the best way for Bush to show his support is by providing adequate funding for programs to help autistic children.

Billions of dollars for evil, death and destruction, and things that make the rich richer, he's all for it. But things that improve the lives of everyday citizens? Sorry, we can't afford it. Gotta cut it out of the budget.

What a two-faced asshole.